Brethrenism and Creeds

By Thomas Julien

The most distinctive characteristic of the Brethren movement has been its vigorous opposition to creedalism and its commitment to the Bible as the sole authority. By recognizing this heritage and realizing the problems of creedalism, the Brethren may avoid adopting superficial solutions for the challenges of the present and pass on their heritage to future generations. Specifically, the Brethren must view their Statement of Faith and their practices as aligned with the authoritative Scripture and not as binding in and of themselves. This will promote true fellowship among the Brethren.

* * *

Introduction

Brethrenism has roots both in the Reformed movement and in German pietism. Although he was born to reformed parents, Alexander Mack, the founder of the Brethren movement, was strongly influenced by such pietists as Hochman, whom he accompanied on some preaching missions. In a sense, however, Brethrenism was a reaction to both movements. Protesting the cold creedalism of the reformed churches and the excessive spiritualizing of the pietists, the founders of Brethrenism believed that total obedience to Jesus Christ required the formation of a visible body of believers faithful to the biblical pattern. As Brumbaugh said, “Rejecting on one hand the creed of man, and on the other hand the abandonment of ordinances, they turned to the Bible for guidance. From God’s Word they learned that ordinances were vital and creed unnecessary.” [1]

It is healthy for the Brethren to review, from time to time, their anticreedalistic heritage in order that they might appreciate it and perpetuate it. It is also good for them to review the dangers of creedalism so that they might avoid adopting superficial solutions for the challenges of the present.

Brethren and Creedalism

The vigorous opposition of the early Brethren to creedalism has probably become the most distinctive characteristic of the Brethren movement. As the Report of the Committee on Recommending Procedures for Amending the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches Statement of Faith has explained,

There has always been a great resistance in making the Brethren a creedal denomination. For example, in 1882 the Progressive Brethren gathered at the convention in Ashland, Ohio to formulate a Declaration of Principles, the principles on which the Brethren Church was to be structured. Statements from this Declaration of Principles included:

We hold that in religion the gospel of Christ and the gospel alone, is a sufficient rule of faith and practice; that he who adds to the gospel, takes away from it, or in any way binds upon men anything different from the gospel, is an infidel to the Author of Christianity and a usurper of gospel rights.

Furthermore, when discussing statements of faith and creeds, the 1882 Progressive Brethren insisted:

That the gospel…prohibits the elevation of these instruments or expediencies to an equal plan of authority, with positive divine enactments, the penalty attached to the transgression of which is to be social ostracism or severance of church relation. [2]

The brethren did not react to “creeds” in the etymological sense of “something believed.” Rather, the term “creed” suggested to them an authoritative statement of faith requiring the assent of believers. The Brethren believed that only the Bible possessed such normative authority. Further, it is apparent that Brethren noncreedalism was not prompted by a mystical or relativistic view of truth. Nor does it express an unwillingness to define beliefs and express them clearly. The same Report quoted above goes on to note,

In 1892 at a General Conference in Warsaw, Indiana. the following action with respect to church creeds took place:

The conference reaffirmed the former position of the Church in renouncing all creeds of every description except the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible; but for the satisfaction of honest inquirers, who are unacquainted with our people, they announced officially that the Brethren Church understands her creed to teach, among other things, the following….[3]

In this quotation the term “creed” is used in two different ways. On the one hand, it was used in reference to a statement which showed others what the Brethren believed. In calling the statement their “creed” they were simply using the term in its etymological sense. On the other hand, the term was used in the sense of authoritative religious dogmas which were forced upon people by a religious hierarchy. Such creedalism had been rejected by the spiritual forefathers of the Brethren and was also renounced by the Brethren in 1892.

For Alexander Mack “man-made creeds” were identified with the sterile and oppressive religious systems of his day. [4] When the initial fervor of the Reformation had passed, the institutions it had spawned became very creedalistic. Then each institution, to the extent it was able, oppressed those who refused to conform to its system. In particular, the Brethren became an object of oppression.

The Problems of Creedalism

Creedalism is the result of making a statement of beliefs binding on the conscience of the individual Christian. And creedalism carries along with it a grave error—the elevation of man’s perception of truth to a place of authority superior to divine revelation.

It is inevitable, once an authoritative creed is formulated, that it becomes the reference point for belief as well as for further research and reflection. Though in theory all Protestant creeds profess submission to the Word of God and are valuable only to the extent of their conformity to it, in practice creeds become the spectacles through which the Word is read and interpreted. To the extent that the creed gains authority, it relativizes the authority of the Word that begat it. Historically this sad process seems inevitable. No system of dual authority can stand—one will always rise above the other.

There is a great difference between “creedal truth” and “biblical truth.” Biblical truth is revealed; creedal truth is perceived and formulated. When one assents to a certain creedal formulation he assents to a human construct, but when one assents to a biblical statement he assents to divine revelation. Of course, many will point out that all Protestant creeds are subject to the authority of the Word. Philip Schaff has said that,

In the Protestant system, the authority of symbols, as of all human composition, is relative and limited. It is not coordinate with, but always subordinate to the Bible as the only infallible rule of the Christian faith and practice. The value of creeds depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scriptures. In the best case a human creed is only an approximate and relatively correct exposition of revealed truth, and may be improved upon by the progressive knowledge of the Church, while the Bible remains perfect and infallible. The Bible is of God; the Confession is man’s answer to God’s word. The Bible has, therefore, a divine and absolute, the Confession only an ecclesiastical and relative authority. Any higher view of the authority of the symbols is unprotestant and essentially Romanizing. [5]

However, creedal denominations, while in theory claiming the authority of the Scriptures over the creeds, nevertheless may in practice appeal to the creeds rather than to the Scriptures for their identity. Thus they move historically to various degrees of creedalism and run the risk of losing the truths that the creeds were meant to preserve. Even Schaff recognized this problem:

It is objected…that the symbololatry of the Lutheran and Calvinistic State Churches in the seventeenth century is responsible for the apostasy of the eighteenth. The objections have some force in those State Churches which allow no liberty for dissenting organizations, or when the creeds are virtually put above the Scriptures instead of being subordinated to them. [6]

Though some may argue that a creed, if carefully formulated, teaches the same truths as the Scriptures, one must reply that creedal truth, though identical in content with biblical truth, is different in nature from biblical truth. Though “the law of the Lord is perfect” (Ps 19:7), the perceptive faculties of his children are not. Only the authors of Scripture were infallibly moved by the Holy Spirit as they wrote. No prophesy of Scripture came about merely by human origination or interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). Yet all creeds by their very nature, no matter how faithful they are to the revealed Word, are in fact an effort to interpret the revealed Word. This does not mean that it is wrong to summarize the teaching of the Word in order to teach it to others. Summaries, however, must not become authoritative documents that become binding on the consciences of men.

Biblical revelation must always be prefaced with: “God says…” It is self-authenticating revelation. [7] It reposes on the authority of the eternal God whose Word will not return to him without accomplishing its purpose (Isa 55:11). Creedal truth, however, must be prefaced with “I believe.” Because of its nature, a creed has no more power to preserve the truth it defines than a law has power to guarantee obedience. Preservation of the truth is accomplished by the Spirit; creeds have had limited success in the preservation of the truth.

Further, an ecclesiastical hierarchy must exist to make a creed binding upon the individual members of a church organization. This means that there is a wide gulf between clergy and laity. This is foreign to the Brethren heritage. To move toward creedalism is to risk losing a precious aspect of this heritage. Unless Brethren build faithfully on the foundation of their heritage they will not preserve their historical denominational identity.

Another problem of creedalism is that it tends to reduce faith to mere intellectual assent to a body of dogma. Fellowship among believers is also affected. Fellowship in a creedalistic setting tends to be simply intellectual agreement. Faith and fellowship are thus formalized into assent and agreement respectively. This leads to a group of people who are coming together and saying, “We are members of the church” but the only thing that binds them together is that they are willing to say the same things and to sign the same creed. But biblical fellowship involves the richness of a shared spirit and loving commitment to the body. This is often lacking in creedalistic settings.

The Challenge of Creedalism for Brethren

A growing creedalism could eventually cancel out two bedrock principles of the Brethren movement: the sole authority of the Word of God in matters of faith and practice on the one hand, and the autonomy of the local church on the other. The first principle would be endangered because creedalism tends to relativize the Word of God. The second principle would be jeopardized because creedalism requires an ecclesiastical hierarchy for its enforcement. These two factors alone show that the Brethren heritage and creedalism are mutually exclusive. The Brethren ought to be constantly alert to the danger of sacrificing the essential principle of Brethrenism by allowing any man-made document to supplant the written Word as the means God has chosen to perpetuate all truth.

In light of the above, can a church body have a Statement of Faith without becoming a creedalistic denomination? This question has been discussed at great lengths in recent years by leaders of the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches. A three-year study committee appointed by the annual conference of the fellowship circulated a questionnaire in which the first question was, “What does it mean to be ‘biblical’ rather than ‘creedal’?” Unfortunately, many of the answers to this question revealed a misunderstanding of the term “creed” in the context of Brethren history. In many answers a creed was viewed simply as a statement of beliefs. Historically, Brethren have utilized such statements. However such statements are not invested with the normative authority which belongs only to God’s Word.

Both Brethren and non-Brethren have expressed the fear that concern for the preservation of Brethren distinctives might expose the Brethren to the snares of creedalism and sever them from their historical roots. This concern has been expressed by Dennis Martin:

Thus Grace Brethren have approached the adoption of a genuinely creedal statement more nearly than other Brethren groups, although the statement’s authority in church polity is unclear, especially in regard to its articles on baptism and the traditional Brethren three-fold communion service (love feast). [8]

The challenge to the Grace Brethren, then, is to clearly state and preserve essential beliefs and distinctives while avoiding a creedalism which would tend to minimize their commitment to the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. In order to accomplish this, Brethren must be sensitive to their anticreedalistic heritage and utilize their Statement of Faith accordingly. Three suggestions might serve as guideposts.

First, the Statement of Faith must never be allowed to become a creed in the sense of becoming a formulation of dogma established by the authority of the denomination and binding on the individual consciences of its members. A Statement of Faith affirms the beliefs of a group of Christians with which one aligns himself. It does not normally become binding upon the individual conscience, which should be bound only by the Word of God. However, the Statement of Faith is a necessary definition of the beliefs of a group of people which allows them to have fellowship together. It is a kind of marriage contract for a church. One cannot just say, “We believe in the Bible,” and leave it at that. There must be a clear definition of doctrine and practice. However, the Statement of Faith is an affirmation of what the body as a whole believes and practices. This is not necessarily the personal creed of each member of that body unless much time and energy are expended in examining that Statement in the light of God’s Word. It takes time for the truths of a Statement of Faith to become binding upon the individual’s conscience. This occurs only when the individual is convinced that the statement faithfully represents biblical revelation. Mere uncritical assent to a statement of faith is not faith at all.

Second, the Statement of Faith must never be allowed to become the main identifying factor of the Grace Brethren fellowship. A creedalistic denomination is one which finds its main identifying factor in the creed. A biblical denomination is one which finds its identity in the Word of God. A biblical denomination may have a “creed” in the sense of a statement of faith which is based upon the Bible. However, a denomination cannot be creedalistic and biblical at the same time. There can only be one absolute norm for faith and practice. Noncreedalistic denominations have sought to ground not only doctrine but also church practices and polity solely upon the Bible. As was true of most free church movements, Brethrenism differed from reformed ecclesiology in attempting consistent conformity to the NT pattern. Nearly all denominational bodies originating in postreformation times can be measured by the degree of their conformity to the NT pattern. The desire of the Brethren from the beginning was for consistent conformity to the NT pattern. Through careful study of both the Scriptures and early church history, the original “Tunkers” sought to form a body of believers founded on the principle that the Bible alone is sufficient, not only in matters of doctrine, but also in determining the structure and practices of the church.

Brethrenism in its essence, then, is a principle manifested by visible practices. The practices are proof of commitment to the principle. It is not merely an affirmation of belief in “the Bible, the whole Bible, nothing but the Bible.” Nor is it simply a collection of “Brethren distinctives.” These distinct practices have meaning because they grow out of the basic principle. The spirit of Brethrenism exists only when there is a vital, dynamic relationship between the principle and practices.

A Statement of Faith does not give identity to a church body which strives to be biblical. It merely defines the identity that this body already possesses. Though this distinction may be difficult to grasp, it is a distinction which must be made if the historical identity of the Brethren is to be preserved.

Third, appeal must never be made to the Statement of Faith as the final authority in the areas of faith and practice. In other words, it must never become a convenient substitute for the Word of God. It is a necessary summary of the beliefs of the body, but when controversy arises it must give place to the ultimate authority of the Word of God. In cases of controversy, biblical research should prove or disprove whether the Statement of Faith has indeed faithfully summarized the teaching of Scripture on the disputed points. In some instances, the Statement of Faith might have to be modified in order to reflect more accurately biblical revelation. But in no case can issues be settled merely by appealing to a man-made document.

Conclusion

What is Brethrenism? Perhaps it could be compared to a house with three floors. On the very bottom there is the basic principle: “The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.” Affirmation of the Scriptures as the sole and final authority in all matters of doctrine, practice, and polity is the bedrock principle of Brethrenism.

But Brethrenism is more than this. It is an attempt to bring its practices into conformity with the Scriptures. One of the practices of the Brethren is three-fold communion and another is triune immersion. If these practices are observed, it is because Brethren are convinced that this is what the Bible is teaching. Therefore, when Brethren say, “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible,” it is not merely an intellectual assertion. It implies that Brethren will prove visibly by their church ordinances that they are committed to their basic principle. This is the second floor of the house.

The third floor is genuine fellowship and community. It involves more than just mere intellectual assent to the Word. Because of the heavy pietistic influence on the early Brethren, they did not see the Word as an end in itself, but as a means of knowing and loving God. They seemingly took the best of pietism and incorporated it into their movement. Thus to them faith was knowing God in the context of the Scriptures. There was no conflict between intellectual knowledge about God and experiential fellowship with God. There was consistency in doctrine and practice.

It is not by mistake that they chose the word “brethren.” Sadly the word is used with little meaning today. Sometimes there are two Brethren churches in the same city that cannot get along with each other and are not interested in each other. When this is the case, the word “brethren” has no genuine content. When churches are dividing, and when there is no practice of forgiveness, confession, and restoration, then the word “brethren” has become empty and hollow. The word “brethren” must carry all its rich biblical content.

When one begins to learn something about the circumstances surrounding the birth of Brethrenism, he catches a glimmer of the glory of the movement. Though the reformed church made great strides in the right direction, whenever it practiced creedalism it fell short of the NT pattern for the church. Pietism, with its mystical tendencies and its refusal to root itself in biblical revelation on the church and its ordinances, led inevitably to subjectivism. With great courage and at great cost, the founders of Brethrenism pledged themselves to a faith firmly rooted in the Word of God, and a willingness to accept all the consequences of that faith.

Those of us who are their heirs are committed to preserving the heritage they have bestowed upon us. May we ever remember that we shall only preserve Brethren practices by faithful commitment to our basic principle: “the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.”

Notes

1. Martin Grove Brumbaugh, A History of the Brethren (Mt. Morris, IL: Brethren Publishing House, 1899) 33.
2. “Report of the Committee on Recommending Procedures for Amending the FGBC Statement of Faith,” 1982 Grace Brethren Annual (December 1, 1981) 43.
3. Ibid. At this point in the conference report the distinctives of the Brethren Church are enumerated as baptism, footwashing, the Lord’s supper, the communion of the bread and cup, the holy kiss, and congregational church government.
4. W. G. Willoughby, Counting the Cost: The Life of Alexander Mack (Elgin, IL: Brethren Press, 1979) 64.
5. Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (reprint; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977) 1.7.
6. Ibid., 1.9. For examples of forced subscription to a creed in the ministry of John Calvin, see Paul Woolley, “What is a Creed For? Some Answers from History” in Scripture and Confession, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973) 107,110–11. Woolley concludes that Calvin was not using the creed properly in those instances.
7. James M. Grier, “The Apologetic Value of the Self-Witness of Scripture,” GTJ 1 (1980) 71-76.
8. Dennis Martin, “Noncreedalism.” in The Brethren Encyclopedia (Philadelphia: Brethren Encyclopedia, 1983) 2.943.

Are Seminaries Preparing Prospective Pastors to Preach the Word of God?

By Nickolas Kurtaneck

There is an acute crisis for preaching today, due in part to a fragmentizing of Christian ministry into various specialized professions without the integrating input of theological training. Preparation for pulpit ministry should be a high priority in the design of seminary curriculums. Training for such ministry must cultivate a theistic mentality, a correct methodology, and a balanced motivation.

* * *

Introduction

Are seminaries preparing prospective pastors to preach the Word of God? I believe that valid criticism has been leveled against contemporary preaching. Since theological seminaries are the primary agencies for training ministerial students, they must bear the brunt of this criticism and take steps to correct the problem.

Several preliminary comments are in order. First, my concern is with evangelical seminaries. The evangelical community looks to these schools to provide the education essential for the task of preaching the Word of God (cf. 2 Tim 4:2). It must be insisted, however, that mere academic training cannot guarantee proper preaching of the Word of God. Preaching the Word is more than simply learning the technique of sermon preparation in a homiletics class. While the skill of communication can be taught in class, effective preaching depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit. Sittler evidently had this in mind when he wrote, “the expectation must not be cherished that, save for the modest and obvious instruction about voice, pace, organization, and such matters, preaching as a lively art of the church can be taught at all…. Disciplines correlative to preaching can be taught, but preaching as an act of witness cannot be taught.” [1] Therefore, evangelical seminaries must offer an academic program that has the potential to cultivate a profound reverence for preaching in the power of the Holy Spirit. Such reverence may be cultivated by a curriculum centered around the Bible and Christ.

It is my hope that this essay will stimulate further study on the place of preaching in the evangelical seminary. Areas for research may be in constructive criticism of the pulpit ministry, the priority of the pulpit ministry in the local church setting, and the training for the pulpit ministry.

Criticism of the Pulpit Ministry

Sittler states, “Preaching is in trouble everywhere.” [2] He adds, “Of course preaching is in trouble. Whence did we ever manufacture the assumption that it was ever to be anything but trouble?” [3] Preaching has seldom experienced the luxury of praise. This fact has been well-documented by numerous books related to the subject of preaching. Fant underscores this point by noting that no generation of preachers has escaped criticism, for even during the so-called Golden Age of Preaching when Liddon, Spurgeon, Parker, Beecher, MacLaren and Brooks were at the height of their careers, Mahaffy wrote The Decay of Preaching in 1882. [4] Fant concludes, “every aspect of preaching is under attack today just as it always has been from the beginning…. No age of pulpit proclamation has ever escaped heavy criticism.” [5]

However, the current crisis in the pulpit ministry is particularly acute. [6] Kaiser comments,

It is no secret that Christ’s Church is not at all in good health in many places of the world. She has been languishing because she has been fed, as the current line has it, “junk food”; all kinds of artificial preservatives and all sorts of unnatural substitutes have been served up to her. As a result, theological and Biblical malnutrition has afflicted the very generation that has taken such giant steps to make sure its physical health is not damaged by using foods or products that are carcinogenic or otherwise harmful to their physical bodies. Simultaneously a worldwide spiritual famine resulting from the absence of any genuine publication of the Word of God (Amos 8:11) continues to run wild and almost unabated in most quarters of the Church. [7]

The crisis is real; nevertheless as Fant said, one must be careful “to make sure [preaching] is in trouble for the right reasons.” [8] Criticism of the church and the pulpit ministry by unbelievers is to be expected. It is the criticism from within the church that is the real concern. As Craddock states,

The alarm felt by those of us still concerned about preaching is not a response solely to the noise outside in the street where public disfavor and ridicule have been heaped upon the pulpit…. More disturbing has been the nature and character of those who have been witnesses for the prosecution. Increasingly, the brows that frown upon the pulpit are not only intelligent, but often theologically informed, and quite often deeply concerned about the Christian mission. [9]

He goes on to say,

the major cause for alarm is not the broadside from the public, nor the sniping from classroom sharpshooters, but the increasing number who are going AWOL from the pulpit. Some of these men move into forms of the ministry that carry no expectation of a sermon, or out of the ministry altogether. In addition, there are countless others who continue to preach, not because they regard it as an effective instrument of the church but because of the combined force of professional momentum and congregational demand…. It is the opinion of many concerned Christians, some who give the sermon and some who hear it, that preaching is an anachronism. [10]

Craddock focuses attention on the seminaries in his examination of the problem. He notes that some seminaries offer little work in homiletics and that there is, “in some quarters, a serious reexamination of the wisdom of having instruction in preaching as a separate curriculum item” because “preaching so taught has its form defined not by the content of the Gospel nor the nature of Christian faith but by Greek rhetoric.” [11]

This last point is worth noting, for the crisis is not merely over preaching, but rather over the preaching of the Word. Will preaching survive the humanistic influences which press pastors to moderate and compromise the biblical message? Should preachers accommodate preaching to fit the model of Lifton’s “Protean man,” who like the Greek god Proteus alter their shape to conform to any situation? [12] Evangelical seminaries need to shoulder the responsibility of seeing that these questions are answered properly. However, there is doubt as to whether the seminaries are doing the job. Guelich, writing in sympathy with Ladd’s convictions, states,

the primary task of the pastor is to be a minister of the Word. I am also convinced that such a ministry is what the church is in desperate need of today. Rather than preparing men and women to be ministers of the church, ministers of youth, ministers of counseling, ministers of outreach, and even ministers of Christian education, as indispensable as these all are, the primary task of seminary education should be to prepare ministers of the Word. [13]

Guelich believes that seminaries have failed in this primary task. [14] He laments the fact that theological education has been fragmented into various specialties that do not involve preaching the Word. He concludes that the anemia of the church today “is not lack of ministers but a dearth of ministers of the Word.” [15]

Farley also criticizes the seminaries because theology “has long since disappeared as the unity, subject matter, and end of clergy education and this disappearance is responsible more than anything else for the problematic character of that education as a course of study.” [16] In the process of fragmenting theological education, emphasis upon the ministry of the Word has been eclipsed, and in some cases, sidelined as an antiquarian oddity. Seminaries have allowed their curriculums to be modeled according to specialized professions to the point that “present-day theological schools simply cannot provide a theological education.” [17] Evangelical seminaries must not allow this trend to continue. They must make certain that preparation for the ministry of the Word is given top priority.

Priority of the Pulpit Ministry

Just as the ministry of the Word ought to be given top priority in seminary education, the pulpit ministry ought to be given top priority in the ministry of the pastor. [18] This ministry should be the catalyst of all church functions and the guiding light of all church activities. Preaching is the primary method ordained by Christ to build his church (Matt 28:18–20).

However, is it mandatory that a pastor preach the Word on every occasion of public worship? Evans has answered this question in the negative. Evans believes that “the common practice today of a clergyman preaching a sermon to a passive audience seems to have its origin in tradition (and/or expedience) rather than in a scriptural pattern.” [19] He believes that because “monologic” preaching causes a detrimental congregational passivity, a pastor should vary the worship service to include audience participation. He states, “occasion may necessitate a strong sermon of exhortation, refutation or teaching, but there are no biblical grounds for a tradition that tends to discourage congregational activity in worship and ministry.” [20] In his discussion of 2 Tim 4:2, Evans points to the aorist tense of the verbs in the exhortation to Timothy. He says,

The verb, keryxon, is the first of five aorist imperatives. Had the author meant ‘be preaching all the time,’ one would have expected a present imperative instead. The other imperatives—’reprove,’ ‘rebuke,’ and so on—are aorists and not present tenses because what the author wants the young pastor to do is to reprove when necessary, rebuke when necessary, and so forth. Likewise with ‘proclaiming the word’: On occasion as a minister he must herald the (authentic) gospel. In these ‘pastoral’ episties the apostle warns against heresy in doctrine as well as in practice. Just as Timothy must occasionally rebuke one whose behavior is wrong, so must he proclaim the apostolic gospel when heresy threatens it. [21]

Rather than preaching, Evans would prefer that opportunity be given for each saint to excercise his spiritual gift in the worship services of the church.

Several points raised by Evans may be disputed, however. It is true that saints ought to be given opportunity to excercise their spiritual gifts, but is the worship service of the church the proper time for this to be done? Presumably, the pastor has the gift of preaching and teaching the Word, while others in the church have gifts related to other functions in the total ministry of the local church. Therefore, it would be expected that the pastoral gift of teaching should be exercised at the time of public worship. Further, Evans’ treatment of the aorist imperatives in 2 Tim 4:2 is questionable. According to Dana and Mantey, “the fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to progress…. The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the action as attained. It states the fact of the action or event without regard to its duration.” [22] Hence, the point of the aorist imperatives in 2 Tim 4:2 is to emphasize the act of preaching, reproving, rebuking, etc., not the duration of the act. Paul says the act of preaching should be performed “in season” and “out of season” (phrases, interestingly enough, that Evans does not discuss). These phrases indicate that preaching the Word is always in vogue. A pastor, as Chrysostom said, should not ask, “is this a suitable occasion for preaching?” but rather, “Why should not this be a suitable occasion?” [23] Surely the worship service of the church is a suitable occasion for preaching. Further, the reproving, rebuking, and exhorting of 2 Tim 4:2 are specific facets of the more general command to preach the Word. At least some of these activities are always present in proper preaching and should not be separated from the general command. Also, Paul did not exhort Timothy to rebuke heresy when it came, but rather to preach the Word in view of the coming apostasy (2 Tim 4:3–4). Finally, this exhortation to Timothy must be understood in light of Paul’s own practice. He preached the Word at every opportunity, whether in synagogues, market-places, prisons, or Christian assemblies. In commenting on Paul’s charge to Timothy, Moule states,

[Preaching], in the Apostle’s view, as he stood upon the threshhold of eternity, was the thing of all things for Timothy to do. True, he would have to minister ordinances and to be the administrative leader of the mission-churches. But supremely, he was to ‘proclaim the Word’; this before all things was man’s great need, and this therefore was the Lord’s pastoral servant’s highest and incessant task. [24]

Making the pulpit ministry the pastor’s highest priority is based on the Word of God. Therefore, pastors are morally responsible to preach the Word. For the pastor to speak to issues of politics, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and the like has no such biblical basis. And God has promised that his Word will not return unto him void, but will accomplish what he pleases and will prosper wherever he sends it (Isa 55:11).

Training for the Pulpit Ministry

Above all other appellations a pastor should be known as a man of God whose life is shaped by the Holy Spirit through the Word of God. This should stir the pastor’s heart to communicate the Word to the members of his church in the hope that they will come under the mastery of the Word.

In light of this, evangelical seminaries ought to be structured in such a way that the personal life as well as the academic life of the student cultivates the ability and desire to preach the Word. In the midst of a diversified academic program, seminaries must guard against factors that tend to overshadow this supreme pastoral task. I suggest that the academic programs of seminaries should be structured to cultivate a theistic mentality, a correct methodology, and a balanced motivation.

Theistic Mentality

A “theistic mentality” is one conformed to the mind of Christ. It is a mind-set disciplined, dominated, and directed by the Scriptures, conscious of the sovereignty of God. Seminaries can cultivate this kind of mind-set through focusing their curriculum on the person and plan of God. This may be done by making theology the core subject of the seminary program. Regrettably, because of the fragmentation which results from catering to specialized ministries, theology no longer has the dominion over the education of seminarians that it once had.

Farley has also noted this change in seminary curriculums. He says, “the typical product of three years of seminary study is not a theologically educated minister. The present ethos of the Protestant churches is such that a theologically oriented approach to the preparation of ministers is not only irrelevant but counterproductive.” [25] Farley does not say that seminaries have eliminated theology from the curriculum, but he is pointing to the fact that it is no longer the basic subject matter of the curriculum. He says, “theological education [has become] an amalgam of academic specialization and culture adaptation” [26] and that theological understanding is needed to restore unity to the curriculum.

Stott contends that biblical or expository preaching is extremely rare in current Christendom. He affirms that such preaching will not come merely from the mastery of certain techniques, but rather from being mastered by convictions that “cannot be taught without a solid theological foundation.” Technique can make orators; only theology can make preachers. Stott believes that if “our theology is right, then we have all the basic insights we need into what we ought to be doing, and all the incentives we need to do it faithfully.” [27]

To speak of theology as the core curriculum of a seminary is not to say that it is an end in itself; rather, theology is a means to an end. Theology should address the heart as well as the mind. Theology ought to be taught with an emphasis on doing and living. Strong wrote,

I make no apology for the homiletical element in my book. To be either true or useful, theology must be a passion…. No disdainful cries of ‘Pectoral Theology!’ shall prevent me from maintaining that the eyes of the heart must be enlightened in order to perceive the truth of God, and that to know the truth it is needful to do the truth. Theology is a science which can be successfully cultivated in connection with its practical application. I would therefore, in every discussion of its principles, point out its relations to Christian experience, and its power to awaken Christian emotions and lead to Christian decisions. Abstract theology is not really scientific. Only that theology is scientific which brings the student to the feet of Christ. [28]

Bavinck stated that a “theologian is a person who makes bold to speak about God because he speaks out of God and through God. To profess theology is to do holy work. It is a priestly ministration in the house of the Lord. It is itself a service of worship, a consecration of mind and heart to the honor of His name.” One of Bavinck’s former students commented, “His lectures became a sermon, as the professor was stirred by the truth.” During his final illness, Bavinck uttered the words, “Now my scholarship avails me nothing, nor my dogmatics: it is only my faith can save me.” [29] These statements by and about Bavinck do not disparage theology but simply indicate the practical goal of theology, the development of faith.

The development of faith requires the preaching of theology in a manner that might be called “incarnational preaching.” [30] Such preaching emphasizes “the Word made flesh” (John 1:15), and makes biblical truth live in contemporary situations through the living Christ. Fant has said, “The Word of God is never irrelevant, but my preaching may well be. And it will be, if it does not bear the eternal Word, and if it does not touch the living situation. Only the word which dwells among us is the word of Christian preaching.” [31] In other words, preaching theology means preaching the living Christ—the embodiment of theology.

Only the professor whose mind and heart have been transformed by the living Christ can effectively teach theology. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy go hand in hand. Only such a professor can instill in his students the theistic mentality that will prepare them to preach the Word of God.

Correct Methodology

The methodology used to study the Bible should be in harmony with the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. The traditional historical, grammatical system of hermeneutics (based on the orthodox doctrine of the verbal and plenary inspiration of Scripture) is such a methodology. Biblical exegesis has as its goal understanding the meaning of the text. Unfortunately, exegesis as a vital aspect of theological education is now sometimes overshadowed by the proliferation of skill-oriented programs designed to meet the demand of churches for specialized professional workers. [32]

A method of biblical study that has gained popularity is the so-called critical method. Is this method compatible with the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith? The history of the critical method clearly reveals that this method has been mainly destructive to orthodox Christianity. German Rationalism (with its elevation of human reason above the authority of Scripture) has influenced many practitioners of the critical method. Since it is beyond the scope of this essay to detail the use of this method, the reader is referred to the books by Lindsell which document the use and effects of the critical method. [33]

The basic fault with the critical method as it is generally practiced is its tendency to emphasize the human aspect in the writing of Scripture to the neglect of the divine aspect. This is not to say that correct methodology should not take into account the historical circumstances and literary processes through which the Bible was written. But it must also consciously realize the divine element as well (cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 1 Cor 2:13). Unless methodology is based upon correct theological presuppositions, it inevitably leads to a humanistic rather than a theistic emphasis in the study of the Bible. A method that focuses almost exclusively on the human aspect of Scripture cultivates a mentality antagonistic to the fact that the Bible is the Word of God, not the Word of Man.

An illustration of the results of the critical methodology is Gundry’s commentary on Matthew. According to Gundry, Matthew employed the literary genre of midrash and haggadah. This is the genre employed by rabbinical writers to embellish OT history. Gundry says Matthew embellished his source (Mark) and wrote a gospel which mixed historical events with midrashic theological embellishment. Thus for Gundry, when Matthew said, “Jesus said…” or “Jesus did…” he did not necessarily mean that Jesus said or did anything in history. Matthew may have been using a “literary Jesus” to make a theological point. [34] Gundry’s view has been challenged both methodologically and theologically. This will not be pursued further here, but the controversy provides an excellent case in point to show the need for correct methodology. [35]

Evangelical seminaries must take the initiative in training pastoral students in the practice of correct methodology—methodology which does justice to both the divine and human aspects of Scripture. The axiom of seminary training should be, “scholarship is a tool, a means for discerning God’s Word. It is not a new authority.” [36]

Balanced Motivation

Two attitudes that must be balanced to motivate preaching are the conviction of a divine call to the ministry and the commitment to obey that call for the glory of God, whatever the cost. Both are essential to establish a balanced motivation for the work of the ministry centered in the preaching of the Word.

The divine call stresses the fact that a pastor is God’s servant. He should echo the words of Christ, “I came…not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” (John 6:37). Pastors do not merely choose the ministry as a profession; [37] they are called by God. The call of God should focus attention on the eternal consequences of the pastor’s work. Seminaries need to cultivate this attitude toward the ministry.

Equally important for the development of balanced motivation is the commitment to fulfill the divine call. A pastor serves God by serving man. This is evident in the example of Jesus who came to do the will of God (John 6:38) and to minister to men (Matt 20:28).

Conclusion

The primary responsibility of evangelical seminaries is to train prospective pastors to preach the Word. In order for this task to be accomplished, theology needs to be taught as the core of the curriculum. Proper theology cultivates a theistic mentality, a correct methodology, and a balanced motivation. Pastors so trained will be inspired to preach the Word in season and out of season. They will say with Paul, “necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” (1 Cor 9:16).

Notes

1. Joseph Sittler, The Anguish of Preaching (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966) 7.
2. Ibid., 26.
3. Ibid., 27.
4. Clyde E. Fant, Preaching for Today (Philadephia: Fortress, 1966) 5.
5. Ibid., 9.
6. Cf. Chevis F. Horne, Crisis in the Pulpit (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975) 15: “the present crisis may be the most serious preaching has had to face in the whole history of the church.”
7. Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Exegetical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 7-8.
8. Fant, Preaching for Today, 10.
9. Fred B. Craddock, As One Without Authority (Enid: Phillip University, 1975) 1-2.
10. Ibid., 2.
11. Ibid., 3.
12. Wallace E. Fisher, Who Dares to Preach? (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979) 24-25.
13. Robert A. Guelich, “On Becoming a Minister of the Word,” Theology News and Notes 30:2 (1983) 8.
14. Cf. Ibid., “theological education has increasingly abandoned the task of preparing ministers of the Word.”
15. Ibid., 11.
16. Edward Farley, Theologia (Philadelphia: Fortres, 1983) ix.
17. Ibid., 14.
18. Cf. the remark of Guelich (“On Becoming a Minister,” 11) who says, “the primary task of the pastor is to be a minister of the Word.”
19. Craig A. Evans, “Preacher and Preaching: Some Lexical Observations,” JETS 24 (1981) 321.
20. Ibid., 322.
21. Ibid., 318.
22. H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955) 193. See also the recent discussion by D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984) 69-75.
23. As quoted by E. M. Blaiklock, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) 119.
24. H. C. G. Moule, The Second Epistle to Timothy (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1906) 128.
25. Farley, Theologia, 4.
26. Ibid., 151.
27. John R. W. Stott, Between Two Worlds (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 92.
28. Augustus H. Strong, Systematic Theology (Philadelphia: Judson, 1953) xi.
29. Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956) 7.
30. Fant, Preaching for Today, 26, 29.
31. Ibid., 41.
32. Cf. Guelich, “On Becoming a Minister,” 8, who says, “a survey of seminary curricula over the past generation will show a growing demise of the exegetical disciplines” and “the deemphasis of biblical studies in general and the abandoning of the exegetical disciplines such as biblical languages and courses in exegetical methods and aids in particular suggest the growing acceptance of exegesis as an option rather than a necessity.” Similarly, Kaiser (Towards an Exegelical Theology, 17) says that the crisis in exegesis is the “crisis that has precipitated the other theological crises.”
33. Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976); and The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
34. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 623,629–30.
35. For a lengthy critique of Gundry’s approach see D. A. Carson, “Gundry on Matthew: A Critical Review,” TrinJ 3 NS (1982) 71-91. Gundry’s position was debated at length by Norman Geisler and Douglas Moo. See JETS 26 (1983) 31-116. See also David L. Turner, “Evangelicals, Redaction Criticism, and the Current Inerrancy Crisis,” GTJ 4 (1983) 263-88; and J. W. Scott, “Matthew’s Intention to Write History,” WTJ 47 (1985) 68-82.
36. Fischer, Who Dares to Preach, 49.
37. Cf. the remarks of Farley (Theologia, 3–23) who criticizes seminaries for developing a professional paradigm for the ministry rather than stressing the divine call.

A Study of “Mystery” in the New Testament

By Galen W. Wiley

The word “mystery” as it occurs in ancient Greek and Semitic sources, as well as in the NT, refers to a secret which is only revealed to certain individuals. In the NT it is God who reveals the mystery and faithful believers who perceive it. Carnal believers and unbelievers are not able to understand the mystery. The mystery centers around the Lordship of Christ who is the Life of the church. Although the mystery is opposed by Satan, it will be fully known to all in the end.

* * *

Introduction

The word “mystery” (μυστήριον) occurs twenty-eight times [1] in the NT. Although there are passing references to it in commentaries, technical studies on the background of the word in the Greek mystery religions and in the Semitic world, and a few Roman Catholic works which discuss the word, “there is no comprehensive monograph on μυστήριον.” [2] The present study will not fill this gap, but hopefully it will stir interest and provoke further study.

The Meaning of the Word

The word μυστήριον can be translated “secret, secret rite, secret teaching, mystery.” According to Bauer, it is used in the NT “to mean the secret thoughts, plans, and dispensations of God which are hidden from the human reason, as well as from all other comprehension below the divine level, and hence must be revealed to those for whom they are intended.” [3] However, to understand properly what this word meant in the early church it is necessary to explore its background.

First, there has been much written about the similarities between the Greek mystery religions and the NT use of “mystery.” [4] The mystery religions had their roots in the Babylonian story of Ishtar and Tammuz. [5] They spread throughout the Roman empire and played a significant role in the Greek world from the seventh century B.C. to the fourth century A.D. [6] Though there were many differences among the various mystery cults, four similarities existed: 1) cultic rites were performed by a circle of devotees to portray and to share in the destinies of a god, 2) only the initiated were allowed knowledge of these sacred rites, 3) the devotees were promised salvation by the dispensing of cosmic life, and 4) a vow of silence was placed on all devotees prohibiting the sharing of any information or sacred rites with the non-initiated. [7] Since Paul grew up in Tarsus and was exposed to the culture of his day, he probably knew about these mystery religions. [8] However, because of his Jewish training under Gamaliel in Jerusalem (Acts 22:3) and because of his conversion and subsequent revelations from Christ himself (Gal 1:12), he would not have adapted the concepts of the mystery religions to his new Christian faith. The vast differences between these two systems preclude this possibility. [9] A second major use of this word was in everyday conversation. It was used to speak of a “private secret not to be indulged even to a friend, family secrets,” medical mysteries, and of other things “that no one can understand.” [10] In the philosophy of Plato and his followers, “the mysteries are not cultic actions but obscure and secret doctrines whose hidden wisdom may be understood only by those capable of knowledge.” [11] The purpose of such philosophy was not to conceal the secrets as did the cults, but to guide people to understand them in their “symbolical appearance or concealment.” [12]

However, to appreciate Paul’s understanding of “mystery,” the word must be seen as it was used in Jewish contexts. [13] Μυστήριον is not used by the LXX to translate any Hebrew word in the canonical books of the OT. [14] However, it is used eight times in Daniel (2:18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 47, 47) to translate the Aramaic word רז / ‘secret’ [15] in reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s interpretation of it. [16] It is God “who reveals mysteries, and has made known…what will take place in the latter days” (Dan 2:28). [17] The Hebrew word, סוד / ‘council, counsel, secret counsel’ [18] (used twenty-two times in the OT) gives an important background to the biblical concept of mystery. The word is used in the OT of a heavenly council composed of an assembly of angels presided over by Yahweh (e.g., Gen 1:26; Job 1:6–12; Ps 82:1) or to the “secrets or mysteries” that were decided at these heavenly councils. Prophets were allowed to “see” these heavenly assemblies and the decisions rendered there (see, e.g., 1 Kgs 22:19–22; Job 15:8; Isa 6:1–13; Jer 23:18, 22; Amos 3:7; Zech 3:1). [19] Thus, the OT refers to a concept of “mystery” as divine secrets that can be known and understood only if God reveals them to his people through a prophet.

Furthermore, Jewish apocalyptic writings in the intertestamental period made extensive use of this concept of “mystery” both for secular uses and also for divine mysteries as “hidden realities which are prepared (Eth. En. 9:6) and kept in heaven, and disclosed and shown to the enraptured seer as he wanders through the heavenly spheres under the guidance of an angel.” [20] It is also significant that in the Qumran literature of the first century B.C. the idea of “mysteries” plays an important role both in the mysteries of divine providence and also in the particular interpretation of the law developed by the community. [21] After his study of Jewish literature prior to the NT, Raymond Brown concluded that there are “from the Semitic world good parallels in thought and word for virtually every facet of the NT use of mystery…. Paul and the NT writers could have written everything they did about mysterion whether or not they ever encountered the pagan mystery religions.” [22]

The concepts of “mystery” as used in these sources are more or less similar to the NT use of μυστήριον to speak of divine secrets that are known only to God and to those to whom he chooses to reveal them. Apart from God’s revelation, it would be impossible for human beings to comprehend any of God’s mysteries. With this preliminary understanding of the word, it is now possible to explore the NT use of the word.

The Mystery Reserved

When Christ first alluded to the mystery in his kingdom parables (Matt 13:11), he said he was proclaiming “things hidden since the foundation of the world” (Matt 13:35). Paul said that the mystery had been “kept secret from long ages past” (Rom 16:25; cf. 1 Cor 2:7; Eph 3:5, 9; Col 1:26). The mystery may have been obliquely alluded to in the OT, but there were no clear statements or prophecies regarding it. It could not be known naturally and was kept secret since the foundation of the world until finally revealed by God in NT times.

The Mystery Revealed

The primary revelation of the mystery came through the apostles and prophets. However, it was Jesus who first spoke of the mystery in a series of parables recorded in Matthew 13, Mark 4, and Luke 8. Jesus intentionally presented the mystery in parabolic form so that only the disciples (and possibly other true believers) would understand (Matt 13:10–11, 13, 34–35).

But it was through Paul and the other early apostles and prophets that God fully revealed the mystery. Paul wrote to the Romans of a mystery that “had now been made manifest” (Rom 16:26). In Ephesians Paul referred to the fact that “the mystery has been made known to me by revelation” (3:3) and that it “now has been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit” (3:5). In Col 1:26 Paul declared that this hidden mystery “has now been revealed to His saints.” In one sense Paul felt a unique burden as the servant entrusted to proclaim the mystery (1 Cor 4:1; Eph 3:2–9; 6:19–20; Col 4:3–4), but yet he also realized that the mystery had also been revealed to other apostles and prophets. In fact, in 1 Cor 2:6–16 Paul included the Corinthian believers with himself as those who had received the Spirit of God so that they all might know the mysterious things freely revealed by God [23] (cf. Eph 3:5).

There are several important conclusions to draw from these passages. First, by the time that Paul was writing, the mystery had already been revealed. Second, God has uniquely revealed his mystery to his apostles and prophets and through them to his saints. The world cannot understand the mystery because it can only be discerned with the help of the Spirit (1 Cor 2:14). A third conclusion is that although some may possess a special role of revealing the truths of the mystery, knowledge of those truths is equally available to all who possess God’s Holy Spirit—knowledge of the mystery is not the exclusive property of the clergy.

The Mystery Received

Even though the mystery has been revealed to the NT church through the apostles and prophets, it nevertheless remains somewhat mysterious. This is because some “hear and understand” while others do not.

In Matt 13:10–17 Jesus chose to introduce the previously hidden mystery of the kingdom (13:11, 35) in a manner which bewildered even his disciples (13:10). He said that he was speaking in parables so that the multitudes could not understand what he was teaching his disciples. Therefore, in the first NT revelation of the mystery, Jesus taught that it was mysterious not only because it was never revealed before but also because it could be understood only by those to whom the Father revealed it.

Paul also spoke of this principle in Rom 11:25 when he discussed the mystery of Israel. In Romans 9–11 Paul described various aspects of the mystery including the partial hardening of Israel, the grafting in of the Gentiles, and the ultimate salvation of Israel when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (11:25). However, Paul presented this mystery with a warning—”in order that you may not be wise in your own estimation.” If God would cut off his own chosen people because they hardened their heart, how much more would he cut off a Gentile who would follow that same pattern (Rom 11:18–22)? The essential issue which divided those who stood and those who fell was faith in Jesus Christ. Those who try to achieve righteousness through the works of law will fall. But those who live by faith will discover true righteousness and will never be ashamed nor disappointed (Rom 9:30–10:4). The mystery divides both Jews and Gentiles into two groups—those who receive Christ by faith and those who do not receive him.

Paul drew this distinction even further in 1 Cor 2:7 where he discussed the wisdom of God that is contained in the “mystery which has been hidden, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.” In this context he distinguished between the believer who has received this mystery/wisdom (2:9–13, 15–16) and the natural man or unbeliever who cannot receive or know it (2:14). But he also distinguished between the mature believer (2:6) and the carnal believer (3:1–4). Every believer has received the mystery because he has received the Holy Spirit. However, all believers do not respond to the mystery with complete devotion. Paul said in 2:6–7 that “we speak wisdom among the mature.” The word “mature” (τελείος) is used consistently in the NT of those who are spiritually grown up, no longer spiritual infants tossed back and forth all the time.24 Among them Paul could go beyond the basic gospel of “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2) and beyond the “beginning of the doctrine of Christ” (Heb 6:1). He could lead them by the help of the Spirit to develop the very mind of Christ (2:16). In contrast, Paul had to keep feeding the carnal believers at Corinth the “milk” of the Word (not the “meat”) because they were spiritual babies (1 Cor 3:1–4). So in this passage Paul delineates three groups in relation to the mystery: 1) the natural man who does not and cannot receive nor understand the mystery of God, 2) the carnal believer who can understand the mystery but will not because he still desires to live by the flesh in the ways of men, and 3) the mature believer who can and does understand the mystery wisdom of God, being instructed by the Holy Spirit.

It may be concluded from these passages that certain aspects of NT revelation remain mysterious to all but those who receive them by faith and humbly apply them in their lives. Therefore, in understanding “mystery” in the NT it is necessary to note not only the element of something hidden in the mind of God and thus unknowable until God reveals it but also the element that it remains hidden to those who refuse to yield themselves in faith to Jesus Christ. This is a very sobering reality. There was a whole generation of Jews in the day of Christ who knew the Scriptures, but their hearts were so hard that they completely missed the mystery and crucified the Messiah. God cut them off in spite of their desire to be obedient to the law. Even so today there are millions on their way to hell in spite of their good works and their obedience to their church. Though they have read the Bible and heard countless messages, they have missed the NT mystery of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Equally sobering is the realization that even believers who possess the full potential of knowing the mystery of God sometimes live devoid of its glory at work in their lives. God has given the mystery for glory and enjoyment. But it is an individual choice whether or not to receive it. God is sovereign, and he has ordained to give it only to those who receive it in his way.

The Mystery Reviewed

The twenty-eight passages that employ the word “mystery” use the word in a complex manner. Sometimes one particular truth is in view, but at other times many truths are included. Sometimes the emphasis is upon doctrine, but at other times great truths of Christian living are stressed.

In many ways the NT mystery seems to focus on one particular subject: the person and work of Jesus Christ. However, the focus is not on his coming to be the Jewish Messiah, for that was clearly prophesied and expected. Neither does it focus on the salvation of the Gentiles, for that too was clearly prophesied according to Paul. [25] Rather the focus of the NT mystery seems to be that this Jesus is not only Messiah and Savior, but that he is also Lord and the only life for both Jews and Gentiles. The NT mystery that caused the Jewish nation to stumble and that still causes so many to stumble is twofold: 1) that Jesus Christ is not only man but also God who is now exalted as Lord of the universe and 2) that the only way of salvation and life is faith in Jesus Christ as our life. These two NT truths were not revealed in the OT and constitute the dividing line between eternal life and eternal death in the matter of salvation and between spiritual victory and spiritual defeat in the matter of the Christian life.

The two passages that define this mystery most clearly are Eph 1:9–10 and Col 1:26–2:3. In Eph 1:9–10 Paul declared that the mystery of God’s will is that all things are to be brought together under the headship of Christ. God has now seated Christ in the heavenlies at his own right hand and put all things under his feet (Eph 1:19–23). Christ has now been crowned as Lord of all and someday he will exercise that Lordship and destroy all who resist his sovereign rule. Yet presently he is patiently allowing mankind to bow voluntarily before himself as Lord and thus become a part of his eternal kingdom. [26]

In Col 1:26–2:3 Paul summarizes the mystery simply as “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (1:27) and then simply as “Christ, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden” (2:2–3). It is in Christ that believers are perfected (1:28); it is by his power that they serve (1:29); it is by faith in him that they walk (2:5–7), and it is in him that they have been made complete (2:10). Put simply, salvation is all a work of Jesus Christ who is the head of all rule and authority. The believer’s hope of glory is all in Jesus and through his life in us. The “mystery” of the Christian life is that Christ empowers and works in and through believers as they live by faith and obedience. [27] All of this was kept hidden in the OT. Thus, it may be concluded that the best definition of the NT mystery is that Jesus Christ is now exalted both as Lord of all and also as the believer’s only Life.

However, though the focus of the mystery is Christ, there are many facets of that mystery that all blend together to comprise its fullness. Matt 13:11 and the parallels speak of the mysteries of the kingdom, but the focus is on the King and the various ways people will respond to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Life. Rom 11:25 speaks of the mystery of God’s temporary rejection and future restoration of Israel, but the basis of both is again on how they respond to Jesus Christ, the stumblingstone and rock of offense (Rom 9:32–33). Rom 16:25–26 simply refers to the mystery without definition (but cf. 11:25) and lists it as part of the basis upon which God is able to establish believers. 1 Cor 2:1, 7 describes the mystery as the wisdom of God contrasted with the wisdom of men. Paul further describes the wisdom of God as Jesus Christ and him crucified (1:23–25, 30; 2:1–5). In 1 Cor 4:1; 13:2; 14:2 Paul refers to his responsibility to administer and the Corinthians’ ability to understand and communicate the mystery. 1 Cor 15:51 introduces the mystery of future resurrection with an eternal body, but again the basis of this blessed hope is the resurrection, exaltation, and present ministry of Christ.

Mystery is repeatedly mentioned in Ephesians and Colossians. Eph 1:9–10 describes the mystery of God’s will as the absolute Lordship of Christ. Eph 3:3, 4, and 9 emphasize the salvation of the Gentiles, and especially the fact that now both Jews and Gentiles are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and become fellow members of his body (cf. Eph 2:4–22). The salvation of the Gentiles was known from OT Scripture (cf. Matt 4:15, 16; Luke 2:30–32; Acts 15:13–18; Rom 9:24–29; 10:18–21; 15:8–12), so Gentile salvation in itself would not be the mystery “which has been hidden from the ages in God” (Eph 3:9). Rather the mystery is that now all nations are invited alike to share equally in God’s grace through Jesus Christ as their Lord and Life. Eph 5:32 describes the mystery of the union of Christ and the church as similar to the one-flesh union of husband and wife. Here it is seen again that the life of the church is totally based in his life, “for we are members of His body” (Eph 5:30). Col 1:26–27; 2:2 clearly present the mystery as the person and work of Christ as the only basis for the believer’s life. In Eph 6:19 and Col 4:3 Paul speaks of the “mystery of the gospel” and “the mystery of Christ” as the basis of his whole ministry and proclamation (content in both places would have been defined by the earlier references in Eph 1:9–10; Col 1:26–27 and 2:2).

In the pastoral epistles mystery becomes an object of faith and the substance of true godliness. 1 Tim 3:9 demands that deacons must hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” In 3:16 Paul says true godliness is produced by the great mystery. This mystery concerns the person and work of Christ, “who was revealed in flesh, justified in Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among nations, believed on in world, and taken up in glory.”

Mystery also occurs in the book of Revelation. Rev 1:20 pictures the mystery of Christ standing among his churches which are troubled, persecuted, or seemingly self-sufficient. Each church receives counsel from him who is its Head and Life. Rev 10:7 describes a time when “the mystery of God shall be finished.” Evidently this is when Christ will return and establish his kingdom.

The common thread that links all these passages together is the person and work of Jesus Christ. In particular his exaltation to be Lord of all is emphasized as the only basis for spiritual life and victory. Though there are many facets, the mystery is one.

It is also important to realize that though mystery emphasizes doctrine, it also presents profound truths for Christian living. The mystery can be understood only by those who receive it by faith and apply it in their lives. In one sense even the demons can know and “believe” these facts about Jesus Christ (Jas 2:19). Even so there are many today who recognize that Jesus is Lord, yet they refuse to bow the knee and personally accept him as Lord. But there is also the danger that a person could truly receive Jesus Christ as his Lord but continue to live a shallow, carnal life. In fact, this may be one of the greatest dangers in the church today. [28] Though the mystery contains simple truths that “everybody knows,” it also demands a lifestyle which is consistent with its truths.

This much can be concluded about the mystery. First, everything about it focuses on the person and the work of Jesus Christ, in particular on his Lordship and his being the very Life of the believer. These truths were not revealed in the OT. Second, though these truths seem simple and basic, they are the foundation of the Christian life. They challenge every believer regardless of his level of maturity. Jesus Christ must really be Lord of all in our attitudes, relationships, words, ethical decisions, and thoughts. If He is not Lord over all of one’s life, there is still much more to learn concerning the mystery of Jesus Christ.

The Mystery Resisted

Once the mystery is clearly identified as the very will of him who works all things after his own counsel (Eph 1:9, 11), it should come as no surprise that Satan opposes the mystery and any who would seek to live it. Jesus taught this in the parable of the soils (Matt 13:3–9, 18–23). Paul said in 1 Cor 2:6–8 that Satan so manipulated the rulers of this world that they crucified Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, because they did not know the mystery. In Eph 6:19–20 and Col 4:3–4 Paul viewed his imprisonment as a direct result of Satan’s opposition to his proclamation of the mystery. Satan is still resisting the proclamation of the mystery. He is still blinding the minds of unbelievers so that the gospel will remain hidden to them (2 Cor 4:3–4). He is still doing all he can to keep believers from bowing fully before Jesus as Lord and from living in the fullness of His life.

At the time of the end when Jesus Christ is about ready to assume his full Lordship over the earth, Satan will expose a masterpiece of deception, a counterfeit mystery. According to 2 Thess 2:1–12, Satan will empower the antichrist to lead one final world rebellion against God and Jesus Christ as Lord. This “man of lawlessness” who will lead the world in rebellion against God will be the embodiment of the “mystery of lawlessness” (2:7). This counterfeit is already at work in the present age but it will culminate then. God’s mystery requires absolute submission to Jesus Christ as Lord and Life. Satan’s mystery is absolute lawlessness against that rule and that life. Rev 17:5, 7 indicates that the antichrist will unite with the false religious system of that day. The union is symbolically called “the mystery of the woman and the beast that carried her” (v 7). This counterfeits the biblical picture of Christ and the church as husband and wife (Eph 5:32).

One may conclude from this that the more one seeks to understand and apply the NT mystery, the more he should expect Satanic opposition and attack (e.g. Eph 6:10–12). Unbelievers and carnal believers will not experience such Satanic opposition. Satanic opposition may be disguised as doubts, fears, or temptations. It may come as open persecution. It may subtly come as exciting opportunities and busy schedules which may be misused. One thing is certain—opposition will come. But God is “able to establish us…according to the revelation of the mystery” (Rom 16:25).

The Mystery Resolved

The same Jesus who introduced the NT mystery in his parables of the kingdom also revealed to John that the day would come when the mystery would finally be resolved and finished. Rev 10:7 indicates that there will be a day when “the mystery of God is finished.” This will occur during the days of the voice of the seventh angel. Rev 11:15 indicates that the voices in heaven will then say, “The kingdom of the world has become that of our Lord and His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.” Thus the mysteriousness of the mystery will be removed at the end of the tribulation, when Christ shall return, defeat his enemies, and establish his perfect kingdom as “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev 19:16). Then the mystery will be visible to all. All will see and acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Life, or they will be cut off and removed. The mysterious element will be removed, and the full reality will be revealed and realized. Then Christ will be Lord and Life of all men. Though there will be a brief rebellion at the end of this thousand-year earthly kingdom (Rev 20:11–13), there will be a final battle when Christ will remove all evil from the earth. He will cast Satan, his demons, all unbelievers, and death and hell into the lake of fire for eternal punishment (Rev 20:10, 14). Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth where the Father and the Son will rule forever (Rev 22:1, 3, 5). Thus the resolution or completion of the mystery will come.

Conclusion

It is fitting to conclude with the mystery of Christ among the churches (Rev 1:20). Jesus’ analysis of the church at Laodicea is especially relevant. He described a church which claimed great wealth and self-sufficiency. In many ways this description fits the affluent, educated, program-oriented church of the twentieth century in America. But yet as Jesus analyzed the Laodicean church, he saw past all the glory and glitter to a church that on the inside was truly hurting, “wretched and pitiable and poor and blind and naked” (Rev 3:17). It sickened him to see a church with such great potential so totally self-deceived and devoid of real power. Though the church still confessed the doctrinal content of the mystery, its power and reality were lacking in daily life. Possibly much of the church today in America is in a similar situation.

To the Laodiceans and to the church in America Christ counseled, “Buy of Me gold that has been purified by fire in order that you may be rich, and white garments in order that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not appear, and eyesalve to anoint your eyes in order that you may see” (Rev 3:18). The greatest need of the church is not bigger buildings, fatter budgets, sharper programs, or better preachers. It is simply a rediscovery of the riches that are ours when we bow totally before Jesus as Lord and then rise to live the fulness of his life in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is his riches, his righteousness, and his wisdom that is needed. Then the buildings, the budgets, the programs, and the pastors will burst forth with life and power. “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches” (Rev 3:21).

Notes

1. The word occurs twenty-eight times if read in 1 Cor 2:1 with the support of p46vid א* A C etc. However the reading μαρτυρίον has broader support in א2 B D F G Ψ, the Majority text, etc.
2. G. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” TDNT 4 (1967) 802.
3. BAGD, 530.
4. For studies on these similarities, see Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” 4.803-8; Richard Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery Religions: Their Basic Ideas and Significance (Pittsburg: Pickwick, 1978); and Henry C. Sheldon, The Mystery Religions and the New Testament (New York: Abingdon, 1918).
5. Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 21.
6. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” 4.803.
7. Ibid., 803-8.
8. Reitzenstein, Hellenistic Mystery Religion, 88.
9. See Sheldon, Mystery Religions, 64-70,155, for a discussion of differences and his conclusion that there was no adapting from the one to the other.
10. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” 810–11.
11. Ibid., 808.
12. Ibid., 809.
13. For studies on this, see ibid., 4.813-17; Raymond E. Brown, The Semitic Background of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968); and Joseph A. Robinson, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (London: MacMillan & Co., 1904) 234-40.
14. Robinson, Ephesians, 234.
15. BDB, 1112.
16. Robinson, Ephesians, 234.
17. NASB. Later translations are the author’s.
18. BDB, 691.
19. Brown, Semitic Background, 2–6.
20. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον,” 4.815.
21. Brown, Semitic Background, 22–28.
22. Brown, Semitic Background, 69.
23. It is debatable whether Paul is including the Corinthian believers with himself in this passage. Some suggest Paul is referring only to himself and other apostles and prophets. However, I believe that Paul is referring to all believers, not just a select group, because of the way Paul uses the first person singular to speak of himself (1:10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5), second person plural to refer to the Corinthians (1:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 26, 30; 2:1, 2, 3, 5), and first person plural to include both the Corinthians and himself (1:2, 3, 9, 10, 18, 23, 30; 2:6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16). Paul in chap. 3 then returns again to first person singular and second person plural to distinguish himself from the Corinthians (3:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10) then first plural to include himself with them (3:9–10).
24. E.g., Matt 5:48; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; Heb 5:14; Jas 1:4; 3:2 .
25. See, e.g., Acts 15:13–18; Rom 9:24–29; 10:19–20 .
26. For other passages on the Lordship of Christ see Acts 2:32–36; Rom 10:9–10; 1 Cor 12:3; 15:24–28; Phil 2:9–11; Col 1:14–20; Heb 1:1–14; 2:5–8; Rev 11:15–19; 19:11–21; 20:1–15; 22:1, 3, 5 .
27. For other passages on the Life of Christ see John 15:1–16; Romans 6–8; Gal 2:16–5:26; Eph 4:7–16; Phil 3:1–15; Col 3:1–17; Heb 4:9–11.
28. See Matt 7:24–27; James 1:22–26; 2:14–26 for particular warnings on this danger.

The Meaning of “Sleep” in 1 Thessalonians 5:10—A Reappraisal

By Tracy L. Howard

It has recently been argued that καθεύδω in 1 Thess 5:10 means “spiritual insensibility.” However, the context indicates that the word is used as a euphemism for death. This is within the semantic range of the word and is supported by structural parallels between 1 Thess 4:13–14, 18 and 1 Thess 5:9–11 in which καθεύδω is paired with κοιμάω.

* * *

Introduction

Until recently, most commentators have understood Paul’s reference to “sleep” in 1 Thess 5:10 as a metaphor for “physical death.” This would seem reasonable since Paul frequently uses the metaphor of “sleep” to describe a believer who has died in the Lord. In fact, he uses the metaphor earlier in the same eschatological discourse in which 1 Thess 5:10 is located (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–14). However, in 4:13 he uses the verb κοιμάω whereas in 5:10 he employs καθεύδω. The question therefore immediately arises whether or not Paul uses καθεύδω as a synonym for κοιμάω; in other words, does he use both verbs as a metaphor to describe “physical death”? 1 Thess 5:10 states that Christ “died on our behalf, in order that whether we are awake or asleep (καθεύδωμεν) we might live together with Him.” The commentators and lexicographers are virtually unanimous in their interpretation of καθεύδω as a euphemism for “death” in this text. However, several recent articles suggest that καθεύδω means “spiritual insensibility” instead of “physical death.” [1] Although some of the arguments appear convincing on the surface, they reflect a failure to consider other contextual, literary, and lexical features which strongly suggest that in 1 Thess 5:10 καθεύδω does not refer to “spiritual insensibility” but instead is used as a metaphor for “physical death.” Thus the purpose of this article is to reappraise the meaning of καθεύδω in 1 Thess 5:10 and to suggest that the nuance of “physical death” is most appropriate in the context.

The Problem

If Paul uses καθεύδω as a reference to “physical death” in 1 Thess 5:10, it is a clear departure from his customary tendency. [2] He normally uses κοιμάω when employing the metaphor of “sleep” for the death of a believer. [3] In fact, if he is departing from his normal use of κοιμάω and employs καθεύδω as a euphemism for death, it would be the only occasion in which he gives καθεύδω such a nuance. It is possible that Paul uses καθεύδω for “death” in Eph 5:14 although doubtful. [4] The only other two occurrences in the Pauline corpus are found in the same context as 5:10 (cf. vv 6, 7). In v 6 Paul uses the verb to describe “spiritual insensibility” while in v 7 he uses the verb for “literal sleep.” [5]

Thus to attribute the nuance of “physical death” to καθεύδω in 5:10 not only would suggest a departure from Paul’s normal tendency to use κοιμάω, but would ascribe a different nuance to καθεύδω than found elsewhere in his letters. For this reason, both Edgar and Hodges question whether καθεύδω can possibly have such a meaning for Paul, particularly since he just used the verb metaphorically in 5:6 for “spiritual insensibility.” [6] Therefore, if καθεύδω is a euphemism for death in 5:10, it must be demonstrated that Paul did in fact depart from his normal tendency to use κοιμάω and that a different nuance of καθεύδω is used from that which occurs in the immediate context (cf. v 6). The question is this: are there other contextual, literary, and lexical features which suggest that καθεύδω in 5:10 is a euphemism for death?

Support for Καθεύδω as Death in 1 Thessalonians 5:10

The Use of καθεύδω Both in the LXX and in the New Testament

It has already been noted that Paul’s “normal” pattern is to employ κοιμάω when he uses sleep as a metaphor for death. However, this can be misleading, particularly when the issue of verbal meaning is considered. While statistics are helpful they are not determinative for meaning. If it can be shown that the nuance of “death” falls within the semantic range of καθεύδω, the exegete must consider this as a possible meaning even if Paul’s “normal” pattern is to use κοιμάω. There are passages both in the LXX and in the NT in which καθεύδω is used metaphorically for death.

The verb is used twice in the LXX as a reference for death. In Ps 88:5 (LXX 87:6) the text reads ὠσεὶ τραυματίαι ἐρριμμένοι καθεύδοντες ἐν τάφῳ / ‘like the slain, having been cast down, who sleep in the grave’. Here the reference surely means “death” since the writer is describing those who have been killed and are now in the grave. Another important text particularly for the discussion of 1 Thess 5:10 is Dan 12:2. [7] The passage reads καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν τῷ πλάτει τῆς γῆς ἀναστήσονται, οἱ μὲν εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, οἱ δὲ εἰς ὀνειδισμόν, οἱ δὲ εἰς διασπορὰν καὶ αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον / ‘and many of those who sleep in the dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting shame’. This text clearly says that those who have “died” one day will rise from that state, i.e., death. In light of the eschatological nature of Dan 12:2, Paul may have even employed the language of Dan 12:2 in 1 Thess 5:10 and then adapted it to his own eschatological discussion. One thing, however, is certain, namely, in the LXX the nuance of “death” is not out of concord with the semantic field of the verb καθεύδω. Furthermore, such a nuance is not out of place in eschatological and resurrection contexts, which Dan 12:2 clearly shows. This feature is also true in the NT.

All three synoptic gospels contain the account of Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter from the dead (Mark 5:39; Matt 9:24; Luke 8:52). Each of the gospels (with minor variations) contain the phrase οὐ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει, ‘she has not died, but is asleep’. All three gospels also record the crowd’s response of laughter. However, only Luke gave the reason why they were laughing. He wrote in 8:53 εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν / ‘because they knew that she had died’. Luke did not say “because they thought she had died.” Instead he gave an editorial comment and clearly assumed that the girl was dead. Swete remarks, “some have declined to regard the miracle as a raising of the dead. But the fact of the child’s death was obvious to the bystanders, and is apparently assumed by the Evangelists, at least by Lc. (εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν).” [8] Edgar questions this understanding of καθεύδω here. He argues that the hearers of Jesus understood him to mean that she was asleep. Furthermore, if Jesus meant “death” by his use of καθεύδω, such a statement becomes contradictory, namely, “she is not dead, but she is dead.” [9] On the surface this might seem to be the case, but the question still remains: was the girl dead or not? Luke said she was. Then why would Jesus use καθεύδω in juxtaposition to ἀποθνήσκω with the same meaning? Cranfield offers a reasonable explanation. He says, “It is more natural to take the words to mean that, though she is dead, yet, since he is going to raise her up, her death will be no more permanent than a sleep.” [10] Cranfield also adds a remark regarding the application that such a passage would have in the communities of the respective evangelists. He writes:

no doubt the words had also—besides their particular significance in this context—a general significance, as a reminder to Christians that death is not the last word but a sleep from which Christ will wake us at the last day, and therefore a rebuke to those who in the presence of death behave as those who have no hope. [11]

Thus, Edgar does not take into consideration that Jesus may be attempting to convey through this use of καθεύδω the “temporary” aspect of death with reference to the girl. [12]

The point is that καθεύδω is used metaphorically for death in the LXX and probably in Mark 5:39; Matt 9:24; and Luke 8:52. Hence, the nuance of “death” is not out of concord with the semantic field of καθεύδω and thus should be considered as a possible meaning in 1 Thess 5:10.

Contextual Uses of Καθεύδω

Both Edgar and Hodges are correct in pointing out that in the immediate context of 1 Thess 5:10 Paul uses καθεύδω with a different nuance than “death.” [13] In fact, Edgar asks the question “why change meanings in the immediate context?” The question is legitimate but somewhat misleading because in 1 Thess 5:6–7 Paul uses καθεύδω two times yet with two different senses. Thus the same question regarding the change of meaning in the same context could be asked about Paul’s use of καθεύδω in v 7. In v 6 he uses καθεύδω as a metaphor for “spiritual insensibility” whereas in v 7 he uses the verb in its literal sense to denote “sleep.” [14] Thus in two verses Paul uses the same verb with two different meanings. Why then would it be so unusual for Paul to employ a third nuance of the verb in v 10, namely, that of “physical death”? I would suggest just the contrary, namely, that the preceding uses of καθεύδω probably explain why Paul chose καθεύδω rather than κοιμάω as a metaphor for death in 1 Thess 5:10. It is possible that the recurrence of καθεύδω is due to the fact that Καθεύδω was still on Paul’s mind when he wrote v 10. Regarding this literary feature, E. Laughton points out that in less formal literature, both ancient and modern, “a single word or phrase persists in the writer’s mind by its own force, independently of any sense-recurrence.” [15] However, it is also possible that Paul is using a word play, intentionally picking up on the preceding occurrences of the verb, particularly in v 6. As Ellingworth and Nida comment, “Here Paul cleverly uses two terms (γρηγορέω and καθεύδω) which he had been using to speak of alertness but which at this point he transposes to mean ‘alive/dead’.

In this way he brings us back to 4:13 .” [16] Therefore, I would argue that although Paul normally uses κοιμάω as a metaphor for death, his choice of καθεύδω in 5:10 can be linked to the two preceding uses of καθεύδω in 5:6–7 and in no way necessitates a different nuance than κοιμάω in 4:13–14 .

The Preceding Exhortations to Moral Sensibility

One of the strongest arguments for taking καθεύδω as “death” in 1 Thess 5:10 is based on the preceding exhortations to “moral sensibility.” If one renders καθεύδω as “spiritual insensibility” it greatly weakens all the preceding exhortations to spiritual alertness found in vv 6, 8. In 4:13–5:5 Paul describes a great eschatological event which is imminent, namely, the Parousia of Jesus Christ which for the believer will be a time of great blessing but for the unbeliever a time of judgment. [17] Paul says that it will come suddenly and unexpectedly (cf 5:2). Therefore, it is important for the believer to be spiritually alert as he or she anticipates its arrival. [18] Paul describes the believer’s ethical responsibility in 5:6 through the use of three hortatory subjunctives: μὴ καθεύδωμεν…γρηγορῶμεν…νήφωμεν / ‘let us not sleep…let us be alert…let us be sober’. He also repeats νήφωμεν in v 8 with the sense of “let us be vigilant.” In the context Paul desires that these believers not become spiritually insensible but be morally upright and maintain spiritual alertness. Why? Because the Parousia is both imminent and sudden in its appearance. Thus to come down to v 10 and render καθεύδω as “spiritual insensibility” would negate everything Paul has said in vv 6, 8. If one did give καθεύδω such a nuance, a paraphrase of v 10 might be, “although I desire you to maintain spiritual alertness in view of the imminent Parousia, Jesus died so that whether or not we are spiritually alert, we might still live with him.” The weakening of the previous series of hortatory subjunctives is obvious. Bruce draws a similar conclusion when he writes, “It is ludicrous to suppose that the writers mean, ‘Whether you live like sons of light or like sons of darkness, it will make little difference: you will be all right in the end.’“ [19] Edgar recognizes this to be a problem, yet argues that the focus of v 10 is not on the issue of vigilance but the fact that the believer’s hope depends on Christ’s death, not on watchfulness. [20] Hodges likewise says, “the apostle felt that the best way to stimulate a watchful spirit was to show that ‘the hope of deliverance’ could not be forfeited even by the believer’s failure to watch for it.” [21] I do not for one moment question the fact that a genuine believer’s hope is secure regardless of his watchfulness. However, I seriously doubt that is the meaning of v 10 in light of the preceding context. [22] If Hodges is correct, why did Paul even give the series of ethical injunctions in vv 6 and 8 ? If the best way to motivate one to spiritual alertness is to show that his or her hope of deliverance could not be forfeited by a failure to watch, why then did not Paul begin v 6 with such a theological assertion? The reason is because the motivating factor for spiritual alertness is not that which Hodges suggests but is found in vv 2–5, namely, the imminent and sudden character of the Parousia of Jesus. This is clear from the ἄρα οὖν which introduces v 6. Paul draws the strong inference that since the Parousia is imminent and sudden the believer should not be spiritually insensible but morally alert and vigilant (cf. vv 6, 8).

Both Hodges and Edgar have overlooked the strong connection Paul makes between the coming Parousia/Day of the Lord and the exhoration to moral alertness. They also, it seems, overlook this same connection elsewhere in the epistle. The relationship between eschatology and ethics is quite clear in both 3:13 and 5:23. In both texts Paul prays that the Thessalonian believers might be “blameless” at the time of the Parousia. [23] The imminent and sudden nature of the Parousia is the motivating factor for “blameless” behavior. This emphasis throughout the book as well as in 5:6, 8 thus makes it inconceivable that Paul uses καθεύδω in 5:10 for “spiritual insensibility.”

Structural and Literary Patterns

I have already pointed out that 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 is one literary and theological unit. One of the reasons for this conclusion is the presence of an inclusio between 4:13–14 and 5:9–10. These texts serve to bracket the entire eschatological discourse and contain several stylistic and semantic parallels.

Although all the parallels do not exhibit identical order and form, their semantic equivalence throughout strongly argues for intentional parallelism. In each passage the resurrection of the believing dead is connected to the death of Christ. Each text stresses the believer’s presence “with Christ” (σύν αὐτῷ). Each text asserts that Jesus is the intermediate agent through whom God performs the action (διὰ…᾿Ινσοῦ). Also God is the author of both actions (ὁ θεὸς ἄξει and ὁ θεὸς ἔθετο). Furthermore, in vv 13–17 the major problem is the relation of the dead to the Parousia, i.e., vv 13–14 give the essential assertion, followed by an explanation in vv 15–17. Then v 18 follows with an exhortation “to comfort one another.” In the same manner, 1 Thess 5:9–10 reiterates the same promise of 4:13–17, i.e., the believer will live with Christ even if he or she has died prior to the Parousia, and then v 11 follows with a corresponding exhortation “to comfort one another.”

These parallels offer good reason for taking Paul’s use of καθεύδω in 5:10 in the same way as his use of κοιμάω in 4:13–14, namely, a reference to those over whom the Thessalonian believers are grieving. In essence, Paul returns to his initial parenetic concern which he began in 4:13. [24] In 5:10 he answers the same question addressed in 4:13–17: does the one who dies in the Lord suffer any disadvantage at the Parousia? Paul answers that question in 4:13–17 with a resounding “no.” He also answers it in 5:10 by assuring the Thessalonian believers that whether they live or whether they die, they would live with the Lord at his return.

The Majority Opinion

Although the “majority” opinion does not prove my conclusion regarding the meaning of καθεύδω in 5:10, it cannot simply be dismissed as inconsequential that the majority of lexicographers and commentators support the conclusion that καθεύδω is a reference to physical death. [25] Furthermore, when one surveys those who hold such a position it is evident that they have not ignored either the lexical data or the immediate context as both Edgar and Hodges imply. [26] Instead, after evaluating both the lexical and contextual data the conclusion is consistently drawn that the meaning of καθεύδω in 1 Thess 5:10 is “death.” After evaluating the evidence inductively, I feel that on this issue the majority decision is correct. As a result, I also conclude that γρηγορέω in 5:10 should be interpreted metaphorically as “alive” in order to achieve balance semantically with καθεύδω in the grammatical construction. [27]

Conclusion

The purpose of this article has been to reevaluate the meaning of καθεύδω in 1 Thess 5:10. While the majority of commentators support the meaning of “death” a few recent interpreters have taken the verb to mean “spiritual insensibility.” Indeed, the immediate context may suggest this, but the lexical, contextual, and literary evidence presented here argues strongly for taking καθεύδω as a metaphor for death. This means that Paul is returning to the issue which is behind the entire eschatological discourse beginning in 4:13, namely, the future of one who has died in the Lord. In 1 Thess 5:9–10 Paul gives the same response as he did in 4:13–17. He states that whether a believer is alive or dies he will not experience disadvantage at the Parousia but will live with Christ. Then Paul exhorts the believers in 5:11 to do the same thing he stated in 4:18, “therefore comfort one another.”

Notes

1. Thomas R. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’ in 1 Thessalonians 5:10, ” JETS 22 (1979) 345-49; Zane C. Hodges, “The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” in Walvoord: A Tribute (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982) 75-78; and B. N. Kaye, “Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thessalonians,” NovT (1975) 51-52, esp. n 27; this interpretation also has been proposed by Thomas L. Constable, “1 Thessalonians,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983) 707; see also C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, reprint 1959) 172; and Robert L. Thomas, “1 Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (12 vols.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978) 11.285–86.
2. Such departures from “normal tendencies” are not unusual for Paul. In 1 Thess 4:14 he states, ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀπέθανεν καὶ ἀνέστη / ‘Jesus died and rose’. This phrase contains ἀνέστη rather than the usual ἠγέρθη. Paul uses ἐγείρω much more frequently for resurrection whether of Christ or of his people, ἀνίστημι being found only here and in Eph 5:14. On the other hand ἐγείρω is used forty times by Paul, normally in the passive (cf. W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament [Edinburgh: Clark, 1975] 246-47). Certainly one would not argue that ἀνέστη has a different meaning than ἐγείρω simply because Paul employs the unusual ἀνίστημι. (Some have argued, however, that this unusual occurrence of ἀνίστημι suggests dependence on a pre-Pauline credal formula [cf. Ivan Havener, “The Pre-Pauline Credal Formulas of 1 Thessalonians” (SBL Seminar Papers, 1981) 105-28]. It is interesting that the verb seems to be used in such a credal fashion among the patristics; cf. Ign. Rom 4:3 [ἀναστήσομαι]; 6:1 [both ἀποθανόντα and ἀναστάντα appear together, the same two words that occur in 1 Thess 4:14]; Barn. 15:9 [ἀνέστη, the same form as 1 Thess 4:14].)
3. Cf. 1 Cor 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess 4:13, 14, 15. Of the nine occurrences in Pauline material, seven appear in two major eschatological texts, 1 Corinthians 15 and 1 Thessalonians 4.
4. I would agree with Edgar (“The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 348) at this point when he writes, “it is difficult to conceive, however, that someone would command a physically dead person to rise and then go on to state that Christ will illuminate him if he does”; hence, it is preferable to view Paul’s use of καθεύδω in Eph 5:14 as a reference to “spiritual insensibility” (cf. BAGD, 388).
5. BAGD, 388. The metaphorical sense is clear in v 6 through which Paul conveys the idea of spiritual laziness. This figurative use is also found in classical Greek with a derogatory sense, indicating defective concentration or a deficient action (cf. Plato, Ion, LCL, 536b). However, in v 7 Paul uses an illustration of actual activities that occur at night and both καθεύδω and μεθύσκομαι are used in their literal sense as a basis for the metaphorical application (cf. I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians [New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 137). The present substantival participles οἱ καθεύδοντες and οἱ μεθυσκόμενοι as well as the present indicatives καθεύδουσιν and μεθύουσιν are customary presents describing normal, habitual activities. It is unnecessary to suppose with Evald Lövestam (Spiritual Wakefulness in the New Testament [Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1963] 54) that these are metaphors for absorption in the affairs of the present world. However, I would argue that Paul is thinking of “night” as the spiritual antithesis of the coming of the light symbolized by “day” (cf. Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 138).
6. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 345; and Hodges, “The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” 76.
7. The Theodotion text also uses τῶν καθευδόντων as a reference to those who have died but who will experience resurrection (see Alfred Rahlfs, ed., The Septuaginta [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung, 1935] 935).
8. H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1927) 108.
9. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 348.
10. C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1959) 189; see also Swete, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 108; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1981) 749; and Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 295. It is interesting that although Vine (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1940] 80) interprets καθεύδω as “spiritual insensibility” in 1 Thess 5:10, he says it meant “physical death” in Mark 5:39; Matt 9:24; and Luke 8:52.
11. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 189.
12. A similar expression is found in John 11:11 in connection with the death of Lazarus. Jesus says, Λάζαρος ὁ φίλος ἡμῶν κεκοίμηται / ‘Lazarus our friend has been sleeping’. Here Jesus uses the perfect of κοιμάω, a verb that certainly is used metaphorically in the NT for “physical death.” Lest one be inclined to take this use literally, John informs the reader of the exact meaning of the Lord’s words. He writes in v 13 εἰρήκει δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς περὶ τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ / ‘now Jesus was talking about his death’. There is no question that in this passage κοιμάω is used as a metaphor for death. Similarly, καθεύδω should be taken as a metaphor for death in Mark 5:39. In both passages Jesus states that the one who had died “sleeps.” Furthermore, John 11:13 and Luke 8:53 have interpretive statements to the effect that “sleep” means “death.”
13. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 349; and Hodges, “The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” 76. They make this observation in order to support the idea that if the nuance of “spiritual insensibility” is found in v 6 for καθεύδω then the same meaning is probable in v 10. However, Moisés Silva (Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical Semantics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983]. “Literary and contextual features” could be added to Silva’s list of modifiers [“phrase and syntactical features”]) has cautioned about the danger of this kind of reasoning. He writes, “one is rather likely to ignore what may look like small differences between the ways the word is used; that is, one may import into a particular passage a meaning discovered elsewhere, without noticing that the word in the latter passage is modified by a particular phrase or by some syntactical feature” (p. 26).
14. BAGD, 388. Cf. n 5 above.
15. E. Laughton, “Subconscious Repetition and Textual Criticism,” Classical Philology 45 (1950) 75. Very little has been done in the area of “subconscious recurrence.” Other than Laughton’s work this writer is aware of only two others that address the issue specifically; see A. B. Cook, “Unconscious iterations, with Special Reference to Classical Literature,” Classical Review 16 (1902) 146-58; 256–67, and F. W. Hall, “Repetitions and Obsessions in Plautus,” Classical Quarterly 20 (1926) 20-26. The writer is indebted to David Baker who recently presented the results of his own research in a paper entitled “Subconscious Repetition” (for the class Advanced Greek Grammar; Grace Theological Seminary: April, 1985). He defines subconscious recurrence as “the unintentional, unnatural repetition of a word or phrase which was used naturally in the immediately preceding context” (p. 3). By “unintentional” he means “subconscious repetition” and by “unnatural” he means that the second occurrence of the word is strained, or stretched, in relation to its semantic field. It is interesting that of the several NT examples he cites, one is γρηγορέω which occurs as a parallel to καθεύδω in both 5:6 and 5:10. Although the meaning of “alive” is unusual for γρηγορέω, this nuance might be explained as a “subconscious recurrence.”
16. Paul Ellingworth and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians (New York: United Bible Societies, 1976) 114.
17. I have argued elsewhere that 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 is a single literary and theological unit describing the same eschatological event from two perspectives. Thus Paul employs παρουσίᾳ in 4:13–18 when he describes the believer’s relationship to this great eschatological event, yet he uses “Day of the Lord” in 5:1–5 (a judgment context) because of the reference to unbelievers and their relationship to this eschatological event. He says this event will overtake them as a “thief in the night” (cf. 5:2–3). However, believers are of the “day” and not in darkness and will not be surprised when the event occurs. Nevertheless they should maintain spiritual alertness in view of the imminent and sudden nature of the event (cf. 5:6). Cf. “The Literary and Theological Unity of 1 Thessalonians 4:13–5:11 ” (unpublished M.A. thesis; Texas Christian University: May, 1983); a shortened form was presented under the same title to the Southwest Regional Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Dallas, Texas, March 1983; see further John A. Sproule, “An Exegetical Defense of Pretribulationism” (unpublished Th.D. dissertation; Grace Theological Seminary: May, 1981) 144-54; he also argues for the literary and theological unity of this entire eschatological discourse. He makes the important observation, particularly in light of the pretribulational versus posttribulational debate, that many come to this passage with the assumption that Paul’s eschatology is refined. He writes, “Paul had no refined eschatology. Nowhere does Paul differentiate between two aspects of the Lord’s second coming; however, that neither disproves pretribulationism any more than it proves posttribulationism. The modern mistake is to impose the refined eschatological thinking and methodology of the twentieth century back into the Scriptural data…. Other considerations, such as later revelation (e.g., Rev 3:10) or contextual evidence, must be appealed to in order to make differentiations” (pp. 144-45). The general nature of Pauline eschatology, particularly in 4:13–5:11, seems to be overlooked by both Edgar (“The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 349) and Hodges (“The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” 76) who suggest that objections to their understanding of 1 Thess 5:10 are frequently based on a posttribulational view of eschatology. However, that is beside the point if one understands Paul’s description in 1 Thess 4:13–5:11 as a single eschatological event portrayed from two perspectives. For further discussion on the general nature of Pauline eschatology, see H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904); and W. Baird, “Pauline Eschatology in Hermeneutical Perspective,” NTS 17 (1970–71) 312–27.
18. Paul introduces 1 Thess 5:6 with the strong inferential ἄρα οὖν; thus he exhorts (imperative) the believers to live out what they are (indicative) by virtue of their identity with Christ, namely, sons of light.
19. F. F. Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians (Word Biblical Commentary; Waco, Texas: Word, 1982) 114.
20. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 349.
21. Hodges, “The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” 76.
22. D. Edmond Hiebert (The Thessalonian Epistles [Chicago: Moody Press, 1971] 225-26) makes a similar evaluation when he writes, “while participation in the rapture will not be determined by any advanced spiritual attainments of believers but solely because of their union with Christ, that is not the point here.”
23. The preposition ἐν is used in both texts to denote “the point of time when something occurs,” cf. BAGD, 260; see also A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 586-87. The preposition ἐν is used similarly in the phrase ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ (1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess 2:19; Phil 2:12; 1 John 2:28).
24. Cf. Ellingworth and Nida, Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians, 114; regarding Paut’s use of καθεύδω for “death” in 5:10, they write, “In this way he brings us back to 4.13 .” Although they do not use the word, they support some kind of inclusio between 4:13 and 5:10.
25. John W. Bailey, “The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,” (IB, 12 vols:, Nashville: Abingdon, 1956) 11. 310; Ernest Best, A Commentary on the First and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (New York: Harper and Row, 1972) 218-19; Bruce, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 114–15; Charles J. Ellicott, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians (London: Longman, 1880) 85; Ellingworth and Nida, Paul’s Letters to the Thessalonians, 114; George G. Findlay, The Epistles to the Thessalonians (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1891) 114; James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, reprint 1975) 190; Hiebert, The Thessalonian Epistles, 225–26; W. Kelly, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians (London: Hammond, 1953) 62; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus, and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1937) 351; Marshall, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 141; George Milligan, Saint Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) 70; James Moffatt, “The First and Second Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians,” (The Expositor’s Greek Testament; 5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1979) 4.40; Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) 187; and William Neil, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950) 109; see also G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: Clark, 1937) 223; BAGD, 388; A. Oepke, “καθεύδω” TDNT 3 (1965) 436; L. Coenen, “Sleep,” NIDNTT, 1.443; J. H. Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, reprint 1962) 313.
26. Edgar, “The Meaning of ‘Sleep’,” 345; and Hodges, “The Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11, ” 76.
27. BAGD, 167; Baker, as previously noted (cf. n 15), cites the instance of γρηγορέω in 5:10 as an example of “subconscious repetition.” He argues (p. 10) that if Paul had taken a little more time to choose the more proper word, he would have used some form of ζάω, a word used by Paul elsewhere to speak of physical life as contrasted with physical death (cf. Rom 6:10; 7:2, 3; 14:7–9; 1 Cor 7:39; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:11; 6:9; 13:4; Phil 1:21, 22; 1 Thess 4:15–17; 2 Tim 4:1). However, while “subconscious repetition” may be a possible explanation of Paul’s use of γρηγορέω in 5:10, other explanations are also possible such as an intentional word play with the preceding use of γρηγορέω in 5:6 or even the attempt to avoid a redundancy with ζάω in the last phrase of 5:10 which says, “ἅμα σὺν αὐτῷ ζήσωμεν.” If this is the case, γρηγορέω would take on the nuance of “physical life” whereas ζάω would refer more to “eschatological life with Christ at the Parousia.”