29 1.33 (Loeb Classical Library).

Even more unjustifiable is the translation of 1 Cor in the NIV, “he utters mysteries with his spirit” (where Paul clearly intends “he utters mysteries by the Spirit”) or of 2 Tim 1:7 in the RSV and NIV, “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline” (where the context demands something like the GNB: “For the Spirit that God has given us does not make us timid; instead, his Spirit fills us with power, love, and self-control”).

The word is almost an exclusively Pauline word in the New Testament, occurring 24 or 26 times in his letters, 15 times in 1 Corinthians alone. The adverb πνευματικώς which occurs in 1 Cor 2:14, also refers to the Spirit, meaning “discerned by means of the Spirit” (see G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corintbians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987], pp. 116-17).

The closest Paul comes to this concept is in Rom 15:27 and 1 Cor 9:11, where he speaks of the reciprocity between Christian service or ministry and receiving material benefits. He describes the former as “sharing/sowing τἁ πνευματικἀ [spiritual things],” but even here this choice of words has not to do with “spiritual” and “material,” but with “the things of the Spirit” and material support.

This is often perceived to be the meaning of “spiritual body” in 1 Cor 15:44- 46. But this contrast in particular is not between material and non-material, but between two bodies, one that belongs to our earthly existence, called Ψυχικόν (= natural, of this present existence), the other that belongs to the heavenly sphere, the realm of the Spirit. It is still a “body,” but is fitted for heavenly existence. Probably the best translation, therefore, is “supernatural” (as over against “natural”), or “heavenly” (as over against “earthly”). But it is not non-corporeal; it is a body, after all.

This meaning is especially read into the so-called “spiritual food and drink” problem of 1 Cor 10:3-4. But Paul’s usage here has been called forth by the problem in Corinth itself, where they not only think of themselves as “spiritual” (almost certainly in a kind of triumphalist way over against Paul and his weaknesses) but as secured by the sacraments, which they apparently took to be evidence of their higher “spirituality.” So Paul takes them on: the Israelites had their own form of “spiritual” food and drink, but it did most of them no good, since God was not pleased with them and overthrew them in the desert. Thus even here, in an indirect way to be sure, the adjective ultimately refers to the Spirit.

Theoretically this could be a possible meaning of the word, since Paul does use πνεὐμα a few times to refer to the interior expression of the human personality (cf. Rom 8:16, “the Spirit bears witness with our spirit”; 2 Cor 2:13, “I had no rest in my spirit”). But in fact in none of the 24 occurrences of πνευματικός does it refer to that which belongs to, or pertains to, the human spirit.

This usage is the result of both bad translations and unfortunate exegesis of 1 Cor 2:6-3:1. See the discussion below.

The closest thing to it is an obscure passage in Philo (Rev. Div. Her. 2.4.2); a bit later than Paul, Plutarch appears to use it to refer to the non-material side of human existence, but even this passage is disputed.

See n. 7 above. Almost every elitist, or deeper-life, brand of Christianity has found justification for its perspective in this passage, quite missing Paul’s concern.

On the meaning of this complex verse, see Fee, 1 Corinthians, 114-15.

Not “in a spirit of gentleness” (RSV) nor “gently” (NIV). The noun “gentleness” is precisely that noted in v. 23 as a fruit of the Spirit. Thus it is not “a spirit of” but “the Spirit who gives.”

This theme in fact is only found in three of Paul’s letters (Gal, Rom, Phil), and always in contexts where he is fighting against the imposition of Jewish “law,” in the form of circumcision, upon his Gentile converts. This is not to downplay this metaphor, but simply to note that it is but one among several, all stemming from different ways of describing human fallenness (slavery to sin, hence “redemption”; under God’s wrath, hence “propitiation”; alienated from God, hence “reconciliation”; etc.).

The issue in Galatians is not first of all justification by faith (i.e, entrance requirements), but whether Gentiles who have already been justified by faith in Christ and given the Spirit must also submit to Jewish boundary markers (as Gen 17:1-14 makes so clear). For arguments presenting this perspective see T. David Gordon, “The Problem in Galatia,” Interpretation 4 (1987); and J. D. Dunn, “The Theology of Galatians,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 1-16.

The English versions have tended to translate ἐπἀθετε, “suffered,” in this passage (but see NEB, NRSV, Weymouth), on the legitimate linguistic grounds that this is the only meaning of the verb found elsewhere in Paul. But in fact the first meaning of the verb in Greek is simply “to experience.” Since (1) there is not a hint elsewhere in this letter of “suffering” on the part of the Galatians, and (2) the context seems to cry out for the basic meaning of the verb here, this would seem to be Paul’s clear intent. He is appealing to their having experienced so much of the Spirit’s presence and activity in their midst.

One can only wonder in passing how such an argument would work in contemporary Christian churches!

The problem for us, of course, is that what we call “spirituality” is not something Paul wears on his sleeve. His letters are too ad hoc, too much aimed at correction or instruction, for him to reflect on his own personal piety. What we do learn comes to us from incidental moments, most often in passing, when he momentarily lifts the curtain of his private life. But such moments do occur, and since they are seldom the point of anything (thus not easily viewed as skewed by some other agenda), we need therefore to take them all the more seriously as reflecting the real life of the apostle as he himself lived in the Spirit.

On this text as having to do with Paul’s real presence by the Spirit and not simply “with you in mind” see Fee, 1 Corinthians, pp. 204-6.

In some expressions of the charismatic movement 1 Thess 5:18 has been used in a way that seemed to come very close to arrogance; continual praise was seen as a way of getting even more from God, as though God could be manipulated by our “praise” and “gratitude.”

There is no content given in 1 Thess 5:25; but see 2 Thess 3:1-2 and Phil 1:19.

Very likely in this case he is also trying to curb its less than orderly expression, especially if, as 14:23 suggests and 14:27 implies, many of them were speaking out in tongues at the same time.

Hence my suggested translation, “my S/spirit prays.” See 1 Corinthians, pp. 669-70.

See the debate aroused by Kasemann’s espousal of this text as referring directly to the same glossolalic phenomenon as in 1 Cor 14. For views that differ from what is suggested here, see the commentaries by Cranfield, Morris, and Dunn.

I do not mean to imply that I am free from such; but just a glance at the literature reveals how much of the exegesis is predicated on what a person was expecting to find before coming to the text.

The NIV’s “counsel” is much too soft here. The verb Paul uses, “I want” them to, is precisely that used in 2:8 about men and women in prayer; and it is clear in this passage that “want” has all the authority of apostolic command.

The second is 4:1-7, which picks up the themes of “sonship”/slavery under the imagery of the pedagogue from 3:24-25 (NIV “guardian,” the educated slave to whom the children were entrusted for education) and of the life of the Spirit from 3:1-5, thus tying up the whole of the argument from 3:1.

An illustration over Peter’s (not to mention Barnabas’s) reneging on the Jerusalem agreement over keeping food laws (2:11-14) is what kicks off the rest of the argument of the letter; the matter of “days” is denounced in 4:8-10 as a reversion to slavery. The same three “boundary markers/identity symbols” make up the argument of Romans as well. Circumcision is argued against in ch. 4, while days and food laws come under scrutiny in 14:1-15:4.

It has often been argued against this point of view that this is a soteriological text, having to do with people from all of these categories coming to Christ on the equal ground of faith. So it is, but to divorce soteriology from ecclesiology in Paul is theologically disastrous. Salvation in Paul’s view has not to do with God’s populating heaven with countless individuals, but with creating a people for his name through Christ and the Spirit. It is in the creation of a people for his name that one finds the continuity with the former covenant. Thus, the present text is ecclesiological by the very fact that it is soteriological. The certain evidence for this is the companion passage to this one, 1 Cor 12:13, which is expressed in soteriological categories but is ecclesiological to its core. See G. D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 178-82.

This is one place, it should be pointed out, where change could take place in that culture, because slavery was not based on race as it was in the tragic history of the United States. Rather, it was based primarily on war, captivity, and economics, so that people could change status; e.g., in economically hard times people could sell themselves into slavery, and masters often manumitted slaves.

1.33 (Loeb Classical Library).

Talmudic tractate Menahoth 43b (Epstein translation).

This view stems from several realities in the letter, especially the fact that directly following a passage where Paul forbids the men to go to the prostitutes (6:12- 20), he takes up the issue of some who are rejecting sex within marriage, on the grounds that “it is good for a man not to touch a woman.” When he comes to the issue of divorce (v. 10) — the logical corollary of their position — he does the most non-cultural thing: he argues that a woman should not separate from her husband, and then, almost as an afterthought, says that the same holds true for husbands as well, of course. For the full argument supporting this view, see G. D. Fee, Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 10-13, 267-70.

Based primarily on a reading of v. 3 that suggests that “head” equals to be “over the other” in some way. But this sentence is created by Paul as a kind of word play on the word “head,” based on the problem lying literally on the wife’s head, so that he can establish a point of reference for the issue of shame. The meaning of “head” is much debated, of course, but the so-called “Greek” view, which seems to make the most sense of all the data in the passage, is expressed in the interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria (Arcad. 5.6): “Thus we say that ‘the head of every man is Christ.’ For he was made by him ... as God; ‘but the head of every woman is the man,’ because she was taken out of his flesh.... Likewise ‘the head of Christ is God,’ because he is of him by nature.”

For the evidence of this see Fee, First Corinthians, p. 519. There is no known instance in the language where the combination of subject the verb “have,” the object “authority,” and the preposition “over” are passive with regard to the subject, i.e., in which the subject is under someone else’s authority, rather than exercising authority over the object of the preposition. There is not a reason in the world to think it is otherwise here, especially so, when Paul immediately qualifies the woman’s authority over her own head (with regard to wearing or not wearing the head covering) by insisting that “in the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman” (v. 11).

For the evidence see Fee, First Corinthians, pp. 510-12. It has often been asserted that the shaved head was a sign of prostitution in Corinth; but there is not a known piece of evidence for such in the literature of antiquity. For Paul same-sex intercourse is a matter of denying the differentiation and mutuality of creation, which is what lies behind Paul’s strong denunciation of homosexuality in Romans 1:24-27. Those who have exchanged the truth about God and have believed the lie, Paul says, have expressed their denial of the truth of creation, what God has done, by same-sex intercourse. And God has given them over because they have refused to believe the truth about God. This, of course, sounds like a very harsh word to people who are oriented toward same-sex relationships, but the fact is, “male and female, God created them”; and Paul sees very clearly that the obliteration of that created expression is in fact an elimination not only of what God has created but what is also being restored in the new creation. Why else, one wonders, would he single out these two relationships — men with men and women with women? Notice also the language of shame that is persistent in that text.

This truth should have brought all the nonsense in North American Protestant arguments in favor of slavery over the past three hundred years to its knees in absolute repentance. What has gone on in my own country (the United States) on this matter is sheer craziness, since Philemon is the clear evidence chat “brother in Christ” means that black and white must eat together at the same table; the table of the Lord, eaten in the context of a meal, is the great equalizer. Otherwise the gospel of our Lord is betrayed at its core.

For this diagram and much of the description that follows I am indebted to Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World, Households and House Churches (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press), p. 8 and throughout.

In the Greco-Roman world, girl babies were very often “exposed,” put in the dump and left to die. It is the males who count because they carry on the family line. Enough females were obviously kept for the purposes of the male, but a female baby was absolutely chattel and was at the total discretion of the father whether he wanted to keep it or not — and I mean the father, not the parents.

We need also to appreciate, of course, that in all such situations where the law allows the most despicable kind of behavior, there are always people who function as beneficent dictators; and we know of many of these from Greco-Roman culture. My concern is not to paint the picture as utterly bleak, but to point out that a thoroughly totalitarian patriarchy was simply assumed under the law itself.

Philo, The Special Laws 3.169 (trans. by F. H. Colson in the Loeb Classical Library, 7.581).

Oration 59.122.

For this matter see W. W. Tarn, Hellenistic Civilization (Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1952), pp. 98-99.

The only two uses of the teknogonein (to bear children) word group in the New Testament occur in these two verses (2:15 and 5:14).

Although Paul says that “Adam was created first, then Eve” in v. 13, his point is not that this makes only men qualify as teachers, but that the one who was created second was first in transgression. And it is not her teaching that he takes up, but her “salvation.”

On the inauthenticity of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, see Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pp. 272-81.

A liberalism, it should be noted, that most biblical scholars have assumed to have been brought to an end through the rise of neo-orthodoxy and existentialism, which themselves are now passé within the academy.

In this regard, cf. the critique of his most recent Jesus book (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus, 1992) by N. Thomas Wright (Who Was Jesus? [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992]), who deals with Spong about as kindly as a New Testament scholar can, but who also exposes the various idiosyncrasies of Spong’s kind of “exegesis.”

It is this same Paul, one should also note, who plays the lie to several of Spong’s (unsupported and unsupportable) assertions, as e.g., “in the Scriptures, divorce was permissible, but only for the male” (p. 26). This is partial truth at its worst and has the effect of dismissing Paul from Scripture. Anyone who has worked carefully through 1 Corinthians 7 (esp. w. 10-11, 12-16) will recognize not only that women could divorce their husbands, but also that the whole chapter, with its consistently balanced clauses between men and women, demonstrates that Paul is not the male chauvinist that Spong makes him out to be. Indeed, when Paul says that “husbands do not have authority over their own bodies but that their wives do” (1 Cor 7:2-4), he has gone miles beyond most cultures, including most people in Spong’s own modern culture.

On these matters see esp. “Issues in Evangelical Hermeneutics: Hermeneutics and the Nature of Scripture,” Crux 26 (1990): 21-26 (repr. in Gospel and Spirit, Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991], pp. 24-36). Several matters addressed in the present essay have been previously spoken to in this former one, especially the matter of distinguishing “evangelical” from “fundamentalist” and “liberal” hermeneutics, and how each of them works in practice.

Spong asserts (quite incorrectly) that “Paul actually asserts that passions of a person toward one of his or her own sex is in fact punishment from God on those who do not worship properly.” When Paul says that “God gave them up,” that may be a form of judgment to be sure, but it is not so much a form of “punishment” from Paul’s perspective as it is an expression of the lengths to which the “creature” will go in his or her struggle against the Creator, who has made people sexual beings, male and female, precisely so that they might procreate the race.

On this matter, and the other Pauline texts as well, see now D. F. Wright, “Homosexuality,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), pp. 413-15.

Attempts to water down these words, such as one finds in John Boswell and others, is so much special pleading. Besides my commentary on this passage, see esp. D. F. Wright, “Homosexuals or Prostitutes? The Meaning of Arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10),” Vigiliae Christianae 38 (1984): 125-53.

Such a view is supported in part, at least, by the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria’s description of the Jewish adaptation of the Greek symposium, where a meal was followed by discourse and singing (see On the Contemplative Life, 70-72).

This happens throughout the Psalter. See, e.g., Psalm 30, which offers praise to God in the second person in w. 1-3, then encourages singing on the part of the “congregation” in w. 4-5, predicated on the fact that “his favor lasts a lifetime,” and returns to second person address in w. 6-9. Cf. inter alia Psalms 32, 66, 104, 116; so also the many hymns that call on the congregation to praise God in light of his character and wondrous deeds.

The capitalization of this word reflects my concerns that this word has biblical origins, where it is an adjective formed to refer to the work of the Holy Spirit. On this matter see Fee, God‘s Empowering Presence, The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), pp. 28-32, 641-43.

This is not altogether true, of course. Much of the older Pentecostal literature had sections that wrestled with “why tongues,” or “the value of tongues,” which very often took the form of theological reflection; cf. most recently, Robert W. Graves, Praying in the Spirit (Old Tappan, NJ: Chosen, 1987), pp. 38-43. I am also well aware that this is not the first attempt at a “theology of glossolalia.” See, e.g., J. Massingberd Ford, “Toward a Theology of ‘Speaking in Tongues,”’ Theological Studies 32 (1971): 3-29 (whose journey through Jewish literature led her to an understanding of tongues as God’s way of recreating the organ necessary for praise); cf. Frank D. Macchia, “Sighs too Deep for Words: Toward a Theology of Glossolalia,” Journal of Pentecostal Theology 1 (1992): 47-73. Macchia offers four theological reasons for the gift.

The substance of this paper was prepared originally as a contribution to my longtime friend and sometime colleague in the American Assemblies of God, Dr. William W. Menzies; see Pentecostalism in Context: Essays in Honor of William W. Menzies, ed. W. Ma and R. P. Menzies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), pp. 24- 37.

On this matter see Fee, Presence, passim.

On this matter, see J. D. G. Dunn, Jesus and the Spirit (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), pp. 260-65; cf. Fee, Presence, pp. 894-95.

For the exegesis of the passages see Fee, Presence, ad loc. In the latter passage Paul prays for the Colossians to be filled with all the Spirit’s wisdom and insight so as to walk worthy of Christ, one dimension of which includes “being empowered for endurance and patience with all power in keeping with God’s might.”

Cf. the discussion in Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 327-36.

After all, for Paul the preaching of the crucified One is precisely where God’s power is at work in the world (1 Cor 1:18-25), and his own preaching in a context of weakness and fear and trembling certified that the power that brought about the Corinthians’ conversion lay in the work of the Spirit, not in the wisdom or eloquence of the preacher.

For a further discussion of these two tendencies in the church see Presence, pp. 822-26.

See Presence, pp. 575-86.

Cf. my article on the “Pauline Literature” in Stanley M. Burgess and Gary B. McGee, eds., The Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), pp. 665-83 (esp. p. 680).

To those who point to its mention only in 1 Corinthians as evidence that it was more or less a strictly Corinthian phenomenon, I point out (a) that only in 1 Corinthians, where he is also correcting an abuse, does Paul mention the Lord’s Table(!), and (b) that the nature of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 12-14, just as in 11:17-34, assumes a widely known and practiced phenomenon, which was out of control in Corinth. After all, although obviously tailored to their situation, 1 Corinthians 14:26 gives expression to Christian worship that has all the earmarks of being broadly, not locally, conceived. Here, I might add, is the significance of the spurious ending of Mark (16:9-20), an ending which reflects very early tradition, but has no evident association with Corinth. In a quite matter-of-fact way this early tradition says, among other things, that “they will speak in new tongues.”

By derivation this word literally means “unspoken”; it is quite unlikely that it also means “inexpressible [= too deep for words],” since there is a perfectly good Greek word for that idea (aneklaletos; cf. 1 Pet 1:8; Polycarp 1:3). In the context of Romans the word can hardly mean “silent”; therefore, “inarticulate,” meaning “without known words,” seems to be the best option in this passage.

All the more so when one realizes that both praying and reading in antiquity were articulated in the sense of “mouthing the words”; hence they both prayed and read “aloud,” as it were.

Cf. A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Romans 8:26 — Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?” SJT 28 (1975): 369-77, who rejects this interpretation of Romans 8:26 (at least in the form it is presented by E. Kasemann), but allows that it still might function as a basis for a Pauline theology of glossolalia.

In one of their less insightful moments, the NIV translators, against the clear usage in context and Pauline usage in general, translated this occurrence of pneumati as “with his spirit.” For Pauline usage in this regard, see chap. 2 in Fee, Presence, pp. 15-26.

For this translation and understanding of this passage, see Fee, Presence, pp. 228-33.

The question as to whether the “speaking in tongues” in contemporary Pentecostal and charismatic communities is the same in kind as that in the Pauline churches is moot — and probably somewhat irrelevant. There is simply no way to know. As an experienced phenomenon, it is at the very least analogous to theirs, meaning that it is understood to be a supernatural activity of the Spirit which functions in many of the same ways, and for many of its practitioners has value similar to that described by Paul.

See, e.g., Riggs, The Spirit Himself, p. 87: “tongues and interpretation are the equivalent of prophecy.” He then goes on to offer a considerable apologetic, in light of this assertion, as to why there should be both prophecy and interpreted tongues in the assembly. This is a less common view among more recent Pentecostals; see, e.g., Stanley M. Horton, What the Bible Says about the Holy Spirit (Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1976).

On this matter see esp. Fee, Presence, pp. 803-13. The Spirit is both the “down payment” and the “firstfruits” of the future that has already dawned with the prior coming of Christ and his resurrection and subsequent gift of the eschatological Spirit.

See esp. Ephesians 4:30; cf. Fee, “Some Exegetical and Theological Reflections on Ephesians 4:30 and Pauline Pneumatology,” in Spirit and Renewal, Essays in Honor ofJ. Rodman Williams (JPTSS 5; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1994), pp. 129-44.

Whether or not the Corinthians understood tongues as “showy” is debatable; only the second application of the body analogy in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24 would seem to suggest as much. That they considered tongues as evidence that they had already achieved something of their heavenly status seems much more in keeping with the Pauline argument. But in either case, their view of glossolalia and its purposes was dead wrong from Paul’s point of view. Praying in tongues belongs primarily in the privacy of one’s own life of prayer; and such “inarticulate groanings” reflect God’s power at work even in our present weakness.

I admit to wondering at times whether present resistance to glossolalia on the part of so many is not a combination of both a misunderstanding of Paul’s own perspective on this matter and of our need to be “in control.” Maybe the bottom line of such resistance is our lip-service to putting ourselves at God’s disposal in our weakness, but insisting that all of our praying should be from a stance of strength — the form of strength found in our praying only with our minds and seldom in the Spirit. This is another place where cessationism fails — in all its forms. Not only is it exegetically and hermeneutically unsupportable, but it ends up being a form of “living from a position of strength,” in this case in the strength of a rationalistic mind-set.

For this understanding of this familiar passage, see Fee, Presence, pp. 587-90.

One reason not otherwise noted in this paper is the especially ad hoc nature of our documents. Even the so-called Pastoral Epistles show little interest in church leadership or governance as such. Rather Paul is concerned with the character and qualifications of those who assume positions of leadership. See G. D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), pp. 19-23, 78-79.

As I have noted elsewhere, the very fact that such diverse groups as Roman Catholics, Plymouth Brethren, and Presbyterians all use the Pastoral Epistles to support their ecclesiastical structures should give us good reason to pause as to what the New Testament “clearly teaches” on these matters. See “Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflection on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (1985): 141-51.

This is one of the things that make Acts such a different kind of “church history” from its successors. There is scarcely a hint of church organization or structures (1:15-26 and 6:1-6 play quite different roles). At some point, for example, leadership in Jerusalem passed from the Twelve to James (cf. 6:2 and 8:14 with 11:2; 12:17; and 15:13), without so much as a word as to how or why. At the local level, in 13:13, those who appear to be in leadership are “prophets and teachers,” while in 14:23 elders are appointed for each congregation. This is hardly the stuff from which one can argue with confidence as to how the early church was “organized” — or whether it was!

By this I mean something quite technical, namely the outpouring of the promised Holy Spirit as the primary reality indicating that Jewish eschatological hopes had been fulfilled, or realized. For the early church “this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16), the sure evidence that the End (Eschaton) had begun and the time of the Future had dawned.

In contrast to having come by such order through purposeful, intentional action on its part.

I mean de jure, of course. One of my colleagues pointed out that de facto there is nothing more severe in this regard than some independent churches (baptist, pentecostal/charismatic).

For me this is always brought home as a living reality in teaching New Testament theology. Although my emphases and packaging of the biblical data frequently stimulate rousing discussion (debate?), nothing does so quite as much as the section in Pauline theology on the nature of the church as the eschatological people of God, presently living out the life of the future as they await the consummation. Not only do I have great difficulty in helping students to catch the New Testament perspective, but even when it happens, there is difficulty in assimilating it — because this touches them right where they live.

Whether we should try to model the New Testament church, of course, is yet another hermeneutical question in its own right. On the place of “historical precedent” in Christian hermeneutics, see some programmatic suggestions in G. D. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), pp. 94-112.

This is no more than we should expect, given Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic expectations, his own announcement of the kingdom as “fulfilling the time,” and the Jewish complexion of the earliest believers. Continuity is thus found in a whole variety of ways in the Gospels: e.g., in direct statements reflecting the motif of promise and fulfillment, in symbols and images of various kinds (Jesus’ choice of the Twelve is scarcely accidental!), in the hymns in Luke’s birth narrative.

Thus, e.g., Deuteronomy 31:30: “And Moses recited the words of this song from the beginning to end in the hearing of the whole ekklesia of Israel.”

Probably because the more common word ethnos was used by Greek writers to refer to themselves as a people in the same way the Hebrews used ‘am. Thus for the Jews ethnos came to = “gentiles,” and was so used by the LXX translators. Hence the need for a different word to distinguish themselves.

Luke uses it most often (84 of 142); Matthew, 14; Hebrews, 13; Paul, 12; Revelation, 9. In many of these it occurs in citations of the Old Testament.

Just as the Table, through its symbol of the bread (1 Cor 10:16-17), should serve for us as a reminder of our continuity with centuries of believers.

See G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), pp. 32-33, for the difficulties in rendering this term into English; the option which seems best to capture its inherent nuances is “God’s holy people.”

Cf. B. Childs on Exodus 19:6: “Israel as a people is also dedicated to God’s service among the nations as priests function with a society” (The Book of Exodus [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974], p. 367).

The New Testament knows nothing of the “priesthood of the believer” as it is popularly conceived, with each person’s being his or her own priest with God, without need of an external priesthood. To the contrary, the New Testament teaches that the church has a priestly function for the world (1 Peter 2:9-10); and our role of ministering to one another makes us priests one for another.

Although it is grammatically possible that this phrase refers to Jewish people, and is so argued by many (see esp. P. Richardson, Israel in the Apostolic Church [Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 10: Cambridge University Press, 1969], pp. 74-102), both the unusual nature of the qualifier “of God” and the context of the whole argument argue for the position taken here.

The issue in Galatians is not first of all justification by faith (i.e., entrance requirements), but whether Gentiles, who have already been justified by faith in Christ and given the Spirit must also submit to Jewish boundary markers (i.e., maintenance requirements) in order to share in the covenant with Abraham (as Genesis 17:1-14 makes so clear). For arguments presenting this perspective see T. David Gordon, “The Problem in Galatia,” Interpretation 41 (1987): 32-43; and J. D. G. Dunn, “The Theology of Galatians,” Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), pp. 1-16.

That is, they are not “set apart” to an office; rather hands are laid upon them in recognition of the Spirit’s prior activity. Cf. Acts 13:1-2; 1 Timothy 4:4.

The one exception to this is Philippians, where Paul writes to the church “together with the overseers and deacons.” One might also include Philemon, where Paul includes Archippus in the salutation, but since the letter is addressed to Philemon, Paul continues by mentioning two further individuals before including the church. Some, of course, would argue that 1 Timothy and Titus are such documents; however, both of these younger colleagues serve as Paul’s own apostolic delegates in Ephesus and Crete. They are both itinerants, whose stay is temporary. Thus they are not church leaders in the local sense.

The one exception to this might be Philippians 4:3, where Paul asks a trusted fellow-worker to mediate the differences between Euodia and Syntyche. But more likely, since these two women are also designated as his fellow-workers, he is asking for help not so much from a church leader as such, but from one who has been a co-laborer with both Paul and these women. As in the preceding note, Timothy and Titus are “leaders” of a different kind. They are in their respective situations in Paul’s place; they are not local leaders “in charge” of the church.

This seems almost certainly to be the case, despite the corresponding “younger men” that follows in v. 5.

The verb in this case is ambiguous in Greek, meaning either to “govern” or to “care for.” Apart from 1 Timothy 3:4-5, elsewhere in the New Testament, as here, it is used absolutely so that one cannot determine which nuance is intended. But in the Timothy passage the synonym that is substituted for it in v. 5 means unambiguously “to care for.” This seems most likely what Paul ordinarily had in mind. Cf. E. Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (San Francisco: Harper, 1972), pp. 224-25.

100

Indeed, despite some New Testament scholarship to the contrary, it is highly unlikely that the early communities ever existed long without local leadership. The picture Luke gives in Acts 14:23 is an altogether plausible one historically, given the clear evidence of leadership in the earliest of the Pauline letters (1 Thess 5:12-13) — a community where he had not stayed for a long time, whose leadership must have been in place when he was suddenly taken from them (Acts 17:10; 1 Thess 2:17).

101

This is an obvious reference to the imagery of the church as the body of Christ, another corporate image used by Paul, which I have not dealt with in this paper because it is both so obvious and lacking Old Testament roots.

102

Language of “rulership” and “authority” is altogether missing in the New Testament passages which speak about leadership, except as Paul refers to his apostolic authority in his own churches.

103

To be complete and more precise, of course, one should start with their absolutely primary theological presupposition: That the one God - holy, sovereign, and gracious - had purposed their salvation, which he effected in Christ and made available for all through the Spirit (see, e.g., Gal 4:4-7).

104

The classic illustration of Paul’s own struggle with continuity and discontinuity between the new and the old — expressed in terms of Gentile and Jew — is Romans 11, where Gentiles have been grafted onto the olive tree “and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root” (v. 17, NIV). Yet Israel itself must be regrafted in order to be saved.

105

After all, in the early going, as Luke portrays things in Acts 1-6, the early believers lived within Judaism - and surely expected that all Jewry would acknowledge Jesus as Messiah, Savior, and Lord.

106

Cf. the powerful eschatological metaphors of the Spirit in Paul that especially make these double points: “seal” (2 Cor 1:21-22; Eph 1:13; 4:30); “earnest/ first installment” (2 Cor 1:21-22; 5:5; Eph 1:14); “firstfruits” (Rom 8:23). This latter metaphor in particular helps us to see how Paul views life in the Spirit as lived in the eschatological tension of the “already” and the “not yet”; while at the same time the Spirit is the guarantee of our certain future. The larger context of Romans 8:12- 27 is especially noteworthy. With the Spirit playing the leading role, Paul in w. 15- 17 has struck the dual themes (1) of our present position as children, who are thus joint-heirs with Christ of the Father’s glory, and (2) of our present existence as one of weakness and suffering, as we await that glory. These are the two themes taken up in w. 18-27. By the Spirit we have already received our “adoption” as God’s children, but what is “already” is also “not yet”; therefore, by the same Spirit, who functions for us as firstfruits, we await our final “adoption as children,” “the redemption of our bodies.” The first sheaf is God’s pledge to us of the final harvest.

107

Cf. 1 John 3:2: “Beloved, we are God’s children now, it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.”

108

But not of the two kinds most often noted in the literature: charismatic and regular. Rather, it is itinerant and local. Authority lies with the itinerant, whether he is on the local scene or otherwise.

109

Since the earliest congregations grew out of Judaism, the (chiefly lay) elders of the Jewish synagogues almost certainly served as the model for the early Christian communities.

110

See Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, pp. 7-10.

111

In this regard see especially how the participle for leaders “those who care for the church” is found nestled between “contributing to the needs of others” and “showing mercy” in Rom 12:8.

112

See, e.g., A. M. Hunter, Introducing the New Testament (2d rev. ed.; London: SCM, 1957), p. 148.

113

Although this is the great problem of the PE and affects nearly everything one says about them, it is much less so for the question of occasion and purpose. For the arguments pro and con for Pauline authorship see (pro) D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (3d rev. ed.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1970), pp. 584-634; (con) A. T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), pp. 2-51. Although fully aware of the difficulties I am convinced that the PE are ultimately Pauline because, inter alia, (1) one can make such good sense of them as fitting the historical situation of the mid-60s; (2) I have yet to have anyone give a good answer to the question: Why three letters? That is, given 1 Timothy, why did a pseudepigrapher write Titus, and given 1 Timothy and Titus and their concerns, why 2 Timothy at all?

114

The question of the nature of the false teaching is not fully agreed upon. The term “Gnostic,” especially in its second-century form, is rather thoroughly misleading. Few of the essential ingredients of that system are present. I am inclined to a view that sees genuine affinities with the “heresy” in Colosse a few years earlier, which is probably a form of Hellenistic Judaism that has imbibed a good deal from Hellenism. For earlier but divergent forms of this view see J. B. Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (London: Macmillan, 1893), pp. 411-18; F.J. A. Hort, Judaistic Christianity (London: Macmillan, 1894), pp. 132-33.

115

For the use of medical imagery (“sound” or “healthy” teaching; “sickly craving for controversy”) in polemical contexts in Hellenism and the PE see A. J. Malherbe, “Medical Imagery in the Pastoral Epistles,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, ed. W. E. March (San Antonio: Trinity University, 1980), pp. 19-35.

116

There is no expressed subject of the infinitive anastrephesthai (“to conduct oneself”) in Paul’s sentence, and it must be inferred from the context. The KJV’s “thou ... thyself” is the least likely option. The GNB has “we ... ourselves,” but “people ... themselves” (NAB, NIV, NEB) is to be preferred. The Living Bible’s “you will know what kind of men you choose as officers of the church” is altogether unwarranted.

117

The full presentation of this position may be found in my commentary on the PE in the New International Biblical Commentary series (Hendrickson, 1988).

118

The data of this speech need to be taken more seriously by scholars on both sides of the question of authenticity. If it is true prediction, then Luke’s recording of it accords with what he knows to have taken place. If the speech was created by Luke after the fact, then it is best argued that he really did so after the fact — that is, he based it on what he knew to have happened in Ephesus. In either case the defection of some Ephesian elders in the 60s looks like a piece of solid historical datum.

119

The only other person I know to have articulated this position is E. E. Ellis, “Paul and His Opponents,” in Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), p. 114. He does not, however, pursue its implications for the occasion and purpose of the letter.

120

To translate phlyaroi “gossips,” as is done in most English translations, is both misleading and prejudicial. The word means to “talk foolishness” but not in the sense that “gossip” connotes. Rather, in most of its extant uses it means to prate on about something, either in a foolish manner or with foolish ideas. In the latter sense it is picked up in polemical contexts to refer to speaking what is foolish or absurd vis-a-vis the truth — precisely Paul’s condemnation of the FT in 1:6; 6:20; 2 Tim 2:23.

121

This is a frequently maintained position, based on some second-century texts (see, e.g.,J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles [New York: Harper, 1963], p. 112). But those texts are not at all clear that a “ministering order” existed. Rather, they allude to their existence as a recognizable group and reflect concern for their care.

122

Thus w. 3-8 set up two criteria: (1) They must be without family to support them; (2) they must be godly in their own right, noted for the good works mentioned in v. 10.

123

This prepositional phrase could mean “everywhere” (as NIV), but when Paul intends that he usually says it (1 Cor 11:26; 14:33). Furthermore to universalize the prepositional phrase when the rest of the sentence so clearly fits the specific situation in Ephesus makes little sense.

124

For references to prayer with uplifted hands in Judaism see inter alia 1 Kgs 8:54; Pss 63:4; 141:2; 2 Mace 14:32; Philo Flaccus 121; Josephus Ant. 4:40; for early Christianity see esp. Tertullian On Prayer 17.

125

See n. 3 above.

126

This is a common objection to Pauline authorship; see, e.g., how R.J. Karris begins his article, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Episitles,” JBL 92 (1973): 549-64.

127

See n. 6 above.

128

This assumes, with Kelly (Commentary), J. P. Meier, (“Presbyteros in the Pastoral Epistles,” CBQ [1973]: 325-37), and others that all of 5:17-25 is dealing with the discipline and replacement of elders, against Lock (Commentary, ICC), Dibelius-Conzelmann (Commentary, Hermeneia), and others who think w. 20-25 have to do with the restoration of penitent sinners.

129

It is tempting, on the basis of 2:9-10; 3:2; 5:11-15; 2 Tim 3:6-7 and the reminders to Timothy that he must keep himself pure (1 Tim 5:2, 22), to see a sexual liaison between the FT and the younger widows. But the suggestion is somewhat speculative.

130

For an excellent discussion of these matters see R. E. Brown, “Episcope and Episkopos: The New Testament Evidence,” TS 41 (1980): 322-38.

131

The phrase “double honor” almost certainly means “the same honor afforded others, plus a stipend.”

132

This is one of the truly difficult phrases in the PE (cf. 5:9 of the “true” widows; Titus 1:6). There are at least four options: (1) It is required that the overseer be married. Support is found in the fact that the false teachers are forbidding marriage and that Paul urges marriage for the wayward widows (5:14; cf. 2:15). But against it is (a) it emphasizes “wife,” while the text emphasizes “one”; (b) the fact that Paul and most likely Timothy were not married; (c) it stands in contradiction to 1 Cor 7:25-38. Besides, it was a cultural presupposition that most people would be married. (2) It prohibits polygamy. This correctly emphasizes the “one wife” aspect, but polygamy was such a rare feature of pagan society that such a prohibition would function as a near irrelevancy. Moreover, it would not seem to fit the identical phrase used of the widows in 5:9. (3) It prohibits second marriages (RSV, “married only once”). Such an interpretation is supported by many of the data: (a) It would fit the widow especially; (b) all kinds of inscriptional evidence praises women (especially, although sometimes men) who were “married only once” and remained “faithful” to that marriage after one’s partner had died. (See M. Lightman and W. Ziesel, “Univera: An Example of Continuity and Change in Roman Society,” CH 46 [1977]: 19-32.) This view would then prohibit second marriages after death, but it would also obviously — perhaps especially — prohibit divorce and remarriage. Some scholars (e.g., Hanson) would make it refer only to the latter. (4) It requires marital fidelity to one wife (cf. NEB: “faithful to his one wife”; see C. H. Dodd, “New Testament Translation Problems II,” BibTr 28 [1977]: 112-16). In this view the church leader is required to live an exemplary life (marriage is assumed), faithful to his one wife in a culture where marital infidelity was common and at times assumed. It would of course also rule out polygamy and divorce and remarriage, but it would not necessarily rule out the remarriage of a widower (although that would still not be the Pauline ideal; cf. 1 Cor 7:8-9, 39-40). Although there is much to be said for either understanding of option 3, the concern that the Church’s leaders live exemplary married lives seems best to fit the context — given the apparently low view of marriage and family on the part of the false teachers (4:3).

133

Although there is a genuine concern for the care of “true” widows — i.e., those without children — the great urgency of 5:3-16 is with the younger widows who had “gone astray after Satan.”

134

See G. Fee and D. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), pp. 37-71.

135

The arguments of J. H. Hopkins, A. T. Bledsoe, T. Stringfellow, and C. B. Hodge, among others, for a biblical base for slavery are remarkably — and frighteningly — similar to those who oppose women’s ordination; see especially W. M. Swartley, Slavery, Sabbatb, War and Women (Scottdale, PA: Herald, 1983).

136

Although this is not the place to argue for it, I am equally convinced that all of the key issues in NT theology have their roots ultimately in the mission and message of Jesus (the focus on Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, who through his death and resurrection effected salvation for God’s new people, who constitute an eschatological community of disciples, living in the present by the Spirit as they await the final consummation of that salvation).

137

For an overview of this material and its significance for our subject, see Ferdinand Hahn, Mission in the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology 47 (London: SCM, 1965), pp. 26-46.

138

In Mark’s Gospel this recognition is found, for example, in his inclusion of people from “the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon,” who joined the large crowds that came to hear him (3:8); for this perspective see further 5:1-20; 6:53-56; 7:24-37, plus the quotation of Isa 56:7 that the temple shall be a house of prayer for all nations, and especially 13:10: “The gospel must first be preached to all nations.” In Luke’s Gospel, interestingly enough, even though Jesus is announced at the beginning as the one who was to be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles” (2:32), and after his resurrection he commissions his disciples to go to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8), the actual Gentile mission itself belongs more to the period of the Spirit in the church than it does to the earthly ministry of Jesus (although he does include some of the “Q” sayings material that has a Gentile perspective). Although Matthew perceives Jesus’ ministry as more strictly to Israel, he also anticipates the Gentile mission in such passages as 4:15; 8:11; 10:16; 12:18; 21:43; and 24:14. The mission of the church to the nations is made specific in the Great Commission in 28:19.

139

The narrative in John 4, the story of the grateful Samaritan (Luke 17:12-19), and the parable of the so-called Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) indicate at least an attempt on the part of Jesus to build bridges toward the Samaritans; likewise the narratives of the centurion of Capernaum (Matt 8:5-10, 13 = Luke 7:1-9) and of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30 par.) indicate a readiness to cross the boundaries on behalf of Gentiles.

140

Especially Matt 8:11-12 (= Luke 13:28-29), which is generally conceded by most scholars as authentic, and which seems to function as a prophetic judgment against Israel - with a view to the gathering of Gentiles. Hahn, Mission, 34, would also include in this category the judgment against the cities in Matt 11:21 (= Luke 10:13-15), in which greater hope is given to the cities judged by the OT prophets (Tyre and Sidon) than for the cities of Galilee. Although many would deny their authenticity, we must also include here the saying in Mark 13:10 (= Matt 24:14; the gospel to the Gentiles) and the Great Commission in Matt 28:16-20.

141

Cf. the mission instructions to the Twelve in Matt 10:6.

142

For more complete presentations of this theme in Jesus, with full argumentation and documentation, see especially Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, ET 1971), and George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future: The Escbatology of Biblical Realism, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

143

See, e.g., the nearly identical summaries at the beginning of the first two major sections of Matthew’s Gospel (4:23; 9:35); cf. Luke 8:1 (and also his addition in 4:43 to Mark 1:38: “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns also”).

144

For the argument that the original text here is “seventy-two” rather than “seventy,” see B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 150-51.

145

In the Gospel of John 3 times; Paul, 10; Acts, 8; Hebrews, 1; James, 1; the Revelation, 2.

146

It appears 49 times in Matthew, 15 in Mark, and 41 in Luke.

147

Cf. Jeremias, New Testament Tbeology, 32-34.

148

The idea goes back nearly to the beginning of Israel’s own history that God was its only king; and even when its people were given a king, he was understood to be an earthly representative of the divine kingship. Thus, God’s kingship is frequently celebrated in the Psalms, as well as presupposed in many of the prophetic oracles.

149

See especially Luke 17:20-21; cf. 19:11.

150

See Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 80-82.

151

Thus, as Luke-Acts makes clear, such prophecies of the coming of the Spirit as Joel 2:28-32 (Acts 2:16-21) and Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:16-20) were understood totally eschatologically. The “quenched Spirit” would be poured out in abundance in the great coming Day of the Lord.

152

All of these writers wrote under the assumed name of an ancient worthy (e.g., Baruch, Enoch), probably because of their conviction that this was the time of the “quenched Spirit,” who would reappear only at the end of the age, when the Spirit would once again be poured out - now “on all flesh.”

153

See esp. Mark 4:10-12. What is difficult to translate into English is the play on the term “parable” in this saying, a term that in its Hebrew and Aramaic original covers the whole range of figurative and cryptic speech. Thus Jesus tells his disciples that he speaks in “parables” (= stories that unfold the nature of the kingdom as already present in his own ministry) so that they could understand; but to those on the outside they were merely “parables” (= puzzles) and nothing more. This saying, of course, refers especially to the “parables of the kingdom,” not to the story parables, which are directed primarily toward the Pharisees. Their powerful point calls the Pharisees’ actions into question before God in light of Jesus’ own ministry.

154

Although there is some debate as to whether Jesus said that the kingdom is “within you” or “in your midst,” the decisive considerations that Jesus was speaking to Pharisees and that he nowhere else so much as hints that the kingdom of God is some spiritual entity dwelling within human hearts make it certain that he said “in your midst.” That, after all, is the point of the contrast - not with observable signs, but in his own person and ministry, which was of a kind radically different from their expectations.

155

For discussions of this matter, see Jeremias, New Testament Theology, pp. 109- 13; and the entries in TDNT on “gospel” by G. Friedrich (2:707-37) and on “tax collector” by O. Michel (8:88-106). For recent discussions see the articles by Donald E. Gowan (OT) and Bruce J. Malina (NT) in Interpretation 41 (1987): 341-67.

156

Thus he heals the only son of a widow (Luke 7:11-15) and commends another widow for her large-heartedness (Mark 12:41-44); he shows compassion on lepers by healing them (Mark 1:40-45; Luke 17:11-19); and he urges the “haves” to give away their riches to help the “have-nots” (Mark 10:21; Luke 12:33) and to invite only the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind to their banquets (Luke 14:12- 14). In his parables in particular he singles out the needy as the special recipients of God’s gracious provision (Luke 16:19-31; 14:15-24).

157

See especially the argument of Gal 3:1-18, in which Paul actually cites the covenantal promise from Gen 12:3, but in the language of Gen 18:18, so as to include “all nations” (i.e., “all the Gentiles”; 3:8).

158

See, e.g., how Isa 61:1-2 expressly picks up the language of the first of the “servant songs” in 42:7.

159

This is Luke’s actual word; because it seems to make so little sense, English translators invariably turn it into something like his “departure” (NIV) or “passing” (JB). But by using this Greek word, Luke clearly understands it to mean far more than simply death or “departure.” In his death Jesus effects the new exodus, the new salvation for the people of God.

160

Not only is Jesus conceived of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), but his entire earthly ministry is lived out by the power of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit descends on him at his baptism (3:21-22); he is led by the Spirit into the desert for the time of testing (4:1); he returns from the desert into Galilee in the power of the Spirit (4:14); and it was in the “power of the Lord” that he healed the sick (5:17). Consistent with this picture, in Peter’s speech to Cornelius’ household, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

161

See, e.g., the conclusion of the Gospel (24:45-49), where their ongoing proclamation of the good news of forgiveness for all the nations is to be accomplished by Jesus’ sending them “what the Father has promised,” namely, “power from on high.” This in turn is where the story of Acts begins — with the repeated promise of the Spirit, so that they will bear witness to the nations (Acts 1:1-11), followed by the narrative of the outpoured Spirit (2:1-41), which concludes with the promise of the Spirit for “all who are far off - for all whom the Lord our God will call” (v. 39). Note especially Acts 1:1-5, where this ministry is specifically tied to “all that Jesus began to do and to teach.”

↑ Back to top