Friday 7 January 2022

“Gifts” And Ministries In The Apostolic Fathers

By Kenneth Berding

[Kenneth Berding is Professor of New Testament in the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, La Mirada, CA.]

In both an academic article and book-length study I have argued that the primary category for organizing the items found in the Apostle Paul’s ministry lists (1 Cor 12:8–10, 28–30; Rom 12:6–8; Eph 4:11–12)—often referred to as “spiritual gifts”—should be that of ministry assignments rather than special abilities.[1] This view remains to be exegetically challenged. But one apprehension has surfaced repeatedly as I have lectured and corresponded with others on this topic, a concern that this article is designed to address. Namely, it seems to be widely assumed among many contemporary readers of the Bible that Christians throughout history have everywhere and always viewed the items found in Paul’s ministry lists simply as special God-given abilities. Some with whom I have dialogued on this topic look askance at me—as though I am someone who relishes overturning established consensuses of church history when I suggest that this is not correct. That is, in their minds Christians have always tried to discover their hidden spiritual talents so they can use them in ministry since Christians have always viewed the items in Paul’s ministry lists simply as God-given abilities. But one looks in vain for evidence of such a consensus until recent times. Kenneth Radant notes,

Relatively little work has been done on the history of spiritual gift teaching as such. Prior to the advent of the Pentecostal/charismatic movement at the turn of the 20th century, there was relatively little to be explored. I do not mean that the church had no notion of the charismata before 1900. From the earliest centuries, Christian authors have preached and commented on 1 Cor 12, Rom 12, and Eph 4, and discussed prophecy, tongues, and miracles.… But the attempt to distill a specific theology of spiritual gifts—one that defines a particular category or class of unique capacities for ministry granted to Christians, that names those capacities, explains their distinguishing qualities, tells believers how to identify which they have, and advises on their application to church ministry structures—that sort of literature is all but impossible to find before the most recent chapters in church history.[2]

I am not competent to answer the question of how the so-called gifts[3] have been viewed throughout the entire history of the Christian church.[4] But I am competent to answer such a question in conversation with the literature of the earliest Christian authors, the Apostolic Fathers (henceforth AFs).[5] I have spent a substantial portion of my academic career studying and teaching in the literature of the early second century, centered on the person of Polycarp of Smyrna. So in this article I propose to bring together two areas of academic interest to me, the writings of the AFs and the study of Paul’s theology of “gifts” and their relationship to ministry with the hope that people will pause before they place upon early church history a flawed understanding of spiritual gifts.

The premise of this article is that the authors of the period we refer to as the “Apostolic Fathers” possessed no separate theology of spiritual gifts as special abilities; rather, when the AFs thought of the items we normally call “gifts,” they thought of them primarily within the category of ministry assignments that are graciously given by God for the building up of his church. Granted, during the period of the AFs—a period of transition—ministry assignments were more likely than during the apostolic period to be viewed as connected to the offices of bishop (especially), elder, or deacon, though not always. Nevertheless, for the AFs, these items belong primarily in the category of ministry assignments rather than in the category of special abilities, as they are frequently categorized today. (And during the period of the AFs, an understanding of every-member ministry assignments continued, even if such an understanding was on the decrease.) This article will seek to demonstrate that the AFs thought of the so-called spiritual gifts as God-given ministry assignments that are empowered by God rather than as special abilities people possess, as many view them today. Such a demonstration will support my previous contention that the Apostle Paul (the NT theologian of the “gifts”) also viewed such items primarily in the category of ministry assignments.[6]

If my thesis is successfully demonstrated, it should lay to rest the common assumption that Christians have always viewed the so-called spiritual gifts merely as God-given abilities since this would not be the case in the first half of the second century. Furthermore, if the first Christian authors after the apostles were not employing a special-abilities category when they approached the area we often refer to as spiritual gifts, it should cause us to reconsider whether some of us are currently working under the influence of a paradigm that did not emerge until later in history.

My method is to seek to answer four questions in dialogue with the writings of the AFs. The rest of this article will be organized according to these four questions:

  1. How are words sometimes translated as “gift” used in the AFs?
  2. Are there any allusions to Paul’s ministry passages in the AFs?
  3. Is there a theology of special powers or abilities in the AFs?
  4. Is there a theology of ministry assignments in the AFs?

Throughout this study our operative question will be: Does [a particular passage] comport better with the understanding that the so-called spiritual gifts belong primarily in the category of special abilities (the conventional view of spiritual gifts), or does this passage work better within the category of ministry assignments (the biblical alternative I have previously argued), or is something else altogether going on in a given AF passage?

I. Words Translated “Gift” In The Apostolic Fathers

Words appearing in the AFs that are sometimes translated “gift” in English include the following:

  1. δωρεά
  2. δῶρον
  3. δώρημα
  4. εὐεργεσία
  5. χάρισμα7

How are these words used in the AFs? Let’s look at each in turn.

Δωρεά in the AFs is most commonly used for general blessings that have been given from God (1 Clem. 19.2; 23.2) or that will be given by God in the future (1 Clem. 35.4; Mart. Pol. 20.2). In one passage “the priests and Levites who minister at the altar of God”8 are included among these general gifts given by God (1 Clem. 32.1–2). Δωρεά is once metaphorically used of the covenant that God “implants” in his people (Barn. 9.9), and once of the grace of God that comes through the death of Christ (Ign. Smyrn. 7.1). In Barn. 1.2 there is a small possibility that the author has Paul’s Rom 1:11 in the back of his mind, although the connection to Paul is no more than a weak possibility.9 Barnabas 1.2 reads: “so deeply implanted is the grace of the spiritual gift that you have received” (οὕτως ἔμφυτον τῆς δωρεᾶς πνευματικῆς χάριν εἰλήφατε). “Barnabas” uses this clause to explain the basis upon which he believes that the recipient congregation has received the Holy Spirit.10 But it should be noticed that the only basis “Barnabas” mentions in the passage is “great faith and love [that] dwell in you, through the hope of his life” (1.4), that is, his basis is general graces rather than anything specific.[11]

Δῶρον (always in the plural in the AFs) variously refers to the gifts offered to God by Abel (1 Clem. 4.2); to general blessings given by God, such as “life in immortality, splendor in righteousness, truth with boldness” (1 Clem. 35.1); to the “sacrifices” offered by the bishops[12] (1 Clem. 44.4); and to general blessings linked with God’s promises (Herm. 10.1[13]).

Δώρημα is twice used in the Shepherd of Hermas to refer to money and possessions that God has given to his people that need to be shared with the poor (Herm. 27.4; 51.7). In the first of these references (27.4) the author turns his discussion toward the ministry of giving, a ministry which in context appears to be one of the “gifts” that his readers have received from God (Herm. 27.6).[14] This may also be the case in the second instance as well (51.7) since he finishes by asserting that someone who gives such gifts “fulfills the ministry” (Herm. 51.7b).[15]

Εὐεργεσία (lit. “good deed”) in the AFs can refer to general blessings from God (1 Clem 19.2; 21.1; 38.3) or to blessings that accompany salvation (Did. 8.11; 9.5).

Χάρισμα is used variously in the AFs.[16] Ignatius once uses χάρισμα to refer to “the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ” (Ign. Eph. 17.2).[17] The Didachist uses it in the more concrete sense of material blessings given from God that should be shared with those who are poor (Did. 1.5). The word is also used in three of the five contexts that connect more closely with Paul’s writings on “spiritual gifts,” each of which will be dealt with in more detail in the next section.

What do we learn from this summary of words in the AFs sometimes translated into English as “gift”? We observe that, like the NT, words found in this domain can be used in a general sense for gracious blessings given from God. We also learn that such words can be infused with particularized meaning if a writer wants to apply a given word to something more specific. Furthermore, we notice that there has been (so far in our study) no clear example of a passage where an author is using any of these words to refer to what are presently called spiritual gifts (and understood in our contemporary context by many as special abilities). We should note that it is possible for a word translated as “gift” to be applied to instances when God-given ministry assignments (Herm. 27.4) or persons in their ministry assignments (1 Clem. 32.1–2) are in view.

II. Probable Allusions To Paul’s Ministry Passages In The Apostolic Fathers

There are only a few likely allusions to Paul’s “spiritual gifts” passages in the AFs, and insofar as they connect with Paul, they are the passages of greatest interest for this study. The first of these is 1 Clem. 37.5–38.2. “Clement”[18] writes,

Let us take our body (as an example). The head without the feet is nothing; neither are the feet without the head. But the least members of our body are essential and useful to the whole body; but all work together and unite in subjection that the whole body might be saved. Therefore let our entire body be saved in Christ Jesus, and let each person be subject to his neighbor, just as he/it … was appointed/placed … in … his/His/its χάρισμα.[19] The strong must not neglect the weak, and the weak must respect the strong. (trans. mine)

That this is dependent upon Paul’s language and thought in 1 Cor 12 is supported by the following considerations: (1) Clement employs body language in a letter written to the church in Corinth, as does Paul in 1 Cor 12:12–27. (2) Clement mentions that the least members are useful to the whole body (cf. 1 Cor 12:14–24). (3) He employs “feet” in particular (cf. 1 Cor 12:15). (4) He employs the verb τίθημι which Paul also uses (cf. 1 Cor 12:18, 28). (5) He draws upon the word χάρισμα which Paul uses five times in 1 Cor 12. (6) Moreover, ἕκαστος in 1 Clem. 38.1 connects with 1 Cor 12:18 (cf. 12:7, 11). (7) Possible further support is found in his use of the language of subjection, which has similarities to another Pauline passage that employs body imagery, Eph 5:21–24. (8) Finally, his use of “the formula ὅλον τὸ σῶμα ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (38.1) seems … reminiscent of Romans 12:4, ”[20] which is another key Pauline passage that uses body imagery. There is no reason to doubt that Clement has the thought of Paul—and of 1 Cor 12 in particular—hovering in the background of his thoughts as he writes this section.

But what does Clement intend in the final and key clause of 38.1? Unless one insists that somehow the word χάρισμα on its own carries the entire theology of spiritual-gifts-as-abilities on its back, it would appear that the way most contemporary translations render the syntax of καθὼς καὶ ἐτέθη ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι αὐτοῦ is not the natural way to render it.[21] Τίθημι in such contexts is usually translated as “placed” or “appointed”[22] and the intertextual connection of this phrase with 1 Cor 12:18 and 28 suggests that “placed” or “appointed” is the correct translation here. The antecedent of the unstated subject of the passive verb is most easily viewed as the masculine ἕκαστος (rather than σῶμα[23]), which would result in a translation of this clause as “just as he was placed/appointed in his χάρισμα.”

In the end, we will be reduced to interpreting the word χάρισμα and the clauses in which that word is found in light of what can be inferred about its meaning in the immediate contexts and through comparison of other uses of the word in the AFs and in dialogue with the attendant theology found in the AFs (see the following two main sections of this article). This particular passage, because of its language of placement or appointing would seem to support the ministry assignments idea over the special abilities idea, and this suggestion is bolstered by the range of the gifts words (see above), and the general theology (see below).

The second place we encounter a connection with Paul’s so-called spiritual gifts passages in the AFs is 1 Clem. 46.6–7, which reads: “Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel against our own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another?”

This passage does not actually contain any “gift” words. But the passage nevertheless seems to be alluding to the thought of the Apostle Paul, even if Clement “has no particular Pauline text in mind.”[24] That it is connected with the types of passages in Paul that are of interest to us in this study is supported by the following considerations: (1) The similarities with Eph 4:4–6, especially in the repetition of the word “one,” and in particular the “one Spirit” and “one calling,” likely connect the passages. (2) The “Spirit of grace poured out upon us,” like Rom 5:5, links the pouring out metaphor with the Holy Spirit (though this connection is found elsewhere in Scripture, most significantly in Joel 2:28–29; cf. Acts 2:17–18). (3) “Tear and rip apart the members of Christ” has conceptual similarities to “but if you bite and devour one another” in Gal 5:15, and this connection is strengthened because of the “one another” language in both passages.[25] (4) The use of the word “members” and in particular “members of one another” is standard language in the so-called spiritual gifts passages in Paul (Rom 12:5; 1 Cor 12:25; cf. Eph 4:25).

But what does this add to our discussion? When Clement connects to the kind of language Paul uses in his spiritual gifts passages, he feels no compulsion to include any comment about (or hint at) special abilities given by God. This passage is simply about unity, sharing the same calling, not tearing apart one another, and being members of one another. And this fits much better with the thesis that the primary category in which Paul thinks of the so-called spiritual gifts is that of ministry assignments rather than that of special abilities.

A third passage that may connect to Paul’s “spiritual gifts” discussions is 1 Clem. 48.5–6: “Let one be faithful, let one be able to expound knowledge, let one be wise in the interpretation of discourses, let one be energetic in deeds, let one be pure; for the greater one seems to be, the more one ought to be humble, and the more one ought to seek the common advantage of all, and not of oneself.”

Hagner’s assessment that this passage is in fact dependent upon Paul’s 1 Cor 12:8–10 may be correct. Hagner comments:

Paul continues listing gifts, mentioning a total of nine, but it is significant that Clement mentions the first three in this list. Clement reverses the order of these gifts, but the parallelism is unmistakable.… The fact that Clement refers to these gifts in a context concerned with humility and the common good of all, adds to the probability that he is alluding to 1 Cor 12 (cf. Clement’s τὸ κοινωφελὲς πᾶσιν [48.6] with the πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον of 1 Cor. 12.7).[26]

If this passage does in fact depend upon Paul, what do we learn about our operative question from this passage? Does Clement’s list seem to point more toward special abilities or more toward ministry assignments? One thing we learn is that Clement can mix together into a single list items that we would normally not expect to be found in the same list. Clement combines in a single list Christian qualities (such as faithfulness and purity), activities that require skill (expounding knowledge; wisdom in interpretation), and a general description of spiritual activities (energetic in deeds), all set in the broader context of “holiness and righteousness” (v. 4). Although Clement might have been assuming that God gave some sort of special empowering for the knowledge and wisdom, it could also be that he was simply thinking of someone studying hard to get knowledge in order to teach it, or of someone learning how to grow in wisdom as he walks through life as a Christian. There is little (if any) connection with a theology of spiritual-gifts-as-abilities entering into this passage, despite the fact that it seems to connect conceptually with Paul’s most miraculous-leaning “spiritual gifts” passage, 1 Cor 12:8–10. Another way of saying this is that you do not get what you expect in this passage even if you are peering at it through a special-abilities lens.

Ignatius presents two apparent allusions to 1 Cor 1:7 in his letters, one in his letter to Polycarp (2.2) and one in the salutation of his letter to the church in Smyrna (where Polycarp served in ministry).

Ignatius, To Polycarp 2.2 reads: “But ask, in order that the unseen things may be revealed to you, so that you may be lacking in nothing and abound in every χάρισμα.” This seems to have some connection with Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 1:7: “so that you are not lacking in any χάρισμα.” That 1 Cor 1:7 is somehow in the back of Ignatius’s mind is supported by the following considerations: (1) Ignatius uses the same word χάρισμα, which is a word that is rather Pauline in and of itself.[27] (2) Ignatius mentions the same idea (even though he employs different wording) as Paul’s idea of “lacking,” via his use of λείπω (and also the contrasting “abounding”—περισσεύω). (3) This appears in the context of speech and knowledge (cf. “in order that the unseen things may be revealed to you” and “that in everything you were enriched in Him, in all speech and all knowledge.” (4) This passage is mutually reinforcing with the salutation of Ign. Smyrn. (see discussion below), which was sent at the same time to the same congregation (Smyrna) that Polycarp was leading; and both seem to allude to the same passage in Paul.

Otherwise, it is not at all clear what Ignatius intends when he writes to Polycarp in this passage. Is he referring to the ministry roles Polycarp exercises among the Smyrnaeans, or perhaps to Polycarp’s prophetic-ness? The second of these options would seem to be supported by “in order that the unseen things may be revealed to you,” the line that comes immediately before the one that concerns us. The problem is that “in order that the unseen things may be revealed to you” seems to lead into the line that follows it rather than being conceptually coextensive with it. In other words, it appears that Ignatius is encouraging Polycarp to pray that the unseen things might be revealed to him in order that he will be lacking in nothing and might abound in every χάρισμα (whatever χάρισμα means here). The other option is that Ignatius is saying that Polycarp should be praying that he can have prophetic words so that the particular piece of his arsenal of “gifts” (whatever they actually are) is not lacking.

But if one insists that χάρισμα here means special spiritual ability because of the likely allusion to 1 Cor 1:7, this begs the question of what the word means in 1 Cor 1:7. I have argued elsewhere that it is wrongheaded to impose such theology from the outside upon 1 Cor 1:7, since that passage has few contextual clues, and thus χάρισμα in that passage is dependent upon other passages for its definition.[28] Those who assume that the word χάρισμα means special ability everywhere it appears in 1 Corinthians (including 1:7) will likely do an “illegitimate totality transfer” of that concept onto Ign. Pol. 2.2.[29] Those who see ministry assignments as the primary category in 1 Corinthians (and Rom 12 and Eph 4) will likely see this as one additional item in Ignatius’s category of ministry assignments.

A similar allusion to 1 Cor 1:7 may also be seen in Ign. Smyrn. Salutation: “Ignatius the Image-bearer to the church of God the Father and of the beloved Jesus Christ at Smyrna in Asia, mercifully endowed with every χάρισμα, filled with faith and love, not lacking in any χάρισμα, most worthy of God, bearing holy things: heartiest greetings in a blameless spirit and the word of God.” Ignatius here in the salutation seems to allude to 1 Cor 1:7 for the following reasons: (1) As in Ign. Pol. 2.2 he employs the concept of “lacking,” as does Paul in 1 Cor 1:7. (2) He twice uses the word χάρισμα, a very Pauline term. (3) This is reinforced by comparing the similar connection in Ign. Pol. 2.2, which is a letter sent by the same author (Ignatius) to the same location (Smyrna) at the same time as the letter to Polycarp, and both passages appear to allude to the same passage in Paul. (4) It is used in the introduction of the letter to a congregation, as are Paul’s comments in 1 Cor 1:7, suggesting that Ignatius is knowingly doing something similar to what Paul did in the beginning of his Corinthian letter.

The problem with this passage, as with its counterpart in Ign. Pol. 2.2, as well as with the passage to which it alludes, 1 Cor 1:7, is that there is little in any of these three passages to indicate what the two authors (Ignatius and Paul) were thinking when they employed these terms. If one were left to try to figure it out from the salutation of Ign. Smyrn. alone, one would probably reckon χάρισμα to be general grace from God that corresponds with “faith and love” (the next line). In support of this thought is the fact that the Smyrnaeans who are the recipients of the letter are also called “most worthy of God” and “bearing holy things.” Perhaps 1.1 may add one more hint: “I glorify Jesus Christ, the God who made you so wise.” Perhaps Ignatius’s use of χάρισμα is pointing toward the wisdom that the Smyrnaeans have received from God. Besides these clues, to define this word we are dependent upon 1 Cor 1:7 (which helps us little), by looking at the way χάρισμα is used elsewhere (which suggests a fairly broad range of uses, all of which somehow manifest God’s concrete grace), and by observing the theology (or lack of it) of either abilities/powers or ministry assignments found throughout the AFs and the NT. But in this immediate passage there is nothing to indicate that Ignatius is thinking about special abilities, even if there is also little to suggest that this word points toward ministry assignments. Rather, it looks like Ignatius may simply be writing about general spiritual realities that are true in the Smyrnaean congregation but that do not connect with our operative question.

What about Polycarp? Polycarp is an important Christian of the second century[30] who connects closely with Paul, seen in how often he alludes to his writings (half of his quotations and allusions are from Paul), in his desire to imitate him, and in his use of Pauline theological concepts.[31] Nevertheless, he shows no interest at all in even mentioning any concept of spiritual gifts as abilities. And this is despite the fact that Polycarp has many opportunities to work such a concept into his letter. His letter is all about building up the Philippians in “righteousness.” There are few better opportunities if an author is working within an abilities framework to bring in spiritual-gifts-as-abilities, the way many contemporary church leaders would desire for such a writing. But Polycarp does not do this. In the one passage (Pol. Phil. 2.2) where he most closely approaches one of Paul’s “spiritual gifts” passages (Rom 12), he ends up tying into the second half of Rom 12, rather than the first half, which is the part contemporary Christians who are interested in spiritual gifts would hope he would connect to. Then a few sentences later, just after he refers directly to Paul (Pol. Phil. 3.1) and hints at the Pauline metaphor of building up in the faith (3.2), Polycarp writes that as long as a person is “occupied” with “love for God and Christ and for our neighbor,” he “has fulfilled the commandment of righteousness” (3.3).[32] Such a general statement of love for God and neighbor seems adequate for Polycarp when he conceptually approaches Paul’s ministry list (Rom 12:6–8) in his own letter.

III. A Theology Of Special Powers Or Abilities In The Apostolic Fathers?

One way of clarifying our thoughts on this topic is to inquire whether there is evidence that the AFs were actually thinking in the categories that we often use to discuss ministry. Did the AFs think in the category of special powers or abilities? Did they think in the category of ministry assignments? Did they possess a theology of either? The first question will be taken up in this section, and the second of these questions will be taken up in the section that follows.

Following is every passage I could find in the AFs where some sort of ability/enablement/empowering might conceivably play a part.[33]

The final sentence of 1 Clem. 38.2 reads: “Let the one who is physically pure remain so and not boast, recognizing that it is someone else who grants this self-control.” That this sentence suggests some sort of empowering from God for sexual purity seems clear. That this sentence points toward a special ability for celibacy is not at all clear and appears to read in more than the author probably intended.[34] Simply stated, this passage seems simply to affirm the idea that the person who does not succumb to sexually-orientated temptations has been empowered by God to resist temptation, which may mean little more than God has empowered the person to do what he has called him to do.

Philip of Side in the fifth century claims to have had access in some way to the writings of Papias (one of the early second-century AFs).[35] Papias, we learn, mentions “that Barsabbas, who was also called Justus, drank the poison of a snake in the name of Christ when put to the test by the unbelievers and was protected from all harm.” Then in v. 7 we are told more about Papias: “He also records other amazing things, in particular one about Manaim’s mother, who was raised from the dead.” What we learn from this is that Papias was an early second-century witness to the ongoing belief in miracles. What it does not tell us is whether Papias has any sort of theology of spiritual gifts to which he would have connected these activities (assuming that Philip of Side has accurately described what Papias wrote).

Ignatius testifies to his belief that prophecy is ongoing in the second century, but we see this in his own view of himself as a prophet (which seems in his mind to be connected to his role as a bishop).[36] He tells the Christians at Ephesus that he intends to write a second letter to them “especially if the Lord reveals anything to me” (Ign. Eph. 20.2). To the Trallians he comments, “I have many deep thoughts in union with God” (Ign. Trall. 4.1). To the Philadelphians he writes, “I called out when I was with you; I was speaking with a loud voice, God’s voice: ‘Pay attention to the bishop, the council of presbyters, and the deacons.’ To be sure, there were those who suspected that I said these things because I know in advance.… No, the Spirit itself was preaching, saying these words” (Ign. Phld. 7.1–2). Ignatius understands himself to have spoken a former prophecy about some divisions that actually happened.[37] That Ignatius thinks that other bishops also are to prophesy is supported by his words to Polycarp that we have already quoted in an earlier context: “But ask, in order that the unseen things may be revealed to you” (Ign. Pol. 2.2).[38]

The Shepherd of Hermas is itself a series of prophecies and revelations set in an apocalyptic genre. The author considers the words that he writes to be prophecy. He is a witness to the belief that prophecy is ongoing in the second century.

The Didache contains a clear testimony to the ongoing belief in the roles of both prophets and apostles during the time it was composed (Did. 10.7–13.7). Of course, the problem with this section of the Didache is that it is difficult to know when, where, and to whom it was originally composed, and furthermore, when it was brought together with the rest of the document.[39] Nor do we know how representative it is of early Christianity. Still, although it exhibits the ongoing belief in prophets and apostles, it lacks an explicit theology of empowering or ability.

In the Martyrdom of Polycarp, some miracles are mentioned as occurring. Polycarp sees one vision (5.2; cf. 12.3), he hears an encouraging voice from heaven as he enters the stadium (9.1), fire changes shape when he is on the pyre, and the burning scent is strangely pleasant (15.2). His body is not consumed by the fire, a dove comes out of his side when he is stabbed with a dagger, and the blood extinguishes the fire (16.1). More closely related to our question, perhaps, is the suggestion that earlier martyrs in Smyrna (2.2–3), and Polycarp himself (12.1; 13.3), were somehow divinely enabled to endure during their sufferings.

In another passage we have already observed, Clement writes, “Let one be faithful, let one be able to expound knowledge, let one be wise in the interpretation of discourses, let one be energetic in deeds, let one be pure” (1 Clem. 48.5). Clement’s list is a mixed list of general activities of faithfulness, one pious quality, and two items that could be viewed as more charismatic, namely, the two lines “let one be able to expound knowledge” and “let one be wise in the interpretation of discourses.” But, as we have already noted, these could also be general instructions that his readers learn things in order to teach them, and to gain wisdom about how to interpret “discourses” (“knowledge”—γνῶσις in the plural). So this may not in fact add anything to our attempt to find a theology of special abilities in the AFs.

In the paragraphs I have just written, I have included every passage I was able to mine from the AFs to try to support the idea that there existed a theology of special abilities during the time of the AFs. But my attempt comes up short; what is most obvious is how little material there is in this section. As a result, it must be concluded from this survey that a theology of special abilities or powers is almost entirely lacking in the AFs.[40] We do possess enough comments to confirm that there was a continuing belief in prophecy and prophets during this period, though in one case, that of Ignatius, it appears that he thought that the function of prophecy was located particularly in the bishops (including himself).[41]

What is far more important than the few snippets strung together to try to support the idea of spiritual gifts as abilities in the second century are the many times one expects to see a theology of special abilities employed by an author when it is not. I am thinking in particular of the many ethical and ecclesial contexts where “spiritual gifts” would be invoked if such a discussion were being held in the early part of the twenty-first century. Of course someone might complain that this is an argument from silence. But there are many (many!) contexts (as will be seen in the next section) in which a theology of spiritual gifts as abilities could have been employed by the AFs if in fact such a theology was important for Christians living in the first half of the second century. But based upon what we are able to cull from the extant writings of the AFs, we must conclude that although these authors believed that miraculous activities still occurred and that prophecy was ongoing, there is no evidence that the early second-century Christian authors were thinking along the lines of a theological category of spiritual gifts as abilities. It is difficult even to find evidence that such a concept was floating around in their presuppositional pools.

IV. A Theology Of Ministry Assignments In The Apostolic Fathers?

In contrast to the scant evidence that might be drawn upon to support a theology of special abilities in the AFs, even a casual reader of the AFs will be confronted with the preponderance of references to ministry assignments in these writings. Is there a theology of ministry assignments in the AFs? The following section will seek to demonstrate that such a theology is not only present, it is conspicuous. If it can be demonstrated that the general theme of ministry assignments is prominent in the AFs, it would seem sensible to employ that category as a starting point for a discussion of the nature of the so-called spiritual gifts rather than a presumed category of discoverable spiritual abilities which is weakly—if at all as a category—attested in the AFs.

1. Clement Of Rome On Ministry Assignments

First Clement was written from the leaders of the church in Rome to Corinth to deal with the “few reckless and arrogant persons” (1.1) who had caused a schism in Corinth. In addition, these Roman elders (among which “Clement” may have been either a lead elder or perhaps the primary drafter of the letter) were also seeking to write instructions that were “particularly helpful for a virtuous life, at least for those who wished to guide their steps in holiness and righteousness” (62.1). In such a context, we learn quite a lot about what the elders in Rome thought about ministry assignments.

Clement evinces a clear understanding of the importance of leadership and the need for people in the church to submit to leaders (1.3; 54.2). He refers to the faithful leadership work that Moses did as “his service” (διὰ τῆς ὑπηρεσίας αὐτοῦ) (17.5).[42] Clement, in line with the OT (cf. Num 8:19; 18:6), views the priests and Levites who do ministry as “gifts” (32.1–2).

The key section for our study is chs. 40–44. Clement begins by reviewing the ancient offerings made by the priests “at the appointed times” (40.1, 4) since God himself “has determined by his supreme will” when they are to be offered. “For to the high priest the proper services have been given, and to the priests the proper office has been assigned, and upon the Levites the proper ministries have been imposed” (40.5). Similarly, this is how it should be among the leadership in Corinth, with no one “overstepping the designated rule of his ministry” (41.1).

This moves Clement toward the argument from the apostolic appointment of bishops and deacons (chs. 42–45). Since these leaders were appointed by the apostles, the people of the Corinthian congregation ought to be in submission to them and not try to undermine God’s appointed order. But within this discussion we notice once again how often Clement appeals to the idea of ministry assignments. The apostles first “received their orders” (42.3). Then the apostles “appointed their first fruits” (42.4). Though not able to recall the passage, Clement cites a “scripture” that says: “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith” (42.5). Clement goes on to say, “And is it any wonder that those who in Christ were entrusted by God with such a word appointed the leaders just mentioned?” (43.1). He appeals again to the analogy of the choosing of the Levites (whom he has previously called “gifts” in 32.1–2): “And [God] said to them, ‘Brothers, the tribe whose rod blossoms is the one God has chosen to be priests and to minister to him’” (43.4).

Clement then summarizes his central concern in 44.1–3, a passage that clearly evinces a theology of ministry assignments.[43]

Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. These, therefore, who were appointed by them or, later on, by other reputable men with the consent of the whole church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ blamelessly, humbly, peaceably, and unselfishly, and for a long time have been well-spoken of by all—these we consider to be unjustly removed from their ministry. (italics mine)

He adds that the elders in Corinth should not be removed “from their established place” (44.5), by which he means “the ministry that had been held in honor by them blamelessly” (44.6).

Even a concept of every-member ministry seems still to be a current reality for Clement and company. “Do we not have one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace that was poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ? Why do we … forget that we are members of one another?” (46.6–7). And when he gives instructions about entering by the “Christian gate,” he writes, “Let one be faithful, let one be able to expound knowledge, let one be wise in the interpretation of discourses, let one be energetic in deeds … and the more one ought to seek the common advantage of all, and not of oneself” (48.5–6). We can thus see that the every-member-ministry idea is still around, even if it is muted in comparison to the more developed theology of ministry assignments for Christian leaders.

Thus, for “Clement,” ministry roles are given by God; the people in those ministries are appointed to those ministries; the assignments are described as something that they have; and people in such ministry roles are gifts from God to his people.

2. Ignatius Of Antioch On Ministry Assignments

Ignatius writes seven letters as he travels toward Rome to be thrown to the wild beasts. He is intensely concerned that sound doctrine be preserved, and appears to believe that such preservation can best be accomplished by centralizing authority in a single bishop in each church.[44] He believes that ministry is best accomplished when it is administered through the bishop to whom strict obedience is due (Ign. Eph. 4.1; 5.1; 6.1; Magn. 3.1; Phld. 3.2; Smyrn. 8.1–2; 9.1). Surprisingly, Ignatius does not make his argument on the basis of apostolic appointment (as we observed in 1 Clement), though that would seem to have strengthened his argument; rather, he simply observes that the leaders of the church have been appointed by God.

But Ignatius also displays a clear theology of ministry assignments. It will be seen that like 1 Clement, the focus of most of Ignatius’s comments about ministry assignments is upon the offices of bishop, elder, and deacon, which he sometimes mentions as a threesome (Ign. Magn. 2.1; 6.1; 13.1–2; Trall. 3.1–2; Phld. 4.1; Smyrn. 8.1; 12.1), though a few ministry assignments appear to be more ad hoc. In the salutation of the letter to the Philadelphians, he says that all three, bishops, elders, and deacons, “have been appointed by the mind of Jesus Christ, whom he, in accordance with his own will, securely established by his Holy Spirit.” Let us look at each of these positions in turn (italics in the quotations are mine).

Bishops. Ignatius opines that “the bishops appointed throughout the world are in the mind of Christ” (Ign. Eph. 3.2). He is concerned about the church in Antioch from which he has been forcibly removed by the Roman soldiers and comments that the church will have to have “God for its shepherd in my place.” Concerning the bishop of the church in Philadelphia, he notes, “I know that the bishop obtained a ministry (which is for the whole community) not by his own efforts” (Ign. Phld. 1.1). And in his letter to Polycarp, he refers to Polycarp as the bishop in Smyrna (Ign. Pol. Salutation) and to his ministry there as his “place” (σου τὸν τόπον, Ign. Pol. 1.2; cf. Ign. Magn. 6.1). These references clearly indicate that in Ignatius’s mind, the role of bishop is a ministry assignment.

Elders. Ignatius does not emphasize elders (πρεσβύτεροι) as often as he does the role of bishop, nor, interestingly, as often as he does the role of deacon (considered below) which he ranks below the office of elder. I would suggest, though I cannot prove it, that this might have been because he was having trouble with his own elders in Antioch before he was taken away from there. Nevertheless, it is clear that he views the role of an elder as a ministry assignment. He is happy with the elders in Ephesus of whom he says they are “attuned to the bishop as strings to a lyre” (Ign. Eph. 4.1). Congregants in Tralles and Philadelphia are to be in subjection to the elders (Ign. Trall. 13.2; Ign. Phld. 8.1). He considers the elders to be “in the place of the council of the apostles” and for the people to be subject “to the council of presbyters as to the apostles of Jesus Christ.” He further instructs the Smyrnaeans, “Follow the council of presbyters as you would the apostles” (Ign. Smyrn. 8.1; cf. Ign. Magn. 6.1; Ign. Trall. 2.1–3). But lest anyone should think that Ignatius has raised the elders above everyone by connecting them (as a council) to the council of the apostles, note that in these same verses he views the bishop as “in the place of God,” instructs that the people “do nothing without the bishop,” and instructs them that they “must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father”! Clearly, Ignatius wants the bishop to be the center of leadership. Regardless of his emphases, it is also clear that Ignatius has ministry assignments in mind as he writes, and that one of these ministry assignments is that of elder.

Deacons. Ignatius also views deacons as serving in ministry assignments and uses language that explicitly shows this. Though “deacon” can also be translated simply as “servant,” in this paragraph we are looking at those places where it seems more likely to be a recognized office. To the Magnesians, he mentions that the deacons “are especially dear to me, since they have been entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ” (Ign. Magn. 6.1). To the Trallians, he writes, “Furthermore, it is necessary that those who are deacons of the mysteries of Jesus Christ please everyone in every respect. For they are not merely deacons of food and drink but ministers of God’s church” (Ign. Trall. 2.3). And to the Philadelphians Ignatius refers to the deacons as “my fellow servants” (συνδούλοι, Ign. Phld. 4.1).

Beyond Ignatius’s Three. Although Ignatius is keen (keener than all the other AFs) to centralize authority in a monarchial bishop and to a lesser degree in the elders and deacons who cluster around the bishop, there is still some evidence that he has regard for other ministry assignments. In Ign. Phld. 10.1–2, Ignatius instructs the Philadelphians “to appoint a διάκονος (“servant,” perhaps “deacon”; Ign. Phld. 10.1) to go there on a mission as God’s ambassador.” He calls “blessed” the one “who will be judged worthy of such ministry” (Ign. Phld. 10.2). This could be a person who is already in a leadership role (as 10.2 shows in relation to neighboring churches), but it is not necessarily so, as the verses that immediately follow suggest. In 11.1, Ignatius mentions two of his traveling partners, Philo, whom he seems to have picked up when he passed through Cilicia, and Rhaius Agathopus who “followed me from Syria” (Ign. Phld. 11.1). But in both cases their function of service to Ignatius is emphasized rather than any position per se. Granted, Philo is called “the διάκονος [“servant”? “deacon”?] from Cilicia,” but his function is at the forefront (“who even now assists me in the word of God”). Rhaius Agathopus is simply called “a chosen man who followed me from Syria, having renounced this life.” He apparently had no leadership assignment in Syria before this moment, nor may have Philo, though there is no clear way to determine it for certain. The idea that their function rather than their position is at the forefront is supported by the mention of Burrhus, which comes right afterward (Ign. Phld. 11.2).[45] This sentence suggests that Burrhus was sent by the Smyrnaeans and the Ephesians to travel along with Ignatius as a support to him and as his amanuensis[46] when Ignatius wrote letters back to the Philadelphians and the Smyrnaeans (and Polycarp) after his visit. This would mean that Burrhus’s ministry assignment was simply that of a short-term encourager, scribe, and perhaps letter carrier.

In light of this, it is likely that when Ignatius instructs both the church in Smyrna and Polycarp in particular (the bishop, or perhaps lead elder, of that church) to appoint someone to be sent back to Syria, he does not have to specify that it needs to be a person who is already an elder or a deacon. That person simply has to be someone who can function as a “godly ambassador” (Ign. Smyrn. 11.2) and someone who is “especially dear and resolute, who is qualified to be called God’s courier” (Ign. Pol. 7.2). But that this “courier” and “ambassador” role is a ministry assignment is confirmed by the use of the words “appoint” (Ign. Smyrn. 11.2; Ign. Pol. 7.2), “send” (Ign. Smyrn. 11.3), and the greeting to “the one who is about to be commissioned” to go to Syria (Ign. Pol. 8.2).

On an even more mundane level, Ignatius encourages people to be subject to one another in addition to their subjection to the bishop (Ign. Magn. 13.1–2). He also greets “the virgins who are called widows” (Ign. Smyrn. 13.1), likely a reference to a group of women who have some sort of specially focused ministry assignment. This suggestion is supported by the linking of these women to Ignatius’s greeting of the household of “my brothers,” which may refer to those engaged in ministry in Smyrna rather than simply to believers in general.

Finally, there is one chapter that evinces that every-member ministry is still alive in Ignatius’s mind, even if his emphasis has become more focused on the ministry of the bishop. In his letter to Polycarp, Ignatius unexpectedly switches his addressee from Polycarp and begins to instruct the congregation throughout ch. 6.[47] That he is addressing the congregation is clear from 6.1 where he writes instructions (in a letter to Polycarp, the bishop): “Pay attention to the bishop, in order that God may pay attention to you.” Then he continues to write about obedience to the bishop, elders, and deacons in the next line, so he cannot be addressing elders and deacons at this point. And what does he instruct the congregation to do? He writes: “Train together with one another: compete together, run together, suffer together, rest together, get up together, as God’s managers, assistants, and servants. Please the one whom you serve as soldiers” (Ign. Pol. 6.1–2a). In other words, they are to serve together in the various ministry assignments that God has given to them, which are variously described in v. 1 as being “managers,” “assistants,” “servants,” and in v. 2 as serving and functioning as “soldiers.”

In summary, Ignatius has clearly worked out a theology of ministry assignments. These are focused especially on the roles of bishop, elder, and deacon, but the idea that everyone is to do ministry is still of current concern to him.

3. The Shepherd Of Hermas On Ministry Assignments

Hermas recognizes that there are more official ministry assignments, but does not emphasize them the way Ignatius does, nor does he have as clear a delineation of which ministry assignments are offices and which are not. Hermas mentions the labels of four ministry assignments of those who were “called”: apostles, bishops, teachers, and deacons (Herm. 13.1; cf. 102.1–2), though some of these (presumably the apostles) “have fallen asleep.”[48] Elsewhere he mentions that there were/are also “God’s prophets and his ministers.” That the work of deacons is a ministry assignment is illustrated by the bad deacons mentioned in 103.2: “The ones with the spots are deacons who carried out their ministry badly and plundered the livelihood of widows and orphans, and profited themselves from the ministry that they received to carry out. If, therefore, they persist in the same evil desire, they are dead and there is no hope of life for them. But if they turn about then fulfill their ministry purely, they will be able to live.”

But ministry assignments for Hermas are not limited to those in official ministries; there are non-official ministry assignments as well. Prophecy itself, a ministry in which Hermas himself is a participant, seems to be viewed by Hermas as a non-official ministry.[49]

Another non-official ministry is the ministry of generosity.[50] God has generously given the gift of work to people so that they can earn money and thus give generously to others (27.4). Such generous giving is described as a ministry from the Lord in 27.6: “Therefore those who give are innocent, for as they received from the Lord a ministry to carry out, they carried it out sincerely, not worrying about to whom to give or not to give. This ministry, then, when sincerely carried out, becomes glorious in God’s sight.”[51] Similarly in 50.9: “For this is why the Master made you rich, so that you might perform these ministries for him.” In the context of the entire chapter, this comment points toward a ministry of using wealth to alleviate the suffering of others by “buying souls that are in distress” (50.8; perhaps release from slavery?), visiting widows and orphans, and employing one’s wealth for “fields and houses of this kind” (a metaphor for doing good things with one’s wealth). In 51.9–10, those who share generously “complete their work” and “correctly fulfill their ministry.”[52]

In 46.3, Hermas himself is instructed: “Carefully execute this ministry that I am giving you” (that is, the ministry of announcing the need for repentance), and in 114.1: “Carry out your ministry courageously; declare the Lord’s mighty acts to every person, and you will find favor in this ministry.” Note that the ministry that is given to Hermas does not seem to be given to a person in an official position, but rather to a layperson.

Furthermore, 104.1–2 suggests that Hermas views both those in office and those who are not as receiving ministry assignments from the Lord since he mixes together bishops with “hospitable people” in the first part of the sentence and then bishops with widows (added “by their ministry”) in the second part.

In summary, Hermas recognizes the official ministries of apostle, bishop, teacher, and deacon, but does not consider that they are the sum of the ministry assignments given by the Lord. He also recognizes non-official ministries, as this discussion has illustrated. Hermas is not a theologian—that is, he does not organize and write systematically like a theologian—but Hermas clearly has a theology of ministry assignments.

4. The Didache On Ministry Assignments

One of the concerns of the Didache is that the congregation be informed about what to do with Christians who pass through on ministry trips. The congregation is instructed to welcome the teachers who contribute to righteousness and knowledge of the Lord (11.1–2), and welcome apostles, but for no more than three days (11.5). The Didachist also issues warnings in this regard: to watch out for those who would try to take their money (11.6) and to be aware of anyone who is freeloading and make them work for their keep (ch. 12).[53]

As for prophets and genuine teachers, they are worthy of the support of the church (ch. 13). Prophets in particular are to be given a lot of latitude, including not being limited to the saying of set prayers (10.7), since a prophet “speaks in the spirit.” But this latitude should only be extended “if he exhibits the Lord’s ways” (11.7–8) and does not try to use prophecy for personal gain (11.9, 12). In general, the Didachist encourages people to honor the one who preaches God’s word (4.1).

That the Didache views these as ministry assignments is clear from 15.1–2: “Therefore appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not avaricious and true and approved, for they too carry out for you the ministry of the prophets and teachers. You must not, therefore, despise them, for they are your honored men, along with the prophets and teachers.” This verse also suggests that there is some sort of category distinction in the mind of the author between the ministries of bishops[54] and deacons, on the one hand, and prophets and teachers, on the other. The distinction seems likely to be a distinction between those that are more official (bishops and deacons) and those that are less official (prophets and teachers). Nevertheless, in this document both categories are ministry assignments from the Lord.

5. Other Apostolic Fathers On Ministry Assignments[55]

Polycarp offers instructions for deacons similar to Paul’s qualifications lists in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1, but focuses the deacons more in the direction of what they do than he does on character qualities (Pol. Phil. 5.1–2). At one point Polycarp appears to use the word διάκονος in both of its nuances (official and non-official) in a single sentence: “Similarly, deacons (διάκονοι) must be blameless in the presence of his righteousness, as servants (διάκονοι) of God and Christ and not of people.” Similarly, he gives instructions for elders in 6.1 that are like qualifications lists in some ways, but focuses again more on their actions (cf. 6.2: “and each one must account for his own actions”). He also sorrowfully mentions a former elder at Philippi, Valens, and refers to Valens’s former ministry with these words: “because he so fails to understand the office that was entrusted to him” (quod sic ignoret is locum qui datus est ei[56]) (Pol. Phil. 11.1).

“Barnabas” mentions that Jesus “chose his own apostles who were destined to preach his gospel” (Barn. 5.9). Later he writes: “I urge those in high positions (ἐρωτῶ τοὺς ὑπερέχοντας) if you will accept some well-intentioned advice from me: you have among you those to whom you can do good—do not fail” (21.2). This designation seems in context perhaps to be broadly based and not necessarily only directed toward church leaders, but also perhaps for people well-connected in society. But “Barnabas” follows it up with something that sounds like the ministries of every member toward one another: “Again and again I urge you: be good lawgivers to one another; continue to be faithful counselors of one another; get rid of all hypocrisy among you” (21.4).

V. Conclusions

There are a number of conclusions to be drawn from this survey of “gifts” and ministries in the AFs. First, the presence or lack thereof of a particular word (like χάρισμα) will not yield on its own an adequate answer to the question of the nature of the items we commonly refer to as “spiritual gifts” in the writings of the AFs. Far too often we have loaded our theological assumptions upon individual Greek words, heaping upon those words burdens that are too heavy for them to bear. Second, there are a few sections in the AFs that seem dependent in some way upon Paul’s writings about ministry in the body of Christ, that is, Pauline passages we often refer to as the “spiritual gifts passages.” But when clues exist in particular passages, they tend to focus us more in the direction of a paradigm of graciously given ministry assignments intended for the building up of the church (e.g., 1 Clem. 32.1–2; 37.5–38.2; 46.6–7; Herm. 46.6–7). Third, this study has shown that there was a continuing belief in the miraculous among orthodox writers of the early second century. The evidence is somewhat thin, but it is adequate to establish the point that orthodox Christians of the second century believed that God still worked miraculously. That belief, however, is not at any point subsumed under a theology of spiritual gifts as special powers that one is to discover and use. In other words, modern spiritual gifts theology is noticeably absent among these writers. Fourth, and in contrast to the last point, it has been confirmed that there is a conspicuous and prominent theology of ministry assignments structured into the writings of many of the AFs. Although these authors tend more often to suggest that the locus of the assignments is the leaders of the church, there is still a continuing understanding that ministry assignments have been given to all Christians, not just to formal leaders.

This study does not entirely resolve the question of the nature of the items found in Paul’s four famous ministry lists (Eph 4:11–12; Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 12:8–10; 1 Cor 12:28–30). The primary corpus for such a determination would have to be Paul’s letters themselves. This study does suggest, however, that a paradigm of God-empowered ministry-assignments fits more easily with the extant literature from the first half of the second century than does a paradigm of discoverable special abilities. This, then, allows us to answer the question that prompted this study. Have Christians always viewed spiritual gifts as special abilities to be discovered, something akin to the beliefs of many Christians in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries? The answer to that question is no. Christians of the period of the AFs did not view spiritual gifts in that way.

Notes

  1. Kenneth Berding, “Confusing Word and Concept in ‘Spiritual Gifts’: Have We Forgotten James Barr’s Exhortations?,” JETS 43 (2000): 37-51; Kenneth Berding, What Are Spiritual Gifts? Rethinking the Conventional View (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2006). In short, my reading of Paul is that the items we normally refer to as “spiritual gifts” in Paul’s letters should be understood as God-given ministry assignments that are empowered by the Holy Spirit, with the emphasis being on the assignment rather than on the empowering. Current spiritual-gift theology normally extracts what is in Paul’s letters the secondary emphasis, that is, the empowerment, turns it into an ability that one possesses, and altogether excludes the ministry-assignment emphasis from the discussion.
  2. Kenneth G. Radant, “Are Our ‘LifeKeys’ the Right ‘SHAPE’ for our ‘Network’? A Theological Assessment of Recent Trends in ‘Spiritual Gift’ Teaching” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the ETS, Washington DC, 2006), 4.
  3. The reason I am so tentative in my use of “gift” language is that the vacillation in English on the meaning of the word “gift” (is it something transferred without cost like a birthday “gift,” or is it a special ability like a “gift” for playing the piano?) is probably the single most influential reason people adopt the contemporary understanding of “spiritual gifts” as special abilities. I sense that we will never get to the heart of this issue until we stop using the ambiguous English word “gift” in our discussions. On this, see Berding, “Confusing Word and Concept,” 49-50; Berding, What Are Spiritual Gifts?, 138-40; and esp., Brian Asbill and Kenneth Berding, “Appendix C: How Bible Translations Influence Readers Toward the Conventional View,” in ibid., 226-70.
  4. Though Arthur Carl Piepkorn, “Charisma in the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers,” Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971): 370, opines: “A further problem inheres in the stubborn historical fact that since the days of Tertullian Western theological language has used charisma and its vernacular derivatives in a sense that the Biblical and early post-Biblical usage of the vocable does not support. That is, it uses charisma as the generic term for the extraordinary and at times miraculous phenomena that St. Paul concludes under the term pneumatika.… Thereby an element of confusion that is difficult to disentangle is introduced into the question.” See further his comments on the early patristic era, pp. 373-75.
  5. The writings of the AFs are the earliest orthodox writings from the period just after the NT writings, roughly those Christian texts from AD 95-160. The writings of the AFs (and the abbreviations used in this article) are 1 Clement (1 Clem.); the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians (Ign. Eph.), to the Magnesians (Ign. Magn.), to the Trallians (Ign. Trall.), to the Romans (Ign. Rom.), to the Philadelphians (Ign. Phld.), to the Smyrnaeans (Ign. Smyrn.), and to Polycarp (Ign. Pol.); the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians (Pol. Phil.); the Martyrdom of Polycarp (Mart. Pol.); the Didache (Did.); the letter of (so-named) Barnabas (Barn.); the Shepherd of Hermas (Herm.); Fragments of Papias (Pap. Frag.); 2 Clement (2 Clem.); To Diognetus (Diogn.).
  6. It is my contention that if the authors of the second century did not organize their understanding of spiritual gifts using the same categories that are currently employed in the modern evangelical and Pentecostal/charismatic streams, then even if some such idea appeared in later patristic writings, it would be too far removed to shed any light on Paul’s own theology. But the first half of the second century AD may not be too late to learn something of what Paul might have intended when he gathered together ministry lists in Eph 4, Rom 12, and twice in 1 Cor 12.
  7. Χάρις is a word that outside the AFs is also occasionally translated as “gift.” See BDAG, item 3, 1077-78. And unsurprisingly, χάρις has a wide range of uses in the AFs. It carries the sense of God’s grace in salvation (1 Clem. 7.4; 16.17; Barn. 9.8; Ign. Eph. 11.1; 20.2; Ign. Magn. 8.1; Pol. Phil. 1.3; Mart. Pol. 20.2); is used in standard greetings or closings (1 Clem. 1.1; 65.2; Barn. 21.9; Ign. Pol. 8.2); is used in contexts describing the benefits of a right relationship with God (1 Clem. 23.1; 30.2; 55.3; Diogn. 11.5; Ign. Rom. salutation; Ign. Smyrn. 9.2); as simply “thanks” (2 Clem. 13.4; Ign. Pol. 2.1; Mart. Pol. 3.1; Did. 1.3); as some sort of special favor for martyrdom (Ign. Rom. 1.2; Ign. Smyrn. 11.1; Ign. Pol. 7.3; Mart. Pol. 2.3; 7.3); and once for gratification when eating honey (Herm. 33.5)! But in none of the appearances of this word in the AFs (unless I have overlooked something) will one normally gravitate to the translation of “gift” for χάρις, so it likely adds little to our study.
  8. Unless otherwise stated, all translation into English will be taken from Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translation, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).
  9. Some may see an allusion here to Paul’s comment in Rom 1:11, “For I long to see you so that I may impart some spiritual gift (χάρισμα ... πνευματικόν) to you, that you may be established.” The only word that is shared by the two passages is πνευματικός, though its link with a “gift” word (δωρεά in this case and χάρισμα in Rom 1:11) may make the connection a bit stronger. The contexts are also different. The author of Barn. 1.2 is commenting on how he is rejoicing that they do in fact have this “grace of the spiritual gift,” whereas in Romans, Paul is longing to see them so that he may impart to them some such gift. In Rom 1:11 the nature of the “gift” that Paul wants to impart is clarified in the next verse in Romans, “that is, that I may be encouraged together with you while among you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine.” It appears that Paul conceives of a “spiritual gift” in Rom 1 as doing faithful ministry with the Romans in order to build them up (and in mutuality also receiving from them such a spiritual ministry). If the author of Barn. 1.2 has Rom 1:11 in the back of his mind when he writes this clause (which I am mostly skeptical about), he certainly does not have in mind an individual special ability that an individual among his readers possesses; he is thinking of something that is community-oriented, perhaps (a bit like Rom 1:11) simply the evidence of the ongoing work of the Spirit and grace among the community to which he is writing. At the end of the day, I judge this to be a possible allusion, but only slightly possible.
  10. Cf. “I rejoice with an unbounded and overflowing joy over your blessed and glorious spirits” (1.2); “among you I truly see that the Spirit has been poured out upon you from the riches of the Lord’s fountain” (1.3); “I will be rewarded for having ministered to such spirits” (1.5).
  11. Readers who are new to the discussion of the nature of spiritual gifts should be reminded that the word χάρισμα does not and cannot carry a theology of spiritual gifts on its own. Like all other words, its specific meaning is defined by its usage.
  12. “These sacrifices are sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving (18:17; 35:12-36:1; 41:1; 52:3; Heb 13:15-16; cf. Did. 14)” (Robert M. Grant and Holt H. Graham, First and Second Clement, vol. 2 of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary [New York: Thomas Nelson, 1965], 74).
  13. I am employing the newer chapter and verse numbering system for The Shepherd of Hermas. See the chart contrasting the two systems in Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 450-51.
  14. “Work at what is good, and out of your labor, which God gives you, give generously to all who are in need, not debating to whom you will give and to whom you will not. Give to all, for God wishes that from his own gifts, gifts should be given to all. So those who receive are accountable to God regarding why they received and to what end; for those in distress who receive will not be judged, but those who receive under false pretenses will pay the penalty. Therefore those who give are innocent, for as they received from the Lord a ministry to carry out, they carried it out sincerely, not worrying about to whom to give or not to give. This ministry, then, when sincerely carried out, becomes glorious in God’s sight” (Herm. 27.4-6, italics mine).
  15. “And this work is great and acceptable to God, because he [a rich person] understands about his wealth and works for the poor out of the gifts of the Lord, and rightly fulfills the ministry” (Herm. 51.7, trans. and italics mine).
  16. Χάρισμα has as its most basic meaning something like “a concrete expression of grace” which is the minimum of its meaning in the passages in which it is found in Paul as well as in the AFs. Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987), 237, where he defines χάρισμα in Rom 12:6 as “an actualization, a practical expression, of the grace (χάρις) of God under which the church stands,” and on p. 113 concerning 5:15-16 as “act of grace” or “actualization of grace.”
  17. Piepkorn, “Charisma,” 373, comments about this passage, “From the context it would appear that the charisma that St. Ignatius has in mind is the gift of incorruption (aphtharsia), that is, salvation generally.”
  18. I recognize that this is not necessarily an individual named Clement alone. 1 Clement was sent as a letter from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth (1.1), but its style does seem to suggest a single author throughout. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11, refers to the author as “Clement” (but also claims that he was the third bishop of Rome, even though monarchial bishops as an office did not yet exist). The Shepherd of Hermas 8.3, because of its Roman provenance and early date, may also mention the same person: “Then Clement will send it [‘two little books’ from Hermas] to the cities abroad, because that is his job.” References to “Clement” in the present article are to the letter written by the elders in Rome to Corinth, without presupposing that Clement is the same “Clement” mentioned by Hermas and Eusebius, though it seems to me more likely than not that it is the same.
  19. The term χάρισμα has been left untranslated at this point so as not to prejudge the discussion. Contemporary translations of the term are often unhelpful because they interpret the passage in line with a preunderstanding of spiritual gifts that is not evident from the passage itself. See Asbill and Berding, “Appendix C: How Bible Translations Influence Readers,” 226-70.
  20. Andreas Lindemann, “Paul in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers,” in Paul and the Legacies of Paul, ed. William S. Babcock (Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1990), 34.
  21. Some examples are: “in proportion to each one’s spiritual gift” (Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 95); “according to his special gifts” (Cyril Richardson, ed. and trans., Early Christian Fathers [New York: Touchstone, 1996], 61; Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998], 306); “as his particular spiritual gift dictates” (Grant and Graham, First and Second Clement, 66). It appears that each of these is twisting the syntax around to try and make it fit with the ruling preconceptions of spiritual gifts as abilities.
  22. BDAG 1003-4.
  23. Σῶμα is further in distance and divided by a καί. More important is the comparative καθώς which ties together the last clause with the one right before it.
  24. Andreas Lindemann, “Paul’s Influence on ‘Clement’ and Ignatius,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2 of The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 14. In contrast, Hagner sees a dependence upon 1 Cor 12 to be likely (Donald Alfred Hagner, The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome, NovTSup 34 [Leiden: Brill, 1973], 198-99).
  25. Although Hagner does not make this same connection, his conclusion in general about Clement’s use of Galatians is, “On the basis of the more compelling allusions we conclude that Clement quite probably knew and made use of the Epistle to the Galatians” (Hagner, Use, 222). Here it is being used as a complementary and supportive argument.
  26. Ibid., 199-200. The likelihood of dependence of this passage upon Paul is understated by Andrew F. Gregory, “1 Clement and the Writings That Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, vol. 1 of The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, ed. Andrew F. Gregory and Christopher M. Tuckett (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 147-48.
  27. In literature before or contemporaneous to Paul, χάρισμα is found only twice in variants in the LXX, twice in Philo, a few times in secular Greek, and once in 1 Pet 4:10.
  28. Berding, What Are Spiritual Gifts?, 62.
  29. See James Barr’s use of this expression in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961), 218. On the same concept, see D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 62; and Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 25, 61.
  30. Westcott says, “In one respect the testimony of Polycarp is more important than that of any other of the Apostolic Fathers.… The zeal of Polycarp watches over the whole of the most critical period in the history of Christianity. His words are the witnesses of the second age” (Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament [London: Macmillan, 1881], 40). Pervo comments that “if historians of Christian origins could be granted one interview with a personage of the period 100-150, Polycarp would be the choice of many, for he could supply answers to numerous burning questions” (Richard I. Pervo, The Making of Paul: Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010], 140).
  31. See Kenneth Berding, Polycarp and Paul: An Analysis of Their Literary and Theological Relationship in Light of Polycarp’s Use of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Literature, VCSup 62 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 33-125, for an analysis of Polycarp’s citations, allusions, and reminiscences; see pp. 126-41 on Polycarp’s imitation of Paul, and pp. 156-86 for Paul’s influence on the theology of Polycarp.
  32. Polycarp also probably alludes to Rom 12:10 in two short phrases in 10.1 (see ibid., 102-3). But this is beyond the part of Rom 12 (vv. 3-8) normally considered in discussions of Paul’s so-called theology of “spiritual gifts.”
  33. Of course, I recognize that I could have missed some.
  34. Someone might seek to tie this into 1 Cor 7:7. But you have to read the concept of ability into 1 Cor 7:7, which is a dubious endeavor, to be able to assume that it is similar to this passage. It appears that what is in view in 1 Cor 7:7 is one’s calling to singleness or marriage. See the discussion in Berding, What Are Spiritual Gifts?, 60-61.
  35. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 743-44 (fragment 5, v. 6).
  36. See the discussion in Carl B. Smith, “Ministry, Martyrdom, and Other Mysteries: Pauline Influence on Ignatius of Antioch,” in Paul and the Second Century, ed. Michael R. Bird and Joseph R. Dodson, LNTS 412 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 50-51.
  37. In writing to the Magnesians, Ignatius instructs them to relate to their bishop with “all the respect due him in accordance with the power of God the Father” (Ign. Magn. 3.1). It is not clear how the expression “in accordance with the power of God the Father” functions here, though it may add something to this discussion. In the same verse he adds that the “holy presbyters likewise have not taken advantage of his [their bishop’s] youthful appearance but defer to him as one who is wise in God.” Perhaps the expression “wise in God” may add something to this section, but certainly not much if it does.
  38. “There is neither need nor room for a discussion of distinguishing between true and false prophecy, therefore, since the language of authentic prophecy is identified de facto with the voice of the bishop, who is the presence of God within each individual faith community” (Clayton N. Jefford, “Prophecy and Prophetism in the Apostolic Fathers,” in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Korinna Zamfir, and Tobia Nicklas, WUNT II/286 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010], 313).
  39. See Clayton N. Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers and the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006), 19-22, for a short summary of the issues involved in the dating and compilation of the Didache. For a longer discussion, see Jonathan A. Draper, “The Didache in Modern Research: An Overview,” in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper, AGJU 37 (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 1-42.
  40. Davids comments that there are almost no references to physical healing in the AFs, although there is a general prayer for the healing of the sick at the end of 1 Clement (59.4) (Peter Davids, “Healing,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997], 438).
  41. For more on the continuing belief in the ongoing role of the miraculous in the period after the AFs, see Martien Parmentier, “The Gifts of the Spirit in Early Christianity,” in The Impact of Scripture in Early Christianity, ed. Jan den Boeft and Miekske L. van Poll-van de Lisdonk, VCSup 44 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 58-78.
  42. Even the winds “fulfill their ministry” (τὴν λειτοθργίαν αὐτῶν) (20.10). Clement often appeals to nature for his arguments (cf. chs. 20; 23-26; 33).
  43. See the very helpful discussion highlighting and seeking to untangle the ambiguities of this passage in William Moriarty, “1 Clement’s View of Ministerial Appointments,” VC 66 (2012): 115-38.
  44. It is unlikely that monarchial bishops were found in every church at this early point in history, though such was Ignatius’s intense desire. The way Ignatius addresses Rome without specifying a bishop suggests that there was no ruling bishop in Rome at the time he wrote his letter. Polycarp, shortly after Ignatius’s martyrdom, addresses his letter to the Philippians by including himself among the elders (“Polycarp and the presbyters with him” [Pol. Phil. salutation]). 1 Clement was written by the (collective) elders of the church in Rome to the church in Corinth to try to reinstate the elders who had been deposed; the letter suggests that there was no monarchial bishop in either Rome or Corinth when 1 Clement was written.
  45. Burrhus is probably the same Burrhus referred to as a διάκονος in Ign. Eph. 2.1 and as the one “through” whom (διὰ Βούρρου) the letter to the Smyrnaeans was written (Ign. Smyrn. 12.1; also here in Ign. Phld. 11.2). In the present context, it is his function that is most pronounced.
  46. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, Part 2, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1890; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 2:322.
  47. This is somewhat similar to the Pastoral Epistles which, although addressed to individuals, also include instructions the congregation is to hear and to which those in the congregation are to respond.
  48. “Bishops” (ἐπίσκοποι) for Hermas seems to be a reference to what Ignatius termed “elders,” since “there is no evidence in the document that monarchical episcopacy existed in Hermas’s church. Hermas, indeed, seems to assume a presbyteral organization of the community (Vis. 2:4.3; 3:1.8)” (Harry O. Maier, Social Setting of the Mininstry as Reflected in the Writings of Hermas, Clement, Ignatius [Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2002], 55, cf. 63).
  49. “Rather it is important that the ‘ministry’ of a prophet never appears in a list of institutional ministries, such as bishops, presbyters and deacons. Prophets were highly respected, but they remained charismatics and could not be elected for a prophetic ministry. Thus they always remained outsiders without an institutional backing as part of the hierarchy. In this respect they were at the peripheries of the church” (Ulrich Luz, “Stages of Early Christian Prophetism,” in Prophets and Prophecy, 73).
  50. “The wealthy are to take up their duty. The purpose of wealth (πλοῦτος) is that it be used for the needier people (Sim. 2.5, 7f., 10)”(Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries, ed. Marshall D. Johnson, trans. Michael Steinhauser [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003], 93).
  51. Carolyn Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 106, states, “This ability and obligation to give without question is in v. 6 twice called service or ministry (διακονία), as it is later in Sim. 1.9, indicating not office but a special function in the church.”
  52. In this passage, the poor also have a ministry of prayer which is along with the generosity of the rich viewed as “their work” (51.7).
  53. For a helpful reconstruction of itinerancy per Did. 11-13, see Stephen J. Patterson, “Didache 11-13: The Legacy of Radical Itinerancy in Early Christianity,” in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, NovTSup 77 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 313-16, 324-29.
  54. The language of “bishop” may be co-extensive with elders; there does not seem to be a monarchial bishop in view at the time this was written.
  55. There is nothing really to draw upon from 2 Clement, Diognetus, or the Fragments of Papias, and little in Martyrdom of Polycarp in addressing the question that concerns us.
  56. This portion of the letter is preserved only in Latin.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)