Prophetic Hermeneutics

By George E. Meisinger

George Meisinger is the president of Chafer Theological Seminary and professor in the Theology, Old and New Testament departments. He earned a B.A. from Biola University, a Th.M. in Old Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary, a D.Min. in Biblical Studies from Western Seminary and has pursued Ph.D. studies in Systematic Theology at Trinity Theological Seminary. He also pastors Grace Chapel in Orange, California. His e-mail address is gmeisinger@socal.rr.com.

Introduction

Why is it that covenant theology and dispensationalism, two schools of theological thought embracing a high view of inspiration and claiming to employ a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, are miles apart in eschatology? It is apparent that something operates under the hermeneutical landscape to create this eschatological chasm. Two sources bring this gap into focus: Vern Poythress’ booklet titled Understanding Dispensationalists [1] and Charles Clough’s journal article titled “A Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.” [2]

The definitions of literal interpretation and fulfillment are key to grasping the hermeneutical gap between covenant and dispensational eschatologies. Poythress meets both definitions head on. He sees a proper definition of these terms as crucial to one’s management of the biblical notion of covenant and prophetic fulfillment. Clough likewise views these as important issues and shows by means of informal symbolic logic [3] why dispensationalists and covenant theologians make the choices they make when employing the historical-grammatical (often called “literal”) hermeneutic. Clough’s penetrating article reveals why a literal hermeneutic to one school does not mean the same thing to the other.

The issue of literal interpretation

Poythress points out that dispensationalists of all stripes “have in common. .. a particular view of the parallel-but-separate roles and destinies of Israel and the church,” and then adds that in nearly all ages most Christian branches have recognized different dispensations in God’s government. [4] Perusing the theologies and commentaries of both dispensationalists and covenant theologians bears this out.

Bifurcation of Peoples

Poythress gives a brief historical overview of Darby’s and Scofield’s teaching [5] that presented the Church as a heavenly entity and Israel as an earthly one.

Scofield derives from this bifurcation of two peoples of God a bifurcation in hermeneutics. Israel is earthly, the church heavenly. One is natural, the other spiritual. What pertains to Israel is to be interpreted in literalistic fashion. But what pertains to the church need not be so interpreted. And some passages of Scripture—perhaps a good many—are to be interpreted on both levels simultaneously. [6]

Defending Covenant (or Replacement [7]) Theology, he asks why two separate terms, Israel and the church, are used in the New Testament? He answers, “To use ‘Israel’ and ‘the Jews’ (hoi Ioudaioi) most of the time to designate the Jewish people need not entail any denial of the deeper conceptual and theological unity between Old Testament and New Testament phases of existence of one people of God (cf. 1 Peter 2:9–10).” [8]

Poythress seems to imply that dispensationalists’ bifurcation of Israel and the Church not only drives their hermeneutic but also, at least in part, is their hermeneutic. [9] The question, however, is which bifurcation came first: a distinction between Israel and the Church or that between a literal and non-literal hermeneutic? Poythress wants to make it the former. Dispensationalists, on the contrary, argue that the distinction between Israel and the Church is the result of applying a literal hermeneutic.

Poythress sees an example of the dispensationalists’ hermeneutic at work in the way they distinguish the rapture from the Second Coming. Dispensationalists see the rapture as related to the Church and the Second Coming as related to Israel (see “A Test Case,” pages 58–63). The problem, as he states it, is that there is “no consistent terminological difference between the two in the New Testament.” [10] This is true. The following chart summarizes three key terms denoting Christ’s return according to a dispensational point of view:

The Term	Rapture	Second Coming
Parousia: Coming, presence	1 Thessalonians 2:19; 4:15; 5:23	2 Thessalonians 2:8;  Matthew 24:27
Apocalupsis: Unveiling, revelation	1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; cf. Romans 8:19	2 Thessalonians 1:7; 1 Peter 4:13; cf. Revelation 1:1.
Epiphaneia: Display of (glory)	2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13	2 Thessalonians 2:8

Dispensationalists do not believe that the terms themselves establish a distinction between the rapture and the Second Coming. Semantic ranges for each of the terms overlap, as is the case with many New Testament terms. [11] Thus, each term’s particular meaning depends on contextual usage; that is, the context establishes whether parousia, for example, denotes more specifically the rapture or the Second Coming in any given instance, as the above chart illustrates. Poythress’ inference that terminology differences are necessary for differentiating events is not helpful because dispensationalists argue exegetically that the contexts in which one finds these terms naturally distinguish between the rapture and the Second Coming. [12]

Theological Eisegesis

Poythress makes a statement that occurs often in theological works and commentaries:

Theological systems, whether dispensationalist, covenantal, Calvinist, Arminian, or even modernist, have a profound influence on the way we approach a given text. World views and social context influence what we notice, what we assume as obvious, and what we emphasize. [13]

One’s theological framework influences one’s thinking about everything in Scripture, if one is consistent. A sound theological system is not a negative; however, feeling free to read it into every passage is a mistake.

All students of Scripture (especially those with a high view of inspiration) should aspire to learn what it says, i.e., what Moses, Isaiah, Paul, John, or Peter meant as they wrote to their addressees. Has the Holy Spirit ceased to illuminate [14] the minds of believers walking by means of the Spirit? Do we not have sufficient exegetical tools to overcome counterproductive influences? It seems that we do (we have Greek and Hebrew exegesis, biblical theology, and finally systematic theology—in that order!), if we would only employ them.

Skewing Exegesis

If we grant this, then what skews the exegetical process for those who have the tools at their disposal? Why is there disagreement over what literal means? What under the hermeneutical landscape leads to misapplication of the exegetical tools? Speaking of the vast differences we find between dispensational and covenant hermeneutics, Clough says:

Neither side chose its hermeneutic in a vacuum any more than an exegete chooses a literal or metaphorical meaning. An integrated network of beliefs about the world and the scriptures lies behind the hermeneutic in general and its specific application. This meta-hermeneutical background underlies the chasm between Dispensational and Covenant Theology. [15]

Poythress likewise sees the importance of the meaning of the term literal to hermeneutics. He says that literal could denote (a) “first-thought meaning,” i.e., the first meaning that occurs to one upon seeing a word in isolation, out-of-context, as opposed to any sort of figurative meaning; [16] (b) “flat interpretation,” i.e., recognizing obvious figures of speech, but neglecting word plays, poetic overtones, irony, etc., [17] or (c) “grammatical-historical interpretation,” i.e., taking passages as whole units and seeking to understand what the author meant in his historical setting by using his grammatical constructions. [18] His implication seems to be that when dispensationalists take exception to his spiritualizing of Old Testament prophecies (applying what is said of Israel to the Church), they are “flat” interpreters.

If one accuses covenant theology of departing from a literal hermeneutic in eschatological literature, Poythress in defense redefines the term literal.

• As regards the nature of Old Testament symbolism, he says that the most “literalistic” reading of eschatological prophecy is not the best.19 If he means by “literalistic” the historical-grammatical approach, does this not redefine the term literal, opening the door to spiritualizing Old Testament prophecies and inviting the dispensationalist’s charge of the same?
• As regards the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament, the question of literalism in interpretation again rises to the surface. Poythress argues, “we should carefully base our interpretation of the Old Testament primarily on this book [i.e., Hebrews].”20 This exactly reverses the process the Bereans used to test Paul’s teaching. It would not have been possible for them to vet Paul’s teaching against the Old Testament if the apostle completely reinterpreted the Old Testament promises to Israel in the way that Poythress does. Classic dispensationalists take exception to this anti-Berean approach, believing instead that one should start with the book of Genesis, asking what God meant by His progressively given revelation at each historical stage and what Abraham and his descendants understood by that revelation. These starting points alone are enough to keep genuine dispensationalists and covenant theologians apart in their interpretations until Christ returns.
• The OT understood the blessing (Gen. 12:3) as extending beyond Israelites. That is under a literal understanding of the OT covenants. Furthermore, the OT spoke of the New Covenant and understood the Mosaic Law as conditional and temporary. Pray tell why Hebrews would in any way require the annulment of the Abrahamic, the Land, and the New covenants. It makes better sense to see Hebrews speaking of the annulment of the Mosaic Law. In light of this, a replacement theology approach to Hebrews is not a faithful treatment of Hebrews, nor is it a faithful approach to the OT. [21]

Poythress is aware of another problem. He points out that critics place a dispensational framework and their own non-dispensational framework side by side and then say, “Let us see how each system works when applied to a particular text.” [22] However, this approach inverts what biblical exegesis and interpretation should be. Rather than seeking to apply one’s “pre-canned” framework to a text, one should ask, “Does this text, in its own historically-grammatically understood context, support the system?” If not, one should change or discard the system.

Looking under the Hermeneutical Floor [23]

Peter says that the Holy Spirit moved holy men of old to speak the word, which has prophetic characteristics (2 Peter 1:20–21). These prophets recorded divine revelation, which became the Old Testament canonical Scripture. The apostles and prophets did the same for the New Testament. Their language (e.g., Greek vocabulary and syntax) is the means by which God communicated written revelation to man. What is the nature of this revelation? It is words in which God as Creator of history has expressed meaning and which man as creature can comprehend, because “it is a public conversation between God and man, not private human mysticism. Neither God nor man evolves, so that meaning can convey across the centuries.” [24]

Now, the total number of words and meanings that exist at any given time comprise a universal lexicon, or universal dictionary. The Old and New Testament vocabulary is a subset of this lexicon. The lexicon as a whole changes with human growth and experience, losing some words, gaining others, and losing and adding definitions to the words it retains. Such change does not occur, however, with the vocabulary of a written communication. This is because the writer captures the words he uses at the moment of writing, recording his message with the meanings those words have at that time. Thus, the time-sensitive definitions of the words in the biblical subset of the universal lexicon are forever frozen; neither jot nor tittle will change. [25] To interpret a historical utterance based on a later lexicon (i.e., to reinterpret the Old Testament promises in New Testament terms) is a flagrant anachronism. [26] An interpreter should read an historical utterance based on the lexicon that obtained at the time the author wrote. One of the central problems in doing so is reconstructing the author’s and readers’ shared lexicon at the time of writing. The best way of going about this is to examine the linguistic context: the other written works of that time and culture.

Covenant theologians, however, emphasize New Testament revelation and from that starting point seek to apply New Testament revelation back into the Old Testament. This is observable in five components of their system: the elect, redemption, faith, the gospel content, and divine blessing. These five elements, according to Covenant theologians, “remain constant throughout history and underlie their hermeneutical methodology.” [27]

Moreover, Covenant Theology tolerates non-literal interpretation for prophecies not involving the gospel core, because the modern universal lexicon,. .. diverges from the ancient scriptural lexicon....[28]

Comparison of the Two Systems

	Covenant Theology	Dispensationalism
The elect	The elect are those saved forever, regardless of tribal origin, gender, time, location, and specific acts of God. The human party in each covenant is part of one homogeneous group: the elect. Since in this view there exists only one people of God, the Church has effectively replaced Israel.	Rather than categorizing all the elect as one homogeneous group, dispensationalism classifies the elect according to the historical context in which a covenant originates. Thus, the term elect has a semantic range that encompasses Israel and the Church as distinct groups. [29] To change the meaning of the contractual terms is tantamount to fraud—an impossibility with God. Further, both soteriological and non-soteriological elements are allowed to stand in all covenants.
Redemption	Christ’s atonement underlies all God’s gracious overtures to man and is not vulnerable to human resistance. Accordingly, it is inconsistent to think that Christ offered the Kingdom to Israel, was rejected and then crucified because of rejection.	Though Christ’s atonement underlies God’s many gracious manifestations to man, from Adam to the end, each historical context and event must be permitted to speak for itself. When viewed contextually and historically, Israel did reject Christ’s atonement. Yet, in the end God will employ this rejection for His glory in the restoration of repentant Israel.
Faith	Faith (subjective) must be present in all aspects of the covenant of grace. There is no such thing as a covenant based on mere physical descent or ceremony.	In both Old and New Testament, where man’s eternal salvation is the subject, faith alone is the subjective means of obtaining eternal life. Where man’s eternal salvation is not in view, dispensationalism guards whatever contractual terms are present, e.g., one being a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Content of Gospel Call	In all ages, the gospel call centers on faith in the Messiah, or Christ, as revealed in the NT. Belief in Christ is read back into OT hortatory passages that say nothing of Him.	In all ages, the content of faith is whatever gospel content has been revealed to man up to that point.
Blessing	Israel, because of disobedience, lost the blessing of the land (literal), or (if land is a metaphor) of the spiritual kingdom of God.	God will grant all His promised blessings in keeping with the historical contractual terms and those terms’ meaning shared by both parties.

The Covenant theologians’ approach is driven by their presupposed Covenant of Grace—a theological induction, not a biblically attested covenant. They reason that all of the elect must be recipients of God’s grace through this covenant, resulting in the existence of one people of God. They believe it is therefore inconsistent to postulate two peoples of God. This conviction prior to the management of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic leads them to take Israel as Israel in the Old Testament but to abandon a normal use of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic in the New Testament, seeing the Church as the recipient of God’s promises to Israel, or as an extension of Israel.

In keeping with covenant theology, Poythress holds that “there can only be one people belonging to God, because there is only one Christ.” [30] He goes on to argue that Israel as God’s people was a preliminary and shadowy form until Christ’s work was complete: “But we cannot think of the Old Testament people of God as a second people of God alongside the New Testament people of God. These are two successive historical phases of the manifestation of the corporate and community implications of Christ’s representative headship.” [31]

Dispensationalists seek to maintain a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutical meaning. They insist that the contemporary reader must continue to understand Old Testament terms as the Old Testament lexicon defines them in their historical contexts. For example, if Israel meant the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, then a consistent and evenhanded interpreter must allow that meaning to stand throughout the whole canon, unless clear historical-grammatical evidence indicates otherwise. The evidence, Dispensationalists argue, does not, but rather reveals two peoples of God. The biblical contractual arrangements, or covenants (Abrahamic, Land [Palestinian], Davidic, and New), must be allowed to stand as established. As Clough has pointed out, “It’s ironic that we dispensationalists take covenant structures more seriously than Covenant theologians!” [32]

These two approaches to the management of hermeneutics must inevitably lead to dramatic differences in eschatology, and they do. While those hermeneutical differences stand, an unbridgeable chasm lies between amillennial and dispensational eschatology.

The Issue of Fulfillment

In the following quotation, Poythress claims that dispensationalists are zealous for exactness. He is right. Most, if not all, would admit that they want to be as precise as possible. After all, it is God’s word.

Dispensationalists have been among those most zealous to defend the idea that many promises of God are unconditional, which guarantees their fulfillment in exactly the form that they are uttered. The desire for unconditionality may be one subtle factor behind the attractiveness of the ideal of scientifically precise language. In everyday language of the home or the workplace, a statement of a promise may include implicit qualifications or conditions. For instance, “I will be there at five o’clock” often may be said with the implicit understanding, “If no emergencies prevent me,” or “If you do not cancel the engagement.” On the other hand, in the scientific sphere we expect that qualifications or conditions will be spelled out. To assimilate the Bible to scientific language gives greater weight to the claim that there are many unconditional promises. [33]

Poythress correctly declines to place biblical covenants in the sphere of “scientific” precision, but he fails to mention that precise language is not limited to the scientific sphere. The language of contract is equally precise, and for the same reasons: all parties must understand the statements in the same way. Loosening the precision of contract language to make it equivalent to the casual “I will be there at five o’clock, if possible” makes it impossible to do business. A mortgage contract that stipulates 360 payments of $1000 each does not imply that 342 payments of about $700 each will be acceptable if emergencies arise. Scientific precision may be a modern innovation, but contractual precision is as old as commerce itself, and it certainly applies to ancient covenants.

Poythress speaks of the dispensationalists’ “desire for unconditionality,” implying that this “desire” is the motivating cause of their attraction to “scientifically precise language.” A fair reading of Clough’s article [34] reveals a different motivation. Men like Darby and Scofield, who both studied law, came to an understanding of the nature of biblical covenants, or contracts. Two factors stand out: (1) we must preserve contract terminology unchanged for the life of the contract, from origin to fulfillment, and (2) “only literal meanings can be verified or falsified against the enforcement criteria or standards.” [35] The dispensationalists’ desire for unconditionality is the result of rediscovering the nature of a contract-covenant.

Contracts necessarily bind behavior to verification standards. That’s why they exist. And in defense of this view, remember when. .. Unger pointed out that most of the ancient verbal clay records were business accounting, not religious texts? They had to do accounting like we do and track legally-defined behaviors. Maybe they had. .. accountants who would have been glad to adopt Bock / Poythress hermeneutics but I imagine they weren’t the acceptable standard! [36]

Further, Poythress seems uncomfortable with the notion of a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutic, which one may infer from his discussion of figurative resurrections in the Old Testament, such as his following:

• Noah’s salvation through the Flood (the water being a symbol of death; cf. Jonah 2:2–6)
• Isaac’s salvation from death by the substitute of a ram
• Moses’ salvation as an infant from the water
• Israel’s salvation at the Passover and at the Red Sea
• Restoration from Babylon as a kind of preliminary “resurrection” of Israel from the dead (Ezekiel 37)
• Elijah’s raising of a dead boy

With regard to these Old Testament happenings, Poythress comments, “All these show some kind of continuity with the great act of redemption, the resurrection of Christ. But they also show discontinuity. Most of them are somehow figurative or shadowy.” [37]

In addition, he says, before the Incarnation “redemption must of necessity partake of a partial, shadowy, ‘inadequate’ character, because it must point forward rather than locating any ultimate sufficiency in itself.” [38] In keeping with the primacy of their covenant of grace, covenant theologians interpret these Old Testament examples soteriologically.

If one permits historical contexts to speak for themselves, a different interpretation emerges. In the cases of Noah and Isaac, the salvation/deliverance is not soteriological but experiential, i.e., God rescued those already His own from a temporal disaster. Moses’ deliverance as an infant, even by covenant standards, which require the subjective act of faith, could not have been soteriological. The restorations of Israel from Egypt and then Babylon are likewise figures or illustrations of God delivering those already His own (His own special treasure, Exodus 19:5) from divine discipline into a place of temporal blessing. These are examples of Christian experience, not of unbelievers receiving eternal life. To draw soteriological/Christological parallels in these cases requires that a student bring some interpretive tool other than a grammatical-historical hermeneutic to bear on the text. The covenant theologian is willing to do this; the dispensationalist is not.

Another subject where the abyss between covenant theology and dispensationalism readily appears is the millennium. Poythress says:

Moreover, all the promises are relevant to the church; all apply to us in some fashion, directly and indirectly. But not all are fulfilled in the church as such. Some are not at present fulfilled at all in the church. Some are only partially fulfilled in the church. In studying some prophecies we come to think that their full realization is still future. [39]

Circumventing the canonical lexicon, Poythress transfers to the church promises made to the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—a clear example of replacement theology at work.

He grants that there are literal fulfillments in the New Testament yet argues that the following passages are cases of non-literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (Luke 3:5; Acts 2:17–21; Galatians 3:29; Hebrews 8:8–12). [40] Dispensationalists interpret these passages differently. [41] Poythress comments as follows:

The more basic issues concern what counts as evidence for fulfillment, and how that fulfillment is itself to be understood. These prior issues largely determine how the dispensationalists or their critics undertake to explain the text and integrate it with their whole system. [42]

Dispensationalists recognize, as does Poythress, that the term fulfill in the New Testament has a semantic range. The following are examples of this range:

1. An Old Testament passage may have a literal fulfillment. In this case, details of the prophecy happen as stated.

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
Though you are little among the thousands of Judah,
Yet out of you shall come forth to Me
The One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old,
From everlasting. (Micah 5:2, later quoted by Matthew 2:6) [43]

Bethlehem was an actual city in Micah’s day and in that city the Messiah was born—a literal fulfillment.

2. A passage may be “fulfilled” that was not a prophecy to begin with.

Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.”
(Matthew 2:17–18, quoting Jeremiah 31:15).

In the broader context, Jeremiah foresees Israel’s millennial conditions, predicting that God will restore Israel from her years of desolation, even relieving parents of the suffering they have endured because of their children’s suffering. Jeremiah’s statement about Ramah and its mothers mourning is not a prediction at all, but something that was happening at the time this oracle came to Jeremiah. Matthew quotes this particular statement as being “fulfilled” in Jesus’ day because the genocide of Herod the Great follows the pattern of the event in Jeremiah’s day: Israel’s mothers weep for children who will not return to them. In this case, fulfillment is not a matter of a prediction coming true, but a new event following the pattern laid down by an old one.

Accordingly, the New Testament utilizes a range of meanings for fulfill. Since the terminology of a contractual agreement determines what constitutes compliance with it, it is important to honor the biblical lexicon existing at the time covenants were instituted. [44]

From this standpoint alterations of lexical meanings are akin to contract fraud. After a tornado destroyed Mr. Smith’s house, imagine him discovering that his homeowner’s [insurance] policy would not reimburse him, because house really means family, not his dwelling-place. [45]

In back-to-back sections titled “Hedging on Fulfillment” and “Dispensationalist Harmonization,” Poythress objects to the dispensationalists’ understanding of prophetic fulfillment. [46] He believes they take the fulfillment of prophecies sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively, sometimes applicationally, and sometimes spiritually. He apparently sees their approach as an arbitrary procedure by which interpreters suppress evidence to maintain a “level of literal fulfillment to Israel.” [47] Seeking to preserve literal fulfillment to Israel, not surprisingly, is important to dispensationalists because of the contractual nature of a covenant, as developed earlier.

Contrary to how some non-dispensationalists view dispensationalists’ interpretation of prophecy, the notion of partial and typical fulfillment has its place. Where there is partial or typical fulfillment, however, it does “not replace a final fulfillment without forcing a breach of contract,” [48] because an immutable God cannot lie.

Typical or analogical fulfillment is allowed only as a revelation by metaphor, not by contractual performance. Revelation by metaphor is a corollary of creation. God created a harmonious universe with a harmonious history, repeating design features on different scales both in size and in time. For example, Scripture cites the wolf living in peace with the lamb (ecological tranquillity) as analogous to peaceful human relations (social tranquillity). However, without a catastrophic geophysical and biological transformation of the world resulting in such ecological tranquillity, the metaphor lacks foundation. There would be no typical or analogical fulfillment of the kingdom promises of the Old Testament covenants. During inductive study, therefore, a Dispensationalist applies a rigid standard of coherence to distinguish a semantic range for the word fulfill. From his perspective taking all New Testament uses of fulfillment terminology in the same semantic sense of covenant fulfillment, while not permitting analogical fulfillment, is lexically incoherent with the Old Testament. [49]

Thus, the term fulfill in the New Testament may refer to a typical or analogical fulfillment of an Old Testament passage, or it may refer to God performing in time, space, and history what He had previously promised to do. These are two separate meanings for fulfill, and as always, context (Old and New Testament) will determine which applies in a given instance. [50]

A Test Case: Rapture, Second Coming, or Both (1 Corinthians 15:51-52)?

Prelude

Poythress puts forth the notion that the pre-tribulational last trumpet (1 Corinthians 15:51–53) is problematic for dispensationalists because seven years later another trumpet sounds at Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24:31), presenting a reconciliation issue. [51]

The hermeneutical question is, what is the best way to understand 1 Corinthians 15:51–52? Is it best to be literal in the sense of following the grammatical-historical exegetical method or to adhere to the “first-thought meaning” of the term last? Poythress opts for the latter, setting aside the grammatical-historical-contextual approach and thus making the rapture and Second Coming simultaneous. [52] He recognizes that Dwight Pentecost (Things to Come) is right when he says that we do not have to understand last in an absolute way. [53] Poythress argues, however, that for last not to be absolute, it would need a qualifying clause of some kind, which he says it does not have in 1 Corinthians 15. Thus, he claims, Pentecost has only the church-Israel distinction to fall back on for support. Poythress then asks, “But where does 1 Corinthians say or hint that the ‘lastness’ is to be understood as confined to the concerns of the church?” [54] This is not only a fair question, but a crucial one.

In order to answer that question, three things are necessary. First, one must have an understanding of the nature and origins of the church. Second, one must know to whom the book of 1 Corinthians is addressed. Lastly, one must understand the role of the word mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:51.

The Nature and Origin of the Church

To begin an answer, it is necessary to understand just what the church is, and how a person enters it. Paul says, By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13). Thus, entry into the body of Christ is through the baptism of the Spirit. Body of Christ and church are equivalent terms, as demonstrated by several references in Paul’s writings:

• And He [Christ] is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He might have the preeminence. (Colossians 1:18)
• I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church. (Colossians 1:24)
• And He [the Father] put all things under His [the Son’s] feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:22–23)

One enters the body of Christ, that is, the church, by being baptized into it by the Holy Spirit. To determine when the church began, one must search the Scriptures to see when this baptizing ministry began. On the day of His ascension, Jesus tells His disciples that it has not yet begun:

John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit not many days from now. (Acts 1:5)

Jesus’ statement does not indicate when this baptism will start. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 points to the Day of Pentecost as the day when the Spirit began baptizing. If that is not clear, Luke leaves no doubt in chapter 11, where Peter reports to the Jerusalem church about the conversion of the Gentile centurion Cornelius and his household:

As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 11:15–16)

First, Peter equates what happened to Cornelius with what happened to the disciples in the beginning. That is, the Holy Spirit fell upon all of them: (a) the Jews at the beginning, and (b) Cornelius and his household (Gentiles) most recently. After this a rehearsal of historical facts, Peter also provides the biblical explanation, quoting the Lord: You shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit falling on Cornelius and his family was the baptism by the Spirit. It also happened at the beginning, in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, and that is the day when the Holy Spirit began His baptism ministry.

If the means of entry into the church is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and if that means of entry was not available until Pentecost, then it follows that no one entered the church until Pentecost. Accordingly, the church is composed of all believers from Pentecost to the present day. Believing Israel of the Old Testament is necessarily excluded from the church, for the baptism of the Spirit of God had not yet begun.

The Recipients of 1 Corinthians

It is also necessary to understand to whom Paul addresses the epistle of 1 Corinthians. A number of clues identify his addressees:

• To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints (1:2).
• Paul calls them brethren (1:10, 26; 2:1; 3:1; 4:6; 7:24, 29; 10:1; 11:1; 12:1; 14:6, 20, 26, 39; 15:1, 50; 16:15), my brethren (1:11; 11:33), beloved children (whom Paul begot through the gospel) (4:14–15), my beloved (10:14), and beloved brethren (15:58). In their midst are weaker brethren for whom Christ died and against whom they may sin (8:11–12). As genuine Christians, they are the seal of Paul’s apostleship in the Lord (9:2). They are contrasted with those who do not believe (10:27), as is their present state with the time when they were Gentiles [i.e., nonbelievers], carried away to these dumb idols (12:3). Paul also describes the Corinthians as having received his gospel, standing in it, and being saved by it (15:1–2).
• By God’s working, they are in Christ Jesus, who became for [them] wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1:30).
• They collectively are the temple of God (3:16–17) and each believer’s body is a temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19).
• Regardless of past sinful lifestyles, they are now washed. .. sanctified. .. justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (6:11).
• They belong to Christ (3:23); their bodies are members of Christ (6:15); they are not their own, for [they] were bought with a price (6:19–20; cf. 7:23).
• In addition, the apostle says, By one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit (12:13), and you are the body of Christ (12:27). (emphasis added)

The evidence is overwhelming that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to believers, not to unbelievers or a mixed group. The book aims at the experiential (progressive) sanctification of church members stumbling in their Christian living. Corinth is legendary for its disobedience (e.g., 3:1–4), and even denial of the resurrection of the dead (15:12). Since the addressees of the book are believers after Pentecost, they are all members of the church.

Poythress argues that understanding the last trumpet in anything other than an absolute sense requires qualifying material proving that this trumpet has to do with the church. Poythress is looking for a phrase or a clause in the verse itself, and so he misses the first line of evidence: Paul wrote the whole book to the church.

The Use of Mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:51

In addition to addressing the whole book to the church, Paul leaves a smaller clue in the immediate context, which Poythress also misses.

Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed—in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15:51–52)

The New Testament consistently uses mystery [55] to refer to a truth that was unknown in Old Testament times but is revealed to church-age saints: revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest (Romans 16:25–26). Accordingly, Paul’s choice of this term denotes that what he is about to say refers to the saints who compose the body of Christ, the church.

The pronoun we, denoting Paul and the recipients, occurs three times. Earlier it was established that the letter’s recipients are Spirit-baptized and therefore part of the body of Christ, a corporate entity identified as one new man (Ephesians 2:15) and brought into existence on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). First Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 adds that the Lord will complete this entity’s construction at the rapture, at which time it will obtain salvation (5:9). God delivers the church from the day of the Lord (5:2), elsewhere referred to as Daniel’s Seventieth Week, or more popularly the Tribulation—a seven-year period during which the Lord unleashes wrath and judgment on mankind. The church’s deliverance is two-fold: from wrath (5:9), [56] but also unto life together with him (5:10). This places the church’s last trumpet and deliverance seven years before the Second Coming with its trumpet.

First Corinthians in its totality addresses members of the body of Christ, the church. The content of chapter 15 is no different, keeping the church and its resurrection in view. Contextually, no other entity (e.g., those before Abraham, during Israel’s pre-Cross history, or those after the church’s resurrection) is in view. The last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15, then, is the church’s last trumpet, and relates to its departure into glory.

In light of the above, it is fair to say that dispensationalists have adhered to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, leading to the conclusion that the last trumpet of 1 Corinthians 15 is the last trumpet of the Church Dispensation.

With regard to the last trumpet. When I was in high school, some students got out after 6th period. Others got out after 7th. Every student was allowed to leave after his/her “last bell.” If someone said, “I can’t wait until the last bell,” it does not necessarily refer to the bell at the end of the 7th period. After all, if someone has been home for an hour before the 7th period bell went off, then the last bell heard by that person was the one ending the 6th period. Therefore, I totally reject Poythress’ suggestion that it must have an adjectival qualifier for us to differentiate the trumpets. I take it that last trumpet refers to the last one heard by someone, not necessarily the last one played in God’s program. [57]

Conclusion

A dispensational understanding of terms and events (e.g., the rapture and the Second Coming) is contextually responsive. Consistent literal interpretation applies to eschatological literature. Each term has a semantic range, and the context is the basis for isolating a term’s correct meaning within that range. Furthermore, each term should be interpreted in keeping with the lexicon that existed at the time of writing.

The terms of God’s covenants with Israel are not changeable. That is, one may not shape or reshape covenantal terms and their meanings in keeping with later hermeneutical or theological models. God’s Old Testament covenants are contractual in nature, requiring that if Israel meant the physical descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, then Israel must consistently mean this throughout Scripture. It is inappropriate to change the terms of a contract after the fact; thus, the biblical contractual arrangements, or covenants, must be allowed to stand as established. Not to do so is to play fast-and-loose with the biblical lexicon. And what can be said about the veracity and immutability of God if He alters covenantal terms? As quoted earlier, “It’s ironic that we dispensationalists take covenant structures more seriously than Covenant theologians!” [58]

Notes

1. Vern S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 2nd ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994).
2. Charles A. Clough, “A Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism,” CTS Journal 7 (April-June 2001), 59–80.
3. Because of Clough’s use of mathematical logic, it is recommended that one read his entire article. For greatest profit, those not familiar with such logic should keep a running list of symbols and their meanings to follow the article.
4. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 9.
5. Ibid., 16.
6. Ibid., 24.
7. Replacement theology holds that the Church has become the sole recipient of the covenants God made with Israel, i.e., the Church replaced national Israel.
8. Poythress, 45.
9. Ibid., 57, says, “Contemporary dispensationalists of course have attempted to refine grammatical-historical interpretation within their system. But the attempts at such interpretation within classic dispensationalism are often still too dominated by the presupposition and mind-set of the overall system, a system that remains operative when dispensationalists come to examine particular texts.” A dispensationalist would counter that the model Poythress advances remains dominated by a conjectured covenant of works.
10. Ibid., 56.
11. For example, both John 3:16 and Acts 27:31 use sz, but that hardly means that both passages describe the same kind of salvation.
12. Dr. John Niemelä, Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Chafer Theological Seminary, in personal e-mail correspondence says, “With regard to Poythress trying to say that the overlap of terminology between the Second Advent and Rapture precludes differentiating them, that is nonsense. We recognize a contextual difference between temptation and testing, even though the same Greek word is used. We also recognize a historic difference between Judean and Jew, even though the same Greek word is used.”
13. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 58.
14. Illumination is the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit that enlightens one’s understanding of existing biblical revelation.
15. Clough, “Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison,” 59. He defines “meta-hermeneutic” as “the set of metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical beliefs which one’s hermeneutical stance inextricably involves” (ibid., n. 2).
16. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 82–83.
17. Ibid., 83-84.
18. Ibid., 84-85.
19. Ibid., 69; he seeks to support this contention in chapters 8-11.
20. Ibid., 69-70; emphasis his.
21. Personal e-mail correspondence from John Niemelä.
22. Poythress, 68.
23. That which follows gleans much information from Clough’s important work.
24. Clough, “Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison,” 61.
25. Robert L. Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationism,” MSJ 6 (Spring 1995), 87–88, points out that progressive dispensationalists follow a hermeneutic that is in stark contrast to that embraced by genuine dispensationalists. He says, “Bock,. .. advocates a multilayered reading of the text which results in a ‘complementary’ reading (or meaning) that adds to the original meaning determined by the text’s original setting. The ‘complementary’ perspective views the text from the standpoint of later events, not the events connected with the text’s origin. He proposes a third layer of reading also, that of the entire biblical canon. In essence, he sees three possible interpretations of a single text, only one of which pertains to the text’s original historical setting. He refers to his method as a historical-grammatical-literary reading of the text. He notes that ‘such a hermeneutic produces layers of sense and specificity for a text, as the interpreter moves from considering the near context to more distant ones.’ “By thus ignoring the way the original historical setting ‘freezes’ the meaning of a text, Bock concludes that the meaning of any given passage is not static, but dynamic. It is ever changing through the addition of new meanings.. . .“For PD [Progressive Dispensationalist] hermeneutics, ‘historical’ has apparently come to incorporate not just the situation of the original text, but also the ongoing conditions throughout the history of the interpretation of that text. According to traditional hermeneutical principles, such a ‘bending’ is impossible because the historical dimension fixes the meaning of a given passage and does not allow it to keep gaining new senses as it comes into new settings.”
26. Umberto Eco, “Between Author and Text,” in Interpretation and Overinterpretation, ed. Stephan Collini (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 68, recounts a telling example: “I remember that in 1985, during a debate at Northwestern University I said to Hartman that he was a ‘moderate’ deconstructionist because he refrained from reading the line ‘A poet could not but be gay’ as a contemporary reader would do if the line were found in Playboy. In other words, a sensitive and responsible reader is not obliged to speculate about what happened in the head of Wordsworth when writing that verse, but has the duty to take into account the state of the lexical system at the time of Wordsworth. At that time ‘gay’ had no sexual connotation, and to acknowledge this point means to interact with a cultural and social treasury.”
27. Clough, “Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison,” 67. In personal conversation, Dr. Steve Lewis, president of Rocky Mountain Bible College and Seminary, has pointed out that covenant theologians expose their inconsistent application of the historical-grammatical hermeneutic by failing to apply the same non-literal interpretive approach to Christ’s first coming as they do to the second.
28. Ibid., 68.
29. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1993), 563, says, “Not bound to a covenant of grace, but only bound to the text of Scripture, Dispensationalism allows the Church to be the Church, but Israel is allowed to be Israel.”
30. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 43.
31. Ibid. The way Poythress frames this simple statement exposes his assumption of the primacy of the New Testament. Historically speaking, Israel is not the “second” people of God but the first. Poythress argues that Romans 5:12-21 “excludes in principle the idea of two parallel peoples of God, because the corporate unity of the people of God derives from their common representative Head.” The fact that Christ is the king of Israel (although not yet enthroned) as well as the Head of the church does not prove that the two are the same entity. For example, my two vocational roles (President of Chafer Theological Seminary and Pastor of Grace Chapel) do not create an equation between CTS and Grace Chapel.
32. Charles A. Clough, personal e-mail correspondence.
33. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists,61–62.
34. See Clough, “Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison,” 76–79.
35. Ibid., 76.
36. Clough, personal e-mail correspondence.
37. Poythress,Understanding Dispensationalists, 41.
38. Ibid., 42.
39. Ibid., 47.
40. Ibid., 53.
41. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 841–45, delineates four ways the New Testament uses the Old Testament: (1) literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment, (2) literal plus typical, (3) literal plus application, and (4) summation. He recaps: “Every New Testament quotation of the Old will fit into one of these four categories. The procedure is not simply ‘to interpret the Old by the New’ as Covenant Theology insists. The procedure is first to see what the original quotation means in its own context. Once that is determined, then it can also be determined in just which of the four categories the quotation belongs. There is no need to conclude that the New Testament changes or reinterprets the Old Testament” (ibid., 845).
42. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 55.
43. Scriptural quotations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982).
44. Clough, “Meta-Hermeneutical Comparison,” 77.
45. Ibid., 78.
46. Ibid., 52-57.
47. Ibid., 55.
48. Ibid., 78.
49. Ibid.
50. The Covenant hermeneutic conflates these two different definitions. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, seek to avoid that error.
51. Poythress, 71.
52. Ibid., 73.
53. Ibid., 74.
54. Ibid.
55. The term mystery is used 27 times in the New Testament, 20 of them by Paul. Contextual studies reveal that mystery is a multi-faceted term, not a technical term with one meaning only.
56. Revelation 3:10 adds κὰγῶ σε τηρῃσω ἐκ της ῶρὰ τους πειρασμους, i.e., I also will keep you from the hour of trial. See John H. Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10, ” CTS Journal 6 (January-March, 2000): 14-38.
57. Niemelä, personal e-mail correspondence.
58. Charles A. Clough, personal e-mail correspondence.

Audio Sermon: The Radical Example of Moravian Missions by Denny Kenaston

Beyond the Pulpit: Two Ways Ordinary Believers Minister to the Church

By Timothy R. Nichols

Timothy R. Nichols received his most significant biblical education from his father, Rev. Edd Nichols. He went on to spend three years at Florida Bible College, and completed his B.S. at Southeastern Bible College in 1997. After a brief interlude, Tim continued his education at Chafer Theological Seminary, graduating with a Th.M. in 2004. Tim presently ministers as an assistant pastor at Grace Chapel in Orange, CA, and as an instructor at Chafer Theological Seminary. His e-mail address is tnich77@yahoo.com.

Introduction

The public teaching of Scripture from the pulpit is vital to the spiritual health of the church. But Christians frequently forget that the object of the pulpit ministry is not merely to minister to the hearers, but to prepare the hearers to minister to each other. Ephesians 4:11–16 clearly states that pastors and teachers equip the saints for the work of the ministry. But how do the members of the body minister to one another? This paper presents two vital concepts for Christian ministry that believers frequently disregard in doctrine and practice. Few people in the pew know these concepts. Those who have heard them before are usually unaware that they have a biblical basis, and few have any model they can look up to as an example of how to apply them. Fewer still have someone training them to develop skill in applying these truths.

Encouragement in Hebrews

The first of these concepts has to do with fellowship and comes from the book of Hebrews. The author, audience, and purpose of Hebrews have all been hotly contested, so a few words about the larger context of the book are in order.

The author’s identity is unknown, although he states that he had no first-hand experience of Christ. He and his audience were second-generation believers: they relied on the accounts of those who had been with Jesus Himself. [1] From the extensive references to the Tabernacle service, it appears that they were Jewish and had familiarity with the Law. They were believers. [2] They were eternally secure, not only because all believers are, but because the book itself treats them as such. [3] The occasion of the letter is a state of spiritual decline among the audience. They had initially been faithful [4] and in certain respects remained faithful, [5] but had failed to mature [6] and were in danger of drifting away from the faith entirely. [7] In keeping with that situation, the book seeks to encourage the audience to have endurance and to strengthen what is weak, so that they may receive a full reward and escape God’s judgment.

The practical section that begins in 3:7 [8] focuses particularly on fellowship. The author starts by quoting Psalm 95:7b–11, which is God’s commentary on the rebellion of the Exodus generation. What follows is the author’s commentary on what went wrong at Kadesh Barnea and how his audience can avoid making the same mistake.

Beware, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God; but exhort one another daily, while it is called “Today,” lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. [9]

The core problem the author wishes to address is unbelief, which involves hardness of heart, as he demonstrates in the following verses. He holds out the promise of reward to his readers: “For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end.” This reward can motivate them to endurance if they note—and not follow—the example of the Exodus generation. The Exodus generation also heard, [10] but they hardened their hearts. Consequently, the promise they heard did not benefit them because they did not believe it and therefore did not obey. The author goes on, in 4:2–11, to demonstrate that rest remains available to God’s people if they believe and obey.

So if the pitfall is unbelief (or hardheartedness), what is the preventive measure? The author urges: “But exhort one another daily, while it is called ‘Today.’” Two features about this are particularly interesting. First, it is a command believers fulfill with “one another,” which means they give exhortation as well as receive it. This is not something tied to a particular spiritual gift or position in the church: every believer can and should obey the command to exhort. Second, this reciprocal exhortation should happen daily—not at the monthly potluck, not every Sunday, not even Sunday morning and Wednesday night—daily.

I have to admit that upon first hearing this idea, I was shocked. My initial response was, “But I’m not getting anything close to daily encouragement, and I’m doing fine.” (Does that sound like unbelief?) Upon reflection, I was not fine. In fact, my definition of “fine” had degraded considerably during my period of comparative isolation. One might call that degraded definition “being hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.” And as I have shared this truth with other believers, I have found very few people who have not responded to isolation in the same way. It should not surprise believers that when they neglect the divinely appointed safeguard against unbelief, it sneaks in unnoticed.

The author of Hebrews does not say that someone who lacks daily encouragement will necessarily drift into unbelief. A believer marooned on a desert island is not thereby doomed to spiritual mediocrity. If God has providentially isolated one of His children, He will provide for his spiritual well-being. [11] But for a believer to isolate himself from fellow believers is another matter. Someone who willfully goes without daily reciprocal encouragement is missing a divinely ordained safeguard for his spiritual life, and his spiritual failure should not come as a surprise.

The author does not address this theme of fellowship again until chapter 10. Pastors regularly quote Hebrews 10:25 to rebuke people for skipping church, but the command involves much more than church attendance.

And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching. [12]

The context of the command is a challenge to faithfulness in the Christian life, based on the faithfulness of Christ as our High Priest. The content of the command itself does not emphasize the part pastors tend to emphasize. The main clause in the command is “consider one another.” That is where the emphasis lies. Moreover, the Greek word consider refers to study or scrutiny. “Scrutinize each other” would be a good translation. What is the purpose of scrutiny? “To stir up love and good works.” The idea is that I would look at another believer and think to myself, “What can I do or say for this person that will stimulate him to be more loving and to do more good works?” and that he would look at me and think the same way.

Fulfilling this command assumes a certain knowledge of the person. That is why scrutiny is necessary. Some Christians need a smack on the head, some need a gentle word, some just need an example to follow. It is possible to hit a whole group of people with a well-timed exhortation (which is what the author of Hebrews is doing with this letter), [13] but often this needs to be individual. [14] The latter is in view in this passage, since this is not a charge to pastors and teachers about how they choose sermon topics, but rather instruction to individual believers about how they should handle the time they spend with each other.

Careful individual exhortation is the main thought here. Modifying that thought is verse 10:25: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.” This is common sense: how are believers going to scrutinize each other to stir up love and good works if they do not spend time with each other? So they must not forsake the assembly. In the assembly, they are to exhort each other. The verse does not say, “Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, but listening to teaching.” Teaching is vital, but the assembly the author of Hebrews has in mind is one where believers are encouraging each other—this is at the very least a major part of the activity. Once again, the regular reciprocal encouragement is not tied to any particular gift or position in the church. It is for everyone to do.

The author has one more thing to say on his subject:

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. [15]

What is the willful sin the author has in mind in the context? Throughout the whole book, the author hammers on the need for faithfulness. He does the same in this passage, giving his audience a specific exhortation to reciprocal encouragement and assembly for that purpose. The willful sin is unfaithfulness: abandoning fellowship with God and failing to encourage one another and to assemble for that purpose. God takes that failure seriously. [16]

This is the first of the two vital concepts relating to how ordinary believers minister to the body of Christ: they encourage each other every day.

Discipleship in Matthew

The second concept relating to every believer’s ministry comes from the Gospel of Matthew. Two particular features of Matthew’s structure are important for this discussion. First, Matthew arranges his narrative material around five major sections of teaching. [17] The narrative that precedes each teaching section prepares the reader for the teaching and reinforces it. Second, Matthew is not writing a balanced, slice-of-life account of Jesus’ ministry. Instead, he focuses on a particular facet of it. A comparison of the early portions of all four gospels shows that everything from John 1:19 to 4:43 occurs between Matthew 4:11 and 4:12. [18] In John 1:19–4:43, the reader encounters an evangelistic facet of Jesus’ ministry that is almost wholly absent from Matthew, including evangelistic contact with the men called by the Sea of Galilee in Matthew 4:18–22. The first time Matthew’s reader encounters these men, Jesus is calling them to be His disciples. Matthew assumes and John confirms that they had already believed in His Messiahship; the portrayal in Matthew focuses on their discipleship. [19] This focus continues throughout the book and culminates in a command to these very same men to make more disciples. This structure suggests, and a closer examination of the book confirms, that Matthew is a manual for discipleship.

Before proceeding any further, it is necessary to consider the definition of disciple. There is some tension between the qualifications for being a disciple (as Jesus states them) and the Gospel writers’ use of the word. On the one hand, discipleship is a demanding calling. Jesus says, “If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” [20] Luke records a similar, but more pointed statement: “Whoever does not bear his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.” [21] On the other hand, we have the conduct of the people actually called disciples by the Gospel authors. What did the disciples do in the Garden of Gethsemane? Their behavior bore no resemblance to bearing the cross.

The resolution is this: there is a generic use of disciple that refers to “learners” or “followers.” That usage is all over the gospels and, on the evidence, does not attach any particular virtue to the people it describes.

Even Judas Iscariot is described as a disciple. [22] In the generic sense, disciples were people who learned from or followed Jesus in some sense. However, the qualifications for discipleship that Jesus himself stated go far beyond that, so there is also a more specific sense of the word. John’s gospel refers to those who fit the more specific sense as disciples indeed, [23] that is, genuine disciples. While this article borrows the verbiage from John’s gospel, the category is present in Matthew as well.

In His final command to make more disciples, Jesus uses the term disciple in the more restrictive sense.

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. [24]

In verse 18 the Lord gives the basis for his command: He has been given all authority. The Greek participle, poreuthentes (“going”), which leads off the command, has been variously rendered. Depending on the translator, it will read “Go,” “As you are going,” “Having gone,” etc. Regardless of which translation one takes, [25] the focus of the command is in the following clause: make disciples of all nations. Jesus then gives two clauses that explain how one goes about making disciples: (1) baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and (2) teaching them to do all things He commanded the disciples. He closes with the promise to be with them always.

Of particular interest is the second clause in the instructions for making disciples: teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. First of all, it should be noted that this is teaching to do, not just teaching to know. This is a consistent thread throughout the Scriptures. [26] Moreover, what are disciples supposed to do? “All things that I have commanded you.” The more demanding definition of disciple is clearly in view here.

Now what does “all things I have commanded you” include? Naturally, Matthew is thinking of the five major teaching sections of the book, but is that the extent of the commands that he has in mind? Of course not—he said, “All things.” There are other commands to the disciples scattered throughout the narrative sections of the book, and they are included as well. Most significantly, the command that we are discussing is included. “All things that I have commanded you” includes “Go and make disciples of all nations.” Teaching disciples to obey all the commands of Christ includes teaching them to make more disciples. The Great Commission includes itself!

All believers ought to be disciples, and it is the leaders’ job to help them become disciples. The process of making disciples, according to Christ’s command, includes making them disciple-makers. Every believer should be a disciple, and every disciple should be a disciple-maker. This is not a matter of spiritual gifting or position in the church; it is for everyone.

Implications

What are the implications of these principles of reciprocal daily fellowship and disciple-making? In more conservative circles, believers routinely deride market-driven churches for treating their congregants like consumers. They correctly point out that such methodology inevitably precludes treating unbelievers like sinful unbelievers. They have not been slow to notice that it also causes church leadership to wink at sin among believers and to tolerate blatant carnality instead of naming it the rebellion that it is. (The customer, after all, is always right.) They criticize the leadership of these churches for making their congregants feel comfortable when there is no biblical reason for comfort.

The same people have been much slower to notice that more traditional churches tend to treat their congregants like employees. If they attend regularly and do their part for the organization—which usually means giving regularly, helping out with Sunday School, planting flowers out front, and perhaps some regular Bible study or memory work—then they are made to feel comfortable. They should not be.

Maintaining a high-quality Christian life involves taking preventive measures against the subtle pressures of sin and unbelief, and one of those measures is daily reciprocal encouragement among believers. If the people in a church are not encouraging each other daily, they should be concerned, not comfortable. The church leaders who willingly allow people in this condition to be comfortable are setting their people up for failure.

Furthermore, being a disciple requires that one make disciples. If the people in a church are not actively involved in making disciples, they should be concerned, not comfortable. In addition, if church leaders willingly allow people in this condition to be comfortable, then the church leaders are not teaching their disciples to obey all the commands of Christ.

Implementation

Communicating these truths from the pulpit is important. People need to know this information. But they also need someone to model obedience to the command. There is biblical precedent for this. Paul offered himself on several occasions as an example of various practices [27] and commanded Timothy (a disciple he trained) to be an example as well. [28] It is well to note that examples are visible by definition. If congregants are not close enough to their leaders to see these truths in the leaders’ lifestyle, then they are not close enough. In that case, leaders need to encourage their people to spend more time with them and observe them more closely. [29]

The congregants also need training. (As Jim Myers said, “Teaching is impartation of information; training is impartation of skill.” [30]) Modeling and teaching lay the foundation for training, but the coaching that helps people develop skill in applying these truths is a separate activity. Pastors cannot simply lecture and live and hope their people get it through osmosis. They can do better than that.

On a personal note, I have presented these two truths from Scripture because I believe them and regard them as important. This does not mean that I have worked out all the ways to apply them, or that I have extensive experience in helping churches develop application of these truths. I am new at helping people to implement these truths. As I have said to the people of Grace Chapel on several occasions, no one will be more surprised than I if everything I try actually works. All I can tell you is what I have tried so far. But first, I will tell you one thing I am not doing. I am not creating a program. If disciple-making is about anything at all, it is about building people, a few at a time. Build a program to make disciples, and it will fall apart without the right person to run it. Build a person into a genuine disciple, and he will make more disciples, with or without a program and with or without the support of his mentor. But on to what I am doing. .. .

Daily Encouragement: I speak weekly to two mentors for the purpose of reciprocal encouragement in the faith. I spend time with my wife dedicated to that purpose. I use “chatting time” after church services as a chance to do this same thing with people in the church. There are several other people that I call or see regularly. The net result? It is a rare day when I do not exchange encouragement with another member of the body of Christ.

Disciple-Making: [31] I have identified a handful of people with whom I have an opportunity to have a regular influence. I am actively seeking to bring them to the point of genuine discipleship or, for some, to encourage them to continue in it. One of the ways I seek to accomplish this is by using my time with them for spiritual encouragement. I find that stirring up others to love and good works tends to stimulate them to do the same.

More officially, I have also begun a training group that includes several people who would otherwise be outside my circle of influence. They are learning what it means to be a genuine disciple—including making disciples. My short-term goal is to prepare them to start another training group, which they will lead (I will be present as a resource, but they will hold the reins). My long-term goal is for this process of disciple-making to take on a life of its own, in whatever form.

Conclusion

Christ calls all believers to minister to each other. Yet many Bible-believing churches have no concept of the extent to which this is the case. Every believer should have daily encouragement, and every believer should be a disciple and a disciple-maker. If church leaders can teach their people why they should do these things, show them by example how to live them out in modern society, and train them in their ability to do the same, then churches will grow not merely in numbers but in quality.

Notes

1 Heb. 2:3. Paul does not fit this description (cf. Gal. 1:11–12).

2 In 3:1 the author addresses his readers as holy brethren, and he continues to use brethren to address them throughout the book. What does he mean by this word? In the preceding paragraph, he describes the relationship between Christ, God’s Son, and other children of God: Now both He who sanctifies [Christ] and those who are sanctified are all of one [that is, all from one Father], for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren (2:11). Two things must be mentioned here. First, the basis for calling someone a brother is having God as the common Father. Second, sanctify means “to make holy,” so we may translate the passage thus: “Now both He who makes (them) holy and those who are made holy are all of one.” When the author goes on in the very next paragraph to address his readers as holy brethren, he means those words in the way he has just defined them: fellow children of God. See John H. Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice,” pt. 1, CTS Journal 4 (October-December 1998): 2-17. It is also noteworthy that the repetition of brethren in 2:11, 3:1 and 3:13 indicates that the audience for the warning passages is the same as the audience for the rest of the book.

3 Chapter 2 indicates that those who are sanctified are the children of God. The author tells us in 10:12–14 that those who are sanctified (i.e., believers) are perpetually perfected by Christ’s single sacrifice offered once for all. Now, if they are perpetually perfected, can they lose this perfection? No! If they could, it would not be perpetual.

4 Heb. 10:32–39.

5 Heb. 6:10.

6 Heb. 5:12–14.

7 Heb. 2:1; 3:12; 10:25.

8 The epistle of Hebrews divides into five sections, each of which subdivides into a doctrinal discussion followed by a practical discussion, as follows:

Section One: 1:1–2:4
Doctrine: 1:1–14
Practice: 2:1–4

Section Two: 2:5–4:13
Doctrine: 2:5–3:6
Practice: 3:7–4:13

Section Three: 4:14–6:20
Doctrine: 4:14–5:10
Practice: 5:11–6:20

Section Four: 7:1–10:39
Doctrine: 7:1–10:18
Practice: 10:19–39

Section Five: 11:1–13:25
Doctrine: 11:1–40
Practice1: 12:1–29
Practice2: 13:1–25

See Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice,” for further discussion.

9 Heb. 3:12–13. Block Scripture quotes in this article are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982).

10 Heb. 4:16.

11 The author also tells his readers that God “is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him” (Heb. 11:6).

12 Heb. 10:24–25 (emphasis added).

13 Note 10:32–39 and 13:22.

14 E.g., the exhortation required by Matthew 18:15.

15 Heb. 10:26–31.

16 We have to bear in mind that these are eternally secure believers. They are in great danger of severe judgment from God, but they have been “perpetually perfected” by Christ’s single offering which He offered “once for all” (Heb. 10:10–14). That cannot be taken away. For further information on this passage, see John Niemelä, “No More Sacrifice,” pts. 1 and 2, CTS Journal 4 (October 1998): 2-17; 5 (January 1999): 22-45.

17 Roughly, ch. 5–7, 10, 13, 18, 24–25.

18 In fact, all three Synoptics skip over this material that John covers.

19 Further proof of this is that we know for sure from John’s account that two of the men called by the sea are already believers at that point.

20 Matt. 16:24.

21 Luke 14:27.

22 E.g., Matt. 10:1–4 and Luke 6:13–16.

23 John 8:31.

24 Matt. 28:18–20

25 Even if the participle has no imperatival force, one must ask how Christians can fulfill a command to make disciples of all the nations without actually going there. If the going is not stated, it is assumed.

26Cf. Josh. 1:8, Ps. 119:9, 15–17, James 1:22.

27 Phil. 3:17, 2 Thess. 3:7–10,

28 1 Tim. 4:12.

29 Thus, the much-lamented “living-in-a-fishbowl” situation is not merely unavoidable, but at times desirable, if one is to be an example. (Having lived in the fishbowl almost my whole life, as a pastor’s kid and Christian schoolteacher’s kid and now as an assistant pastor and seminary instructor, I do understand the implications of that statement.)

30 James F. Myers, “Sending and Where Missionaries Come From” (presentation, 2004 CTS Pastors Conference, Irvine, CA, March 8, 2004).

31 Disciple-making does not have to take the form of three one-on-one early-morning meetings a week. There is nothing wrong with that model, but it is by no means the only possibility. Within the sphere of His wider ministry, Jesus Himself worked especially with a group of twelve picked men, and a sub-group of three selected from among the twelve. Paul regularly traveled with a small group of men he was training. John Mark learned at various times under Paul, Barnabas, and Peter. The assembly spoken of everywhere in the NT is generally of small groups, not often of pairs. So it need not be the one-on-one arrangement that many are accustomed to.

Should New Testament Greek Be “Required” in Our Ministerial Training Courses?

By Henry C. Thiessen

This article was originally published in BSac 91:361 (January–March, 1934): 34–45, and is reprinted here by gracious permission of Bibliotheca Sacra. (All Scripture references that were abbreviated in the original have been spelled out in accordance with the CTS Journal format.)

Should the theological seminaries follow the example of many colleges and make the study of the ancient languages optional? This is one of the crucial questions before theological teachers and students today. Very important results flow from the solution of this problem, and it is our purpose to examine the question briefly.

More and more keenly the theological seminaries feel the effect of the changes being made in the courses in the colleges. Since today many colleges require neither Latin nor Greek for the B.A. degree, the ministerial student often comes to the seminary not only without any knowledge of these languages, but with the distinct feeling that the study of the Biblical language is, to say the least, not important. Let him that wishes to become a specialist in that field have the opportunity of taking a thorough course in Greek and Hebrew, but let him that is not interested in these languages as a specialty be permitted to take other subjects, more to his liking and more important in his judgment. This is the attitude of many young men today when they consider what seminary to attend for training for definite Christian service. It is a matter of regret that so many theological institutions are adopting this viewpoint and are making either one or both the Biblical languages optional. One wonders how the smaller seminary can long maintain a language department when such is the attitude toward the subject; for no matter how much individual teachers may recommend the courses in the Greek New Testament, the seminary’s attitude in making the course selective indicates that officially the school does not consider them indispensable to every student.

But why oppose this tendency? Why not follow the example of other institutions, even if it becomes difficult or even impossible to maintain a language department? The writer does not assume to be an authority on the technicalities of pedagogy, but he does insist that as best we can we ought to examine the question before we come to such a conclusion. We must remember that not all that is new is good, and that not all that is old is bad. Since the older seminaries rather uniformly required the languages of all their students, we begin by considering the objections that are being offered today to this practice. When we have had these before us we shall suggest briefly an explanation of the present tendency; and then we shall follow with the positive reasons for requiring the languages of all students. What is true of New Testament Greek is, to a large extent, true of Old Testament Hebrew also; but for the purpose of this paper we confine ourselves more particularly to the importance of New Testament Greek.

The Objections Considered

The modern applicant for ministerial training asks, “Why continue to require New Testament Greek in a day when there are so many translations?” “Can a student in three or four years acquire sufficient knowledge of the Greek language to do independent work in the Greek Testament?” “Are there not many more ‘practical’ subjects in the theological curriculum that one could take?” These questions are in reality objections to the study of the language. They deserve careful examination and merit a sincere answer.

It would seem that the many translations of the New Testament so far from being an argument against the study of the original are in reality an argument for it. A friend of the writer, a well-known Bible teacher, has approximately 150 English translations of the whole or parts of the Bible. There is, of course, nothing wrong about the acquisition of numerous translations.

Much help can be obtained from a comparison of different translations by one well taught in the Scriptures as a whole, especially if he be able to check up the translations with the original. But one wonders how the young student unfamiliar with the original could arrive at the exact meaning of a passage by reference to the translations. Is it sufficient to say, “It seems to me that this translation gives the true meaning here?” Clearly, such a practice makes personal opinion the final criterion,-a most unscientific procedure. Heretics and false teachers have always been quick to adopt a rendering that is in harmony with their preconceived notions; but the faithful minister of the Word should seek for a more objective touchstone than mere personal preference.

Perhaps we should stop to inquire as to the reason for the many translations. Is it because of pecuniary reward or the ambition for honor? Possibly these considerations may enter in somewhat in some cases; but the writer believes that there is a deeper reason than that. It seems to him that scholar after scholar has felt that all existing translations fall short in many instances of giving the exact shade of meaning in the original. Becoming fascinated with the richness of meaning in the Greek text, he has yielded to the impulse to try to improve on the existing renderings, and so has added his own version. Thus the presence of the many English translations in reality argues for the insufficiency of translations when one is concerned about absolute accuracy in his study.

But can a student acquire sufficient knowledge of the Greek language in three or four years to do independent work in that language? We reply, That depends on what we mean by “independent.” If we mean without recourse to lexicons and grammars, then the answer would, in most cases, be in the negative. The careful student will admit that even in his English study he is not altogether independent of the dictionary and grammar; how much less can he in so short a time become independent of such works of reference in a language that is read but not spoken? But if we mean ability to ascertain accurately just what the text means by the aid of such helps; if we mean ability to follow and test the interpretations of Greek commentaries, then the answer would be in the affirmative. A student can in the time specified acquire the ability to get the Greek viewpoint and find ways of expressing that viewpoint; he can become qualified to form an intelligent opinion of the interpretations of commentaries on the text of the original. And that is an accomplishment abundantly worth while.

And what about the third question, Are there not many more “practical” subjects in the theological curriculum today than the languages? In turn we should like to ask, What do you mean by the term “practical”? Is there anything more practical than an exact understanding of the Word of God? We are thinking not only of the personal spiritual benefit to the student, but also of the broader value of exegesis for an expository ministry and for the organization of one’s whole theological thinking. Look at the practice in other fields of mental culture. When anyone undertakes to study Plato scientifically, does he do it in the translations? Or take the case of history. Are not educators constantly directing their students to the “sources”? It is the same with regard to Biblical science. Christian ministers and missionaries are expected to have a scientific knowledge of the Word of God. It is their specialty. Can they lay full claim to specialization if they content themselves with the versions? Is not an accurate knowledge of the original necessary to the highest type of expository preaching? We thank God for the time-honored Authorized Version; but have not such mistranslations in it as come from the confusion of the Greek words for “world” and “age,” for “hades” and “hell,” for “devil” and “demon,” not to mention those of lesser importance, helped to build up and perpetuate colossal false teachings? It would seem to be “practical” enough to be able to refute the teachings of the restitutionists, second probationists, annihilationists, and other errorists, by direct reference to the original, especially since they so generally pretend to base their interpretations on the original; it would seem to be abundantly worth while to get such an accurate knowledge of the Greek text that one can use it in the exposition of the Scriptures and the formulation of his own doctrinal views. For the candidate for the foreign field there is always the additional possibility that he will have to labor in a field where a new translation of the Scriptures has to be made or an old one revised. Shall he content himself with translating from the English Bible or shall he aspire to translate from the original? There would seem to be few subjects more foundational to the Christian worker than the study of the Biblical languages.

The Explanation Suggested

If, now, the tendency in theological education today is to get away from the study of the languages, what is the reason for it? We have shown the inadequacy of the objections to their continuance as required subjects; let us next suggest two explanations of the tendency itself.

The first is the present-day emphasis on utilitarianism in pedagogy and philosophy. Adopting the dictum of modern philosophy that we should include nothing in our curricula that does not “function” in the life of the graduate, some men claim that New Testament Greek must be eliminated from the list of required subjects. They tell us that men in the ministry today seldom use the Greek Testament in their pulpit preparation, and that others with very little or no knowledge of Greek are more successful in the ministry than those with the regular courses in this subject. How, we are asked, do you explain these facts, if the study of Greek placed the one class in so advantageous a position, and the omission of it does not seem to affect the success of the other?

In reply to the first assertion it may be said that there are still a goodly number of ministers that make use of their Greek Testament in the study, though the number is not as large as it was a generation ago. There are several explanations why many no longer depend on the original in a large sense. The present-day minister is so overburdened with administrative duties, social endeavors, and public services, that he finds it difficult to observe regular hours for study of any kind. Some of the activities of the modern pastor may not altogether square with the Biblical conception of the ministry; some of them undoubtedly have been assumed because of the pressure of circumstances, at the expense of systematic private study. If on leaving the seminary the young minister does not reserve for himself definite hours for study, including his Greek Testament, he will soon show it in his preaching. He will certainly not long retain a working knowledge of the Greek language. So when after this condition has well set in he snatches a few spare moments at irregular intervals during the week for sermon preparation, he finds it easier to sit down with the English Bible than to dig away at the original. This accounts for most of the nonuse of the Biblical languages by men in the ministry today. But we believe that in some cases the reason can be traced a step further back than that. All too many come out of the seminary without a thorough knowledge of what Greek they did take, and so they have little to preserve and build on. Never having attained to a mastery of forms and functions, they have never felt sure of their own interpretations. It may have been the teacher’s fault. Perhaps he was too eager to make exegetes out of his pupils and did not sufficiently drill them on the mechanics of the language, or perhaps he took a purely professional interest in the language and so taught nothing but accidence and syntax. Both are extremes to be avoided, for the student that is taught to exegete without a thorough grounding in grammar must remain a slave of the commentaries, and the student that studies nothing but grammar misses the enrichment and satisfaction that comes from the understanding of the Greek statement. But the writer believes that these are faults that can be corrected and that the student can be inspired to do original work in the Greek text.

As for the claim that many Christian leaders with little or no knowledge of Greek are more successful in the ministry than others who have that knowledge we may say that that does not disprove our contention that with it they might have become even more successful. True success in the Lord’s work is not due to one’s knowledge or lack of knowledge of Greek, but to prayer, the faithful exposition of the truth one does know, and the blessing of God. This being true, we fail to see how such a fuller knowledge of the Word as comes from the ability to read the Scriptures in the original can subtract from a man’s success in the ministry. The rather must it help him to succeed in whatever type of work he may be engaged. We rejoice at the success of those honored servants of God who have not had the regular theological training; but it seems fair to say that they did not achieve success because of their deficiency in this respect but in spite of it. There are, we may admit, a few men so wonderfully endowed of God that they can do without the formal training of the schools; but we must remember that there was only one Spurgeon and only one Moody. What a foolish notion it would be to assume that all that one needs to do to become a Spurgeon or a Moody is to avoid getting any more education than they had when they began their ministry! We said began their ministry, for we know that both these men in a large measure overcame their handicaps by prolonged study and self-discipline after they got into the ministry. So do other men of that type today. They avail themselves of the fruit of the labors of other men, and, in some cases, attain to a mastery of the technical aspects of their specialty to a degree not attained by the seminary graduate. It may be said, also, that generally these men are the strongest advocates of intensive training for our young people today. They feel that the prospects are ever so much brighter for the young man that goes out fully equipped from the beginning than for the young man that must, like themselves, spend much time in hard study along with his ministerial labors, time that ought to be devoted to the teaching and preaching of the Word of God. At any rate, it is not right to say that New Testament Greek does not “function” in the life of a minister as long as any of the above reasons explain either his nonuse of the Greek Testament or his success without a knowledge of that language.

If the first explanation is not well founded on fact, the second is, in the writer’s opinion, the real reason. Briefly stated, It is the present attitude toward the Bible. If the Scriptures are inspired only as Shakespeare and Milton are inspired; if they are but the opinions of pious men of ancient times; then they are not infallible. If they are not infallible, then why study them with minute care. Then the English translations are quite sufficient to acquaint us with the general outlines of Old Testament history, the life of Christ, and the teaching of the apostles. Men with such views study the Greek Testament chiefly, if at all, merely as a language, and not in order to ascertain the full significance of its message. This is the attitude of the modernistic seminaries, and one can understand why such institutions make Greek an elective. But it is difficult to see why the conservative seminaries should do so also. Surely, they are not willing to admit that the Scriptures need not be studied with minute care; surely, they accept the original as the very Word of God. The writer could wish that schools that have for the present made the Biblical language elective would reconsider their action and restore them to their former place among the required subjects.

The Reasons Stated

We have discussed the objections to requiring the Biblical languages of all theological students and have suggested a possible explanation of the present tendency to get away from the older practice. Let us now consider the positive reasons for continuing New Testament Greek as a “required” subject.

In the first place we would mention the difficulty of expressing accurately the thought of one language in that of another. In a general way, words, phrases, and clauses in one language are similar to those in another, but that is not saying they are always exact equivalents.

Weymouth shows that even the Greek words χείρ and ἵππος are not always the exact equivalents of our English hand and horse, though they usually are. [1] If such common words as these sometimes have different meanings in the two languages, what is to be said about the abstract words ἀγάπη, ἀρετή, etc.; about the many cases of nouns and pronouns in Greek over against the few in English; about the two Greek tenses for past time over against our one past tense, etc.? A Greek word sometimes covers more, sometimes less, ground than the word by which it is represented in our English translations. The translator is constantly confronted by two problems, viz., first, how to express the exact shade of meaning in the original, and, secondly, how to do it in idiomatic English. Sometimes the one or the other purpose can be carried out only in part, owing to the differences in the two idioms.

But someone may ask, Why then study Greek if there is this difficulty in exact translation? What is to be gained by the knowledge of a meaning that you cannot express? To this we reply that we recognize the difficulty of exact idiomatic translation. We have contended above that this is the chief reason for the multiplication of versions. But we deny that the true meaning cannot somehow be expressed in English. We believe that the student can get the Greek way of looking at it and can express the exact meaning by paraphrase and circumlocution when he cannot do it in idiomatic English. Dean Alford resorts to this method when he comments on the verb ἐγενήθητε in 1 Peter 3:6. [2] This verb is translated in the A.V. by “whose daughters ye are,” and in the A.S.V. by “whose children ye now are.” Alford remarks that “the aorist properly refers back to the precise time when they were so made; but,” he adds, it “cannot be so expressed in English.” He means in idiomatic English, for he translates by “of whom ye have become children.” But that may mean by a long process of well-doing, which is contrary to the sense of the aorist. Thus his explanatory statement is needed to indicate the true force of the original. Take as another illustration the first part of Paul’s statement in Ephesians 3:17. The writer was long puzzled as to Paul’s meaning when he prays, as the. translates, “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith.” Were not his readers Christians? Was not Christ already in their hearts? Surely that was the case, as is clear from chs. 1 and 2. What then does he mean? It was not until the writer looked carefully at the original that light came. The important word here is κατοικῆσαι, an aorist infinitive, not the aorist infinitive οἰκῆσαι, nor the present infinitive οικεῖν. We have here the compound word (from and) in the aorist tense. The compound expresses the perfective idea and means to dwell or settle, and together with the ingressive (inceptive) idea in the aorist signifies to take up permanent abode, to settle down in the heart. Not that Christ comes and goes in the experience of the believer, but that there is the privilege of having Him Who is already in the heart take up a settled abode in it. This implies a larger welcome on part of the Christian to Christ and a fuller surrender to Him. This is what Paul prayed for, and this is what believers should covet today. These examples show that the exact meaning of the Greek can be expressed, though not always in idiomatic English.

In the second place we would emphasize the solemn obligations of the Christian minister. He has been commissioned to “preach the Word” (2 Timothy 4:2). Even the Old Testament says: “He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully” (Jeremiah 23:28). That means more than to maintain a general loyalty to the great fundamentals of the faith: it means a conscientious dealing with every part of the revelation God has given us. Jesus emphasized the importance of jots and tittles in the Old Testament (Matthew 5:18), is the New Testament any less important than the Old? Paul based his argument that Jesus is the One through Whom the Abrahamic blessing comes to the Gentiles on the use of the singular (Galatians 3:16). A knowledge of the original makes it possible to interpret the Word of God faithfully. The Christian minister is not commissioned to preach the current views of philosophy or the changing hypotheses of science; he is not called upon to review the latest books of fiction or the present-day pictures in the movies; he is not even charged with the duty of preaching the purest kind of ethics he knows and of making men better,—he is asked to preach the Word, to be urgent in season, out of season; to reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and teaching (2 Timothy 4:2). He, like Paul, is “set for the defence of the Gospel” (Philippians 1:16), and, as Jude says, is to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3). He is not to handle “the Word of God deceitfully” (2 Corinthians 4:2), for he is a steward of the mysteries of God, and “it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful” (1 Corinthians 4:1, 2). Some day he will be called to give an account of his stewardship. What will he say at the judgment seat of Christ if he has not availed himself of every opportunity to become qualified for the most exact and faithful exposition of God’s Word?

In the last place we would call attention to the relation between exegesis and preaching. Dr. A. T. Robertson quotes A. M. Fairbairn as saying, “No man can be a theologian who is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is no divine.” [3] This seems like an exaggeration in our day of superficial Bible study. Dr. Robertson refers us to Alexander Maclaren as a good illustration of this dictum, saying that “his matchless discourses are the fruit of the most exact scholarship and spiritual enthusiasm.” [4] Thayer says, “The somewhat indiscriminate depreciation of the study of the dead languages at the present day is not without injurious influence upon those who are preparing themselves to be expounders of the Divine Word.” [5] This is true, and we may add that the “depreciation” has grown apace since Thayer wrote the above words. We have emphasized above the importance of preaching the Word. No wonder there is such a dearth of expository preaching in our day when there is so little interest in the exact study of the text. We need to get back to the study of the Bible in the original languages if we are to get back to Biblical preaching. It should not be forgotten that the foundations for the Protestant Reformation were laid in the Renaissance. Think of the influence in those days of the lectures of such men as John Reuchlin (1455–1522) in Germany who taught Hebrew, and of John Colet (1467–1519) in England who lectured on the Greek text of Paul’s Epistles. However far these men may have fallen from the true evangelical position, they contributed much to the undermining of the speculative fancies of the Schoolmen and prepared the way for the fuller evangelical message. Would it not be true today also that if teachers of theological truth returned to the exposition of the Scriptures from the original languages the foundations of modernism would soon be undermined and the way be prepared for a great spiritual awakening?

We have seen that the objections to requiring New Testament Greek for graduation are not well taken; that the reasons for the present tendency to make the subject an elective are not in harmony with the highest scholastic and spiritual ideals; and that the results of the exposition of the Scriptures on the basis of the original are most practical and far-reaching. In view of these facts the writer could wish that all the evangelical theological seminaries would continue New Testament Greek as a required subject in their curriculum!

Notes

1. On Rendering into English of the Greek Aorist and Perfect, p. 4f.
2. Greek Testament, in loc.
3. Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. x.
4. Ibid.
5. Preface to Buttmann’s Grammar of New Testament Greek.