the life of dr. robert l. thomasfour views on the book of revelation. grand rapids: zondervan, 1998....

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 3-7

3

THE LIFE OF DR. ROBERT L. THOMAS

Robert L. Thomas, Jr., M.Div. Senior Pastor Christ Church

Lake Forest, IL Robert Lewis Thomas was born on June 4, 1928 at Piedmont Hospital

in Atlanta, Georgia. He is the third of four children born to Thelma Hopkins Thomas and Frank Garret Thomas. They were of Welsh descent, and raised their children Frances, Frank, Robert, and Ruth in Decatur, Georgia while living in the same house for 22 years.

Dr. Thomas grew up enjoying all sports – particularly basketball. Neighborhood boys formed a team called the Hampton Lane Celtics, named for the alley behind their house. He was known for his speed and given the nickname “Rabbit,” which some friends and family still call him today. He attended Decatur Boys’ High School (1941-1945) and participated on the school basket-ball team, which was runner up in Georgia during his junior year.

His other interests in high school included R.O.T.C. where he served as Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel. Upon graduation from high school, Dr. Thomas enrolled in Georgia Institute of Technology where in 1949 he received his B.M.E. While in college, he became Lieutenant Colonel, Commanding Officer of the Ordnance Corps which placed him on call as an officer in the Army.

Upon completion of his college degree, Dr. Thomas moved to Chicago, Illinois where he worked at the Wilson meat packing plant while attending Moody Bible Institute evening school. In 1950, he was called into active duty in the Army and served as a First Lieutenant in Korea and in Japan.

After two years of active service, Dr. Thomas returned home and enrolled in Faith Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He taught himself Greek and did well enough on the entrance exam to be placed in a refresher course. He attended Faith Seminary from September, 1952 to January, 1953 before moving to Dallas, Texas and enrolling at Dallas Theological Seminary, where in 1956 he completed his Th.M. degree and his Th.D. degree in 1959.

Upon graduation, Dr. Thomas was hired by Talbot Theological Seminary in LaMirada, California as Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis. He was the first full-time faculty member hired by the Dean,

4 The Master’s Seminary Journal

Dr. Charles Lee Feinberg, and soon became Chairman of the New Testament Department, in which capacity he served for 28 years (1959-1987). In 1987, he became Professor of New Testament at The Master’s Seminary, where he presently teaches. Dr. Thomas also serves as the Executive Editor of The Master’s Seminary Journal (1990 – present).

As a child, he attended First Methodist Church of Decatur with his family. After moving to Chicago at age 21, he attended a Wednesday night service at Moody Memorial Church where he was exposed to the claims of the gospel and committed his life to Christ. He then attended Lorimar Conservative Baptist Church while in Chicago.

Dr. Thomas first met Joan Drain in 1950 at a Youth for Christ rally. The friendship began well, but he was soon called into active duty and Joan went away to school. Although not much communication occurred, they were not far from each other’s thoughts. In the summer of 1952, after his release from active duty, they were reunited and became engaged several months later. Dr. Thomas and Joan were married on July 17, 1953 and they headed off to Dallas Seminary.

Three of their five children were born while they were in Dallas. Barbara Louise, Robert Lewis, Jr., and Jonathan David accompanied Mom and Dad as they moved to California, soon to be joined by little brothers Mark Timothy and Michael Andrew. Since those early years, his “tribe” has increased:

1 son-in-law: Jay Erselius married to Barbara

4 daughters-in-law: Nellie Hardison Thomas married to Bob, Jr. Janet Carlson Thomas married to Jon Lynda Thomas Thomas married to Mark Carrie Thomas Thomas married to Mike

11 grandchildren: Jason, Jamie, and Jaclyn Erselius Drew, Landon, and Amy Beth Thomas Kaci and Jonathan Thomas Ryan, Melanee, and Madison Thomas

Dr. Thomas’ scholarly activities have been in research and/or pro-fessional presentations, publications, memberships and activities in professional organizations, and some conference and project work.

His memberships and activities in professional organizations have included:

Member, Society of Biblical Literature, 1961-1970.

Member, Evangelical Theological Society, 1961-present.

Member, Board of Directors, Orinoco River Mission, 1966-1971.

The Life of Dr. Robert L. Thomas 5

Member, Independent Fundamental Churches of America, 1966-present.

Chairman, Pre-ordination Committee of the Southern California Regional of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, 1968-1971; assisted in rewriting standards for ordination to the gospel ministry for this group.

Member, Board of Directors, Bible Church Mission, 1968-1982.

Secretary-treasurer, Far West Section, Evangelical Theological Society, 1969-1970.

Vice-Chairman, Far West Section, Evangelical Theological Society, 1970-1972; planned and arranged for two programs of scholarly presentations per year during this period.

Chairman, Far West Section, Evangelical Theological Society, 1972-1973; led in the formation of a new section for the Pacific Northwest, which was named the Northwest Section of the Evangelical Theological Society.

Member, National Membership Committee, Evangelical Theological Society, 1979-1982, 1984-1988.

Vice-President, President-Elect, and President of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1988-1990.

Member, Executive Committee of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1990-1994.

Several notable conferences and projects include:

1. Inerrancy Conference

Dr. Thomas was one of the participants in the conference spon-sored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in the fall of 1978. This body of evangelical scholars formulated the well-known “Chicago Statement” which serves as the standard evangelical position on the inspiration of Scripture.

2. Translation Project

Translation work began on the New American Standard Bible in 1960. Dr. Thomas was invited to join the translation team in the fall of 1961. The entire work was done in committee. This resulted in extensive interaction, both personal and written,


between scholars from a wide variety of backgrounds. With the completion of the New Testament, Dr. Thomas was one of the New Testament specialists asked to remain on the committee so as to provide continuity in the translation of the Old Testament. His background in the languages of the Old Testament was especially beneficial here. His length of service in this particular project was exceeded only by that of the chairman of the editorial board.

3. Concordance Project

The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance project was a fascinating scholarly challenge. It took James Strong thirty-five years to prepare his concordance for the King James Version of the Bible. Dr. Thomas convinced the Lockman Foundation that the same type of concordance was needed for the New American Standard Bible. As a result, the board of that foundation appointed him to head up the work. He located qualified proofreaders, computer specialists, and linguists, most of whom were part of the Talbot Seminary family, and trained them for specific tasks in this project. The whole process took only four years because of the use of the latest technology in computer hardware, software, and typesetting. The resultant volume is the only such concordance that cross-references each English word with the Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word that it represents, with the exception of Strong’s concordance and others which are geared to the King James Version. No other versions except the King James Version and, at that point, the New American Standard Bible had this type of concordance available. The New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance was awarded the Gold Medallion Book Award as the outstanding Bible reference work of 1981-82 by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association.

Most people would consider Dr. Thomas’ greatest contributions to include the translation of the NASB, the NASB Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, A Harmony of the Gospels, Understanding Spiritual Gifts, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary, 2 vols., and The Jesus Crisis. When asked what he considers to be his greatest accomplishment, he paused and then responded, “Maybe I haven’t done it yet. Maybe my greatest is yet to come.” And therein lies a glimpse into what has driven this man who has served God’s purposes in his generation; one whom God has used to build His truth into the lives of

The Life of Dr. Robert L. Thomas 7

students for the past forty years; one who has raised his family to fear and love the Lord; and one who has seen each of his children come to faith in Jesus Christ and be actively involved in the local church.

To Dr. Thomas, we say thank you for your faithful study and teaching of God’s Word. To Dad, we say thank you for the sacrifices, years of Little League coaching, carefully chosen discipline, and wonderful childhood memories. And to Grandpa, we say, “We are not done with you yet!”

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 9-18

9

THE WRITINGS OF ROBERT L. THOMAS, TH. D.: A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY 1956-1999

Dennis M. Swanson, M.L.I.S. Librarian

The Master’s Seminary

Dr. Robert L. Thomas has been involved in theological writing for over forty years. During that time, he has published in almost every conceivable venue and been extensively involved in the editorial direction of significant works in biblical studies. This bibliography breaks down his writings into their major cate-gories. The entries are listed in chronological order within each section, with the exception of the Editorial Supervision and/or Translation category. Here his work is broken down according to the level of editorial oversight which he had for each project. Additionally, Dr. Thomas has been active writing and reading papers in several scholarly societies, such as the Evangelical Theological Society. Since most of those papers have subsequently been published in other formats, only those papers as yet unpublished are listed in a separate category.

EDITORIAL SUPERVISION AND/OR TRANSLATION

Executive Editor: The Master’s Seminary Journal. Sun Valley, CA: The Master’s Seminary, 1990 to Present.

General Editor: New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman, 1981.

General Editor: The Master’s Perspective on Difficult Passages. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

General Editor: The Master’s Perspective on Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1998.

Editor: The Amplified Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965.


Editor: With Stanley N. Gundry. A Harmony of the Gospels: With Explanation and Essays. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978. Reprint, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1991.

Editor: Talbot Review: A Critique of Recent Theological Publications. La Mirada, CA: Talbot School of Theology. 1984-86.

Editor: With Stanley N. Gundry. The NIV Harmony of the Gospels. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.

Editor: With F. David Farnell. The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998.

Associate Editor: Rediscovering Expository Preaching: Balancing the Science and Art of Biblical Exposition. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1992.

Associate Editor: Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry: Shaping Contemporary Ministry with Biblical Mandates. Dallas, TX: Word Publishing, 1995.

Consulting Editor: The Open Bible edition of the New American Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978.

Old and New Testament Translator 1961-70: New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: Foundation Press, 1970.

BOOKS AND MONOGRAPHS

Understanding Spiritual Gifts. Chicago: Moody Press, 1978.

Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

With C. Marvin Pate (ed.), Kenneth L. Gentry, and Sam Hamstra Jr. Four Views on the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO MULTI-AUTHOR WORKS

“I and II Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 11, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.

The Writings of Robert L. Thomas, Th. D. 11

“Inspiration and Translation” and “The Best Bible,” in The New Testament Student and Bible Translation. The New Testament Student, 5 vols., ed. John H. Skilton. Phillipsburg, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978.

“Exegesis and Expository Preaching,” in Rediscovering Expository Preaching, John F. MacArthur and the Faculty of The Master’s Seminary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1992, 137-53.

“Bible Translations and Expository Preaching,” in Rediscovering Expository Preaching, John F. MacArthur and the Faculty of The Master’s Seminary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1992, 303-20.

With John F. MacArthur. “The Pastor’s Study,” in Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, John F. MacArthur and the Faculty of The Master’s Seminary. Dallas, TX: Word, 1995, 202-16.

“The Timing of the Millennium,” in Basic Theology: Applied, ed. Wesley and Elaine Willis, John and Janet Master. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995, 273-82.

“A Critique of Progressive Dispensational Hermeneutics,” in When the Trumpet Sounds, ed. Thomas Ice and Timothy Demy. Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995, 413-26.

“1 and 2 Thessalonians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version: 1, 2 Thessalonians; 1, 2 Timothy; Titus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996, 3-111.

“The Glorified Christ on Patmos,” in Vital Christological Issues: Examining Contemporary and Classic Concerns. Vital Issues Series, ed. Roy B. Zuck, vol 10. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.

“The Mission of Israel and of the Messiah in the Plan of God,” in Israel, the Land and the People, ed. H. Wayne House. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 261-82.

With F. David Farnell. “The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 37-84.

“Redaction Criticism,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 233-70.


“The Impact of Historical Criticism on Hermeneutics,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 317-37.

“The Impact of Historical Criticism on Theology and Apologetics,” in The Jesus Crisis, ed. Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 356-78.

“1 Corinthians 13:11 A Revisit: An Exegetical Update,” in The Master’s Perspective on Difficult Passages. The Master’s Perspective Series, ed. Robert L. Thomas, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Kregel, 1998, 209-23.

“Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” in The Master’s Perspective on Contemporary Issues. The Master’s Perspective Series, ed. Robert L. Thomas, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 77-93.

“The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in The Master’s Perspective on Contemporary Issues. The Master’s Perspective Series, ed. Robert L. Thomas, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 187-203.

“Evangelical Responses to the Jesus Seminar,” in The Master’s Perspective on Contemporary Issues. The Master’s Perspective Series, ed. Robert L. Thomas, vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998, 204-31.

EXEGETICAL DIGESTS AND SELF-PUBLISHED WORKS

The Question of Spiritual Gifts. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1973.

Exegetical Digest of the Epistle of James. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1973. Revised 1977.

Lexical and Syntactical Exegesis, Synthesis, Solutions, I Thessalonians. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1973. Revised 1978.

Exegetical Digest of First Corinthians 12-14. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1975. Revised 1988.

Exegetical Digest of the Epistle of I Peter. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1975.

Introduction to Exegesis. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1979. Revised 1981, 1987.


Exegetical Digest of the Epistle of II Thessalonians. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1979.

What’s the Difference? A Study of English Bible Translations. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1982. Revised 1988.

Exegetical Digest of I John. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1984.

Exegetical Digest of First Timothy. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1985.

Exegetical Digest of the Book of Revelation 1-3. Stanton, CA., by the author, 1985.




CONTRIBUTIONS TO REFERENCE WORKS

“Nanaea,” “Needle’s Eye,” “Neighbor,” “Net,” “Noise,” “Overlay,” “Overseer,” “Shoe, Shoe-latchet,” “Siloam, Tower of,” “Straight (street),” “Stumbling Block,” and “Syrophoenician,” in Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, 5 vols., ed. Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

“Conviction of Sin,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

“Adversary,” “Angel,” “Angels, Fallen,” “Azazel,” “Belial,” “Cherub, Cherubim,” “Demon,” “Demoniac,” “Destroyer,” “Devil,” “Host of Heaven,” “Satan,” “Seraphim,” and “Teraphim,” in Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Herbert Lockyer, Sr. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986.

“Dispensationalism, Progressive,” “Marriage Supper of the Lamb,” and “Revelation, Dating the Book of,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology, ed. Mal Couch. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996.


PERIODICAL ARTICLES

“Computerized Research in New Testament Studies,” Biola University’s Faculty Forum, n.d.

“The ‘Comings’ of Christ in Revelation Two and Three,” Talbot Bulletin 7:4 (July-Sept 1959): 3-4, 6.

“A Philosophy of Translation and the New English Bible,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 5:3 (Summer 1962): 80-89.

“The Glorified Christ on Patmos,” Bibliotheca Sacra 122:487 (July 1965): 241-47.

“John’s Apocalyptic Outline,” Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (October 1966): 334-41.

“The Chronological Interpretation of Revelation 2-3,” Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October 1967): 321-31.

“The Imprecatory Prayers of the Apocalypse,” Bibliotheca Sacra 126:502 (April 1969): 123-31.

“Was Paul a Legalist?” Talbot Bulletin 17:4 (Fall 1969): 10-11.

“A Crack in the Dam,” Talbot Bulletin 20:1 (Winter 1971): 9-11.

“Tongues . . . Will Cease,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 17:2 (Spring 1974): 81-89.

“Inspiration and Translation,” Talbot Bulletin 22:4 (Fall 1974): 6-8.

“The Best Bible,” Talbot Bulletin 24:1 (Winter 1975): 3-4.

“An Investigation of the Agreements between Matthew and Luke Against Mark,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19:2 (Spring 1976): 103-12.

“New Testament Interpretation,” Talbot Bulletin 27:4 (Summer 1979): 4-7.

“A Hermeneutical Ambiguity of Eschatology: The Analogy of Faith,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23:1 (March 1980): 45-53.


“The Rich Young Ruler in Matthew,” Grace Theological Journal 3:2 (Fall 1982): 242-60.

“Issues of Biblical Interpretation,” Southern California Law Review 58 (January 1985): 29-34.

“Another View [of Redaction Criticism: Is It Worth the Risk?],” Christianity Today 29:15 (Oct 1985): 8-I

“The Hermeneutics of Evangelical Redaction Criticism,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (June 1989): 447-59.

“The King James Controversy,” Masterpiece 3:1 (Jan-Feb 1990): 16-19.

“Bible Translations: The Link between Exegesis and Expository Preaching,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring 1990): 53-74.

“Dynamic Equivalence: A Method of Translation or a System of Hermeneutics?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 1:2 (Fall 1990): 149-76.

“Literary Genre and Hermeneutics of the Apocalypse,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 2:1 (Spring 1991): 79-98.

“Improving Evangelical Ethics: An Analysis of the Problem and a Proposed Solution,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34:1 (March 1991): 1-19.

“Did the Jesus Seminar Draw from Faulty Assumptions,” Los Angeles Times (April 6, 1991): F18-F19.

“The Relationship between Exegesis and Expository Preaching,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 2:2 (Fall 1991): 181-98.

“Prophecy Rediscovered? A Review of The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149:596 (January 1992): 84-97.

“The Kingdom of Christ in the Apocalypse,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992): 117-40.

“The Structure of the Apocalypse: Recapitulation or Progression?” The Master’s Seminary Journal 4:1 (Spring 1993): 45-66.


“1 Corinthians 13:1 Revisited, an Exegetical Update,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 4:2 (Fall 1993): 187-202.

“An Analysis of the Seventh Bowl of the Apocalypse,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5:1 (Spring 1994): 73-96.

“Theonomy and the Dating of Revelation,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 5:2 (Fall 1994): 185-202.

“The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 6:1 (Spring 1995): 79-98.

“Evangelical Responses to the Jesus Seminar,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7:1 (Spring 1996): 75-106.

“Current Hermeneutical Trends: Toward Explanation or Obfuscation,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:2 (June 1996): 242-56.

“The ‘Comings’ of Christ in Revelation 2-3,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 7:2 (Fall 1996): 153-81.

“Correlation of Revelatory Spiritual Gifts and NT Canonicity,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8:1 (Spring 1997): 5-28.

“The Mission of Israel and of the Messiah in the Plan of God,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 8:2 (Fall 1997): 191-210.

“General Revelation and Biblical Hermeneutics,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9:1 (Spring 1998): 4-23.

“Jesus’ View of Eternal Punishment,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 9:2 (Fall 1998): 147-67.

UNPUBLISHED THESES, DISSERTATIONS, AND SOCIETY PAPERS

“The Dispensational Interpretation of John 1:19-12:50.” Th. M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1956.

“The Argument of the Book of Revelation.” Th. D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 1959.


“The Apocalypse in the Early Church.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Chicago, IL, December 1984.

“The Hermeneutical Ramifications of Contextualization and Feminist Literature.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Atlanta, GA, December 1986.

“The Self-Concept of a Christian Disciple.” Paper presented at the annual meet-ing of the Far-West Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, San Bernardino, CA, April 1988.

“A Review of Kenneth Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pre-Tribulation Study Group, Dallas, TX, December 1995.

“The Great Commission in the Ancient Church and in Historical Criticism.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Orlando, FL, November 1998.

BOOK REVIEWS

Review of A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, by Ernest Best. Christianity Today 18:4 (Nov. 23, 1973): 51-52.

Review of The Origin of Paul’s Gospel, by Seyoon Kim. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26:4 (December 1983): 502-05.

Review of The New Testament Canon, Its Making and Meaning, by Harry Y. Gamble. Talbot Review 2:1 (Summer 1986): 8-9.

Review of Biblical Interpretation and the Church, The Problem of Contextualization, D. A. Carson, ed. Talbot Review 2:1 (Summer 1986): 10-11.

Review of The Discovery Bible New Testament, by Gary Hill. The Master’s Seminary Journal 1:1 (Spring 1990): 85-86.

Review of Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version. The Master’s Seminary Journal 2:1 (Spring 1991): 111-14.


Review of Biblical Interpretation, An Integrated Approach, by W. Randolph Tate. The Master’s Seminary Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992): 235-36.

Review of Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight, eds., and I. Howard Marshall, consulting ed. The Master’s Seminary Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992): 222-25.

Review of Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke, A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, by John Wenham. The Master’s Seminary Journal 3:2 (Fall 1992): 237-38.

Review of Is There a Synoptic Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels, by Eta Linnemann. The Master’s Seminary Journal 4:1 (Spring 1993): 111-12.

Review of The Gnostic Empire Strikes Back, an Old Heresy for the New Age, by Peter Jones. The Master’s Seminary Journal 5:2 (Fall 1994): 217-18.

Review of New Age Versions, by G. A. Riplinger. The Master’s Seminary Journal 5:2 (Fall 1994): 228-31.

PENDING PUBLICATIONS

Understanding Spiritual Gifts (rev. ed.). Grand Rapids: Kregel. Scheduled for 1999 release.

Choosing a Bible Translation. Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus. Scheduled for 1999 release.

Chart Book on the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. Scheduled for 1999 release.

Second Corinthians in the Mentor Commentary Series. Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus. Release date not currently set.

Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids: Kregel. Release date not currently set.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 19-39

19

VISIONS OF THE GLORIOUS CHRIST

John F. MacArthur, D.D., Litt.D. President


Arguably, the two greatest biblical portraits of the Lord Jesus Christ both appear in the apocalyptic gallery of John’s Revelation. They introduce a magnificent study in contrast. The first (1:9-20) casts the Savior as the comforting Lord of the church bringing encouragement to John and timely reminders to the churches during troubling times. The second masterpiece (19:11-16) pictures the King of kings as Lord of the earth coming to forcefully and permanently reclaim His kingdom from unbelieving rebels. These two scenes do not present an either/or approach to understanding the real Jesus; rather, they reveal the both/and person of Christ. The former still comforts the church today, while the latter terrifying moments still await fulfillment in the future.

* * * * *

One of Dr. Thomas’ noblest efforts to date has been to write a definitive and comprehensive two-volume commentary on Revelation.1 Reflecting years of exegetical labor, he painstakingly made his way through the text with apt consideration for all the issues of interpretation as concisely and thoroughly as any commentator on Revelation. This extensive work shows his love for the Apocalypse and the glory of Christ. Dr. Thomas also directed much of his effort toward pursuing the truth about the Lord Jesus Christ against liberal attacks on His deity. This essay is a tribute to his love for Revelation and for the truth regarding the Lord Jesus.

The Apocalypse of John presents the glory of Christ with the most dramatic and powerful imagery. Two visions of Christ dominate Revelation—one at the start and one near the end. Both are terrifying visions, yet in the first all fear is dispelled; while in the second, the fear is undiminished. They show the same glorious Christ in relation to His church and in relation to His enemies. One

1 Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1992) and

Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1995).


is a vision of encouragement, the other a vision of sheer terror. Together, they present the undiminished glory of the divine Son of God.

By the close of the first century, Christianity had become a hated and despised religious sect in the Roman Empire. Writing to Emperor Trajan early in the second century, Pliny the Roman governor of Bithynia scorned Christianity as a “depraved and excessive superstition.”2 He went on to complain that “the contagion of this superstition [Christianity] has spread not only in the cities, but in the villages and rural districts as well.”3 The Roman historian Tacitus, a contemporary of Pliny, described Christians as “a class hated for their abominations,”4 while Suetonius, another contemporary of Pliny, dismissed them as “a sect of men adhering to a novel and mischievous superstition.”5

Apart from the natural hostility of fallen men toward those who em-braced the gospel, Christians were hated for several more reasons. Politically, the Romans viewed them as disloyal because they refused to acknowledge Caesar as the supreme authority. That disloyalty was confirmed in the eyes of the Roman officials by the Christians’ refusal to offer the obligatory sacrifices of worship to the emperor. Also, many of their meetings were held privately at night, causing the Roman officials to accuse them of designing anti-government plots.

Religiously, Christians were denounced as atheists because they rejected the Roman pantheon of gods, and because they worshiped an invisible God, not an idol. Wild rumors, based on misunderstandings of Christian beliefs and prac-tices, falsely accused them of cannibalism, incest, and other sexual perversions.

Socially, Christians were generally from the lower classes of society (cf. 1 Cor 1:26) and thus despised by the Roman aristocracy. The Christian teaching that all are equal (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11), the Romans saw as a threat to undermine the hierarchical structure of Roman society and topple the elite from their privileged status. It also heightened the Roman aristocracy’s fear of a slave rebel-lion. Christians did not openly oppose slavery, but the perception was that they undermined it by teaching that master and slave were equal in Christ (cf. Philemon). Finally, Christians declined to participate in the worldly amusements that were so much a part of pagan society, e.g. avoiding festivals, the theater, and other pagan events.

Economically, Christians were seen as a threat by the numerous priests, craftsmen, and merchants who profited from idol worship. The resulting hostility, unforgettably seen in the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19:23ff.), deepened as Christianity became more widespread. In his letter to Emperor Trajan cited above, Pliny

2 Pliny, Letters II, Loeb Classical Library, 405. 3 Ibid. 4 Tacitus, The Annals XIII-XVI, Loeb Classical Library, 283. 5 Suetonius, Book II, Loeb Classical Library, 111.

Visions of the Glorious Christ 21

complained that the pagan temples had been deserted and that those who sold sacrificial animals found few buyers.6

In that superstitious age, many Romans feared that natural disasters resulted from the neglect of the pagan gods. The third-century Christian apologist Tertullian remarked sarcastically, “If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky doesn’t move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, the cry is at once, ‘Christians to the lion!’ What, all of them to one lion?”7

During the first few decades after the death of Christ, the Roman government considered Christianity merely a sect of Judaism (cf. Acts 18:12-16). Eventually, it was the hostility which the Jews displayed against the Christians that led the Romans to recognize Christianity as a religion distinct from Judaism. That identified Christians as worshipers of an illegal religion because Judaism was a religio licita or legal religion. Yet, there was no official persecution by the Roman authorities until the time of Nero. Seeking to divert public suspicion that he had caused the great fire in Rome (July 19, A.D. 64), Nero blamed the Christians for it. As a result, many Christians were executed at Rome (including both Peter and Paul, according to tradition), but there was as yet no Empire-wide persecution.

Three decades later, Emperor Domitian instigated an official perse-cution of Christians. Little is known of the details, but it extended to the province of Asia (modern Turkey). The Apostle John had been banished to the island of Patmos, and at least one person, a pastor, had already been martyred (Rev 2:13). The persecuted, beleaguered, and discouraged believers in Asia Minor, to whom John addressed the book of Revelation, desperately needed encouragement. It had been years since Jesus ascended, Jerusalem had been destroyed, and Israel ravaged. The church was losing its first love, compromising, tolerating sin, becoming powerless, and distasteful to the Lord Himself as described in Rev 2-3. The other Apostles were dead and John had been exiled. The whole picture looked very bleak; so that is why the first vision John received from the inspiring Holy Spirit is of Christ’s present ministry in the church.

John’s readers took comfort in the knowledge that Christ would one day return in glory and defeat His enemies. The description of those momentous events takes up most of the book of Revelation. However, the vision of Jesus Christ that begins the book does not describe Jesus in His future glory, but rather depicts Him in the present as the glorified Lord of the church. In spite of all the disappointments, the Lord had not abandoned His church nor His promises. This

6 Pliny, Letters II, 405. 7 Tertullian, Apology, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 47.


powerful vision of Christ’s present ministry must have provided great hope and comfort to the wondering and suffering churches to whom John wrote.

CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH – A VISION OF COMFORT

I, John, your brother and fellow-partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos, because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.” And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands; and in the middle of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed in a robe reaching to the feet, and girded across His breast with a golden girdle. And His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire; and His feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been caused to glow in a furnace, and His voice was like the sound of many waters. And in His right hand He held seven stars; and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength. And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades. “Write therefore the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall take place after these things. “As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev 1:9-20).

The Setting of the Vision (1:9-11) John humbly identified with his readers by describing himself as their

fellow partaker, sharing with them first of all in tribulation. Like them, John was at that moment suffering severe persecution for the cause of Christ, having been exiled with other criminals. He could thus identify with the suffering believers to whom he wrote. John was part of the same kingdom as his readers— in the sphere of salvation, the redeemed community over which Jesus reigns as Lord and King (cf. v. 5). He shared a kinship with them as a fellow subject of Jesus Christ. Finally, John identified with his readers in the matter of perseverance (ßB@:@<Z, hupomon ), which literally means “to remain under.” It speaks of patiently enduring difficulties without giving up.


When he received this vision, John was in exile on the island called Patmos. A barren, volcanic island in the Aegean Sea, Patmos is at its extremities about ten miles long and five to six miles wide and located some forty miles offshore from Miletus (a city in Asia Minor about thirty miles south of Ephesus, cf. Acts 20:15-17). According to the Roman historian Tacitus, exile to such islands was a common form of punishment in the first century. At about the same time that John was banished to Patmos, Emperor Domitian exiled his own niece, Flavia Domitilla, to another island.8 Unlike Flavia Domitilla, whose banishment was politically motivated, John was probably sent to Patmos as a criminal, i.e. as a Christian, he was a member of an illegal religious sect. If so, the conditions under which he lived would have been harsh. Exhausting labor under the watch-ful eye and ready whip of a Roman overseer, insufficient food and clothing, and having to sleep on the bare ground would have taken their toll on a ninety-year-old man. It was on that bleak, barren island, under those brutal conditions, that John received the most extensive revelation of the future ever given.

John’s only crime was faithfulness to “the word of God” and “the testi-mony of Jesus.” Those two phrases appear to be synonymous references to his faithful, unequivocal, uncompromising preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

John received his vision while he was in the Spirit; his experience transcended the bounds of normal human comprehension. Under the Holy Spirit’s control, John was transported to a plane of experience and perception beyond that of the human senses. In that state, God supernaturally revealed Revelation to him. Ezekiel (Ezek 2:2; 3:12, 14), Peter (Acts 10:9ff.), and Paul (Acts 22:17-21; 2 Cor 12:1ff.) had similar experiences. John received his vision on the Lord's day. While some argue that this refers to the time of eschatological judgment called the Day of the Lord, it is best understood as a reference to Sunday. The Greek phrase translated the Lord’s Day, J± 6LD4"6± º:XD", (t kuriak h mera) is different from the one translated “the Day of the Lord” (cf. Acts 2:20; 1 Thess 5:2; 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 3:10) and appears only here in the New Testament. Further, the vision John received had nothing to do with the eschatological Day of the Lord; it was a vision of Christ’s present ministry in the church. Finally, in the second century this phrase was widely used to refer to Sunday.9 “The Lord’s Day” became the customary way of referring to Sunday because Christ’s resurrection took place on a Sunday.

John received his commission to record the vision in dramatic fashion. The loud voice (cf. Ezek 3:12) was that of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. vv. 12-13, 17-18), sounding to John in its piercing, commanding clarity like the sound of a trumpet. Throughout the book of Revelation, a loud voice or sound indicates the

8 F. F. Bruce, New Testament History (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Galilee, 1980) 413. 9 R. J. Bauckham, “The Lord’s Day” in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, D. A. Carson, ed. (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1982) 221f.


solemnity of what is about to be revealed (cf. 5:2, 12; 6:10; 7:2, 10; 8:13; 10:3; 11:12, 15; 12:10; 14:2, 15, 18; 16:1, 17; 19:1, 17; 21:3). The scene is reminiscent of the giving of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19:16).

The sovereign, powerful voice from heaven commanded John, “Write in a book (or scroll) what you see.” This is the first of twelve commands in the book of Revelation for John to write what he saw (cf. v. 19; 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5); only on one occasion was he forbidden to write (10:4).

After writing the vision, John was to send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea. These churches were chosen because they were located in the key cities of the seven postal districts into which the Roman province of (modern Turkey) Asia was divided. They were thus the central points for disseminating information. The seven cities appear in the order that a messenger, traveling on the circular road that linked them, would visit them. After landing at Miletus, the messenger or messengers bearing the book of Revelation would have traveled north to Ephesus (the city nearest to Miletus), then in a clockwise circle to Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Copies of Revelation would have been distributed to each church.

The Unfolding of the Vision (1:12-16, 20) Having described the circumstances in which he received it, John then

recorded the vision itself. This revealing and richly instructive look at the present work of the glorified Son of God discloses seven aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ’s constant ministry to those who belong to Him in His church: He empowers, intercedes for, purifies, speaks authoritatively to, controls, protects, and reflects His glory through His church.

Christ Empowers His Church (1:13a, 20a) At the outset of the vision, John had his back to the voice, so he turned

to see the voice that was speaking with him. As he did so, he first saw seven golden lampstands, identified in verse 20 as the seven churches. These were like the common portable oil lamps placed on lampstands that were used to light rooms at night. They symbolize churches as the lights of the world (Phil 2:15). They are golden because gold was the most precious metal. The church is to God the most beautiful and valuable entity on earth—so valuable that Jesus was willing to purchase it with His own blood (Acts 20:28). Since seven is the number of completeness (cf. Exod 25:31-40; Zech 4:2), these seven churches may symbolize churches in general.

In the middle of the lampstands, John saw one like a son of man (cf. Dan 7:13)—the glorified Lord of the church moving among His churches. Jesus promised His continued presence with His church, “I am with you always, even


to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20). Matthew 18:20 promises Christ’s presence during the difficult work of confronting sin in the church. On the night before His death, Jesus promised His disciples, “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you . . . . If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him” (John 14:18, 23). Hebrews 13:5 records His promise, “I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.”

The living Christ indwells His church to empower it. Believers personally and collectively have the inestimable privilege of drawing on that power through continual communion with Him. Paul wrote of the Lord’s Supper, “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16). The presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in His church empowers it, enabling believers to say triumphantly with the apostle Paul, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13).

Christ Intercedes for His Church (1:13b) The first thing John noted was that Christ was clothed in a robe reaching

to the feet (cf. Isa 6:1). Such robes were worn by royalty (e.g., the kings of Midian, Judg 8:26; Jonathan, 1 Sam 18:4; Saul, 1 Sam 24:4; Ahab and Jehoshaphat, 1 Kgs 22:10; and Esther, Esth 5:1) and prophets (1 Sam. 28:14). But the word translated robe was used most frequently (six of its seven occurrences) in the Septuagint to describe the robe worn by the High-Priest. While Christ is biblically presented as prophet and king, and His majesty and dignity emphasized, the robe here pictures Christ in His role as the great High-Priest of His people (cf. Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 7:24-25; 9:11-12). That He was girded across His chest with a golden sash reinforces that interpretation, since the High-Priest in the Old Testament wore such a sash (cf. Exod 28:4; Lev 16:4).

As High-Priest, Christ offered once-for-all the perfect and complete sacrifice for sins, and now permanently, faithfully intercedes for His own (Rom 8:33-34). The knowledge that their High-Priest was moving sympathetically in their midst to care for and protect His own must have provided great comfort and hope to the struggling and persecuted churches.

Christ Purifies His Church (1:14-15a) Having described Christ’s clothing in verse 13, John described His

person in verses 14 and 15. The first few features depict Christ’s work of chastening and purifying His church.

The New Testament clearly sets forth the holy standard that Christ has established for His church. “Therefore you are to be perfect,” Jesus commanded, “as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Paul wrote, “I betrothed you to


one husband, that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin” (2 Cor 11:2). He reminded the Ephesians that “Christ . . . loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless” (Eph 5:25-27). Paul explained that Christ “has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach” (Col 1:22). Peter reminds believers that God expects them to “like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet 1:15-16).

To maintain that divine standard, Christ will discipline His church (Matt 18:15-21; John 15:2; Heb 12:5ff.)—even to the point of taking the lives of some impenitent, sinning Christians (Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor 11:28-30). Even Peter, who well understood the power of temptation, warned, “It is time for judgment to begin with the household of God” (1 Pet 4:17).

John’s description of Christ’s head and hair as white like white wool, like snow, is an obvious reference to Daniel 7:9, where similar language describes the Ancient of Days (God the Father). The parallel descriptions affirm Christ’s deity; He possesses the same attribute of holy knowledge and wisdom as the Father. “White” translates 8,L6`l, leukos, which has the connotation of “bright,” “blazing,” or “brilliant.” It symbolizes Christ’s eternal, glorious, holy truthfulness.

Continuing his description of the glorified Christ, John noted that His eyes were like a flame of fire (cf. 2:18; 19:12). His searching, revealing, infallible gaze penetrates to the very depths of His church, revealing to Him with piercing clarity the reality of everything there is to know. Jesus declared, “There is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known” (Matt 10:26). In the words of Hebrews, “There is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13). The omniscient Lord of the church will not fail to recognize and deal with sin in His church.

That Christ’s feet were like burnished bronze, when it has been made to glow in a furnace continues the obvious sequence by making a clear reference to judgment on sinners in the church. Kings in ancient times sat on elevated thrones, so that those being judged would always be beneath the king’s feet. The feet of a king thus came to symbolize his authority. The red-hot, glowing feet of the Lord Jesus Christ picture Him moving through His church to exercise His chastening authority, ready to deal out remedial pain (if need be) to sinning Christians.


Christ Speaks Authoritatively to His Church (1:15b) When Christ spoke again, it was no longer with the trumpet-like sound

of verse 10. To John, His voice was like the sound of many waters (cf. 14:2; 19:6), like the familiar mighty roar of the surf crashing on the rocky shores of Patmos in a storm. The voice of the eternal God was similarly described in Ezekiel 43:2−yet another parallel affirming Christ’s deity. This is the voice of sovereign power, the voice of supreme authority, the very voice that will one day command the dead to come forth from the graves (John 5:28-29).

When Christ speaks, the church must listen. At the transfiguration God said, “This is My beloved Son…listen to Him!” (Matt 17:5). “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,” wrote the author of Hebrews, “in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb 1:1-2). Christ speaks to His church directly through the Holy Spirit-inspired Scriptures.

Christ Controls His Church (1:16a, 20b) As the head of His church (Eph 4:15; 5:23; Col 1:18), and the ruler of

the “kingdom of [God’s] beloved Son” (Col 1:13), Christ exercises authority in His church. In John’s vision, Christ is holding in His right hand the seven stars (cf. 2:1; 3:1), identified in verse 20 as the angels of the seven churches, thus symbolizing those authorities. That He held them in His right hand likely does not picture safety and protection, but control. The common New Testament word for “angels” is –((,8@4, angeloi, leading some interpreters reasonably to conclude that angels are in view in this passage. But the New Testament nowhere teaches that angels are involved in the leadership of the church. Angels do not sin and thus have no need to repent as the messengers, along with the congregations they represented, are exhorted to do (cf. 2:4-5, 14, 20; 3:1-3, 15, 17, 19). Dr. Thomas notes a further difficulty with this view: “It presumes that Christ is sending a message to heavenly beings through John, an earthly agent, so that it may reach earthly churches through angelic representatives.”10 Therefore, angeloi is better rendered “messengers,” as in Luke 7:24, 9:52, and James 2:25. Some suggest that these messengers were representatives from each of the seven churches who came to visit John on Patmos and take the book of Revelation back with them. But since Christ is said to hold them in His right hand, they were more likely representative leading elders and pastors (though not the sole leaders, since the New Testament teaches a plurality of elders), one from each of the seven churches.

These seven men demonstrate the function of spiritual leaders in the church. They are to be instruments through which Christ, the head of the church,

10 Thomas, Revelation 1-7, 117.


mediates His rule. That is why the standards for leadership in the New Testament are so high. To be assigned as an intermediary through which the Lord Jesus Christ controls His church is a call to a sobering responsibility (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9 for the qualifications for such men).

Christ Protects His Church (1:16b) The Lord Jesus Christ’s presence also provides protection for His

church. The sharp two-edged sword that came out of His mouth is used to defend the church against external threats (cf. 19:15, 21). But here it speaks primarily of judgment against enemies from within the church (cf. 2:12, 16; Acts 20:30). Those who attack Christ’s church, those who would sow lies, who create discord, or otherwise harm His people, will be personally dealt with by the Lord of the church. His word is potent (cf. Heb 4:12-13), and will be used against the enemies of His people (cf. 2 Thess 2:8), so that all the power of the forces of darkness, including death itself (the “gates of Hades”; Matt 16:18) will be unable to prevent the Lord Jesus Christ from building His church.

Christ Reflects His Glory Through His Church (1:16c) John’s vision of the glorified Lord of the church culminated in this

description of the radiant glory evident on His face, which John could only describe as like the sun shining in its strength. John borrowed that phrase from Judges 5:31, where it describes those who love the Lord (cf. Matt 13:43). The glory of God through the Lord Jesus Christ shines in and through His church, reflecting His glory to the world (cf. 2 Cor 4:6). And the result is that He is glorified (Eph 3:21).

The Effects of the Vision (1:17-19) The overwhelming vision John witnessed dramatically altered him.

Initially, his response was devastating fear, which the Lord removed by assurance and then by giving John a sense of duty.

Fear (1:17a) In a manner similar to his experience with the glory of Jesus on the

Mount of Transfiguration more than six decades earlier (cf. Matt 17:6), John was again overwhelmed with terror at the manifestation of Christ’s glory and fell at His feet like a dead man. Such fear was standard for those few who experienced such unusual heavenly visions (cf. Judg 13:22; Isa 6:5; Ezek 1:28; 3:23; 9:8; 43:3; 44:4; Dan 10:8-9).


Assurance (1:17b-18) As He had done so long ago at the Transfiguration (Matt 17:7), Jesus

placed His right hand on John and comforted him with a touch of reassurance. Jesus’ comforting words “Do not be afraid,” (lit. “Stop being afraid”) reveal His compassion for the terrified apostle. Similar words of comfort are God’s response throughout Scripture to His own who are overwhelmed by His majestic presence (e.g., Gen 15:1; 26:24; Judg 6:23; Matt 14:27; 17:7; 28:10).

The comfort and assurance Jesus offered was based on who He is and the authority He possesses.

Jesus identified Himself as the first and the last (cf. 2:8; 22:13), a title used of God in the Old Testament (Isa 44:6; 48:12; cf. 41:4). When all false gods have come and gone, only He remains. He existed before them, and will continue to exist eternally, long after they have been forgotten. Jesus’ application of that title to Himself is another powerful claim to deity.

The second title of deity Jesus claimed is that of the living One (cf. John 1:4; 14:6). That also is a title used throughout Scripture to describe God (e.g., Josh 3:10; 1 Sam 17:26; Ps 84:2; Hos 1:10; Matt 16:16; 26:63; Acts 14:15; Rom 9:26; 2 Cor 3:3; 6:16; 1 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 3:15; 4:10; Heb 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; Rev 7:2). God is the eternal, uncaused, self-existent One. In John 5:26 Jesus said to His Jewish opponents, “Just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself,” thus claiming full equality with God the Father.

The One whose presence struck fear into John’s heart, the first and the last, the living One, the One whose death freed him from his sins (Rev 1:5), is the very One who comforted and reassured John. In the words of the apostle Paul, “What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom 8:31).

Christ’s seemingly paradoxical declaration, “I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore,” provides further grounds for assurance. The Greek text literally reads, “I became dead.” The living One, the eternal, self-existent God who could never die, became man and died. As Peter explains, Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit” (1 Pet 3:18). In His humanness He died, without ceasing to live as God.

Christ lives forever in a union of glorified humanity and deity, “according to the power of an indestructible life” (Heb 7:16). “Christ, having been raised from the dead,” wrote Paul “is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him” (Rom 6:9). That truth provides comfort and assurance, because Jesus “is able to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (Heb 7:25). In spite of his sinfulness in the presence of the glorious Lord of heaven, John had nothing to fear because that same Lord had paid by His death the penalty for John’s sins (and those of all who believe in Him) and risen to be his eternal advocate.


As the first and the last, the living One, Jesus holds the keys of death and of Hades. Those terms are essentially synonymous, with death being the condition and Hades the place. “Hades” is the New Testament equivalent of the Old Testament term Sheol and refers to the place of the dead. “Keys” denote access and authority. Jesus Christ has the authority to decide death and life for everyone. And John, like all the redeemed, had nothing to fear, since Christ had already delivered him from death and Hades by His own death.

Knowing that Christ has authority over death provides strong confi-dence, since believers need no longer fear it. Jesus declared, “I am the resurrec-tion and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies…because I live, you will live also” (John 11:25; 14:19). Jesus conquered Satan and took the keys of death away from him: “through death [Christ rendered] powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives” (Heb 2:14-15). The knowledge that Christ “loves us, and released us from our sins by His blood” (Rev 1:5) provides the assurance of eternal life that is the balance to the reverential fear that His glory and majesty evoke.

Duty (1:19) The astounding vision John saw inspired in him a healthy tension

between fear and assurance. But to that was added a reminder of his duty. Christ’s earlier command to write (v. 11) was expanded, as John is told to record three features. First, the things which you have seen, the vision John had just seen and recorded in verses 10-16. Next, the things which are, a reference to the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3 which describe the present state of the church. Finally, John was to write the things which will take place after these things, the prophetic revelations of future events unfolded in the remainder of Revelation (Rev 6-22).

CHRIST AND THE UNGODLY – A VISION OF TERROR

“I saw heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and He who sat upon it is called Faithful and True; and in righteousness He judges and wages war. And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself. And He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called the Word of God. And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses. And from His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may smite the nations; and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the winepress of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty. And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.” (19:11-16)


From that glorious vision of the Lord Jesus Christ in which all fear is dispelled by the One who died and rose from the dead for the forgiveness of the sins of His beloved saints, we move to the vision in which the glories of the Lord also are frighteningly vivid, but in which there is unrelenting and unmitigated terror unrelieved on those who reject the gospel. These verses may be divided into four parts: 1) the return of the Conqueror; 2) the regiments of the Conqueror; 3) the rule of the Conqueror; and 4) the royalty of the Conqueror.

Background for this passage is found in Isaiah 11. As the chapter begins, the prophet writes that a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse. This refers to the Messiah coming from the line of Jesse through David, Jesse's son. “A branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, and the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD and He will delight in the fear of the LORD, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear” (vv. 1-3). In other words, He will make no superficial judgments. “But with righteousness He will judge the poor, and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with a rod of His mouth and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. And righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist” (vv. 4-5). There is the promise of the Messiah and of His reign.

Isaiah 63 also provides background to this vision. “Who is this who comes from Edom, with garments of glowing colors from Bozrah, this One who is majestic in His apparel, marching in the greatness of His strength?” (v. 1). This, too, is a messianic portion of Isaiah's prophecy. “It is I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save” (v. 1). The mighty saving one is coming in garments of brilliant colors, (Heb. “crimson colors,” red as the color of blood). Verse 2 says, “Why is Your apparel red, and Your garments like the one who treads in the winepress?” The answer comes: “I have trodden the wine trough alone, and from the peoples there was no man with Me. I also trod them in My anger and trampled them in My wrath; and their lifeblood is sprinkled on My garments, and I stained all My raiment. For the day of vengeance was in My heart, and My year of redemption has come. And I looked, and there was no one to help, and I was astonished and there was no one to uphold; so My own arm brought salvation to Me; and My wrath upheld Me. And I trod down the peoples in My anger, and made them drunk in My wrath, and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth” (vv. 3-6). The blood-splattered Messiah comes and by Himself tramples people under His wrath. Both Isaiah 11 and 63 provide parallels to the vision of Revelation 19.

The glorious vision of Christ in His return has already been anticipated in Revelation 14:14 where John “looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head, and a sharp sickle in His hand.” Then using the analogy of grapes being harvested


and crushed in a winepress, John recorded that an angel took another sharp sickle and was told to put it in and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth because the grapes were ripe (vv. 17-18). They were then to be thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God and the winepress was trodden outside the city and the blood came out from the winepress up to the horses' bridles for a distance of two hundred miles (v. 20). Here is another devastating scene where blood is splattering up as high as the height of a horse, as the Messiah Himself executes the wrath of God with His angelic cohort.

Revelation 16 presents another vision of Christ’s return. “I am coming like a thief” (v. 15). And when He comes, verse 16 adds that they gather them together to a battlefield which, in Hebrew, is called Armageddon.

So the vision in 19:11-16 has been anticipated both by Isaiah and by John in this very book.

The Return of the Conqueror (19:11-13) Again, heaven was opened (cf. 4:1) so that John could receive this

glorious vision of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is obviously coming in fiery, flaming vengeance, with a sword of judgment, wearing blood-splattered garments. This is the fulfillment of the promise of Jesus Himself, “For just as the lightning comes from the east, and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (Matt 24:27-28). It will be a time of unequalled destruction and carnage immediately after the Tribulation. The sun will be darkened; the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky; and the powers of the heavens will be shaken (Matt 24:29). In other words, the whole universe goes pitch black. “And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other” (vv. 30-31). That is the same event being described in Revelation 19.

Jesus, the One who ascended to heaven (Acts 1:8-11), the One who has been seated at the Father's right hand (Heb 1:3), is seen returning. He is coming to receive the kingdom which the Father had promised to Him, the kingdom to which He was entitled. Revelation 5 recorded that the Father was seated on the throne in heaven and His hand held a book which was the title deed to the universe. No one in heaven or on earth, or under the earth was able to open the book or look into it. No one had the worthiness or the right to take possession of the universe. No one had the authority to open this sealed scroll and take possession. And so John recorded: “I began to weep greatly, because no one was found worthy to open the book, or to look into it” (5:4).

Then one of the elders said to John, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the root of David, has overcome so as to open the


book and its seven seals” (5:5). And John saw between the throne with the four living creatures and the elders, a Lamb standing as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes which are the seven spirits of God sent out unto all the earth (5:6).

“And He came, and He took it out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne” (5:7). The Lamb, the Messiah, having the privilege and the right to take the title deed out of the hand of God, did so. And everyone sang a new song, “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. And Thou has made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth” (5:9-10).

He had the right to take possession of the world and to establish His Kingdom. And so the One who is pictured on the edge of heaven is about to come and does so. A wonderful anticipatory prayer for this event comes from Isaiah, “O that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at Thy presence – as fire kindles the brushwood, as fire causes water to boil – to make Thy name known to Thy adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Thy presence!” (64:1-2).

John sees Jesus no longer as a Lamb, no longer as He was portrayed in Zechariah 9:9, coming in humiliation, riding on the colt, the foal of an ass. But, in this case, he sees Him as the conqueror. Now white is not only the color of war chargers in the ancient Roman world, but it is the symbol of purity, of unblemished holy power. In contrast to the humble foal of a donkey which Jesus rode into the city of Jerusalem in His first “triumphal entry,” He will come as the conqueror, the warrior King, to destroy the wicked, to overthrow the Antichrist, to bind Satan, to take control of the earth and the universe, and to establish Himself as KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. The horses are symbolic. The sword out of His mouth is symbolic. The rod of iron is symbolic. The crowns are symbolic—all portraying the reality of His return.

As a point of comparison, it should be noted that there is nothing in this scenario that matches descriptions of the Rapture of the church as portrayed elsewhere in two New Testament passages. One is John 14:1-3 and the other is in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Jesus said He would prepare a place for the disciples and “I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:3). That was not a warning, that was a promise. Our Lord was not describing a judgment to be feared, but a blessing for which to be longed. This is an event believers look for, love, anticipate, and hope for because the Lord will take them to the heavenly home He is preparing for them.

But when He comes to judge, He comes to pour out wrath on the earth; then He will remain on the earth to establish His earthly kingdom. John 14


describes a very different event. It's a taking away of the church into heavenly homes that have been prepared for the believers.

At the Rapture, Christ doesn't come all the way to the earth, He meets believers in the air and takes them to heaven. At His return to judge, He comes all the way to the earth and He doesn't come to meet His saints, but rather He brings them with Him. In the Second Coming, He comes to earth with His saints and establishes His millennial kingdom on earth (20:1-4). There's nothing in the Rapture texts of John 14 or 1 Thessalonians 4 to speak of judgment; but in Revelation 19 everything is judgment. The Rapture event is one of blessing. This is an event of cursing.

Furthermore, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ is preceded by black-ness, the darkened sun, the blackened moon, the stars falling, smoke filling the universe, lightning and blinding glory then introducing the arrival of Jesus Christ. Such aspects are not associated with His coming for His saints in John 14 or 1 Thessalonians 4. For these reasons, I believe in the removal of the church to heaven before the breaking out of the terrible judgments of His wrath (Rev. 6-19) culminating with His return to earth later, after the great tribulation, with His previously raptured saints to participate in His Kingdom and to reign with Him.

Verse 11 records that He who sat upon the white horse, is called “Faithful and True” (cf. 3:14), indicating that He is faithful to whatever He promises and He speaks only the truth including this promise to return.

Verse 11 adds that, “in righteousness He judges and wages war.” If He is faithful and true to His word, He has to act in righteousness. He has to have a holy and righteous reaction against sin, and He does. Faithful to His righteous character, faithful to His holy nature, true to His word, He comes to do what He promised to do, what righteousness demands He do, to judge with wrath-ful vengeance.

Once He came as Savior; here He comes as judge. When He was here the first time, wicked men judged Him. When He comes the second time, He will judge wicked men. He will not only be the judge, but He will also be the executioner as He makes war. As Isaiah 63 indicates, He treads the winepress of the wrath of God alone (v. 3). Angels are not executioners. But He alone treads the winepress. He alone has the power to execute judgment (cf. Acts 17:31).

This is a different Jesus than people are used to seeing. He is usually ministering to the needy, feeding the hungry, healing the sick, casting demons out of people, and giving peace to troubled hearts. He is seen here quite differently from the vision of Revelation 1; He comes on a war mission to search and to destroy.

This is not a new character for God, nor is it a different personality than the God of the Old Testament. At the Red Sea, when Jehovah destroyed Pharaoh and his hosts, Israel said, “The LORD is a warrior” (Exod 15:3). The Lord has always been a warrior. So is His Son.


Alexander Whyte commenting on John Bunyan's masterpiece, The Holy War, wrote: “Holy Scripture is full of wars and rumors of wars, the wars of the Lord, the wars of Joshua and the Judges, the wars of David with his and many other magnificent battle songs, till the best known name of the God of Israel in the Old Testament is the Lord of hosts. And then in the New Testament we have Jesus Christ described as the captain of our salvation. And then the whole Bible is crowned with a book, all sounding with battle cries, till it ends with that city of peace where they hang the trumpet in the hall and study war no more.”11

The Lord is a man of war. In righteousness, He judges and makes war. Frankly, the judging has already been depicted in Revelation as described in the breaking of the seals, in the blowing of the trumpets, and the pouring out of the bowls. But here He makes a final war. He for long centuries has endured the rejection and scoffings patiently, the insults of men who contemplated Calvary and, as it were, spit on Him, who displayed human hatred and contempt, who through millennia have rejected the peace that He made through the blood of the cross. Such people then will find Him a warrior King. That’s not to say that there will be any fighting on their part; rather, the end will come in a split second.

Heaven cannot be at peace with sin. God is of purer eyes than to behold evil and cannot look upon iniquity. God's patience has an end. He will not always tolerate iniquity. Justice will not always live with injustice. Truth will not always live with lies. Rebellion will not always go on. And when sin is finally incorrigible and man is incurable, then will come the destruction. Mercy abused will bring the executioner. Then will come the sword of insulted majesty, the wrath of rejected grace.

Furthermore, this Conqueror comes not as other conquerors out of covetousness, ambition, pride, or the love of power. This Conqueror comes in utter righteousness, in perfect holiness, in strict accord with every holy interest.

In the fearsome description, verse 12 adds, “And His eyes are a flame of fire, and upon His head are many diadems; and He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself.”

He has eyes like a flame of fire (cf. 1:14), in that nothing escapes His notice. He has penetrating knowledge. He can see into the recesses of every human heart with vision that sees everything.

“Upon His head are many crowns,” many king's crowns, ruler's crowns. The idea is that He has collected all the crowns from all the world’s rulers and put them on His head. Nobody else rules anyplace. Here is the ultimate symbol of sovereignty and the Kingdom has come in its fullness. Even Satan will yield his crown, as will the Antichrist.

11 Alexander Whyte, Bunyan Characters, vol. 3: The Holy War (London: Oliphant, Anderson

and Ferrier, 1902) 2.


This reflects a custom in the ancient world. When David, for example, conquered the Amorites (cf. 2 Sam 12), he put the crown of the vanquished king on his own head in addition to his own crown. When Ptolemy conquered Antioch, he set two crowns on his head, the crown of Asia and the crown of Egypt, signifying the comprehensive nature of his rule.12 The dragon had seven crowns; the beast had ten crowns; but Jesus will wear all crowns. Thus, verse 16 indicates that He is the King of Kings. There will be no crowns for anyone else in that hour.

In Revelation 11:15, we hear the same thought, put a different way. “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” This refers to unassailable sovereignty.

Revelation 19:12 says about Him, “He has a name written upon Him which no one knows except Himself.” John could see a name there, but either he couldn't read it, or he couldn't comprehend it when he did read it. It was unintelligible to him. It was beyond human comprehension. With all that we know of Jesus Christ, we will not know the fullness of the mystery of His person. John couldn't know it. There are realities that we will know in eternity that we can't know now, but the full mystery of His being may well never be known to us. We will know as we are known, to some degree, according to 1 Corinthians 13:12. But here was John in an exalted vision in heaven and there was a reality about Jesus that he could not comprehend. There is an incomprehensibility to the character of God that perhaps even an eternally glorified human will never completely know. The full incomprehensibility of God will always be incomprehensible. John is saying that there are realities about Him beyond anything we can ever comprehend.

Then in verse 13, further describing the returning King, John writes, “He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood; and His name is called the Word of God.” This is not the blood that He shed on the cross since this is not a picture of redemption, but a picture of judgment. Clearly, the imagery here is of a con-quering King with the blood-splattered garments of war.

How are we to understand that He will come with a blood-splattered garment, though the battle hasn't started? Where did the blood come from? This is not His first battle, this is His last battle. He has worn His battle clothes before. Who but He has fought the dragon? Who but He fought for Israel in the days of Joshua? Who but He fought the kings of Canaan and Taanach by the waters of Megiddo? Who but He vanquished six world powers past and all the nations that have by this time fallen? His garments have been splattered with blood for a long time. Who but He battled Pharaoh ending in the triumph of the Exodus? It is the

12 Cf. 1 Maccabees 11:13. See also Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed. in

NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 353.


Almighty Conqueror who has His war clothes on and His war clothes bear the stains of the blood of the vanquished from all His prior battles.

These battle clothes are to be stained again and the stains will be greater than ever before, as He treads the winepress of the wrath of God and blood splatters in every direction in the holocaust of fearful and comprehensive world judgment (cf. 2 Thess 1:7).

Verse 13 indicates that, “His name is called The Word of God.” Just in case there is any question about who He is, we know who the Word of God is. John 1:14 says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). The Word of God is none other than the second member of the Trinity, Christ, the incarnate One who is also the Creator. He is the One with the blood on His garments; He is the warrior King, who comes in judgment.

God chose to call Him “the Word of God” because He is the exact expression of God, He is the revelation of God (cf. Heb 1:1-3). He is the declaration of God. He is the One in whom we hear God speak and see God act. He is the full expression of the mind, the will, and the nature of God.

So the sum of His names really is a glorious picture. He has a name which no man knew, which expresses His essential deity. He has a name, the Word of God, which expresses His incarnate deity. And He has a name, King of kings and Lord of lords, which expresses His sovereign deity. Interestingly, the gospel plan is in those three names. He is God who revealed Himself to man, who some day will come to judge the ungodly and reign over the universe.

The Regiments of the Conqueror (19:14) The armies which are in heaven are clothed in fine linen, white and

clean, and are following their King on white horses. Who are these glorified troops? Verses 7-8 help to answer that question since the fine linen is the righteousness or the righteous acts of the saints. They must include glorified saints already with the Lord in glory.

Prior to this event, the church will have already been raptured and now will return with Him. This would also encompass Tribulation saints who had been glorified. Revelation 7:9 portrays them standing before the throne and before the Lamb clothed in white robes. One of the elders says they are the ones who came out of the Great Tribulation and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (7:14).

So the church, the Tribulation saints, and the Old Testament saints will also be coming with the Lord. Another group must be added, namely, the angels. Matthew 25:31 notes that when He comes, all the angels will come with Him. Ten thousand times ten thousand of the angels. All the saints of the Old Testament, all the saints of the church age, all the saints of the time of the


Tribulation, and all the holy angels will come blazing out of heaven with the conquering King.

The regiments of heaven come with the Conqueror. Psalm 149:5, “Let the godly ones exult in glory; let them sing for joy on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouths. And a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance on the nations, and punishment on the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute on them the judgment written; this is an honor for all His godly ones. Praise the LORD.”

The Rule of the Conqueror (19:15) The sharp sword is a symbol of His slaying power in 1:16. In that

particular vision, the sword was a defending sword, protecting the church against the onslaught of Satan and his powers. Here, it is the sword of judgment, the sword of fury, the flaming sword of death, the sword out of His mouth with which He expresses the death-dealing power that comes in His words. Though the saints return with Christ to reign and rule, they are not executioners; believers are not those who carry out the vengeance. That will uniquely be His task. The angels may help in the gathering process (Matt 13:41-42, 49), but He treads the winepress alone. John wrote, “The Son of Man appeared for this purpose, that He might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8). Paul added, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord” (Rom 12:19).

None of the saints who come with Him have any weapons. His word is enough. He will smite the earth with the rod of His mouth and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked (Isa 11:4).

“With this sword He will smite the nations.” By then, Israel will have been purged. The elect out of Israel will have been redeemed and Gentiles saved in the Tribulation time will be preserved into the Kingdom. The rest of the world He will then slaughter in an instant with His word. Then, He will set up His Kingdom and rule as King of kings. Through that Kingdom, He will rule those nations with a “rod of iron” (cf. 12:5; Ps 2:8-9). What does that mean? It means instantaneous judgment; it means swift punishment of those who violate His law.

The Royalty of the Conqueror (19:16) So He comes in fury and in judgment. He will trample all the ungodly in

an instant. Out of the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ comes the sentence and the execution. That puts Him in a position to establish His glorious earthly Kingdom as King of kings and Lord of lords. It's written on His robe and on His thigh; that indeed is His name. “Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O Mighty One” (Ps 45:3). And on that same thigh is the name “King of kings and Lord of lords” (v. 16).

The vision pictures the King as having a banner that sweeps across and goes down on His thigh, indicating that He is ultimately the sovereign so that all


foes are vanquished. While the slaughter is a fearful, frightening, and terrible thing, mercy abused and grace spurned provoked this point. When He came the first time, they preferred a murderer over Him; so they crucified Him, killing the prince of life (Acts 3:15). Openly blaspheming God, they became more and more wicked as time went on. Finally in the end, their wickedness reaches irredeem-able proportions and the executioner returns to render the righteous judgment.

The psalmist saw that He was going to come with a rod of iron and warned, “Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; take warning, O judges of the earth. Worship the LORD with reverence, and rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!” (Ps 2:10-12).

God’s grace to believers has delivered them all from the fearful judgments to fall on the world. Praise be to God that the believer’s Lord is the Lord of Revelation 1, ministering faithfully and peacefully to His beloved church—and not the vengeful destroyer of Revelation 19.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 41-51

41

THE PRESERVATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT: A COMMON SENSE APPROACH

James A. Borland, Th.D. Professor of Bible and Theology

Liberty University Lynchburg, Virginia

Opinions vary as to how God might have preserved the text of the New Testament. No originals remain, only copies, and these have many variations. Yet, it can be said that the New Testament text is substantially pure as demon-strated in the existing manuscripts. The minor differences that exist between manuscripts should be examined carefully, however, keeping in mind that the Scriptures came to man in an inerrant fashion. The original location of the autographs can provide a key to understanding their transmissional history. Manuscript choices are crucial and can help or hinder doctrinal understanding.

* * * * *

“MY WORDS WILL BY NO MEANS PASS AWAY”1

Jesus, as recorded in his Olivet Discourse, used a strong type of Greek double negative when he proclaimed “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.” The word order in each of the synoptics is identical, though Mark and Luke use the future indicative, while Matthew expresses the thought with an aorist subjunctive (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). The concept is that God’s words, and hence His promises, will never fail to be performed.

The same thought is more fully expressed in Matthew 5:18. There Jesus said, “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” The emphasis is not that a jot or tittle would never be overlooked when copying a biblical manuscript, but rather that not even the least aspect of God’s promises would ever fail to be fulfilled by the Almighty God who created and now sustains this magnificent

1 All quotations, unless otherwise noted, are from the New King James Version.


universe. In fact, not only jots and tittles, but also entire words and even larger chunks of material have accidentally been omitted during the copying of individual manuscripts. The preservation of the New Testament text is not to be founded upon a glib quotation of these or other such verses.2

NO ORIGINALS, ONLY COPIES

Why Textual Criticism Is Needed There is no doubt that God in His providence could have preserved the

original New Testament writings if He had so chosen. Obviously, that was not His plan. Frederic Kenyon, of Magdalen College, Oxford, and late Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum, notes that because “the original autographs and all early copies of them have disappeared, we have to do as best we can with such later copies as have survived.”3 Greek scholar David Alan Black mentions two factors that necessitate New Testament textual criticism: (1) the originals are gone, and (2) there are differences in the copies that remain.4

How Mistakes Entered the Copies Naturally, copyists in general did their best. However, some handwrit-

ing was poor, contractions could be mistaken, letters or words could be confused or even transposed, and letters or words, or groups of words and even whole lines of text could be omitted accidentally. Some tried to harmonize different texts, while others may have sought to abbreviate a text. Another scribe might seek to reconstruct what he felt was a faulty text, perhaps restoring the correct sense, but not the original words. Alexander Souter, longtime New Testament professor at Mansfield College, Oxford, succinctly said, “Every fresh copy introduces fresh possibilities of error.”5 Kenyon observed, “Owing to the frailties of the human

2 Daniel B. Wallace, “The Majority-Text Theory: History, Methods and Critique,” JETS 37:2

(June, 1994): 185-215 errs gravely in several important matters: (1) stereotyping supporters of a majority text-type approach, especially in saying they always appeal to these verses as their theological a priori; (2) falsely labeling all of the contributors to Letis’ Continuing Debate book as those who “hold to the traditional text,” p. 195; (3) using belittling and offensive rhetoric for which he is fond of criticizing Burgon. In only his fourth sentence, Wallace says that “KJV/TR advocates” just a few years ago “could only be found in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism;” and (4) minimizing the contributions of those he so avidly criticizes.

3 Frederic G. Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, new edition (London: Duckworth & Co., 1949) 12.

4 David Alan Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, ed. David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994) 396.

5 Alexander Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament (London: Duckworth & Co., 1913) 3.

The Preservation of the New Testament Text 43

hand and eye and brain, it is impossible to copy large quantities of matter without making mistakes. These mistakes will be repeated by the next scribe who copies this manuscript, with additions of his own, so that as time goes on the text will tend to vary further and further from the true original.”6

B. B. Warfield, professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theological Seminary of Princeton from 1887 to 1921, seemingly painted just as bleak a picture. He noted that each manuscript copy “was made laboriously and erroneously from a previous one, perpetuating its errors, old and new, and intro-ducing still newer ones of its own manufacture. A long line of ancestry gradually grows up behind each copy in such circumstances, and the race gradually but inevitably degenerates, until, after a thousand years or so, the number of fixed errors becomes considerable.”7 Many manuscripts, however, bear evidence of numerous corrections by later scribes and users of the manuscript.

Gordon Fee observes that “no two of the 5340-plus Greek MSS of the NT are exactly alike. In fact the closest relationships between any two MSS in existence—even among the majority—average from six to ten variants per chapter. It is obvious therefore that no MS has escaped corruption.”8 With approximately 6,000 Greek manuscripts9 of various parts of the New Testament, it has been estimated that there are about 200,000 variant readings when each variant is counted each time that it occurs.

A SUBSTANTIALLY PURE TEXT

Inerrancy Applies to the Original Autographs Those who hold to the doctrine of the Bible’s inerrancy, such as this

writer does, are careful to point out that inerrancy applies only to the original

6 Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible, 9. 7 Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New

Testament (New York: Thomas Whittaker, 1889) 14. 8 Gordon D. Fee, “Modern Textual Criticism and the Revival of the Textus Receptus” JETS 21:1

(March 1978): 23. 9 For brief descriptions of the manuscript evidence see James A. Borland, A General

Introduction to the New Testament, newly rev. (Lynchburg, VA: University Book House, 1995) 146-53; Kurt and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995); Philip Wesley Comfort “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1992) 179-207; Jack Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974); Jacob Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964); Frederic George Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 3d ed. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1897); Kenyon, The Text of the Greek Bible; Bruce Manning Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, rev. ed. (New York: Oxford, 1968); Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testament; Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 vols. 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller (London: George Bell & Sons, 1894).


manuscripts, not to the many copies that have come down to us. Charles C. Ryrie, now retired from teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary, notes that “Both inspiration and inerrancy are predicated only on the originals.”10 Baptist theologian Millard Erickson says, “what is being affirmed by the concept that only the originals are inerrant is that inspiration did not extend to copyists and translators. While divine providence was doubtless operative, there was not the same type of action of the Holy Spirit as was involved in the original writing of the text.”11

Over the years, I have attended and even chaired many ordination councils. A young ministerial candidate will affirm his belief in the inerrancy of the autographs of Scripture. Then the seasoned pastors and theologians will ask whether we still have those original manuscripts today. When the expected answer is given, a tougher question follows. “Then how can you claim to hold the Word of God in your hands today? Is your English Bible inerrant?” One who is prepared will correctly reply, that although neither inspiration nor inerrancy apply to translations, to the extent that any translation is correctly rendered from proper manuscripts it is indeed the Word of God. Baptist theologians Demarest and Lewis, of Denver Seminary, write, “The doctrine of inspiration has to do with the Bible’s origin, not with its transmission. … Given the original nature of the inscripturated revelation, however, its transmission to our day also has great importance.”12 Our salvation and eternal destiny hinge on us getting the message in its true form. But with all the mistakes noted above that have crept into the text, one might wonder if that is possible.

The New Testament Text Has Been Preserved Very Well In what way then can it be said that the text of the New Testament has

been well preserved? Warfield cites Richard Bentley to the effect that even the worst possible manuscript of the New Testament “is competently exact.”13 That statement is true, not just in comparison with the much poorer in quality and far fewer in number copies of the Greek texts of Homer and the classical playwrights, but also on its own merits.14

10 Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton: Victor, 1986) 80. 11 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985) 240. 12 Bruce Demarest and Gordon R. Lewis, Integrative Theology, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1987) 153. 13 Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 14. 14 Comfort, “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament,” 182, says that “Homer’s Iliad, the

greatest of all Greek classical works, is extant in about 650 manuscripts; Euripides’ tragedies exist in about 330 manuscripts.”


Warfield also notes that Ezra Abbot, frequently reported that 95% of the New Testament’s variant readings have almost no support, and that in 95% of the rest, either reading “would cause no appreciable difference in the sense of the passages where they occur.”15 Those figures would indicate that in only one quarter of one percent would the variant readings present an appreciable difference in meaning.

Everett F. Harrison, longtime and respected New Testament professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, boldly stated that “The vast bulk of the Word of God is not affected by variations of text at all.”16 R. Laird Harris, now retired, claimed that “close study of the evidence of ancient texts supports the view that the present editions are remarkably accurate copies of the words God spoke to man.”17 Fundamentalist evangelist, John R. Rice, added that “The differences in the translations [or manuscripts] are so minor, so insignificant, that we can be sure not a single doctrine, not a single statement of fact, not a single command or exhortation, has been missed in our translations.”18

Emery Bancroft was for many years the dean of Baptist Bible Seminary in Johnson City, New York. He perhaps overstated the case when he boldly claimed that, “As to the New Testament, in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases out of every thousand, we have the very word of the original.”19 Demarest and Lewis conclude, “Thus the text of the originals can be established beyond reasonable doubt in the bulk of the material.”20 I take this to mean that in the overwhelming majority of the places where variants or different readings occur, we have a very good idea of what the original text was.

Some Textual Problems Affect Meaning It has been argued that most textual variants do not greatly affect the

sense of Scripture. In 2 Peter 2:4, whether fallen angels are kept in pits (σιροÃς; sirois) or chains (σιρα Ãς; sirais), does not greatly differ. I believe chains is the

15 Warfield, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 14. Ezra Abbot was the assistant librarian at Harvard College in the mid 1800s and not only helped edit Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, but also produced a number of its finest articles, including a prolific and learned article on the New Testament text, 3: 2112-43.

16 Everett F. Harrison, “The Phenomena of Scripture” in Revelation and the Bible: Contempo-rary Evangelical Thought, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958) 240.

17 R. Laird Harris, “The Problem of Communication” in The Bible: The Living Word of Revelation, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1968) 100.

18 John R. Rice, Our God-Breathed Book—The Bible (Murfreesboro, TN: Sword of the Lord, 1969) 355.

19 Emery H. Bancroft, Christian Theology, 2d rev. ed., ed. Ronald B. Mayers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 39-40.

20 Demarest and Lewis, Integrative Theology, 154.


better reading, however, and it agrees with Jude 6’s “chains” for the angels who did not keep their first estate. There are, however, numerous textual variants that do materially affect the sense of the passage. David Alan Black calls John 3:13’s “who is in heaven,” “a significant variant because it has an important bearing on Christology.”21 Black weighs in heavily in favor of this reading, though it is summarily passed over by minority critics. Black also argues persuasively for the inclusion of “in Ephesus” for Ephesians 1:1,22 though most minority critics do not. The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20), are a textual critical battleground, as is the narrative of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11). I personally hold that both of these longer passages are original, but when asked about the questioned readings in Acts 8:37, 9:6 and 1 John 5:7-8, I do not believe the evidence supports them. Even though textual problems persist, the Scriptures are still substantially pure.

Still, the Scriptures Are Substantially Pure John Skilton, whose tenure at Westminster Theological Seminary was

fifty-eight years before his death in 1998, edited and contributed to a very helpful series of books for New Testament students. In his description of the nature of the text that has come down to us, notice the confluence of three words—pro-vidence, preservation, and purity. Skilton says, “We must acknowledge that the singular care and providence of God have been at work in the preservation of the Scripture in a state of substantial and essential purity.”23 He reasons, again, that “The sovereign God who rules all things has preserved His Word, as we would have expected, in a state of purity. He has, of course, made use of men and circumstances in working out his purpose, but He is the ultimate and controlling cause of this providential preservation.”24

No doubt, one of the greatest biblical scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was Robert Dick Wilson of Princeton. Wilson defined the concept of substantial purity when he stated that the manuscripts were “changed only in respect to those accidental matters which necessarily accompany the transmission of all texts where originals have not been preserved. … Such changes may be called minor in that they do not seriously affect the

21 Black, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” 397. He adduces strong and compelling

evidence for this reading on pp. 409-11. Christ’s omnipresence while on earth is the issue here. 22 Ibid., 411 and David Alan Black, “The Peculiarities of Ephesians and the Ephesian Address,”

Grace Theological Journal 2 (1981): 59-73. 23 John H. Skilton, The New Testament Student and His Field (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian

and Reformed, 1982) 5:8. 24 Ibid., 5:11.


doctrines of the documents nor the general impression and evident veracity of their statements as to geography, chronology, and other historical matters.”25

Many confessions of faith also incorporate statements about biblical manuscripts. One of the most historic, the Westminster Confession, adopted in 1646, states that the Old and New Testaments “being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”26

THE FIRST COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT

Only Certain Places Held the Inerrant Text There is one factor that must have dominated the earliest copying

process for New Testament manuscripts. Each autograph was in the possession of a particular church or individual. Practically all of these originals of the New Testament text were located in Asia Minor and Greece. Italy and Palestine held the rest.27 It was only in these churches that year after year, copy after copy could be made from the original manuscripts. These documents were the fountain source—they were, after all, the original inerrant text. They stood in the midst of the area that gives the greatest evidence of needing and using the Word of God during the early centuries of the Christian era and even later. No doubt these originals must have been copied time and again so as to proliferate that text decade after decade, although each new manuscript would add a certain share of common scribal mistakes. Outside areas did not have the luxury of obtaining a copy from a church which could certify that the exemplar was from the hand of the apostolic author.

A Text Closest to the Inerrant Autographs Would Be More Abundant in These Areas

That being the case, the first century must have produced a wealth of copies from Rome, through Greece, Asia Minor and into Palestine. These copies must have been as relatively close to the autographic text as was possible. Of course, each manuscript would carry with it some unique blunders of the

25 Robert Dick Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, rev. by Edward J. Young (Chicago: Moody; reprinted, 1959) 84.

26 Westminster Confession, Chap. I, Sect. VIII, in Alexander A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (London: Banner of Truth Trust; reprinted, 1961) 41.

27 For Asia Minor and Greece, we are speaking of, at the very minimum, John, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Revelation, and probably Luke and Acts; Mark and Romans in Italy; Matthew probably in Palestine; and one cannot be sure of Hebrews, James, and Jude.


scribe’s eyes, hand, and mind. Is this not, seemingly, the most natural historical scenario for the abundance of similar kinds of manuscripts that exist today? It is common sense that more early copies were made in those areas than elsewhere because that is where Christianity was most entrenched. If those copies held a numerical superiority during the first centuries, it is common sense to suppose that they would remain dominant in even later stages of the copying process, especially since Christianity continued to flourish for centuries in these areas. In addition, those were the only places where the autographs were available for copying. It makes sense that the text from those regions would be closest to the autographs—though all texts, as noted earlier, have differences and no copies have escaped corruption.

WHAT ROLE DOES INERRANCY PLAY IN MAKING TEXTUAL DECISIONS?

Should the doctrine of the inerrancy of the autographs have a role in recovering the original text of the New Testament? The answer should be affirmative,28 yet, it is rare to hear it enunciated. Young evangelical exegetes do not want to seem out of step with the assured results of modern textual criticism which accept questionable postulates that enthrone a minority text with errors in it. Instead, they craft ingenious explanations as to how the supposedly mistaken words occurred.

The Case of Matthew’s Asa and Amon, Versus Asaph and Amos A case in point is Matthew 1:7 and 10, the genealogy of Christ. The

issue is simple. Did Jesus descend from King Asa and King Amon, or from Asaph (the psalmist?) and Amos (the prophet?)? Metzger, et al., declare that Matthew penned “the erroneous spelling” in both verses.29 Alfred Plummer, of University College, Durham and Trinity College, Oxford, wrote, “That there are errors in both lists of names is neither unlikely nor very important. Errors respecting matters of far greater moment can be shown to exist in the Bible, and there is nothing that need perplex us if errors are found here.”30

28 See my “Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to

Negate Inerrancy,” JETS 25:2 (December 1982): 499-506, where I show how destructive critics choose a weakly attested minority reading which contains an obvious error, and then claim that the author of Scripture, not a faulty copyist, was to blame. Sadly, however, even some evangelicals, perhaps unwittingly, follow in this train.

29 Bruce M. Metzger et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971) 1.

30 Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew (London: Robert Scott, 1909) 3.


Robert Gundry, a graduate of L.A. Baptist College and Seminary, who then studied under non-inerrantist F. F. Bruce, was asked to submit his resignation from the Evangelical Theological Society in 1983 for holding views inconsistent with the society’s inerrantist doctrinal basis, “unless he acknowl-edges that he has erred in his detraction from the historical trustworthiness of the gospel of Matthew in his recent commentary.”31 The 2600 members of the society must subscribe in writing annually that, “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” Gundry’s 1982 commentary on Matthew said that “Matthew may have chosen or coined the spelling ‘Amos’ for a secondary allusion to the prophet Amos, just as he spelled Asa’s name like that of Asaph to introduce a prophetic note.”32

D. A. Carson, who wrote a lengthy review castigating Gundry for his commentary views,33 said of Gundry’s Asaph and Amos explanations, “This is too cryptic to be believable.”34 Yet, Carson’s own ingenious solution is hardly better. Noting that one LXX manuscript of 1 Chronicles 3:10 has ‘Asab, rather than ‘Asa, he speculates, “In short Matthew could well be following a MS with Asaph even though Asa is quite clearly the person meant.”35 What is unbelievable is that Carson would countenance the idea that Matthew himself blundered, possibly following a faulty manuscript, but either way writing the wrong name in the autograph. Daniel Wallace, a Dallas Theological Seminary professor, in an exchange with this writer after he delivered a paper criticizing the majority text theory, offered the speculation that Asaph and Amos must be alternate spellings of Asa and Amon.36 This is a novel, but unsupported explanation. Several modern translations have also given way to the Asaph and Amos thinking, namely the ASV, NASB, RSV, and NRSV.

By subscribing to the critical minority text, Carson and Wallace, are required to come up with plausible explanations as to the reason Matthew wrote

31 Roger Nicole, a charter member of the society, made this motion in a plenary business session

during the 35th annual meeting of ETS, held December 15-17, 1983 at Criswell Center for Biblical Studies in Dallas, Texas. “The motion was adopted.” Report of Simon J. Kistemaker, ETS Secretary-Treasurer, JETS 27:1 (March 1984): 125.

32 Robert Horton Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 16.

33 D. A. Carson, “Gundry on Matthew: A Critical Review,” Trinity Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982): 71-91.

34 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 8:69.

35 Ibid., 69-70. 36 “The Majority Text Theory: History, Methods, and Critique,” delivered at the 45th annual

ETS meeting, November 20, 1993 at Tyson’s Corner, Virginia.


Asaph and Amos, rather than Asa and Amon. Should not the Scripture’s own teaching on inerrancy be regarded at all, especially when the manuscript evidence so broadly, overwhelmingly, and continuously supports the reading of Asa and Amon? Can one’s theological a priori that the minority text must be right cause an intellectual blackout regarding the doctrine of the inerrancy of the autographs?

The Doctrine of Inerrancy Should Make a Difference In general, textual critics do their work apart from theological consid-

erations. They examine manuscripts, note variant readings, then test and apply some basic canons of evidence, both internal and external, both intrinsic and transcriptional. But should a Bible believer see things differently than unbelieving critics do? This has been the assertion of Edward F. Hills, a learned textual critic who studied under Machen, Van Til, and R. B. Kuiper.37 Extremely perceptive, I thought, were these words of John Skilton, who taught New Testament Greek at Westminster Theological Seminary for longer than most younger scholars have been living (58 years), until his death in 1998. “For men who accept the Bible as the Word of God, inerrant in the original manuscripts, it should be out of the question to engage in the textual criticism of the Scriptures in a ‘neutral’ fashion—as if the Bible were not what it claims to be.”38 He goes on to say, “This is a point which Cornelius Van Til has been stressing in his apologetics and which Edward F. Hills has been appropriately making in his writings on textual criticism. All along the line it is necessary to insist, as Hills does, that ‘Christian believing Bible study should and does differ from neutral, unbelieving Bible study.”39 Skilton concludes that Hills “is quite correct when he reminds us that” ignoring God’s “divine inspiration and providential preservation of the New Testament … is bound to lead to erroneous conclusions.”40

Close to twenty years ago, I issued a plea that our belief in inerrancy must have a bearing on our practices in textual criticism. It bears repeating today.

If we accept the inerrancy of the Scriptures and yet countenance a textual criticism that voids inerrancy, something is amiss—and I would suggest that it is not the Word of God that needs reconsideration but rather our principles of textual criticism. For too long, lower criticism has been guided by those who

37 Edward F. Hills, Believing Bible Study, 2d ed., (Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press, 1977) 226-27. Hills is sometimes disparaged by minority text critics for his preference of the King James Version. Hills holds degrees from Yale, Westminster, Columbia Seminary, a Th.D. from Harvard University, and is well published in The Journal of Biblical Literature.

38 John H. Skilton, “ The New Testament Text Today,” in The New Testament Student and His Field (Phillipsburg, NJ; Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 5:5.

39 Ibid., 5:6. 40 Ibid.


cared little about the inerrancy of the autographs. The time has come for a change. We must re-examine and divorce ourselves from a biased, narrow and settled view of the field. Unless we do, it will not be long before some in our own ranks will be singing the tune against inerrancy.41

In conclusion, God has providentially preserved the New Testament text through the copying of thousands of manuscripts. Though copying errors abound, the basic sense of the text remains, and in the greatest majority of the cases we have no doubts as to what the actual words are. It speaks to us with a substantial purity. However, when two or more competing readings impinge on the doctrine of inerrancy, why should we not consider that the apostolic author may have written what we would expect if he were truly writing under God’s supernatural guidance (2 Pet 1:21)?

41 Borland, “Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to

Negate Inerrancy,” 506.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 53-86

53

THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS IN THE ANCIENT CHURCH:

THE TESTIMONY TO THE PRIORITY OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL1

F. David Farnell, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament


Modern historical criticism has systematically ignored the writings of the early church fathers regarding their viewpoints on the Gospels. This article examines pertinent writings of several significant early fathers (Papias, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine) regarding any information that they can impart regarding the chronological order of the Gospels. Their writings reveal that the unanimous and unquestioned consensus of the early church was that Matthew was the first gospel written. They also reveal that, while they considered John as written last, Luke was predominately considered second and Mark third (although admittedly Mark, at times, appears in second place). Since the church fathers lived much closer to the time of the composition of the gospels and were scholars in their own right, their testimony must be given serious consideration in any hypothesis regarding chronological order. Such early testimony stands in direct contradiction to the predominant contention of source criticism that concludes for the Two- or Four-Document Hypothesis (i.e. priority of Mark and Q), especially since the latter is not a product of objective historical analysis but a late-blooming conjecture spawned by Enlightenment ideologies.

* * * * *

1 This article is an updated excerpt from Chapter 1, “The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient

Church,” in Robert L. Thomas and F. David Farnell, eds., The Jesus Crisis: The Inroads of Historical Criticism into Evangelical Scholarship (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998) 35-55. Used by permission of the publisher.


The Gospel of Matthew was the church’s most popular Gospel in the decades up to the time of Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180). After an extensive analysis of Matthew’s influence on early Christianity, Massaux relates,

Of all the New Testament Writings, the Gospel of Mt. was the one whose literary influence was the most widespread and the most profound in Christian literature that extended into the last decades of the second century… .

Until the end of the second century, the first gospel remained the gospel par excellence . . . .

The Gospel was, therefore, the normative fact of Christian life. It created the background for ordinary Christianity.2

Moreover, the unanimous and unquestioned consensus of the church fathers was that Matthew was the first gospel written and, almost without exception, the early church placed the Gospel of Matthew first in the canon of the New Testament. Petrie observes, “Until the latter half of the eighteenth century, the apostolic authorship of ‘the Gospel according to Matthew’ seems to have been generally accepted.”3

However, the Enlightenment’s spawning of historical-critical methodo-logies—particularly that aspect of the system called “Source Criticism”—marked the beginning of the end of that viewpoint.4 Most New Testament scholars at the turn of the twenty-first century resoundingly reject the unanimous testimony of the early church regarding Matthean priority in favor of the Two- or Four-Source Theory5 of how the Synoptic Gospels came into existence.6 That rejection char-

2 Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus, trans. by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne Hecht; ed., Arthur J. Bellinzoni, 3 vols. (Macon, GA.: Mercer University, 1993) 3:186-87.

3 C. Steward Petrie, “The Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’: A Reconsidera-tion of the External Evidence,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968): 15. Stonehouse, a leading advocate of Markan priority, admitted, “[T]he tradition concerning the apostolic authorship of Matthew is as strong, clear, and consistent and . . . the arguments advanced against its reliability are by no means decisive . . . the apostolic authorship of Matthew is as strongly attested as any fact of ancient church history” (Ned B. Stonehouse, The Origins of the Synoptic Gospels [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963] 46-47, cf. 76-77).

4 Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics, Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, GA.: Mercer University, 1987) 111; see also chap. 2 of The Jesus Crisis.

5 The Two-Source Theory contends that Mark was written first, then Matthew and Luke wrote in dependence on Mark and a document called “Q,” which contained material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. The Four-Source Theory adds documents called “M”—used by Matthew in addition to the others—and “L”—used by Luke in addition to the others.

The Synoptic Gospels in the Ancient Church 55

acterizes those of a liberal-theological perspective, and it extends also to include many evangelicals—men such as Hill, Carson, Moo, Morris, Martin, and France who explain away the evidence from Papias and church tradition regarding Matthean priority in deference to a theory of modern vintage that requires the priority of Mark.7 Few conservative evangelicals today dare to challenge the “findings” of Source Criticism.

The theory of Mark being written first flies in the face of what is quite clear from the writings in the early church, as Massaux has pointedly demonstrated

The literary influence of the Gospel of Mk. is practically nil of these writings [i.e., the church writings of the first two centuries up to Irenaeus]. This characteristic of the early tradition constitutes a strange phenomenon. How can we explain this silence of tradition, if, as is generally believed, Mk. was the first of the canonical gospels? How can we explain the first Christians hardly resorted to it, so that it appeared almost nonexistent? Did it not respond, perhaps to the exigencies and concrete needs of the community of the time? Or have we been wrong to elevate it to the detriment of the Gospel of Mt.?8

The church fathers must be allowed to have their hearing, apart from a dogmatism that bases itself on a late-blooming theory regarding gospel sequence. They lived much closer to the composition of the gospels than anyone associated with the Enlightenment. Also, they were scholars in their own right, so it is a grave mistake to dismiss their testimony so casually as moderns have tended to do. They bear a unified testimony against critical assumptions of the last two centuries that have supported the priority of Mark and the associated Two- or Four-Source Theory. The discussion of their writings that follow will also

6 See Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. W. Longstaff, J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and text-critical studies 1776-1976 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1978) 134; William R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem (Macon, GA.: Mercer University, 1976) 48-49; Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels, A Study of Origins (Macmillan, 1924) 151-98. Orchard and Longstaff cite Griesbach as an example of one who criticized the early fathers. Farmer cites the lack of evidence supporting the Two- or Four-Source Theory.

7 David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, in The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 28; D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 70-71; R. T. France, Matthew, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985) 34-38; Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations, vol. 1 of The Four Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 139-60, 225.

8 Massaux, Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:188.


evidence the shortcomings of the avenue of Source Criticism that results in the Two-Gospel Theory.9

PAPIAS

Early in the first half of the second century A.D., Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in the Phrygian region of the province of Asia—a city about 20 miles west of Colosse and 6 miles east of Laodicea.10 Nothing much is known of Papias’s life beyond the comment of Irenaeus that he was “one of the ancients” (•ρχαÃοH •νZρ, archaios ane-r).11 His writing activity dates between ca. A.D. 95 and 110.12 That early dating makes his works crucial, for he is one of only a few witnesses to a very early period of church history.

Papias (along with his friend and contemporary, Polycarp) was a disciple and personal acquaintance of the Apostle John, as evidenced by Irenaeus who wrote that Papias was “the hearer of John.”13 Unfortunately, Papias’ writ-

9 The Two-Gospel Theory holds that Matthew was written first, then Luke wrote depending on Matthew, and finally Mark wrote in dependence on Matthew and Luke.

10 See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.36.1-2. References and quotes of the church fathers are taken from the Loeb Classical Library series unless otherwise specified.

11 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1-2. 12 Yarbrough gives five convincing arguments supporting this date: First, Papias’ position in

Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (Book 3) places him with young Polycarp, Ignatius and even Clement, i.e. those who were the immediate successors to the apostles. Moreover, in Book 3 Eusebius catalogues no matters later than Trajan’s reign (97-117) and Book 4 opens with the twelfth year of Trajan (ca. A. D. 109), indicating that Eusebius viewed Papias as flourishing before A.D. 109. Second, Eusebius’ Chronicon places the aged Apostle John, Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius (in that order) in the same entry with the year “100” placed next to this entry as part of his running table of dates [see Rudolf Helm, Eusebius Werke, vol. VII: Die Chronik des Hieronymus, in Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1956) 193-194]. Third, Irenaeus called Papias “one of the ancients” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.3-4; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1-2). Since Irenaeus most likely had personal contact with Polycarp, who was a companion of Papias (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.4-8; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.4; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1), he is not liable to be mistaken in his opinion of Papias’ connections with earliest apostolic origins. Fourth, Irenaeus confirms that Papias was a hearer of John (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1). Fifth, neither Eusebius nor Irenaeus identifies Papias as an anto-gnostic witness, thus placing Papias much earlier than such gnostics as Valentinus, Basilides and Marcion. whose teachings both Irenaeus and Eusebius were trying to refute. For a more complete review of the strong evidence linking Papias to the date of ca. A. D. 95-110, see Robert W. Yarbrough, “The Date of Papias: A Reassessment,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 (June 1983): 181-91; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 611-13.

13 See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.33.4; also quoted by Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1. Regarding Eusebius’ skeptical attitude about whether Papias ever heard the apostle John (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1-2) see William R. Schoedel, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Fragments of Papias, vol. 5 of The Apostolic Fathers, Robert M. Grant, ed. (Camden, NJ: Thomas Nelson, 1967) 89-92;


ings are no longer extant. Only fragments of his works remain and are largely known through quotations by later Fathers, especially Eusebius. Papias wrote a series of five treatises entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord (Λογ\ων κυριακäν ¦ξηγZσεωH, Logio-n kuriako-n exe-ge-seo-s) in which he draws information from the remaining, living-eyewitness sources, i.e., the Apostle John himself and another original disciple of Jesus named Ariston, concerning what the apostles had said or done.14 In essence, Papias’ assertions had their foundation in direct “eyewitness” (i.e., firsthand) reports.15 If Papias wrote ca. A.D. 95-110, then the information that he imparts reaches well back into the first century and is an invaluable source of information regarding the gospels.

Papias included a brief account in his Expositions regarding the composition of Matthew: “Matthew collected (συνετVξατο , sunetaxato) the oracles (τ λ`για , ta logia) in the Hebrew language ({ΕβραÄδι διαλ Xκτå, Hebraidi dialekto-i), and each interpreted (ºρµZνευσεν, he-rme-neusen) them as best he could.”16 A great deal of conflict, however, has raged around this short statement, especially regarding the meaning and significance of the words “the oracles” (τ λ`για) and the phrase “in the Hebrew language” ({ΕβραÄδι διαλ Xκτå). An understanding of the latter expression has some impact on how one interprets the former.

Helm, Eusebius Werke, 7:193-94; 412-13. For persuasive evidence that Papias did have direct contact with the apostle, see Robert H. Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 611-13. Eusebius’ skepticism may have stemmed from his anti-chiliastic view as opposed to that of Papias (and Irenaeus) who strongly affirmed a physical reality of the millennium (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.12-13). Or, it may have resulted from Papias’ alleged preference for oral tradition rather than authorized books as his sources (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4; cf. also Robert M. Grant, ed., “An Introduction,” in vol. 1 of The Apostolic Fathers, A New Translation and Commentary [New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964], 86).

14 Eusebius denied that Papias was a direct hearer of the Apostle John by inferring that another John, John the Elder lived in Ephesus at the time (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.5-6). A close reading of Papias’ words, however, reveals that he neither affirmed nor denied that he was a hearer or eyewitness of the apostles. He does not mention it in the passage. Petrie argues, “[T]here is nothing to justify the careless confidence with which Eusebius contradicts Irenaeus” (C. Stewart Petrie, “Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew’,” 15-32 [esp. 17-18]). Furthermore, even if Papias was not a personal disciple of John, as Lightfoot contended, “still his age and country place him in more or less close connection with the traditions of the Apostles; and it is this fact which gives importance to his position and teaching” (J. B. Lightfoot, Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion [London: Macmillan, 1889] 142).

15 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16. Papias’ statement regarding John the disciple and the Elder John probably referred to one and the same person, i.e. John the Apostle (Petrie, “Authorship,” 18-24; Gundry, Matthew, 611-13).

16 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16.


Ta logia as an independent collection of Jesus’ sayings. Regarding the meaning of “the oracles” (τ λ`για), scholars exhibit

several major interpretations. Some think that it refers to an independent collection of Jesus’ sayings, perhaps Q.17 T. W. Manson popularized the view:

In Eusebius we find a quotation from Papias stating that “Matthew composed the oracles (τ λ`για) in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as he was able.” This obviously cannot refer to the first Gospel, which is essentially a Greek work based on Greek sources, of which Mark is one. It is, however, possible that what is meant is the document which we now call Q.18

Adding support to this conclusion was the fact that τ λ`για is not usual way of referring to a “gospel” and would be rather unique, for the normal descriptive term already seen by the time of Papias and evidenced in early manuscripts of the gospels would be τÎ εÛαγγXλιον (to euaggelion, “the gospel”).19

That explanation of τ λ`για , however, is dubious for several reasons. First, Papias does not use τ λ`για to refer only to sayings, but also to the deeds of Jesus. The title of Papias’ work, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord (Λογ\ων κυριακäν ¦ξηγZσεωH, Logio-n kuriako-n exe-ge-seo-s) implies that more than Jesus’ words are encompassed in its meaning, for enough is known regarding this work that he did not restrict it in scope to an exposition merely of Jesus’ words.20

Second, in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15-16, Papias com-mented that in composing his gospel, Mark, being Peter’s interpreter, “wrote accurately all that he remembered . . . of the things said or done by the Lord” [emphasis added] and immediately after this spoke of Peter as “not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles (σbνταξιν τäν κυριακä ν ποιοbµενοH λογ\ων, suntaxin to-n kuriako-n poioumenos logio-n), so that Mark

17 According to most, the designation “Q” stands for the first letter of the German word for “source,” Quelle. That position, however, is debated. See the discussion in John J. Schmitt, “In Search of the Origin of the Siglum Q,” Journal of Biblical Literature 100 (1981): 609-11.

18 T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1957) 18-20; cf. also idem, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1949) 18-19; idem, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, Matthew Black, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University, 1962) 82-83.

19 Lampe cites only two examples of this phrase referring to “the gospels” contained in the Chronicon Paschale (seventh century A.D.) (see “λ`γιον, τ`” in G. W. H. Lampe, A Patristric Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 806.

20 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1.


did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them.” Since Mark’s gospel included deeds as well as words, the expression τäν. . . λογ\ων (to-n . . . logio-n, “the oracles”) must include both too.

Third, the parallelism between these two phrases—”the things said or done” (τ . . . ´ λεχθXντα ´ πραχθXντα , ta . . . e- lechthenta e- prachthenta) and “the oracles of the Lord” (τäν κυριακ äν . . . λογ\ων)—in immediate juxtaposi-tion demonstrates that the latter expression, i.e. “the oracles of the Lord,” can encompass both the deeds as well as the words of Jesus.

Fourth, immediately after these statements regarding Mark’s gospel, Papias applies the term τ λ`για to Matthew’s work, thus making it hard to avoid the conclusion that he refers to Matthew’s gospel rather than some hypothetical sayings source like Q.21 Therefore, the τ λ`για is most naturally understood as a synonym for the gospel.22

No evidence exists that such a document as “Q” ever existed at Papias’ time or any other time. The increasing skepticism of a wide spectrum of NT scholars regarding the nature (e.g., make-up and extent) of Q and whether such a document ever really existed in church history make this suggestion highly dubious.23

Ta logia as a collection of OT proof texts. A second view similar to the first is that τ λ`για refers to an OT

testimonia collection (i.e., a book of OT proof texts) compiled by Matthew from the Hebrew canon for use in Christian apologetics, one that eventually was incorporated into canonical Matthew. Hunt forcefully argues,

[Λ]`για has nothing to do with the title of any book, but is a technical term meaning O.T. oracles. That is to say that λ`για was not the name of a book

21 Kittel argues that Papias’ use of the term λ`για (logia) cannot be confined to mere sayings or

collections of sayings, but more likely has reference to the whole gospel, i.e., words and deeds of Jesus: “[I]t is just as clear and indisputable that in the light of the usage of the LXX, NT and early Church the more comprehensive meaning is also possible” Gerhard Kittel, “λ`γιον,” TDNT, 4:141.

22 See Lightfoot, Essays on Supernatural Religion, 172-76. 23 See Stewart Petrie, “Q is Only What You Make It,” Novum Testamentum 3 (1959): 28-33.

Petrie points out that the wide variety and conflicting hypotheses concerning the nature and extent of Q have cast great suspicion on the validity of the hypothesis for its existence. Farrar, though holding to the idea that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark, nonetheless, argues that against the existence of Q (A. M. Farrar, “On Dispensing with Q,” in Studies in the Gospels, Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, D. E. Nineham, ed. [Oxford: Blackwell, 1955]: 55-88). After an extensive analysis, Linnemann, a former post-Bultmannian who at one time was a staunch advocate of the Two-Source Hypothesis, concludes that any idea of Q is a “fantasy,” is “based in error,” and “proves untenable” (Eta Linnemann, “Gospel of Q,” Bible Review XI [August 1995]: 19-23, 42-43).


composed by St. Matthew, or by anyone else, but was a description of the contents of the book; it was composed of λ`για, which had been arranged by St. Matthew.24

For Hunt, those who would see the term λ`για as meaning “gospel” most likely “have been hypnotized by tradition” and “for whatever τ λ`για may have been taken as meaning at a later period, it could not have meant The Gospel according to St. Matthew when originally written; since nobody will maintain that a gospel was ever called τ λ`για .”25 Similarly, Grant asserts that that τäν κυριακä ν . . . λογ\ων predominately refer to “divine utterances” like those contained in the OT.26 Therefore, Papias seems to refer to Matthew’s collection of OT prophecies of the Messiah as “a collection of the kind embedded in the Gospel of Matthew.”27

Yet, this view seems unlikely for significant reasons. First, a similar criticism applies to this view as to the first view above, i.e., in the context of Papias’ writings, τ λ`για most likely refers to both deeds and sayings of Jesus and not to a hypothesized collection of OT prooftexts. This view, therefore, supplies an aberrant meaning to Papias’ words. It also makes Grant’s assumption regarding τäν κυριακä ν . . . λογ\ων as referring to OT oracles tenuous since Papias, in the context of Eusebius’ discussion, refers to Jesus’ sayings and deeds rather than OT sayings, the latter not being in view at all in that context.28

Second, the view cannot account for the diversity of text forms in OT quotations in Matthew and for the way he often parallels the LXX rather than the Hebrew OT (e.g., Matt 1:23; 5:21, 27, 38, 43; 13:14-15; 21:16).29

Third, the most likely understanding of the term ºρµZνευσεν refers to “translation” of a language, especially in light of his phrase “in the Hebrew language” ({ΕβραÄδι διαλ Xκτå), rather than “interpretation” of OT sayings, the

24 B. P. W. Stather Hunt, Primitive Gospel Sources (London: James Clarke & Co., 1951) 184;

cf. also Rendel Harris, Testimonies, 2 vols. (Cambridge: University Press, 1920) 1:118-23, 130-31, 2:1-11, and F. C. Grant, The Gospels: Their Origin and Their Growth (New York: Harper, 1957) 65, 144.

25 Hunt, Primitive Gospel Sources, 184. 26 Grant, Gospels, Their Origin and Their Growth, 65, 144; cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History,

3.39.1, 14. 27 Grant, Gospels, Their Origin and Their Growth, 65. 28 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.1, 14. 29 Gundry notes, “Of the twenty formal quotations peculiar to Mt, seven are Septuagintal. Seven

are non-Septuagintal. In six there is a mixture of Septuagintal and non-Septuagintal” (Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel [Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1967] 149).


latter being the sense required under this view.30 Furthermore, this Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic) testimonia collection may not need to be “translated” especially since the LXX would have been well-established.

Ta logia as an error by Papias. Yet, if some scholars find neither of these two views satisfactory

regarding τ λ`για , then they often envision two alternatives in their discussion of its meaning: either Papias was inaccurate and his testimony should be discounted, or Papias was referring to some other composition of Matthew which is not now extant.

Carson, Moo, and Morris prefer the idea that Papias’ statement was par-tially in error when he asserted a Semitic (i.e. Aramaic) original of Matthew, labeling it as “an intelligent, albeit erroneous, guess.”31 From their point of view, Papias spoke from ignorance, especially if he “had no real knowledge of just how much Greek was spoken in first-century Palestine, especially in Galilee.”32 At times, they are ambivalent as to who wrote the gospel bearing Matthew’s name, for after discussing the evidence, both pros and cons, for apostolic authorship of the gospel, they conclude “at one level very little hangs on the question of the authorship of this [Matthew’s] gospel. By and large, neither its meaning nor its authority are greatly changed if one decides that its author was not an apostle.”33 For them, apostolic, eyewitness origin ultimately carries little weight for the validity of this gospel. Martin holds the same perspective.34

Harrison deprecates Papias in a fashion similar to Carson, Moo and Morris, arguing that “Papias, like Jerome, confused the Gospel according to the Hebrews or something like it with an Aramaic Matthew.”35 Similarly, Hill comments, “[T]he tradition of Matthean priority rests . . . on a misinterpretation of Papias’ statements, or on Papias’ misunderstanding of the actual matter to which he was referring.”36

Significantly, most of these evangelicals who dismiss the testimony of Papias apparently do so because of their acceptance of the historical-critical

30 Martin, New Testament Foundations, 1:239. 31 Carson et al., Introduction to the New Testament, 70. 32 Ibid., 71. 33 Ibid., 74; cf. D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Frank E. Gaebelein,

gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984) 8:19. 34 Martin, New Testament Foundations, 1:240. 35 Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971) 169. 36 Hill, Gospel of Matthew, 29.


conclusion that Mark was the first gospel, as expressed in the Two- or Four-Source hypothesis.37 For them, current (and dogmatic) source-critical conclusions are sufficient to override strong and ancient historical testimony.38 Yet, in reply, apostolic origin of the gospels is vital for a canonical document that purports to be a record of Jesus’ historical ministry on earth. The anonymity of the Matthean gospel argues strongly for the validity of tradition that attached Matthew’s name to it, because such anonymity is inexplicable apart from its direct association with the apostle Matthew. Matthew was a relatively obscure figure among the Twelve, so no adequate reason exists to explain why the early church would have chosen his name rather than a better-known apostle if he had not indeed written it.

Furthermore, the more reasonable explanation is that Papias, possessing information from highly placed apostolic and eyewitness testimony regarding Matthew, was correct and that attempts at deprecating Papias border on intellec-tual presumptuousness. Petrie describes such a casual dismissal of the evidence: “This is the kind of unintentional belittling guess that easily hardens from ‘may be’ to a firm statement and then becomes a dogmatic basis for further adventures in criticism.”39 Since Papias is not relating his own opinion but citing information derived from firsthand reports of the Apostle John and the disciple Ariston, a supposition of Papias’ confusion is unlikely. For as Gundry observes, “Possibilities of confusion decrease the closer we approach the time of writing. It is especially hard to think that one of the twelve apostles, John himself, fell into such an error.”40 Interestingly, Papias uses the imperfect tense (§λεγεν, elegen-“he was saying”) to depict how John repeatedly transmitted information to him about Mark’s arrangement of topics.41 Theirs was not just a one-time conversation. Petrie best summarizes Historical Criticism’s attack on Papias’ credibility well:

This testimony is on much firmer ground than the best speculative guesses of the twentieth century, and it must be fairly and fully reckoned with in the quest for Gospel backgrounds. Failing substantial evidence to contradict it or to turn its meaning, it is not to be dismissed because of its inconvenience for current hypotheses. If it does not accord with these hypotheses, it is the hypotheses that must be considered anew. For the one is tangible evidence

37 E.g., Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction to the New Testament, 61-85 (esp. 68-69);

Martin, New Testament Foundations, 1:139-60; 224-43; Hill, Matthew, 29-34. 38 E.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 8:13. 39 Petrie, “Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew,’” 29. 40 Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary, 618. 41 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15.


from a competent, informed, and credible witness; the rest, however attractive or even dazzling they appear, lack its substantiality.42

Ta logia as a canonical Greek Matthew. A fourth view of Papias’ meaning takes τ λ`για to refer to the canoni-

cal Greek version of Matthew’s gospel and exonerates Papias as an accurate reporter, but says his readers misunderstood him. Reflecting a concept similar to Kürzinger,43 Gundry asserts that rather than a linguistic sense, Papias’ expres-sion “in the Hebrew dialect” ({ΕβραÄδι διαλ Xκτå) has a literary sense, referring to a Semitic style: “In describing Matthew, then, ‘a Hebrew dialect’ means a Hebrew way of presenting Jesus’ messiahship.”44 With this approach, the verb ºρµZνευσεν had the sense of “explain” rather than “translate.”

Moreover, Kürzinger points out that immediately before Papias’ statement regarding Matthew, he describes Mark’s composition of his gospel as reflecting Peter’s testimony. There Papias calls Mark the “interpreter” (©ρµηνευτ¬H, herme-neute-s [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15]) of Peter. Kürzinger insists that this cannot mean that Mark was Peter’s “translator,” but must have been the “interpreter” of that preached or spoken by Peter.45 Thus, Papias’ statement regarding Matthew must mean that everyone “passed on” or “interpreted” Matthew’s Greek gospel to the world as he was able.

A first response to that analysis notes that although the sense of argumentational style is a possible meaning of διαλ Xκτå,46 it is a more remote and secondary sense. The most natural understanding of διVλεκτοH (dialektos) is “language,” not “interpretation.”47 Also, the term in combination with the noun {ΕβραÄδι (Hebraidi, lit. “Hebrew” but most likely a reference the Aramaic lan-

42 Petrie, “The Authorship of Matthew,” 32. Strangely, Hagner, a Markan prioritist, agrees: “[I]t seems better to take this early piece of evidence seriously rather than to dismiss it as being dead wrong. Papias had reason for saying what he did . . . we do well to attempt to make sense of his testimony” (Donald A. Hanger, Matthew 1-13, vol. 33A of Word Biblical Commentary, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, eds. (Waco, TX.: Word, 1993) xlvi.

43 Josef Kürzinger, “Das Papiaszeugnis und die Erstgestalt des Matthäusevangeliums,” Biblische Zeitschrift 4 (1960): 19-38; cf. idem, “Irenäus und sein Zeugnis zur Sprache des Matthäus-evangeliums,” New Testament Studies 10 (1963): 108-15.

44 Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary, 619-20. 45 Cf. Kürzinger, “Das Papiaszeugnis,” 22-23, 27-30. 46 E.g., cf. Liddell and Scott, A Greek English Lexicon, revised and augmented by Henry Stuart

Jones, with a 1968 Supplement (Oxford: Clarendon, 1940) 401. 47 E.g., BAGD, 185; James P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament Based on Semantic Domains (New York: United Bible Societies, 1988) 1:389 (33.1).


guage) and the verb ©ρµηνεbειν (herme-neuein, “to interpret”) points to the latter’s natural meaning of “translate (a language)” rather than to an alleged Semitic style.

Second, the church fathers understood Papias’ statement as referring to language. Without exception they held that the apostle Matthew wrote the cano-nical Matthew and that he wrote it first in a Semitic language.48

Third, all six occurrences of the word διVλεκτοH in the NT refer to human languages rather than to a particular style of argument (Acts 1:19; 2:6, 8; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14).49 These three arguments render the view of Kürzinger and Gundry as very improbable.

Observe that the common thread of all four viewpoints of Papias’ words discussed so far is an a priori assumption of validity of the Two-Document Hypothesis. As a result, they all attempt to find a way either to diminish the force of Papias’ words, dismiss his information as inaccurate or wrong, or superimpose a totally foreign understanding on Papias. Survival of synoptic hypothesis drives them to pursue such tactics as Gundry illustrates in his discussion of Papias’ words. “[I]t is the currently prevalent and well-substantiated opinion that our Greek Matthew shows many signs of drawing in large part on the Gospel of Mark, also written in Greek.”50

Gundry goes one step further in his analysis of Papias’ words. He takes them to indicate that Matthew deliberately corrected Mark. Immediately before Papias’ comments about Matthew (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16), Eusebius quotes Papias’ description of the composition of Mark:

“And the Presbyter [John] used to say this, ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the

48 E.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1 (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.2);

Tertullian (Against Marcion, 4.2); Pantaenus, cited by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.3); Origen (quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 6.25.3-6); Eusebius himself (Ecclesiastical History, 3.24.5-6); and Jerome, Preface to the Commentary on Saint Matthew; Lives of Illustrious Men, 2.3.

49 Gundry argues that these NT occurrences of διVλεκτοH (dialektos, “language” or “dialect”) are articular (and thus definite) so that human language is clearly in mind in these passages. In contrast, Papias’s reference does not have the article (i.e. {ΕβραÄδι διαλ Xκτå, Hebraidi dialekto-i, “Hebrew dialect”). He concludes that Papias’s reference should be considered indefinite (“a Hebrew way of presenting Jesus’ messiahship” or Semitic style of argument) rather than definite (“the Semitic language”). See Gundry, Matthew, A Commentary, 629-30. Yet, in reply, the article is not necessary for Papias to mean “language.” The force of {ΕβραÄδι (“Hebrew”) with διαλ Xκτå is sufficient to make the term definite without the article. For instances where the article is not necessary to make a noun definite, consult Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 245-54.

50 Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary, 618.


things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.’” This is related by Papias about Mark.51

Since the statements come before Papias’ comments about Matthew’s gospel, Gundry contends that they prove that Mark wrote before Matthew. In summary, he argues that the sequence and nature of discussion in this section indicate that Matthew should be understood as a deliberate corrective to Mark. He notes that Papias’ statements that Mark’s gospel was written “not, indeed, in order” and “not making . . . an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles” comes immediately before Papias’ discussion of Matthew and how he “collected” (συνετVξατο ) his oracles. Gundry contends, Matthew did it “for the precise purpose of bringing order out of the chaos in Mark.”52

However, a few observations show Gundry’s contentions to be tenuous. First, Eusebius is quoting detached statements of Papias regarding Mark and Matthew so that the sequence of the gospels means nothing nor does any alleged dependence among the gospels surface in the order of discussion in the text.53

Second, such a theory indicates the absolute paucity of evidence for the Two-Document Hypothesis in ancient tradition. Its proponents must attempt to make something out of nothing in an apparent desperate attempt at proving their a priori and dogmatic assumption that colors everything they analyze.

Papias’ words (and Eusebius’ citation and discussion) do not constitute any type of proof for Markan priority or literary dependence between Matthew and Mark. They add absolutely nothing to an understanding of any relationship

51 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.15. 52 Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary, 614. 53 Gundry contends that the οÞν in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16 refers back “to the statement

about Mark” and therefore ties the thought about Mark and Matthew together. As a result, “οÞν contains an immmensely important implication for synoptic studies . . . Matthew’s reason for writing is in view . . . Matthew wrote his gospel for the precise purpose of bringing order out of the chaos in Mark.” (Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary, 614). However, contrary to Gundry, his contention of a link through οÞν is dubious. The οÞν grammatically draws an inferential conclusion to the discussion about Mark, going back by 3.39.14. Furthermore, περÂ δ¥ occurs after the οÞν and functions to intro-duce new, unrelated information concerning Matthew’s gospel (cf. Paul’s introduction of new subject matter in 1 Cor 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1, 12), thus demonstrating that these two thoughts of Papias about Mark and Matthew most likely are not linked together nor in any way indicative of Gundry’s contention for Matthew as a corrective of Mark.


between Matthew or Mark (or the other gospels for that matter). Eusebius’ disjointed citation of Papias’ words about Mark coming before that same historian’s citation of Papias’ words about Matthew’s gospel have no relevance to that issue. Such alleged evidence goes far beyond what the statements indicate and is unquestionably non sequitur. As a matter of fact, Papias’ statements here actually constitute evidence against an assumed literary dependence, for he remarked that Mark depended on Peter for the contents of his gospel!

Ta logia as an early edition of Matthew’s gospel. A final view, distinct from the others (and also from their synoptic

hypotheses) is that Papias referred to an earlier edition of Matthew written entirely in Hebrew (i.e., Aramaic). That was perhaps a proto-Matthew, i.e., a shorter version that eventually came to be incorporated into (not necessarily translated from but contained within) an expanded Greek version, i.e., the canonical Gospel of Matthew.54 Thus, Papias indicated that Matthew wrote first (prior to the other gospels) and that in so doing, he produced an initial Aramaic edition. The Aramaic edition served as a model and/or source for some of the contents of his Greek edition that he most likely produced as a fresh work soon after he wrote the Aramaic one.55

Several arguments support this proposal. First, it permits Papias to speak for himself and allows for an understanding of his words in their natural sense. Since he was closest to the events and relied on excellent sources, his information must have priority over speculative modern hypotheses.

Second, an expanded Greek version would have been quickly helpful among Matthew’s targeted Jewish audience, especially those hellenized Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew (those of the Diaspora [Acts 6:1]). Although Matthew concentrated his efforts at first among Hebraistic Jews who spoke Aramaic, such a gospel would have limited appeal outside of the land of the Jews. Tradition has it that Matthew eventually left the environs of Jerusalem to

54 The canonical Greek Version shows no signs of being translated from Aramaic. For example, in certain places it transliterates Aramaic into Greek before giving a Greek translation—e.g., Matt 1:23, zΕµµανουZλ, Ó ¦στιν µεθερµηνευ`µενον µεθz ºµäν Ò θε H (Emmanoue-l, ho estin metherme-neuomenon meth’ he-mo-n ho theos—“Immanuel, which is interpreted ‘God with us’”); Matt 27:33, Γολγοθ, Ó ¦στιν Κραν \ου Τ`ποH λεγ`µενοH (Golgotha, ho estin Kraniou Topos legomenos, “Golgotha, which is called ‘the Place of the Skull’”); cf. also Matt 27:46. Also, the Greek Matthew provides explanations of local customs among the Jews that would have been unnecessary for an Aramaic-speaking audience (e.g., Matt 27:15). Though the Greek Matthew is not a translation, Matthew may have produced an expanded version of the life of Christ that incorporated much of the original Aramaic without being a direct translation of it. Such an entirely reworked version would have suited the needs of the Diaspora Jews and others.

55 Louis Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdman-Sevensma, 1915) 64-71; Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943) 137.


minister among non-Aramaic-speaking peoples.56 The dominance of Greek in the Hellenistic world would have compelled him to produce another edition. Because he was a former tax-collector for the Romans, he would most likely have been conversant in Greek as well as Aramaic,57 thus facilitating the writing of both versions. Once the Greek Matthew became current in the church, the limited appeal of Aramaic caused that edition to fall into disuse. Papias’ statement that “each interpreted” Matthew’s gospel [Aramaic version] “as best he could” probably hints at the reason why Matthew would have quickly produced a Greek version i.e., to facilitate the understanding of his gospel in the universal language of Greek.

Third, this view accords with the very early and consistent manuscript ascription of the Gospel to Matthew (ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΘΘΑΙΟΝ, KATA MATHTHAION, “According to Matthew”).58 The title is not a part of the original text, but no positive evidence exists that the book ever circulated without this title. Moreover, the ascription has a very early date, approximately A.D. 125.59 As Guthrie notes, “[T}he title cannot be dismissed too lightly, for it has the support of ancient tradition and this must be the starting point of the discussion regarding authorship.”60 Very early and consistent ascription of the Greek gospel to Matthew would indicate that the transfer of connection from Matthew’s Aramaic version mentioned by Papias to the Greek gospel occurred at a very early stage well into the first century. Such a very early stage would have placed Greek Matthew into a period when people, such as surviving apostles, eyewitnesses, and other who possessed first-hand knowledge regarding the Gospel would have linked the Aramaic and Greek versions together as coming from the hand of Matthew. Moreover, during this strategic early period, the

56 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.24.5-6; Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles, 7; cf. D. A.

Hagner, “Matthew,” in ISBE, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986) 3:280. 57 Matt 9:9-14; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32; cf. Gundry, Use of the Old Testament, 183; Edgar

J. Goodspeed, Matthew, Apostle and Evangelist (Philadelphia: John C. Winston, 1959) 42-47. 58 Davies and Allison try to explain away the title in light of their assumption that Mark wrote

first and the Matthean gospel could not have been written by an apostle. Their case lacks persua-siveness in light of consistent manuscript evidence, however (cf. W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, The Gospel According to Matthew, International Critical Commentary [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988] 1:58).

59 Ropes reasons, “Probably as early in the second century as the year 125, someone, in some place, or some group of persons, assembled for the use and convenience of the churches the only four Greek books describing the life and teachings of Jesus Christ which were then believed to be of great antiquity and worthy of a place in such a collection” (J. H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels, 2d Impression with New Preface [Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University, 1960] 103).

60 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity, 1990) 156-57.


prevention of such linkage could also have occurred if such attempts at linkage were inaccurate.

This early ascription coordinates well with the very early and widespread influence of Greek Matthew in the early church in the period before Irenaeus. Signficant Matthean influence can be seen in such early second-century works as 1 Clement (ca. A.D. 81-96), Barnabas (ca. A.D. 70-135), the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ca. A.D. 98-117), 2 Clement (ca. A.D. 138-142), Polycarp (to the Philippians ca. A.D. 98-117; d. ca. 156 or 167), Aristedes of Athens (fl. A.D. 123), Justin Martyr (d. ca. 165), Tatian (fl. ca. A.D. 160-170) and the Didache (ca. A.D. late first century to mid-second century), to mention only a few.61 Such influence finds its most reasonable explanation in Matthean authorship of the Greek Gospel as well as the Aramaic version discussed by Papias. Furthermore, this unbroken stream of tradition indicates that Matthew was responsible for both versions of the Gospel that bears his name. While the Aramaic version was helpful for Matthew’s work among Jews, his departure to work with gentiles resulted in his issuance of the Greek version in the lingua franca of the day in order to facilitate the spread of the good news regarding Messiah among gentiles.

Fourth, though patristic witnesses like Papias uniformly spoke of an Aramaic original for the gospel, they accepted the Greek Matthew as unquestionably authoritative and coming from the Apostle Matthew himself.62 They offered no explanation concerning the change in language.63 Most likely, that indicates their regard for the Greek Matthew as authoritative and substan-tially representative of the Hebrew τ λ`για .64 Besides, all references to the Gospel of Matthew in the early church fathers reflect the Greek Matthew rather than the Hebrew. They never viewed the Greek Gospel of Matthew as inferior but as equal or better than the other Greek canonical gospels in terms of its authority and influence.

The Matthean authorship of both the Greek and Aramaic versions is strengthened by the unlikelihood of such a transfer occurring between documents

61 The reader is once again directed to Massaux’s excellent cataloguing of Matthew’s extensive

influence in Christian literature during this early period (consult Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Books 1-3. For the composition dates of some of these works, consult Robert M. Grant, gen. ed. The Apostolic Fathers. A New Translation and Commentary (New York: Thomas Nelson, 1964): 1:38, 46-48, 64, 71; 3:42-43, 76-77; 5:4.

62 See note 48 for a list of fathers who supported this. 63 Jerome who wrote, “who afterwards translated it into Greek is not certainly known,” is a

possible exception (Jerome Lives of Illustrious Men, 2.3). 64 D. Edmond Hiebert, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 1, The Gospels and Acts

(Winona Lake, IN: BMH, 1975) 53.


that differed signficantly in language and in content unless Matthew himself did produce both versions. The traditions of Matthean authorship for both versions are so significantly early and consistent that authorship by Matthew himself constitutes the most reasonable explanation for both streams of tradition.

Fifth, the universal ascription of the Greek Matthew to the Apostle Matthew and the failure of tradition to mention any other possible author except Matthew renders unconvincing any suggestion that the early church forgot the true author of the work. Only a brief span of 50 to 60 years passed between its composition and the statements of Papias. A less-prominent apostle such as Matthew would not have been a likely candidate to receive credit for such an important and influential document as the Greek Matthew unless he did indeed write it. As indicated earlier in this essay, “of all the New Testament Writings, the Gospel of Mt. was the one whose literary influence was the most widespread and the most profound in Christian literature that extended into the last decades of the second century. . . . [T]he first gospel remained the gospel par excellence. . . . The gospel was, therefore, the normative fact of Christian life. It created the background for ordinary Christianity.”65

The only adequate explanation for the gospel’s influence and overwhelming popularity in the early church is its apostolic authorship. That one of the Twelve wrote it soon after writing his Aramaic τ λ`για and before Mark and Luke wrote their gospels is far and away the most satisfactory explanation for the facts that remain from early church history.

In light of the evidence, unless someone feels compelled to embrace historical-critical scholarship’s a priori assumption of Markan priority, the testimony of Papias is credible and supportive of Matthean priority and Matthean authorship of the gospel that bears Matthew’s name.

IRENAEUS

Irenaeus (b. ca. A.D. 115-120 and martyred ca. A.D. 200), an immigrant from Asia Minor, was presbyter of the church at Lyons in Gaul. He was one of the early church’s most able apologists and theologians, writing against Marcion and the gnostics with His work Refutation and Overthrow of Knowledge Falsely So-called, which tradition has more conveniently labeled Against Heresies (com-pleted ca. A.D. 185).66

65 Massaux, Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew, 3:186-87. 66 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.7.1. Two major writings of Irenaeus have survived. In

addition to Against Heresies, he also wrote Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, the latter being an instructional book demonstrating that the Christian faith fulfills the OT, first published in the twentieth century.


In his youth, he claims to have been a disciple of Polycarp (b. ca. A.D. 70 and d. ca. A.D. 155-160). He writes, “Polycarp . . . was not only instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but was also appointed bishop by apostles in Asia in the church in Smyrna.”67 Irenaeus continues, “We also saw him [i.e., Polycarp] in our childhood. . . . He [i.e., Polycarp] constantly taught those things which he had learnt from the apostles, which also are the tradition of the church, which alone are true.”68 As reported by Eusebius, Polycarp, in turn, was a disciple of the Apostle John:

“I [i.e. Irenaeus] remember the events of those days more clearly than those which happened recently, for what we learn as children grows up with the soul and is united to it, so that I can speak even of the place in which the blessed Polycarp sat and disputed, how he came in and went out, the character of his life, the discourses which he made to the people, how he [Polycarp] reported his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, how he remembered their words, and what were the things concerning the Lord which he had heard from them . . . and how Polycarp had received them from the eyewitnesses of the word of life.”69

Besides Polycarp, Irenaeus also had met and conversed with many apostolic and sub-apostolic fathers of Asia Minor and obtained information from them about the life and teachings of the Lord and the activities of the early church.70 He thus reflected information from many sources and not only from his own childhood memories. He also had traveled extensively (e.g., from Asia Minor to Gaul and also the church in Rome), so that his information is not from an isolated region but widespread.

Irenaeus writes the following regarding the gospels:

Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and founding the church. But after their death, Mark also, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter, and Luke also, who was a follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel which was preached by him. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who

67 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.14.3. 68 Ibid., 4.14.3-4; 5.20.5-6; cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4. 69 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.20.5-6. 70 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.22.5; 4.27.1; 4.32.1; 5.36.2.


had even rested on his breast, himself also gave forth the gospel, while he was living in Ephesus in Asia.71

Proponents of the Two-Document Hypothesis dismiss Irenaeus’ asser-tion as useless because they assert he was merely repeating Papias. Filson argues, “But note this: Papias is the key witness. Irenaeus, for example, obviously knows and uses Papias as an authority. No tradition demonstrably independent of Papias exists.”72 Nineham does the same: “The testimony of early Christian writers subsequent to Papias, such as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome, need not be discussed at length, for it is not clear that these writers had any trustworthy source of information other than the Papias tradition.”73 Streeter, the great advocate of the Four-Document Hypothesis deprecates Irenaeus’ ability to testify regarding Polycarp’s connection to John, dismissing the evidence because of Irenaeus’ youth. He says he was too young to tell to which “John” Polycarp referred.74

Petrie drives to the heart of their problem, noting, “There is in the document [i.e., the writings of Irenaeus] no hint of dependence [i.e., on Papias]. Indeed, Irenaeus was sufficiently close to the authorities of Papias to have gathered this information on his own.”75 In addition, Irenaeus was more than likely at least 15 years old, old enough “to understand the meaning of Polycarp’s words and also to distinguish between the Apostle John and any other John.”76 As Lightfoot reasoned, “A pupil of Polycarp, at all events, was not likely to be misinformed here.”77 Besides nullifying the Two- or Four-Source Theory’s view of Markan priority, Irenaeus’ testimony also negates literary dependence of Mark on Matthew as proposed by the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, because it states that Mark depended on Peter’s preaching, not on the other written gospels of Matthew or Luke, for his information.

In sum, proponents of Two-Document Hypothesis must either reject, ignore, or explain away much of the evidence by any means possible, because

71 Ibid., 3.1.1-4; cited also in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.1-4. 72 Floyd Filson, A Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, 2d ed. (London: Adam &

Charles Black, 1971) 16. 73 D. E. Nineham, St. Mark (Philadelphia: Westminster,1963) 39 (see note at bottom of page). 74 Streeter apparently held that the Apostle John and the Elder John to whom Papias referred

were two different individuals (Streeter, Four Gospels, 444). 75 Petrie, “Authorship of ‘The Gospel According to Matthew,’“ 29. 76 A. C. Perumalil, “Are not Papias and Irenaeus competent to report on the Gospels?,”

Expository Times 91 (August 1980): 336. 77 J. B. Lightfoot, Supernatural Religion, 142.


acceptance of its credibility would reinforce the fact of Matthew’s gospel being written prior to the other gospels. That constitutes a strong testimony either against their assumption of the priority of Mark or, for that matter, against the idea that Mark depended on Matthew instead of Peter’s preaching as held by the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. The belittling of Irenaeus by advocates of the Two-Document Hypothesis notwithstanding, Irenaeus’ testimony is credible and important in its own right, constituting an independent and reliable witness for information regarding Matthew as the first gospel.

Worthy of observation also is Irenaeus’ failure to make a substantial distinction between the Aramaic and Greek versions as coming from Matthew.78 For example, in Against Heresies 3.1.1 Irenaeus discusses all four gospels. In this discussion, he mentions only the Hebrew Matthew. Yet, in the work he shows a close familiar with Greek Matthew by referring to it frequently.79 That indicates that he equated the Aramaic Matthew with the Greek Matthew and intimately connected them with each other.

Although the statement cited follows the order Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the sequence in this passage is unique to Irenaeus.80 He generally follows the order of Matthew, Luke, Mark and John at other places which, as Campenhausen notes, “would seem therefore to be the order most familiar to Irenaeus himself.”81 Yet, in another place he follows the sequence John-Luke-Matthew-Mark (Against Heresies, 3.2.8), perhaps because of theological rather than historical, reasons.82 Since Irenaeus follows a variety of sequences when mentioning the gospels, he is not of much help in establishing a sequence of composition, but he does offer support for the priority of Matthew as first to be composed and apparent support for the composition of Luke before Mark.

78 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; also cited by Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 5.8.2. 79 To cite only a few random examples, cf. Irenaeus Against Heresies “Preface” 2 with Matt

10:26; cf. 1.1.3 with Matt 20:1-16; cp. 1.3.5 with Matt 10:21, 34; cf. 1.6.1 with Matt 5:13-14; cf. 1.8. with Matt 26:38-39; 27:46; cf. 3.8.1 with Matt 6:24.

80 Irenaeus in this context appears to be setting forth an apologetic regarding the content of each gospel as being inspired by the Holy Spirit and united in testimony about the true contents of the gospel in contrast to the teaching of heretics. He is not necessarily setting forth a strict compositional order (cf. Against Heresies, 3.2.1).

81 Hans von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972) 195 n. 243; cf. e.g., Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.9.1-11.8; 4.6.1.

82 Campenhausen explains this order of John-Luke-Matthew-Mark as corresponding “to the various epochs of salvation history” from Irenaeus’ perspective (Campenhausen, Formation of the Christian Bible, 195 n. 243.


CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA

The origins of Christianity in Alexandria are obscure. The movement must have appeared there at a relatively early date, since it appears firmly established at least as early as ca. late second century.83 According to Eusebius, Pantaenus was the earliest leader of the catechetical school in Alexandria ca. A.D. 185. He was a converted Stoic philosopher whom Eusebius describes as “especially eminent.”84 Eventually, Pantaenus was “appointed as a herald for the gospel of Christ to the heathen in the East, and was sent as far as India.”85 Upon arrival, Pantaenus allegedly discovered that the Hebrew version of Matthew’s gospel had preceded him there, being left by the Apostle Bartholomew.86 That tradition corroborates information from both Papias and Irenaeus about Matthew writing originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic).

Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215) located in Alexandria and became a pupil of Pantaenus.87 In time, he distinguished himself as a scholar and became a teacher for over twenty years in Alexandria, succeeding Pantaenus as the leader of the school. At the outbreak of persecution under Severus in A.D. 202, he left Alexandria, never to return. In spite of periods of intense persecution, the school gained great prominence and importance. Beyond that, few facts regarding Clement are available. Nothing certain is known concerning his paren-tage or early training.88 Most likely, he was not a Christian during his early years. According to Eusebius, however, he was “the namesake of the pupil of the apostles who had once ruled the church of Rome,”89 while his name reflects his connection with the Egyptian city of Alexandria where he accomplished all his important works. His extant works are Exhortation to the Greeks, Pedagogue, Stromateis or Miscellanies, Who is the rich man that shall be saved?, and some fragments from Selections from the Prophets, which is a brief commentary on portions of the Scripture.

83 Williston Walker and Richard A. Norris, David W. Lotz and Robert T. Handy, A History of

the Christian Church, 4th ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1985) 87. 84 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.10.1-2. 85 Ibid., 5.10.2. 86 Ibid., 5.10.2-3. 87 Ibid., 5.11.1-2. 88 Butterworth says he may have been an Athenian by birth (G. W. Butterworth, “Introduction,”

Clement of Alexandria, trans. by G. W. Butterworth, The Loeb Classical Library [London: William Heinemann, 1919], xi).

89 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.11.1


Information from Clement is of basic importance in determining the order of composition of the gospels, for not only was he a preeminent early church scholar as head of the Alexandrian school, but was also in personal contact with a number of church elders from different parts of the Mediterranean world and their information regarding that order. The following quotation of Clement by Eusebius reveals Clement’s widespread network of information:

This work [i.e. Stromateis] is not a writing composed for show, but notes stored up for my old age, a remedy against forgetfulness, an image without art, and a sketch of those clear and vital words which I was privileged to hear, and of blessed and truly notable men. Of these one, the Ionian, was in Greece, another in South Italy, a third in Coele-Syria, another in Egypt, and there were others in the East, one of them an Assyrian, another in Palestine of Hebrew origin. But when I had met the last, and in power he was indeed the first, I hunted him out from his concealment in Egypt and found rest.90

The last elder in Egypt referred to is most likely Pantaenus. Since he probably met Pantaenus in the latter part of the second century, the testimony that the various elders passed on would reflect well back into the first half of that century.91

What is important for the present study is that Clement’s widespread information furnishes important additional understanding about the order of the synoptics. Eusebius quotes him as follows regarding this order:

And again in the same books Clement has inserted a tradition of the primitive elders with regard to the order of the Gospels, as follows. He said that those Gospels were first written which include the genealogies, but that the Gospel according to Mark came into being in this manner: When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, that those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said; and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter’s knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward. But that John, last of all, conscious that the outward facts had been set forth in

90 Ibid., 5.11.3-4; Clement Stromateis, 1.1.1.11; cf. also J. Stevenson, The New Eusebius, rev. by

W. H. C. Frend (London: SPCK, 1987) 180 [Stromateis, 1.1.11.1-3; Ecclesiastical History, 5.11.3-5]. 91 William R. Farmer, “The Patristic Evidence Reexamined: A Response to George Kennedy,”

in New Synoptic Studies, William R. Farmer, ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 7.


the Gospels, was urged on by his disciples, and, divinely moved by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is Clement’s account.92

Several important features emerge from those words. First, Clement supplies unique information when revealing that the gospels with genealogies (Matthew and Luke) originated before Mark. A scholar of his stature was not prone merely to repeat information without careful investigation. Though Clement does not reveal whether Matthew was first and Luke second or Matthew second and Luke first, he does clearly indicate Mark’s third position after Matthew and Luke and not before them as modern historical-critical theories such as Two- and Four-Document Hypotheses maintain.

Moreover, the information from Clement does not contradict Matthew’s being first but is an important supplement to information gleaned from other church fathers (e.g., Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian). The others make plain that Matthew was first, thereby placing Luke second in sequence when combined with Clement’s information. Like Irenaeus, Clement places the apostle John’s gospel last, saying John wrote it with full awareness of the other three and designed it to supplement the “synoptic” accounts as a “spiritual Gospel.” The order of composition, then, was Matthew first, Luke second, Mark third, and John last.

Third, very important in evaluating Clement’s information in regard to any proposed solution to the Synoptic Problem is that the tradition he passed on did not come just from a single elder in a single locality but from “a tradition of the primitive elders” (παρVδοσιν τäν •νXκαθεν πρεσβυτXρων, paradosin to-n anekathen presbutero-n) scattered widely throughout the Christian community. That indicates that it was a tradition known and received in different places some time in the early to mid-second century. Clement’s wide travels made this information all the more significant, because it represents a strong tradition in the early church, not merely a fanciful whim of Clement and a few others. As a result, one cannot easily dismiss such information.

Fourth, according to Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History, 2.16.1, Mark helped found the church at Alexandria and was its first overseer. For Clement to place Mark’s gospel third in order of composition is, therefore, all the more important. Gamba notes, “He [Clement] would have no reason at all to place Mark’s gospel after the other two that contain a genealogy of Jesus, unless it was

92 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.5-7; Clement, Hypotyposeis, 6. The quotation comes

from Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, Volume II, trans. by J. E. L. Oulton, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1932) 46-59.


for a definite and grounded persuasion of historical nature.”93 That reinforces the strength and reliability of Clement’s testimony.

TERTULLIAN

Tertullian (ca. A.D. 160-225), an exact contemporary of Clement of Alexandria, constitutes a prime witness to the faith of the African church regarding the authenticity of the gospels. Despite his eventual Montanist proclivities, he was the outstanding apologist of the Western church of his time.94

Little is known of his life except that he was a native of Carthage whose father had been a Roman centurion on duty in that city. He knew and used both Latin and Greek and loved the classics. He became a proficient lawyer and taught public speaking and law in Rome, where he became a convert to Christianity. His goal was the development of a sound Western theology and the defeat of all false philosophical and pagan forces opposed to Christianity.95

Tertullian’s importance for gospel study lies especially in the fact that he witnessed to the tradition of all Western Christianity, especially the tradition of Rome. His treatise, Against Marcion (ca. A.D. 207-212), is especially relevant to the composition of the gospels, because he affirms that apostles wrote Matthew and John, that Mark’s gospel reflects Peter’s preaching, and that Paul was the sponsor of Luke.

Regarding the four gospels, Tertullian reported that “the evangelical Testament has Apostles as its authors.”96 Here Tertullian makes no distinction between an Aramaic and Hebrew Matthew, but considers that the Greek Matthew has come from the Apostle Matthew himself. Since Tertullian was a lawyer and orator by profession and an outstanding apologist against the heretic Marcion in his Treatise Against Marcion where he mentions the gospels’ composition, he most probably had his information correct concerning the traditions behind the four gospels. He saw no grounds at all for setting aside this tradition as he attacked Marcion’s stance. Any possibility of the facts being wrong would have weakened his attack against Marcion. That his comments corroborate as well as

93 Giuseppe Fiov. Gamba, “A Further Reexamination of Evidence from Early Tradition,” in

New Synoptic Studies, William R. Farmer, ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 21 n. 10. For further discussion of other ancient documents that support Clement’s tradition, see ibid., 21-29.

94 Tertullian became a Montanist in the very early part of the third century A.D. (cf. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Though the Centuries rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] 106-07).

95 Ibid.,106. 96 Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.5.3; cf. ibid., 4.2.1-5.


supplement the traditions of Papias, Irenaeus, and Clement strengthens his case even more.

ORIGEN

Origen (ca. A.D. 185-253) was born into a Christian family at Alexandria. At the age of eighteen, because of his renowned scholarship, he became Clement of Alexandria’s successor as the principal Christian teacher in that city after Clement left due to the persecution under Septimus Severus in A.D. 202.97 Although an eclectic Middle Platonism that was prevalent in Alexandria and in the East adversely affected his thought and gave him a strong propensity toward an allegorical hermeneutic, he was the most remarkable scholar of his time in depth and breadth of learning.

Origen’s extant works evidence his profound scholarship. Unfortunately, most of his writings have perished, but he may have written over six thousand works. Several salient examples of his scholarship are representative of the rest. His Hexapla, in which several Hebrew and Greek versions of the OT are arranged in parallel columns, constitutes the beginnings of textual criticism. One of his greatest contributions was his work De Principiis (ca. A.D. 230), which exists only in a Latin version by Rufinus. It is the first Christian treatise of systematic theology. In the fourth book of that work he set forth his allegorical method of interpretation. In Against Celsus he devised an apologetic defense against the anti-Christian Platonist Celsus. Yet, the majority of his writings took the form of an exegetical commentary on Scripture.

Origen was also widely traveled, having visited Rome (ca. A.D. 211-212), where he met Hippolytus, and Arabia (ca. A.D. 213-214). In ca. A.D. 215 when the emperor Caracalla drove all teachers of philosophy from Alexandria, Origen traveled to Caesarea in Palestine. He resumed his teaching in Alexandria ca. A.D. 216 and continued there until ca. AD. 230-231. Therefore, the information that he imparts regarding the Synoptic Gospels is from a man not only of great learning and research but also one who was widely traveled.

Eusebius records the following from Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew:

But in the first of his [Commentaries] on the Gospel According to Matthew, defending the canon of the Church, he gives his testimony that he knows only four Gospels, writing somewhat as follows: “. . . as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the

97 Cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.1-8, 16, 29, 23-27, 32.


Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter’s instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle. . . . And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was the praise of Paul. After them all, that according to John.98

Here Origen’s statement reflects an order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but nothing in the context requires this to be an assumed chronological order for Mark and Luke. His explicit statement is that Matthew wrote first and John last, but otherwise Eusebius’ discussion centers in Origen’s view of the exact number of the gospels rather than in the order of their composition.99 Most likely, Eusebius included Origen’s statement because of its bearing on the number (not the order) of gospels in the canon of the church. He probably accepted Origen’s order as reflecting the canonical order of appearance in NT manuscripts. On the other hand, Eusebius included Clement’s statement cited earlier in this chapter because it related directly to the chronological sequence of composition of the gospels (i.e., Matthew, Luke, Mark and John).100

In another place, Origen stressed the apostolic origin of the four gospels and rejected numerous apocryphal gospels as spurious. Origen accepted only four gospels: “For Matthew did not ‘take in hand’ but wrote by the Holy Spirit, and so did Mark and John and also equally Luke.”101 In this quotation, he does not distinguish between Greek and Aramaic versions of Matthew, but includes the Greek Matthew as written by the apostle himself along with the other three gospels (i.e., John, Mark, and Luke). Though he was aware that Matthew originally wrote in Hebrew (see earlier quotation from his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew), this latter statement implies that he made no distinction between the Aramaic and Greek versions, but included the Greek as equally authoritative with the other three gospels and also stressed its origin from the Holy Spirit.

98 Ibid., 6.25.3-6. 99 The larger context deals with Origen’s view of the number of sacred writings in the OT and

NT (Ibid., 6.25.1-14). 100 Farmer, “Patristic Evidence Reexamined,” 14. 101 Origen, Homily in Luke I; cf. also Orchard and Riley, Order of the Synoptics, 137.


Just as with Tertullian and Clement, to doubt Origen’s assertions that Matthew and John were written by apostles and that men associated with the apostles wrote the gospels that bear their names (i.e., Luke and Mark) would be to repudiate Origen’s intelligence as a preeminent, careful scholar and also to question his integrity.

EUSEBIUS

Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. A.D. 260-340), bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was a pupil of the presbyter Pamphilus, who was himself a student of Origen. Many look on him as the father of church history, especially in light of his most famous work Ecclesiastical History, which surveyed the history of the church from apostolic times until A.D. 324.102 His purpose was to compose a record of past trials of the church at the end of its long struggle and the beginning of its era of prosperity. The work is particularly valuable since Eusebius had access to the excellent library housed at Caesarea and also the imperial archives. He also records that he exerted great effort to be honest and objective in using the best and most reliable of the primary sources available to him.103 Therefore, in many respects Eusebius is an invaluable source of knowledge concerning the history of the church during her first three centuries of existence. Eusebius was also a participant in the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).

Much of the earlier information in this essay has come from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Much of Ecclesiastical History is a record of what others said and did, but at times Eusebius appears to give his own personal views. He mentions that only two apostles, Matthew and John, left their recollections and that they wrote under the pressure of necessity: “[T]hey took to writing perforce.”104 Though he mentions that Matthew first wrote in the Hebrew language, he also considers Greek Matthew to have come from the apostle’s hand.105 He notes that John was aware of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and confirmed their accuracy when he composed his gospel.106 He refers to sections of the Greek Matthew and ascribes them to the apostle as their author.107

102 Ecclesiastical History consists of ten books, the first seven of which recount the history of the church from the beginning to A.D. 303 and the last three some events in Eusebius’ own lifetime until the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. He wrote in a strict chronological order.

103 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 1.1.1-8. 104 Ibid., 3.24.6. 105 Ibid., 3.24.5-7. 106 Ibid., 3.24.7-8. 107 Ibid., 3.24.9-10.


Also, according to Eusebius, Mark composed his gospel on the basis of Peter’s preaching,108 while Luke’s gospel came about through his association “with Paul and his [Luke’s] conversation with other apostles.”109

AUGUSTINE

Augustine (ca. A.D. 354-430) was a younger contemporary of Jerome, who while young, studied grammar, Latin classics, and rhetoric with parental hopes for his becoming a lawyer or a high civil servant in the imperial government. After his conversion, he became a priest in A.D. 391 and in A.D. 396 the bishop of Hippo in North Africa. Some have acclaimed him as the greatest of the church fathers.110 He left over one hundred books, five hundred sermons, and two hundred letters. His influence became pervasive not only in the African church but in the Western church, even surpassing that of Jerome. His most widely known work is probably his Confessions, one of the great autobiographical works of all time. His City of God may be his greatest apologetic work. He also wrote many other significant works including The Harmony of the Gospels and Christian Doctrine.

Augustine’s position on the order of the gospels’ composition appears in his Harmony of the Gospels: “Now, these four evangelists . . . are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John.”111 Augustine here passes on a tradition of the order of composition as in the present NT canon. His assignment of Matthew as first and John as last is in overall harmony with earlier tradition as reviewed above in this chapter.

Yet, the Augustinian order conflicts with Clement’s sequence in revers-ing the order of Mark and Luke. Militating against assigning too much weight to the aspect of Augustine’s order of Mark being prior to Luke is that he, in contrast to Clement, does not clearly identify the origin of his information or show how widespread or general was the acceptance of his sequence. He merely states that they “are believed to have written in the order which follows.” Significant questions remain unanswered as to who held the views he espouses, how widespread was the belief, and what evidence was available for the information he imparts.

108 Ibid., 2.15.1-2. 109 Ibid., 3.24.15. 110 Augustine’s Confessions, 1-10 give the story of his life until shortly after his conversion. He

gives an account of his conversion in 8.12. 111 Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.2.3. Quotations from Augustine’s Harmony come

from Philip Schaff, ed., vol. 6 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1887).


In contrast, Clement’s information has better documentation, for it is much earlier, reaching back into the early part of the second century and reflecting a widespread consensus. Augustine’s is much later and unspecified as to source. Overall, such factors make Clement’s information decidedly more weighty in molding a decision regarding the order of composition of the synoptics.

Within the same context, Augustine continues,

[A]s respects the task of composing that record of the gospel which is to be accepted as ordained by divine authority, there were (only) two, belonging to the number of those whom the Lord chose before the passover, that obtained places,—namely, the first place and the last. For the first place in order was held by Matthew, and the last by John. And thus the remaining two, who did not belong to the number referred to, but who at the same time had become followers of the Christ who spoke in those others, were supported on either side by the same, like sons who were to be embraced, and who in this way were set in the midst between these twain.112

Here Augustine implicitly accepts that the Greek Matthew came from the apostle Matthew as its author and that John was written by the apostle John. This latter quotation, however, appears most likely to deal with the order of the gospels within the canon and is not necessarily helpful for giving the order of composition. Neither does it specify whether Luke was prior to Mark or Mark prior to Luke.113

Augustine goes on to note that, prior to the Greek version of Matthew, the apostle wrote first in the Hebrew language, once again confirming the tradition set forth in the other church fathers: “Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek.” Yet as with other church fathers, he does not explain the transition from Aramaic to Greek, but accepts without question that the Greek version was from the apostle.114 He confirmed that latter point by following up his comments on the order of the gospels and on Matthew’s composition of his gospel in Greek before the others with his analysis of the Greek Matthew (as well as the other

112 Ibid. 113 Cf. David Peabody, “Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis: A Reexamination of

Augustine’s Thought in De Consensu Evangelistarum,” in New Synoptic Studies, William R. Farmer, ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1983) 38.

114 Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.2.4. Augustine refers to the Hebrew Matthew at least two other times in his Harmony (2.66.128 and 2.80.157), in both of which places he refers to or quotes the Greek Matthew while talking about a Hebrew original. He never denies that the Greek version came from Matthew himself.


Greek gospels) as to their themes and character, thereby leaving the strong impression that he saw no significant difference between the Aramaic and Greek versions of Matthew’s gospel.115

At another place, Augustine commented that “Mark follows him [i.e. Matthew] closely and looks like his attendant and epitomizer.”116 That statement, however, appears not to be based on tradition but on Augustine’s personal analy-sis of Matthew in comparison with Mark. Hence, no real significance attaches to it beyond the fact of reflecting Augustine’s personal reflections and observations in explaining agreements between Matthew and Mark. Moreover, as the next section of this essay will reveal, the church fathers viewed the gospels as being composed independently of one another. Augustine’s Harmony of the Gospels evidences no indications to the contrary. As a matter of fact, it indicates just the opposite.

At yet another place, Augustine discusses the canonical order as follows:

Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books. . . . That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:—Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John.117

Here again he apparently reflects the compositional order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

One other place deserves mention as possibly significant, for Augustine relates the following distinguishing characteristics of the contents of the gospels:

[I]t is a clearly admitted position that the first three—namely, Matthew, Mark and Luke—have occupied themselves chiefly with the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . And in this way, Mark . . . either appears to be preferentially the companion of Matthew . . . or else, in accordance with the more probable account of the matter, he holds a course in conjunction with both [the other synoptists]. For although he is at one with Matthew in a large number of passages, he is nevertheless at one rather with Luke in some others.118

Peabody, who favors the Two Gospel Hypothesis, argues from this statement that Augustine has changed his mind regarding his relegation of Luke to

115 Ibid., 1.2.5-6. 116 Ibid., 1.2.4. 117 Ibid., 2.8.13. 118 Ibid., 4.10.11.


third position in order of composition, reasoning that after Augustine’s extensive analysis of the gospels “Augustine’s new, more probable view of Mark is that Mark is literarily dependent upon both Matthew and Luke” and “Augustine had not one but two views of the relationships among the Gospels.”119 That conclusion is not warranted, however. Peabody has a strong desire to explain away the apparent Augustinian order of composition of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in hopes of establishing him as supportive of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis and its order of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. As a result, he reads too much into Augustine’s statement. Augustine, in context, is merely describing the similarities and differences between the Gospel of John and the three Synoptic Gospels. Furthermore, in the immediate context, he refers to the gospels in the order Matthew, Mark, and Luke, thus giving strong indication that he has not changed his mind regarding his assumed order of composition. Another explanation for Augustine’s assertions is that he may have identified an established canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) with the order of composition, but demonstrating that beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible.

A plausible explanation for the canonical order evidenced by Augustine (and also evidenced by others such as Jerome [A.D. ca. 345-420] and the Latin Vulgate revision) that is sometimes called the “Greek” order of the gospels may be due, in part, to the principle of dignity: Matthew and Mark (based on Peter’s preaching) come first in the canon since both of these gospels are associated with apostolic Jewish origins of Christianity (“to the Jew first”—Rom 1:16; 2:20), while Luke, reflecting association with Paul, the great apostle to the gentiles, comes afterwards. This arrangement, originally motivated by the principle of dignity, may later have been understood in the church as a chronological indication.120 Furthermore, while the order of Augustine (Matt, Mk, Luke, John) is susceptible to such an explanation, the order of Clement is not, for the arrangement that was maintained by Clement of Alexandria (Matt, Luke, Mark, John) does not seem to lay itself open to any interpretation or justification of merely doctrinal character.121 As Farmer argues, “It [Clement’s order] is an enigma unless it is what it is purported to be, a historical order supported by the earliest and most explicit, external testimony.”122

Above all, one point is important. Regardless of the difference of opinion between Clement and Augustine on the order of composition of the gospels, neither Augustine nor Clement place Mark first in order of composition

119 Peabody, “Augustine and the Augustinian Hypothesis,” 61-62. 120 Gamba, 26, 35-6. 121 Ibid., 36. 122 Farmer, “The Patristic Evidence Reexamined,” 15.


as the Two-Document Theory supposes. Virtually all church fathers place Matthew earliest. Although they may mention a Hebrew or Aramaic original of Matthew, the fathers accepted without any serious question that the Greek Matthew came from the apostle Matthew, the Gospel of Luke from Luke’s association with Paul, Mark from his association with Peter’s preaching, and the Apostle John’s Gospel came last in order of composition.

A CONCLUSION REGARDING ORDER OF COMPOSITION

An analysis of data from the church fathers results in one conspicuous conclusion: they do not support either the Two-Document Hypothesis or the Two-Gospel Hypothesis. The assumed dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark is totally without historical foundation, as is the assumed dependence of Mark on Matthew and Luke instead of on Peter’s preaching. Strained interpreta-tions by proponents of the Two-Document Hypothesis as well as by those of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis stand as a monumental testimony to their absolute failure in mustering any support among the fathers.

Papias’ testimony answers the question as to whether Mark was in any sense dependent on Matthew as the Two-Gospel Theory would require, for Mark wrote on the basis of Peter’s preaching, not on the basis of literary dependence on Matthew. Besides, the church fathers were not merely unthinkingly reflecting Papias, because they (e.g., Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Origen) were renowned scholars in their own right who had information from widespread and inde-pendent sources. They did not need to rely solely on Papias for their information.

A newly released work, Mark, vol. 2 from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, buttresses these contentions. This work, by appealing to the ancients, circumnavigates such seemingly sacrosanct, but highly erroneous, historical-critically cherished icons originating out of Source, Form, tradition and Redaction Criticism, thus revealing some interesting contradictions with post-Enlightenment assertions. For instance, the volume on Mark reveals that the early church fathers overwhelmingly neglected Mark, and rarely produced a sustained commentary on Mark. Instead, Matthew and John received the most attention. While one could argue that they held Matthew and John in high esteem because they were apostolic, one still wonders why, if Mark was really the first written gospel as so ardently maintained by source criticism (contra the Two-Document Hypothesis), did the fathers so persistently neglect it. Moreover, the volume also reveals that the fathers consistently maintained that Mark actually wrote Mark (not some unknown “evangelist” as maintained by historical criticism) and that it reflected Peter’s preaching rather than being a condensation of Matthew and Luke (contra the Two-Gospel Hypothesis). This work reaches an astoundingly refreshing conclusion: “It had always been evident that Mark presented a shorter version of the gospel than Matthew, but the


premise of literary dependency was not generally recognized. The view that Matthew and Luke directly relied on Mark did not develop in full form until the nineteenth century.”123 Such a perspective also indicates that the fathers regarded Matthew, not Mark, as the first gospel to be written. From this writer’s perspec-tive, only by an a priori reading into the church fathers of these two recent synoptic hypotheses can one move from acute speculation to enslaving dogma.

Sadly, the overarching reason why modern scholarship rejects or explains away their testimonies is adherence to an assumed hypothesis of literary dependence, which is the basic assumption of Historical Criticism. The church fathers stand solidly against the dogma of modern Source Criticism that blindly upholds the Two- or Four-Document Hypothesis and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, theories that suppress, distort, dismiss, or ridicule any evidence contrary to their assumed tenets. Instead of being outrightly rejected, explained away, or enervated by a preconceived agenda or predilection toward a particular synoptic hypothesis, the statements of the fathers should have their full weight in any discussion of the synoptic issue. Their voices, objectively analyzed, constitute a united witness against the alleged priority of Mark based on literary dependence, and in turn, provide a cogent testimony for the chronological priority of the writing of Matthew. Could it be that Enlightenment-spawned Historical Criticism has so systematically ignored the early fathers because they stand as manifest contradictions to its cherished dogmas?

Far from contradicting each other, the information that these early church fathers supply is largely complementary, consistent, and congruent: the Apostle Matthew wrote first, the Apostle John last, with Luke and Mark writing between these two. Some difference of opinion exists as to whether Luke or Mark wrote second, but probability is on the side of Luke’s gospel being second. Mark derived his material from the preaching of Peter, not from Matthew and Luke.

Sadly, the overarching reason why modern scholarship rejects or explains away their testimonies is adherence to an assumed hypothesis of literary dependence, which is the basic assumption of Historical Criticism. The church fathers stand solidly against the dogma of modern Source Criticism that blindly upholds the Two- or Four-Document Hypothesis and the Two-Gospel Hypothesis, theories that suppress, distort, dismiss, or ridicule any evidence con-trary to their assumed tenets. Instead of being outrightly rejected, explained away, or enervated by a preconceived agenda or predilection toward a particular synoptic hypothesis, the statements of the fathers should have their full weight in any discussion of the synoptic issue. Their voices, objectively analyzed, consti-tute a united witness against the alleged priority of Mark based on literary

123 Thomas C. Oden and Christopher A. Hall, Mark, vol. 2 of Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998) xxix.


dependence, and in turn, provide a cogent testimony for the chronological priority of the writing of Matthew. Could it be that Enlightenment-spawned Historical Criticism has so systematically ignored the early fathers because they stand as manifest contradictions to its cherished dogmas?

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 87-99

87

THE CHRISTIAN AND CIVIL AUTHORITIES

Paul D. Feinberg, Th.D. Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Deerfield, IL

This essay is designed first to set out the Apostle Paul’s teaching on the relationship between Christians and civil authorities, and then to examine its contemporary application for Christians using the clearest New Testament text –Romans 13:1-7. This passage contains general commands for both Christians and non-Christians. Paul reasons that obedience is required because civil authorities have been ordained by God (13:1b-2) and because civil rulers are responsible to maintain civic order (13:3-4). Two motivations for obedience are the avoidance of wrath and the maintenance of a good conscience (13:5). Finally, the obligations of obedience are discussed (13:6-7). It is concluded that Romans 13:1-7 is just as applicable today as it was in Paul’s time.

* * * * *

I am pleased for the opportunity to contribute this essay to a Festschrift honoring Dr. Robert L. Thomas. When I came to Talbot Theological Seminary as a young divinity student, he had just recently come to teach New Testament. It was my privilege to have all my New Testament courses from him. I remember him as a demanding but fair teacher. He had a passion not only to teach us the Greek language and exegesis, but to make what we learned applicable in our preaching and the communication of God’s word. After my student days, we had opportuni-ties to work together for The Lockman Foundation. We have a warm friendship and Dr. Thomas was the preacher at my father’s funeral. So, it is with thankfulness to God and genuine appreciation for Dr. Thomas that I offer this article.

The Bible is a book whose purposes are to tell us who God is and what He is like, that we are sinners in need of forgiveness, and that Jesus Christ became a man and died for our sins so that we might be forgiven and have eternal life. It is not primarily a book about political and social theory. However, that does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say about political ethics. Quite to the contrary, the subject of civil government is discussed widely in both the


Old and New Testaments. Government is a part of God’s providence, a fact of biblical history, and an important factor in the outworking of biblical prophecy.1

The clearest New Testament text on the relationship between the Christian and civil government is Romans 13:1-7. While it is not the only passage that discusses the issue,2 it is a coherent and carefully constructed argument on this topic. Paul reasons that God is firmly in control of human history, and that no one comes to a place of leadership without God’s permission. Civil government is not a human invention, but of divine origin. Therefore, Christians are to submit to those in authority. Rulers then are established by God (v. 1) as His servants (v. 4). They have a special dignity, but are also in a position that puts them under God.

This understanding of the state has been widely criticized, and it has also been erroneously used as justification for tyrants and the Christians’ obliga-tion to obey them.3 Some Germans used this text to support absolute obedience to the Third Reich in Germany. It was also used in the defense of apartheid in South Africa. These are just two of the most recent attempts to justify evil regimes through appeal to Paul and Romans.

Much of the literature on this text has to do with matters that are outside the scope of this paper. Some of these issues include whether this is genuinely Pauline or not,4 what is the origin of this teaching about the State, what historical

1 David R. Plaster, “The Christian and War: A Matter of Personal Conscience,” GTJ 6 (1985): 436. 2 Cf. Mark 12:13-17; Acts 5:29; 1 Timothy 2:1-2; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17; 3:13. See also Old

Testament texts: 2 Samuel 12:8: Proverbs 8:15,16; Jeremiah 27:5-11; Daniel 2:21, 37-45; 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21.

3 See these resources for a discussion of the problems with this interpretation: Gerhard Ebeling and others, “Romans XIII [exegesis and commentary of Romans 13:1-7],” Risk 7:2 (1971):1-39; V. Riekkinen, Römer 13: Aufzeichnung und Weiterführung der exegetischen Diskussion (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1980); W. Bauer, “Jedermann sie untertan der Obrigkeit,“ in Aufsätze und kleine Schriften (ed. G. Strecker; Tubingen: Mohr, 1967) 262-84; W. Affeldt, Die weltliche Gewalt in der Paulus-Exegese. Röm. 13,1-7 in den Rmerbrief-kommentaren der lateinischen Kirche bis zum des 13. Jahrhunderts (Forschengen zur Kirchen- und Dogmengeschichte 22; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969); B. C. Lategan, “Reception: Theory and Practice in Reading Romans 13,” in Text and Interpretation: New Approaches in the Criticism of the New Testament (eds. P. J. Hartin and J. H. Petzer, NTTS 15; Leiden: Brill, 1991) 145-69; Pol Vonck, “All Authority Comes From God: Romans 13:1-7—A Tricky Text About Obedience to Political Power,” AFER 26 (1984): 338-47; Alexander Webster, “St. Paul’s Political Advice to the Haughty Gentiles in Rome: An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 25 (1981): 259-92.

4 Cf. Webster, 259-92;James Kallas, “Rom 13:1-7: An Interpolation,” NTS 11 (1964-65): 365-74; J. C. O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975) 207-09; W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem (SNT; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975); W. Monro, Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (SNTSMS 45; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983) esp. 56-67.

The Christian and Civil Authorities 89

situation in Rome was the occasion of this passage5, whether there are parallels in Jewish, pagan, or Christian literature6, as well as lexical studies of various words in the text. Each of these has its value, although one can often do little more than speculate about what the answer is. The purpose of this paper, however, is first to set out Paul’s teaching on civil authorities and then to examine its contemporary application.

ROMANS 13:1-7 AND ITS CONTEXT

Romans 13:1-7 is a part of a paraenesis, i.e. a group of exhortations, counsel, or advice, which begins in chapter 12 and ends in chapter 15. There are those who think that it is an intrusion into the context. Some have even suggested that it was a later addition by someone other than Paul. These speculations are entirely unnecessary.7 It is true that these verses appear quite abruptly without any explicit syntactical connection to what precedes them, and that 13:8-10 make quite good sense if they followed 12:9-21. However, it may be that Paul’s teaching about the transitory character of this world is just the reason that he includes 13:1-7. Because a new era is coming, some may be tempted to reject every societal institution including civil government. Moreover, there may be an extreme attitude which rejects submission to civil authority as a part of the command not to be conformed to this age (12:2). Thus, there is the need to be reminded that the natural world in which we live out our human existence has not

5 J. Friedrich, W. Pohlmann, P. Stuhlmacher, “Zur historischen Situation und Intention von Röm 13:1-7,” ZTK 73 (1976) esp. 155-59; A. J. M. Wederburn, The Reasons for Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 63-64; J. I. H. McDonald, “Rom 13:1-7: A Test Case for NT Interpretation,” NTS 19 (1989): 546-47; Daniel Kroger, “Paul and the Civil Authorities: An Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7,” Asian Journal of Theology 7 (1993):352-57; Matthew G. Neufeld, “Submission to Governing Authorities: A Study of Romans 13:1-7,” Direction 23:2 (1994): 94-96; J. I. H. McDonald, “Romans 13.1-7 and Christian Social Ethics Today,” Modern Churchman 29:2 (1987): 22-24; Rebecca I. Denova, “Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 13:1-7: The Gentile-Christian Response to Civil Authority,” Encounter 53 (1992): 212-22; Susan Boyer, “Exegesis of Romans 13:1-7,” Brethren Life and Thought 32 (1987): 212-13.

6 See Denova, 222-27; Thomas J. Reese, “Pauline Politics,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 3 (1973): 326-29; Kroger, 349-50.

7 See E. Käsemann, “Principles of the Interpretation of Romans 13,” in New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969); O. Kuss, “Paulus über die staatliche Gewalt,” in Auslegung und Verkündigung (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1963) I, 247; U. Wilckens, “Römer 13, 1-7,” in Rechtfertigung als Freiheit (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1974) 205; Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996) 790-94; Robert H. Stein, “The Argument of Romans 13:1-7,” Novum Testamentum 31(1989):325-26; Peter Stuhlmacker, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary (trans. by Scott J.Hafemann; Louisville, KY: Westminster/ John Knox, 1994) 198-204; James D. G. Dunn, Romans (Dallas, TX: Word, 1988) 758-59; Stanley E. Porter, “Romans 13:1-7 as Pauline Political Rhetoric,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 3 (1990): 115-17; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1987) 457-60.


been entirely abandoned by God. Moo says, “As a manifestation of his common grace, God has established in this world certain institutions, such as marriage and government, that have a positive role to play even after the inauguration of the new age.”8

There are actually some veiled ties to the immediate context. In 12:18, Paul teaches that the Christian should live peaceably with all. Thus, he describes in 13:1-7 how to live peacefully with the state. Paul states in 12:19 that wrath and vengeance belong to the Lord, and then in 13:4-5 speaks about the wrath of God. The word “pay” is found in both 12:17 and 13:7, while 13:8 speaks of the “debt of love” and 13:7 commands the paying of our debt of taxes and tribute.9 At any rate, it must be admitted that the ties to the immediate context, are at best loose, making this essentially a self-contained passage.10

A GENERAL COMMAND (13:1a)

Paul begins with a general command, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” While Romans is written to believers, this command is addressed more broadly. It is to “every soul.” Paul uses “soul” in typical Old Testament and Jewish understanding of the whole person, not just the immaterial part. Submission to civil authority is especially a duty that Christians are to fulfill, but it is not limited to them alone. The duty has the most universal application.11

The command is about “governing authorities.” The English word “authority” refers in secular and biblical Greek to the possession of authority. As an abstract noun, it bespeaks the concept of authority, as in Matthew 28:18. However, when it is used in a concrete sense, it refers either to the sphere in which authority is exercised (cf. Luke 23:7) or to the person who exercises the authority. It is clearly the last sense that is in view here.

It has been argued that the person exercising the authority is either a governmental official12 or a spiritual being.13 A few interpreters have argued that

8 Moo, 791.

9 Stein, 326. See also Morris, 458. 10 Käsemann, 199. 11 Moo, 795; Stein, 326; Walker, 8, 11-12; Dunn, 760; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the

Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, 1957) 225. 12 See Stein, 328; Moo, 795; Dunn, 760. 13 The foremost defender of this view is O. Cullmann, Christ and Time (London: SCM, 1962)

195 and idem, The State in the New Testament (New York: Scribner’s, 1956) 65-70, 95-114. See also C. D. Morrison, The Powers that Be (Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1960); K. L. Schmidt, “Das Gegenüber von Kirche und Staat in der Gemeinde des Neuen Testaments,” TBl 16 (1937) cols. 1-16;


the one referred to here is, at least, partially a spiritual being. The main argument for this latter view is that elsewhere Paul uses the word “authorities” to describe angelic powers.14 There are four reasons that require the rejection of the spiritual beings’ view.15 First, when Paul uses this word to refer to spiritual beings, he always combines it with the word “powers.” That is not the case here. Second, other terms in this text that are parallel with “authorities” are not capable of this double meaning. They are called rulers in v. 3 and servants to whom taxes and tribute are due in v. 4. Throughout this passage, Paul uses terms that are taken from Greco-Roman government and administration, and there is no reason to think otherwise here. Third, nowhere does Paul speak of the redemption and conversion of these authorities. An appeal to Colossians 1:19-20 is tenuous since Jesus triumphs over them (Col 2:15), though they remain hostile (Eph 2:1-2). In view of 1 Corinthians 15:24 which tells of the destruction of all dominion, authority, and power at the return of Christ, it should be clear that, even if we give Colossians 1:19-20 the most general meaning possible, this reconciliation is yet future.16 Fourth, Paul never commands his readers to submit to such angelic beings. Quite the contrary, he counsels that believers should resist and oppose them. Thus, the “governing authorities” spoken of here are in reference to human civil authorities (cf. Luke 12:11; Titus 3:1).

Stanley E. Porter offers an important alternative. He argues that the governing authorities are civil rulers, but that not every civil authority is in view. The command refers only to those who are just. If Porter is right, many of the problematic applications of the text are resolved. This claim is based on his understanding of the word translated “governing.” It is a participle, and he says that it has either the sense of “rank” (i.e., superiority in position), or superiority in quality. While he admits that there is support for superiority in position in Paul’s writings, he thinks that the latter sense is preferable here.17

Porter gives three arguments in support of the qualitative sense. First, the idea of superiority in quality is to be found in the literature outside of the New Testament. Examples he cites are Isocrates 4.95 where qualitatively better

G. Dehn, “Engel und Obrigkeit, in Theologische Aufsätze Karl Barth zum 50. Geburtstag (ed. E. Wolf: Munich: Kaiser, 1936) 90-110; C. E. B. Cranfield, “Some Observations on Romans 13:1-7,” NTS 6 (1959-60): 241-49, though he later retracted this view in his commentary; K. Barth, Church and State (London: SCM, 1939) 23-36.

14 See Ephesians 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16; 2:15 for the plural use and Ephesians 1:21; Colossians 2:10 for the singular use. See also 1 Peter 3:22.

15 Moo, 796 n. 22. 16 Stein, 328. 17 Porter, 123.


cities are destroyed, Daniel 5:11 (LXX) which says that Daniel surpassed all the wise men of Babylon, and Jesus Sirach 33:7 which asks why one day is superior to another. Second, he sees two of the three Pauline uses of the participle related to superiority in quality (Phil 3:8; 4:7). Romans 13:1 is a third possibility. Third, superiority in quality means that submission is only due to just rulers. As stated before, such an interpretation solves many of the problems with this text.18

This view is attractive, but I think it must be rejected for the following reasons. First, the lexical evidence is sparse and unclear.19 Second and most im-portantly, the entire context in which this command is found is absolute and uni-versalistic. Paul calls on “every person” to submit. He says that “there is no authority except which God has established,” and that “the authorities that exist have been established by God.” If he had intended for us to understand that this was true only of good and just authorities, he could have made that point much clearer. Third, the universal, absolute understanding of the text is in keeping with what is said about civil authorities elsewhere throughout the Bible (cf. Jer 27:5; Dan 4:17, 25, 32; 5:21).

Paul calls on everyone to “submit” to these governing authorities. Had he meant that “obedience” was required, he had a variety of stronger words to use.20 Submission is the recognition of one’s subordinate place in a hierarchical structure, i.e. the acknowledgement that certain people or institutions have been placed over us. His emphasis is on a person’s attitude. The call for submission to recognized authorities is not uncommon in Paul’s writings. He tells Christians to submit to their spiritual leaders (1 Cor 16:16), Christians to submit to one another (Eph 5:21), Christian slaves to submit to their masters (Titus 2:9), Christian prophets to submit to other Christian prophets (1 Cor 14:32), and Christian wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5).21 This submission is to be voluntary as indicated by the middle or passive voice.

PAUL’S FIRST REASON FOR SUBMISSION (13:1b-2)

In 13:1b-2, Paul gives the first reason for submission to civil authorities. It is a theological reason. It is an appeal to the general truth of creation, not to Christological or eschatological grounds. Submission to civil rulers is required because there are none that have not been given their power by God. This is

18 Ibid., 124-25. 19 Moo, 795-96. 20 Dunn, 759. See also Porter, 120. 21 Ibid.; see also Moo, 797.


stated a second time positively, “The authorities that exist have been established, ordained or appointed by God.”22

In 13:2, Paul cites two negative consequences that follow from the fact that God has appointed existing rulers. The first is that to resist an authority is to resist God. This is the case because they have been appointed by God and His authority stands behind them. The second negative consequence is that those who resist will “bring judgment on themselves.” The judgment that will ultimately fall may be the wrath of the state spoken of again in 13:4 or the future judgment of God. If it is the former, then the future tense of the verb is logical; if it is the latter, it is eschatological. In favor of the wrath of the state is the fact that it is explicitly spoken of in 13:3, 4. However, the word for “wrath” is different from the one used in 13:2. Furthermore, the close relationship of the wrath to divine appointment is in favor of divine wrath, as rebellion against the state is ultimately rebellion against God’s ordinance. Some have tried to combine the two ideas. However, the judgment of God is mediated through the state. Because the state is the servant of God, it is not unreasonable to associate its judgment with God’s judgment. The most telling reason against the government only view is that the word for “wrath” in 13:4 is used by Paul eleven times in Romans of which nine, ten if you count this instance, are references to God’s judgment. There are five other occurrences in Romans of the judgment here in 13:2 and all of these refer to divine wrath.23

PAUL’S SECOND REASON FOR SUBMISSION (13:3-4)

In 13:3-4, Paul gives a second reason that Christians are to submit to governing authorities. Stein calls it a practical reason.24 Civil rulers have not only been appointed by God, but they also have been entrusted with the important function of maintaining order. This is to be done by punishing those who do evil and rewarding those who do good. Civil rulers are not a cause for fear for those who do what is right. This statement recognizes that a secular state has the right to use compulsion. Those who do what is right will be free from fear, but those who do what is wrong have every reason to be afraid. This presents a problem in view of rulers who oppose the gospel and persecute the Church. However, Paul is not addressing that problem. He is not dealing with every circumstance that a

22 John Yoder, The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1980) 203 holds that the word should be understood as “orders” them. This means that he “brings them into line or lines them up with his purpose.” Harold J. Dyck, “The Christian and the Authorities in Romans 13:1-7,” Direction 14:1 (1985): 47 thinks that Yoder may well be right.

23 Stein, 331. See also Moo, 799. 24 Ibid., 333.


Christian might encounter, only what would normally be true. The last part of v. 3 is framed as a question, “Do you want to be free from fear?” However, it may be a statement that forms the protasis of a condition, “If you want to be free of fear, then . . . .” Paul concludes this verse by saying that doing what is right will even result in praise from those in authority.25

Verse 4 centers around two statements of Paul in which he calls the ruler a “servant of God.” The ruler is a servant of God, no more and no less. In the Greek text, “God” appears first for emphasis. The first statement describes the ruler’s positive function of praising those who do good. This simply reaffirms what was said in v. 3b. The second statement gives the ruler’s negative task of punishing evil. Paul has spoken of this function in v. 3 as well, and now he elaborates on it. The word “servant” is usually used of those who serve willingly. But, from this text, we see that this can be done unconsciously and even against one’s will. This is the case where a civil ruler, who has been appointed by God, administers punishment and reward according to God’s standards of justice but does recognize God’s part in all of this.

Positively, this may be done by praising and encouraging what is good and right. However, it may also be done negatively by being a cause of fear to those who do what is wrong. Paul indicates that the state does not bear “the sword” in vain. Much has been written on the meaning of the word “sword.” There are those who think that it is a reference to the power of Roman provincial governors to execute Roman citizens serving in the military.26 The problem with this interpretation is that it would be irrelevant to most Roman Christians. Others understand it as the power to put down messianic revolts.27 Still others see it as a general reference to the state’s power to punish evildoers.28 There seems to be good evidence that the term does not simply refer to a state’s power to inflict the death penalty.29 Rather, “sword” has a wide range of meaning in Greek literature. However, it surely does not exclude the power to inflict capital punishment. The context in Romans describes the state’s power to punish evil and bring wrath on those who disobey. It is doubtful that Paul’s readers would not have associated this function with the ability to execute those who do wrong. Acts 12:2 may be a parallel where it recounts that Herod killed or executed James with the sword.

25 Morris, 133-34. 26 See A. N. Sherman-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1963) 8-11. 27 M. Borg, A New Context for Romans XIII,” NTS (1972): 216-17. 28 E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980) 358; W.

Schrage, Die Christen und der Staat nach dem Neuen Testament (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1971) 58. 29 Friedrich, Pöhlmann, Stuhlmacher, 140-44.


Romans 8:35 may also use the sword as a metaphor for capital punishment. Furthermore, Old Testament passages like Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, and Numbers 35:16-34 may be understood as providing support for the right of the state to inflict capital punishment.30

In the latter part of 13:4, Paul gives the grounds for the state’s sword-bearing powers. The state is God’s servant to execute His wrath on wrongdoers. While it is possible that this is a reference to eschatological wrath, it is more likely that the state, in accord with the order of creation, is God’s agent to punish those who do wrong. For instance, Babylon is a weapon in bringing God’s wrath (Isa 13:5; Jer 50:25).

A SUMMARY EXHORTATION (13:5)

Verse 5 is a summary of the argument in verses 1-4. This is supported by the use of “therefore” and the reintroduction of the verb “submit” previously used in 13:1a. Paul summarizes the reasons that have been given for submission in two “because of” phrases. The grounds are “because of wrath” and “because of conscience.” The wrath spoken of here is a reminder of the punitive function granted the state in 13:4b. This is still divine wrath as the state is acting as God’s servant. Paul does not mention the positive function in rewarding those who do good. We do not know why the positive function is not mentioned, although Stein may not be far afield when he says that states are far better at punishing those who do evil than they are in rewarding those who do good.31

The avoidance of punishment is not, however, the most important reason for submission. That reason is for the sake of conscience. The introduc-tion of conscience in this summary is surprising since Paul has not mentioned it anywhere before in his discussion. A good deal has been written on Paul’s use of “conscience.” Some understand it as a retrospective term, i.e. looking back at the pangs of conscience that one would experience in the doing of evil.32 However, it is unlikely that this is the exclusive way that Paul uses the term; and a future sense seems most in keeping with the context here. Failure to be subject to the civil authorities will bring pangs of conscience in the future because the Romans knew that to resist the ruler was to resist what God had appointed.33 As Moo states, “Such submission is part of that ‘good, well-pleasing, and perfect’ will of

30 Stein, 335-36; Moo, 802; Dunn, 764. 31 Stein, 337. 32 Cf. Paul K. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971) 440; C. A.

Pierce, Conscience in the New Testament (SBT 15; Chicago: Alec R. Allenson, 1955) 65-71. 33 Stein, 337-38; Moo, 803; Dunn, 765-66.


God discovered by the renewed mind. . . . ‘Not being conformed to this world’ does not require Christians to renounce every institution now in place in society. For some of them—such as government and marriage—reflect God’s provi-dential ordering of the world for our good and his glory.”34

THE ARGUMENT FROM PRACTICE (13:6)

The relationship of 13:6 to what has preceded it is unclear. At least part of the reason for this is that the referent of “For this reason” is unclear. It may be to “conscience” in v. 535 or to the general thought of vv. 1b-4.36 Stein argues for the latter on the grounds that Paul seldom uses “For this reason” to refer to a single word. However, either view amounts to the same thing, as those who hold that it refers to “conscience” think that “conscience” is a summary of the argument of 13:1b-4.

The verb “pay” may either be indicative or imperative. If it is im-perative, Paul is commanding the Romans to pay taxes. The fact that “for the authorities are God’s servants” makes it quite clear that the indicative is correct, as “for” almost always indicates a ground or reason for the previous statement. The point is that the Romans are acknowledging, by their tax paying practice, the authority which the government has over them.37 Why Paul would think that the Roman Christians paid taxes and that they were convinced that it was correct is uncertain. However, it is likely that they were aware of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 12:13-17 as well as His practice in Matthew 17:24-27.

In the second half of v. 6, civil rulers are again called “servants of God.” The word for “servant” is a different one here. It is frequently used in the LXX of people who served in the temple (Num 4:37, 41; 1 Sam 2:11, 18; 3:1; Ezra 7:24; Neh 10:39; Isa 61:6) and in the New Testament of those “ministering” for the Lord (Heb 8:2; 10:11). The use of this term would certainly be a reminder that civil rulers were appointed by God and were serving Him in the carrying out of their duties. Therefore, the paying of taxes is a duty owed not only to the government, but also to God Himself.

34 Moo, 803. 35 Eg., Cranfield, 668; Moo, 803-04. 36 Stein, 340-41. 37 Ibid., 341; Moo, 804; Dunn, 776.


A SPECIFIC COMMAND (13:7)

The final verse of this paragraph has no explicit link to the verses around it. However, it is best understood as a specific application of the general command given in v. 1a. “In so doing we have a kind of ‘inclusio’ in which the commands of 13:1a and 13:7 bracket the entire account.”38 The readers of Romans are to keep the general command of 13:1a by “paying all of them [the governing authorities] their dues.” This is the language of discharging a debt. There are four obligations specified. They are presented in synonymous parallel-ism and “rhyme.” Rulers are due “taxes,” “tribute,” “respect,” and “honor.” Some have taken the last term to be a debt to God, finding in the sequence of words a saying reminiscent of Jesus’ (Mark 12:17) who commanded his disciples to give to Caesar what was his and to God what was His. The last word of the four is often translated “fear.” It is argued that this is due God alone.39 It seems unlikely that is Paul’s meaning here as he has said that civil rulers are God’s servants, and it would not be wrong to honor them as such.

THE CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

How are we to understand and apply Paul’s teaching today? Moo is surely not far from the truth when he says, “It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the history of the interpretation of Rom. 13:1-7 is the history of attempts to avoid what seems to be its plain meaning.”40 Because most interpreters want to avoid the conclusion that unconditional and absolute obedience is required, a number of approaches have developed in the application of this text. I shall simply discuss the most important positions, and then give my own view.41

First, Paul’s teaching on civil government in Romans 13:1-7 reflects his naivety about the evil that governments might do. His experience with govern-mental authorities had been positive on the whole as determined from Acts. Some authorities had even recognized his right to preach the gospel. Further-more, he was writing Romans during the early stages of Nero’s reign which was a period of stability and good government. However, such a view is out of keeping with a strong view of biblical inspiration as well as the fact that Paul undoubtedly knew, from history, the harsh treatment that Israel had received at the hands of pagan rulers. He could not have been unaware that his readers were

38 Stein, 342. 39 Cranfield, 247f. 40 Moo, 806. 41 For a fuller discussion of alternatives, see ibid., 807-10.


under the rule of the very government that put the Lord Jesus Christ to death. Furthermore, many of his reader had suffered persecution under the same government to which he is counseling submission, having been forced to give up their homes and businesses and live in exile. Surely, Paul was not so naive as to forget all this.

Second, Paul is only commanding submission to those authorities or rulers who are just or in submission to God themselves. Where they are unjust, the Christian is no longer under obligation to obey them.42 In my discussion of v. 1a, I have expressed the reasons for which I think that this is unlikely.

Third, Paul’s command is only applicable to the immediate situation to which he is responding. He is giving advice to the Roman Christians about their immediate obligation. Therefore, it is a serious mistake to generalize the command and require submission to civil magistrates today.43 There is surely a measure of truth to this point. Much of the New Testament is written to address specific problems in specific churches. However, if advice only to immediate situations means that commands can subsequently be dismissed, then most of the New Testament could be dismissed as not applicable to today’s problems. Furthermore, Paul seems to go out of his way to emphasize the universal character of his teaching. As mentioned above, the teaching is addressed to “every person,” and Paul says that there is “ no authority” except by divine appointment. Therefore, one would expect the teaching to be normative not just for Roman Christians at the time of the writing of the epistle, but for all Christians through all time.

Fourth, submission to civil rulers is not the totality of the biblical teaching on the state. It is always dangerous to take a single text and make it the whole biblical teaching on a subject. It is rare that the Scripture speaks only once on any major matter. It is thus the task of the interpreter to collect and harmonize everything that the Bible has to say on civil government. When one follows this process, it is clear that Christians are not automatically to give absolute, uncon-ditional, and unthinking obedience to their government.

From direct statements in Scripture and biblical examples, it is clear that it is sometimes necessary to disobey civil rulers. Norman L. Geisler has compiled a list of these exceptional circumstances: 44

1. When the government prohibits the worship of God (Exod 5:1). 2. When it requires the taking of innocent life (Exod 1:15-21).

42 Porter, 123. 43 See footnote 5 for examples of this interpretive approach. 44 Norman L. Geisler, “A Premillennial View of Law and Government,” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (1985):

262. See also S. James, “Divine Justice and Civil Government,” Trinity Journal 6ns (1985): 199-210.


3. When it demands killing of God’s servants (1 Kings 18:1-4). 4. When it requires the worship of idols (Dan 3:1-7). 5. When it commands prayer to a man (Dan 6:6-9). 6. When it prohibits the propagation of the gospel (Acts 4:17-20). 7. When it demands the worship of a man as God (Rev 13:4, 8). There are also indications throughout the Romans’ text that obedience,

while universally required, is not absolute or unlimited. The government has delegated authority which comes from God. It is not to usurp the place of God. The believer has an obligation to the state, but is also under a higher obligation to God (cf. Acts 4:17-20). This text makes it clear that the duty of the ruler is to punish evil and reward good. When the state prohibits good and demands evil, it is no longer performing its God-ordained task. Christians are told to obey for conscience’s sake. When the state demands what conscience will not condone, by biblical standards, then Christians must disobey. Balance is needed. We should not empty the meaning of Romans 13:1-7 with a thousand qualifications. Civil rulers need the support of Christians under their authority. But the state can never have the place that must be reserved for God alone. Therefore, it is a duty of believers to pray regularly for those in authority over them (1 Tim 2:1-2) so that they may live godly and peaceable lives.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 101-111

101

LIVING OUT GOD�S ORDER IN THE CHURCH

R. Kent Hughes, D.Min. Senior Pastor

College Church Wheaton, Illinois

Since Krister Stendahl�s monograph, The Bible and the Role of Women, published in 1966, and the evangelical articulation of his thoughts in Paul Jewett�s Man as Male and Female, the traditional interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 has been under increasing attack. The newness of these assaults leaves the burden of proof upon the revisionists. This article demonstrates that the perspicacity of Scripture is still intact, that Scripture means what it says, and that adherence to the creation order graces the church.

* * * * *

First Timothy 2:11-15 is a controversial text, upon which an immense amount of scholarship has been focused in recent years. Virtually no one in the liberal theological camp holds to the traditional, historic interpretation of this text. On the other hand, many in the evangelical tradition subscribe to the historic interpretation, though they may have trouble articulating it at times. But there are also increasing numbers of evangelicals who reject the historic interpretation for what is called the “progressive” interpretation � even arguing for the ordination of women.

Here, I must say at the outset that I adhere to the traditional, historic interpretation of this text, which in today�s secular culture is viewed as, frankly, shocking. Because the traditional interpretation understands that there is a divinely given order for the home and here in 1 Timothy for the church, it is dismissed by some with the most withering of epitaphs as �sexist.� Nothing could be further from the truth biblically or personally.

It is important that you understand my heart as we undertake this study. I was raised by a community of gloriously strong women who had to make their way in a male-dominated, sexist world. Aside from my young brothers, there were no men in my life until I was a junior high student, when I became involved in church. Otherwise, my world was populated with wonderful women.


There was my mother, who was widowed at age twenty-three and sometimes worked two jobs to make ends almost meet. There was my maternal grandmother, Laura Anna Melissa McClurkin Bray, also a widow, who gave herself to her �boys.� Her death was the most traumatic event in our lives. There were my two adopted, unmarried aunts, Beulah and Helen, who are still alive at the time of this writing � ages 97 and 98.

For awhile we all lived in adjacent homes, and later across town. But we spent most weekends together; and for two long-anticipated weeks every summer all those women and we boys camped together at Big Sur.

My mother had a hard life. I recall men trying to �hit� on my attractive young mother � and her suffering professionally for keeping her virtues.

I say all this to emphasize that there is to my knowledge not an ounce of male superiority or sexism in my soul! I believe in the biblically taught equality of men and women. My life is committed to seeing men and women develop in every area of life.

It is also crucial to understand that the historic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 has been the majority view of the church-at-large for the last 1,970 years. Robert Yarbrough, professor of New Testament Studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, surveyed the scholarly articles in the standard bibliographical reference tool New Testament Abstracts and noted that it was only in 1969 that the progressive, revisionist view began to appear in the literature of the academy. Then, in the period from 1969 to 1991, a comparative flood of articles was produced. He concluded that the rise in the progressive in-terpretation, following the women�s movement of the 1960s, is �indebted significantly, and at times probably culpably, to the prevailing social climate rather than to the biblical text.�1 Similarly, Harold O. J. Brown observes, �When opinions and convictions suddenly undergo dramatic alteration, although nothing new has been discovered and the only thing that has dramatically changed is the spirit of the age, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that that spirit has had an important role to play in the shift.�2

Understanding then that the popularity of the progressive interpretation of the last thirty years found its impetus in secular culture and that the interpretation runs contrary to the prevailing interpretation of the preceding 1,970 years (some sixty-plus generations), the burden of proof certainly rests upon the progressive revisionists!

1Robert W. Yarbrough, �The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15,� Women in the Church, Andreas J. Köstenberger, Thomas R. Schreiner, and H. Scott Baldwin, eds. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 167.

2Harold O. J. Brown, �The New Testament Against Itself: 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and the �Breakthrough� of Galatians 3:28,� Women in the Church, 199.

Living Out God’s Order in the Church 103

Here, my concern is this: if we do not invite the biblical text to define church order, the intrusive culture will. The Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age, is a tyrant to be resisted, not embraced. But of course, we must never determine our theology by polling dead theologians, however orthodox they may have been. Thus, we must now go to the text of 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

APOSTOLIC PROHIBITION

The text simply states, �Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet� (vv. 11, 12). Simple it may sound, but simple it is not! While the verses are perfectly intelligible, they are nuanced by context and a unique arrangement of words � as we shall see.

Creative �Interpretations� Before delving into the meaning, we must note the ways in which some

interpreters attempt to circumvent the text’s apparent meaning. First, some argue that Paul is wrong. No one claiming to be evangelical

ever put this view in print until 1975, when Paul K. Jewett ventured that Paul�s teaching here was in error because it allegedly echoed a rabbinical misinter-pretation of the second creation account of Genesis chapter two, which, he argued, did not give enough weight to the first creation account of Genesis one.3 Dr. Jewett understood Paul, yet believed Paul was wrong. Picking and choosing what to accept from Paul is not and has not been an acceptable evangelical custom. Jewett�s writings even caused quite a stir in his own institution.4

3Paul K. Jewett, Man as Male and Female (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975) 119 unequivocally concludes:

Both in I Corinthians and in I Timothy appeal is made only to the second creation narrative as the sole text for understanding the meaning of human existence as male and female. Thus this second, supplementary narrative is interpreted in isolation from the first. . . . Furthermore, in reasoning this way, Paul is not only basing his argument exclusively on the second creation narrative, but is assuming the traditional rabbinic understanding of that narrative whereby the order of their creation is made to yield the primacy of the man over the woman. Is this rabbinic understanding of Genesis 2:18f. correct? We do not think that it is, for it is palpably inconsistent with the first creation narrative, with the life style of Jesus, and with the apostle�s own clear affirmation that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal. 3:28).

4George Marsden, Reforming Fundamentalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 282 reports: A Special committee of trustees, administration, and faculty was appointed in

January 1976 to deal with the Jewett case. Disciplinary action was a real possibility, though dismissal was unlikely. After lengthy discussion, the majority of the committee concluded that Jewett was wrong in claiming that the apostle Paul was mistaken. Nonetheless, they were also convinced that he sincerely subscribed to the statement of


A second way to do away with the traditional understanding of Paul�s teaching is to argue that �Ephesus stood as a bastian of feminist supremacy of religion,�5 and thus Paul�s prohibitions against women teaching and exercising authority over men were aimed at the excesses, but not against normal teaching and exercise of authority. The problem here is that a �feminist Ephesus� never existed as S.M. Baugh has shown in his devastating essay �A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century.�6 Ephesus was a very conventional Roman provin-cial city with no women magistrates and with a pagan cult hierarchy controlled by men.7

A third attempt at blunting Paul�s teaching is to give the Greek word translated �to exercise authority� a negative meaning like �to domineer�8 or �to control� � so that Paul would be prohibiting a patently negative activity � �I do not permit a woman to teach or to domineer over a man.� This would allow women to teach and exercise authority over men, as long as it was not done in a controlling, domineering way. But, though the word could mean “domineer” in some contexts, it cannot mean this here because the word �or� (οÛδX; oude), which connects �to teach� and “to exercise authority,� always requires that both words be either positive or negative. If they were negative, the phrase could read: �I do not permit a woman to teach error nor to domineer over a man.� But this cannot be the translation here because �to teach� is always viewed positively in the New Testament, especially in its many uses in 1 and 2 Timothy.9 Therefore the NIV renders it correctly �to have authority� as do the RSV and NLT.

faith�s article affirming that �Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice.� Jewett, they pointed out, defended his view by an appeal to the long-standing principle that �Scripture should be interpreted by Scripture.� Even though the committee �sharply disagreed� with Jewett�s specific application of this rule, they construed his purpose, however mistakenly carried out, to be to defend the overall authority of Scripture, not to undermine it. No disciplinary action was taken.

5Richard Clark Kroeger and Catherine Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 54.

6S. M. Baugh, �A Foreign World: Ephesus in the First Century,� Women in the Church, 13-52. 7Ibid., 17, 18, 50. 8Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984) 73. 9Andreas J. Köstenberger, �A Complex Sentence Structure in 1 Timothy 2:12,� Women in the

Church, 89, 103 concludes: The meaning of διδVσκgιν in 1 Timothy 2:12 is therefore an important preliminary

issue in determining the meaning of αÛθgντgÃν. As was argued above, διδVσκgιν , when used absolutely, always in the New Testament denotes an activity that is viewed positively by the writer, to be rendered �to teach� (cf. esp. 1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2). If the writer had intended to give the term a negative connotation in 1 Timothy 2:12, he would in all likelihood have used the term ©τgροδιδασκαλ gÃν (as in 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3) or some other


A fourth attempt to set aside what Paul writes here argues that when Paul says �I do not allow,� it is in the present indicative and not the imperative, and that he is therefore speaking personally about a temporary arrangement.10 But this ignores the fact that Paul often used present indicatives to give universal and authoritative instruction (cf. Rom 12:1 and 1 Tim 2:8).11 Also, to argue that Paul�s instruction is temporary ignores the context, because in the next verse he immediately rests his prohibition against women teaching and exercising authority on the unchanging order of creation. Paul�s prohibition here is universal and enduring.

A fifth way to deflect Paul�s prohibition is to hold that references to �woman� and �women� in this passage refer to wives because of the way this passage parallels 1 Peter 3:1-7. Thus, the teaching is domestic, i.e. for the home. But the differences in the passages are too distinct to import the �wives� designation from 1 Peter to 1 Timothy.12 Furthermore, very few feminist interpreters seriously use this argument to deflect Paul�s prohibition because the argument is so patently weak.13

Lastly, a widely used way to discount Paul�s prohibition is to misinterpret Galatians 3:28, and then use it to erase what Paul says here.

contextual qualifier specifying the (inappropriate or heretical) content of the teaching (as in Titus 1:11).

Since then the first part of 1 Timothy 2:12 reads �But I do not permit a woman to teach� and the coordinating conjunction οÛδX requires the second activity to be viewed correspondingly by the writer, αÛθgντgÃν should be regarded as viewed positively as well and be rendered �to have (or exercise) authority,� and not �to flout the authority of� or �to domineer.�

10Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 72. 11George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 140 explains:

It has also been suggested that the present indicative form of ¦πιτkXπω indicates a temporal limitation and thus limits Paul�s statement to the then and there of Ephesus. An examination of other occurrences of Paul�s use of first person singular present indicative (Rom. 12:1, 3; 1 Cor. 4:16; 2 Cor. 5:20; Gal. 5:2, 3; Eph. 4:1; 1 Thes. 4:1; 5:14; 2 Thes. 3:6; 1 Tim. 2:1, 8) demonstrates that he uses it to give universal and authoritative instruction or exhortation (cf. especially Rom. 12:1; 1 Tim. 2:8).

12Thomas R. Schreiner, �An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,� Women in the Church, 115 answers:

The 1 Peter text refers to nonbelieving husbands (3:1). And in 3:7 husbands are addressed in terms of their specific responsibilities to their wives (cf. Eph. 5:25-30, 33; Col. 3:19). No admonition for husbands regarding their relationship with their wives is present in 1 Timothy 2. Finally, it is obvious that Peter has husbands and wives in view in 1 Peter 3 since he says �wives should be subject to their own (Æδ\οιl) husbands� (v. 1; cf. v. 5). It is precisely this kind of clarifying evidence that 1 Timothy 2:8-15 lacks, with the result that most scholars detect a reference to men and women in general.

13Ibid., 117.


Galatians 3:28 reads, �There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.� It is a massive statement of our spiritual status in Christ. Every believer, male and female �in Christ,� fully inherits the Abrahamic promises by grace apart from works. It is a statement of our radical, spiritual equality coram Deo (before God), whatever our status in life may be. It does not do away with gender distinctions, however. None of the major teachers of church history thought it, much less taught it.

But that is precisely what feminist hermeneutics does � and then goes on to argue that it is a �breakthrough� text to which all others must bow. Those who think this way are following the very liberal lead of Krister Stendahl, one-time dean of Harvard Divinity School.14 It was Stendahl’s liberal thinking that Paul Jewett followed when he declared that the Apostle Paul was in error in 1 Timothy.15

Correct Interpretation So we see that many and creative are the ways employed to muzzle

Paul. But the question still remains � What did Paul mean in verses 11-12? In verses 1-10, Paul�s desire was that when the Ephesian churches met, their prayer and deportment would promote God�s desire for �all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth� (v. 4).

This section began in verses 1, 2 with Paul urging such prayer and spiritual deportment, and then peaks in verses 8-10 with an inclusion-like admonishment regarding prayer and conduct, �Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension. Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments; but rather by means of good works, as befits women making a claim to godliness.� The way we pray and conduct ourselves has everything to do with the cause of the gospel. Evidently, some men were contentious while offering public prayers, and some women were imitating the coiffures and lavish clothing of the Roman court, known for its licentiousness.

Having mentioned women�s deportment, Paul now expands in verses 11-15 with respect to teaching and authority in the church. Here, it must be noted that these instructions have nothing directly to say about teaching and authority in the marketplace or the academy or the public square. They are about order in the church. Neither do these directives allow any man within the church, by

14Krister Stendahl, The Bible and the Role of Women (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1966) 32-37. 15S. Lewis Johnson, Sr., �Role Distinctions in Galatians 3:28,� Recovering Biblical Manhood

and Womanhood, John Piper and Wayne Grudem, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991) 160.


virtue of his gender, to generally exercise authority over women in the church. Such explicit authority only exists within the sacred covenant of marriage and family, and then is only to be exercised with the self-giving spirit of Christ (cf. Eph 5:22-23).

Lastly, Paul�s instructions have nothing to say about male and female equality. Such equality has been established from the beginning in Genesis 1:27 by virtue of man and woman being created in the Imago Dei (Image of God). And the mutual, spiritual equality and status of men and women �in Christ� were given spectacular expression by Paul himself earlier in Galatians 3:28.

So, how is Paul�s prohibition of women teaching and exercising authority over a man to be understood, especially since the words �to teach� and �to exercise authority� contain no negative connotation like �dominate� or �domineer�? The answer is that the word �to teach� (διδVσκgιν; didaskein) and its noun forms �teaching� (διδασκαλ \α; didaskalia) and �teacher� (διδVσκαλοl ; didaskalos) are used in the New Testament to describe the careful and authoritative transmission of Biblical truth. In the pastoral epistles, �teaching� always has the sense of authoritative public, doctrinal instruction (cf. 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim 3:16; 4:2).16

What then is prohibited is preaching, such as is enjoined in Paul�s charge to Timothy, �Preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction� (2 Tim 4:2). Also prohibited is the teaching-elder role of authoritatively defining and expositing the apostolic deposit. This is the realm of male elders who are �able to teach� (1 Tim 3:2). The text is also very clear that attitude is of paramount importance � submissiveness to leadership � �Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness� (v. 11). Thus, a hectoring, argumentative attitude is excluded.

This, however, doesn�t forbid men and women from instructing one another in regular discourse. Indeed, it is expected just as Paul directed the Colossians, �Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you; with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God� (Col 3:16). To the Corinthians, he likewise observed of the whole congregation, �When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification� (1 Cor 14:26). We ought to be teaching one another. Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos in their home. Apollos learned his theology from both of them (Acts 18:26).

16Douglas Moo, �What Does It Mean Not to Teach or Have Authority Over Men? 1 Timothy

2:11-15,� Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 185.


Within the divinely-given order of the church, women are expected to develop into teachers of their children and other women, for example. The writer of Hebrews chided his congregation in this respect, saying �by this time you ought to be teachers� (Heb 5:12). Our task, as a church, is to equip men and women for the ministry.

APOSTOLIC REASONING

The apostle goes straight to it in the following words, �For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression� (vv. 13, 14). Notice first that he has grounded the ordering of authority in the church upon the order of creation before the fall � Adam came before Eve. John Stott says of this appeal to creation order:

All attempts to get rid of Paul�s teaching on headship (on grounds that it is mistaken, confusing, culture-bound or culture-specific) must be pronounced unsuccessful. It remains stubbornly there. It is rooted in divine revelation, not human opinion, and in divine creation, not human culture. In essence, therefore, it must be preserved as having permanent and universal authority.17

But then I can�t dismiss masculine headship in the cavalier way in which some evangelical feminists do. There is something in the Pauline teaching about headship that cannot be ignored as a purely cultural phenomenon, because he roots it in Creation. We may for men � but he does root his argument in Creation. I have a very high view of apostolic authority. I don�t feel able to reject Paul�s exegesis.18

The creation order, which gave men headship and authority over women, consistently undergirded Paul�s teaching on church order. In the famous passage in 1 Corinthians 11 where Paul argued that a woman should cover her head while praying, and a man should not (in effect prohibiting cross-dressing while praying) � Paul referenced the creation order as his authority, �For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman�s sake, but woman for the man�s sake� (vv. 8, 9). Again,

17John R. W. Stott, Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1990)

269-70. 18Michael G. Maudlin, �John Stott Speaks Out,� Christianity Today 37 (February 8, 1993):38.


in 1 Corinthians 14, where he argues that the interpretation of prophecy must be done by men, he roots it in the Creation order, �as the Law also says� (v. 34).19

Firstness connotes authority throughout the Scriptures. Being the firstborn conveys the privilege of an heir or ruler (cf. Col 1:15ff.). God could have created Adam and Eve at the same time, but He didn�t. He created Eve for Adam. She was created to be his �helper.� The unchanging fact is that God desires that the order of creation be reflected in His church, the body of Christ.

The point of verse 14 is missed entirely if one thinks that Eve was more gullible than Adam, and that is why she �was deceived and became a sinner.� Eve did not sin naively, but by a willful attempt to overthrow the creation order. She hoped, in eating from the tree, that her eyes would be opened and that she would be like God! (cf. Gen 3:5).

Here�s the ironyGod had given Adam and Eve awesome authority. The Creation order issued like thisGod made Adam, then God made Eve to be his helper, and both of them were to rule over all of creation. But due to her rebellion, a creature, the snake, came to rule her because she obeyed it; then Eve exercised woeful authority over her husband by leading him to do the same!

And Adam? It appears from Genesis 3:6 that Adam was with Eve when she partook, but he did nothing, and then �listened to, [his] wife and ate from the tree� (cf. Gen 3:17). As Phillip Jensen explains, �Eve�s sin involved overturning the order of creation and teaching her husband. Similarly, Adam�s sin came from �listening� to his wife, in the sense of heeding and following her instruction. He was taught by her, thereby putting himself under her authority and reversing God�s good ordering of creation.�20

When God pronounced judgment, the capsizing of creation order was significantly emphasized in the way he first cursed the serpent, then the woman, and then the man. The essence, then, of Adam and Eve�s sin was the overturning of the creation order. Yet, despite Adam�s sinful abdication, his headship was still recognized by God, in that their eyes were opened after he ate (cf. Gen 3:7), and then Adam alone was told that he would die (cf. Gen 3:19) � as goes the head so go the members.

19D. A. Carson, ��Silent in the Churches�: On the Role of Women in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-

36,�� Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 152 writes : By this clause, Paul is probably not referring to Genesis 3:16, as many suggest, but

to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b-24, for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns on two other occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Corinthians 11:8, 9:2; Timothy 2:13).

20Phillip Jensen, To the Householder (Sydney, Australia: Matthias Press, 1996) 47.


APOSTOLIC ADVICE

Paul closes 1 Timothy 2:11-15 with some advice to women, which, on the surface, is not so clear, �But she shall be preserved through the bearing of children if the women continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint� (v. 15). We know that he cannot mean that women will be saved if they have children. Countless godly Christian mothers have died at childbirth. Others have detected a reference to the incarnation � that being �saved through child-bearing� refers to the birth of Christ, and his ultimate atoning work. But this is such an obscure, unlikely way to make such a point.

Most likely Paul references childbearing because it is a universal example of the God-given difference in the role of men and women (men don�t have children!), and most women in every culture have children.21 So when Paul says that �women will be saved through child-bearing,� he means that by not seeking a man�s role they will more likely remain in the heart attitude which invites salvation and its attendant blessings. Moreover, as Duane Litfin has pointed out, �Whatever one understands the first part of the verse to be affirming, it is contingent on a woman�s willingness to abide in these four virtues.�22

CONCLUSIONS

First Timothy 2:11-15 is not about male or female superiority. Any honest male knows that the grading curve was always �messed up� by girls in his class. What man has not been out-thought, out-talked, and out-done by his female counterparts? Your experiences need be no larger than your own family to know women who are superior to their fathers, brothers, and husbands. It�s a fact my daughters are all superior to their husbands!

This is not about suitability for leadership. It is a statistical fact that American women read more Christian books than men and attend church in greater numbers.23 Women are more relationally oriented and more naturally empathetic. They are more intuitive about knowing where people are. They are more verbal, natural communicators.

21Thomas R. Schreiner, �An Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15: A Dialogue with Scholarship,�

Women in the Church, 151. 22A. Duane Litfin, �1 Timothy,� The Bible Knowledge Commentary-NT, John F. Walvoord and

Roy B. Zuck, eds. (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983) 736. 23Emerging Trends 12:6 (June 1990):5, a publication of Princeton Religion Research Center,

reports from a June 1990 Gallup poll that 71 percent of women surveyed believed that religion can answer today�s problems, while only 55 percent of men agreed. Leadership 12 (Winter 1991):17 reports that the typical church service has 59 percent females versus 41 percent male attenders.


This is not about power. Church leadership is not about strength; it�s about dying. That�s how Paul defined the New Covenant ministry as �always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus� sake, that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you� (2 Cor 4:10-12).

This is about fidelity to God�s Word. This is about inviting God�s Word to shape the life of the church, rather than the intrusive winds of culture. And make no mistake about thisif the Bible does not direct the church, culture will!

This text is about living out the creation order which comes from the character of God�s goodness. We must exult with Paul, �What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?� (Rom 8:31, 32). When we live out our salvation, we can expect everything we need spiritually. When we live out His creation order � it is a joyous venture. Paul lived it out! And, for him, his colleagues were a great treasure. Romans 16 is filled with names of men and women who served with and suffered with Paul in ministry.

This is about gospel and mission. The burden that �all men… be saved and… come to a knowledge of the truth� (1 Tim 2:4) which so fired Paul�s concern that the church pray and deport itself properly, is the same burden that drove Paul�s concern that godly men, not women, exercise authority in the church. Paul believed that if the church joyfully lived out the creation order in God�s household, then the gospel would continue to go out with power.

After all, Paul�s stated purpose in writing was that the church will “know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth� (1 Tim 3:15).

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 113-137

113

UNEQUALLY YOKED – A RE-EXAMINATION OF 2 CORINTHIANS 6:11-7:4

Donald G. McDougall, Th.M. Associate Professor of New Testament


A very familiar quotation in Christian circles is: “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” It seems to be applied most often in the context of mixed marriages or mixed business partnerships. That admonition and its related command, “Come out from their midst and be separate…,” are central themes in a very important paragraph. As familiar as those two commands are, the context in which they are found is often totally disregarded in their application. The paragraph in which they are found – 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 – has been the center of great controversy for over a century. Some doubt that Paul even wrote these verses, while others question their position in the text. In order to correctly understand this passage and its message to the Corinthians and to the church as a whole throughout the centuries, it is essential to examine these verses contextually and historically and thereby come to an understanding of Paul’s purpose in penning these words in their given location in the text.

* * * * *

One of the most demanding exhortations of the New Testament is found in 2 Corinthians 7:1 where Paul states, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” This brings a fitting conclusion to a paragraph that begins with the command to “stop yoking yourselves together with unbelievers” (6:14a) and contains the command to “come out from their midst and be separate…and do not touch what is unclean” (6:17). This passage has drawn the attention of many students of the Bible who have studied, preached on, and quoted from it and yet:

For many years now this paragraph has provided a focus of controversy in academic circles. Various scholars have argued that, as it is here placed, it is quite incongruous with the context, both in substance and in sentiment. Some have rejected it as being a non-Pauline interpolation; others, while not


disputing its Pauline origin, have conjectured that through some mischance it became dislocated from its original position, either in this or in some other letter, and was wrongly inserted in the place where it now appears.1

Many of us who find such comments distasteful have ourselves dealt with this passage as if it were displaced. We (I) have preached on it and quoted from it outside of its context, both immediate and extended, and have failed to come to terms with its message and meaning in its immediate context and possibly drawn unwarranted conclusions.

There are many views on what being unequally yoked together with unbelievers has reference to. In an article in Bibliotheca Sacra, William Webb lists 12 different views, among which he lists mixed-marriage as “probably the most popular.”2 He goes on to conclude that “Paul probably did not have mixed marriages in mind when writing 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.”3 Some commentators, drawing from Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 14:23, “have suggested that ©τεροζυγοØντεH includes the case of speaking in tongues when unbelievers are present in the service.”4 Another quite popular view is that believers are not to enter into business partnerships with unbelievers. Webb concludes that this is “completely outside the realm of issues discussed in Pauline writings” and that it “is quite unlikely Paul had business partnerships in mind when he wrote about the unequal yoke”5

One major problem for those who refer this passage to such things as mixed-marriage and business partnerships is that if they have not themselves entered into such relationships, they may somehow feel absolved from any responsibility in responding to the demands of this passage. It should become clear from the reading of this paper that this is far from true and that the principles presented in this passage are very applicable to the totality of the membership in the church of Jesus Christ both then and now.

1 Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in NICNT, F. F. Bruce,

ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977) 241. 2 William Webb, “What Is the Unequal Yoke (©τεροζυγοØντεH) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?”

Bibliotheca Sacra 149/594 (April-June 1992): 163. 3 Ibid., 167-68. 4 Ibid., 170. 5 Ibid., 177.

Unequally Yoked 115

THE POSITION OF 6:14-7:1 IN ITS CONTEXT

With this in mind, to what is Paul making reference in 2 Corinthians 6:14? Providing an answer to that question is the purpose of this paper. The meaning and message of these very important demands will be addressed, primarily from the standpoint of their immediate context (6:11-7:4), but also to some degree from the broader context (2:14-7:4) and the more extended context (1:1-7:16). To begin with, this passage brings to a conclusion 2:14-7:4 which has been referred to as “the longest coherent section within 2 Corinthians and is, arguably, the centerpiece of the entire letter.”6 This “longest coherent section” falls between 2:12-13 and 7:5ff. which, as the quotation below indicates, are definitely linked together.

[2:12] Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ and when a door was opened for me in the Lord,

[2:13] I had no rest for my spirit, not finding Titus my brother; but taking my leave of them, I went on to Macedonia….

[7:5] For even when we came into Macedonia our flesh had no rest, but we were afflicted on every side: conflicts without, fears within.

[7:6] but God, who comforts the depressed, comforted us by the coming of Titus…

As is evident, both sets of verses (in 2 Cor. 2 and 7) mention (1) Paul’s coming to Macedonia, (2) the unrest in his spirit, and (3) Titus. In addition to that link between 7:5ff. and 2:12-13, Paul also reflects once again (7:5-6) on the theme of comfort which he introduced in 1:3ff. And in between 2:13 and 7:5 is this unparalleled description of Paul’s ministry. Nevertheless, the broader context of 2:14-7:4 is not totally disconnected from what precedes and what follows. As Barrett comments, “To this point Paul has offered an apologia for his conduct, both as to his motives (1:12-14) and to his actions (1:15-2:4). Some of this apolo-gia is picked up in his defense of the ministry of the new covenant that follows.”7

A further evidence that this so-called digression (2:14-7:4) is not totally disconnected from the surrounding context is clear as Paul progresses from the conclusion in 7:4 into the verses that follow (7:5-16). Martin writes:

6 C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in Harper’s New

Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1973) 137. 7 Ibid.


Paul has been diverted – but only apparently (2:14-7:4) – from the account of his meeting with Titus in order to vindicate his apostolate and to thank God for his place in that ministry. The exposition had continued for some length. Though 7:3, 4, do not refer directly to his Macedonian account, they do pave the way for Paul to return to the topic of 2:13.8

Not only do they pave the way, but there is also an evident continuity of thought between the concluding words of this digression in 7:4 and the verses which immediately follow in 7:5-16 as certain common themes suggest. One is the theme of joy. To Paul’s statement in 7:4, “I am overflowing with joy in all our affliction” (ßπερπερισσεbοµαι τ± χαρ” ¦πÂ πVσ® τ± θλ\ψει ºµäν, huper-perisseuomai t i charai epi pas i t i thlipsei h m n), is added, “so that I rejoiced even more” (òστε µε µλλον χαρ−ναι , h ste me mallon char nai) (7:7); “I now rejoice” (νØν χα\ρω, nun chair ) (7:9); “we rejoiced more” (µλλον εχVρηµεν, mallon echar men) (7:13); “I rejoice” (χα\ρω, chair ) (7:16). Another common theme is evident when to Paul’s statement about “great is my boasting on your behalf” (πολλZ µοι καbχησι H ßπ¥ρ ßµäν, poll moi kauch sis huper hum n) (7:4) is added “I have boasted…about you” (ßπ¥ρ ßµäν κεκαbχηµαι , huper hum n kekauch mai) and “our boasting…proved to be the truth” (º καbχησι H ºµäν... •λZθεια ¦γενZθη, h kauch sis h m n…al theia egen th ) (7:14). There is a third less pronounced theme. Although two different Greek words are used, the English translation shows a continuity of thought between the first clause of 7:4, “Great is my confidence in you” (πολλZ µοι παρρησ\α πρÎH ßµH, poll moi parr sia pros humas), and the concluding words of 7:16, “I have confidence in you” (θαρρä ¦ν ßµÃν, tharr en humin). There is, therefore, a definite continuity between 2:14-7:4 and the broader context.

It is also helpful to sense the progression of thought leading into these verses. Martin writes, “In our view, and against most interpreters, we see 6:14-7:1 as integral to Paul’s closing argument begun in chap. 5 and completed in 7:3ff. It is not a digression but a logical development.”9 Barnett also sees this as a progression of the flow of thought begun in chapter 5 and offers his suggestion of the continuity.

8 Ralph P. Martin, 2 Corinthians, vol. 40 in Word Biblical Commentary, Ralph P. Martin, NT

ed. (Waco, TX: Word, 1986) 223. 9 Ibid., 40:195.

Unequally Yoked 117

Here now is the climax of the apostolic excursus. Paul claimed to have been given the ministry and message of reconciliation, and on that basis he had appealed to them to be reconciled to God (5:18-6:2). Then he defended his ministry from criticism, pointing out that it was marked by both suffering and the power of God (6:3-10). Operating out of this moral authority, he urged the Corinthians, as his children, to widen their hearts for him (6:11-13). This leads into the great ethical imperative with which the excursus comes to its climax. Let the Corinthians separate themselves from the local temple cults.10

But the primary concern of this article is the development of the argu-ment in the immediate context. First of all, “an overall continuity within 6:11-7:4 is perceptible.”11 Nevertheless, bracketing this passage is 6:11-13 and 7:2-4. Barrett introduces his comments on 7:2 by writing: “Paul, after developing the theme of Christian obligation, comes back with renewed vigour to the appeal of vi. 11ff. ‘Take us into your hearts!’”12 Or, as Barnett puts it, “The opening words in the passage 7:2-4, ‘Make room for us,’ are well understood as resumptive of 6:13, but with different vocabulary.”13 Martin, concluding his remarks on 6:11-13, writes, “Paul continues his appeal that the Corinthians open their hearts in 7:2, but in the present arrangement of the text 6:14-7:1 interrupts that thought.”14

THE PROBLEMS SURROUNDING 6:14-7:1

There is little doubt that 6:14-7:1 forms a definite unit, and yet most of the problems relative to 6:11-7:4 revolve around this particular passage. The challenges to this passage date back many years, over a century in fact. Fee quotes William Sanday, in an article written in 1890 [“2 Corinthians vi. 14 – vii.1,” Classical Review IV (1890), 359-60] as saying, “‘I confess that this view [that vi. 14 – vii. 1 corresponds to the lost letter of I Cor. v. 9] would have a rather strong attraction for me, if I could get over the initial difficulty…of framing to myself a satisfactory hypothesis as to the way in which the

10 Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, in NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1997) 342. 11 Ibid., 339. 12 Barrett, Second Corinthians, 203. 13 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 339. 14 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 187.


interpolation came in.’”15 Fee then concludes, “We are left then with the option that Paul is responsible for the passage in its present setting.”16 Most of those reading this article might suggest that such a conclusion is a given. Yet a lot of sentiment exists to the contrary.

There is a great difference of opinion as to how to view this passage and its relationship to the context. Thrall writes, “It is well known that this passage raises two major questions. Did Paul himself compose it? Is it out of place in its present context?”17 In broad terms, there are at least three ways to respond. There are those who, in the face of all the challenges, conclude that these words are actually Pauline words inserted into this context by its author. Kümmel responds that “there is no adequate reason for designating the text as un-Pauline.”18 Hughes concludes that “there is, in short, no prima facie evidence that this passage could not have been written by the Apostle Paul.”19

On the other hand, there is the viewpoint of Martin who begins by stating that, “All in all, there will never be consensus on the authenticity of this passage.”20 He then admits that he is led “to believe that in all probability Paul had some control over this passage” but he stops short of accepting what he calls Hughes’ “unequivocal position.”21 He further contends that “it is difficult to attribute this passage solely to Paul’s dictation and originality…. While it appears more or less certain that Paul had control over the writing of 6:14-7:1 and it is not a case of direct borrowing, it is quite doubtful that this paragraph came unaided from Paul’s mind.”22 He then states, “But though he is the final ‘redactor’ of this Essene work and has ‘Paulinized’ it, we cannot judge it to be uniquely Pauline….”23 He concludes that it is “authentic in the sense that Paul was the one to place it in the letter at this curious juncture.”24

15 Gordon D. Fee, “II Corinthians vi. 14 – vii. 1 and Food offered to Idols,” New Testament Studies 23/2 (1977): 143.

16 Ibid. 17 Margaret E. Thrall, “The Problem of II Cor. vi. 14 – vii. 1 In Some Recent Discussion,” New

Testament Studies 24 (1977): 132. 18 Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. A. J. Mattill, Jr.

(Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1966) 214. 19 Hughes, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 242. 20 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 193. 21 Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid., 194.

Unequally Yoked 119

There are also those who contend that these verses are definitely of a non-Pauline source. Kümmel states in his Introduction to the New Testament, “The authenticity of II Corinthians as a whole is undisputed. On the other hand, the Pauline origin of II 6:14-7:1 has long been denied (recently, e.g., by Jülicher, Bultmann, Dinkler, Bornkamm, Georgi, Fitamyer).”25 Dahl writes, “I therefore assume that 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is a fragment of non-Pauline origin, now to be read as part of our 2 Corinthians.”26 Yet he observes, “I am fairly convinced about one thing, namely, that the person who inserted the fragment in 6:14-7:1 is the same one who added chapters 10-13….”27 He himself sees the weakness of his position when he writes, “Yet, Paul’s style and language are so flexible that it is difficult to say with certainty that Paul could not possibly have written the text.”28 If that is not enough, he adds, “I have to confess that I find it somewhat difficult to imagine a later redactor who was capable of expressing his understanding of Paul’s unique apostolic ministry in such an indirect and subtle way….”29 That is reminiscent of another author who wrote, “If a final redactor put the finishing touches on 2 Corinthians, why did he insert 6:14-7:1 in such an awkward place, so alien to its context?”30 There are some practical questions which have no convincing answers, namely, “(1) Why would Paul, or anybody else, insert this supposedly discrete non-Pauline passage into a Pauline writing? (2) Why would it be inserted at this precise point? (3) Would the early Christians have felt free to insert an extraneous text into an apostolic writing?”31

The Problem of Abruptness Several things cause people to conclude that this passage is non-Pauline.

One is the abruptness – from the standpoint of grammar and content – of the in-troduction of these verses into the context. Plummer opens his comments on this passage by stating that “the appeal is…rather violently interrupted by the inter-jection of a sudden warning against heathen modes of life.”32 He then states that “this strongly worded admonition…comes in so abruptly here that a number of

25 Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament 211. 26 Nils Alstrup Dahl, Studies in Paul (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1977) 64. 27 Ibid., 68. 28 Ibid., 63. 29 Ibid., 69. 30 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 194. 31 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 339. 32 Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to

the Corinthians, in ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1966) 201.


critics suppose that it is a fragment of another letter, and some maintain that the fragment is not by St. Paul.”33 Kümmel writes, “II Corinthians 6:14-7:1 forms a difficulty probably not to be solved, for this section is without thematic con-nection to its context and interrupts the good connection between 6:13 and 7:2.”34 Stanley states that “the intervening passage vi. 14-vii. 1, whilst it coheres perfect-ly with itself, has no connexion with the immediate context either before or after.”35 To which Martin adds, “It becomes difficult to see any transition be-tween 6:13 and 14…. The conclusion of our passage (7:1), which speaks of avoid-ing contamination of the flesh and spirit does not lead smoothly into 7:2….”36

Nine decades ago, Moffatt, in commenting on Lutgert’s view on this passage, began his entry by addressing himself to “those who retain this passage, in spite of its abruptness, as an integral part of the context….”37 He then concluded: “Furthermore, even granting Lutgert’s view of 6:14-7:1, we have practically the same difficulty as on all other theories of this class with regard to the internal connexion of 6:12.13 with what follows.”38 Thus, according to some, “One crucial question facing interpreters is the integrity of 2 Cor 6:14-7:1. Does it belong here or is it an interpolation?”39

There is no doubt as to the abrupt entrance of these verses into the larger framework of 6:11-7:4. But this is not a negative factor. Instead, Paul inten-tionally and purposefully placed this paragraph here and, as he sometimes does, he “uses this grammatical method (asyndeton) to make freestanding statements and thus to heighten the impact of his words.”40 As Paul began his emotional discussion concerning his people Israel in Romans 9:1 with asyndeton, so here, impassioned by what was going on in Corinth, he does the same. As challenging as the understanding of this passage is, this section may be seen as a passionate plea, but it should not be considered a digression. It should instead be seen as a logical development.41

33 Plummer, The Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 204. 34 Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 214. 35 Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Minneapolis, MN: Klock

& Klock, 1981) 464-65. 36 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 191. 37 James Moffatt, “2 Corinthians vi. 14 – vii. 1,” The Expository Times 20 (Oct 1908-Sept

1909): 428-29. 38 Ibid. 39 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 191. 40 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 344. 41 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 195.

Unequally Yoked 121

The Problem of Non-Pauline Theology Another consideration is what has been referred to as a doctrinal issue

that arises out of “the extreme sense of exclusiveness expressed in the passage.”42 Betz writes, “The conclusion is unavoidable that the theology of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1 is not only non-Pauline, but anti-Pauline.”43 Part of the issue has to do with the use of “flesh and spirit” in this context. The contention is that it is non-Pauline theology since “Paul usually has in mind the ‘intrinsically evil’ side of humanity when he uses σVρξ (sarks), ‘flesh.’ Characteristically, Paul would say that ‘flesh’ is incapable of being cleansed of sin. Likewise, Paul would normally consider πνεØµα (pneuma), ‘spirit,’ as ‘intrinsically good,’ not in need of cleansing.” 44 This is to assume that Paul could not here be using these terms in a non-theolo-gical sense to make reference to the material and immaterial parts of man. In fact, does not Paul use these terms in a non-theological sense in the verses that bracket the “digression” (2:14-7:4) when he writes, “I had no rest for my spirit” (2:13) and “our flesh had no rest” (7:5)? In 7:1 “the two together sum up human nature, and the intercommunion of the parts is so close, that when either is soiled the whole is soiled.”45

Another aspect of this concern is the seeming pharisaic attitude of separation which some suggest is found here. This idea of exclusiveness is some-times drawn from the OT quotations in 6:16b-18.46 But “it would be a serious mistake to conclude that Paul is here condemning all contact and intercourse with non-Christians” when it is evident that “his whole ministry and manner of life was a denial of any policy of total withdrawal for fear of contamination from unbelievers.”47 Therefore, the context here is not one that reflects Essene separa-tism nor one that contradicts his statements in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11.

The Problem of Hapax Legomena One of the major challenges to the authenticity of this passage is based

on the great number of hapax legomena (words occurring only once) which are found in 6:14-7:1. Although the length and nature of this essay does not allow for a detailed response to these matters, a few brief comments are helpful in laying a

42 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 338. 43 Hans Dieter Betz, “2 Cor 6:14-7:1: AN ANTI-PAULINE FRAGMENT?” Journal of Biblical

Literature 92 (1973): 108. 44 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 209. 45 Plummer, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 211. 46 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 192. 47 Ibid.


foundation for what follows. As to the matter of hapax legomena, it should be noted that “the claim that hapax legomena are evidence of non-Pauline authorship is difficult to sustain. Second Corinthians alone contains no less than fifty hapaxes; there are only six in his passage.”48 And “further, it is characteris-tic of Paul that rhetorically powerful passages as this tend to be hapax-laden.”49 In support of this, Fee writes:

Five of the alleged NT hapaxes occur in a burst of rhetoric (verses 14-16a), and it is the nature of Pauline rhetoric to have a sudden influx of hapax legomena. For example, the outburst in I Cor. iv. 7-13 has six NT hapaxes…and two other words found only here in Paul…. Similarly, the rhetorical expression of apostolic ministry in II Cor. vi. 3-10 has four NT hapaxes…plus one Pauline hapax…and four others in Paul (or the NT) only here and in the comparable passage in xi. 22-29….The quantity of hapaxes in vi. 14 – vii. 1 is therefore not a particularly unusual feature.50

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOUGHT IN 6:14-7:1

The breakdown of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is quite clear. “This passage is an inclusio, begun and ended by similar-style exhortations (6:14a; 7:1).”51 As defined later in this essay, the passage begins with (1) a strong prohibition against “yoking oneself up with unbelievers” (6:14a). (2) This prohibition is then reinforced (6:14b-16a). This entails a series of five rhetorical questions which each expect a negative answer and state “in proverbial form the truth that believers may have nothing to do with wickedness, darkness, Belial, unbelievers, and idols….”52 Each of these questions is designed to enforce the thrust of the admonition of 6:14a not to ‘become yoke-mates with unbelievers.’ The questions illustrate the need to be separate, i.e., to avoid association with evil.”53 A suppor-ting statement, “For we are the temple of the living God,” follows and reinforces the message being communicated by the final rhetorical question, “Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?” This then provides (3) a transition

48 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 340. 49 Ibid., 339-40. 50 Fee, “II Corinthians vi. 14 – vii. 1 and Food offered to Idols”, 144. 51 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 343. 52 Ibid. 53 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 190.

Unequally Yoked 123

into supporting statements from Scripture, a series of OT quotations, which sup-port his call for separation. As Barnett describes it:

The second line of substantiation springs from the assertion that believers are the temple of the living God, and affirms, by a series of subtly linked OT citations, that God dwells among his people. Based on the ‘promises’ of God in the citations, that the covenant God has received them as his children, the Corinthians are exhorted to “come out…be separate.”54

The Scriptural support of a separated life prepares the way for (4) a practical outworking of the call for separation in each individual life (7:1). In this verse, Paul concludes his call to separation by drawing the reader’s attention back to promises recited in the preceding verses with the statement: “There-fore having these promises, beloved” (ταbταH οÞν §χοντεH τς ¦παγγελ\αH, •γαπητο\, tautas oun echontes tas epangelias, agap toi). The promises in 6:16-18 become the basis for Paul’s concluding exhortation.55 On the basis of these promises, he calls on the readers to “cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit” and at the same time be “perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF 6:14-7:1

With this in mind, it is helpful to set the immediate context by addressing the plea Paul makes in the two bookends of this passage in 6:11-13 and 7:2-4. There is definitely a perceptible continuity between these two sets of verses. Paul concludes his remarks in 6:13 with the plea for the Corinthians to “open wide to us also” and then he “continues his appeal…in 7:2, but in the present arrangement of the text 6:14-7:1 interrupts that thought.”56 The opening words of 7:2-4 resume the plea of 6:13 but with different vocabu-lary (πλατbνθητε/ΧωρZσατε, platunth te/ch r sate – “open wide to us”/“make room for us”). So following upon the interruption in 6:14-7:1 he resumes his exhortation once again as he pleads with the Corinthians to open wide their hearts to him.

The structure found here is not totally unlike that found in 1 Corinthians 12-14. Paul concludes chapter 12 with the command, “earnestly desire the greater gifts” (ζηλοØτε δ¥ τ χαρ\σµατα τ µε\ζονα , z loute de ta charismata ta

54 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 343. 55 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 191. 56 Ibid., 187.


meizona) and following the chapter on love (1 Cor 13), he resumes his discussion on gifts (14:1) with the command, “desire earnestly spiritual gifts….” (ζηλοØτε δ¥ τ πνευµατικV, z loute de ta pneumatika). In both cases, the same verb, the same form of the verb, and the same type of object indicate that there is evident continuity of thought. Chapter 13 in its own unique way interrupts that thought. Because of this, Jean Héring, who accepts the Pauline origin of 1 Corinthians 13, writes, “It could be argued as certain that Chapter 13 did not originally occupy its present place in the Epistle.”57 Few would concur with that conclusion. They rather consider the 13th chapter that is sandwiched between chapters 12 and 14 as an integral and very necessary part of the overall message. The relevance and the meaning of chapter 13 and chapters 12 and 14 are to be found in their relationship to each other in the given context where Paul placed them.

The same thing holds true in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Between two very related pleas (6:11-13; 7:2-4) is this very important section (6:14-7:1). Second Corinthians 6:14-7:1 is purposefully sandwiched by Paul between 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 and 7:2-4 and is an integral and most necessary part of the message. The relevance and meaning of 6:14-7:1 as well as the two bookends (6:11-13; 7:2-4) are to be found in their relationship to each other in the given context where Paul placed them.

Paul’s Personal Example At the beginning (6:11) and the end (7:3-4) of his plea for openness on

their part toward him, Paul cites his own personal example. In the initial plea in 6:11-13, Paul once again speaks to them directly. “Twice in this short passage Paul uses the pronoun ‘you’ (vv. 11, 13), as he had done in 6:1. The earlier appeal relates to the Corinthians’ relationship to God (5:20; 6:1); this one relates to the Corinthians’ relationship to Paul.”58 It is important to notice that “the two are clearly interconnected. To be reconciled to God means to be reconciled to Paul, his minister….”59 As he makes his appeal to them, he uses two perfect tenses to express his openness of heart and mouth. “These organs represent the natural two-part division of the sentence. By the one he speaks to them; by the other he thinks and feels about them.”60 Having an open mouth “is a picturesque

57 Jean Héring, The First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) 134. 58 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 334. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid.

Unequally Yoked 125

indication that there has been no reserve on his part.”61 It is a reference “to the free and open spirit shewn in the whole previous passage on the ministry, in which he had so liberally imparted his inner feelings to them.”62 Having a heart that is opened wide suggests that “there are no secrets in it; there is room for you in it, and I long to have you there.”63 His testimony of a continually opened heart sets the tone for the next two verses and is the thought that carries over to 7:2-4. In Paul’s resumption of his plea in 7:2, he explains what he means by his request in 6:13 for them to “open wide to us also” as he tells them to “make room for us in your hearts.”64 Although the text does not include “in your heart,” the context demands it.65 This he had personally modeled for them.

Paul’s Personal Absolution of Blame In the center (6:12; 7:2b) of each of the sections (6:11-13; 7:2-4) of his

plea that bookends 6:14-7:1, Paul reminds his readers that he is not to blame for their lack of openness toward him. In the second part of his plea for openness (7:2-4), Paul is no doubt “reacting to charges against him, the specifics of which are contained in 7:2b.”66 In each case, he repeats οÛδXνα (oudena; “no one”) in an emphatic manner and each time in conjunction with an aorist tense to indicate that there had “not been a single case in which he has wronged, ruined, defrauded, any of them.”67 He makes it a point to quickly negate any reason “which might make them hesitate to open their hearts to take him in.”68 Paul is showing here that “on his side at least there is no impediment; he has done nothing to diminish the Corinthians’ confidence in him.”69

Paul’s Passionate Plea Paul’s return in 7:2 to his affectionate appeal with which he concluded

6:13 “is as sudden as the digression at vi. 14.”70 In the concluding statement of

61 Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 203. 62 Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1968) 2:670. 63 Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 191. 64 Plummer, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 212-13. 65 Ibid., 217. 66 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 217. 67 Plummer, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 213. 68 Ibid., 213. 69 Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 203. 70 Plummer, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 212-13.


the first section (πλατbνθητε κα \ ßµεÃH, platunth te kai humeis – 6:11) and the beginning statement of the second section (ΧωρZσατε ºµH, ch r sate h mas – 7:2a), Paul issues his passionate plea for them to open up in their relationship to him. Though the verbs are different (πλατbνθητε /ΧωρZσατε, platunth te/ ch r sate), there is little doubt but that Paul is resuming the thought of 6:13. “The interruption is ended as Paul returns to his argument that they, the Corinthians – not he – are responsible for a less than desirable relationship at this point. ΧωρZσατε, ‘make room’…carries with it the idea of expansion.”71 As he writes to them in this context:

His address to them is painfully emotional (‘our mouth is open … our heart is wide’), as indeed was the catalogue of his credentials in suffering that he felt compelled to give them (6:3-10). These words, with those, form the climax to the entire apologia for his apostolic office that began at 2:14. Paradoxically, they are at once office-related and emotional. Here we hear Paul in his most human self-disclosure. The apostolic office, which is to a significant degree a model for subsequent pastoral and missionary ministry, is a human ministry; it can never be a mere institution.72

Paul also evidences his passion toward them by the use of “you” (6:11, 13 as in 6:1) and the rare use of the personal vocative address as “Corinthians.” This entire passage is very tender for rarely does Paul address his converts by name and certainly nowhere else in his letters to the Corinthians.73 He also evi-dences passion in the conclusion of this section when he makes reference to “you also” (καÂ ßµεÃH, kai humeis) and addresses them as “children” (ñH τXκνοι H, h s teknois) 6:13.74 His reference to them as children is not an indication of their spiritual immaturity but is rather a reminder of their spiritual relationship to him and a call for them to recognize that fact and respond accordingly.75

71 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 216. 72 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 335. 73 Plummer, Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 203. 74 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 337. 75 Ibid.

Unequally Yoked 127

THE PROHIBITION STATED

The key thought, and the one that is to be picked up at the conclusion of this paragraph and reinforced by a Scriptural quotation in the middle of the para-graph, is the prohibition calling for separation. Betz brings out the significance of this prohibition in its context and how it is tied in with the remainder of the passage as he writes:

The parenetic statement (6:14a) rests upon a detailed theological foundation which includes the entire remaining section and which moves from an ontological affirmation (6:14b-16a) to a self-definition of the congregation (6:16b). In 6:16c-18 the divine promises…are set forth in the form of combined Scripture quotations. From these, the…ethical responsibility is derived in the form of a general parenesis (7:1), which then is concretized and placed at the beginning of the section as its leading theme (6:14a).76

When one reads the prohibition Μ¬ γ\νεσθε ©τεροζυγοØντεH •π\στοιH (m ginesthe heterozugountes apistois), there is little doubt what Paul is using as the basis of this exhortation. This metaphor is drawn from the OT passages that prohibit two different kinds of animals from working side by side (Deut 22:10) and from being cross-bred together (Lev 19:19). “This principle is adapted and applied by Paul with the purpose of emphasizing the incongruity of believers being paired with unbelievers.”77 This “metaphor of the yoke which he uses here shows that he is thinking of close relationships in which, unless both parties are true believers, Christian harmony cannot be expected to flourish and Christian consistency cannot fail to be compromised.”78 And in fact, in the statement that follows, “for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness” (τ\H γρ µετοχ¬ δικαιοσ bν® καÂ •νοµ\‘, tis gar metoch dikaiosun i kai anomiai), “the conjunction ‘for’ shows that there is a logical and obvious incongruity about the unequal yoke, and the pairs of opposites which it introduces illustrate the absolute and ultimate antithesis that exists between the believer and the unbeliever.”79

As stated earlier, “It would be a serious mistake to conclude that Paul is here condemning all contact and intercourse with non-Christians: isolationism of this sort would, as he has previously written (1 Cor. 5:10), logically necessitate

76 Betz, “2 Cor 6:14-7:1: ANTI-PAULINE FRAGMENT?”, 90. 77 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 244. 78 Ibid., 246. 79 Ibid.


departure from the world. In other words, it is a position of absurdity.”80 It should also be noted that “the proper force, however, of µ¬ γ\νεσθε κτλ (µZ plus present imperative) is ‘do not go on becoming unequally yoked with unbelievers, as you are already doing.’”81

Not to be lost in one’s reflection on this prohibition to “stop yoking oneself up with unbelievers” is the opposite message as well. “The negative injunction of course carries with it the opposite and positive implication, that believers should be equally and harmoniously yoked with fellow-believers, so that…they may walk and work worthily of the Lord.”82 Hughes concludes, “True Christian partnership is that which exists between…genuine yokefellows, and that can apply only to those who already are one in Christ Jesus.”83

THE PROHIBITION REINFORCED

Paul then reinforces the prohibition to “stop yoking oneself up with unbelievers” with five rhetorical questions. Each question commences with the interrogative pronoun τ\H (tis) (‘what’), and “each question is pointed and rhetor-ical; no answer is stated because the answer in each case is obvious.”84 It should be further noted that:

The five rhetorical questions which now follow should be considered as a unit: (1) the connective “for” (gar) is found in the first line and again only after the fifth question has been put, (2) each question after the first begins alternatively with “or what” and “but what,” (3) each question then uses a word for likeness or agreement that is followed by balanced opposites, expressing in each case an exact antithesis, (4) there is no verb in any of the questions, and (5) the second part of the antithesis is introduced in turn by “and…to…to…with…with.”85

Derrett writes, “The proposition is in five parts, with an appended explanation to the fifth (ºµεÃH γρ ναÎH θεοØ ζäντοH). Each of these is an exploration of the prohibition with which the passage commences. Each exploration brings out a

80 Ibid., 245. 81 Ibid. 82 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 245. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid., 246. 85 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 345-46.

Unequally Yoked 129

different feature.”86 But, “considered separately or together, they express in pro-verbial form the utter incongruity of godliness and ungodliness.”87 In addition, in the questions that follow, Paul “gives a clear demand for a distinction between believer and unbeliever.”88 Furthermore, the “explanatory connective” - γρ/“for” in the initial clause, τ\H γρ µετοχ¬ δικαιοσ bν® καÂ •νοµ\‘ (tis gar metoch dikaiosun i kai anomiai) “introduces not only the first, but…each of the self-answering questions…. With this question, as with the others, the very asking of the question gives the negative answer, ‘none,’ thus reinforcing the prohibition not to be misyoked with unbelievers (v. 14a).”89

The statement is quite clear, but how it is to be applied in this passage is a matter of much difference of opinion. The reason for this is summed up by Fee who, having noted its relationship to Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:10, writes, “It is a simple metaphor which suggests that just as it is forbidden to men of old to plough with different kinds of animals under the same yoke, so the Christian is a different ‘breed’ from the unbeliever and is forbidden an improper relationship with him.”90 He remarks further, “What that relationship is, however, is not inherent in the prohibition itself; nor does one find help in the metaphori-cal use of ‘yoke’ in the OT….”91 He then concludes that “the clue to the passage lies not in the metaphor itself, but in the sets of contrasts in the following rhetorical questions.”92

To what do the prohibition and the following five rhetorical questions make reference? Many ideas exist. Some have concluded that this teaches a sepa-ration from the world and have read that into the passage. There are those who, therefore, conclude that 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 could not have come from the same pen as 1 Corinthians 5:9-11:

[ 9] I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people;

[10] I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters; for then you would have to go out of the world.

86 J. Duncan M. Derrett, “2 Cor 6, 14ff. a Midrash on Dt 22, 10,” Biblica 59/2 (1978): 235. 87 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 346. 88 Ibid. 89 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 346. 90 Fee, “II Corinthians vi.14 – vii.1 and Food Offered to Idols”, 157. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid.


[11] But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat with such a one.

William Webb addresses himself to this issue in two separate articles in Bibliotheca Sacra (January-March and April-June, 1992), and in his second article, he lists twelve options, six of which “have their origin in 1 Corinthians,” and two others “are based on data outside of specifics within Pauline material.”93 He concludes that “the evidence strongly favors a traditional understanding of the –πιστοι as non-Christians outside the church community.”94 But having settled that, he writes, “The difficulty lies in knowing what sort of ‘joining together’ activities Paul had in mind with the word ©τεροζυγοØντεH (2 Cor. 6:14).”95 He then sets forth the twelve different views and following a lengthy discussion, makes these observations:

The specific referent options for µ¬ γ\νεσθε ©τεροζυγοØντεH may be grouped from least to most probable. For example the least plausible referent options are the following: going to court before pagan judges, eating idol-meat at a pagan’s home, speaking in tongues before unbelievers, and business partnerships. These cases of metaphorical idolatry may be excluded with a considerable degree of certainty. Also it is improbable that Paul had mixed marriages in mind.96

He then concludes, “The most probable referent options are visiting temple pros-titutes and joining with pagans in temple feasts. These infractions may be classified as severe violations of one’s covenant with God, as metonymical idola-try, and as forming a close bond with pagans and Beliar….”97 There is great merit to his conclusion but a major problem is that there is no specific reference to either of these matters in the immediate or extended context.

It seems that if one were forced to make a choice, the best view would be that suggested by Gordon Fee with reference to food offered to idols and accepted in a somewhat modified form by others. Fee is eminently qualified to

93 William Webb, “What Is the Unequal Yoke (©τεροζυγοØντεH) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?”, 163. 94 William J. Webb, “Who Are the Unbelievers (–πιστοι) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?” Bibliotheca

Sacra 149/153 (January-March 1992): 44. 95 Webb, “What Is the Unequal Yoke (©τεροζυγοØντεH) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?”, 162. 96 Ibid., 178-79. 97 Ibid., 179.

Unequally Yoked 131

handle this matter not only because of his well-known scholarship but because of his outstanding work on 1 Corinthians. Because of his superb grasp of the first epistle, he is able to develop a convincing argument for the close relationship between the vocabulary and concepts used here and that found in 1 Corinthians 10. He concludes his article with the statement that “one can scarcely deny its linguistic and conceptual affinities both with I Cor. iii. 16-17 and x. 14-22.”98 Following the same line, Barnett answers the questions about “what is meant by being ‘yoked together’ with ‘unbelievers’?” and “what kind of relationship should not be entered into with unbelievers?” by concluding, “The rhetorical questions that follow give the answer. The Corinthian believers must not be joined with Corinthian ‘unbelievers’ in the cultic life of the city, but rather ‘come out’ from among them.”99

It is impossible in this article to fully address the underlying arguments of each author and his respective view. Nevertheless, in assessing these views, it is evident that a basic cause for the differences of opinion arises from the fact that an attempt is being made to draw specific conclusions when Paul himself has chosen not to be specific. Even Fee himself makes it abundantly clear that “what that relationship is, however, is not inherent in the prohibition itself.”100 And he himself addresses the problem with the view he takes when he writes, “In conclusion, and in all candour, it is admitted that the one real difficulty with this interpretation is that ‘food offered to idols’ is not specifically mentioned either in this passage or its immediate context.”101 Fee also writes earlier in his article, “It is against this background that II Cor. vi. 14 – vii. 1 can be shown to make perfectly good sense, and to do so within the context of II Cor. i-vii.”102 But he then goes on to say that “this requires at least a partial reconstruction of the events and relationships between Paul and Corinth between the writing of our I and II Corinthians.”103 Something must be assumed that is not evident in the context. That is the same problem with Webb’s view concerning temple prosti-tutes and pagan feasts. In fact, Webb, in summarizing his discussion, shows how difficult specificity is when he speaks of “the most probable referent” and

98 Fee, “II Corinthians vi.14 – vii.1 and Food Offered to Idols”, 161. 99 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 345. 100 Fee, “II Corinthians vi.14 – vii.1 and Food Offered to Idols”, 157. 101 Ibid., 161. 102 Ibid. 103 Ibid., 154.


remarks that “it is quite possible that Paul had in mind a number of cases not explicitly mentioned within Corinthian correspondence….”104

Although there is probably some allusion to matters relating to pagan feasts and idol worship, it is impossible to identify a single definitive referent. It seems quite clear that the source of the problem is non-Christian pagans but it is also clear that “Paul does not state in specific terms what he means by being unequally yoked with unbelievers.”105 The nature of the exhortation is general “and hardly to be pressed as applying only to partaking of meats offered to idols…or to marriage with unbelievers…but regard all possible connexion and participation….”106 In addition, “it appears unlikely that Paul was asking the Corinthians to cease all contact with the Gentile world. He recognized that this was an impossibility (1 Cor 5:10), though his counsel was evidently misunder-stood.”107 “Rather, Paul warns against compromising the integrity of faith.”108 To sum it all up: “Any action that would cause believers to link up with the world in thought and act (through indifference or connivance) must be avoided.”109

Two things stand out relative to this matter. First of all, it is important that one say all that the passage says but nothing it does not say. In this passage, there are many ideas (twelve if one follows Webb) about what is addressed, but Paul leaves the matter undeclared and thereby allows the principle of separation to be as broad as possible but specific enough to help them understand the direc-tion in which such separation must move. Secondly, since this passage was placed here purposefully by the Apostle Paul, the separation called for must somehow have direct application to the plea he makes in the passages that book-end these verses (6:11-13; 7:2-4). Plummer brings this out when he remarks that 6:11-7:4 “is rather violently interrupted by the interjection of a sudden warning against heathen modes of life which are sure to pollute the lives of the Corinthians (vi. 14-vii. 1), and would impede their reconciliation with the Apostle.”110 This pollution of their lives must somehow be the cause of the readers being impeded from carrying out the desire of the apostle for them to open up to him as he had to them. It is not the contact with the world that Paul

104 Webb, “What Is the Unequal Yoke (©τεροζυγοØντεH) in 2 Corinthians 6:14?”, 179. 105 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 244. 106 Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 2:671. 107 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 197. 108 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 246. 109 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 197. 110 Plummer, Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 201.

Unequally Yoked 133

addresses here (which would contradict his counsel in 1 Cor 5:9-11) but rather their acceptance of the values and views of the pagan world.

THE PROHIBITION SUPPORTED BY SCRIPTURE

Paul now supports his plea for a separated life from Scripture. Hughes makes an interesting observation from the progression of Paul’s argument in this passage. He suggests that “it is almost as though we can in this passage catch an echo of Paul the preacher:

• the series of rhetorical questions, • the notable variety of vocabulary and construction, • the quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures, • and the application of the biblical promises to those he is addressing

(7:1) – • all these together conjure up a vivid picture of the power and effect

of the Apostle’s preaching.”111

Paul not only supports this from Scripture but also:

Adapting the words of Lev 26:11-12, Paul discerns this threefold personal promise in the mouth of God: (1) ‘I will live with them,’ (2) ‘I will walk’ [among them],’ and (3) ‘I will be their God.’ In the light of the Corinthians’ reception of the word of God and God’s anointing of them with his Spirit (see on 1:18-22), it is evident that God’s words of promise have now been kept; they are a present reality. God does dwell in them, does walk among them; he is their God, and they are his people. Thus the Corinthians are, indeed, ‘the temple of the living God’ (v. 16b).112

And in this regard, “These powerful verses teach

(1) the fidelity of God to his word of promise, (2) the continuity in the world of the people of God, though under a

new covenant (see on 3:3-6), and (3) the necessity of separation of God’s people-temple from the

defilement of idols, as he now proceeds to declare.”113

111 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 246 [indenting and highlighting added]. 112 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 352. 113 Ibid., 353 [indenting and highlighting added].


THE PROHIBITION PRACTICALLY WORKED OUT

The Personal Relationship Paul now draws a conclusion to the message on separation with which he

began 6:14a. He does so by addressing the readers with an “affectionate term ‘beloved,’ rather than by more direct words, as in vv. 14a, 17a, b. Moreover, he adopts a cohortative form of address (‘let us…’), consistent perhaps with his earlier identification with them (‘we are the temple of the living God’ – v. 16).”114

The Promises “The opening connective ‘therefore’ refers specifically to ‘having these

promises,’ that is, to the promises in this passage (vv. 16, 17, and 18).”115 The promises referred to are certainly drawn from the previous context. The probable reference here is to the two promises that follow the previous two commands:

The two exhortations – (1) “come out from them and be separate,” and (2) “touch no unclean thing” – are drawn from Isa 52:11 (“Go out from there and touch no unclean thing. Go out from the midst of her, be separate”)…. Now follows the first of the two promises, “and I will receive you,” which is based on Yahweh’s word given to the people in exile through another prophet of the exile, Ezekiel (LXX Ezek 20:34; cf. 20:41; 11;17)…. The second promise, “I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters,” is based on Yahweh’s word through Nathan to David about David’s coming son, “I will be a father to him, and he will be my son” (2 Sam 7:14).116

It is evident that “the logical consequence (‘therefore’) of possessing such pro-mises is that Christ’s followers should make a complete break with every form of unhealthy compromise.”117 It should also be noticed that “the addition of ‘almighty,’ though common to the LXX, is found only here in the writings of Paul.”118

114 Ibid., 355. 115 Ibid., 355. 116 Ibid., 353-54. 117 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 258. 118 Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 355.

Unequally Yoked 135

The Plea “What follows is a single exhortation (‘let us purify ourselves…’),

followed by the attendant consequences (‘perfecting holiness…’). Specifically, Paul exhorts ‘let us purify [or ‘cleanse’] ourselves…,’ language that specifically picks up ‘touch no unclean thing’ a few verses earlier (v. 17).”119 The promises of 6:16, 17, 18 “become the basis for the concluding exhortation to (1) refrain from all defiling of flesh and spirit; and (2) live as ‘perfecting’ holiness (7:1), i.e., bringing it to completion.”120 It is clear from Paul’s use of “all defilement” and the combination of “flesh and spirit” that he is addressing himself to “all defilement of every possible kind, both external and internal, both seen and unseen, both public and private.”121 Paul’s plea is that every believer will cleanse himself/herself from every action (“flesh”) and every attitude (“spirit”) which has been polluted by the views and values of a pagan non-Christian society. The passage, therefore, “concludes as it commenced, with a charge to live a holy and separated life unto God. The theme of detachment from the pagan world is con-sistently held throughout the passage.”122

THE OVERALL MESSAGE OF 6:11-7:4

The purpose of Paul’s plea that is found in the two passages (6:11-13; 7:2-4) that surround 6:14-7:1 is to implore the Corinthians to open wide their hearts to him as he had opened wide to them. He “rather violently” interrupts his plea “by the interjection of a sudden warning against heathen modes of life that are sure to pollute the lives of the Corinthians (vi. 14-vii. 1), and would impede their reconciliation with the Apostle.”123 Barrett gives us a worthy reminder with respect to the place of 6:14-7:1 in its broader context. He first of all addresses many of the problems already addressed in this essay as he writes:

The view has long been current that vi. 14-vii. 1 is an intrusion in the text of 2 Corinthians. It has been supported by a twofold argument. (a) There is no connection between vi. 13 and vi. 14, and between vii. 1 and vii. 2. In vi. 13 Paul begs his readers to make room for him in their hearts; in vi. 14 he tells them sharply to have nothing to do with unbelievers. In vii. 1, after quoting

119 Ibid., 356. 120 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 191. 121 Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 258. 122 Martin, 2 Corinthians, 191. 123 Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 201.


Scripture, he urges them to take thought for holiness of life in the fear of God; in vii. 2 he returns to self-defence, and a renewed personal appeal. (b) Not only is vi. 14-vii. 1 without direct connection with what precedes and what follows; if it is removed, vi. 13 and vii. 2 are found to connect admirably. (11) My heart is wide open to you…(13) As a recompense of like kind – I am speaking as to my children – do you be wide open to me… (2) Take us into your hearts!124

He then concludes, “These observations are valid, and the argument must seem a cogent one, unless it proves possible to trace Paul’s thought through without more deviation than can always be expected in a writer of his sort.”125

It might be asked whether it is possible to trace Paul’s thought through 2 Corinthians 6:11-7:4 and, if so, what path does it take? Plummer responds, “It is not incredible that in the middle of his appeal for mutual frankness and affection, and after his declaration that the cramping constraint is all on their side, he should dart off to one main cause of that constraint, viz. their compromising attitude towards anti-Christian influences.”126 It is as one author writes: “Much writing on the puzzling passage 2 Cor 6, 14-7,1 may have missed the point. Perhaps the means of understanding it lies very nearby.”127 So it seems.

As Paul abruptly introduced with passion his desire to see his people come to faith in Christ in Romans 9:1, so he passionately (by a use of asyndeton here as well) and abruptly introduces his desire to see the Corinthians cleanse themselves from the defiling attitudes of the pagan world which were restraining them from the openness the apostle longed for. Tying these thoughts together, it is clear in this passage that:

• He has reminded them of his personal example of openness (6:11; 7:3-4).

• He has reminded them of his personal absolution of responsibility for their lack of openness toward him (6:12; 7:2b). In spite of what-ever charges were leveled against him, he is in no way responsible for this lack of openness.

• He has reminded them of his passionate desire to have them open up to him in much the same way he has been open toward them (6:13; 7:2a).

124 Barrett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 193. 125 Ibid. 126 Plummer, Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 205. 127 Derrett, “2Cor 6,14ff. a Midrash on Dt 22, 10”, 231.

Unequally Yoked 137

• And now in a very abrupt, forceful and dynamic way, he draws their attention to the true cause of their lack of openness toward him: the pollution of their lives because of the lack of separation from pagan worldviews and values that so greatly affected them (6:14-18).

• It is from this pollution that they must now cleanse themselves both in the realm of their actions (flesh) and their attitudes (spirit) (7:1) if they are to be able to share in this openness with the apostle.

THE CONTEMPORARY APPLICATION

Just as 1 Corinthians 13 has an application that stretches far beyond the exercise of spiritual gifts, so 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1 applies to areas far beyond the context in which it is found. Fee makes a poignant observation in his com-mentary on Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthian church when he writes, “We try desperately to identify with Paul, when in fact we are probably much more like the Corinthians than any of us dare admit.”128 That is likely true of most believers when it comes to the principle established in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. The prin-ciple remains broad enough that no believer in that day or this could completely absolve himself or herself from the responsibility of applying the truth to his or her individual life. The sinful influence of the world with which the Corinthians had yoked themselves had affected their actions and attitudes and thereby had a negative impact on their exercise of godly behavior in God’s church. In like manner, the sinful influence that results from being yoked to the world in this or any age can so affect a believer’s or a church’s actions and attitudes that it keeps them from living in the manner God desires within His church.

128 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians in NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmans, 1987) 182.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 139-162

139

The Spirit’s Intercession

James E. Rosscup, Th.D., Ph.D. Professor of Bible Exposition


One of the Holy Spirit’s ministries in Romans 8 to those whom God has justified is intercessory prayer, i.e. taking personal matters of prayer beyond the believers’ own prayer effort. The chapter has the entire walk of the saints in view from the time of their being justified to their future glorification, but the only express example of a specific experience in the Christian life is prayer. The focus is on a weakness of believers, i.e. not knowing what to pray, whereas God knows perfectly. The Spirit prays on their behalf by groanings in which He does not use words. As believers pray about the myriad of life’s struggles, the Spirit works in close coordination with their prayers; yet the groanings are distinctly His own, in caring empathy, to secure what is best for them at God’s throne. Believers are imperfect and pray with limitations, but God is perfect and unlimited in seeking what is for their good.

* * * * *

The central focus of Paul’s letter to the Romans is justification by faith (1:15-17; 3:10, 21-26). This justification by faith, according to Paul, results in progressive sanctification by faith in the present life (6:1-8:11) and glorification in the life to come (8:17, 18-25, 30).

In bringing righteousness to its full expression, Paul views prayer as a strategic activity, introducing communion with God in the very heart of the epistle (8:26-27).1 Intercessory assistance, Paul notes, is given to the believers as

1 This is the only reference to the Spirit of God interceding by prayer, whether in the OT, Jewish

apocryphal or pseudepigraphical books, rabbinic writings, Qumran literature, or any known source up to Paul’s words in Romans 8. Only a few verses later, Paul adds that Christ also intercedes for the justified, in His case to keep them secure forever (8:34).


the Spirit presents prayer from His indwelling presence in them on earth and as Christ intercedes from His exalted estate in heaven.2

Romans 8 may well inspire the designation, “The chapter of the Holy Spirit.”3 The Holy Spirit helps with power (8:1-11); the Holy Spirit helps in privilege (8:12-17); the Holy Spirit guarantees the prospect (8:18-25); and the Holy Spirit prays for believers (8:26-27). Help to believers in Romans 8 is clear, then, in the Spirit giving power, privilege in a family bond, a prospect of future glory, and His prayer support in the arena of human weakness.4 This is the rich context in which the Spirit’s help in prayer is revealed.

THE SPIRIT’S ROLE IN PRAYER

Not only does the Spirit help believers in His role as a present pledge (Eph 1:13-14), guaranteeing the full realization of God’s redeeming work and the glorified estate that sonship with Christ assures, but the saints also enjoy the Spirit’s assistance as a prayer advocate. He undergirds their prayers for the purpose of securing for them whatever might be God’s benefit for them.

“And in the same way” introduces this aspect of divine assistance to believers. Now, in comparison with God giving a sustaining hope (vv. 23-25), “in the same way” the Spirit also gives help in prayer. Given the predicament of the believer’s own weakness, the Spirit provides strategic assistance.

The apostle notes five things in the passage about the Spirit’s help to the believer in the matter of prayer.

The Assistant (8:26a) Having mentioned the Spirit’s help in regard to a bracing hope in vv.

23-25, Paul now points to an additional avenue through which the Holy Spirit

2 Cf. Mark 14:62; Ephesians 1:19-23; Philippians 2:9; Colossians 3:1; and Hebrews 1:3; 4:14

with Romans 8:34, where Christ is “a great High Priest” ministering on believers’ behalf at the throne of grace.

3 Of 34 instances of B<,Ø:" in Romans, 21 are in chapter 8 (so S. L. Johnson, “A Survey of Biblical Psychology in the Epistle to the Romans,” Th.D. diss., Dallas Theological Seminary [1949]:49-50). Of these, 18 appear to refer to the Spirit, and 3 do not (8:10, 15a, 16a).

4 When Paul ceases to mention the Spirit (v. 28ff), the flow of thought goes on with continuity, arguing the same expectation. God’s encouraging aspects of help are sustained in the one redemptive process in two further, related steps. As to His purpose, God helps believers be confident that He is sure to deliver success in His gospel, since He is energetic to orchestrate all things for their welfare. For example, He carries out phrases that advance to eternal glorification, a theme repeated from vv. 17, 18-25. And as to preservation, Paul finishes Romans 8 with evidences that God is “for us.” God even makes saints super-conquerors whom He protects in His love over every threat that they might fear could separate them away from Him.

The Spirit’s Intercession 141

assists the redeemed. In doing so, he focuses on a particular example in the Christian experience –-prayer.5

The antecedent of the adverb eF"bJTH [h saut s; “in a similar way” or “likewise”] has generated considerable discussion. With what is Paul comparing the Spirit’s prayer help? First, many think that the comparison is with having the “firstfruits of the Spirit” (8:24-25).6 This sustains believers through the present suffering as they advance toward glory, subjects introduced in v. 17 and then immediately expanded in vv. 18-25. The suffering involves struggles in which God’s sons (v. 14) “groan,” earnestly longing to be ushered into the future glory which God promises. Next, others relate “likewise” differently, comparing the help by prayer groaning with the groaning of creation (v. 22) and the groaning of God’s sons in the next verse.7 However, even with the threefold groaning as a uniting factor, problems resist explaining the “likewise” as intended by this comparison. First, groaning in prayer is delayed until late in v. 26, removed three verses from the closest earlier groaning. Furthermore, the hope of vv. 24-25 seems to be the more immediate, dominant emphasis leading up to v. 26, prompting the comparison.

A third opinion links the Spirit’s help “in the same way” to His bearing witness with believers’ spirits (vv. 16-17). He witnesses to their privilege in having a relationship with God that will eventuate in God glorifying them (vv. 16-17). Then, in a similar zeal for their benefit, He helps them in prayer.8 But the distance of vv. 16-17 from v. 26, and the closer intervening progress of emphasis erects a stubborn question over this being the most natural comparison.9

5 Out of all the specific practices of a godly life experience, only prayer is singled out. Romans

8 makes no reference expressly to study of the Word, use of gifts to edify others, doing good works, serving in church offices, or witnessing.

6 Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 326. 7 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975) 421. Cranfield states his view but does not support it. 8 Geoffrey Smith, “The Function of ‘Likewise’(ñF"bJTH) in Romans 8:26,” Tyndale Bulletin

49:1 (1998):29-38; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, An Exposition of Chapter 8:17-39, The Final Perseverance of the Saints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976) 120-21.

9 Cf. the vigorous effort by G. Smith, ibid. He argues usage of a single subject to performing two different, compared actions: a common syntactical structure in 8:16 and 8:26 (same subject (B<,Ø:"), acting in relation to a compound verb (FL::"DJLD,Ã; FL<"<J48":$V<,J"4), and “our spirit” with “our weakness.” Among other arguments, he seeks to resolve the problem of distance between 8:17 and 8:26 by citing an example (1 Pet 3:1, “likewise”), which is grammatically dependent on 2:18. His logic does not appear to pose a more probable case for closing the gap in Romans 8 by a case in a different writer; also, a closer comparison makes good sense in 8:26 and the verses flowing into it.


The most convincing perspective sees “likewise” as comparing the Spirit’s help with the immediate hope that sustains. Noteworthy is the fivefold heaping up of “hope” in vv. 24-25 leading right up to v. 26. The latter part of v. 23 also moves to an emphasis on believers’ aroused expectation. It is related to the hope that shapes the saints’ outlook. Further, while present groaning is mentioned three times in vv. 22-26, the greater focus for the saints is the future help (deliverance) to which their hope surges forward. The groaning itself is prompted by the earnest longing that prizes God’s help, the bounty itself, the completed stage of redemption. Added to this is the connection between suffering and prayer in vv. 18-27, as in the Gospels.10

In addition, vv. 24-25 parallel vv. 26-27 in a natural way, presenting a ministering, positive asset for believers against the odds. This is in hope versus frustration and suffering that are due to sin. Verses 26-27, similarly, refer to an asset, i.e. help versus weakness with its limitations. The view allows the conjunction *X [de; and] to indicate a link with what is nearby. And the adverb “likewise” refers to the flow of thought to which *X is sensitive, linking closely the two verbs: “eagerly expect,” the object for which saints hope (v. 25), and “helps” (v. 26).

The comparison is not expressly with a point many verses away, but with the immediate context. All other 16 NT uses of ñF"bJTH [h saut s] introduce a similarity with what is immediately adjacent in the context, without intervening material.11 And, a comparison of the Spirit’s prayer help with the benefit through hope given by God recognizes the larger context of Romans 8. Paul sees the predicament that calls for the Spirit’s help to be that of “our weakness,” including himself among12 those who need assistance in prayer.13 “Weakness” (•F2X<g4" [astheneia]) is used in a variety of ways in the

10 E. A. Obeng, “The Reconciliation of Romans 8.26f. to New Testament Writings and Themes,” Scottish Journal of Theology 39:2 (1986):172-73. He cites Jesus praying in the distress and sorrow of Gethsemane (Matt 26:36-46). He also notes the Gethsemane reference mingling prayer with suffering in Hebrews 5:7, encouragements to pray during sufferings (Matt 5:44), and early church examples (Acts 7:59; 16:16-40). In Romans 8, as in other NT passages, “prayer is the source from which the Christian draws his strength to endure suffering” writes Obeng (171).

11 Cf. a complete listing of the 17 instances in W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament, 5th rev. ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1978) 1031: eight in Paul (Rom 8:26; 1 Cor 11:25; 1 Tim 2:9; 3:8, 11; 5:25; Titus 2:3, 6); nine others (Matt 20:5; 21:30, 36; 25:17; Mark 12:21; 14:31; Luke 13:5; 20:31; 22:20).

12 Paul even uses “I” in Romans 7:7-25 and often in Romans uses personal pronouns (“we,” “our,” “us”), showing his need, along with other believers, of a common response with them to sin or grace (1:12; 4:25; 5:1-11; 6:1-8, 15; 7:5-6; 8:4, 12, 16-17, 22-25, 28, 31-32, 35-39).

13 As Paul associates himself with other believers in the prayerful cry, “Abba, Father” (8:15), he sees himself as weak, needing God’s sufficiency (2 Cor 3:5), deliverance (Rom 7:24), and the


NT. At times it refers to bodily weakness which can be the condition in sickness (Matt 8:17). Paul acknowledged his own bodily incapacity through human limitation (Gal 4:13) and candidly notes the ailments of others as well (1 Tim 5:23). On other occasions, NT writers employ the term to denote the human condition of inadequacy, which needs God’s grace to supply sufficiency (2 Cor 12:5, 9; cf. 1 Cor 15:43; 2 Cor 11:30). Paul was impressed by his inadequacy for preaching. He even experienced fear and trembling in reference to his own inability, and so was careful to speak the message “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:3; cf. Rom 15:19). The unsaved are weak in succumbing to bodily impulses to sin (Rom 6:19), lacking ability to fulfill the law in that the impulse to do so is weak and nullified on account of the downward pull that the ethical flesh asserts (Rom 8:3). Human weakness also appears in bodily frailty that leaves mankind liable to deterioration and death (2 Cor 13:4; Heb 5:2; 7:28).

The “weakness” in Romans 8:26 might be restricted only to prayer, and even in that, its emphasis relates only to weakness in having hope to expect the future completion of redemption, i.e. the glory at the end of v. 17, in vv. 18-25, and again in v. 30. Weakness can also be narrowed to matters following vv. 26-27, relating to prayerful misgivings that things will work to assure final good (vv. 28-30), fears about persevering against those perils that people fear might separate them from safety (vv. 31-39). These sections of Romans 8 provide encouragement from God’s help to bolster human assurance in such specific matters.

“Weakness” is not limited just in prayer or to hope about the future, but relates to all details of the human condition as the redeemed. Paul adduces prayer as a strategic channel of seeking direct support in life’s struggles, in which human weakness can become acutely apparent. Prayer can pervade all the currents in the whole stream of life, taking up concerns about every kind of issue which might provoke anxiety when coping with aspects of the suffering entailed in 8:17-25 (cf. Phil 4:6; Luke 18:1).14 In Romans 8, the Spirit’s power for victory can make its difference in every detail of the myriad issues and challenges of life (vv. 1-11). The privilege of a relationship with God, to which the Spirit bears witness, furnishes encouragement that can distill its reality in all the matters that make up life (vv. 12-17).

When Romans 8 progresses to vv. 18-27, the prospect of future redemp-tive fullness registers its bright outlook; it is relevant to inspire believers in every

intercessory assistance of fellow saints (15:30-32; Col 4:2-4; 2 Thess 3:2-3) as well as that of the Spirit (Rom 8:26-27) and Christ (Rom 8:34).

14 So Jesus gave relevant counsel that “men ought always to pray” (Luke 18:1), in faith (v. 8), and not “lose heart” as in a crisis need of legal protection (vv. 3, 5), and for all needs to gain justice (v. 8). In Philippians 4:6, Paul counsels against being anxious about “anything,” but in “everything” taking needs to God in prayer.


facet of their experience. Back in 6:19 Paul realizes that the believers’ “weak-ness” can show its reality in all of life, yet they can live in victory, regardless of what life offers. He encourages them to yield their bodily members to God in the new slavery to righteousness, bearing fruit with regard to holiness (6:22). The weakness is evident in the struggle that the saints face in all of life, in tempta-tions to fulfill sin or to obey what one can joyfully concur in from God’s truth (7:14-23; cf. v. 22). And the “weakness” in the law’s ability to help the believer meet God’s standards, due to the sinful gravitation that impulses of the ethical “flesh” exercise (8:3-4), requires the Spirit’s power to enable an obedient walk. This reality can be expressed in any aspect of life.

A broad concept of “weakness” in Romans 8:26 is consistent with other Scripture. Believers’ inadequacy can bear a profound influence on every part of their lives. In this weakness, they always need the help that God can supply. This was true in OT times (Ps 138:3; Isa 40:19-21; Zech 4:6). It persists in the teaching of Jesus (John 15:5), and is frequent in Paul’s writings (2 Cor 3:5; 12:9; Eph 3:16-19; Phil 4:13). Consistent with Romans 8, the writer to the Hebrews articulates this dilemma. Believers are not without a High Priest who can sympathize with their weaknesses. Having Christ, their Great High Priest, and God’s open door to enter His throne room, they can pray seeking mercy and grace to help (Heb 4:15-16).

The weakness of Romans 8:26 can surface here in all the praying of believers. Prayers seek help in hundreds of passages in God’s Word. God’s people humbly sense their weakness in any of the aspects that make up their prayer — i.e., praise, thanksgiving, confession, petition, intercession, asking God questions (Hab 1-2). In Romans, a variety of aspects in prayer emerge. Paul in selecting prayer as a strategic channel in which weakness becomes apparent most naturally means prayer in its normal, generally understood sense, as in the overall context in the epistle. It is not limited only to prayer about hope for the future, or prayer in tongues, or some other narrowed focus.

Romans 8, the nearest context for prayer, has the overall sweep of the Christian life in view--all that is embraced by the saints’ “walk” (v. 4). This embraces all that can manifest the life and peace the Spirit gives (vv. 4-6), any facet of life within the panorama of the Spirit’s leading (v. 14), all that God orchestrates for the believers’ good (v. 28).

Steps in the reasoning of Romans 8 progress in a closely-related sequence that has relevance for the entire life. The Spirit’s power in the new life is for all human issues (vv. 1-11); so is the believers’ privilege in being God’s children and heirs, though suffering now, destined to be glorified (vv. 12-17). All of life can stir prayer burdens for saints living in a creation that groans to be set free from its futility. The believers’ groans occur in an overall life of exercising hope and having the firstfruits of the Spirit (vv. 18-25). A broad spectrum seems involved in the “all things” which are parts of God’s purpose (vv. 28-30), and all


the things which are not able to wrench saints away from God’s love (vv. 31-39). Prayer seems to widely embrace even the Spirit’s intercession “according to God” (v. 27), for God’s will impacts all details of life. In all of life’s challenges “the things of the Spirit” (v. 5) can assert their influence; and in all of them to “serve in newness of the Spirit” (Rom 7:6) can freshen life. As in Philippians 4:6, anything in which believers might weakly succumb to anxiety can rather be part of praying to God “in everything.”

Along with this, “the mind of the Spirit” in His intercession (v. 27) would not have relevance limited only to narrowed concerns such as tongues or the hope to be glorified. This “mind” touches on all of life’s issues and more, all things in which the Spirit can tutor saints to have their own minds set on things He prizes, all things related to being subject to God and pleasing Him (vv. 7-8).

Not only this, but Paul, the one who writes of the Spirit’s intercession, shows a very broad concern in his own intercessory pleadings for believers, interceding for things which pervade all of life (Rom 15:5, 13; 1 Cor 1:4-9; Eph 3:16-19; Phil 1:9-11; Col 1:9-12). The Spirit’s intercessory help to believers in their weakness surely includes concerns as far-reaching and complete.

A very long word for “helps” in Romans 8:26 appears elsewhere in the NT only when Martha wants her sister Mary to help together with her (Luke 10:40).15 The word unites three words into a compound, 1) Fb< [sun], “together with”; 2) •<J\ [anti] as in assuming a role distinct from another to fulfill part of a task, or working “over against” [in distinction to] the saints’ weakness; and 3) 8":$V<T [lamban ], “to take,” i.e. receive one’s share to do. The basic thought is that the Spirit assists in close coordination or in accompaniment with the saints.16 This fits well with His role in helping God’s people in many ways.17

15 E. A. Obeng points out two LXX instances of FL<"<J48":$V<@:"4. Numbers 11:17 uses the word as Moses receives advice to designate helpers who can resolve some of the many issues, and “work together with you, bearing the burden of the people.” In Exodus 18:22, Jethro counsels Moses to appoint men to help him in the same kind of burden (“An Exegetical Study of Rom. 8:26 and Its Implication for the Church in Africa,” Bulletin of Biblical Studies 8, New Series (July-Dec. 1989):90.

16 Obeng, “Exegetical Study,” 90. Obeng says, however, that as when a lawyer represents his client, “one cannot distinguish between the Spirit and his [the believer’s] action.” In response to Obeng, a lawyer’s effort still can be his own, distinct, even when working with a client. And Paul in Romans 8:26-27 can use the compound word allowing the Spirit’s own distinctive interceding just as he uses a compound in Romans 15:30. He asks Roman believers to “strive together with me” in prayers, and this is similar to the 8:26-27 passage in these ways: the prayer is intercessory, a com-pound word appears, Fb< is used in the compound, a form of the same word appears for prayer (BD@F,LPZ), although the verbal form in Romans 15, ßBXD (“on behalf of”) is used, and the prayer is “to God.” The intercessors’ praying can be closely related to Paul’s, but is quite distinctly that of others praying, just as the Spirit’s interceding can be intimately related to believers’ prayer, but His own distinct effort on their behalf. Cf. also 2 Corinthians 1:11.

17 In Romans, the Spirit circumcises hearts (2:29), bestows God’s love (5:5; 15:30), gives newness for service (7:6), is the key to pleasing God (8:4-8), indwells the redeemed (8:9), leads


The Spirit’s help, whether denoted by this word or other terms,18 is not a 50-50 arrangement. His share is much greater than that of the weak one whom He is helping. He even does what the weak are not able to do, even when they responsibly cooperate (Rom 8:3; Phil 2:12-13; cf. John 15:5). Robertson’s illustration, which many have cited with favor,19 is too general to convey the magnitude of the Spirit’s help. Robertson points to two people sharing in a task, each helping by holding up his own end. A more definitive example depicts a person who fully or partly does not know what to do in presenting his needs to a king. A high official close to the king knows the supplicant’s concerns and what to do to represent him. He does this in a way that accords with the king’s mind as to what is fitting, and is zealous to secure an answer that is best.

Another illustration is of a very weak person who needs furniture moved, receives help from a powerful muscleman, and feebly fulfills a relatively small part in moving the furniture. The strong man’s superior assistance is the key that assures success. He does the really crucial part, and even places the furniture better than the weak person knew to suggest, so that in the final analysis there is complete satisfaction.20

The saint does not know what to pray to obtain, but the Spirit has perfect knowledge to lead (cf. 8:14). The human does not have an absolute knowledge of or commitment to God’s mind, which knows the best way. But the Spirit intercedes to secure what is wise.

The Admission (8:26b) Help from the Spirit is given for the purpose of ((VD [gar]) assisting the

praying believers’ weakness. Believers do not know, as in the relative pronoun coupled with an objective pronominal clause, “what (J\ [ti]) to pray” as “we should,” that is, what would be “according to God” (v. 27). The relative pronoun

(8:14), bears witness of God being Father (8:15-17), is vital for truth in the conscience (9:1) and righteousness, joy and peace (14:17; 15:13) and other fruit (Gal 5:22f), sanctifies people reached in ministry to be acceptable (15:16), gives power for supernatural works (15:19), and causes the saved to abound in hope (15:13). Outside Romans, He gives access to God (Eph 2:18), gives strength (3:16), and fills (5:18). He uses the Word as His “sword” helping believers (6:17), lets saints pray in Him (6:18), gives God’s thoughts (1 Cor 2:11), teaches things of God to saints, even Christ’s mind (2:12-13, 16), gives spiritual gifts with which to serve (12:4-11), baptizes the saved into Christ (12:13), transforms the saints into Christ’s image (2 Cor 3:18), and perfects believers (Gal 3:3).

18 Cf. n. 17 for the varied helps which the vocabulary covers. 19 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Luke, (Nashville: Broadman, 1930)

156; D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans, 132, uses two people carrying a heavy load, one at each end. 20 Cf. a fourth illustration by Obeng (n.16).


J\, used with the neuter, singular article J` [to], has the accusative sense here, forming the object, “we do not know the thing for which we should pray.”

Paul does not expressly say that the justified do not know “how to pray,” for he does not use the word BäH [po s; “how”21], as in v. 32. Writers differ on whether the accusative means the content or the end sought in prayer. Often this becomes a matter of semantics. How one prays in form and content, at times, can mean the same thing as the objective for which he prays. What the content is in prayer can take its form in how and for what benefit one is spelling things out, as in “This is how I need help. What I am asking is that You draw my father to salvation in You today.” God may bring the father to Christ, but a year from now, and by a different person’s witness, or by other means than the person imagined. Through such a process, God can develop the requesting believer’s faith, love, patience, and submission to Himself, the One in charge. Paul’s point is that believers can pray desiring God’s will, including the objective which the form of the content articulates (as Mark 11:24), and in this sense including even the manner, how. But due to human weakness, God’s people do not know what the Spirit’s perfect knowledge perceives is best, what is in concord with God’s will.

Verse 27 repeats the relative pronoun J\ in the phrase “what the mind of the Spirit is,” i.e. what is the content His mind sees to be best, how He Himself intercedes for saints. And v. 31 employs J\ in a question (“what . . .?”). Here the focus is on the content and not on such matters as the structure (pattern, form) of the prayer, as in the disciples’ model prayer (Matt 6:9-12), or on a particular routine in which Paul elsewhere prays (Eph 1:17-23; 3:15-21; Phil 1:9-12; Col 1:9-11). Nor does “what” entail posture, length, intensity, the order in praying aspects such as praise, confession, or petition. Scripture itself is flexible, displaying many differing forms in such matters for which people can pray.

Paul himself is an example of weakness in not knowing what to pray. He prayed to gain sufficiency, pleading for God to remove “a thorn in the flesh,” some problem or person like a thorn thwarting him (2 Cor 12:7-9).22 The specific kind of help for which he prayed to get his need met was not the thing that God thought best. God answered him with what he longed to have, but gave it in a

21 Peter O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27, A Revolutionary Approach to Prayer?” The Reformed

Theological Review, XLVI:3 (Sept.-Dec. 1987):67; Cranfield, Romans, 421, the accusative denoting what to pray for (cf. Mark 11:24), as distinct from the content itself (Luke 18:11; 20:47). Some resolve J\ as on occasion having the same meaning as BäH (so Wm. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902] 213, and in RSV and NEB of Romans 8:26).

22 Some of the many opinions have been eye-trouble, malaria, headache, epileptic seizure, lust-ful sin, and a persecuting enemy who pestered Paul as a gouging “thorn,” such as in the OT figure of enemies being “thorns” to Israelites (cf. Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Epistle to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997] 416-18).


different form. The answer did not come in the problem removed, as Paul in his weakness had requested so passionately, but by God’s sufficiency – “My grace is sufficient for you.” This was God’s supply, though God allowed the trial to remain. The interceding Spirit knew what was God’s wise will, superseding Paul’s weak grasp of the picture.23

In the total panorama, believers’ prayers and petitions which are consistent with God’s will receive “yes” answers (cf. 1 John 5:14-15), either exactly or in essence, and either immediately or after a waiting period that God deems best. Prayers in disobedience which gratify misguided notions or selfish ambition can receive a “no.”24 God can answer with a “wait” until He brings His child or factors of the situation into proper alignment with His wisdom.25 And in the process, He can develop spiritual fruit (cf. Rom 6:22; 7:4; Phil 1:11).

In our weak Pharisaic fashion (cf. Matt 6:1-18), at times we do not perceive what to pray that will be really for God’s glory and not to gain plaudits crediting our prayer performance. The praise aspect of prayer that is pure pleases God, but praise as a flowery performance to elicit human accolades is sin. However, the mind of the Spirit never goes amiss on what He Himself should present before the heavenly throne, and the believer’s standing in Christ’s righteousness is not affected.

The phrase “as [it] ought [to be]” (6"2Î *,Ã [katho dei]) means “even as ought,” i.e. what ideally ought to be the content, or “what is necessary” or as fits the standard.26 Immediately following in v. 27, the standard is defined by what the helping Spirit Himself prays. His mind is in harmony with what pleases God (cf. v. 8). It is 6"J 2,Î< [kata theon], i.e. “according to God.” The mind of the Spirit is in accord with the mind of the Father, reflecting His will and wisdom. Rather quickly in v. 28, Paul shows that what God works for the believers’ “good” is “according to [God’s] purpose” (6"J BD`2,F4< [kata

23 Cf. also Moses petitioning for admission into the land of promise. But God refused, giving

what was His wise will for him in his old age, a glimpse of the land, a task of appointing his successor, then death and being in His presence (Deut 3:23-28). Moses, one of the all-time great men of prayer (Jer 15:1; Ezek 14:14, 20), did not always know what to pray as he ought according to God’s will.

24 As Psalm 66:18 and James 4:3, the opposite of a positive answer when asking in harmony with God’s will as in John 15:7; 1 John 3:22; 5:14-15.

25 Cf. Paul’s own prayer aims, in which God was sovereign (Rom 1:10-13, 1 Thess 2:18 with 3:10f., and his praying a third time about his “thorn,” 2 Cor 12:7-9).

26 The *,Ã, as an impersonal verb, subjunctive, 3d singular, means “it is necessary, fitting as what ought to be.” It is used for what is “proper, right” (Acts 19:36; 1 Tim 5:13), for the necessity that God’s will governs, such as the coming of Elijah (Matt 17:10) or coming of wars (Matt 24:6), the necessity that law or custom dictates (Luke 22:7), the necessity that is fitting, as the laborer ought first to partake of the fruits (2 Tim 2:6). Cf. BAGD, 171.


prothesin]). What is “according to God” as an answer to prayer in v. 27 fits into a picture of God’s comprehensive arrangement to work all things “according to [His] purpose.” In harmony with His purpose, the Father answers to what the Spirit prays. This is consistent with God ordering each phase of His redemptive will listed in vv. 29-30.

The phrase “according to God” features 6"2Î [katho], an adverb of manner which goes back to the verb “pray” in the principal clause, i.e. as “it is necessary” when we “pray.” The adverb combines with *,Ã [dei], an impersonal verb in the present tense, third person singular, from the root *XT [deo ].27 It refers to what is necessary, i.e. to suit the matter in prayer and God’s will for responding to it. What is necessary here is probably intended in the standard that 8:27 itself reflects, “the mind of the Spirit.” His mind is fitted “according to God,” 6"J 2,Î< [kata theon] – a comparative clause, parallel to 6"2Î *,Ã, which modifies the verb “intercedes.”28 It refers to what the Spirit in His helping perfection prays, but which believers do not know fully due to their “weakness.”29

Quickly in v. 28 Paul shows that what the God of v. 27 works for the believers’ good in all things is “according to [God’s] purpose.” Verse 28 is tied very closely and naturally with the preceding intercession verses. For this “purpose,” v. 28 clarifies, God called those He redeems. What is “according to God” in the Spirit’s quest in prayer in v. 27 includes all that God is working according to His purpose. The Father will answer in sensitivity with what the Spirit prays, and the Spirit intercedes in harmony with God’s manner of doing

27 The word meant “to bind” literally or figuratively as in the marital commitment, Romans 7:2

(F. Buchsel, “)XT,” Theological Dictionary of New Testament Words [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964] 2:60). On the impersonal verb, cf. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1921) 99; F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, trans. and rev. R. W. Funk (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) 210; J. H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963)3:139.

28 Cranfield, Romans, 421; as in Cranfield, the verb that the adverb 6"2Î modifies is “we should pray” (cf. also A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, 4:376). The adverb compares prayer in which believers do not know what to pray with the standard expressed in *,Ã, “as is necessary” to fit that standard, which is 6"J 2,Î<, a manner in which the Spirit does know what to pray. 5"J 2,Î< fits in a comparative clause, modifying “intercedes” (v. 27), just as 6"2Î *,Ã modifies “we should pray” (26), both focusing on the manner. And the accusative 2,Î<, without the article, looks not so much at identifying God the Father as at the quality of the Spirit’s intercession being according to the standard, i.e. God.

29 Several observations show the very close fusing: the connective “and,” the parallel between 6"J BD`2,F4< (v. 28) and 6"J 2,Î< (v. 27) and 6"2Î *,Ã (v. 26), the Spirit’s help and God’s benefit as He “works,” the “as it is necessary” with “for good,” the words “we do not know” with what “we know,” and the “for us” motif twice in vv. 26-27 with the “God is for us” pattern in vv. 31, 32, 34, borne out so clearly in His fivefold work of vv. 29-30. Another unifying idea is “these things” in v. 31, relating back to vv. 28-30, and God giving believers “all things,” as in prayer that is in the manner the Spirit pursues, “as it is necessary . . . according to God.”


things according to His purpose. What God does in responding to prayer is consistent with His manner in ordering every phase of His will for the redeemed noted in vv. 29-30. It is according to Himself, according to His discretion as the wise God (11:33-36).

Since the word for believers’ praying is the general one (BD@F,bP@:"4 [proseuchomai], it can flexibly embrace every aspect of prayer to God.30 One aspect is in making petitions to resolve personal needs, as Paul did in the “thorn” passage (2 Cor 12:7-10). Another aspect is intercessory pleadings (1:9; 10:1; 15:30-32). An example is when a believer earnestly prays in weakness for God to use him in witness to a father in a home. Salvation of the father is the objective of the prayer. God’s answer may cover more than what was asked by saving all the members of the family (cf. Acts 16). Or God does not save the father at that time, but rather inclines a son listening from another room to receive Him, and that son later leads his father to Christ.

Confession is another aspect of prayer. A Christian examines his heart and in weakness does not know precisely or fully what to pray. Does he need to confess a sin against another believer, or was it really sin? God knows the Christian’s motive, whether pure to do His will or looking for a way to sidestep doing the thing that will please God (Rom 8:8; Col 1:10). God seeks to influence the believer by His will in His word (cf. John 15:7), which the Spirit wants to teach (John 14:26). The Spirit knows how to present a believer’s sensitive yearn-ing to be in agreement with God, or to intercede for what is to his benefit even if the human spirit prays amiss and the answer must be negative. The answer that Romans 8:27 idealizes represents that all is well, “according to God,” for either a “yes” or a “no” is best when that is God’s wise decision, and Spirit and Father are in harmony.

As the emphases of Romans 8:26-27 unfold, the Spirit’s intercession leaps into the spotlight.

The Advocacy (8:26c) The precise idea is that “the Spirit Himself” (i.e. “He, not someone

else”) is the advocate31 helping Christians. No help is said to come from

30 The kinds of prayer denoted by forms of this word include thanksgiving (Phil 4:6; Col 4:2; 1 Thess 1:2); intercession (Eph 6:18-20); possibly all aspects of prayer (Luke 18:1; Rom 12:12); and in Jesus’ prayer of Matt 6:9-13, praise (v. 9), petition (vv. 10-11, 13), confession (v. 12), and affirmation to God.

31 The help is by intercessory prayer, an expression of advocacy distinct from the Spirit’s specific paraklete help in the Gospels, as Obeng carefully reasons (“The Reconciliation of Rom 8:26f . . . ,” 168-70). A “paraklete” was a legal advisor assisting a person in an effort to gain a helpful verdict (Johannes Behm, “A"DV680J@H,” TDNT, 5:803). Mark 13:11 expects the Spirit’s help for what to say when brought to trial as believers, as realized in Acts 4:8 and 7:55. Texts in John refer to


angels,32 nor is intercessory help from humans in view.33 That the Spirit makes intercession “for” saints34 is in coordination with Christ’s intercession “for us,” the saints (v. 34). The cooperation of Father and Spirit (v. 27) and Father and Son (v. 34) guarantees this. Though not explicitly referenced in vv. 26-27, the Son cooperates in prayer with the Spirit and with the Father as well.35 This accords with Jesus’ teaching that all God-pleasing prayer is to be “in My name” (John 14:13-14; 16:23-24).36 The writer to the Hebrews underscores Christ’s relation to prayer, noting that Christ, too, sympathizes with believers’ “weakness” when they draw near to His throne of grace (Heb 4:15-16). Jesus promised to give anything which believers ask in “My Name,” saying “I will do it” (John 14:14).

The Spirit’s advocacy is introduced by “but” (•88V [alla]), an adversa-tive particle which represents Him as being in sharp contrast to believers who are weak and do not know what to pray37 in accord with God’s will.38 The Spirit is strong and gives strength that avails to lift believers above their weakness and inability (Eph 3:16ff.). In Romans 8:26, the focus is on the Spirit’s capability to intercede. Believers do not know, but the Spirit knows, as He knows all the deep

His help to believers in accessing truth, His bearing witness to them of Jesus (14:16-17, 26; 15:26), and His testifying to, or convicting the unsaved of sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:7-11).

32 Cf. celestial beings ministering in relation to human prayer in Daniel 9:20-23; Revelation 5:8; 8:2-5.

33 Paul often refers to human intercession: Romans 1:7-12; 10:1; 15:30-32; Colossians 4:2-4; 2 Thessalonians 3:1; and he begins and closes his epistles interceding for others’ grace and peace.

34 His intercession may feature pleadings to keep the saints secure, as Christ’s interceding in v. 34. Or, it may be an advocacy that helps in all matters affected by their “weakness” in not knowing what to pray, including preservation, but being more inclusive. The latter is probable in view of the Spirit’s ministries all through Romans 8 being relevant for all things in life affected by His power (vv. 1-11), privilege He gives (vv. 12-17), His prospect (vv. 18-25), His purpose (vv. 28-30), and God’s protection (vv. 31-39). Cf. also n.2.

35 One can naturally draw this conclusion from John 14-16. Jesus asked the Father to give saints the Spirit (14:16); Jesus sent Him to them (16:7), it is in His name that the Spirit is sent (14:26); and the Spirit bears witness of Him and glorifies Him (15:26; 16:14). Paul, in Romans 8, shows that the Son died as an offering in the redemptive provision (vv. 3, 34), is the One with whom believers are co-heirs in a relationship of which the Spirit bears witness (vv. 15-17), and is the One to whom saints will be conformed by the process in which they have the Spirit’s power and other privileges.

36 The idea is prayer in harmony with Christ’s will, values, authority, and honor. It has its rooting in OT passages about acting in the Lord’s name.

37 Cf. the strong adversative nature that •88V can have in a contrast, as in Ephesians 5:18. 38 An OT assertion of the Holy Spirit’s power and wisdom being far above man’s is in

Isaiah 40:13-14. Paul cites Isaiah 40:13 in 1 Corinthians 2:16 of the Spirit knowing the mind of God (cf. also Rom 11:34); that Corinthian context shows how the Spirit works in believers to give them the benefit of truth that is in accord with God.


things of God (1 Cor 2:10).39 His manner of interceding achieves the benefit of this advantage.

This is the only reference in Scripture to the Spirit’s intercessory prayer. He never is mentioned in this role in the OT, the Apocrypha or Pseudepigrapha in the inter-testamental era, or in Jewish rabbinical writings up to the ministry of Paul. Yet it fits naturally as a part of His many ministries,40 and is complementary in view of Jesus’ promising the Spirit’s ministry to believers as an advocate.41

The present tense “intercedes” (v. 26), reflects the Spirit’s on-going effort. The verb’s compound form (ßB,D,<JL(PV<T [huperentugchan ]) appears only here in the NT, and has not been found in any Greek writer before the NT.42 It means “to plead in favor of, intercede on behalf of.”43 The word quickly reappears without the prefix (¦<JL(PV<T; entugchan ) in v. 27, as the Spirit goes on helping by interceding. Originally meaning “to complain, meet with, associate, approach to communicate,”44 this shorter form developed into the sense of stating a case representing another, making petition, or interceding in prayer. Examples include Acts 25:24, where Jews press a legal suit against Paul, and Romans 11:2 where the word describes Elijah’s pleading with God (1 Kin 19:10) to excuse his flight because of Israel’s hostility toward him.

Paul employs the basic word, ¦<JL(PV<T, twice in Romans 8, not only of the Spirit interceding for believers from His indwelling station on earth (v. 27), but also for Christ’s role as advocate in His heavenly exaltation (v. 34). The word depicts Christ’s intercession again later (Heb 7:25). The prepositional prefix ßBXD [huper] in 8:26 adds to other emphases in the context that encourage

39 Cf. n. 38. 40 Cf. n.17. 41 Cf. n. 31. 42 Cranfield, Romans, 1, 423. 43 Otto Bauernfeind, “JL(PV<T [etc.],” TDNT, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972) 8:243. The

longer compound, prefixing the preposition ßBXD, occurs only of the Spirit’s intercession (Rom 8:26). Here ßB¥D can give a perfective idea to ¦<JL(PV<T, accenting the strength of the intercession (M. R. Vincent, New Testament Word Studies [Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1971] 97). The idea, “in one’s behalf,” is more natural here (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:377). No need exists to focus on the perfect work of the Spirit who already acts perfectly. Acting in others’ interest suits the context of the Spirit’s various benefits to the redeemed believers’ weakness in not knowing what to pray, and the Spirit’s helping.

44 Bauernfeind, ibid.


believers by God’s forthright action for them. All that He does in redemption in Romans, as Paul now reasons, is for their advantage.45

The help with which the Spirit assists God’s people, though they pray in “weakness,” is in His own “groanings” (FJ,<"(:@ÃH; stenagmois). The word occurs in the LXX for distressed Israelites’ groaning or sighing to God, desperate to gain help (Exod 2:24) or a prisoner groaning to be freed (Ps 78:11 [Eng. 79:11]). Romans 8 refers to three groanings. Creation is said (figuratively) to groan for deliverance from the futility it has been subjected to since the fall (v. 22, cf. v. 20a). God’s spiritual sons literally groan, longing for God to bring the fullness of redemption’s blessing (v. 23).46 The Spirit is also moved to His own groanings in supplying help to believers in prayer.

The groanings of v. 26 are not those of believers, but are expressly referenced to their advocate, the Spirit. He is the One whom Paul specifically says “intercedes with groanings.” It is true that God’s people groan (v. 23) and can even do so in prayer at times47 when they sigh over their grief and yearnings. However, the groanings here are related directly to the Spirit as He intercedes. Verse 27 as well is forthright in its claim that the intercession is the Spirit’s; it is not said to be by believers, or even jointly by the Spirit and believers. As Christ’s intercession (v. 34) is definitely His own, and for saints, not with them, the intercession in vv. 26-27 is just as directly said to be by the Spirit and for believers. It is also, most plausibly, not with the saints. The saints’ groanings can occur in close relation to prayer in words, yet be distinct, as in OT cases.48 While the Spirit does participate with the saints in the sense of making His own intercession on their behalf, His groanings go beyond any of their own sighs and praying words.49

45 To name a few instances with ßBXD, the Spirit intercedes “for” them (v. 27), God is “for us”

(v. 31) in that He “foreknew . . . predestined . . . called . . . justified . . . glorified” in vv. 29-30, God delivered Christ up “for us” (v. 32), and Christ intercedes “for us” (v. 34).

46 Forms of this word family are used in the LXX for sighings at childbirth (Jer 4:31), when wounded in battle (Ezek 26:15), in connection with prayer and tears but distinct from them (Ps 6:6, cf. prayer in vv. 1-5, 9; 31:10 [LXX 30:10]; 38:8 [LXX 37:8-9]; 79:11 [LXX 78:11]), in grief over an impending terror (Ezek 21:6-7), sighing from which the redeemed will be free in their future salva-tion, as they are free of sorrow and pain (Isa 35:10). In the NT, the word refers to Israelite groanings in Egypt (Acts 7:34), and believers groaning in their present bodies as in Romans 8:23 (2 Cor 5:2, 4).

47 Cf. n. 46 48 Cf. examples in n. 46. 49 That the Spirit’s intercession is distinct from believers’ prayers is maintained by many. Cf.

Cranfield, Romans, 1:423; Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption, A Study in Paul’s Soteriology, 2d ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 72; Ernst Gaugler, Der Brief an die Römer (Zurich: Zwingli Verlag, 1958) 322-23; Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1991) 562. Cf. also n. 16.


So, to what does intercession in groans without words refer? It does not naturally fit praying in tongues, though some scholars contend that it does.50 But a number of significant obstacles to that view exist.51 First, tongues focus on praise/thanks (1 Cor 14:15-17),52 and intercession is not expressly the aspect of prayer mentioned there. Second, speaking in tongues involves words which are expressed in a language,53 whereas the verbal adjective here denotes the idea of “without words” (•8"8ZJ@4H [alal tois]). Appearing only here in the NT or the LXX, it uses the alpha privative (• [a] “without”) as a prefix to the term “words,” causing several to favor this rendering.54 Even if a rendering of “inexpressible,” “ineffable,” “too deep for words,” or “which cannot be uttered” is admitted, v. 26 is still saying that this prayer communication is by the Spirit, not by believers.55 To the children of God, the words are both inaudible and inexpressible. However, the Spirit of God has infinite ability and understanding (cf. Ps 139:1-4; cf. Isa 55:8-9). He is God, to whom all things are possible, and

50 Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 241-42; idem,

Perspectives on Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 131-34. Romans 8:26 refers not to a general experience in prayer, but “an unusually audacious conclusion which the apostle draws from highly unusual—-that is to say ecstatic—-happenings in primitive Christian worship,” even “glossolalic prayer,” 131 (cf. his citing others with a similar view, 131, n. 18); idem, Paul and Salvation History (London: SCM, 1967) 256; A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Romans 8.26—Towards a Theology of Glossolalia?” Scottish Journal of Theology, 28 (1975):369-77, and cf. other sources, 369, n. 3. Wedderburn thinks 8:26 can support a tongues view on two conditions: 1) advocates must leave the idea of speaking in some unlearned but real language and see only wordless sighing at a deep level; and 2) admit expressions of the “weakness” in distinct sorts of groans at various times, as when indignant at injustice or when at a loss for words in a crisis, 377. Cf. also Krister Stendahl, “Paul at Prayer,” Interpretation 34 (1980):244.

51 Cranfield, Romans, 423; Thomas Edgar, Satisfied by the Promise of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996) 178-79; Moo, Romans 1-8, 561-62; Obeng, “The Spirit Intercession Motif in Paul,” Expository Times, 95:12 (Sept. 1984):362; Peter O’Brien, “Romans 8:26, 27,” 70-71; Michel de Goedt, “The Intercession of the Spirit in Christian Prayer (Rom 8.26-27),” Concilium, 9:8 (Nov 1972):32-33; Gaugler, Römer, 323; W. Brownson, “Protestant Exegesis of Romans 8:26-27, A History and an Interpretation,” Th.D. diss.( Princeton Theological Seminary; 1963) 158-61.

52 1 Corinthians 14:16, 17 refer twice to “giving of thanks.” 53 Edgar shows that tongues, even if angelic, are languages, not groanings without words, nor

inaudible words (Satisfied, 179). Indeed, the description of the phenomenon in 1 Corinthians 12-14 is (8fFF"4H 8"8X4<, as Brownson emphasizes, “Protestant Exegesis,” 159, 185-86.

54 Cranfield, Romans, 1:423-24, in v. 27 “The Spirit’s groanings are not spoken, because they do not need to be, since God knows the Spirit’s intention without its being expressed.” Cf. also Moo, 561-62; Edgar, 178-79; H. G. Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, rev. H. S. Jones (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 60; de Goedt, 33; John R. W. Stott, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994) 245; cf. the detailed study in Mark J. Davio, “The Intercession of the Holy Spirit, Romans, 8:26, 27,” M. Div. thesis, (La Mirada, CA: Talbot Theological Seminary, 1980) 54-57.

55 Cranfield, Romans, 1:423; Gavin, Resurrection, 72; and Gaugler, 322-23, see a language of the Spirit, i.e. of heaven, in words beyond mere human comprehension or expression.


thus the words would not be beyond His capability to utter. He is even able to search and know the deep things of God, let alone of men (1 Cor 2:10).

Third, while the Spirit’s intercessory help meets a problem that all Christians have, as all are subject to this “weakness,” only some spoke in tongues or had the gift of tongues in NT passages.56 Every set of verses in the flow of the passage refers to blessing for all believers — encouragement arising from power, privilege, prospect, prayer, purpose, and preservation.

Some have reasoned that the groans of v. 26 must be by believers because the Spirit, as the infinite God, would not Himself have need to groan; He would not be subject to such emotions.57 Others understand that the Spirit can and does “groan” as v. 26 seems more naturally and distinctly to say on its own right.58 Mounce contends that the Spirit can groan in view of Gethsemane, especially Luke 22:44, where Jesus, as the God-man, shows intense emotional/spiritual involvement in prayer.59 Scripture can speak of the Spirit expressing intense emotion. In Isaiah 63:9-10, in all of Israel’s affliction, the Spirit felt affliction ( ï ï ï, [s a r], “distressed, in anguish,” cf. Judg 10:16). When Israel rebelled, they “grieved the Holy Spirit.” In Isaiah 54:8 God has an outburst of righteous anger in turning away from sinful Israel (cf. also 56:17). Hosea 11:8 shows God’s emotional feelings, i.e. “My heart is turned over within Me, All my compassions are kindled.” Stott suggests that the Spirit groans in identifying with believers’ groans and pain.60 He has no need to groan for Himself but groans for saints, as He has no need Himself to be filled but fills, no need to be led but leads, no need for wisdom, but imparts it. Ephesians 4:30 exhorts believers not to grieve the Holy Spirit, which shows that He can experience in His realm what human description can call grief.

The prayer in 8:26 should not be narrowed to times of being able only to sigh rather than say prayer, although sighing is an experience that believers sometimes have.61 It is not probable that Paul would reduce the focus only to this

56 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28-30; 14:5. 57 Robert Haldane, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans (McDill AFB, FL: MacDonald,

1958) 388. Haldane reasons that the Spirit cannot be subject to such emotions, then three lines later seems to take this back by writing that the emotion here is from the Spirit as He produces, supports, and causes the groans. Similarly, D. M. Lloyd-Jones says the Spirit cannot groan as a member of the Godhead, (Romans: An Exposition of Chapter 8:17-39 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975] 135-36). Later, the same writer admits (138), “It is the Spirit Himself, ultimately, who is making the inter-cession through believers.” But if the Spirit cannot groan, how can He do it ultimately?

58 Cranfield, Romans, 1:423-24; Robert Mounce, Romans, 186; Stott, Romans, 245. 59 Mounce, Romans, 186. 60 Stott, Romans, 245. 61 Cf. n. 46.


smaller, occasional experience. The prayer details, in this context, consistently refer to general blessings relevant for Christians at all times. Nor does it appear probable that Paul, in his one reference to believers having the Spirit’s interces-sion as a help, would trim his perspective only to cases of human sighs. This would bypass the great majority of prayers, which are in words, whatever the aspects in these prayers. In the best guidebook for prayer, the Scripture itself, the hundreds of prayers spread through most of the sixty-six books, notably in the Psalms, invariably are with words, even in Hannah’s case.62

Neither is it convincing that “without words” means that either believers or the Spirit would be unable to find words, i.e. the prayers are unutterable. In the Bible’s hundreds of references to believers’ burdens for which they appeal for divine assistance, the examples involve asking in words, however distressed, whether haltingly or fluently. Believers know how to pray in words (Matt 7:7-11; 21:22), even in cases of asking amiss (James 4:2-3). But v. 26 does not link believers with the term “without words.” Rather, it is the Spirit that is distinctly connected with this interceding. And it is extremely difficult to conceive of the Spirit finding believers’ words inexpressible, as God knows all things and challenges man in asking, “is anything too difficult for Me?” (Jer 32:27). Instead, the Spirit’s groans are unuttered, because He does not need words to communi-cate with the Father at the throne.63 Likewise the Father does not require words to know the intent.

Even when it is only humans praying, the Father already knows what those who petition Him need before they ask in words (Matt 6:8). God knows the very intent of the heart before words are even formed (Ps 139:1-4). He has perfect knowledge of all things, such as man’s motives (Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5) and thoughts (Heb 4:12), and Christ is able to search the hearts to judge and reward (Rev 2:23). Christians can use words in their prayers, as the vast majority of Bible books that mention prayer or its content attests.64 The Spirit takes the content to a higher mode of communication, articulating the prayers before the Father without words.65 No groans of humans would be unfathomable for the Spirit, who knows not only everything about men but even the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:10).

62 In 1 Samuel 1:13, Hannah’s lips formed words that were on her heart, yet softly or silently; the priest saw the moving lips but could not hear the words. In all of her prayer, she was using words (vv. 11-12, “she continued praying”).

63 As a man knows his own spirit’s thought even if without words, the Spirit knows the thoughts of God (1 Cor 2:11), and God knows the thoughts of the Spirit (Rom 8:27).

64 The only Bible books with no reference to prayer are Esther, Obadiah, and Nahum. 65 This does not mean that believers’ prayers go only to a “halfway house,” to the Spirit, and

never get to the Father unedited. God hears them just as He knows all things, yet sees them also with


The Awareness (8:27a) Paul further clarifies the intercession in v. 27, focusing on the Father

searching the hearts and not on the idea of tongues or words. The text emphasizes God’s awareness of the intent of the hearts, perceiving the Spirit’s mind (ND@<Z:"; phron ma). This occurs as the great Intercessor focuses on His quest, seeking what is true to God, to help the children and heirs of God.

In the context, the same word used for “mind” (v. 27) surfaces twice in 8:6 and again in 8:7. It is the whole mind that is in view, the thought-network of a person as to its orientation and value system, or the focus of its intent at a given time. This is true of a mind devoted to things that the ethical “flesh” prizes, which in God’s appraisal are of a worthless (even sinful) quality, nature, or effect called “death” (v. 6a). Or, it pertains to a mind keyed to the values which the Spirit esteems, which are of a treasured quality and effect called “life and peace” (v. 6b). The mind in its system of moral values acclimated to things of the “flesh” is hostile toward God, unable to be submissive toward His Law (v. 7) or to delight in it (7:22). It is incapable of pleasing God (v. 8). A mind drawn to the Spirit is identified with His values and a channel of the fruit that He produces (cf. 6:22; 7:4; Gal 5:22f.), such as freedom (v. 2), life and peace (v. 6), yieldedness to God (v. 7) and whatever pleases Him (v. 8).66 The human mind in tune with the Spirit embraces such qualities, for He is the source for the “life and peace” (v. 6).

Verse 27, however, is stated quite differently, referring to the mind the Spirit Himself has in His interceding. It is, as in Romans 11:34, the mind invested with God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge. Reference to this mind in 8:27 is preceded by the statement in v. 26 that believers habitually do not know what to pray, but (•88, in strong contrast) the Spirit Himself continues to intercede on their behalf. And v. 27 says that “God knows what the mind of the Spirit is.” God knows the content which the Spirit is expressing in advocacy as “He (the Spirit) intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God.” The focus now is not on believers praying, but on the Spirit praying for them.

It is reasonable to assume that God the Father is in Paul’s thought as the One who “searches the hearts.” In the passage, Paul distinguishes Father and Son (8:3, 17, 29, 32, 34, 39), and the epistle as a whole distinguishes Father and Spirit (5:5; 8:3-4, 11, 14, 16; 14:17; 15:13). In Romans 8 the Father searches hearts (v. 27), whereas elsewhere the Son searches minds and hearts to judge them (Rev 2:23), and the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God (1 Cor 2:10).

a mind in accord with the Spirit’s helping effort. He answers “yes,” “no,” or “wait until a yes or no can come later.”

66 In other places in Romans, the Spirit’s fruit is in love (5:5), righteousness, joy, and peace (14:17).


God the Father knows the mind (intent) of the Spirit who indwells believers (cf. Rom 8:9). Of course He also searches all the hearts of humans (1 Chr 28:9; cf. Rom 2:16; 1 Cor 4:5), even hearts which are deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9-10). Scripture states that His eyes run throughout the earth seeing hearts, that He may show Himself strong on behalf of those whose hearts are sound toward Him (2 Chr 16:9). He sees the evil and the good everywhere (Prov 15:3), knows thoughts before tongues express words (Ps 139:1-4), weighs actions (1 Sam 2:3), and knows all, so that He is qualified to assess accounts when rewarding (Ps 62:12; Prov 24:12; Dan 7:10). He tries hearts and minds (Ps 7:9; Jer 11:20), and sees in secret when people pray (Matt 6:4).

It appears arbitrary to argue, as Lenski does, that God’s searching of hearts implies that these particular groanings come from the believers who have the hearts. Lenski supposes that if it meant groans by the Spirit, Paul could have used the words “He who searches the deep things of the Spirit,” or some other phrase to this effect.67 Lenski interjects subjective imagination, guessing what Paul might have said. Besides, both Romans 8:26 and 27 clarify expressly that the Spirit is the one interceding. Hearts are mentioned because that is where the Spirit indwells (vv. 8, 11), and the innermost central place where He ministers (cf. Eph 3:16-17). Lenski’s reasoning that the Spirit adds “His intercessory meaning to human groanings” is accurate only if the groanings of v. 26 are seen as distinctly the Spirit’s own, totally distinct from the groans of believers.

MacRae proposes another view, that the one who searches the hearts is not the Father but the Spirit.68 The Spirit knows the mind of the believer, which He influences in 8:5-6, because the Spirit intercedes for saints according to God’s will. This view is not as natural, imposing a strain on the words to manage them to this idea. The One who searches human hearts in Scripture is normally God. Second, it fits very well that the Spirit is in view as the intercessor in v. 26, even in the distinct wording "ÛJÎ JÎ B<,Ø:" (auto to pneuma, “the Spirit Himself”), allowing v. 27 to naturally refer to One who is distinct from the Spirit and who responds to His intercession. The “mind” at this point in Romans 8 is more reasonably that of the One whom the immediate context defines as helping

67 R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, MN:

Augsburg, 1961) 548. It is more natural, and contrary to Lenski, that God is said to search the hearts in view of where the Spirit indwells (v. 9).

68 George MacRae, “A Note on Romans 8:26-27,” Harvard Theological Review 73 (1980):227-30. He admits that “virtually all modern translations and most modern commentators, do not question” reference to God (228). His logic that the majority view allows a communication between the divine persons, which is unknown to the NT, is not necessary. In both the OT and NT, communion from one member of the Godhead to another occurs (Ps 110:1 or as in Matt 3:17; 22:41-45; John 12:28; Heb 10:5-9).


believers–the Holy Spirit. When Paul has the mind of believers in view, attendant details make this clear (8:5-6; cf. 14). But that is quite different from 8:26-27.

In 8:27, the statement that the Father knows the Spirit’s mind apparently means that He as God knows intuitively, instinctively (@É*,<, oiden). A form of the same word for “knowing” is used three times in succession in vv. 26-28. Saints often do not know intuitively what to pray as they should, but God always knows the Spirit’s mind which does grasp this, and both Father and Spirit are faithful to seek what is best. In v. 28, believers do know intuitively by Scripture’s tutelage and faith that God works all for their good.

The Agreement (8:27b) The rest of the verse shows that the Father knows the content of the

Spirit’s prayers for believers “that” or else “because” the Spirit intercedes according to God. In each saint’s prayer, that which comports with His nature, value system and plan, the Father “knows” in His infinite, intuitive and imme-diate ability. He also knows what does not, where believers’ weakness has its limitations, as “we do not know the thing for which we should pray as it is fitting.”

Paul does not guarantee the answer by using some phrase as in other prayer passages, such as “and they shall receive,” or God will “do it,” or “and it shall be done unto them.” Yet factors in the passage spark confidence that His answers will be beneficial ones. First, the strongest guarantee is that finally, by the Spirit’s assist, the intercession is “according to God.” A second voucher is that the One who intercedes is helping in bold contrast to the saints’ weakness. As a result, the spiritual outlook is positive, brightened by the Spirit’s sufficiency as He works to secure real assets. All is upbeat in the eagerly expecting hope (vv. 24-25); now “likewise” all is optimistic in the help! Third, v. 28 is fused very closely with vv. 26-27;69 it immediately expands encouragement as saints “know that to those who love God He works all things together for good . . .” It would be unfitting to feel smitten by pessimism, as if the intercession offers no cheer in answers. Fourth, consistently with this, the entire tone of Romans 8 is reassuring: God provides power, privilege, prospect, prayer that helps, purpose, and preservation. True, the passage is realistically candid about the suffering, futility in creation, and the saints’ weakness. Still, the Spirit’s presence in providing the “firstfruits” which assure full victory for which saints hope, as well as His prayer help, ignites a glow in hearts that can rout any gloom.

The Father knows what is the mind of the Spirit in respect to the Spirit’s representing believers with intercessory pleadings. He knows in the sense of per-fect perception and intimate, loving involvement, being aware that the prayer is

69 Cf. n. 29.


“according to God.” The Spirit who is fully at one with God’s mind in ministering it to God’s people (1 Cor 2:9-16) is also wholly in harmony with His mind when interceding about needs of these saints to Him.

Some propose a translation in which the Father “approves” (rather than “knows”) what is the Spirit’s mind. They prefer to have the ÓJ4 (hoti) mean “because” the prayer is in harmony with God. The logic for this conception is that the Father “knows” the Spirit’s mind (intent) whether it is according to Him or not; He knows all things. But He can “approve” this mind “because” it is true to Him.70 This view is possible, but such wording is not urgently demanded in Paul’s thought. “Because” may not be required in that the Spirit’s mind works in concord with the Father’s in every case. The verse simply states this positive point naturally, as it is (“knows what is the mind [in its true intent] . . . that . . .” it is in harmony with His own mind-set). So, the ÓJ4 is better taken in an expli-cative sense (“that”), explaining the content that is the prayer intent (“mind”) of the Spirit, that it is in harmony with God. To render “knows” as “approves” is far from normative,71 and Hodge furnishes no example. The rendering “knows” makes adequate sense, and while either “that” or “for/because” can be defended, “that” is favored here.72

The Spirit intercedes “for saints.” The preposition “for” (ßBXD, huper, “on behalf of”) is frequently employed to describe God’s work on behalf of believers in Romans 8. The preposition is used to convey that the Spirit Himself “intercedes for” God’s heirs (v. 26). Then v. 27 adds that the Spirit “intercedes for” the saints, differing in this instance by using the verb followed by the pre-position ßBXD. God is “for us” in v. 31, gave His Son “for us” (v. 32), and in v. 34 Christ also “intercedes for us.” Spirit, Father and Son, though distinguished, unite in doing what is good for the redeemed. Verse 28 sums up the entire, panoramic way that God is orchestrating “all things” for the believers’ welfare.

Since no definite article precedes “saints,” attention is drawn not to saints in some distinct category (such as some with particular spiritual gifts, etc.), but to the fact that the intercession is for those in this class, meeting the quali-

70 C. Hodge, Romans, 279-80; NASB; NKJV. But Hodge argues for rendering “knows” as “approves,” whereas the translations have “knows” and “because,” as Moo, Romans 1-8, 563.

71 Heinrich Seesemann concludes that out of 320 NT times, @É*" means “to know,” and never gives the sense “to approve” (“@É*",” TDNT, 5:117; cf. also BAGD, 558-59, not listing “approve” among five meanings).

72 Forms of the word in Romans 8, even surrounding v. 27, refer to knowing (vv. 22, 26, 28). And ÓJ4 occurs 7 other times in Romans 8, always here in an explanatory sense of content (vv. 16, 18, 21, 22, 28, 36, 38). Cf. “knows . . . that” in Cranfield, Romans, 1:424; W. Hendriksen, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981) 273, 278; Lenski, Romans, 548; Brownson, “Protestant Exegesis,” 164, 187. Leon Morris sees no way to decide between a causal or explicative sense in The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 329.


fication that they are saints. The Spirit engages in this prayer on behalf of “saints,” beneficiaries of spiritual assets that the epistle describes. They are all whom God redeemed through grace (3:24ff.), all to whom He imputed righteousness not of works but as a pure gift (4:1-5), all whom He justified on the basis of Christ’s one act of dying in their place and for them (5:12ff.), all whom He reconciled to Himself on the basis of Christ’s blood (5:9-11), all whom He placed in Christ Jesus free from any condemnation (8:1) and safe from any separation (vv. 35-39). And, as “saints,” they are enhanced by every other encouragement that Romans 8 advances.

Spirit-performed intercession rises to the standard “according to God” as in the phrase 6"J 2,Î< (kata theon). What God perceives is that the Spirit’s advocacy is in utter sympathy with Him. This fact is conveyed by the word order prior to, and immediately following, the mention that the Spirit “intercedes” (v. 27). The 6"JV appears often in the NT with the accusative (as 2,Î< in the present instance) to focus on the norm, standard or measure in which a matter is relevant. Paul repeats 6"J immediately in v. 28 of saints called “according to [God’s] purpose,” a manner that is no less than that norm or standard. It is the purpose that God is carrying out by His sovereign design that is crucial to His redemptive plan. “We know,” Paul reasons, “that to those who love God He is working all things together for good . . .,” and then he gives the overall reason that informs our knowing this. It is “that” (ÓJ4, v. 29), a word which introduces the facets or “steps” God accomplished to enact this encouraging redemption for those who believe: those He foreknew, He predestined, He called, He justified, and He glorified (vv. 29-30). Prayer “according to God” at the end of v. 27 fits as a part of the more comprehensive “all things” that are “according to” or con-sistent with God’s “purpose” in v. 28.

Paul’s bunching 6"J three times in 2 Cor 7:9-11 offers help.73 The Corinthians were grieved “according to God,” grieved in a manner consistent with repentance and according to God’s standard. In the many occurrences of 6"J with the accusative case referring to God, the idea reflects an emphasis. What is referred to is according to the will, impulse, standard, or norm of; the spotlight is on sensitivity to think, speak or act in a way consistent to that norm.74

73 In Paul’s writings, 6"JV precedes many words in phrases. Examples are “according to the flesh” or “the Spirit of holiness” (Rom 1:4), “truth” (2:2), “grace” (4:4, 16), contrast of “the flesh” or “the Spirit” (8:4-5, 12-13), “election” (9:11), “knowledge” (10:2; cf. 1 Pet 3:7), “love” (14:15), “Christ Jesus” (15:5), “the word of God even our Father” (Gal 1:4), “the good pleasure of His [God’s] will” (Eph 1:5), and “God” in creating those He saves in righteousness and true holiness (4:24).

74 Cf. 6"JV plus the accusative as a standard rule of measure in A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 608-09. In Romans, cf. “according to the Spirit (8:1, 5), “according to the flesh” (8:5, 12, 13), “according to [God’s] purpose” (8:28), “according to Christ Jesus” (14:5), “according to love” (14:15). In each


In harmony with this, the Spirit’s prayer 6"J 2,Î< in Romans 8:27 is in accord with God, shaped to His faithfulness, His will, His wisdom, His values, His love (5:8), His leading, His generosity to give (v. 32), His protection against all things that can conceivably undo the saved eternally (8:33-39), and what is pleasing in His appraisal. The intercession brings matters to register on what is in concord with God, just as the needle of a reliable compass points to the north.

CONCLUSION

God supports His saints in their passage from justification, through the present life of sanctification, until glorification by supplying the blessings that Romans 8 surveys. God gives His Spirit’s power so that believers can live in harmony with His intentions, i.e. the privilege of being in His family and the prospect that He will yet finalize their redemption in the fullest sense. He assures them of His purpose, which He works out in stages that He plans to complete for their good, and His preservation that keeps them securely intact in His love. His provision also includes His Spirit’s help in praying for them, taking matters beyond their own prayers about life’s concerns. He supports them with intercession, despite their weakness in not knowing what to pray, that matches with what God knows is best.

The Spirit intercedes in His own groanings, showing caring empathy. This does not refer to the saints having prayer groans in tongues or in wordless prayers, but to the Spirit’s bringing their issues before the Father without Himself needing words. The Spirit seeks to gain, on their behalf, the advantages that infinite wisdom and love can work. These are better for them than being subject to their own limited understanding. As they pray in words, the Spirit intercedes without words. The Spirit’s interceding remains faithful (cf. 2 Tim 2:13), whether or not they themselves, in particular matters, pray “in the Spirit.” Answers to prayer can vary accordingly (cf. John 15:7; 1 John 5:14-15). The right com-bination is their “praying in the Spirit” – in tune with God’s will (whether or not they grasp it at the moment), coupled with the Spirit’s passionate prayer help that is in harmony with God.

example, the idea that fits is “according to the standard of,” as God’s kind of purpose, will, values. This accords with His will in 12:2; 15:32, with 11:33-36, with glorifying Him (15:6), subjection to Him (8:7), pleasing Him (8:8), and being “acceptable to God” (14:18). Outside of Paul, in regard to prayer, the idea is consistent with John 15:7; 1 John 5:14-15.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 163-164

163

A SPIRITUAL GIANT

Irvin A. Busenitz, Th.D. Vice President for Academic Administration


Rare are the opportunities that one has to sit under the instruction of a gifted professor and later to minister alongside him as a colleague. But, that has been my wonderful and rewarding privilege with Dr. Robert Thomas. Reflecting on a relationship that now spans almost three decades, four princi-ples immediately come to my mind in regard to the life and ministry of this spiritual giant.

First, “Theology must always yield to textual integrity.” His passion for precision and accuracy were early and often evidenced in my relationship with him. “If the Biblical text is truly God-breathed,” he would remind us, “then one must zealously and tirelessly pursue its meaning.” Regardless of what one might want the text to say, it must be allowed to say what God wants it to say, and thereby dictate one’s theology.

Second, “Right must never bow to the accommodation of expediency.” It was a principle by which he lived his scholastic life and which he required of his students, ever trying to inculcate it into their lives. Whether the issue smacked of theological compromise or the incorrect division of the word “knowledge” on the final draft of a thesis, the conviction of doing things right was always deeply ingrained and defended.

Third, “Family priorities should not be held hostage by ministry obligations.” Glimpses of marital commitment and child-rearing principles in action, which occasionally invaded the classroom lecture, were reinforced and witnessed outside the halls of academia. He altered the time-honored agenda of a regional ETS meeting so he could attend a child’s sporting engagement. He and his wife, Joan, graciously sacrificed a Sunday afternoon to have dinner with my wife and me in our student apartment. The integrity of his personal life not only lent credibility to his academic life but also, many years later, prompted this student-turned-colleague to seek his counsel in rearing my own sons.

Finally, “Depth of research need not scuttle lay-level understanding and applicability.” When I was a student, Dr. Thomas agreed to give my Sunday School class a thirteen-week study on the book of Revelation. The practicality


and applicability of the study, especially when compared to his two-volume commentary, was astounding, both then and now.

My esteem for Dr. Thomas has grown continually. I count it an honor to serve the Lord together with him.

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 165

165

MY HIGH REGARD FOR DR. THOMAS

James M. George, Th.M. Dean of Admissions


My first exposure to Dr. Thomas came in the late 1970s when I attended Talbot Theological Seminary. His reputation as a �stern taskmaster� in the class-room was legendary. In fact, the rumors surrounding Dr. Thomas were of such a nature that I entered his infamous class New Testament Introduction believing that God’s judgment was about to descend upon me! To my surprise, I found Dr. Thomas to be a kind, gentle, gracious, and fair man, full of God�s wisdom and knowledge. The rumors about this man were not entirely correct. True to his reputation, Dr. Thomas demanded academic excellence from his stu-dents, but this was the same standard he demanded for himself. As a result of that class and my exposure to Dr. Thomas, I further resolved to be a more accurate student of God�s Word.

My second exposure to Dr. Thomas came when I returned to Talbot as the Director of Internships and Placement and Assistant Professor of Pastoral Ministry. As I began to interact with Dr. Thomas as a colleague, I consistently observed the same devotion to biblical excellence as I had experienced in the classroom. When the faculty dealt with difficult issues facing the Seminary, Dr. Thomas was a solid anchor holding us all to the biblical standard. Dr. Thomas was always kind, gracious, and gentle just as I remembered him from the class-room. But there, as always, was that solid resolve of a Christian soldier who has seen many a battle and come through victorious.

Now, twenty years later, we serve together once again on the faculty at The Master’s Seminary. Even after these many years of personal association, I still can’t bring myself to call this giant of academic excellence, �Bob!” To me this man, whom I respect so much and who has contributed so much to Christian scholarship, will always and forever be known and addressed by me as �Dr. Thomas.�

TMSJ 10/1 (Spring 1999) 167-168

167

THE IMPACT OF ONE PROFESSOR

Alex Montoya, Th.M. Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries


Dr. Robert Thomas has been my professor, mentor, friend, and colleague since I became a student at Talbot Theological Seminary in l968. In those formative years of my ministerial preparation, he helped to frame my con-victions about God’s Word, i.e. the unwavering belief that the Bible is unques-tionably the inspired, infallible Word of God. This foundation has been the basis for all other ministry and life.

Two outstanding qualities come to my mind when I remember the life and impact of Dr. Thomas upon my life and the lives of other students, past and present. First is his reputation for intellectual discipline and careful attention to his own work and to the work performed for him by us, the students. There is a work ethic he displays which makes cowards of most of us, but which eventually instills in us a desire to do the best we can in the handling of the Biblical text and thus in the ultimate communication of the Word of God. In the furnace of affliction, his classroom, we were molded into the serious and conscientious expositor. There, he instilled his passion for the original languages and for the truth of the text. Even today, his shadow is cast over my study and the Greek text is not far from my reach.

The second outstanding quality which Dr. Thomas possesses can be summed up in a description offered by one of my classmates during a time of great testing. He described Dr. Thomas as “the sweetest little old man that ever slit a throat and scuttled a ship.” By this he meant that Dr. Thomas was a truly loving and caring person. All who know him are aware of that other side; he is compassionate and loving to all. He is always there for his students and they know it. He was there for me when I needed his human touch in the midst of personal trials. He was there for my wife and children. He always took a personal interest in us.

Although there are many instances in which Dr. Thomas impacted my life, there are three that stand out as special landmarks of his affirmation of my live and ministry. Students and young ministers are in desperate need of affirmation, i.e. to be reassured that they are spending their life in a worthwhile cause, that they are doing the right thing at the right time, and that they are


replicating in their lives what has been taught them in the classroom. He did all that for me in the early stages of ministry.

The first instance of his affirmation came early in my pastorate at First Fundamental Bible Church of Los Angeles. I took that church upon graduation from seminary in l972 and it was indeed a humble beginning. It was a small church in a run-down building in the heart of the East Los Angeles barrio. Needless to say, it was far removed from the suburbs of Orange County. To this humble church I dared to invite the esteemed Dr. Thomas to deliver a series of sermons on spiritual gifts because our church needed to offset the charismatic influence in the community. It was a long shot, but I asked him to come. You cannot imagine my joy and admiration when he agreed. I felt so proud to intro-duce him to our congregation and to have him stand in my humble pulpit. What an encouragement to this young preacher. Then, he totally humbled me when he returned the honorarium in the mail, giving me an example to offer my ministry to the church-at-large without charge. I was reminded of the great Apostle Paul who ministered so effectively at his task. I see in Dr. Thomas a modern day Paul.

The second instance of his affirmation of my life was when he invited me to help teach a class in beginning Greek at Talbot Theological Seminary. Although not feeling quite qualified, I considered it a great honor to be asked to help such a great scholar (actually I felt like the batboy to a professional ball player). Yet his affirmation of my scholastic abilities provoked me to greater zeal in enhancing my teaching abilities and sent me down the road to the preparation of men for ministry. His confidence in me helped to sustain the courage to start and develop a Spanish-speaking seminary in Los Angeles and, in due time, also led to my desire to teach at The Master’s Seminary. I wanted to do for others what he had done for me. Now in the halls of The Master’s Seminary, I’m humbled to walk side-by-side with such a giant and also honored to know that he has confidence in me and my ministry

The third example of Dr. Thomas’ affirmation of my life and ministry was when he recommended me to Zondervan Publishing Company for the publication of the book Hispanic Ministry in North America. It was under his inspiration that the book took its form as a lecture at an ETS meeting and then went on to be published. He was the key to its publication and its subsequent influence in the Hispanic world in North America. Our Hispanic community is indebted to him.

Every preacher and pastor needs someone to stand in his corner, i.e. to affirm him, to believe in him, to encourage him, and to be there in case of an emergency. Dr. Robert Thomas has been there for my family and me. Now, he is more like a dear friend and father to me. I want him to know that it is my heart’s desire to make him proud of me, to duplicate his life, and to influence others as he influenced me.

the life of dr. robert l. thomasfour views on the book of revelation. grand rapids: zondervan, 1998....

Documents