Tongues and the Mystery Religions of Corinth

By H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Greek, LeTourneau College, Longview, Texas]

Of all the controversial subjects discussed in Christian circles, probably few have received more attention than the subject of glossolalia. Though the material written on this subject is enormous, much confusion pervades the issue. Since the Corinthian assembly gave undue preeminence to “speaking in tongues,” it is only to be expected that a person seeking to understand the Corinthian phenomenon should desire to know the reason for this stress. This article seeks to demonstrate that some of the Corinthian Christians brought aspects of their pagan background into their worship and theology. These false perspectives and practices were characteristic of the contemporary religious setting in Corinth from which they had been converted. This article also seeks to show that the Apostle Paul, in order to rid the church at Corinth of these ideas, used various means of argumentation to combat these practices, even using some of their terminology for the purpose of argument.

Statement of the Problem

It is not a new thought that pagan forces were hard at work in the church at Corinth, but their identity and to what degree they influenced that congregation, is a matter of debate. Scholars of the History of Religions school earlier in this century believed that Christians, including those at Corinth, were affected by the Hellenistic mystery religions.[1] On the other hand Schmithals and others have posited Gnostic influence in the church at Corinth.[2]

Religious ecstasy, particularly glossolalia, is found in the mystery religions or the religion of Apollo, rather than in Gnosticism as Bultmann and others have argued. Some of the characteristics of Gnosticism were already present in the general religious attitudes in the first century A.D.; but since Gnosticism was a later Christian heresy,[3] it would be anachronistic to see Gnosticism in Corinth. Whatever the cause, the church in this hub of pagan perversity was in grave trouble; the church abounded in nonbiblical and immoral practices.

Proper Methodology in Approaching the Problem

Scholars have differed in their view of the extent of the mystery religions’ influence on Christianity. Clemen argued that Christianity acquired forms, conceptions, and rites from the mystery sects.[4] Likewise Heussi said that undoubtedly the language and piety of the mysteries influenced the church.[5]

Pahl has a more cautious view. “The Mysteries may have exerted limited formal influence on certain subsequent developments of Christianity but they had no influence whatever on the Origin of Christianity.”[6] Similarly, Geden says that most likely the Mithras doctrines and ritual had an unconscious effect on the language and teaching of some of the Christian apologists.[7]

Schweitzer argued that Pauline Christianity was not influenced by the mysteries.[8] Pruemm also appears to support the view that the mystery religions had no influence on Christianity.[9] Another view, posited by Metzger, is that the mystery religions may have borrowed from Christianity.[10] This writer concurs with Metzger and contends that early Christianity did not borrow its theology from the mystery religions, though certainly early Christians individually may have been affected (which may have been true at Corinth).

The basic problem in discussing the mystery religions is that so many centuries have separated the enquirer from the subject of inquiry. Grant spoke of this problem when he wrote about the study of Greek religion in the Hellenistic-Roman world.

And yet we are still on the outside, and have only the records, descriptive or interpretative, literary or archeological, which a few men here and there in that ancient world left behind them. How shall we ever get really inside that ancient faith, or complex of faiths, and see the world as men saw it then? There is no other way, I believe, than by a conscious effort of the imagination, by reading and thinking and in a sense dreaming our way back into it. And there is one caution we simply must never ignore—like the warnings to persons with magic gifts in many an old tale—we must not let our imaginings and our dreams conflict with the reality recorded in the books, the inscriptions, and the surviving rites; our indispensable guide must be a thorough knowledge of the facts so far as they have come down to us, all the facts, not just a pleasing little selection made to fit some theory or other![11]

A Look at the Origin and Philosophies of the Mysteries

Roman-Hellenism and Religious Syncretism

When the church began, the state religions in the Roman Empire, though given proper outward honor, had somehow lost their grip on individuals. One reason for this may be that since the philosophers had found the gods wanting, the fear of the gods had been removed. Furthermore, in view of Roman domination over different countries and cities, the impotency of the gods became pronounced, and this realization was sensed by individuals. If the god could not help the city, how could he meet an individual’s needs?

The constant flux seen in the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods offered individuals little hope. People turned from thought to experience as the basis of religion, from rational content to emotional yearning.[12] Their contact with the Near East, especially from the time of Alexander, brought in new ideas which found favor with the peoples of the western Mediterranean world. The mystery religions swiftly spread in a world in which travel was relatively easy and in which soldiers, who believed in these mystery religions, moved from place to place. The people were seeking a change of some sort, which the dynamic of the religious syncretism provided. The key attraction of the mystery cults is captured by Gardner.

Why were the priests able to attract the men and women who were dissatisfied with their lives and anxious for a better hope? What could they offer to the votaries? The best answer maybe given in a single word. The great need and longing of the time was for salvation, soteria. Men and women were eager for such a communion with the divine, such a realization of the interest of God in their affairs, as might serve to support them in the trials of life, and guarantee to them a friendly reception in the world beyond the grave…. The communion with some saving deity, then, was the (goal ] of all practice of the mysteries.[13]

One must not suppose that the mystery religions were all alike. The Greek world abounded with all sorts of private associations with their respective gods. Even these varied in their myths, dramas, and practices. For example, the Eleusian variety is first heard of at Eleusis, close to Corinth and Athens. This mystery had agricultural worship at its center. The Dionysian mystery was very excessive in its religious practices, including uncontrollable ecstasy, eating of raw flesh, and orgies. A third important cult was that of Orpheus. It had an early influence on the people of Greece, being possibly a revised version of the cult of Dionysus. Its power was waning even by the time of Plato, who may have encountered it.

Three sources are the most probable candidates for the ecstatic phenomenon seen at Corinth: the Cybele-Attis cult, the Dionysian cult (both mystery religions), and the religion of Apollo.

The worship of Cybele-Attis was accepted by the Greeks in approximately 200 B.C. The rites of this cult were extreme in nature. Priests who were stirred by clashing cymbals, loud drums, and screeching flutes, would at times dance in a frenzy of excitement, gashing their bodies. Even new devotees would emasculate themselves in worship of the goddess.

The Cybele-Attis mystery religion existed in the first century A.D. Emperor Claudius (A.D. 41-54) introduced a festival of Cybele-Attis which focused on the death and resurrection of Attis.[14] Montanus, a second-century Christian heretic, known for his ecstatic excesses, was a priest of Cybele at one time.[15] However, no evidence that this writer examined indicated that a temple of Cybele-Attis was in Corinth during the first century, though the Corinthians may have been familiar with that cult.

Dionysus, the god of wine, became one of the most popular gods of the Greek pantheon. The pine tree became identified with him, and the Delphic oracle commanded the Corinthians to worship a particular pine tree out of which two images of the god were made.[16] Hoyle describes the nature of this worship.

Following the torches as they dipped and swayed in the darkness, they climbed mountain paths with head thrown back and eyes glazed, dancing to the beat of the drum which stirred their blood…. In the state of ekstasis or enthousiasmos, they abandoned themselves, dancing wildly…. and calling “Euoi!” At that moment of intense rapture they became identified with the god himself…. They became filled with his spirit and acquired divine powers.[17]

In 187 B.C. the Roman senate sought to ban the Dionysian cult but was never fully successful. It was revived under Julius Caesar and remained in existence at least until the time of Augustine (A.D. 354-430).[18] The question remains whether it was widely active during the first century A.D. and especially in Corinth. Rogers has argued that the Dionysian cult had permeated the Mediterranean world at the time of Paul, and was a background to Paul’s words in Ephesians 5:18.[19] But would it have been popular at Corinth also?

Broneer has demonstrated that Dionysus was worshiped in Corinth as early as the fourth century B.C. with a temple located in the Sacred Glen. This most likely indicates that the cult of Dionysus may have been in Corinth at the time of Paul.[20] Dionysus was worshiped at Delphi across the gulf from Corinth, substituting for Apollo when supposedly he was spending the winter with the Hyperboreans.[21] This continued at least during the time of Plutarch (A.D. 46-120)[22] so the Dionysian religion probably would have had some influence on Corinth.

The third major cult that may have had influence on the Corinthians was that of Apollo. Several temples in Corinth were for the worship of Apollo,[23] and the famous shrine at Delphi was primarily that of Apollo. The slave girl that Paul encountered in Philippi on the way to Corinth had a spirit of Python, or one inspired by Apollo.[24] The ecstatic tongues-speaking of the oracle and the subsequent interpretation by the priest at Delphi are widely known. The cult of Apollo was widespread in Achaia, but especially around the temple of Delphi across from Corinth. This religion easily could have provided the kind of impetus for spiritual experience found in the Corinthian church.

Greece had long experience of the utterances of the Pythian prophetess at Delphi and the enthusiastic invocations of the votaries of Dionysus. Hence Paul insists that it is not the phenomenon of “tongues” or prophesying in itself that gives evidence of the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit, but the actual content of the utterances.[25]

With the ecstacisrn of Dionysianism and the emphasis on tongues-speaking and oracles in the religion of Apollo, it is not surprising that some of the Corinthians carried these pagan ideas in the church at Corinth, especially the practice of glossolalia for which both of these religions are known (though the Dionysian cult did not include interpretation of the glossolalia as did that of Apollo) .

The Faith and Practices of the Mysteries

The mysteries were cults whose practices and secret beliefs were not shared with the uninitiated. “In view of their great importance, it is extraordinary that we know almost nothing about them. Everyone initiated had to take an oath not to reveal them and their influence was so strong that apparently no one ever did.”[26]

Gardner is severely skeptical about reading too much into the historical data. The writers of the ancient world, the art, and inscriptions give, at most, the public and outward rites rather than the inward secrets which the initiates possessed.[27]

The major teaching in the mystery religions was rebirth and immortality of the initiates. Their rites were baptism, dedication, and the sacramental meals. These are discussed in several sources.[28] The primary concern in this article is the ecstatic nature of their worship. Fortunately, since ecstasy was not part of their secret rites, a fairly accurate knowledge of this aspect of the cults is available.

“The mystery-cults of the empire were designed to induce both higher and lower forms of ecstatic feeling.”[29] The expression of the ecstatic state took various forms, such as gashing one’s flesh, dancing nude in a frenzy, and speaking in ecstatic utterance. The latter was the means whereby the devotees sought to have communion with the saving deity. Here the significance of the term “glossolalia,” or “speaking in tongues,” comes to the fore. “The gift of tongues and of their interpretation was not peculiar to the Christian Church, but was a repetition in it of a phrase common in ancient religions. The very phrase glossais lalein, ‘to speak with tongues,’ was not invented by the New Testament writers, but borrowed from ordinary speech.”[30]

The Influence of the Pagan Cults on Glossolalia in the Church at Corinth

To what degree did the mystery cults affect thinking and worship of the Corinthian church, and how did that influence Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 12–14?

If the church was affected by these pagan cults, one would expect to see evidence of these in Paul’s letter, for example, certain allusions or terms that the Corinthians or Paul used. One must not assume that Paul was fluent in mystery terminology, but he certainly was aware of those terms which were in common circulation, as Kennedy properly postulates.

We cannot picture [Paul] engrossed in the cure of souls without recognizing that he must have gained a deep insight into the earlier spiritual aspirations of his converts, and the manner in which they had sought to satisfy them. Even apart from eager inquirers, a missionary so zealous and daring would often find himself confronted by men and women who still clung to their mystic ritual and all the hopes it had kindled. It was inevitable, therefore, that he should become familar, at least from the outside, with religious ideas current in these influential cults.[31]

Similar Terminology with the Mysteries

Instruments in worship. Paul wrote that the ability to “speak with the tongues of men and of angels” without love is no better than his being “a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor 13:1). This may be an allusion to the use of these instruments in the mystery cults. These instruments were used to produce the ecstatic condition that provided the emotional intoxication needed to experience the sacramental celebration.[32] This is especially true in Dionysianism.[33] Failure to evidence love in the expression of the gifts would be as meaningless as their former pagan rites.

The spiritual one (πνευματικὸς). Paul contrasted the πνευματικὸς, one who has the Spirit, with the ψυχικὸς, the one devoid of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:10–3:4). The pneumatic character of worship in the mystery religions was always connected with states of ecstasy, whereas Paul never seems to make this connection. To him the possession of the πνεῦμα is the normal, abiding condition of the Christian. The special meaning of πνευματικὸς and πνευματικὰ to the Corinthians was mainly due to their ecstatic emphases, especially the phenomenon of speaking with tongues.

Mystery (μυστήριον). The term mystery is used in the New Testament but with a different force (except for possibly 1 Cor 14:2). Hay clarifies the difference between these two usages.

In the New Testament it refers to the things of God that could not be known by man except through revelation from God. The revelation given of these things by the Holy Spirit is not obscure but clear and is given to be communication to God’s people (1 Cor 2:1–16). It is not given privately in unknown words. In heathen religions this word referred to the hidden secrets of the gods which only the initiated could know. Those initiated into such mysteries claimed to have contact with the spirit world through emotional excitement, revelations, the working of miracles and the speaking of unknown words revealed by the spirits. In the New Testament Church every Christian is initiated.[34]

Possibly Paul spoke of these mysteries when he wrote that “one who speaks in a tongue…speaks mysteries” (1 Cor 14:2). If this is not an allusion to mystery terminology, it is certainly not a commendation from the apostle.

Similar Attitudes in Worship

Se!f-centered worship. Ecstatic religion by its very nature is self-oriented. Christians were to use their Christian χαρίσματα for the common good, but the pagans were totally concerned about their own personal experience, an attitude also prevalent among Corinthian Christians.

Women in worship. Women had an important place in the mystery cults, especially in the emotional and vocal realm. This was especially true in the Dionysian cult. Livy in his History of Rome wrote that the majority of Dionysian worshipers were women.[35] The practice in the early Christian church and in the synagogue from which the church derived much of its order was for the women not to participate much in the vocal activities of the community. This aspect of the pagan cult could be what Paul was counteracting in 1 Corinthians 14:33b–36.[36] The believers were to conform to the practice of all the congregations of God in having vocal expressions limited to men. Also the use of ἄνδρας (“males”) rather than ἄνθρωπους (“men”) in regard to public prayer (1 Tim 2:8) may give evidence of the consistency of this custom.

The Daemon (δαιμόνιον). The desire or at least reverence for the δαιμόνιον may be seen in the Corinthian church. In their pagan past the spirit would enable them to come into contact with the supernatural and to experience a oneness with the god in the state of ecstasy. These same attitudes existed among believers at Corinth. They had difficulty in accepting the fact that an idol (behind whom was a δαιμόνιον) was nothing and that meat sacrificed to an idol was just meat (1 Cor 8:1–7). They were zealous for spirits (1 Cor 14:12). Some have said that πνεῦμα here is synonymous with “spiritual gifts,” but this is an unlikely use of πνεῦμα. Also 1 Corinthians 12:1–3 demonstrates that they were not distinguishing the difference between speaking by the Spirit of God and speaking by means of the δαιμόνιον in their previous pagan worship, by whom they were led to false worship.

Ecstasy. Ecstasy was common in all mystery religions. The reason for this common experience is well stated by Nilsson:

Not every man can be a miracle-worker and a seer, but most are susceptible to ecstasy, especially as members of a great crowd, which draws the individual along with it and generates in him the sense of being filled with a higher, divine power. This is the literal meaning of the Greek word “enthusiasm,” the state in which “god is in man.” The rising tide of religious feeling seeks to surmount the barrier which separates man from god, it strives to enter into the divine, and it finds ultimate satisfaction only in that quenching of the consciousness in enthusiasm which is the goal of all mysticism.[37]

Unquestionably the Corinthian church was involved in ecstasy though many scholars today would not concede that they spoke ecstatic utterances.

Glossolalia in the Cult and in the Church

Speaking in tongues was not unique to the Christian faith. This phenomenon existed in various religions. “There also the pneumatikos, by whatever name he might be called, was a familiar figure. As possessed by the god, or partaking of the Divine pneuma or nous, he too burst forth into mysterious ejaculations and rapt utterances of the kind described in the New Testament as glossai lalein.”[38]

Possibly the carnal Corinthians, recent converts from the pagan religions, were failing to distinguish between the ecstatic utterance of their past and the true gift of tongues given supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.

There can be little question that the glossolalia in the Book of Acts were languages. The problem lies in the nature of tongues in 1 Corinthians. Gundry has forcefully argued that tongues in Acts and 1 Corinthians are intelligible, human languages.[39] The major problem with this view, in reference to Corinth, is given by Smith:

If speaking in tongues involved a supernatural speech in a real language, then every such utterance required a direct miracle by God. This would mean, in the case of the Corinthians, that God was working a miracle at the wrong time and wrong place! He was causing that which He was directing the Apostle Paul to curtail.[40]

Is there a point of reconciliation for this contradiction? One may be that Paul used γλὼσσα for both ecstatic utterance and human language in 1 Corinthians, much as people do today with the term. One may wonder why Paul did not use μάντις when he referred to ecstatic utterance, but his method of argumentation may give the answer to this. Another possibility is given in Gundry’s own article.

Even if it were admitted that ecstatic utterance such as was practiced in Hellenistic religion was invading Corinthian Church meetings, Paul would be condemning it by presenting normative Christian glossolalia as something radically different in style as well as in content.[41]

Pneumatika and Charismata in Paul’s Theology

Pauline Arguments

In seeking to lead the Corinthian Christians to a proper understanding of the workings of the Spirit, especially the gift of tongues, Paul used several methods of argumentation. Rather than speaking immediately against their practice in the meetings, he desired to find a common ground of departure, endeavoring to bring them to his position at the end. This procedure was recognized by Chadwick.

The entire drift of the argument of 1 Cor. xii-xiv is such as to pour a douche of ice-cold water over the whole practice. But Paul could hardly have denied that the gift of tongues was a genuine supernatural charisma without putting a fatal barrier between himself and the Corinthian enthusiasts…. [for] the touchstone of soundness in the eyes of those claiming to be possessed by the Spirit was whether their gift was recognized to be a genuine work of God. To deny this recognition was to prove oneself to be altogether lacking in the Spirit. That Paul was fully aware of this issue appears not only from 1 Cor ii.14–15, but also from 1 Cor xiv.37–8, a masterly sentence which has the effect of brilliantly forestalling possible counter-attack at the most dangerous point, and indeed carries the war into the enemy camp. To have refused to recognize the practice as truly supernatural would have been catastrophic. Paul must fully admit that glossolalia is indeed a divine gift; but, he urges, it is the most inferior of all gifts. But Paul does more than admit it. He asserts it: eucharisto to theo, panton humon mallon glossais lalo (xiv 18). No stronger assertion of his belief in the validity of this gift of the Spirit could be made; and in the context it is a master touch which leaves the enthusiasts completely outclassed and outmaneuvered on their own ground.[42]

Many of Paul’s statements, then, should perhaps be recognized as conciliatory rather than commendatory. The statement, “One who speaks in a tongue edifies himself” (1 Cor 14:4) is not commendatory. Paul merely conceded a point here for argument. He did not affirm the legitimacy of that believer’s experience as from the Holy Spirit. One might even say that irony is to be found in Paul’s statement.

It should be carefully noted that if Paul is not using irony here, then he is crediting very carnal believers with an intimacy with the Holy Spirit and with God, with deep spiritual experiences, that all his other writings, and all the rest of Scripture, teach most emphatically can never be entered into by a carnal believer…. He is using irony as a weapon to lay bare the emptiness of the claims of carnal believers.[43]

In addition, if Paul’s statement is one of truth, not irony, then it contradicts 1 Corinthians 12:7, that grace-gifts (χαρίσματα) are “for the common good,” and also 13:1–3, that gifts are not to be self-centered. Paul also used irony in 1 Corinthians 4:8–10.

Usually scholars have taken the πνευμάτικοι in 1 Corinthians 12:1 to refer to the spiritual gifts Paul mentions in that chapter (vv. 8–10, 28–30). There is good reason, though, to consider it instead as a technical term of the Corinthians for “one who speaks in tongues” or “speaking in tongues.” Paul adopted the Corinthian terms and clichés at other points, it appears,[44] and it would seem to be equally true here. In other places (1 Cor 2:14–15) Paul sees all Christians as πνευμάτικοι and non-Christians as ψυχικοί, but here (1 Cor 12) the word takes on a special meaning which probably reflects the enthusiasts’ use of the term for one who speaks in tongues.

Certainly such use is in harmony with usage in the mystery cults, from which these Corinthians derived their initial religious thinking. A further evidence of this specific meaning for πνευματικὸς is that 1 Corinthians 12:2–3 concern “speaking by the Spirit of God.” As well, the term is used again in 14:1–3, to contrast the one who prophesies with the one who speaks in tongues. In addition, 14:37 without doubt uses πνευματικὸς as a definite term for a tongues-speaker. The verse could be translated, “The prophet or the one with the gift of tongues…,” since this is the contrast throughout Paul’s argument.[45]

Paul sought to demonstrate that the specific pneumatic utterances of the Corinthians should conform to the χαρίσματα of the Holy Spirit. Tongues, as a χάρισμα, had a specific purpose in God’s program (1 Cor 14:21–22) but not in the manner which the Corinthians supposed, for personal edification or to show “possession by the god.”

Pauline Correctives

One would not want to intimate that all tongues-speaking in the church at Corinth was illegitimate. Ervin poignantly speaks to those who would categorically parallel glossolalia at Corinth to the mysteries. “Behind this glib assumption is the erroneous a priori that superficial correlation proves mutual causation.”[46]

Though Ervin is basically correct in his observation, nevertheless there is good evidence that the Corinthian church included members who were affected by their pagan past. Paul prefaced his answer to the Corinthians’ question about “spirituals” (περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν) with a reference to their religious history. He did not want them to be ignorant of the spirituals, “because you know that when you were led away toward speechless idols as you would be unconsciously led” (1 Cor 12:21, author’s translation). Since the Corinthians had a background of ecstatic (and so-called “spiritual”) religion, the apostle felt it necessary to instruct them that the spirituals of which he would be writing were not of the same class.

The very characteristic of the Corinthians’ heathen past, [Paul] argues, was the sense of being overpowered and carried away by spiritual forces…. “There is no doubt at all,” Schrenk comments, “that Paul intends to say here, The truly spiritual is not marked by a being swept away…that was precisely the characteristic of your previous fanatical religion.” It is important to notice that Paul places this valuation of the spiritually “sweeping” at the very outset of his treatment of “spiritual things” in Corinth. As the superscripture to his essay in chapters twelve to fourteen Paul has written: Seizure is not necessarily Christian or paramountly spiritual.[47]

That the Corinthians leaned toward their pagan past in the mysteries as a means of spiritual expression maybe also seen in 1 Corinthians 14:12, “Since you are zealous of spiritual gifts” (lit.,”spirits,” πνευμάτων). Gerlicher rightly observes, “This implies that their present devotion was to spiritual matters per se, independent of Christ-centered worship and congregational-oriented edification.”[48]

Did the apostle recognize any of the tongues-speaking at Corinth as being genuine? Was there, in other words, a genuine gift of tongues distinguishable from the counterfeit manifestations (that were demonic in nature)?

Paul gave several guidelines for glossolalia, showing how to differentiate between the true and false manifestations. In light of his statement that the Corinthians had been uncontrollably driven in their pagan worship, Paul wrote, “Wherefore I am making known to you that no one speaking in the Spirit of God says, Jesus is Anathema” (1 Cor 12:3, author’s translation). In their former pagan frenzies they did not have control over themselves and so some might have felt that now speaking (presumably) in the Spirit of God (in this context glossolalia) they would call Jesus cursed. However, this mystery cult practice was to be exposed by Paul.[49] Whoever says “Jesus is Anathema” is obviously not being controlled by the Spirit of God. The lordship of Jesus is the criterion by which pneumatic utterances are to be judged as genuine or false.[50]

In the pagan glossolalia, no thought was given to the harmony of participants in group worship. Only the individual experience was important. Paul wrote that unity is a sign of the Spirit’s activity. “All do not speak with tongues, do they?” (1 Cor 12:30). “If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and let one interpret” (14:27). A true manifestation by the Spirit would be orderly, “for God is not a God of confusion but of peace” (14:33).

Another method of discerning genuine from cultic or demonically inspired ecstasy was self-control.

Tongues were to be manifested in the public worship when accompanied by the companion gift of interpretation. Prophesying was subject to the discernment of the order of prophets. in every case, self-control is the dominant note, for “the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.” Contemporary descriptions take note of the fact that such self-control was totally lacking in the orgianistic ecstasies of the mystery cults. Hence, these safeguards would protect the church by distinguishing the counterfeit from the genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit.[51]

Another factor which distinguishes the true from the false concerns the person who speaks in tongues. Paul says, “If anyone seems to be a prophet or a glossolalist, let him recognize what I am writing that it is a commandment of the Lord. If anyone does not know (ἀγνοεῖ), he is without knowledge (ἀγνοεῖται)” (1 Cor 14:37–38, author’s translation). Paul was possibly being satirical here since pneumatics felt themselves spiritually and knowledgeably superior. If anyone did not submit to the apostolic Word, it was proof that his manifestations were false.

Paul gave the previous safeguards so that the spurious tongues would fall away, since they would be recognized as false by not agreeing with the guidelines he set. The true gift of tongues would then properly operate in alignment with the other gifts of the Spirit and edify the body of Christ.

One might ask what proof there is that there really was a legitimate gift of tongues in the Corinthian church. First, Paul gave rules to regulate the gift. Why give rules for it if it were not even in existence? Since there was a mixture of the true and the false, Paul gave a way to distinguish them rather than forbidding tongues outright.

Second, in 14:26 he showed how χαρίσματα involves more than tongues. “When you gather together, each one has a psalm, each one has a teaching, each one has a revelation, each one has a tongue, each one has an interpretation” (author’s translation).[52]

Third, Paul gave the injunction “Stop forbidding speaking in tongues” (14:39). Paul wanted tongues, which seemed to be the main problem at Corinth, to continue. Moffatt says, “Some soberminded Christians in the local church, as at Thessalonica, evidently were shocked; they desired to check the habit (xiv.39).”[53] In light of the mystery religions Ervin presents a more plausible viewpoint:

There is another possible reconstruction of events in Corinth that fits the facts. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the “sober-minded Christians,” postulated by Dr. Moffatt, with or without the cooperation of Gnostic elements of more speculative bent of mind, may have initiated the prohibition of tongues in the worship of the assembly. Alarmed at the patently unspiritual excesses of Gnostic [?] “ecstatics,” and not being able to cope with such counterfeit manifestations, they may have consented to the radical expedient of forbidding all “spiritual” manifestations. The expedient may have represented a counsel of despair which Paul sought to counter by reinstating tongues and prophesying to their proper place in the worship of the church where “each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation.”[54]

Conclusion

Corinth was experience-oriented and self-oriented. Mystery religions and other pagan cults were in great abundance, from which cults many of the members at the Corinthian church received their initial religious instruction. After being converted they had failed to free themselves from pagan attitudes and they confused the true work of the Spirit of God with the former pneumatic and ecstatic experiences of the pagan religions, especially the Dionysian mystery or the religion of Apollo. By careful and delicate argumentation Paul sought to help these believers recognize their errors and operate all the χαρίσματα (gifts of the Spirit) not just the πνευματικὰ (tongues). Also he desired that they perform the χαρίσματα for the edification of the body of Christ, not self.

Notes

1. For example, Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church [London: Williams & Norgate, 1890); Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press, 1978). For a discussion on proper methodology in studying the mystery religions see Bruce Metzger, “Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity,” in Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, vol. 8, New Testament Tools and Studies (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968). pp. 1-24. Bruce Metzgers A Classified Bibliography of the Graeco-Roman Mystery Religions 1924–1973 (forthcoming) will be an important tool for mystery religion research.
2. Walter Schmithals. Gnosticism in Corinth, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 141-301. That there are elements of Gnosticism at Corinth is certain, but this is due not to accepting a system of beliefs but to the intermixing of ideas in the Hellenistic Age. All the developed systems of thought in the first-century Mediterranean world are the children of one mother—Hellenistic syncretism. Yamauchi discusses Gnosticism versus incipient Gnosticism in the first century A.D. (Edwin M. Yamauchi, Pre-Christian Gnosticism [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1973]). The weakness of Yamauchi’s work is the lack of interaction with primary Gnostic sources.
3. Bruce says, “It would be anachronistic to call these [enthusiasts at Corinth] ‘men of the Spirit’ Gnostics: that is a term best reserved for adherents of the various schools of Gnosticism which flourished in the second century A.D. (F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977], p. 261).
4. Carl Clemen, Religions of the World, trans. A. K. Dallas (London: George G. Harrap & Co., 1931). p. 342; cf. Carl Clemen, Der Einfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das aelteste Christentum (Gieszen: Verlag von Alfred Töpelmann, 1913), p. 86.
5. Karl Heussi, Kompendium der Kirchengeschichte (Tübingen:Verlag von J. C. B. Mohr, 1957), p. 75.
6. P. D. Pahl, “The Mystery Religions,” Australian Theological Review 20 (June 1949): 20.
7. A. S. Geden, Mithraism (London: Macmillan & Co., 1925), p. 4; cf. also for this view Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953), p. 259.
8. Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, trans. G. W. Montgomery (New York: Macmillan Co., 1950), p. 189.
9. New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Mystery Religions. Greco-Oriental,” by Karl Pruemm, pp. 163-64.
10. Bruce Metzger,”Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Early Christianity,” Historical and Literary Studies, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1968). p. 11.
11. Frederick C. Grant, “Greek Religion in the Hellenistic-Roman Age,” Anglican Theological Review 33 (1951): 26.
12. S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth. The Augustan Empire: 44 B.C.-A.D. 70, vol. 10. The Cambridge Ancient History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), p. 504.
13. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. “Mysteries,”by P. Gardner, 9:81.
14. H. J. Rose, Religion in Greece and Rome (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959), p. 278.
15. Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970), p. 56.
16. George Frazer, The Golden Bough (New York: Macmillan Co., 1963), p. 450.
17. Peter Hoyle, Delphi (London: Cassel & Co., 1967), p. 76.
18. Martin P. Nilsson, “The Baachic Mysteries of the Roman Age,” Harvard Theological Review 46 (October 1953): 175-85.
19. Cleon L. Rogers, “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (July-September 1979): 249-57.
20. Oscar Broneer, “Paul and the Pagan Cults at Isthmia,” Harvard Theological Review 44 (1971): 182.
21. New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 161.
22. Hoyle, Delphi, p. 73.
23. Oscar Broneer,”Corinth,”The Biblical Archaeologist l4(1951): 84.
24. Apollo was worshiped as the Pythian god at the shrine of Delphi (known also as Pytho). He was especially associated with oracles (F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954]. p. 332).
25. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 260.
26. Edith Hamilton, The Greek Way (New York: Time, 1930), p. 275.
27. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, 9:77.
28. In addition to the sources given in this article see: Samuel Dill, Roman Society: From Nero to Marcus Aurelius (New York: World Publishing Co., 1956); New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Mystery Religions, Greco-Oriental,” by Karl Pruemm pp. 153-64; also the thorough bibliography in Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels, ed. David L. Dungan and David R. Cartlidge, 3d ed. (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1973).
29. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. “Ecstasy,” by W. R. Inge, 5:158.
30. Encyclopedia Britannica (1911), s.v, “Gift of Tongues,” by Fredrick C. Conybeare, 27:10.
31. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (London: Hodder & Stoughton, n.d.), pp. 280-81.
32. Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment, trans. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1976), p. 240.
33. “They represent them, one and all, as a kind of inspired people and as subject to Bacchic [Dyonysian] frenzy, and, in the guise of minister, as inspiring terror at the celebration of the sacred rites by means of wardances accompanied by uproar and noise and cymbals and drums and also by flute and outcry….” This was stated by Strabo. (Richard Kroeger and Catherine Kroeger, “Pandemonium and Silence at Corinth,” The Reformed Joumal 28 [June 1978]: 7).
34. Alexander Rattray Hay, What Is Wrong in the Church? vol. 2, Counterfeit Speaking in Tongues (Audubon, NJ: New Testament Missionary Union. n,d.), p. 26.
35. Cited from Kroeger and Kroeger, “Pandemonium and Silence,” p, 7.
36. Ibid., pp. 9-10.
37. Martin P. Nilsson, A History of Greek Religion, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1964), p. 205.
38. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery Religions, p. 160.
39. Robert H. Gundry, “‘Ecstatic Utterance’ (N.E.B.)?” Journal of Theological Studies 17 (October 1966): 299-307.
40. Charles R. Smith, Tongues in Biblical Perspective (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1973), p. 26.
41. Gundry, “Ecstatic Utterance (N.E.B.)?” p. 305 (italics added).
42. Cited from D. W. B. Robinson, “Charismata versus Pneumatika: Paul’s Method of Discussion,” Reformed Theological Review 21 (May-August 1972): 49-50.
43. Hay, What Is Wrong in the Church? p. 43.
44. Hurd lists several slogans possibly used by the Corinthians which Paul quoted from their letter to him. To each of these Paul gave a swift correction (John Hurd, The Origin of 1 Corinthians [New York: Seabury Press, 1965], p. 67): See Table 1 below
45. Πνευματικοί in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is always in a speaking context (cf. 1 Cor 12:1; 14:1, 37). Also there is obviously a contrast between πνευματικά and προφητεύητε in 14:1 and the connected contrast between γλώσση and προφητεύων in the following two verses. Pearson is typical of seeing πνευματικῶν of 12:1 as equal to χαρισμάτων in 12:4 (Birger Albert Pearson. The Pneumatikos-Psychikos Terminology in 1 Corinthians (Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature, Dissertation Series no. 12, 1973], p 50). Ellis narrows the term to prophetic gifts of inspired speech and discernment and not simply equivalent to χαρίσματα (E. Earle Ellis, Prophecy and Hermeneutics in Early Christianity [Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978], pp. 24, 68).
46. Howard M. Ervin, These Are Not Drunken as Ye Suppose (Plainfield. NJ: Logos International, 1968), p. 125.
47. Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1970), pp. 286-87.
48. John Stanley Gerlicher,” An Exegetical Approach to First Corinthians Twelve to Fourteen ” (Th.M. thesis, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1966), pp. 24-25.
49. Origen, Contra Celsum (written about A.D. 246), noted that the Orphites asked those who would enter their churches to curse Jesus (F. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, trans. A. Cusin, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957], 2:187).
50. Anthony David Palma, “Tongues and Prophecy—A Comparative Study in Charismata” (S.T.M. thesis, Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis, 1966), p. 72. See also William F. Orr and James Arthur Walter, 1 Corinthians, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1976), p. 278.
51. Ervin, These Are Not Drunken as Ye Suppose, p. 200.
52. This writer takes ἕκαστος here in the distributive sense.
53. James Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper & Brothers, n.d.), p. 211.
54. Ervin, These Are Not Drunken as Ye Suppose, p. 200.

Table 1

6:12; 10:23 “All things are lawful.”

6:13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food.”

7:1 “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.”

8:1 “All of us possess knowledge.”

8:4 “An idol has no real existence. There is no God but one.”

8:5–6 “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’) yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom we exist and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

8:8 “Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do.”

11:2 “We remember you in everything and maintain the traditions even as you delivered them to us [reversing the pronouns].” Those statements that seem to be from the Corinthians are 6:12 (10:23); 6:13; 7:1; 8:1; 11:2. The NIV indicates that most of these are statements that Paul quotes. Also the un-Pauline use πνευματικὸς in 1 Corinthians 12:1; 14:1–5; and 14:37 indicates a similar device. Especially is this true in 12:1, which Paul immediately follows with a correction.

An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology

By H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Greek, LeTourneau College, Longview, Texas]

Black theology has emerged in the last two decades with the wave of liberation movements as an expression of black consciousness. As an ideology, this peculiar theology concerns the liberation of oppressed people. On the surface it appears to be a reactionary effort against a “white” theology that has not spoken to needs of the Negro race. To be oppressed is to be black, and to be an oppressor is to be white. (“Black” and “white” relate not to skin pigmentation but to one’s attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism.[1])

Oppression relates to physical, economic, psychological, and political repression. In view of this oppression, black theology (and liberation theology in general) seeks to speak to “this-world” problems, rather than “other-world” issues; to concrete circumstances, rather than abstract thought; to the sinfulness of man’s plight in a ghetto rather than sin in man’s heart; and to a savior who delivers man from earthly slavery, rather than a Savior who saves man from spiritual bondage. This is black liberation theology in a word.

The purposes of this article are (1) to set forth the Mitte, or center, of black theology and examine this emphasis in relation to specific beliefs of black theology today; (2) to evaluate and interact with those beliefs in light of Scripture; and (3) to ascertain what evangelical Christians may learn and how they may benefit from an interaction with black theology.

What Is Black Theology?

A Form of Liberation Theology

Black theology is a form of liberation theology. The theology of liberation pertains to man’s efforts to establish a just and fraternal society in which all people may have dignity and determine their own destiny.[2] The idea of liberation, in the words of Gutiérrez,

…emphasizes that man transforms himself by conquering his liberty throughout his existence and his history. The Bible presents liberation—salvation—in Christ as the total gift, which, by taking on the levels we indicate, gives the whole process of liberation its deepest meaning and its complete and unforseeable fulfillment. Liberation can thus be approached as a single salvific process. This viewpoint, therefore, permits us to consider the unity, without confusion, of man’s various dimensions, that is, his relationships with other men and with the Lord, which theology has been attempting to establish for some time….[3]

The theology of liberation, then, is seen as the fulfillment and deliverance of theology from the abstract to place it in concrete situations in life, into the heat of the battle. McCall says, “Liberation theology represents attempts to move theology from the abstract to practical life situations, to call attention to the social implications of the gospel that have generally been ignored by Western nations.”[4]

But liberation theologians do not theorize in a vacuum, seeing no relation of their theology to life. Liberation theologians believe it is important for “armchair theologians” to stand up and be involved with the actual dilemmas of life.[5] Liberation theologians seek to cause abstract theologians to recognize that traditional theology has offered a false view of the gospel and of the world of men. McCall says,

Liberation theology wishes to cause a theological reformation of “Civil Religionists” who fail to see the inconsistency of proclaiming a God who created all men equal, a Christ who died to set all men free, but is unconcerned about their earthly existence; who pharisaically interpret ill-gotten gain as divine favor; who seek God’s favor as they continue their acts of violence against the family of men; who proclaim “pie in the sky” to the “have-nots” and proclaim heaven as an extension of the good life for the “haves”; and who emphasize evangelism for “souls” as though those souls were devoid of bodies and human personality.[6]

Thus proclaiming salvation as having an earthly nature and seeking equality and justice for all in this life are the essence of liberation theology. According to liberation theologians, that is the meaning of Christianity and the mission of the church.[7]

The Rise of Black Liberation Theology

What gave rise to this specifically black theological thought? Apparently black theology, as the religious answer to secular “black power,” arose because of “the need for black people to define the scope and meaning of black existence in a white racist society.”[8] The attempt to define this existence from a theological perspective came about when blacks were caught up in the Civil Rights Movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s.[9] In these years the American Negro was seeking to discover his past and present identity in view of black slavery, both physical and mental. Blacks sought their roots in Africa and attempted to understand their place in society with that in mind.[10] This secular search ultimately could not be divorced from a religious investigation for religious experience was part of the “lifeblood” of the black people in America.

The black church was the creation of a black people whose daily existence was an encounter with the overwhelming and brutalizing reality of white power. For the slaves it was the sole source of identity and the sense of community…. The black church became the only sphere of black experience that was free of white power. For this reason the black church became the center for emphasis on freedom and equality.[11]

Similarly today, blacks have formed a cohesion between church and politics so that a theological expression of the desire for social freedom is natural.

The Uniqueness of Black Liberation Theology

Black liberation theology shares much in common with liberation theology in general but also has its own uniqueness. As a theology of liberation, it is concerned with the political and economic aspects of salvation rather than salvation in spiritual terms. Moreover, God is viewed as being primarily for the poor over against the rich in society. However, black theologians seek to interpret liberation from a black American or black African perspective (though even blacks in the United States and Africa sense differences in their emphases).[12] Black theology, unlike Latin American liberation thought, is concerned with racism and a historical identity.[13]

Exploring the Center of Black Liberation Theology

Black theology is limited in scope, comprising only a few of those areas found in the theological expression of the West. The theology of Western Christendom was developed in the midst of and in response to great controversy. Similarly black theology has emerged from the field of struggle and seeks to concern itself with issues with which it must contend on a daily basis.

Black theologians have developed a center, or focal point, around which their theology revolves and by which their theology is controlled. Evangelical theology has usually seen the person of Christ as the Mitte of the Bible and thus of theology. However, black theology’s center is the theme of oppression. Intricate and largely philosophical views of God and the world are ignored in preference for concerns of the pain and suffering of the poor and oppressed.[14] Not only is the oppression of blacks the major center of the theology, but also any area of theology which attempts to counter or play down this theme is rejected.

The Authority Base That Supports the Focus

The authority recognized by proponents of black theology is the black experience of oppression. This is an anthropocentric base, rather than the authority of Christ and Scripture.

Black Theology sees a prior authority that unites all black people and transcends these theological [doctrinal differences among blacks in Protestant denominations]. It is this common experience among black people in America that Black Theology elevates as the supreme test of truth. To put it simply, Black Theology knows no authority more binding than the experience of oppression itself. This alone must be the ultimate authority in religious matters.[15]

So permeating is the issue of the oppression of blacks in white society that Cone wrote:

The fact that I am black is my ultimate reality. My identity with blackness [a term for one who is oppressed], and what it means for millions living in a white world controls the investigation. It is impossible for me to surrender this basic reality for a “higher, more universal” reality. Therefore, if a higher, Ultimate Reality is to have meaning, it must relate to the very essence of blackness.[16]

Therefore the anthropocentric emancipation from oppression is the controlling factor in black theology and colors whatever aspect of theology it touches.

God Frees the Oppressed

As stated before, black theology is not interested in Western discussions about God. Black theologians believe the questions about God’s essence and attributes are fruitless. Instead, they are concerned about discovering a God who will involve Himself in the black experience and deliver them.

Black people have heard enough about God. What they want to know is what God has to say about the black condition. Or, more importantly, what is he doing about it? What is his relevance in the struggle against the forces of evil which seek to destroy black being? These are the questions which must shape the character of the norm of Black Theology.[17]

Christian concepts of God taught to the black man are to be discarded or at least ignored. The arguments about the person of God, the Trinity, His supreme power and authority, as well as subtle indications of God’s white maleness, do not relate to (and in some cases are antagonistic to) the black experience. For example, the image of God as all-knowing and all-powerful is too familiar for comfort from a background of slavery, This kind of God is too similar to the white oppressor. Concepts such as “God is love” or “God is freedom” have more meaning for and are more acceptable to the oppressed.[18]

Black theology’s dominant perspective on God is God in action, delivering the oppressed because of His righteousness. He is to be seen, not in the transcendent way of Greek philosophy, but immanent, among His people. He is doing something,[19] as illustrated in the Old Testament when He delivered His people Israel from Egypt’s bondage.[20]

This emphasis on God’s activity, at the expense of His essence, reveals that black theology partakes of process thought. The continued emphasis on God’s action among His people appears to be similar to the idea of the immanence of God in process theology,[21] over against the God above the order of things. God is also seen to be in flux, or always changing. Segundo comments on this black view of God.

The fact is that God shows up in a different light when his people find themselves in different historical situations. That does not mean that we must take pains to re-create each specific historical context in the past. For if God continually presents himself in a different light, then the truth about him must be different also.[22]

Similarly, Grey suggests, “If God is the active and immanent initiative that energizes life, and if God is continually changing throughout the whole of history, then we cannot resist the emergency of his revolutionary designs through us.”[23]

In black theology one’s view of God is totally determined by the need for freedom from oppression, a sort of deus ex machina, and the black theologian is intentionally oblivious to a comprehensive theology proper.

Jesus Identifies with the Oppressed

Blacks in America historically are Christians. In view of this, Jesus is prominent in their beliefs. God is the loving, beneficent, forgiving, and gracious Father, who can deliver slaves and punish their masters. And Jesus is pictured by the slaves as their elder Brother. He is their Savior, but He is also a fellow sufferer, who is still alive to render help.[24]

Since the time of slavery, Jesus has remained prominent in black theology. But with the rise of black theology and black consciousness, Jesus is perceived in a more political way. He is One who delivers, almost exclusively it appears, in social ways. He is still a Liberator, but more than that He is a “black Messiah” whose life and work of emancipating the poor and rejected of society parallels the black attempt at liberation.[25]

The message of Christ, it is said, is black power.[26] Cone elucidates this theme, “It is my thesis…that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ’s central message to twentieth-century America.”[27] Similarly and more forcefully, Henry says, “Black Power is not the antithesis of Christianity. It IS Christianity.”[28]

The reason Christianity is viewed as black power is that Christ and His message embodies the essence of Christianity. Since He became black, all His disciples and their proclamation must be black. In a statement to evangelical leaders Hilliard wrote that “Jesus stood with and for the poor and oppressed and disinherited. He came for the sick and needy…. He came into the world as the ultimate ‘nigger’ of the universe.”[29]

What Hilliard is seeking to express is that Jesus came to and became one of the oppressed. The message of Christ, then, is seen in Luke 4:18–19: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are downtrodden, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”

Christ became a member of the oppressed in order to promise them freedom and hope. Also He suffered as an oppressed individual. He was a poor Jew in a Roman dominated world. Christ is the expression of God in history whereby one can know God’s concern for the rejected of society.

Some blacks also believe He was politically and even violently in conflict with the status quo of the first century.

[Jesus] was not the traditional “lamb of God” taking away the sins of the world and promising Eternal Life to those following in His footsteps. Instead, He was a “revolutionary black leader,” a member of the Zealots…[who] sought to free Israel’s black Jews from oppression and bondage, dying, not for the eternal salvation of the individual, but for the rebirth of the lost Black Nation.[30]

Not all black theologians, however, hold this view of Jesus as a political leader. For example, Cone admits that Jesus did not resort to violence or advocate overthrow of the social order. However, Cone rejects the idea of Jesus as a model for contemporary discussion. Since man’s choices today are not the same as Jesus’ choices, blacks must not be bound by a biblical literalism. Their question is not, What did Jesus do? but, What is He doing and where is He at work?[31]

Black theology envisions Jesus Christ as one who stands on the side of blacks and is one with them, over against the oppressor. Also to many blacks He is the example for revolt against the oppressive status quo. Christ as Savior is seen basically in political terms, with His intrinsic nature and spiritual activity receiving little or no attention.

Salvation Is Freedom from Oppression in This Life

In black theology salvation is seen as deliverance of the oppressed from the oppressor. God is concerned about the servitude of His people and delivers them. And Jesus is God among the blacks, God’s visible expression of concern and salvation. But whom does God seek to deliver? And from what are they delivered, and toward what goal is this deliverance directed?

Of what people is the kingdom of God composed? For God to be true to His nature, black theologian Cone says that His righteousness must be directed to the helpless and the poor. The rich, the secure, and the suburbanite cannot share in God’s righteousness because they trust in things of this world.[32] Only the one who becomes black can have this righteousness, for reconciliation makes one black. “To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!”[33]

From what does salvation in black theology offer deliverance? Unlike the view of personal salvation from sin in evangelical theology, black theology is concerned with freedom from the dominating forces in society—collective sin[34] —over black people. Mpunzi says, “Black Theology has no room for the traditional Christian pessimistic view of man, the view that we are all by nature overwhelmingly and sinfully selfish.”[35] Instead, both sin and salvation are on the vertical plane and relate to acts of and for freedom from oppression.

What is the nature of this freedom in black theology? Cone answers this clearly. “Simply stated, freedom is not doing what I will but becoming what I should. A man is free when he sees clearly the fulfillment of his being and is thus capable of making the envisioned self a reality.”[36] This deliverance is not to be interpreted in the sense of soul salvation but of the whole self as Motlhabi states:

[This freedom] is contrasted to the traditional “salvation of the soul” theology in that it does away with all dualistic overtones which divide man from himself and concentrate on one part only. In Black Theology man is regarded as a complete whole, a mind-body-soul composite in, and confronted by, a complete situation.[37]

Toward what goal does freedom from oppression lead? Black slaves, in their down-to-earth theology, took heaven seriously. Though they desired freedom in the here and now, the belief that Jesus would return for them and provide them with all that was denied in this life was taken seriously.

This other-worldness has come under severe criticism from black scholars today. Many believe this aspect of white theology was used to subdue the slaves’ desire for freedom in this life. Cone says, “The most corrupting influence among the black churches was their adoption of the ‘white lie’ that Christianity is primarily concerned with an other world reality.”[38], Another life in heaven is not the concern of blacks. They desire the opportunity to enjoy and determine their lives now in this life. Cone comments on this view, “If eschatology means that one believes that God is totally uninvolved in the suffering of men because he is preparing them for another world, then Black Theology is not eschatological. Black Theology is an earthly theology!”[39]

In black theology, salvation is physical liberation from white oppression in this life rather than freedom from the sinful nature and acts of each individual man. This leaves little room for the personal introspection and spiritual aspects of salvation and sin present in most Christian theology. Appeal to heaven is viewed as an attempt to dissuade the blacks from the goal of real liberation of their whole persons.

Conclusion

The focal concern or center of black theology is the white oppression of blacks. Therefore the usual theological discussions about God, Christ, and salvation are basically irrelevant. Instead these points of theology have meaning for blacks only insomuch as they relate to the question of freedom from oppression of blacks in this world.

An Evaluation of Black Theology

The following material is an interaction with black theology, (a) noting positive and negative contributions of black theology, (b) offering general criticisms and observations on black theology, and (c) giving criticism on specific errors in black theology.

Some Contributions of Black Theology

Black liberation theology has made valuable contributions, both positive and negative, to theological discussion today. First, and perhaps its most positive value, is the reminder of the wholistic nature of salvation. In contrast to a Greek view of reality, which ignored the physical nature of man, and put undue emphasis on the spirit, Christianity, building on Judaism, acknowledges a unity of man’s being. Christianity acknowledges man’s ultimate physical deliverance (Rom 8; 1 Cor 15).

Moreover, God the Spirit works in His people in real-life situations, not only in some ethereal sense, until the day of redemption. Moltmann has said:

The kingdom which Jesus preached and represented through his existence is not only the soul’s bliss but shalom for the body as well: peace on earth and liberation of the creature from the past…. If, however, the body belongs to the Lord [I Cor. 6:13 ], the task of the Christian is to await and anticipate his dominion in the future redemption of his body, This is not just Christian charitas, but a practical proof of hope in the redemption of the body….[40]

Second, black theology has helped concerned Christians realize that other members of the body of Christ are hurting, and are in poverty, disease, and physical want. Scripture plainly teaches that when one member of the body of Christ is in pain or need, the rest of the body is to give that hurting portion special attention (1 Cor 12:25–26). Christian laymen and scholars, then, should address themselves to the black Christian communities’ plight, and should endeavor to alleviate the causes of these injuries.

Third, black theology reminds believers that theology, if it is to be thoroughly biblical and to emulate the Lord, must find practical expression. To have great words of wisdom and knowledge without practical expression (love) is to be only a noisy gong (1 Cor 13:1).

Fourth, the emphasis of black theology on God’s activity in history is instructive. Sometimes to live in moderate comfort as a Christian, even while studying the God who has acted in history on man’s behalf, is to forget the words of the resurrected Christ, “I will be with you always.” Sometimes Christians do not sense the need for God to be for them and work through them, since they think they are able to handle conflicts themselves quite nicely.

Fifth, black theologians’ presentations of the injustices experienced by blacks (often perpetrated by white Christians) should prick the hearts of white Christians and cause them to act properly toward other humans.

Sixth, and from a negative side, the action of relating all theological discussion to so narrow a focus, as in black theology, is a danger to be avoided. Rather than a single doctrine dominating all of theology, one needs to find a broader theme under which all important doctrines may comfortably fit.

Seventh, the temptation of making experience the norm for truth is clearly seen in black theology. Certainly blacks are hurting, but they must look outside themselves, not within to their own experiences, to find the answer to their problems. At times one’s experience tends to dictate his attitudes toward God’s Word, whereas he must experience His work through the Word.

General Criticisms and Observations

By the phrase “black theology,” the impression is given that the theology offered by blacks differs from all other theological expression. Holmer expresses his frustration over such shibboleths:

I was told that I “must” be threatened by it, for being white, I could be nothing else, that it was “black” and could only be understood by blacks and that they were the only jury; that it all had to do with black revolution and that revolution was its touchstone as well as the one thing needful. I began to hear that there was black logic, a black experience and a black morality. When all of that was put together with talk of a black Virgin and a black God, there was the strong temptation to let it all slip by as a kind of intellectual wantonness.[41]

Kelsey prefers to speak of dialogues in theology that include a black perspective.[42]

In addition, though black theologians make the disclaimer that black refers not to the color of one’s skin but to their attitude toward oppression, one receives distinct signals in reading black literature that the term indicates specifically the Negro race.

In passing, though black theology would reject white theology and proclaim loudly their independence to speak to and for blacks without desire for white dialogue, “they must begin to realize that they are being influenced more by Euro-American conceptions of freedom than by the religious freedom of the black religious experience.”[43]

Specific Interactions with Black Theology

Black theology, in its overwhelming emphasis on the black man, has strong humanistic traits. Moore, a black, says, “It begins with people—specific people, in a specific situation, and with specific problems to face,”[44] The basis of authority, as stated earlier, is the black experience. Pityana says, “Blackness gives a point of reference, an identity and a consciousness.”[45] Beker criticizes this social element in liberation theology in this way:

[A word of God] if quested at all, is sought not in scripture, but in the self in dialogue with itself, or in a reading of societal structures and movements…. The Bible is basically the document of the Christian’s self-identity: within our identity crisis, it points to the source and origin of Christian self-identity.[46]

The belief that man is able to solve his problems makes one wonder if anything really would be lacking in black theology if there were no God or Christ.

Such an optimistic view of man, expressed earlier in the statement by Mpunzi that black theology has no room for the traditional pessimistic view of man’s nature finds expression in the comment of Ngugi, that the church “can build a new society to create a new man freed from greed, competitive hatred, and ready to realize his full potential in humble cooperation with other men in a just socialist society.”[47]

Rather than all these attempts at seeking man’s rights and man’s identity based on man’s ideas, black theology needs to come to the position of Scharlemann: “The real answer to preserving and restoring man’s humanness is an aspect of Christology instead of anthropology. Man is not the measure of all things, the crucified and risen Lord is.”[48]

A second theological problem with black theology is that it is pragmatic, truth is determined by success of action. Segundo evaluates Cone’s view of truth:

Unless I am mistaken, he is asserting that orthodoxy possesses no ultimate criterion in itself because being orthodox does not mean possessing the final truth. We only arrive at the latter by orthopraxis. It is the latter that is the ultimate criterion of the former, both in theology and in biblical interpretation. The truth is truth only when it serves as the basis for truly human attitudes. “Doers of the truth” is the formula used by divine revelation to stress the priority of orthopraxis over orthodoxy when it comes to truth and salvation.[49]

This emphasis may be seen in black theology in its all consuming passion that theology relate to the black experience. Cone represents black theologians when he argues that black theology can only be valid as it relates to the experience of oppression. He suggests that any doctrine (whether of God, Christ, man, or salvation) which is inconsistent with the black demand for liberation is to be repudiated. Such an attitude toward theology is faulty methodologically. One might achieve freedom but this liberation may not relate in any way to God’s working; the person and will of God are not the reference points. Often the manner in which the freedom is achieved may directly contradict God’s principles seen in the Word.

The idea of God in black theology often is manipulative. One may discuss God so long as He is concerned with the “revolution.” God, then, is a manipulated Being in this theology. Moore argues:

Concepts such as omnipotence and omniscience ring fearfully of the immoveable, military-backed South African government and its Special Branch. These, however, are the images learned from Western theology, and their biblical justification is dubious. Black Theology cannot afford to have any truck with these images which lend religious support to a fascist type of authoritarianism. Nor should it lend ear to the pious clap-trap which asserts that man cannot be free, he can only choose whose slave he will be—Christ’s or the state’s.[50]

Moore continues that black theology needs to explore a perspective of God which does not reflect the white man’s ideas.[51]

Certainly the Bible presents, and experience corroborates, that God delivers His people, bringing them to freedom in Christ. But this must be seen as a part of the whole picture. He desires to deliver them because of His love and sense of justice—for His name’s sake and His glory. But the Christian will be either a slave of himself or Christ, there is no middle ground.

The theology of black liberation has a false view of Christ. This will be discussed only briefly here, since a separate section at the end of the article will take this up again. Jesus must not be viewed primarily as a political deliverer. Scharlemann makes this point well.

It is hardly necessary to comment on this way of reading Scriptures [seeing Jesus as a revolutionary] except to point out that Jesus was much more radical than this ideology suggests. He went to the heart of the problem by calling individuals to repentance, because “He knew what was in man” (John 2:25). He realized that the source of exploitation, of oppression, and of hatred is man’s will. And this will is in revolt against God and has dragged all of creation into futility (Romans 8:20).[52]

Jesus explicitly rejected such a political role when He rejected the offers of Satan at the beginning of His ministry.

Before the god of this world system, “Jesus,” Bigo says, “is tempted to place his divine mission and power at the service of a worldly enterprise.”[53] He rejected this offer. The Temptation proleptically signaled what He later declared when He said that His kingdom was not of this world, when He refused the throne on Palm Sunday, and when He did not save Himself from the cross.

Salvation receives a coloring in black theology that differs from traditional Protestant theology; most of the Reformation themes are lost. There is confusion concerning who needs to be saved. To be oppressed and poor is to be a child of God. Supposedly, the rich are automatically excluded from the kingdom. This is scripturally and logically wrong.

God has certainly demonstrated His desire to save the poor, but does this mean the poor to the exclusion of others? Sider has said, “It is extremely difficult for rich persons to enter the kingdom. The poor are generally more ready to accept the gospel than the rich. But that does not mean that God desires the salvation of the poor more than the salvation of the rich.”[54] This may be seen in several instances: the friendship of Jesus with Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, who were fairly wealthy; the presentation of the gospel to rich Nicodemus; and His being buried in a rich man’s tomb, to mention only a few.

A logical error of this assumption of black theology is that rich and poor are seen as opposites, as if every person in the world is one or the other. First, if wealth were distributed among all, invariably some would have a degree of wealth over others. Would they then be the new rich? Also, even if it were not so distributed, even today there are gradations of richness and poorness. Where does one draw a distinct line of demarcation? Also, the New Testament condemns not the possession of wealth but the wrong attitude toward it. Poor persons may often have greed whereas some rich persons may not.

To ignore the real cause of oppression is inherent in the rejection, or at least the denigration, of the spiritual dimensions of salvation. Thus the rejection of a biblical view of sin leaves out the true cure for oppression. Scharlemann sums this up well.

Man’s normal response to God’s will is to disobey. How then can man be expected to produce anything that is radically good? How can he on his own hope to achieve a society moving toward perfection? Man himself is the chief problem and obstacle. Hence the Scriptures are unanimous in their insistence that only God can create what is new. He does it through men, to be sure, but only by first changing them in their faith.[55]

A Proper Center for Theology

The theme of oppression is an inadequate center for black theology. The theme of the Bible is the Lord Jesus Christ—the One who was to come, came, and is coming again.

The answer to the question “Who is Christ?” makes all the difference in the world! This question is more important than where, in what condition, or for how long one lives, it is the central question to which all theology must stand in waiting. As Ellul has poignantly said, “‘What, in the final analysis, is the really important thing for the whole of mankind—that Jesus is indeed the Christ?—or that the Turks defeated the Byzantines in the early fifteenth century [or as Ellul means, any important event in history]? ‘These latter saw the scale of values quite clearly. It was far more urgent to know who was the Christ than it was to protect a temporal city against an ephemeral invader.”[56]

Only by beginning with this question as the starting point of Christian theology can black theology, or any theology, find out what Christ, the living Word, says to man’s situation. When one knows who Jesus Christ is, then he may explore where He is in man’s existence and problems, and how Christ will provide the help man so desperately needs.

Conclusion

Black theology is a recent development, arising in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement in America. And it has sought to be a voice of God to black people in America and Africa. The central theme of black theology is the oppression of the black people, and all aspects of theology are subjugated to this theme.

Black theology has much to offer as a spur to cause nonblack theologians and laypersons to recognize and have concern for the plight of the oppressed; to be more practical in theology; to discern God’s working in the world, to examine whether one is guilty in oppressing others. On the other hand black theology’s theological center is far too narrow, and it relies on experience as the norm for truth.

The terminology of black theology is to be questioned. Is there really any such thing as “black” theology? And is it free from European influence, such as the theology of hope? The answer is no to both questions. At the same time black theology is in its infancy, so one must understand this when criticizing it.

Black theology, having an improper center, is humanistic and pragmatic. God and Christ are not held in proper biblical perspective, and salvation has too much of a “this-world” emphasis. Black theologians need to ask the all-important question, Who is Christ? From their answer to that question they may begin to answer whether they have a truly Christian theology.

Notes

1. Nyameko Pityana, “What Is Black Consciousness?” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, ed. Basil Moore (London: C. Hurst & Co., 1973), p. 63.
2. Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, trans. Sister Caridad Inda and John Eagleson (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973), p. x. Space does not permit discussing the rise of liberation theology. History is replete with struggles for liberation, but modem liberation ideology is more sophisticated than most past movements. The modern liberation movement often combines biblical liberation themes with Marxist ideology and methodology. Wolfhart Pannenberg (Lutheran), Jüren Moltmann (Reformed), and Johannes Metz (Roman Catholic) represent the theology of hope movement from which more radical political theologians such as Rubem A. Alves, James Cone (black theologian), and Camilo Torres (Roman Catholic), and Gustavo Gutiérrez have developed a theology of violent revolution. Pulling from Marxism more than from Scripture, they pursue a forceful overthrow of oppression and see this as God’s method of working in the world today.
3. Ibid. (italics his).
4. Emmanuel McCall, “Black Liberation Theology: A Politics of Freedom,” Review and Expositor 73 (1976): 323-33.
5. Ibid., p. 326.
6. Ibid., p. 324.
7. Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, p. xi.
8. James H. Cone, “Black Theology and Black Liberation,” In Black Theology: The South African Voice, p. 48.
9. Alistair Kee, ed., A Reader in Political Theology (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 113. Henry states, “Indeed, the church has been and still is one of the few places black people can congregate and feel any sense of human worth and dignity. It was no accident that the civil rights movement, with all its limits, was largely a church-based movement. That’s where black people are!” (Hayward Henry, Jr., “Toward a Religion of Revolution,” The Black Scholar 2 [December 1970): 28).
10. Cone, “Black Theology and Black Liberation,” p. 49.
11. Ibid., pp. 92,96.
12. Basil Moore, “What Is Black Theology?” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, chap. 1. Black theology from an American perspective is the subject of this article.
13. McCall, “Black Liberation Theology,” p. 332.
14. Herzfeld avers, “The world, especially the Third World, sets the terms of the debate, and we are called to engage in the debate, not to abstract ourselves from it in the interest of so-called ‘Pure Theology’—which is in fact nothing other than a sterile abstraction. Unless the Gospel speaks to me in my situation—my blackness—then it will not be a part of my life” (Will Herzfeld, “Black Theology and White Theology.” The Lutheran Quarterly 27 [August 1975]: 233).
15. James H. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power (New York: Seabury Press, 1969), p. 120.
16. Ibid., p. 33. Similarly Buthelezi says, “Blackness is a life category that embraces the totality of my daily existence…. The totality of the only life I know has unfolded itself to me within the limits and range of black situational possibilities…it is my only experience of life, and this fact determines the hermeneutical setting for the Word of God which is designed to save me within the context of my real situation” (Manas Buthelezi, “An African Theology or a Black Theology,” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, p. 33).
17. James H. Cone, A Black Theology of Liberation (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1970), p. 77. And Henry wrote, “God is assumed but attention is focused on the nature and quality of black life under God rather than on abstract debates about His nature and quality” (“Toward a Religion of Revolution,” p. 30).
18. Sabelo Ntwasa and Basil Moore, “The Concept of God In Black Theology,” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, pp. 18-28.
19. Cone, “Black Theology and Black Liberation,” pp. 52-53.
20. Ibid., p. 54.
21. Norman L. Geisler. “Process Theology,” in Tensions in Contemporary Theology, eds. Stanley Gundry and Alan Johnson (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976). pp. 265-66.
22. Juan Luis Segundo, The Liberation of Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1976), p. 31.
23. Sister Martinde Porres Grey, “The Church, Revolution and Black Catholics,” The Black Scholar 2 (December 1970): 23-24.
24. McCall, “Black Liberation Theology,” p. 329.
25. Henry, “Toward a Religion of Revolution,” p. 30. Cone says, “But whether whites want to hear it or not, Christ is black, baby, with all of the features which are so detestable to white society” (Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 68, [italics his]).
26. Henry, “Toward a Religion of Revolution,” p. 30.
27. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 1.
28. Henry, “Toward a Religion of Revolution,” p.30 (capitalization his).
29. Clarence Hilliard, “Down with the Honky Christ—Up with the Funky Jesus,” Christianity Today, January 30, 1976, p. 6.
30. Cleage Shrine, cited in Henry, “Toward a Religion of Revolution,” pp. 30-31. This thesis of Jesus as a zealot has been argued strongly by Samuel George Frederick Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967). Brandon’s thesis has been attacked by many, including Martin Hengel and Oscar Cullmann (Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? trans. William Klassen [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971]; Oscar Cullmann, Jesus and the Revolutionaries, trans. Gareth Putnam [New York: Harper & Row, 1970]). Cf. the radical view of Morris, who says, “If Jesus was oblivious of all the violence around him, or regarded it as unimportant, then our efforts to make him relevant to the life of our time are futile because he was irrelevant to his own time. And what is more, he was a dangerous, blundering fool, doing ambiguous acts and saying provocative things that invited bloody retaliation upon his followers, all the while protesting that he was being misunderstood” (Colin Morris, Unyoung, Uncolored, Unpoor [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1969], p. 102).
31. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-40.
32. Ibid., p. 45.
33. Ibid., p. 151.
34. This definition of sin is implicit in what this writer has read on this subject and is parallel to that view of sin expressed in liberation theology. “Oppression is the gravest ‘sin,’ if we restore to the word ‘sin’ its biblical meaning of iniquity; and collective forms of oppression are even more serious than individual ones” (Pierre Bigo, The Church and Third World Revolution, trans. Sister Jeanne Marie Lyons [Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1977], p. 131).
35. Ananias Mpunzi, “Black Theology as Liberation Theology.” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, p. 137.
36. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 39 (italics his).
37. Mokgethi Motlhabi, “Black Theology: A Personal View,” in Black Theology: The South African Voice, pp. 77-78.
38. Cone, Black Theology and Black Power, p. 121.
39. Ibid., p. 123.
40. Jüren Moltmann, “Toward a Political Hermeneutics of the Gospel,” New Theology No. 6, ed. Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman (New York: Macmillan Co., 1969), p. 87 (italics his).
41. Paul Holmer,” About Black Theology,” The Lutheran Quarterly 28 (February 1976): 232.
42. George Kelsey, cited by McCall, “Black Liberation Theology,” p. 328.
43. Cecil Cone, The Identity in Black Theology (Nashville: African Methodist Episcopal Church, 1975), pp. 141-44.
44. Moore, “What Is Black Theology?” p. 6.
45. Pityana, “What Is Black Consciousness?” p. 63.
46. J. Christiaan Beker, “Biblical Theology Today,” New Theology No. 6, p. 32.
47. James Ngugi, cited in Pityana, “What Is Black Consciousness?” p. 63.
48. Martin H. Scharlemann, The Ethics of Revolution (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 41.
49. Segundo, The Liberation of Theology, p. 32.
50. Moore, “What Is Black Theology?” pp. 8-9. Kato, an African evangelical theologian, gives an excellent evaluation of this theme in black theology, as well as other themes (Byang H. Kato, “An Evaluation of Black Theology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 133 [July-September 1976]: 243-52).
51. Moore, “What Is Black Theology?” pp. 9-10.
52. Scharlemann, The Ethics of Revolution, p. 34.
53. Bigo, The Church and Third World Revolution, p. 73.
54. Ronald J. Sider, “An Evangelical Theology of Liberation,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, eds. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 118-19.
55. Scharlemann, The Ethics of Revolution, p.45; cf. Harold O. J. Brown, “True and False Liberation in the Light of Scripture,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology, p. 147.
56. Jacques Ellul, False Presence of the Kingdom, trans. C, Edward Hopkin (New York: Seabury Press, 1972), pp. 92-93.

Biblical Inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16

By H. Wayne House

[H. Wayne House, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies and Greek, LeTourneau College, Longview, Texas]

To the evangelical community the doctrine of Scripture is one of the most important truths, since transgression at this point leaves all other doctrines in the nebulous sea of uncertainty. In order to demonstrate the accuracy of this position many evangelicals turn to various passages of God’s Word which aver this precious truth. One of these passages is 2 Timothy 3:16. This text is considered crucial as an internal argument for the inspiration of the Bible.[1] However, before one can make a value judgment as to the benefit of 2 Timothy 3:16 to the doctrine of Scripture, one must have an accurate translation from the original text. Unfortunately this is the very problem of 2 Timothy 3:16—opinions differ as to its proper translation. Many scattered references have been made about this passage in numerous theological works but few adequately discuss the difficult grammatical, syntactical, and lexicographical problems the passage poses. This writer’s intention is to discuss the most probable translation and to note the implications of that translation for the doctrine of inspiration.

Second Timothy 3:16 reads in the Authorized Version, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Whether this is an absolutely accurate rendition of the Greek is a point of disagreement.

The Translation of Πᾶσα

The first point that needs to be examined is whether πᾶσα should be translated “all” or “every.” The New American Standard Bible, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People (Williams), The New Testament in Modern English (Phillips), The New Testament in the Language of Today (Beck), and the Revised Standard Version follow the Authorized Version in its translation of the word as “all.” The American Revised Version as well as The New English Bible translate it “every.”

Bernard is quite persuaded that this word should be rendered “every.” “The absence of the article assures us that we must render ‘every Scripture’ and not (with the Authorized Version) ‘all Scripture’; the thought is not of the Old Testament regarded as an organic whole, but of every individual ‘Scripture’ therein.”[2]

Referring to Bernard’s statement, Guthrie, who leaves room for question, states the following:

Bernard decides emphatically for “every” on the basis of the absence of the article, but Simpson points out analogous cases where pas is used in a semi-technical phrase and where the meaning “every” is ruled out, e.g. Acts 2:36 where “all the house of Israel” is clearly demanded (see also Eph 2:21; 3:15; Col 4:12). Yet it may well be in all these exceptions the pas draws attention to the partitive aspect of the expression, and, if that is so, the present phrase may mean Scripture as viewed in each separate part of it.[3]

In concurrence with the observation of Guthrie, πᾶς when used with an anarthrous noun is translated “every” in order to call attention to the individual members of the class denoted by the noun.[4] However, when the noun accompanying πᾶς is a proper noun or collective term,[5] the adjective may be translated “the whole” or “all.”[6] In agreement with the foregoing, Moule says that the translation “every inspired Scripture” is most unlikely, and he suggests that the proper meaning is that “the whole of Scripture is inspired.”[7]

Although the American Revised Version and The New English Bible translated πᾶσα “every” in 2 Timothy 3:16, they did not always translate it that way. In Matthew 3:15; Acts 2:36; 7:22 they translate it “all.” An examination of γραφή in its more than fifty occurrences in the Greek New Testament reveals that it was considered a technical term or proper noun.[8] Thus when it occurred with πᾶς it did not need the article and therefore was translated “all” or “the whole.”[9] Hendriksen summarizes this point well.

It is not true that the absence of the article compels us to adopt the translation of the A.R.V, “every scripture.” The word Scripture can be definite even without the article (I Peter 2:6; II Peter 1:20). Similarly πᾶς =Λσραήλ means “all Israel” (Rom 11:26)…. But even if the rendering “every scripture” be accepted, the resultant meaning would not differ greatly, for if “every scripture” is inspired, “all scripture” must be inspired also.[10]

Thus it is concluded that when πᾶς is used with a technical noun it is better to render it “all” rather than “every.”

The Significance of Γραφή

The Greek word used for “Scripture” in 2 Timothy 3:16 is γραφή. In extra-biblical Greek it simply meant “a writing” or “letter.”[11] Usually this word is articular, but even when it is anarthrous the meaning is not changed.[12] It is never used anarthrously in the New Testament for a single book, though this occurs elsewhere in Hellenistic Judaism.[13] In the New Testament it exclusively means “Scripture,”[14] as an examination of its occurrences in the New Testament reveals.[15]

The rendering “writing” or “passage” for γραφή is thus inappropriate and inaccurate. If γραφή were translated “writing” and if θεόπνευστος is a predicate adjective, then the phrase could be rendered “All writing is God-breathed.” This of course would be disastrous to the doctrine of inspiration. However, if θεόπνευστος is an attributive adjective, then γραφή could be translated “writing” and the phrase would be rendered “All God-breathed writing.”

If γραφή means “Scripture,” to what Scripture does it refer? Lock says, “Wohlenberg would include any Christian writing which had become so recognized by this time…but this is scarcely consistent with [verse] 15, γραφή defining more exactly the γράμματα in which Timothy had been trained from childhood.”[16] Beegle concurs with Lock on this point. “The word ‘scripture’ (Greek, ‘graphe’) seems to refer back to the previous sentence in vs. 14–15 .”[17]

It may be that γραφή in 2 Timothy 3:16 extends beyond the γράμμα under which Timothy was reared. It is agreed that for Paul, the former meant at least the Old Testament. Cook states that in “this context the word ‘scripture’ probably refers to the Old Testament plus that portion of the New Testament which had been put into writing at this point.”[18]

Hendriksen proceeds a step further to allow γραφή to mean everything that was Scripture then, as well as that which would later be written. In other words it “means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative.”[19] In summation γραφή may refer to the Word of God accepted by the Apostle Paul, and probably by the church, at the time of the writing of 2 Timothy and also that which was expected to come later under the inspiration of God.

The Meaning and Position of Θεόπνευστος

Two problems pertaining to this word call for discussion: the translation of the word, and its function in relationship to the word γραφή.

The Meaning of Θεοπνευστος

The problem posed in the translation of this word is whether it is a passive verbal form or an active verbal form. If it is a passive form, the word is emphasizing that Scripture’s source is the breath of God, that is, it originates in and comes from God. If the word has an active meaning, the emphasis is that the Scripture is filled with the breath of God, that is, it is inspiring.

Cremer at one time believed that θεόπνευστος is a passive form, but in later editions of his lexicon he argued that it is active.

A transference of meaning to inspired by God, given by God, can hardly be explained or vindicated; this meaning might, without straining the context, suit Ps.-Phocyl. 121, but certainly is inadmissible as an epithet of γραφή…. The signification, spirit-filled, breathing the Spirit of God, is in keeping with [the context]….[20]

Cremer recognizes that θεόπνευστος was originally passive in meaning. He simply says that the sense is “God-filled” rather than “God-breathed” which, he argues, readily passed into the active sense of “God-breathing” after the analogy of such words as ἄπνευστος or εὔπνευστος, which from “ill-or well-breathed” came to mean “breathing forth good or ill.”[21]

Barth allows this Greek word to have a passive meaning but believes that it also has an active meaning: “Scripture is given and filled and ruled by the Spirit of God and it is actively outbreathing and spreading abroad and making known the Spirit of God.”[22] However, one must realize that all words having a -πνευστος ending in compound form originally had the passive sense and that the active sense always is a derived one.[23] Such a compound may have both an original passive sense and a derived active sense, but not at the same time in a particular context as Barth is suggesting.

Some evangelicals have either not understood the meaning of this compound word or they have been careless in their definitions. For example, Moore states that inspiration “in the sense of Scripture literally means ‘God-breathed.’ The writers of the Holy Writ were thus ‘breathed upon and in’ by the Spirit of God.”[24] What Moore has missed is that 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say the writers were inspired but that Scripture is inspired (“Godbreathed” or “spirated”).

This word is defined by the lexicon as “inspired by God.”[25] The word is a compound of θεός and πνέω. Cremer states that the word cannot be traced to πνέω but only to ἐμπνέω since, as he says, the simple verb is never used of divine activity.[26] However, this is disproved in the Septuagint where examples contrary to his view may be found (see, e.g., Ps 147:18 and Isa 4:24).[27]

Words that are compounded with -πνευστος are called verbal adjectives and are formed from verb stems. In the broadest sense, they are participles, since they partake of both verbal and adjectival qualities and their basic idea is passive.[28] To understand how θεόπνευστος was formed, one must observe that verbal adjectives have the ending -τος added to the verb stem of the first or second aorist passive.[29] Then -τος is joined to πνευ-, which is the first aorist stem of πνέω.[30] Since πνέω has an epsilon as a short final vowel, a sigma is united to the aorist passive stem, forming πνευσ.[31] Then -τος is added to the first aorist passive stem and compounded with θεός. Very definitely this word is passive in its original sense. Other words with the same ending are primarily passive in meaning (though a few nonpassive meanings may be found in lexicons). Liddell and Scott give several examples of verbal adjectives with the passive sense.[32] There is then no morphological or lexicographical reason why the Greek word in 2 Timothy 3:16 should not be translated with the passive “God-breathed,” especially in view of the context.

The Position of Θεοπνευστος

The most difficult problem in 2 Timothy 3:16 is whether this word is in the attributive position or the predicate position. Either one is grammatically permissible, so the decision ultimately must be made by determining how this word relates to its context.

In the Greek construction πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ωηφέλιμος, the word “is” may be understood immediately before θεόπνευστος thus making it a predicate adjective (with the clause translated “All Scripture is God-breathed and also profitable”), or immediately after θεόπνευστος thus making it an attributive adjective (with the clause translated, “All God-breathed Scripture is also profitable”). However, a copula or verb is not necessary for an adjective to be classified as a predicate adjective.[33]

Cook says, “If the translation were to be ‘all God-breathed Scripture is also profitable,’ the word order would normally be pasa theopneustos graphe.”[34] In other words Cook is saying that θεόπνευστος normally would be identified as an attributive adjective if it precedes its noun. However, anarthrous adjectives are not so easy to distinguish as to whether they are predicate or attributive adjectives; they may be either. An articular attributive adjective occurs before the noun and directly after the article, but this is not always true concerning the anarthrous adjective. Although an articular attributive normally precedes the noun, the “rule is that an anarthrous adjectival attributive usually follows its substantive.”[35] Robertson gives several examples of constructions in which the anarthrous adjectives follow the nouns they modify.[36]

In a study of the construction, πας + noun + adjective, Roberts has convincingly demonstrated that usually in this exact sequence the adjective has the attributive sense. In all twenty-one exact parallels to 2 Timothy 3:16 the adjective is attributive, except 1 Timothy 4:4 in which there are intervening words between the adjectives and the noun.[37] Roberts also lists several examples from the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch (Gen 1:21, 30; Exod 12:6; 18:26; Deut 1:39; 17:1) which have the same order and in which the adjectives are predominantly attributive.

In view of Roberts’s study one might assume that the question of whether the Greek word under discussion is a predicate adjective or an attributive adjective is a closed case. This is not true, however, for in 2 Timothy the noun has a technical meaning, which puts it in a classification different from those examples given above. The previous discussion on γραφή showed that it has the same force as a noun with an article, allowing the predicate adjective to follow. Thus although a predicate adjective would normally precede the noun, this is not a necessary requirement. Winer wisely states that one should not insist on any invariable rule in the Greek sentence except that of spontaneity.[38]

Many have condemned the American Revised Version and The New English Bible for translating θεοπνευστος as an attributive adjective. Several verses that have the same construction and yet are still translated predicatively (e.g., Rom 7:12; 1 Cor 11:30; 2 Cor 10:10) are sometimes cited in order to default the two above translations. An examination of these passages, though, reveals that they would be awkward in their contexts as attributives. In addition they do not have the same construction as that found in 2 Timothy 3:16. Thus defaulting the American Revised Version and The New English Bible by comparing them with texts having a similar construction must at least not be pressed.

One of the main objections to the word being translated as a qualifying adjective is that the καὶ which follows it in the sentence would not be needed. Some have tried to solve this difficulty by not translating καὶ. This is done by The New English Bible: “All God-breathed Scripture is profitable.” But it “is just as arbitrary to leave out καὶ as it is to translate it here by also…. That an inspired composition was also useful, was intelligible of itself indeed.”[39]

Alford, however, believes the adjunctive or ascensive use of this conjunction is perfectly permissible. Yet he does admit that the construction, as in 2 Timothy 3:16, is an awkward one. He cites Luke 1:36; Acts 26:26; Romans 8:29; and Galatians 4:7 as New Testament examples of the ascensive use of the word.[40] These examples are acceptable evidence that καὶ might be used as an ascensive in 2 Timothy 3:16 without doing injustice to the construction. Alford believes that to accept it as a connecting word deprives the sentence of symmetry. In addition, he says that if it is a connective, the following words must be understood as the purposed result of the God-breathing as well as the ὠφέλεια of the Scriptures, which is hardly natural.[41]

However, both views under discussion are acceptable. The main flaw among the two is not the ἵνα clause with καὶ as a connective of θεόπνευστος and ὠφέλιμος, but καὶ as an ascensive. The ἵνα is probably in this context introducing a result clause,[42] which can go smoothly with a phrase such as θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος; thus the sense is “All Scripture is God-breathed and all Scripture is profitable.”

From this discussion one may see that from a grammatical standpoint “God-breathed” may be considered as either an attributive adjective or a predicate adjective. Both views have their weak and strong points and neither one is conclusive grammatically. How then is one to know which to choose? Robertson clarifies the difference between these two kinds of adjectives: “The distinction between the attributive adjective and the predicate adjective lies in just this, that the predicate presents an additional statement, is indeed the main point, while the attributive is an incidental description of the substantive about which the statement is made.”[43]

Is “God-breathed” in 2 Timothy 3:16 to be considered as incidental and thus attributive? This writer thinks not! Θεόπνευστος is as much a main point as ὠφέλιμος. Paul had used πᾶσα γραφὴ in verse 16 in contrast to ἵερα γράμματα in verse 15 to show the additional value of apostolic Scripture. A “reminder of its divine origin is perfectly appropriate in a passage intended to impress on his disciple its value both as authenticating the Christian message and as a pastoral instrumental.”[44] The term θεόπνευστος is not just an incidental description of γραφή; it is also a focal point of the passage. Paul first shows Scripture’s origin and then he shows its practicality. Scripture’s main attestation is that it is God-breathed, that is, it originates in God. So “the emphasis is that Scripture partakes of the quality of the creative breath of God,”[45] and Scripture is profitable. This results in the (Christian) man being “perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” If Scripture is not God-breathed, the believer has no equipment for the spiritual battles of life; and if all Scripture is not God-breathed, the Christian cannot be sure as to which portion of Scripture he may hold as infallible truth.

The Authorized Version declares inspiration in 2 Timothy 3:16, whereas the American Revised Version implies it. One cannot be dogmatic in deciding the correct translation of πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος, but with all things taken into consideration (syntax, word formation, and context) the balance of the argument is that 2 Timothy 3:16 should be translated, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable….”

Notes

1. The doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration does not depend entirely on the interpretation of this passage. God has secured this doctrine in the very fabric and framework of His Word. See N. B. Stonehouse and Paul Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word: A Symposium, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1967); Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co., 1970); and Clark Pinnock, Biblical Revelation: The Foundation of Christian Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971).
2. J. H. Bernard, The Pastoral Epistles, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899), pp. 136-37.
3. Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, Tyndale Bible Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), pp. 163-64.
4. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 636. There are twenty-one examples of πᾶς in the construction found in 2 Timothy 3:16, i.e., πᾶς + the noun + the adjective. Examples include Matthew 7:17 (“every good tree”); Matthew 12:36 (“every idle word”); and Ephesians 1:3 (“every spiritual blessing”). The other examples are Acts 23:1; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 4:29; Colossians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Timothy 2:21; 4:18; Titus 1:16; 2:10; 3:1; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:17; 3:16; and Revelation 8:7; 18:2, 12; 21:19 (J. W. Roberts, “Note on the Adjective after πᾶς in 2 Timothy 3:16, ” Expository Times 76 [August 1965]: 359). While all these examples translate πᾶς by “every,” none has a noun with the technical meaning as seen in γραφή as mentioned in the main discussion above.
5. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), p. 491.
6. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 637.
7. C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), p. 95.
8. John Peter Lange, A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, vol. 23: Thessalonians-Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, n.d.), p. 109. Referring to 2 Timothy 3:16 Lange writes, “Although the article is wanting here, nevertheless, by virtue of the connection, it is not to be doubted a moment that the Apostle is speaking decidedly and exclusively of the γραφή of the Old Covenant, as of a well-completed whole…. In no case can the absence of the article in a word so frequently used as γραφή surprise us, since it is employed, in fact, almost as a proper name” (ibid.).
9. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1920), p. 296. The usual construction would be ὁ πᾶς but “the article is not used with πᾶς if the noun, standing alone, would have no article.”
10. William Hendriksen, I-II Timothy , Titus, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957), p. 301.
11. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), pp. 168-69.
12. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament In the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 791.
13. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “γραφή,” by Gottlob Schrenk, 1:754.
14. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 165.
15. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1967), p. 176.
16. Walter Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, The International Critical Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1924), p. 110.
17. Dewey M. Beegle, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963), p. 20.
18. W. Robert Cook, Systematic Theology in Outline Form (Portland, OR: Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, 1970), p. 36.
19. Hendriksen, I-II Timothy, Titus, p. 301. Simon Kistemaker, who kindly read this paper and made helpful comments, suggested that Paul’s use of γραφγ́ in 1 Timothy 5:18, in which he quotes from Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7, may give evidence that Luke’s Gospel was considered canonical by Paul, or on the same level with the Torah. If Paul is quoting Luke, then that writing was in circulation much earlier than many have supposed. For example, F. W. Danker suggested the late 70s or early 80s (Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke [St. Louis: Clayton Publishing House, 1972]), and W. G. Kummel suggested A.D. 70-90 (Introduction to the New Testament [Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975]). Cf. J. A. T.Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), for arguments concerning a date in the 60s. On the other hand it may be that Paul, being in close contact with Luke, was familiar with an Ur-Lukan document.
20. Hermann Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, 4th ed., trans. William Urwick (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895), p. 731. See Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 245-348, for a fuller discussion of γραφή and related material.
21. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 731.
22. Cited from Klaas Runia, Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Holy Scripture (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pubishing Co., 1962), p. 131.
23. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 280.
24. H. L. Moore, Eternal Questions (Cleveland, TN: White Wing Publishing House, 1968), p. 12.
25. Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 357.
26. Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon, p. 731.
27. Cf. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 281-87.
28. Robertson, A Grammar, pp. 157, 1095.
29. William Watson Goodwin and Charles Burton Gulick, Greek Grammar (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell Publishing Co., 1958), p. 147.
30. Ibid., p. 153.
31. Smyth, Greek Grammar, p. 160.
32. Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, comps., A Greek-Engish Lexicon, rev. Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), p. 790-92. Also see Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, pp. 281-82.
33. Robertson, A Grammar, p. 656.
34. Cook, Systematic Theology, p. 36.
35. F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and ed. Robert W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 251.
36. Robertson, A Grammar, p. 418.
37. Matthew 7:17; 12:36; Acts 23:1; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 1:3; 4:29; Colossians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Timothy 2:21; 4:18; Titus 1:16; 2:10; 3:1; Hebrews 4:12; James 1:17; 3:16; Revelation 8:7; 17:2; 18:2, 12; 21:19 .
38. Cited from Robertson, A Grammar, p. 417.
39. Lange, Thessalonians-Hebrews, p. 109.
40. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 4 vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1958), 4:397.
41. Ibid., p. 396.
42. Robertson, A Grammar, pp. 991-94.
43. Ibid., p. 656.
44. J. N. D. Kelley, Pastoral Epistles, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 203.
45. Cook, Systematic Theology, pp. 36-37.