Shepherds, Lead!

By Jerry R. Young

The hidden agendas for pastoral duties found in many churches are a result of a misunderstanding of the pastoral function in the local church. The pastor may function as an elder and/or a bishop, but his primary responsibilities in the local church are to provide leadership and to teach (as did Timothy and Titus). God especially equips the pastor to fulfill these duties. If the hidden agendas are renounced in favor of the NT directives, the twentieth century church will receive the benefit.

* * *

Introduction

In my second year as a pastor, I became aware of a hidden agenda used in the examination and selection of pastors. The Senior Pastor and I had resigned, both of us intending to assume home mission responsibilities. A pulpit committee, composed of the foremost men in the church, was elected to search for and recommend a pastoral candidate to the congregation. It was a scene common among self-governing churches in America. For its initial meeting, the committee chose to meet in the large Christian Education office where my desk was located. Surprised by the committee’s entrance, I rose to my feet and proceeded to gather the project on which I was working. Although the men quickly assured me that my presence did not concern them, remaining in the room did not seem proper to me. Before I could gather my things and depart, however, the men sat down and the meeting began. A prominent name was mentioned. “Oh, we couldn’t ask him,” replied another voice. “He would want to do things his own way.” Other names were mentioned. One man was too fat. Another was too old. The hidden agenda was out on the table.

Twenty years have passed since my introduction to the hidden agenda. New forms of local church government have been encouraged. Strong, visionary leadership from the pastor has become a desirable trait. But hidden agendas remain.

It is my opinion that such agendas abound because pastors are not sure of their own identities and responsibilities. They try to function like deacons by visiting the sick and helping the poor. They try to function like bishops by meeting with committees and supervising church programs. They try to function like pastors by preaching and teaching. In their efforts to be everything and do everything, they end up as office managers and program technicians.

I know full well that there are pressures on pastors to be all things to all people. There are occasions when it is impossible to avoid the mixing of roles. However, role confusion over a long period of time results in frustration for both pastor and congregation. Hidden agendas and expectations, if left uncorrected, will diminish the pastoral ministry and thus impoverish the local church. It is important for pastors to clearly identify their roles on the basis of Scripture.

Three Crucial Words

There are three words in the Greek NT that dominate any discussion of the pastoral role: πρεσβύτερος/’elder’, ἐπίσκοπος/’bishop’, and ποιμήν/’pastor’. The first word seems to describe a person who is characterized by maturity and dignity. [1] The second word refers to a person who is charged with the duty or function of supervision. [2] The third word refers to a person who leads and cares for sheep. [3] All three words may be found in combination with one another. In Acts 20 Paul reminds the elders (v 17) from Ephesus that the Holy Spirit has appointed them as bishops (v 28), and that they are to shepherd (v 28 from the verb ποιμαίνω) the flock of God. In 1 Peter 5, Peter admonishes elders (v 1) to shepherd (v 2) the flock of God, exercising oversight (v 2 from the verb ἐπισκοπέω)4 in a spirit of willing sacrifice. The complex working relationship between the duties implied in these three words has occasioned a variety of views on the nature of church leadership.

One segment of Christendom, in an effort to focus attention on the supervisory role of its top leadership, has chosen the word “Episcopalian” to describe its form of church government. Others prefer the term “Presbyterian,” choosing to organize and govern their churches through the election of mature men and women. Still others prefer the strong, local leadership of a pastor, and might call themselves “Poimenian.” However churches organize themselves and whatever aspect of government they choose to emphasize, the roles and functions embodied in these three words are not to be denied. [5] But imprecise language, role confusion, and deliberate abridgment of one function or the other can only result in the development of hidden agendas and the eventual weakening of the local church.

It is a common practice among some churches to merge all three roles and functions into one administrative office. Familiarity with that practice encourages imprecise choice of terms and subsequent role confusion. For example, one competent writer, when commenting on the opening verses of 1 Timothy 3, makes the claim that “A local church has two administrative offices: the pastor and the deacon.” [6] Yet the word used in 1 Tim 3:1 is ἐπισκοπῆς. Evidently the writer’s choice of words was inexact because of familiarity with a particular form of church government—a pastor accompanied by a board of deacons.

The roles of elders and bishops do not necessarily cease to exist in the local church just because they are ignored in favor of the role of the pastor. Often their function is carried on by people with different titles who sometimes do not have the qualifications listed in Paul’s epistles to Timothy and Titus. The effect of this can be harmful to the whole church.

While it is easy to argue that the terms “elder” and “bishop” generally refer to the same office on the basis of Titus 1:5–7, it is not easy to argue that the term “pastor” refers to the same office as well. That particular gift, office, or function is not even named in the pastoral epistles. However, Timothy and Titus might be called pastors. Their influence and authority were highly visible, and Paul repeatedly commanded them to exercise the pastoral gift of teaching.

In his letter to the Ephesians Paul clearly identified those offices that were given by God to build the Church:

And he gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ [Eph 4:11–13]. [7]

The permanence of these offices is often debated, some viewing one, two, or even three of the offices as temporary. [8] But no one denies the present existence of the pastoral gift. The combination of pastor and teacher into one office is argued, but no one denies that the pastor must be a teacher. [9] The partial listing of gifts in 1 Cor 12:28 lends further support: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.” The teaching gift is listed without reference to the separate gifts of evangelism and pastoring found in Eph 4:11. This could well represent a combination of three distinct gifts, with the leading component serving as an umbrella. The gifts of evangelism, pastoring and teaching often reside simultaneously in one person.

The pastor is a special kind of teacher. He is a teacher who should stand out among other teachers because of a gift from God. In his clear exposition of the Bible he should emulate the Chief Shepherd, who taught “as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Mark 1:22). He will probably be a bishop if he supervises the work of others. If he is in the middle years of life, experienced and mature, he will probably be an elder as well. Whether his forum is a seminary classroom, a conference platform, a mission headquarters, or a church auditorium, his gift is to lead a flock of sheep. Whatever Christians today might call him, he functions as a pastor or shepherd of God’s flock. Recognition of this basic truth is a necessary first step in removing the hidden agendas hindering many churches today.

Command and Teach

One of the most fascinating verbal exchanges between Jesus and his disciples may be found in John 21:15–17. It is the story of Peter’s recovery from failure as a disciple, and his return to leadership:

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, you know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

Many people are aware of the subtle shift in the Lord’s use of the words for “love.” But very few realize that Jesus also used two different words in his command that Peter “shepherd” and “tend” the Master’s sheep. The Lord first used the word βόσκω, then changed to ποιμαίνω, and finally returned to βόσκω for the third repetition of his command. The combination is significant.

The word βόσκω simply means “to provide food,” while the word ποιμαίνω more broadly refers to “the guiding, guarding, folding of the flock, as well as finding of nourishment for it.” [10] Peter was to feed the lambs and the sheep of the flock of God. But he also had a wider responsibility to lead the flock in every aspect of its existence. Providing nourishment, though paramount in all the pastor’s work, is simply not enough.

Many fine young men have done poorly as pastors of local churches because they were unable to bring a commanding presence to the work. They may have been excellent supervisors, or warm-hearted teachers, or compelling evangelists, but they lacked the authoritative leadership required of a shepherd. Even the addition of experience and maturity cannot fully compensate for the absence of the ability to lead effectively.

The apostolic directives to Timothy and Titus presuppose such a pastoral gift, a gift to which Paul refers in 1 Tim 1:18; 4:14; and 2 Tim 1:6. The written support of an apostle certainly provided instant credibility for these younger teachers in Ephesus and Crete. But the capacity to lead strongly in matters of doctrine and conduct was an absolute necessity, without which the apostolic directives were useless. In his general introduction to 1 Timothy, Gromacki calls attention to this:

The concept of charge is dominant in this epistle. The verb (paraggellō) is used five times (1:3; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17) and its noun form is found twice (1:5, 18). The term suggests the transfer of commands from a superior officer to a subordinate. Paul expected that Timothy, as a “good soldier of Jesus Christ” (II Tim 2:3), would carry out the apostolic charge. [11]

It is instructive to note that in all but one of the above named cases, Paul called upon Timothy to command the Ephesians. Only in 1 Tim 6:13–14 did Paul use παραγγέλλω in direct reference to Timothy:

I charge you [παραγγέλλω] in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment [ἐντολήν] without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In all other cases, Timothy was the one expected to give the “charges” and “commands.” When Timothy appeared to falter under the pressures that most certainly come to leaders in command, Paul wrote again to Timothy, reminding him to “kindle afresh the gift of God” which was in him and urging him to “be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 1:6; 2:1).

Strong and commanding leadership in matters of doctrine and conduct does not necessitate tyrannical behavior. Adolf Hitler called himself the Leader, but at a point in time he ceased being a genuine leader and became a tyrant. The power to control others is not real leadership. As James MacGregor Burns observes, “A leader and a tyrant are polar opposites.” [12] Perhaps Timothy allowed his gift to smolder, without bright flames, because he feared the possible alienation of his hearers. It is a fear not uncommon to pastors. Paul was careful to delineate between tyrannical behavior and pastoral leadership:

And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will [2 Tim 2:24–26].

Gentle correction does not imply weakness or lack of leadership. Neither does kindness legitimize holding back truth. Patience is not timid hesitation. Style, not content, is the subject of Paul’s admonition.

Simply put, shepherds feed and lead. They lead in such a way that no individual member of the flock is able to disregard the shepherd. This requires a delicate balance between kindness and patience, on the one hand, and authority on the other. This agenda for pastoral responsibility should be foremost when local churches seek pastors.

Conclusion

Field Marshall William Slim, in an address at the United States Military Academy, opened his heart to young cadets on the subject of command:

When things are bad…there will come a sudden pause when your men will stop and look at you. No one will speak. They will just look at you and ask for leadership. Their courage is ebbing; you must make it flow back, and it is not easy. You will never have felt more alone in your life. [13]

There is loneliness in command. When things are bad, the leader wishes he could return to being a follower. The shepherd may long for the status of a sheep. But the Chief Shepherd has called him forward, and placed in his hands the tools of a shepherd. The sheep look expectantly for leadership. This study has argued that the sheep must abandon their hidden agendas and adopt a scriptural agenda if true pastoral leadership is their goal.

What are the tools for such leadership? The qualities required of bishops, listed in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, are qualities which ideally should be developed in all believers. Accuracy of doctrine and purity of conduct are mandated in Scripture for every member of the flock of God. But what are the special tools of a shepherd, which belong to him alone?

Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus reveal some answers to that question:

1. The ability to teach accurately and authoritatively even when alone, yet without striving (1 Tim 1:3; 4:6; 5:20–21; 6:17; 2 Tim 2:1–2, 14–15; 4:2–5; Tit 2:1, 15; 3:8).
2. The ability to relate doctrine to practical conduct (1 Tim 1:5; 4:7–8, 12, 15–16; 2 Tim 2:22; Tit 2:7–8).
3. The willingness to select faithful men to oversee the work of God (1 Tim 3:1–7; Tit 1:5–9).
4. The willingness to select faithful men and women who can perform works of service (1 Tim 2:8–10; 3:8–13; 5:9–10, 16; 2 Tim 2:1–2).
5. The courage to show oneself, and the discipline to make the show worth seeing (1 Tim 4:12, 15–16; 2 Tim 3:10; Tit 2:7–8).
6. The courage to accept hardship and personal sacrifice in the spirit of the Chief Shepherd (1 Tim 6:11–16; 2 Tim 1:6–9; 2:1–3; 4:2–5).

An unfading crown of glory awaits shepherds who lead. Let us choose them well.

Notes

1. BAGD, 699; Homer A. Kent, The Pastoral Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1958) 121-22.
2. BAGD, 299.
3. From the idea of “pasturing, feeding,” the verb passes readily into the idea of “governing, guiding.” See BAGD, 684.
4. There is some doubt whether ἐπισκοποῦντες / ‘exercising oversight’ should be read in 1 Pet 5:2. It is supported in p72, אc, A, It., Byz, Lect, et al. It is omitted in א* and B. The wide geographical distribution of MS containing ἐπισκοποῦντες argues strongly that it is the original reading. Titus 1:5, 7 could also be mentioned as another passage where ἐπίσκοπος and πρεσβύτερος occur in close proximity in reference to the same man or office.
5. For a thought-provoking exchange between two innovators in church government, see Larry Richards and Gene Getz, “A Biblical Style of Leadership,” Leadership 2:2 (Spring 1981) 68-78.
6. R. G. Gromacki, Stand True To The Charge (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982) 74.
7. All scriptural passages quoted in this article are taken from NASB.
8. Gromacki (Stand True To The Charge, 74) suggests that the gifts of apostleship, prophecy and evangelism were temporary and have ceased.
9. For a careful examination of linguistic evidence, see Daniel B. Wallace, “The Semantic Range of the Article-Noun-Kai-Noun Construction in the New Testament,” GTJ 4 (1983) 59-84.
10. R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (ninth ed.; London: Macmillan, 1880) 85. For a defense of the view that these word shifts involve changes in meaning see William Hendriksen, John (New Testament Commentary; 2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953) 2.494–500. For arguments that the word shifts are simply stylistic and convey identical meanings see Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 870-77.
11. Gromacki, Stand True To The Charge, 22.
12. J. M. Burns, Leadership (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) 3.
13. Cited by S. W. Roskill, The Art of Leadership (Hamden, CT: Archon, 1965) 152.

The Uniqueness of New Testament Church Eldership

By David W. Miller

The uniqueness of NT church eldership is a reason for the view that the NT pattern of eldership is binding on today’s churches. NT eldership is not merely a cultural adaptation. NT eldership is distinct from eldership in Hellenistic societies and Jewish organizations. Particularly, differences can be shown between eldership in the Jewish synagogue and the NT church eldership.

* * *

Introduction

The origin of the NT church eldership is a study deserving great attention due to its implications for modern church polity. The central question is this, did the NT church adopt a previously existing model of eldership, or was the office redefined in qualification and function in NT church practice? If the NT church merely borrowed the whole idea of πρεσβύτεροι / ‘elders’ from previous religious or political societies, then the organization of the NT church is not unique and the whole idea of a basic normative church government structure is less defensible. If the NT church simply borrowed from its immediate, and most culturally acceptable governance structures, then one could argue that a church is free to do the same today. Church polity would then become an area of Christian liberty where the NT pattern of eldership would not be binding. However, if NT church eldership was unique, not a copy of a cultural model, then NT eldership becomes more significant for the church today. Church eldership would not be a mere cultural adaptation, but a unique, divinely instituted organization, normative for believers no matter what the prevailing cultural views on governance would be.

In order to prove the uniqueness of the NT church eldership, one must show that NT church eldership was distinct from other uses of πρεσβύτεροι in its day. There are two general categories of possible models of eldership which the NT church could have copied: (1) Hellenistic organizations and/or (2) Jewish organizations.

The Hellenistic Organizations

Some believe that NT church eldership was copied from a Greek model. Hicks claims that πρεσβύτεροι “had been commonly employed before [its Jewish and Christian usage] in a precisely analogous sense in Graeco-Roman civic life.” [1] However, upon closer examination of the evidence, it seems the phrase “precisely analogous” is an overstatement. There simply is not enough evidence of the qualifications and duties of the πρεσβύτεροι of Greek societies to make a comparison. Yet even with the scanty information, obvious differences are evident. The Alexandrian guild of six millers called πρεσβύτεροι had an ἱερεύς / ‘priest’, at its head, [2] while NT eldership had no such ἱερεύς. The Constitution of Sparta denotes a πρέσβυς as a political title for the president of a college. [3] This single πρέσβυς is in contrast to the strong evidence for a plurality of elders in each NT church (Acts 15:4; 20:17; 21:18; Phil 1:1; and Jas 5:14). The five or six priests of the Temple of Socnopaios (or Socnopaeus) were called πρεσβύτεροι. These presbyter-priests were not selected on the basis of age, because their ages range from thirty upwards. [4] Other than the fact that these priests were religious leaders whose selection was not made on the basis of age (this is a notable exception to the rule that πρεσβύτερος in other Hellenistic usages includes the idea of older age), there is little else that is parallel with NT church eldership. The presbyter-priests’ investigation of the hair length and dress of a brother priest as qualifications for eldership is much more trivial than the character qualifications established for the NT church elder (1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9). [5] Furthermore, since the Socnopaios Temple document is dated about A.D. 160, [6] it cannot be considered as a model for NT eldership which was established more than a century earlier. In fact, with the exception of two Egyptian documents (the presbyter-priests of Socnopaios and a local government officer), the Hellenistic understanding of the term πρεσβύτεροι is a reference to “older men,” not to an office. The term πρεσβύτερος does not become a title for the member of the γερουσία / ‘Council’, of the Hellenistic cities until the middle of the second century A.D. [7] Having considered the evidence, it is safest to place no direct link between the office of elder in the NT church and the elder of any Hellenistic civil or religious organization.

The Jewish Organizations

The eldership of NT churches is regarded by most scholars to be borrowed directly from the Jews. Lightfoot represents many when he states, “the name and office of the presbyter [elder] is essentially Jewish.” [8] There are three possible Jewish sources of the eldership: (1) the OT elder, (2) the Sanhedrin elder, and (3) the synagogue elder. Each will be examined to see if a pattern for the NT church eldership is set.

The OT Elder

The elders of the days of Moses and Joshua (זָן / ‘old’, Exod 3:16, etc.) are described as “representatives of the whole people, and they are this only in the sense of mere representation, not with any initiative or governing power, but along with and under leading figures like Moses and Joshua.” [9] These OT elders were in contrast to NT church elders who were to rule and teach the Word (1 Tim 5:17). NT elders were not mere representatives of the people, answering to the dictates of one man, such as Moses. The elders of Israel who met for decisionmaking later came to be leading men from the tribes or districts. These elders were so powerful that they were able to demand a king (1 Sam 8:4). They continued to exert great influence during the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon. However, the elders continued to be representatives of the people. Their function and qualifications were vastly different from those of the NT church elder in a local congregation. During the exile these elders became an aristocracy. Hereditary dignity and nobility determined membership among the elders. [10] In no way could NT church eldership be construed to be an aristocracy. A. E. Harvey properly concludes that there was no “institution in Old Testament times which could be regarded as the forerunner of the…Christian presbyterate.” [11]

The Sanhedrin

Every important city with a significant Jewish population during NT times had a court known as a Sanhedrin comprised of twenty-three elders. The highest court known as the Great Sanhedrin met in Jerusalem, and was comprised of seventy or seventy-one members. [12]

According to tradition, the seventy elders traced their origin to Moses’ seventy elders in Num 11:16. The extra one was probably added to make sure there was never a tie in any decision.

Douglas further explains:

In New Testament times the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem comprised the high priests (that is the acting high priest and those who had been high priest [sic]), members of the privileged families from which the high priests were taken, the elders (tribal and family heads of the people and the priesthood), and the scribes, that is, the legal experts. The whole comprised both Sadducees and Pharisees. [13]

However, sometimes the scribes alone were called elders (Matt 15:2; Mark 7:5 and Acts 4:5–8). Luke refers to the entire Sanhedrin as elders (Luke 22:66). This threefold (priests, scribes and elders), twofold (rulers and elders, or chief priests and elders), and single (council of elders) designation of the Great Sanhedrin is confusing, and forces an overlapping definition of the term elder. Like the Great Sanhedrin, each local Sanhedrin’s primary duty was judicial—interpreting the law and passing out sentences to offenders. [14] However, the function of each Sanhedrin as a court does not find a clear counterpart in the function of NT church eldership. Discipline in the local church is given to the spiritual (Gal 6:1–2), but such are not specified as elders. In fact, the whole church seems to have some responsibility in discipline (Matt 18:15–17 and 1 Cor 5:1–13). While NT eldership did decide on some doctrinal matters (Acts 15), the NT never gives it the responsibilities of a court by way of example or specified duties. There are too many major differences between the Sanhedrin eldership and the NT local church elder to claim the former provided the pattern for the latter. Harvey astutely concludes:

There would be grave difficulties in regarding the Sanhedrin as a whole as the prototype of the Christian presbyterate. The word “elders” when applied to the Sanhedrin was either a technical name for a specific class of aristocratic laymen, or was a general word with strong Pharisaic overtones, which was used to refer to scribes both inside and outside the Sanhedrin. In neither case is there any easy analogy with Christian presbyters. [15]

The Synagogue

Lightfoot carefully presents a classic case for the view that NT church eldership came directly from the synagogue organization. He states:

As soon as the expansion of the church rendered some organization necessary, it would form a “synagogue” of its own. The Christian congregations in Palestine long continued to be designated by this name, though the term “ecclesia” took its place from the very first in heathen countries. With the synagogue itself, they would naturally, if not necessarily, adapt the normal government of a synagogue, and a body of elders or presbyters would be chosen to direct the religious worship and partly also to watch over the temporal well-being of society. [16]

Edward D. Morris concurs with this popular theory as he explains:

It still is reasonable to presume that the churches formed among Jewish converts would spontaneously assume the structure of the synagogue, and would create offices which would be parallel to those found wherever a Jewish congregation was organized. That a body of official persons called elders, and elders of the people, and charged with the oversight of the spiritual interests of the synagogue, existed universally in the age of Christ; and that both He and His disciples were familiar with this arrangement, and recognized its historic validity and its religious value, as appears from various references, will not be questioned. It would naturally follow, under these conditions, that the Jewish converts at Jerusalem, in the absence of any divine instructions to the contrary, would organize themselves into what may be termed a Christian synagogue (James 2:2) with its presbytery or central group of elders, to whom, in conjunction with the apostles, the care of the organization should be entrusted. [17]

The Church and Synagogue Contrasted

According to Luke 7:3 the leaders of the synagogue were designated as elders, but it can be shown that their responsibilities differed greatly from those of NT church elders. Before considering the contrasting roles of synagogue elders and church elders, the various officers of the synagogue need to be discussed.

The highest officer in the synagogue was the ἀρχισυνάγωγος / ‘ruler of the synagogue’. His responsibilities as president were to conduct the worship services and delegate various responsibilities (such as who would read the Scripture and who would pray). He also was responsible for the construction and maintenance of the building (many sources show he financed the erection and upkeep!). For all of his responsibilities, he was highly esteemed. [18] It is uncertain whether or not there was only one president. Most of the evidence suggests there was only one for each synagogue. But Acts 13:15 speaks of their plurality (ἀρχισυνάγωγοι) in one synagogue (13:14).

Lenski calls these ἀρχισυνάγωγοι “managers” and even equates them with the term “elders,” but adds “one of these served as chairman or head of the others.” [19] There is evidence from an inscription in Apamaea that a synagogue had three ἀρχισυνάγωγοι. [20] Mark 5:22 is also a passage which some think indicates a plurality of synagogue rulers. However, the plural in Mark 5:22 most likely is a reference to the category, not the number per synagogue. [21] Schrage believes the plurality of ἀρχισυνάγωγοι has a “paucity of sources” (even in the NT only Acts 13:15 and Mark 5:22 use the plural ἀρχισυνάγωγοι; the other seven references are singular). He concludes that “each synagogue had only one ἀρχισυνάγωγος.” [22] But even if there were rare instances of a plurality of ἀρχισυνάγωγοι, there is no necessary carryover of a ἀρχισυνάγωγος (or an ἀρχιεκκλησία / ‘ruler of the church’!) to the NT church.

The synagogue president had a paid assistant (the ἀρχισυνάγωγος was not paid) known as the hazzan or “attendant” (ὑπηρέτης, Luke 4:20). He was responsible for the furniture and gave special attention to the scrolls. He announced the start and end of the Sabbath day by blowing a trumpet. He, in some cases, was even the schoolmaster for the young in the synagogue school. He carried out the sentence of punishment passed by the elders. [23] History has shown many futile attempts to correlate the attendant with a NT church official. Some connect the Hebrew word חצה / ‘to see’ with hazzan and equate him with the office of the church bishop (ἐπίσκοπος / ‘overseer’). [24] However, there is no functional correspondence between the ὑπηρέτης and the ἐπίσκοπος. The two terms are almost opposites!

In the seventeenth century, the synagogue hazzan was equated with the deacon of the church. [25] However, the biblical and extrabiblical sources show that the hazzan (ὑπηρέτης) is never called a διάκονος. [26] Furthermore, the NT never connects the title of ὑπηρέτης with the church office of deacon (as it connects ἐπίσκοπος with πρεσβύτερος). Finally, because the hazzan cared for the synagogue, he has been best compared with the modern church custodian. [27]

Three other synagogue officers not mentioned in the NT are (1) the collectors of alms (גבא־צרקה) (2) the messenger; and (3) the herald of Shema. The collectors of alms did as the title suggests and had no connection with the conducting of synagogue worship like the ἀρχισυνάγωγος and his assistant. [28] The messenger recited prayers aloud and the congregation followed his lead. It seems that eventually the hazzan took over the messenger’s role. [29] Preceding the prayers of the messenger, the herald of Shema led the congregation in responsive Scripture reading or antiphonal reading. [30]

The elders of the synagogue were left with administrative and disciplinary functions. It may be questionable even to call the elders of the Jewish community synagogue officers. [31] The elders had special seats of honor in the synagogue but were not responsible for the worship. [32] Edwin Hatch states:

With worship and with teaching the elders appear to have no direct concern. For those purposes, so far as they required officers, another set of officers existed. In other words the same community met, probably in the same place in two capacities and with double organization. On the Sabbath there was an assembly presided over by the ἀρχισυνάγωγος or ἀρχισυνάγωγοι for the purpose of prayer and reading of the Scriptures and exhortation: on two days of the week there was an assembly presided over by the γερουσίαρχης or ἀρχόντες or πρεσβύτεροι for the ordinary purposes of a local court. [33]

A careful study of the organization of the synagogue reveals a structure different from that of the NT church. The NT church presents no clear counterpart to the synagogue office of president, his paid assistant, alms collectors (which may relate to ushers of today, but not to any such NT position), the messenger, or the herald of Shema. Furthermore, the NT church elders differ greatly from the synagogue elders. The NT church elders are encouraged to rule and to teach (1 Tim 5:17) and must be able to teach to qualify for the position (1 Tim 3:2). If the synagogue set the pattern for the NT church organization, then one cannot explain the origin of deacons (plural) in the church. This office is totally foreign to the synagogue. Even Lightfoot admits the diaconate was an “entirely new creation.” [34]

The NT local church has a simple two-level organizational structure of a plurality of elders and a plurality of deacons (Phil 1:1). The synagogue has the monarchical president who is responsible for worship. This is an “eldership” that is not responsible for anything other than judicial matters of the Jewish community. The great organizational differences between the synagogue and the NT church (shown in chart 1) invalidate the claim that the former gave birth to the latter.

Beyer rightly deduces:

Familiar forms of synagogue and Pharisaic order were no doubt before the eyes of the first Christians. But their community, based on the great commission to preach the Gospel and to live according to it in the most inward of all societies, was something new and distinctive, so that for the fulfillment of its mission new offices had to be created, or to develop out of the matter itself. [35]

The Elders of Acts 11:30

According to Donald L. Norbie, the eldership is bluntly mentioned without any explanation in Acts 11:30 because its origin is due to the synagogue counterpart. On the other hand, the institution of the diaconate is given a lengthy explanation (Acts 6:1–7) because the synagogue had no such office. [36]

On the surface this sounds like a convincing argument for close ties between NT church eldership and the synagogue. But there are problems with this theory. First, the passage in Acts 6 does not specifically mention an office of deacon, but rather a ministry of serving tables (διακονεῖν τραπέζαις). Andre Lemaire claims the seven in Acts 6 have “nothing to do with the deacons.” [37]

Beyer explains:

Appeal is frequently made to Acts 6 in explanation of the rise of the diaconate, though the term διάκονος is not actually used. On this view, the deacons undertake practical service as distinct from the ministry of the Word. It is to be noted, however, that the Seven are set alongside the Twelve as representatives of the Hellenists, and that they take their place with the evangelists and apostles in disputing, preaching and baptizing. This fact shows that the origin of the diaconate is not to be found in Acts 6. [38]

Chart 1: Organization of the Synagogue and the Developed New Testament Church

It is interesting that several lexicographers agree with Beyer by not placing either διακονία or διακονέω of Acts 6 under the special category of the office of deacon, but rather in the general categories of service, ministry or care. [39] Similarly, H. M. Gwatkin writes:

The traditional view, that the choice of the Seven in Acts 6 is the formal institution of a permanent order of deacons, does not seem unassailable. The opinion of Irenaeus, Cyprian, and later writers is not decisive on a question of this kind; and the vague word διακονία (used too in the context of the apostles themselves) is more than balanced by the avoidance of the word deacon in Acts. [40]

One wonders how Geoffrey S. R. Cox could say Luke gives the diaconate “prominence,” [41] when Luke never even uses the technical term διάκονος.

There are also several good reasons for equating the seven of Acts with some of the elders of Acts 11:30. Two of the seven, Stephen and Philip, have ministries that relate better to those of an elder than to those of a deacon. Gwatkin gives the following evidence to connect the seven in Acts 6 with the elders of Acts 11:30.

[Since] the seven seem to rank next in the Church to the apostles, we may be tempted to see in them (if they are a permanent office at all) the elders whom we find at Jerusalem in precisely this position from 44 onward. [42]

However, it may be a problem to view the πρεσβύτεροι of Acts 11:30 as a specific church office. Peter used the term πρεσβύτεροι in his Pentecostal sermon as a reference simply to older men (Acts 2:17). It makes some sense to believe that the apostles would give the responsibility of the relief fund to trusted older men of Judea in Acts 11:30.

An interesting line of reasoning is presented by Andre Lemaire:

The institution of the presbyters is not reported by the author of Acts; it is taken for granted—any Palestinian Jewish community was organized on the “presbyteral” model and had a college of elders at its head…. It is likely that presbyters were appointed on this model in the new Jewish Christian communities in the diaspora and that it was Jewish Christian apostles…who “appointed elders in every church” in Cilicia and Southern Asia Minor (Acts 14:23). [43]

Lemaire’s thesis is founded upon the inadequate notion that the synagogue and the church had a similar organizational structure, especially with regard to the eldership. It has been shown that the differences between the church and synagogue organization exceed any similarities.

Thomas M. Lindsay correctly explained the functional differences between the Jewish elders and church elders of Jerusalem when he wrote:

When we find “elders” in charge of the community in Jerusalem, ready to receive the contributions for the relief of those who were suffering from the famine which overtook them in the reign of Claudius, it is impossible to doubt that the name came from their Jewish surroundings. At the same time it must always be remembered that Christian “elders” had functions entirely different from the Jewish, that the vitality of the infant Christian Communities made them work out for themselves that organization which they found to be most suitable, and that in this case nothing but the name was borrowed [italics added]. [44]

To be sure, Acts 11:30 is a difficult passage from which to prove anything concerning the NT church eldership. Employing such a problem passage as evidence for the theory of the synagogue/church eldership correspondence is highly questionable. Furthermore, since no reappointment of synagogue elders as church elders is ever stated in the NT, such a theory is seriously lacking in credibility. And since no mention of the synagogue eldership as the form or pattern of the church elders is ever clearly established in the NT, it would be best not to force any connection between the two.

Church Worship in the Synagogue

One of the reasons why most believe that the synagogue was the pattern of NT church government is the fact that the early church worshipped in the synagogues. Paul testified before Agrippa that he punished the Christians (before his conversion) in “every synagogue” (Acts 26:10–11). James refers to the synagogue as the place of Christian worship (Jas 2:1).

However, the synagogue was not the only place of Christian assembly in NT times. It is clear that believers gathered in the Temple at Jerusalem for worship (Acts 2:46; 3:1). Admittedly, the use of the Temple as a place of Christian worship was short-lived. Yet it was used, and could have influenced church organization since the church was entirely Jewish at first. Yet there is no correspondence between the Temple officers and NT church officers.

The early Christians also met in homes for worship (Acts 2:46; 11:12; Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15). But one could not say the organization of the home determined the organizational structure of the church.

The book of Acts shows that homes (Acts 5:42; 16:32; 18:7–8), synagogues (Acts 9:20; 13:5; 17:1; 19:8), and the Temple (5:20; 5:42) were all centers of evangelistic preaching where unbelievers could hear the gospel. The organizational structures of such places where unbelievers gathered do not have any necessary link with the structure of the local NT church.

The Twenty-Four Elders in Revelation

Geoffrey S. R. Cox believes that the twenty-four elders in Revelation give weight to the theory of the carry-over of the synagogue elder to the church elder. He states:

If our other suggestion is also true, that Christians continued to worship in synagogues, whether with others, or in their own specifically Christian ones, then it would be natural to take over the system which had already served them well. A further support for this is found in the usage in Revelation where we read of the twenty-four elders, who can fairly be said to symbolize the worshippers of both Old and New Covenants, and thus to emphasize yet again Christianity as the true continuation and completion of Judaism. [45]

In response to Cox’s position, one must first consider the highly debated issue of the identity of the twenty-four elders. The traditional identification held by most scholars is that the elders are angelic representatives. Morris and Phillips are two examples of more recent adherents. [46] Others have identified the twenty-four elders as representing Israel. Still others agree with Cox’s position that the elders represent both OT and NT saints. Strauss quotes H. A. Ironside’s dogmatic stance in support of this view. [47] Finally, the view which seems most acceptable to this writer is that the elders are representatives of the church. This position is supported by such commentators as C. C. Ryrie, J. B. Smith, J. A. Seiss, H. A. Hoyt, and J. F. Walvoord. [48] Obviously, to use such a highly contested group as the twenty-four elders to support the theory of the direct link of the synagogue elders to the church is to build upon a most tenuous foundation.

Conclusion

The uniqueness of the organization of the NT church eldership against its Hellenistic or Jewish cultural setting is consistent with the uniqueness of the church as the body of Christ. This body is a mystery (Eph 3:4–6; 5:32)—a secret of God revealed in the NT. It is fitting that its organizational structure is distinct from any other previous organization. The qualifications and functions of the NT church elders have no clear forerunners.

After all the evidence is analyzed, Beyer’s conclusion is worthy of acceptance:

Thus we have in the Jewish community many points of initiation for the Christian offices of bishop and deacon, but neither here nor in paganism are there any exact models which are simply copied. The creative power of the early church was strong enough to fashion its own offices for conduct of congregational life and divine worship. [49]

Of course, the early church’s “creative power” was due to its possession of the Holy Spirit, sent by the risen and ascended Christ.

The church today should consider the uniqueness of the NT eldership as motivation to study NT church polity. Our Lord’s church should be organized the way he has designed it in his word.

Notes

1. James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 535.
2. G. Bornkamm, “Πρεσβύτερος,” TDNT 6 (1968) 653.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 535.
6. Ibid.
7. A. E. Harvey, “Elders,” JTS 25 (1974) 320.
8. J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) 191.
9. Bornkamm, “Πρεσβύτερος,” 6.655.
10. Ibid., 6.658.
11. Harvey, “Elders,” 320.
12. Simon Cohen, “Sanhedrin,” Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia (1975) 2.1520.
13. J. A. Thompson, “Sanhedrin,” The New Bible Dictionary, (1962) 1143.
14. M. H. Shepherd, Jr., “Elders in the New Testament,” IDB (1962) 2.73.
15. Harvey, “Elders,” 323–24.
16. Lightfoot, Philippians, 192.
17. Edward D. Morris, Ecclesiology: A Treatise on the Church and the Kingdom of God on Earth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1885) 139-40.
18. W. Schrage, “᾿Αρχισυνάγωγος,” TDNT 7 (1971) 845.
19. Richard C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1934) 513.
20. I. Sonne, “Synagogue,” IDB (1962) 4.489.
21. Schrage, “᾿Αρχισυνάγωγος,” 7.844.
22. Ibid., 7.846–47.
23. Cohen, “Sanhedrin,” 2.1642.
24. Sonne, “Synagogue,” 4.489.
25. Ibid.
26. H. Beyer, “Διάκονος,” TDNT 2 (1964) 91.
27. Sonne, “Synagogue,” 4.489.
28. Beyer, “Διάκονος,” 2.91.
29. Sonne, “Synagogue,” 4.490.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid. Sonne does not even mention elders in his discussion of the officers of the synagogue.
32. Shepherd, “Elders,” 2.73.
33. Edwin Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (Oxford: Rivingtons, 1881) 59.
34. Lightfoot, Philippians, 191.
35. H. Beyer, “᾿Επισκέπτομαι,” TDNT 2 (1964) 619.
36. Donald L. Norbie, New Testament Church Organization (Chicago: Christian Libraries, 1955) 36-37.
37. Andre Lemaire, “From Services to Ministries: ‘Diakoniai’ in the First Two Centuries,” Office and Ministry in the Church (ed. Bas Van Iersel and Roland Murphy; New York: Herder, 1972) 36.
38. Beyer, “Διάκονος,” 2.90.
39. BAGD, 184; LSJ, 398; Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) 137-38; G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1977) 107-8. Abbott-Smith combines the office and work of δίακονος in the definition of διακονία into one category, making it impossible to determine any distinction. But under διακονέω Acts 6:2 is given the general definition and only 1 Tim 3:10 and 13 are defined specifically under the category “to serve as deacon.”
40. H. M. Gwatkin, “Church Government in the Apostolic Age,” Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Scribners, 1905) 1.440. See also the discussion in Gordon D. Fee and Douglas S. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 93-94.
41. Geoffrey S. R. Cox, “The Emerging Organization of the Church in the New Testament, and the Limitations Imposed Thereon,” EvQ 38 (1966) 33.
42. Gwatkin, “Church Government,” 1.440.
43. Lemaire, “Service to Ministries,” 41–42.
44. Thomas M. Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries (reprint; Minneapolis: James Family, 1977) 153.
45. Cox, “Emerging Organization,” 33.
46. Leon Morris, The Revelation of St. John, (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 88; John Phillips, Exploring Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1974) 103.
47. Lehman Strauss, The Book of Revelation (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux, 1964) 132.
48. C. C. Ryrie, Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1968) 36; J. B. Smith, A Revelation of Jesus Christ (Scottsdale, PA: Herald, 1961) 104-7; J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse (reprint; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973) 103-5; Herman A. Hoyt, Studies in Revelation (Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1966) 43; and John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966) 107.
49. Beyer, “Διάκονος,” 2.91.

The “Poor” in the Beatitudes of Matthew and Luke

By Gary T. Meadors

The identification of the poor in Luke 6:20 has been disputed. Some have seen them as the economically impoverished. However, it must be noted that Jesus was specifically addressing his disciples when he uttered the beatitude of the poor. Furthermore, Luke 6:20–26 stands in the literary tradition of an eschatological reversal motif found in Psalm 37, Isaiah 61, and in certain Qumran materials. A comparison of Luke 6:20–26 with these materials indicates a connection between πτωχοί in Luke 6:20 and the Hebrew term ענוים, which had become metaphorical for the pious. This connection is supported by the fact that Matthew records the same logion of Jesus as πτωχοὶ ἐν πνεύματι (5:3 ). Thus, the term “poor” in Luke 6:20 is used in reference to the pious.

* * *

Introduction

Do the “poor” in Luke’s account of the beatitudes refer to the economically impoverished whereas the “poor in spirit” in Matthew’s account refer to the pious? It has become quite common to answer such a question in the affirmative and thus to see a dichotomy between the two accounts. Indeed, redactional studies have correctly observed that Luke’s gospel contains more unique material concerning the poor and oppressed than the other gospels. However, the reason for this has been much debated. This study argues that the “poor” in both accounts of the beatitudes refer primarily to the pious. (This is not to deny, however, that they may also have been economically oppressed.) Thus, in the beatitudes Jesus sought the spiritual reversal of life situations.

The Beatitudes in Luke

NT scholarship today generally recognizes that underlying the Matthean Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) [1] and the Lukan Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20–49; cf. 6:17–19) is “one basic piece of tradition.” [2] However, the two recountings of this tradition are not identical. Nevertheless, I believe that Matthew and Luke are faithful to the ipsissima vox of Jesus (i.e., ‘the same voice’, meaning that the essential meaning is maintained although the very words may not be). Although the gospel writers may have altered the words of an individual logion or discourse of Jesus to emphasize a particular aspect, they retain the essential meaning. For example, the beatitude of the poor (Matt 5:3; Luke 6:20) is generally considered to have its source in the same logion of Jesus. Its meaning, therefore, in both Matthew and Luke should correspond although its use in context may reveal individual emphases.

A Word about Audience Analysis in Context

It is essential in determining the teaching intent of a passage to ascertain to whom it was addressed. Matthew and Luke both indicate that the primary recipients of the sermon are the disciples, including more than just the twelve (Matt 5:1–2; Luke 6:20a). It is interesting, however, that while Matthew’s statement is clear, Luke’s is strikingly specific. Luke pictures Jesus’ delivery of the beatitudes as an eye to eye encounter with his disciples and uses the second person rather than the third person throughout his beatitude pericope. The statement in Luke 6:20b concerning their present possession of the kingdom further supports the assertion that Jesus was addressing a restricted audience although the curious multitudes were surely present (6:19) and were privileged to eavesdrop and to consider what import Jesus’ teaching might have for themselves.

To understand Jesus’ teaching intent, two additional factors are important within the general and immediate context. The resentment and deepening rejection of Jesus by the religious leaders are quite clear in Luke’s context (6:1–11). The conflict would result in harassment and eventually murder (6:11). Immediately after revealing the vicious intent of the religious leaders, Luke records the beatitude pericope which centers upon the theme of conflict, rejection and persecution. This conflict and persecution theme is stated in terms of poor and rich within an eschatological reversal motif.

In light of these initial observations of the general and immediate context, it may well be that poor and rich primarily serve a literary function and that “the expressions rich and poor function within the story as metaphorical expressions for those rejected and accepted because of their response to the prophet.” [3] The poor are those who follow Jesus as do the disciples and the rich are the religious leaders who oppress those who are followers of God. Jesus’ teaching is not in response to economic conditions but is a result of the deep felt rejection of his teaching and claims. Actual poverty which might exist is merely the attendant circumstance of those who follow Jesus.

Audience analysis leads to at least one initial conclusion which must be remembered in the following analysis. The interpreter cannot go beyond the intended audience in the identification of the poor in Luke 6:20. The poor cannot be the unbelieving hungry of the Third World. Such assertions border on universalism in light of Luke 6:20b. [4] As I. Howard Marshall has observed,

the description of them as being persecuted for the sake of the Son of Man shows that the thought is not simply of those who are literally poor and needy, nor of all such poor people, but of those who are disciples of Jesus and hence occupy a pitiable position in the eyes of the world. Their present need will be met by God’s provision in the future. The effect of the beatitudes is thus both to comfort men who suffer for being disciples and to invite men to become disciples and find that their needs are met by God. [5]

The Presence of Isaiah 61 in Luke 6:20

In his study of Matt 5:3–5, David Flusser asserts that “the first three beatitudes as a whole depend on Isa lxi, 1–2 .” [6] The Lukan pericope also evidences the influence of Isaiah 61. Linguistically, the presence of πτωχοί (Luke 6:20b; cf. Isa 61:1a), hunger (Luke 6:21a; cf. Isa 61:5, 6), and mournfulness as implied in weeping (Luke 6:21b; cf. Isa 61:1b, “brokenhearted”; 61:2b; 61:3; 61:7) reflect Isaiah. [7] Theologically, the motifs of eschatological release (Jubilee) and reversal are dominant in both Isaiah and Luke. [8]

What would be the significance of the influence of Isaiah 61 on the Lukan beatitude? Assuming Jesus’ audience was familiar with Isaiah 61 and its promises, the catchwords, such as ענוים or πτωχοί, and the eschatological themes “would have been recognized as having more than economic significance.” [9] My earlier study on the vocabulary of the poor in the OT, Qumran, and the first century pointed out that the poor motif had historically taken on religious nuances particularly as evidenced in Isaiah and the Psalms. [10] Jesus’ audience was Jewish, not the twentieth century Western world. The significance of his teaching must be reconstructed in terms of his first century audience. F. C. Grant’s analysis of the mentality of the first century pious Jew in light of the Magnificat and the beatitudes makes the following observation:

If we may judge from the first two chapters of the Gospel of St. Luke, assuming that we have here, at the very least, an authentic example of first-century Jewish piety and a suggestion of the atmosphere of our Lord’s boyhood, it would seem probable that those among whom He grew to manhood were not political enthusiasts, but pious, humble devotees of the ancestral religion. The Messianic hope, as they cherished it, was conceived in its more transcendent and less political form: pacific, priestly, traditional, and non-militaristic…. [The Magnificat] was the hope of ‘the poor in the land’, for whom their poverty had come to have a religious value since they hoped for salvation through none save God. It was a confidence nourished by the Psalms, (as in Psalm xxxvii), ‘the poor’ and ‘the humble’ (aniim and anawim) become almost interchangeable terms. [11]

The question of economic status is not the issue in Isaiah nor in Luke. The emphasis is upon following God and for the faithful Israelite and for the disciples of Jesus in the present era it will often result in being oppressed.

A Textual Comparison of Matthew 5:3 and Luke 6:20

The Matthean and Lukan Sermons are quite divergent in form and some general comparative observations would be helpful before considering the beatitude concerning the poor. Matthew’s version (chaps. 5–7; 109 verses) is over three times longer than Luke’s account (6:20–49; 30 verses). However, sayings recorded as part of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew are found elsewhere in Luke (cf., e.g., Matt 5:13 with Luke 14:34–35; Matt 5:14–16 with Luke 8:16 and 11:33; and Matt 5:17–20 with Luke 16:16–17). [12]

There are also many similarities between Matthew and Luke. The sermons are both addressed to Jesus’ disciples in proximity to a mountain. They both begin with a beatitude pericope and end with an exhortation to receive God’s truth as communicated by the words of Christ. The same sequence is followed by both even though Luke omits much material. Many other similarities and dissimilarities have been delineated in the literature on the sermons but it is not necessary to repeat them in the present discussion. [13]

The beatitude of the poor is recorded by Matthew and Luke as follows:

Matt 5:3	Luke 6:20b
Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι,	Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί,
ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν	ὅτι ὑμετέρα ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία
οὐρανῶν.	τοῦ θεοῦ.

Line two in each is equivalent in word order but with some rather interesting differences. Matthew uses the third personal pronoun αὐτῶν while Luke uses the second person possessive pronoun ὑμετέρα. Luke’s use of the second person gives his beatitude a more personal flavor. [14] Matthew’s use of οὐρανῶν rather than θεοῦ with βασιλεία is probably a metonymy since heaven is the place of God’s abode.

The most discussed aspect of the beatitude of the poor, however, has to do with the dative of relation τῷ πνεύματι/’spirit’ in line one. Unless Jesus gave the same basic logion in the two different forms, then either one or the other is more original. Jeremias has suggested that the brevity of Luke’s Sermon indicates that it represents the earlier form. [15] Flusser, however, asserts that Matthew has faithfully preserved the original logion and Luke abbreviated it without altering its meaning. [16] F. C. Grant long ago suggested a mediating position. He wrote, “it is probably that the Lukan version is more accurate, verbally; but it must be understood in a more Matthaean spirit. ‘Poor,’ e.g., meant more than economically dependent; the word had a religious connotation, which Matthew’s elucidation, ‘poor in spirit’, more accurately represents.” [17]

Flusser’s assertion is based primarily on the conflation of Isa 61:1 and 66:2 in the Dead Sea Scrolls (IQM xiv. 7). The result of his comparisons render ענוים וכאי רוח ,רות עניי and עניים as interchangeable and synonymous expressions. Consequently, πτωχός and πτωχὸς τῷ πνεύματι would be the interchangeable Greek equivalents. [18] W. D. Davies makes a similar observation on the basis of Qumran:

The Lucan ‘poor’ need not be regarded as necessarily more primitive than the Matthaean ‘poor in spirit’. But it is still more likely that Matthew made the term ‘the poor’ more precise by the addition of ‘in spirit’ than that Luke deleted the latter, although, as we indicated in the text, ‘the poor’ and ‘the poor in spirit’ have the same connotation. [19]

The conclusion to the whole matter, if one is faithful to the religious sitz im leben of pietistic Judaism, is that regardless of the ipsissima verba (the actual words) of Jesus, the ipsissima vox is the same. The πτωχοί are the Anawim. [20] In the case of the Sermon the πτωχοί are the disciples as a class of followers. In Luke 6:20 it designates a group; it does not describe a social state of being. A social state of being may be attendant (cf. Luke 6:21–22), but it is not the focus of the term πτωχοί. If it were merely a social state of being, then all of those who are in such a state would ‘own’ the kingdom (6:20c). This would be soteriological universalism. Guthrie rightly cautions on this point, “since possession of the kingdom of God is the consequence of this ‘poverty’, it seems to suggest a spiritual element, for the ‘kingdom’ cannot be understood in any other way.” [21]

The Eschatological Reversal Motif in Luke 6:20-26

The unique theme which is present in Luke’s but not in Matthew’s beatitude pericope is the theme of reversal. This theme is present elsewhere in Luke in the Magnificat (1:46–56), the parable of Lazarus and Dives (16:19–31), and in the ‘first shall be last’ logion (13:30; cf. 9:48; 14:11; 18:14). This theme of reversal of conditions may be observed in the OT in Psalm 37 and Isaiah 61. The reversal is often stated in an antithetic formulation, such as rich/poor or wicked/righteous.

A similar reversal was known in the Classical Greek world as a περιπέτεια. [22] The reversal of human fortune was a dominant motif in Attic drama and was discussed as a reversal of roles in philosophic literature. [23] The περιπέτεια motif in Scripture has a particularly moral overtone. It is also a divine reversal which is apocalyptic in nature. The reversal comes by the action of God not the revolutionary efforts of the proletariat. C. H. Dodd clearly describes the ethical nature of the Lukan περιπέτεια:

On the face of it, the Lucan pericope might appear to contemplate a catastrophic revolution in which the proletariats achieves a signal success at the expense of the privileged class. As such, it would fit into a contemporary pattern of thought in the Hellenistic world. But it is clear that it is a sublimated or ‘etherialized’ kind of περιπέτεια that is here in view: the reward is ἐν οὐρανῷ, and that clause conditions all the rest. If the parable of Dives and Lazarus is allowed as an illustration, the ‘etherialized’ character of the reversal of conditions is emphasized. [24]

The structure of Luke 6:20–26 is best seen by comparing the four ‘couplets’. [25] The antithetical parallelism is not formal [26] but it is conceptually present. Reveral motifs are by nature dichotomous.

20.	Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.	24.	But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
21.	Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.	25.	Woe unto you, ye that are full now! for ye shall hunger.
	Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.		Woe unto you, ye that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
22.	Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake.	26.	Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you. for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.

The first question in determining significance is to ascertain to whom the blessings and woes are spoken. Luke 6:20a clearly presents the primary audience as a group of disciples within eye contact of Jesus. The blessings are appropriate for this group, but the woes are incompatible for them except as a warning not to neglect their commitment (Heb 2:1–4). Therefore, who is the “you” in the woe section? They must be the perimeter crowd of privileged eavesdroppers. Who in that crowd would fit the description given? The key ties at the front door in Luke 6:1–10. [27] Jesus had just completed several Sabbath controversies with the Pharisees and Scribes. This confrontation ended in a deepening rift between Jesus and the contemporary leaders of Judaism (Luke 6:11). This division will broaden as Luke’s story progresses (cf. Luke 8; 11:14–13:9). The language of the woe section applies well to this group. Luke 6:26 is especially applicable as will be observed below.

A second area which confronts the reader in Luke 6:20–26 involves the nature of the language used in the pericope. The temporal implications are indicated by the contrasting use of νῦν and the future tense in 6:20–21; 24–25. The future aspect is further indicated by “that day” and “in heaven” in 6:23. The language of the pericope gives no hope for reversal in the present age. At this point it is obviously not a call to revolution but to hopeful resignation. It is divine realism for the present and divine optimism for the future.

The language is also contrastive. It utilizes poetic extremes: hunger and full, weep and laugh, hate and admire, and poor and rich. It is thoroughly semitic. Psalm 37 is an OT example (cf. Isa 61:1–3 also) of the reversal of the poor and rich under the rubric of wicked/evil and righteous. The language in reversal genre is categorically symbolic. Poor and rich in Luke 6 are first of all categorical. The social situation behind the language is real but not foundational. The close of the sermon in Luke 6:46–49 illustrates this principle well from a different perspective. The houses and their fate are symbolic of one’s response to truth.

The symbolism of certain aspects of the language in 6:20–26 is well illustrated by the expressions “hunger,” “mourn,” and “weep” in 6:25. In the eschatological reversal, in what sense will the presently satisfied group experience lack? Will they be huddled off into a corner without provisions? No. Rather the reversal initiates their existence in hell in the eternal state. They are illustrated by Dives in Luke 16, another Lukan reversal passage. Since we may safely assume that mealtimes do not exist in the eternal state, the language is symbolic of a real experience. [28]

The conclusions to the blessings (6:22, 23) and woes (6:26) sections provide crucial information concerning the intended significance of this pericope. The theme which permeates these concluding verses and consequently the whole unit may be summarized by the word “identification.” The devout followers are clearly identified with their Lord as the ἕνεκα phrase indicates, being better translated “because of the Son of Man” (NIV). It is because of their identification with Christ that they suffer in the present age. If ὄνομα refers to the name which signifies them as followers, whatever that name of identification may be (cf. James 2:7; 1 Pet 4:14), rather than signifying their personal reputation, the point of identification is strengthened. [29]

But with whom are those of 6:26 to be identified? The key lies with the phrase οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν. This phrase is doubly emphatic. It is attributive and it is placed at the end of each section. One wonders if Jesus’ eyes did not glance away and gaze at the religious leaders for a moment. The πατέρες theme recurs in Luke 11:47–48, where Jesus reveals the deeds of the Pharisees’ forefathers. Luke 11 falls within a lengthy polemic between Jesus and the religious leaders (11:14–13:9) and contains six woes upon the Pharisees.

Not only is οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν emphatic, it is also unique to Luke’s structure (cf. Matt 5:12), [30] thus emphasizing further the crucial point of identification within the Lukan context. Furthermore, Luke 6:26 uniquely emphasizes the “false prophets” in contradistinction to Matthew, who only refers to the godly prophets. The contrasting symbolism of identification, therefore, may be that “just as the persecuted disciples are the representatives of the true Prophets, so the wealthy hierarchy whom all men flatter are the representatives of the false (Jer v.31; Comp. xxiii.17; Isa xxx.10; Mic ii.11).” [31] This hierarchy within the context of Luke’s gospel is constituted by the Pharisees and their crowd.

Conclusion

The teaching intent of Luke 6:20–26 centers in the theme of identification with God’s messenger and program. Such identification will entail persecution, including physical, mental, and social ramifications. But the transitory nature of life and its problems are not to be compared to the eschatological hope (6:23). Conversely, to refuse to identify with God’s program and pursue worldly ambition has disastrous consequences. These consequences are intensified when they relate to oppressing God’s people and program. The religious leadership of Judaism, whether ancient or contemporary, was perennially guilty of not recognizing and following God’s true prophets. This confrontation in the earthly ministry of Jesus led to a fiery polemic in Luke’s gospel between Jesus and the religious leaders, a polemic which plagued the apostles after Jesus was gone as the book of Acts so clearly portrays. The greater context of Luke 6 seems to imply that the unique structure of Luke’s beatitude pericope may well be an early expression of this polemic via the acceptance and rejection motif.

The signification of πτωχοί in Luke 6:20 is similar to that of a developing usage of ענוים in the Psalms, Isaiah, and Qumran. It symbolically relates to religious attitude. Matthew makes this quite clear by the emphasis on ἐν πνεύματι, and the sense of Luke’s simple πτωχοί was the same in the ears of his auditors. On the other hand, social and economic oppression are attendant to a faith commitment. Jesus wanted his followers to know that they were getting into a situation of oppression for the duration of their earthly sojourn; he was not instructing them on how to get out of oppression. The only way out is up (cf. ἐν οὐρανῷ) in Luke 6:23). [32] To assert that Luke’s pericope is merely “an essay on social concern” [33] is to miss the point.

Notes

1. Cf. the helpful survey by Warren S. Kissinger, The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1975).
2. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 243; cf. Raymond Brown, “The Beatitudes According to Luke,” in New Testament Essays (Garden City: Doubleday, 1968) 265-66; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX) (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 627.
3. Luke T. Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts (Missoula: Scholars, 1977) 140.
4. Cf. Ron Sider, “An Evangelical Theology of Liberation,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and S. N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979) 130-32.
5. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 246.
6. David Flusser, “Blessed Are the Poor in Spirit,” IEJ 10 (1960) 9; cf. Ernest Best, “Matthew v. 3 ,” NTS 7 (1961) 255-58.
7. Asher Finkel, “Jesus’ Sermon at Nazareth (Luk. 4, 16–30),” in Abraham Unser Vater: Juden und Christen in Gesprach uber die Bibel. Festschrift für Otto Michel (Leiden: Brill, 1963) 113; and Asher Finkel, The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth (Leiden: Brill, 1964) 156-58.
8. Robert B. Sloan, The Favorable Year of the Lord: A Study of Jubilary Theology in the Gospel of Luke (Austin: Schola, 1977) 123-27.
9. Thomas Hoyt, The Poor in Luke-Acts (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1975) 115.
10. Gary T. Meadors, “The Poor in Luke’s Gospel” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation; Winona Lake, IN: Grace Theological Seminary, 1983); cf. Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah (Garden City: Doubleday, 1977) 350-51.
11. F. C. Grant, The Economic Background of the Gospels (New York: Russell & Russell, reprint 1973) 119-20.
12. See Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (revised ed.; Stuttgart: Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, 1967) in. loc.
13. Cf. Hoyt, The Poor in Luke-Acts, 99–102; Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 627–29; and C. H. Dodd, “The Beatitudes: A Form-Critical Study,” in More New Testament Studies (Manchester: Manchester University, 1968) 1-10.
14. Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 68. Gundry asserts that in the OT beatitudes the 3rd person is used more than the 2nd.
15. Joachim Jeremias, The Sermon on the Mount (London: Athlone, 1961) 17.
16. Flusser, “Blessed are the Poor in Spirit,” 11.
17. Grant, Economic Background, 118, n. 1.
18. Flusser, “Blessed are the Poor in Spirit,” 1–13; cf. E. Rammel, “πτωχός,” TDNT 6 (1968) 896-92, W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1971) 46.
19. W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964) 251, n. 2.
20. Anawim is a transliteration of the Hebrew term for poor. It has become a term to refer to the class of pious Jews.
21. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology: A Thematic Study (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1981) 900.
22. Cf. Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (London: Oxford University, 1939) 4.245–61.
23. Ibid., 246.
24. Dodd, “The Beatitudes,” 5–6.
25. The following translation is from the American Standard Version (1901).
26. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 636.
27. Cf. the implication in the closing of the Sermon in 6:46–49 to the fate of the religious status quo.
28. This language may be reminiscent of the future banquet as seen in Luke 14:12–24.
29. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 253.
30. Fitzmyer, Luke (I-IX), 635.
31. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1896) 183.
32. This solution is the essence of the reversal motif throughout its usage. Cf. Bammel, “πτωχός,” 6.893,895,898,906,910.
33. Grant Osborne. “Luke: Theologian of Social Concern.” TJ 7 (1978) 136.

“Everyone Will Be Salted with Fire” (Mark 9:49)

By Weston W. Fields

The meaning of Mark 9:49 (“everyone will be salted with fire”) has long perplexed interpreters. Although this saying is in a literary context speaking of judgment, many have seen in it a reference to purification. However, since Hebrew was probably the lingual background to the Gospel of Mark, the saying may be easily understood as “everyone [who is sent to hell] will be completely destroyed (destroyed by fire).

* * *

Introduction

Among the difficult sayings of Jesus, Mark 9:49 is one of the most enigmatic. What could Jesus have meant when he said, “Everyone will be salted with fire”? Stated in a context of judgment in the fire of Geh-Hinnom (the valley of Hinnom outside the southwest walls of Jerusalem), this strange mixture of salt and fire has perplexed Greek scholars for a very long time.

Suggested Interpretations

Bratcher and Nida have counted at least 15 different explanations for the verse, [1] and Gould calls it “one of the most difficult to interpret in the New Testament.” [2] He connects the saying not with the fire of judgment in the preceding context, but with the idea of purification as in the fire of a sacrifice. This is because both fire and salt were used by the Jews in their Temple sacrifices. According to the Mishnah, salt was put into the carcass of the sacrificial animal in order to soak out the blood. After the blood was soaked out, the carcass was fit for consumption or sacrifice: “The priest…dried it by rubbing salt on it [the carcass of the sacrificial animal] and cast it on the fire.” [3]

The interpretation that the salt and fire have something to do with purification or with dedication is in general the same one taken by Montefiore, Rawlinson, A. B. Bruce, Alford, Calvin, Meyer, Lange, Lane, Fudge, and F. F. Bruce. [4] It is evident as well in TEV’s translation, “Everyone will be purified by fire as a sacrifice is purified by salt.”

Such connection of the verse with sacrifice also appears in its textual variants. Evidently the incomprehensibility of the verse led some scribe to make a marginal note (which later found its way into the text proper) or to make an outright change in the text. Whichever it was, this change involved lifting part of a phrase out of the LXX of Lev 2:13 and adding it to this text. The phrase is: πᾶν δῶρον θυσίας ὑμῶν ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται / ‘every one of your sacrificial gifts will be salted with salt’. This connection with Leviticus is seen clearly in the two main forms of the additions to the verse: (1) πᾶσα γὰρ θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (D itb,c,d,ff(2),i, ‘for every sacrifice will be salted with salt’) and (2) πᾶς γὰρ πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται καὶ πᾶσα θυσία ἁλὶ ἁλισθήσεται (A K Byz al, ‘for everyone will be salted with fire, and every sacrifice will be salted with salt’). This last form seems to be a conflation of the shortest version of the verse and the version of intermediate length. Several other versions of the verse, which appear in only one manuscript each, also seem to be the result of scribal attempts to make some kind of sense out of the verse. Three of the four other possibilities mentioned by Metzger have something to do with being “consumed” or “destroyed.” [5]

Most modern interpreters of the passage have not advanced much beyond these ancient scribes. In fact one gets the feeling that many commentators are not happy with their own conclusions; yet the absence of a better alternative, coupled with the fact that in the Temple sacrifices salt and fire were found together, has led most interpreters to apply the purificational and dedicatory objectives of the sacrifices to Jesus’ statement about the individuals in the passage under consideration. It is as though many of the commentators knew intuitively that the verse cannot say what it seems to say in Greek, for a figure of speech based on these two features among the many elements of a sacrifice hardly seems to fit the immediate context of Mark’s narrative, even if Jesus’statement is purely metaphorical. Yet Mark or Mark’s source must have felt that it made sense of some kind, even though the sense is not now obvious.

An Alternative Interpretation

Perhaps the solution is not to be found in the Greek text. This is one more saying of Jesus which is easily unlocked when it is translated into Hebrew, currently considered by a number of scholars to be the best candidate for the language of Jesus and of the earliest accounts of his life. A couple of questions may be asked to ascertain whether a Hebrew translation helps clarify the meaning of the Greek text. [6] Does the semantic range for the word “salt” in Hebrew give any clues about what an expression like “salted with fire” (πυρὶ ἁλισθήσεται) might have meant as an idiom in Hebrew? Could it be that a Hebrew expression was translated literally into Greek, not dynamically, and that in the course of time, as those who would recognize the Hebrew idiom behind the statement became fewer and fewer, the original meaning of it became lost?

There is indeed a Hebrew expression which can answer these questions and solve the problem. Mark 9:49 is one of many passages in Mark (some of which have been noted elsewhere by Lindsey) [7] in which it is possible to translate word for word back into Hebrew and not even change the word order. Lindsey suggests the translation כָּל אִישׁ בָּשׁ יֻמְלַח.8 The UBS Modern Hebrew New Testament suggests the addition of הן at the beginning of Mark 9:49 to account for the γάρ in Greek. [9] Delitzsch, following the Byzantine text-type, translates, כִּי כָל־אִישׁ בָּשׁ יָמְלָח וְכָל־קָרְבָּן בָּמֶלַח יָמְלָח.10

Among the several usages of the word מלח, the predominant one is usually translated “to salt.” But there is another usage of מלח which Even-Shoshan defines with the term בִּלָה / ‘to destroy’, and טִשְׁשׁ / ‘to erase’. [11] Alcalay translates the expression זרע מקום מלח / ‘to destroy completely’, [12] for which the literal translation is “to sow a place with salt,” an action described in Judg 9:45. There Abimelech destroys Shechem. One of the actions which was part of the destruction was sowing salt in the city. This is an illustration of the background of what, according to Alcalay, is a figurative expression for complete destruction—to be salted is to be destroyed.

The verb also is found in the passive in Isa 51:6, where EvenShoshan suggests the glosses בָּלָה, נִשְׁחַק and נִתְפּוֹרֵר13 / ‘decay, vanish’, ‘to be pulverized’, and ‘to disintegrate’, and the LXX translates with ἐστερεώθη / ‘negated’, ‘taken away’, ‘destroyed’.

Could the translation “to destroy” in place of “to salt” illuminate the meaning of Mark 9:49? The new translation first must be tested in the immediate context. In the preceding verses Mark records Jesus’ warnings about offending “these little ones” and Jesus’ suggestions that one would be better off to rid himself of offending parts of his body than to be cast into hell, where the fire never goes out and “their worm does not die.” [14] It would fit this context perfectly to translate 9:49, “everyone [who is sent to hell] will be completely destroyed” (destroyed by fire).

Undoubtedly the Hebrew expression literally translated in Mark’s Greek source would have been understood figuratively by its first readers; but once the Gospel left the world of Palestinian Judaism and its Hebrew constituency, the meaning of the phrase was eventually forgotten and has remained ambiguous to most, though not all, interpreters throughout the Christian era. [15]

Conclusion

῾Αλιζω, then, is perhaps another example of the way in which the Greek lexicon needs to have its glosses expanded at certain points to take account of the multilingual situation in first century Palestine, a situation also much influenced by the LXX. This Septuagintal influence is already recognized by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker, who say in the introduction to their lexicon that “as for the influence of the LXX, every page of this lexicon shows that it outweighs all other influences on our literature.” [16]

There are a number of references in BAGD to Greek words whose semantic range was expanded by this multilingual influence. One of these is the word δίκαιος, used by Matthew in the narrative about Joseph, who was a “δίκαιος man” (Matt 1:19). Much better sense is made of the passage if one translates “merciful” for δίκαιος in this context, rather than “righteous,” and the translation “merciful” is suggested by BAGD. This accords well with the range of the Hebrew word צדקה, which either lies behind the Greek δίκαιος or influenced it. This is plausible because צדקה has a total semantic range which is broader than that of δίκαιος—a range which includes usages which are best glossed in English by the word “merciful.” [17]

There are a number of other words in the Greek lexicon which have been glossed too narrowly in English. One must not forget that usage defines meaning, and the meaning of a Greek word in the NT is what is meant to its writer and first readers. If that meaning was influenced by the use of Hebrew/Aramaic side by side with Greek, and by the sometimes rather literalistic rendering of the Hebrew OT into Greek in the LXX, then the most accurate glosses of Greek in any bilingual dictionary (such as our Greek-English lexicons) will be those which take account of these facts. There is yet much progress to be made in this area, and that progress is perhaps furthered yet a little more by understanding that in Mark 9:49 a Hebrew idiom was translated into Greek and is best glossed into English as suggested above.

Since Aramaic also has the verb מלח, if one prefers to posit Aramaic rather than Hebrew originals for the sources behind the Greek Synoptics, the interpretation suggested here would probably still be valid. [18] Everyone who is cast into hell will not be salted, but will be destroyed. [19]

Notes

1. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of Mark, vol. 2 in Helps for Translators (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961) 304.
2. Ezra P. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1896) 180.
3. Philip Blackman, trans., Order Kodashim, vol. 5 in Mishnayoth (Gateshead: Judaica, 1983) 43.
4. G. C. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, with a series of additional notes by I. Abrahams (3 vols.; London: Macmillan, 1909) 1.233; A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark (7th ed.; London: Methuen, 1949) 131; A. B. Bruce, “The Synoptic Gospels” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament (ed. W. Robertson Nicoll; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1897) 1.407; Henry Alford, Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids: Guardian, reprinted, 1976) 1.380; John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, vol. 1 in Calvin’s Commentaries (ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted, 1975) 176-77; H. A. W. Meyer, A Critical and Exegetical Hand-book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke (ed. R. E. Wallis, W. P. Dickson, and M. B. Riddle; New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884) 120-23; John Peter Lange, The Gospel According to Mark, revised with additions by W. G. T. Shedd, vol. 8 in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprinted, 1971) 90-91; William L. Lane, The Gospel According to Mark (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 349; Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes (Houston: Providential, 1982), 186–87; and F. F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983) 38-39.
5. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London and New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 102-3.
6. Cf. Robert L. Lindsey, “A Modified Two-Document Theory of the Synoptic Dependence and Interdependence,” NovT 6 (1963) 245-47; idem, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark (2d ed.; Jerusalem: Dugith, 1973) xxix-xxvi; and David Bivin and Roy B. Blizzard, Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus (Arcadia, CA: Makor Foundation, 1983). See also Weston W. Fields (“Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: A Review Article,” GTJ 5 [1984] 271-88) for a more complete listing of the articles and books supporting Hebrew originals for the Synoptics and those supporting Aramaic originals for the Synoptics.
7. Lindsey, A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark, xxix-xxvi.
8. Ibid., 125.
9. הברית החדשה (Jerusalem: החברות המאוחדות לכתבי הקודש, 1979).
10. הברית החדשה נעתהים מלשגן יון ללשון עפרית ,פראוף דעלטש (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1968).
11. Avraham Even-Shoshan, הַמִּלּוֹן הֶחָדָשׁ (Jerusalem: Kiryath Sefer, 1983 [Hebrew]) 697.
12. Reuben Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (Jerusalem: Massada, 198 1) col. 1345.
13. Ibid.
14. A hyperbole quoted from Isa 66:24, which evidently refers to an inexhaustible supply of dead bodies upon which worms may feed (and thus not die for lack of food).
15. After this article was completed, H. J. de Jonge (private communication, February 9, 1985) kindly pointed out that several centuries ago two well-known Dutch exegetes proposed this very interpretation. These interpreters provide independent confirmation of the plausibility of the solution to this passage suggested in this article, a solution which de Jonge calls “plausible indeed.” See H. Grotius, Annotationes in Libros Evangeliorum (Amsterdam: Cornelium Blaeu, 1641) 568-70; and J. Clericus, Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi (2d ed.; Frankfurt: Thomas Fritsch, 1714) 243-44.
16. BAGD, xxi.
17. See Alcalay, The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary, cols. 2155–56.
18. Although Marcus Jastrow (A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Bibli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [Brooklyn: P. Shalom, 1967] 788) does not suggest a gloss like “destroy” for the Aramaic verb, he does list contexts in which salt is considered as much an agent of destruction as it is an agent of preservation. The standard reference books for Aramaic backgrounds do not discuss this passage (cf. Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus [Edinburgh: Clark, 1902]; Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [3d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967); and J. A. Fitzmyer, Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament [London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1971]).
19. I.e., “punished.” This verse does not decide the question recently raised again in Fudge’s book (see n. 4 above) concerning everlasting punishment or annihilation of the wicked. If ἁλισθήσεται is a metaphorical term for the more common NT ἀπόλλυμι, it should probably be understood in the general theological sense of “perish” or “be lost” (see LSJ, 207).