Category: Interpretation

Organizing God’s House in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

On By Jovan PayesIn Commentary, Ecclesiology, Exegesis, FHU, Freed-Hardeman University, Graduate Work, Greek Grammar, Interpretation, Leadership Ethics, New Testament, Pastoral Leadership, Paul's Letters2 Comments
college papers

The ekklesia of the Pastoral Epistles (PE) is a challenging study.[1] Part of its challenge is that the study is can be very quickly clouded by the assertions against Pauline authorship from interpreters which make large assumptions based upon a perceived problems with the way the organization of the church is detailed in the PE; and, although a majority of New Testament interpreters categorize the PE as pseudonymous, and deutero-Pauline, there are salient and thoughtful responses to such criticisms[2] against Pauline authorship.[3]

This particular investigation looks into the use of ekklesia in the 1-2 Timothy and Titus (PE) and seeks an understanding of how these letters articulate the organization of the church, and to present a preliminary conclusion of whether or not this reflects a post-Pauline setting.

Ekklesia in Perspective

To begin with, of the 114 instances of ekklesia in the New Testament Paul’s use of the term accounts for 62 (54.39%) of these, three of which are only in the PE (2.63%).[4] The word is used in both non-biblical and biblical contexts.[5] In its ordinary sense, it refers to “the popular assembly of the full citizens of the polis, or Greek city state” (Acts 19:32, 41).[6]

It is incorporated into Jewish theology through the Septuagint (LXX) frequently to translate the Hebrew term qahal.[7] It is found in references to the assembly of Israel during  “their desert wanderings.”[8] It also would describe “Israel when it assembled to hear the Word of God on Mt. Sinai, or later on Mt. Zion where all Israel was required to assemble three times a year.”[9] There was the assembly “of the Lord” (Deut 23:2), or “of the people of God” (Judges 20:2; Acts 7:38).[10] It seems proper to understand ekklesia, then, as a word which in many cases depicts an assembly of God’s people prepared to hear God’s Word (Matt 16:18).

Ekklesia in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The first matter to discuss is the usage of ekklesia in the PE. The limits of the use of ekklesia in the PE perhaps underscore Luke T. Johnson’s concerns regarding certain tendencies in how “the three letters are invariably treated together as a group.” This tendency results in the “characterization” of the PE by “coalescing” their contents and in effect “dulls the perception of the individual letters.”[11] There must be an internal reason for this limited use of ekklesia in the PE. Despite the data and Johnson’s concern, the concepts associated with church life are interwoven throughout the PE, demonstrated by the fact that ministerial concerns are ultimately church concerns: “Keep a close watch on yourself and to the teaching. Remain in them, for by doing these things you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Tim 4:16).[12]

The three uses of ekklesia in 1 Timothy are found in 3:5, 15, and 5:16. These will be considered in the order of their appearance. 1 Timothy 3:5 is a parenthetical maxim: “but if someone does not know how to care for his own household [tou idiou tou idiou oikou], how will he take care of God’s church [ekklesias theou]?” Not much later, Paul writes, “but if I delay, that you might know how one ought to behave in the household of God [en oiko theou], which is the church of the living God [ekklesia theou zontos], the pillar and the foundation of truth” (3:15). At the end of the discussion regarding the ministry toward widows, Paul writes, “If any believing woman has widows, let her provide them help and do not let the church [he ekklesia] be burdened, in order that She (i.e. the church) may provide for the ones who are truly widows” (5:16).

1 Timothy 3:5 and 15 are the most closely linked together not only in proximity but also the way they are integrated into Paul’s argument for the expected conduct in the ekklesia (3:15). In 3:5, the care given in the guardian’s[13] “own home” reflects his capacity to care for the “household of God”; moreover, this very “household of God” bears the “characteristic quality” (hetis)[14] as “the church of the living God” (3:15). The syntax may be understood in a few a ways. These institutions may find their origin in God (ablative of source); or, the genitive reflects them as God’s possession, if not they are defined by their relationship with God.[15] In either case, what God creates He possesses and has a relationship with what is His (John 1:12).

While these three are legitimate grammatical options, contextually the contrast between the household of the guardian and the household of God lays the emphasis upon possession: “God’s household” and “the Living God’s church.” Hence, as George W. Knight, writes, the Christian life is to be lived out in “the home built and owned by God and indwelt by him as the living one.”[16]

In 5:16, the closing statement requires the care for widows and presents a prohibition against burdening “the church” unnecessarily (he ekklesia). This is the anaphoric use of the article, pointing back to 3:15, which implicitly suggests this is a reference to the local congregation.[17] “The church” is the same as “the church of the living God” for as K. L. Schmidt observes, “the words tou theou are implied even when they are not specifically added, just as basileia in the NT always means the basileia tou theou unless some earthly kingdom is expressly mentioned.”[18] This fits well with the context, where there is a strong distinction made between one’s responsibility to “one’s own household” (5:4) and “member of the family” (5:8) with the responsibility he ekklesia has to care for its members who are “genuine widows.”

Taking a wider view, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in connection of the work of guardians who function as shepherds in Acts 20:28; moreover, the phrase ekklesia theou is found in the so-called “genuine” Pauline letters (1 Cor 1:2, 10:32, 11:16, 22, 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1 Thess 2:14) and “deutero-Pauline” references such as 2 Thessalonians 1:4.[19]

The exclusive use of ekklesia in 1 Timothy demonstrates a few things. First, ekklesia must be understood in its connection to the genitival theou, which here emphasizes God’s ownership of the church. Second, ekklesia theou is explanatory revealing the “characteristic quality” (hetis) of the household of God (oiko theou 3:15). Third, the genitival construction ekklesias theou is consistent with the so-called “genuine” letters of Paul. This is significant since it is a consistent Pauline phrase to describe the saints in Christ (2 Cor 1:1). Fourth, as the “household of God” the church is distinct from the household of the “guardians” (3:1b, 5) and of the “servants” (3:12), and of the Christian families who must care for their own households (5:1-16).

1 Timothy’s use of ekklesia then is bound within what this writer would describe as a concentric responsibility. Guardians, servants, and Christian families must take care of their own households as part requisite to serve in greater echelons of the household of God, the church of the living God. The household metaphor will be explored next since it is pervasive in the PE.

The “Household” in 1-2 Timothy and Titus

The second matter to consider is the church organizational structure found in the PE. Despite the limited use of the ekklesia various church leaders are discussed within the PE. In 1 Timothy and Titus there those who would take on “the responsibility of a guardian” (episkope; 1 Tim 3:1-7; Tit 1:5-9). Only 1 Timothy provides a virtue list for those who would be “servants” (deacons) in the church (3:8-13). There is an “enrollment of the widows” which may refer to an “order” of godly women who are supported by the church (1 Tim 5:1-16). Again, Johnson’s caution is reiterated that the PE are individual letters in spite of many overlapping features, and these distinctions must be respected. Nevertheless, the familiar Greco-Roman metaphor of “household” is evident throughout the PE and provides the organizing principle for churches in Ephesus and Crete.[20]

The “household” metaphor is significantly used throughout the PE. It is not without precedent that Paul uses metaphors (the body, the bride, the temple, etc.) to describe the interworking relationships of the church. David J. Williams introduces his research on metaphors in Pauline literature by calling attention to the literary fact that

metaphor is a way of presenting a truth that is wholly or partly unknown by likening it to something that is known to the person or persons under instruction. A metaphor is an aid to the perception of a truth (its intuitive recognition). It helps us to “get a handle” on a truth, but it does not necessarily furnish an explanation, certainly not a complete explanation, of the truth in question.[21]

In the Greco-Roman backdrop, the household metaphor lent itself to the political realm. According to P. H. Towner, the Roman emperor “came to be viewed as a father and the state as his household. And many functions or positions in relation to the state were derived from the ‘household’ root.”[22] As such, the metaphor of “household” would include derivative analogies such as immediate family members, slaves, freedmen, servants and laborers, and many other household personnel.

It is clear that “household” is an overarching metaphor Paul draws from in the PE. This is seen in the PE’s phrase, “how one ought to behave in God’s house” (1 Tim 3:15b). Paul does use the term “house” in his correspondences in the sense of one’s own home (1 Cor 11:22) and in the sense of where Christians meet (Rom 16:5; Phlm 2). Yet, it is in the metaphor of household that the PE develop the analogy of the church as “a social unit, made up of various members, each responsible to one another and ultimately to the householder.”[23]

This emphasis on household imagery could explain the omission of spiritual gifts as the connective tissues of church organization and leadership, which is a critical concern that some interpreters find to be evidence pointing against Pauline authorship. Therefore, if it is granted to Paul that the household metaphor better pointed out “truth” to his recipients then at the very least the viability of Pauline authorship cannot be dismissed lightly. Such criticisms, which centers on the PE’s use of non-Pauline metaphor for ekklesia, appears forced and arbitrary.

The household metaphor for the church organization, then, is developed in the PE in the following ways. In 2 Timothy 2:20-21 there is a brief comparison of the church to “a great house” (en megale oikia). Such a comparison suggests that the house must have various elements of worth. 1 Timothy 2:1-3:13 more emphatically develops that there are expectations in the household of God (3:15).[24]

Let us summarize a few points regarding expectations. First, 1 Timothy 2:1-15 develops the roles of the church as a whole (2:1-7), and gender role expectations in the assembly (2:8-15). Second, 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 addresses the qualifications for the managerial and senior members of the household of God (guardians and elders). Moreover, Titus 1:7 calls the elder and guardian a “steward of God” (theou oikonomon), which refers to a member of the household who is entrusted with a task by the master of the household.[25] Third, 1 Timothy 3:8-13 provides a virtue list for servants (diakonous) who function in various roles in a household. In this connection, Timothy himself is described as a diakonos Christou Iesou who later on is called to fulfill his work as an evangelist (2 Tim 4:5).[26] Fourth, there is the familial treatment between Christian “siblings” and the care of widows as members of the household of God (1 Tim 5:1-16). Timothy and Titus are both regarded as a “true child” (1 Tim 1:2; Tit 1:4), and Timothy is also described as “beloved child” (2 Tim 1:2).

Does this Fit with Paul’s Authorship?

With the evaluation of much of the internal evidence of the PE, it must be considered whether the picture of the church is of such a state that it weighs against Pauline authorship. The use of the household metaphor for organizing “the church of the living God” in the PE is pervasive, providing analogies for every ministry of ekklesia; moreover, it is all inclusive with specific guidelines for the various ministries considered.

Gerd Theissen, however, argues that “the notions of the community are not very Pauline. The image of the body of Christ in which all members have equal rights is absent.”[27] Quite to the contrary, the “notions of community” in the PE are every bit as comparable to so-called “authentic” Pauline teaching of the body of Christ. In Romans 12:3-8 the body of Christ is filled with many members with differing gifts. Paul writes the gifts are given “each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned” (3 ESV), and “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (5 ESV).

Furthermore, in 1 Corinthians 12 Paul makes a similar argument. All the spiritual gifts are from a single source, but every Christian has a different ministry: “there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit” (4 ESV).  In this context, Paul raises the issue of church leadership: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?” (29 ESV).

There appeared to be equal opportunities to serve but different areas of ministry based upon the will of God. This is precisely how the household metaphor presents ministry in the PE. Such evidence ought to reduce the weight of observations like those of Theissen who reject Paul’s authorship on the belief that the community in the PE is inconsistent with the so-called “authentic” letters of the apostle.

Some Conclusions

The conclusions drawn here are preliminary, but they lean toward a realization that each letter in the PE must be respected for their individual contribution and voice. Yet, for the focus given to individual church leaders (Timothy and Titus) and their concerns for conduct in the household of God, there is a commonality between them which can be evaluated in unison. There are three preliminary conclusion which can be made at this time.

First, the limited data of the use of ekklesia in the PE demonstrates that 1 Tim has particular expectations for its members to understand the difference between one’s own household and God’s household. This clearly suggests a rebuke and an attempt to recalibrate the Christian behavior. Titus and 2 Timothy apparently had different church concerns.

Second, the church organization revealed in the PE is quite clearly patterned after the metaphor of “household” with God as the master. In employing this metaphor, the PE reveals that leadership roles are subject to God’s prerogative to entrust a task for His household servants. Timothy and Titus along with the other leaders and servants appear cooperative; there does not appear to be a portrayal of a second century monarchical type of hierarchy as in Clement of Rome and Ignatius.[28]

Finally, the criticism that the PE “office holders” have replaced a “charismatic-functional church structure”[29] overlooks the pervasive and organic nature of the “household” organizing principle, and upon closer look reflects similar levels of diversity of ministries and personnel.

Endnotes

  1. Pastoral Epistles (PE) will be used throughout this essay. There is some objection raised as to the use of this nomenclature due to the correct view that neither Timothy nor Titus are pastors in the modern sense. However, Paul does address the qualifications for the episkopos, the overseers, or the guardians of the church; so, in this sense as documents which speak to this office these letters are viewed as pastoral, if not episcopal, in the New Testament sense.
  2. The internal areas of discussion are fourfold: the historical problem of fitting the PE into the historical scheme of Acts and the Pauline corpus, the connection between church organization in the PE and second century church organization, the distinct style of the PE and its unfamiliar robust vocabulary, and the dissimilar use of Pauline theological terms and lack of common doctrinal concerns.
  3. Donald A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 554-68; Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 612-36; a centrist, Luke Timothy Johnson and Todd C. Penner, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation, rev. ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1999), 424-28.
  4. Peter T. O’Brien, “Church,” DPL 124. Cognates of ekklesia are used throughout in 1 Timothy (6:12) and 2 Timothy (1:9; 2:20, 22), but they are not used in Titus.
  5. “ekklesia,” BDAG 303-04.
  6. O’Brien, “Church,” 123.
  7. O’Brien, “Church,” 124; Karl Ludwig Schmidt, “ekklesia,” TDNT 3:527; BDAG 303.
  8. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Pauline Theology: A Brief Sketch (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 76.
  9. O’Brien, “Church,” 124.
  10. See also the assemblies in 1 Kgs 8:55 and 1 Chr 29:10; interestingly, the Hebrew writer speaks of the redeemed in a similar way (Heb 12:22-24).
  11. Johnson and Penner, The Writings of the New Testament, 424.
  12. Unless otherwise noted all translations are those of the author.
  13. “episkopos,” L&N 35:43.
  14. “hostis, hetis, hoti,” BDAG 729.
  15. Boyce W. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament (1958; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Hook House, 1976), 131; James A. Brooks and Carlton L. Winbery, Syntax of New Testament Greek (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1979), 8-9, 23
  16. George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 181-82.
  17. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 217-20.
  18. Schmidt, “episkopos,” TDNT 3:507.
  19. Blackwelder, Light from the Greek New Testament, 131; Charles B. Cousar, The Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 89-90, 163-80.
  20. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 178, 202.
  21. David J. Williams, Paul’s Metaphors: Their Context and Character (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 1. Williams sees the use of “household of God” (oiko theou) as a probable metaphor for the church in 1 Tim 3:5 and 15, and he compares this with the “household of faith” in Galatians 6:10 (30).
  22. Philip H. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” DPL 417.
  23. Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  24. Cousar, Letters of Paul, 202; Towner, “Households and Household Codes,” 418.
  25. “oikonomos,” BDAG 698.
  26. This is of particular importance since Timothy is thought of as a type of monarchial bishop from the second century. Neither Timothy nor Titus are so named.
  27. Gerd Theissen, Fortress Introduction to the New Testament, trans. John Bowden (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 136.
  28. Howard Lee Kee, Understanding the New Testament, 4th ed. (Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1983), 315. Although Kee rejects Pauline authorship, he does concede that there is “no hint” of a single bishop in a city or territory with central authority over the Church in the PE.
  29. Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, trans. M. Eugene Boring (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), 330; trans. of Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994).

Shall We Dictate to Scripture?

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Hermeneutics, Interpretation, Spiritual Formation4 Comments

All who strive for a life of faith must recognize a fundamental principle of Divine religion: a life of faith is grounded and developed through the incorporation of the word of God into their lives. It is only until we harmonize our lifestyle with the influence of the inspired word, that we can find ourselves progressing towards spiritual maturity (2 Tim 3:16-17). If we do the former, the latter will follow.

It is the proclamation of the events leading up to the redemptive work of Jesus and the continued ministry of his apostles set forth in the written gospel message of the New Testament that is  “bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations” (Rom 1:5, cf. Rom 16:26). Paul puts the matter into focus in Romans 10:17 when he sets for the principle of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”

The question considered in this piece is focused on our attitude to Scripture’s application to our lives. We are asking, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching?

God and His Word

In Scripture, faithfulness to the instruction of God is paramount from both Divine and human vantage points (Hos 4:6; Psa 119). From the Divine side, God has often warned his people from adding to or removing from what He has entrusted humanity with (Deut 4:2; Rev 22:18-19). Little wonder, then, that Peter once said that if anyone should speak, they should “as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pet 4:11).

When Joshua, the son of Nun, succeeded Moses as the prophetic leader over Israel and representation of the Lord’s will, God gave him this encouragement:

Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:7-8 English Standard Version)[1]

As the representative of the Lord’s leadership among the Israelites, Joshua’s success depended upon his courage to live his life upon the line of faithfulness. Commentary on Joshua’s influence due to his faithfulness is found in the words of Joshua 24:31. This could only be accomplished after extensive meditation and determined application of the Mosaic law.

The opening Psalm of the Psalter echoes these sentiments quite vividly. Psalm 1 is described as “a blessing or beatitude that lays down the two ways of living, exemplified by the character of the just and the wicked.”[2]

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers. The wicked are not so, but are like chaff that the wind drives away. (Psalm 1:1-4)

The restatement of “meditation” of the “law” and the subsequent “prosperity” in the life of Joshua 1:8 is not coincidental. It is the foundation of a faithful life of obedience. To “fear God and keep his commandments” is the very fulfillment of the purpose of life (Eccl 12:13).

A millennium later, Jesus speaks to his disciples regarding the importance of abiding in his word. In the Gospel of John, Jesus affirms this principle quite clearly in John 8:31-32, where it is through abiding in his word (“the truth”) that individuals become free from sin. Later, at the close of his earthly ministry, Jesus appeals to the image of a vine and its branches with the emphasis upon the branches abiding in the life-giving vine in order to produce fruit (John 15:1-11).

The illustration stripped away from all metaphor, comes to a focal point in verses 9-11 where Jesus says:

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:9-11)

As Barnabas Lindars summarizes, “the loving relationship of mutual indwelling is pre-eminently a moral union. Hence, love is shown by the voluntary keeping of the Master’s commandments.”[3] We see, then, that love of God is expressed in faithful obedience to the divine commands reflected in a moral and spiritual lifestyle.

God’s Word in Human Hands

From the human vantage point, the application of God’s word derives from “rightly handling the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). The significance of the word translated “rightly handling” (Grk. orthotomeo) is expressed by William E. Vine:[4]

The stress is on orthos; the Word of God is to be “handled” strictly along the lines of its teaching. If the metaphor is taken from plowing, cutting a straight furrow, the word would express a careful cultivation, the Word of God viewed as ground designed to give the best results from its ministry and in the life. (Link)

W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984)

In order to properly apply Scripture to life, we must seek the true meaning of the biblical text. This is the human side of living by faith. In essence, God has given his word and expects humans to obey it in love; meanwhile, we must employ our minds to understand and apply his word (cf. 1 Cor 2:11-14; Eph 3:4).

There are several approaches many take to find out the nature of God’s will – that is, His desire or plan for a person’s life. Some randomly open the Bible and apply the first verse under the tip of their finger, and find some mystical application to their situation. Though insight is no doubt obtainable, this is not the most effective approach to incorporating God’s word into everyday life. Scripture was never designed to be approached in this fashion.

Others may have read through the whole Bible several times but still have not figured out what to do with the Bible. The pieces of the biblical puzzle are still scattered throughout their mind because they have never really studied the Bible – they have merely read the Bible as one would read a fictional title. Biblical literature was designed to be meditated upon, memorized, and rigorously studied. It is not literature to enjoy as a pastime or hobby.

We are therefore submitting for consideration the need to study the word of God in such a way that produces spiritual formation; as Paul has said elsewhere, “until Christ is formed in you” (Gal 4:19b). To do this, we must “attempt to hear the Word as the original recipients were to have heard it, to find out what was the original intent of the words of the Bible.”[5] This is the process of exegesis.

The word exegesis is actually derived from two Greek words, ek (“out”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”).[6] This is the process of drawing out “the meaning of the biblical text and explaining it.”[7] Biblical faith, and the obedience which is inherent in it, occurs when the meaning of Scripture is drawn out, that meaning is then articulated in meaningful ways, and then applied to contemporary circumstances. This is the noble handling of God’s word.

It is always easier to spout off some superficial interpretation of Scripture that is grounded in inadequate research than it is to produce a well-reasoned, well-understood explanation of a biblical passage or message. Bible study is for all, but it must be candidly acknowledged that there is a difference between the academic exegesis of the Bible and the exegesis usually explored by those untrained in biblical academics. This is an important distinction to address.[8]

Briefly, the non-academic must constantly rely heavily upon the “expert” scholar with the added difficulty of not being able to personally cross-examine “expert” research. However, more resources available today are written at the popular level for the non-expert so that, provided sufficient study, they may become more knowledgeable than ever before (biblical languages, cultural context, tools to study the forms of biblical literature, etc.).[9] This is a matter of mental industry and dedication (Ezra 7:6).

The opposite of exegesis is eisegesis, a word that likewise is derived from two Greek words, eis (“into”) and egeisthas (“to guide or lead”). Eisegesis is “the mistake of reading meaning into a text rather than deriving meaning from it.”[10] It may also be stated as reading into the text “meaning that one wants to get out of it.”[11] The point is: eisegesis is the exact opposite of exegesis. It is a hostile take over of the biblical teaching – intentionally or unintentionally.

In his work, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics, Charles J. Scalise uses the analogy of backpacking and camping to show the need for appropriate hermeneutics. Biblical “campers” must prepare for their trip, employing an important guidance tool for directing their theological travels – a map. The map is the biblical teaching, and it is, therefore, important to stay on the map for the right guidance.

Read carefully the following point Scalise makes contrasting exegesis from eisegesis. It should put the two Bible approaches into perspective:

Instead of Scripture functioning as the rule of doctrine, exaggeration of particular doctrines have sought to become the rule of Scripture. Proponents of a specific view have sought to read their particular opinions into Scripture (eisegesis) rather than letting the Scripture rule their view. Prooftexts have been claimed for an amazing variety of additions to and aberrations of the Christian tradition […] Christians who seek to claim authority for beliefs and actions supported by such scriptural pretexts are making maps where there is no biblical territory.[12]

C. J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology (1996)

If exegesis is what we do to “stay on the map we are given,” then the opposite is to make, as Scalise observes, a map “where there is no biblical territory.” Shame on us should we fall into this hermeneutical snare. We should always be ready to be taught more accurately and adjust our understandings (our bearings) based upon the Map of Life (Acts 18:24-28).

God’s Word in Human Hearts

After considering the importance God places upon the observance of His word and observing the responsibility laid upon us to properly interpret the Bible, it would be a misfortune not to discuss the need to apply God’s word in the practical everyday life setting. Some seem to simply mentally enjoy the study and proclamation of God’s word, but fail to have the same zeal in the application of its spiritual instruction.

The biblical books were always composed in such a way that they are complete within themselves to teach and to be understood. For example, when Paul composed his letter to the Ephesians regarding “the mystery of Christ” concerning the inclusion of all nations – Jew and Gentile – into the redemption offered by God, he was confident that they would read the letter and perceive its instruction (Eph 3:1-7).

In order to apply God’s teaching to their lives in the most effective way, Christians must be personal students of the Bible. They must be people who hear the word, perceive it, give it space to grow and flourish. Their teacher must be God, and they must never settle for any scholar’s “explanation.” It is Jesus’ words that give life, not the words of the scholar, preacher, or teacher (John 6:68).

As Merrill C. Tenney once said:

[T]here is a danger of substituting the explanation for the text itself. Men read what Dr. X and Professor Y have to say about the text rather than let the text talk to them.[13]

M. C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief (1948)

The Bible is fully capable of inducing belief and providing instruction for faithful living. Knowledge of “the book” prevents destruction, and it is for this reason that Hosea lamented for Israel. They failed to allow Scripture to instruct them and guide them (Hos 4:6).

We must allow Scripture to dictate our behavior in public and in private, at work or at play, “at church” or out “in the world” – wherever we are, we must stay conscious of our responsibilities to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8 cf. Rom 12:1). To this point, the Lord spoke very clearly to his auditors (Matt 12:33-37). The genuineness of our faithfulness will become evident to those around us.

Jesus once spoke a parable regarding various souls in a field. It is recorded in three Gospel accounts (Mark 4:1-25; Matt 13:3-23; Luke 8:4-18). It was based on an agricultural backdrop, where a person scatters seeds in a field so that he could grow a crop. In this process the seed is tossed out liberally all around the field: “some here,” “some there,” “some over there,” and “some right here.”

Actually, Jesus set forth four places in the field – the pathway, the rocky soil, the thorny patches, and then the good soil. Each seed produced different results depending upon the soil it was embedded within. The seed that fell on the pathway was quickly devoured by the birds, the rocky soil produced superficial growth of the seed, and the thorn patches choked out the developing seedlings. Finally, the good soil developed seed exponentially, according to the ability of the seed to produce.

But when Jesus spoke this parable, the seed was to represent the word of God, and the different soils represent the different receptive hearts. One group (i.e. pathway) is so dense that the word of God will not penetrate their heart, others (i.e. rocky soil) have no real spiritual depth to them and the spiritual effects of the word only last temporarily, another group (i.e. thorn patches) were so occupied with the cares of life that there was no dedication to the word.

These three groups all have failed relationships with the word. But there are some (i.e. good soil) who have receptive hearts, they are tender and pliable before the God who created them and loved them. These are submissive to the word and develop spiritually, according to the person’s ability to develop spiritual vitality. These individuals allow the word to dictate the terms and conditions of their faith.

Finally, in connection with these thoughts, reflect upon the words of Paul as he speaks of the power of the Word of God:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

God’s word should have full reign in molding the human heart. Heaven help those who desire to live in eternity with their God to be so minded.

Conclusion

Returning to the question which led to this study, shall we dictate to Scripture regarding how we ought to live, or will we humbly submit to its teaching? God has clearly shown that we must submit to his word in order to have a lifestyle representative of biblical faith. We must view the Scriptures are authored by God and, therefore, are capable to accomplish the task of spiritual formation.

God has always expected his word to be faithfully kept and never altered. We must exert great care in deriving our understanding from God’s word. And finally, the application is the only way to truly be the people that seek after God. Mere knowledge will lead to destruction, both knowledge and action are the keys to unlocking spiritual vitality in God’s way.

References

  1. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV) of the Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  2. Roland E. Murphy, The Gift of the Psalms (2000; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003), 18.
  3. Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (1981; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982), 490.
  4. W. E. Vine, M. F. Unger, and W. White, Jr., Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1984; repr., Nashville, TN: Nelson, 1996), 2:289.
  5. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 23 (emphasis original).
  6. D. R. Dungan, Hermeneutics: A Text-Book (repr., Delight, AR: Gospel Light, n.d.), 1.
  7. Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 54.
  8. Jack P. Lewis, “The Importance of Biblical Languages,” Man of God: Essays on the Life and Work of the Preacher, ed. Shawn D. Mathis (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate, 1996). Lewis specifically addresses the difference in ability between the minister who is a student of the word in its original language, versus the minister who simply preaches and studies from an English text. The former allows ministers to be more certain of their conclusions while the latter finds ministers encumbered with exegetical limitations. Basically, Lewis affirms, “If one is to be an expositor of Scripture, then he matures in that through a life-long study of the languages of Scripture” (162). The difference spoken of here equally resonates with the members of the congregations: it’s a matter of depth of personal certainty upon which a conclusion is drawn. Otherwise, heavy reliance upon “expert” opinion can be and often is costly.
  9. I have seen flaws on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, I have seen students that know more of their English Bible demonstrated in their deep faith and devoted life than some academics caught up in their theoretical debates on hermeneutics. On the other hand, I have seen students make many egregious errors because they press a biblical passage from an English Bible beyond its intended meaning – an error that could have been relieved by appealing to a more in-depth study of the passage.
  10. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary, 50.
  11. Richard N. Soulen and R. Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Louisville, KY: WJK, 2001), 52.
  12. Charles J. Scalise, From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996), 70 (emphasis added).
  13. Merrill C. Tenney, John: The Gospel of Belief – An Analytical Study of the Text (1948; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 21.

Defining Adultery in the Old Testament

On By Jovan PayesIn Articles, Biblical Ethics, Essays, Interpretation, marriage, Old Testament3 Comments

Adultery. Not exactly the warmest of words. For some, it evokes the pain that can only be felt from experiencing a broken home. For others, it is a reminder of what could have been if certain circumstances had presented themselves. There are some who think of this word as an obstacle that was overcome and they are survivors indeed. While yet still, there are others who are ever vigilant of all the steps that lead to this dreaded sin.

And finally, there are some who stand humbled in the rubble around them (a life destroyed), that was brought to fruition through that terrible act of adultery. They enjoyed their brief night in paradise, only to be awoken by the torrents of horror in the morning.

The Word Adultery

It is amazing that some who would set forth the claim that their interests are in teaching the Word of God hold a variety of views as to the nature and meaning of adultery contrary to the biblical data. Without considerable interaction with these distinct points of view, let us press on to consider some of the Old Testament evidence as to the meaning and nature of adultery. How does God represent it in the Hebrew Bible?

But where does the word adultery come from. The actual derivation of the English word for adultery is quite enlightening. It actually derives from combining a number of Latin terms into one:

The word adultery originates not from “adult”, as is commonly thought, but from the Late Latin word for “to alter, corrupt”: adulterare. Adulterare in turn is formed by the combination of ad (“towards”), and alter (“other”), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb).

Wikipedia.org

So, in English the word adultery has the idea of one person moving towards another person in order to make a new personal arrangement. Moreover, in some cases the Latin term adulterare carried the meaning of “to pollute” – taking something that is pure, and contaminating it.

When we say that someone has committed adultery, we are simply stating that a person has corrupted his or her marriage by introducing a third party. The marriage has been altered, changed, and polluted. The English word is quite graphic, but since the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew we would be wise to consult the meaning of this term there.

The Old Testament Term

In the Old Testament, the primary Hebrew word for adultery is nā’ap. As with any word, it is part of a grouping of words with similar meanings. Many of these words emphasize a range of meanings; for example, they can take literal or figurative meanings, and even describe those who are married or betrothed who are unfaithful. However, nā’ap is the found the majority of the time to state that a person has – as we say – “cheated” on their spouse.[1]

William Wilson notes that nā’ap “is confined to adultery in the exclusive sense of the term or fornication by a married person.”[2] James Swanson amplifies the meaning, stating that it refers to a person who has “sexual intercourse with [someone] other than a spouse, as a married or betrothed person, generally, a person of low social status.”[3]

One of the earliest appearances of nā’ap in the Old Testament is in the reading of the “10 Commandments” (Exod 20:14). God says transparently, “You shall not commit adultery.” This command is cradled between the “shall not’s” of murder and stealing, which should give us an indication as to the severity of adultery in the eyes of God (Exod 20:13, 15 cf. Lev 20:10).

Clyde Woods makes the observation that in this command, the “sacredness of marriage” is emphasized, and it is this “principle of social purity” that “provides the basis for numerous [other] laws regarding sexual relationships and offenses” (cf. Exod 22:19; Lev 18:1-18; Deut 22:13-30).[4] And in this connection, R. Alan Cole finds in Joseph’s rejection of Potiphar’s wife the fact that:

For a man to have intercourse with another man’s wife was considered as the heinous sin against God as well as man, long before the law, in patriarchal times (Gen 39:9).[5]

R. Alan Cole, Exodus (1979)

The holiness of God demands that the matrimonial bed be undefiled by extra-marital affairs (Heb 13:4). Some people defile their marriage by actually sleeping with someone other than their spouse (John 8:4), others have so saturated their minds with “daydreams” of scenarios to have affairs, that if circumstances presented themselves they would do it (Matt 5:28); and yet still, there are those who have slipped on more rings on their one wedding finger than many super bowl champions have on their whole hand – and with little to no effort (John 4:16-19). From the beginning, however, this was not God’s ideal plan for marriage (Matt 19:9 cf. Gen 2:24).

Literal and Figurative Adultery

Nā’ap may mean literal adultery, but it also carries figurative, or more precisely, a spiritual application as well. Swanson explains: “in some contexts this refers to religious adultery, usually in which Israel is viewed as the unfaithful female spouse to the Lord in a covenantal marriage contract.”[6] Wilhelm Gesenius likewise remarks, “it is applied to the turning aside of Israel from the true God to the worship of idols” (Jer 3:8-9, 5:7, 9:1, 23:14).[7]

Even as Jeremiah writes of the faithless one – the Northern kingdom of Israel:

The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretense, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 3:6-10)

Judah had not learned the lesson of her sister Israel. The Northern kingdom of Israel’s fixation with idolatry is amply substantiated in the Hebrew Bible, and, in fact, was a foundational aspect of its administration and spirituality (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). It was this faithless one that committed adultery with stone and tree.

We see then that the literal usages of nā’ap enhance the figurative-spiritual uses. The literal and figurative uses share a reciprocal connection; that is to say, they enhance each other.[8] And, this makes perfect sense, for there are very few – if any – words that do not lend themselves to figurative or metaphorical uses.

Examples of Adultery in the Old Testament

Several times in the book of Ezekiel, the spiritual appraisal of Israel is pictured in terms of adultery. Principally, the first 24 chapters of Ezekiel address themselves to this theme. Chapters 15 through 17 explain the doom of Jerusalem by means of allegories and parables.[9] Within this framework, chapter 16 portrays the spiritual infidelity of the Hebrews in the unmistakably graphic picture of marital sexual infidelity.

Observe some snippets from the chapter that the English Standard Version translators call “The Lord’s Faithless Bride” (Ezek 16:1-58):

  • “When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.” (vs. 8)
  • “But you trusted in your beauty and played the whore [were unfaithful; ESV footnote #2] because of the renown and lavished your whorings on any passerby; your beauty became his.” (vs. 15)
  • “At the head of every street you built your lofty place and made your beauty an abomination, offering yourself [“Hebrew spreading your legs”; ESV footnote #1; cf. ASV “opened thy feet […]”] to any passerby and multiplying your whoring.” (vs. 25)
  • “Adulterous [nā’ap] wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (vs. 32)

With great precision, the prophet presents God’s anger and sense of betrayal with the imagery of adultery. As Samuel Schultz and Gary Smith summarize:

[I]n an allegory, Ezekiel compared Judah to a young girl that God cared for and married. But the bride ignored her husband and loved others (foreign customs, idols, her own beauty).[10]

Exploring the Old Testament (2001)

Jeremiah, a contemporary of Ezekiel during the Babylonian captivity, ministered in Jerusalem and abroad. Numerous false prophets declared that this captivity was merely temporary and that God would return them soon. In Jeremiah 29:1-28, the prophet sends a letter from Jerusalem to the captives in Babylon encouraging them in their situation, rebuking those who oppose the truth of God’s punishment upon Judah, and re-enforcing the fact that Judah will remain in Babylon for 70 years. One of the blistering comments rendered to the false prophets is that they were adulterers (Jeremiah 29:20-23).

Jeremiah says that Ahab and Zedekiah, the false prophets, “have done an outrageous thing in Israel, they have committed adultery [nā’ap] with their neighbors’ wives, and they have spoken in my name lying words that I did not command them” (vs. 23). This language is as transparent as Leviticus 20:10 where Moses writes, “if a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

Adultery, literal or figurative, describes the most intimate of interactions. Literally, it refers to actual sexual encounters with someone other than their spouse. Spiritually, it expands upon the literal meaning of adultery and give it a figurative flavor stressing the deep treachery felt by God from his people who give their beauty to another.

Conclusion

Literally, then, adultery is sexual activity between a married person and a person who is not their spouse. Spiritually, then, adultery is spiritual and moral activity contrary to God’s teaching. While Old Testament and the New Testament are uniform in their presentation of adultery, space has been given to a brief investigation of the concept in the Old Testament. The Old Testament and New Testament are two testimonies that share the same conception of adultery, a behavior that Russell describes as, a “special and aggravated case of fornication.”[11]

This concept has not been altered or distorted through the passing of time; consequently, we have no right to redefine it in modern times, contemporary times, or in any subsequent generation to come, for God’s truth endures to all generations (Psa 100:5). He means what he says. Heaven help us to keep it secure and unaltered in our minds!

References

  1. James Swanson, “nā’ap,” Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains: Hebrew (Old Testament), 2d ed., electronic ed. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
  2. William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, n.d.), 6.
  3. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  4. Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods, 1972), 179.
  5. R. Alan Cole, Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary (1973; repr., Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 160.
  6. Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages.
  7. Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, electronic ed. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, 2003), 525.
  8. Emmet Russell observes this exact point when he writes, “the figurative use enhances the literal sense, emphasizing the divine institution and nature of marriage” (Zondervan’s Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1967], 17).
  9. Homer Hailey, Hailey’s Comments (Las Vegas, NV: Nevada Publications, 1985), 1:201-04.
  10. Samuel J. Schultz and Gary V. Smith, Exploring the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 191.
  11. Russell, ZPBD 17.