Tag: Freed-Hardeman University

Restoration Movement Theology: T. W. Brents on the “Foreknowledge of God”

On By Jovan PayesIn 2005, College Papers, Foreknowledge, Freed-Hardeman University, New Testament, Old Testament, Research Papers, Restoration Movement Theology, T.W. Brents, Theology

There is a certain measure of absurdity that occurs when a finite being seeks to understand the infinite God. The inquiry is no simple matter. God’s infinite nature transcends the finite and linear nature of human beings. Such a pursuit touches every major philosophical, theological, religious, and epistemic field of knowledge. The study of God and his attributes is a complex endeavor and is often accomplished by examining individual aspects of the nature or essence of God, or by considering the way in which God interacts with his creation. One classic question centers on God’s omniscience, and what it means for God to know the future of particular persons and events (i.e., foreknowledge).

The question of divine foreknowledge tethers together God’s omniscience and human free will. For example, why would God create the universe if God was aware more people would be lost eternally rather than saved? As one person asked in an online discussion, “Why go through on something knowing in advance that it is a bad investment?” The question presumes there is a logical inconsistency between an all-loving God and the reality of suffering and chaos in the world.

Some contemporary theologians have argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited and can only account for what can be actually known. This theory has various labels, but is commonly called, “Open Theism.” Among 19th-century Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement personas, Thomas Wesley Brents (1823–1905) argued that God’s foreknowledge is limited to what can be actually known. Brents’s viewpoint is set forth in his sermon, “Foreknowledge of God,” set forth in his classic anthology of sermons, The Gospel Plan of Salvation (1874). Brents was a well-respected nineteenth-century North American “pioneer” preacher of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. In short, Brents argued that unlimited foreknowledge lacks biblical consistency.

I dispute this conclusion. There are many presuppositions that underpin the argument of Brents’s sermon, “Foreknowledge of God.” This paper offers a refutation of his thesis that God does not have unlimited foreknowledge. I argue that God knows all that is possible to be known and that this foreknowledge does not interfere with human free will.

Statement of the Problem

Unlimited foreknowledge is asserted on the basis of three basic arguments. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God knows everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is essentially outside of time and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

In “Foreknowledge,” however, Brents posed what is a fair question:

may we not, then, with becoming reverence, inquire whether or not God eternally foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass?[1]

In The Gospel Plan of Salvation, “Foreknowledge” is part of the opening series of sermons Brents delivers against John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, election and reprobation, hereditary depravity, and the doctrine of Universalism (i.e., all souls will be saved).[2] Brents principally attacked the fundamental basis for the two systems of belief; namely:

the assumption that God, from all eternity, foreknew every thing that ever has or ever will come to pass; therefore, He foreknew just who and how many would be saved, and who, if any, would be lost.[2]

For Brents, “such foreknowledge amounted to an immutable decree” in which “man had no power to avert” this foreknown destiny. Brents argues that such a position violates human agency.[3] He then sets forth a series of arguments that follow a somewhat sequential order, building upon one another.

He concedes that this study can only appropriately operate if it is recognized that finite humanity has mental limitations and can only understand God as God has revealed himself.[4] Brents cautiously affirms:

We may know God’s will, and the extent of His knowledge where He has revealed them to us, but beyond this we dare not go. When God speaks, it is the province of man to hear and believe, whether he can or can not [sic] see to the end.[5]

Then he moves to argue against God having unlimited foreknowledge on account that there are passages that appear to demonstrate that God was unaware of certain things, such as the depravity of the pre-flood population of Earth (Gen 6:5). Brents forwards his argumentation by means of the analogy of omnipotence, pondering that “if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”; consequently, infinite knowledge does not require that he knows everything.[6]

Brents acknowledges that this may be accounted for on the grounds of accommodation, and provides his definition of accommodation and its limits. Accommodation must embody the same thought from whatever source it is being transferred from and should the thought be different then it is a form of deception, conveying “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[7]

The next line of reasoning is Brents’ “all” argument, where he observes that while Scriptures teach that God and Jesus know “all things,” the word “all” may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[8] In his conclusion, Brents maintains that God only knows for sure that which He has decreed to be an absolute certainty, and is unaware of those things he has decreed to be contingent realities.[9]

First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know.

Preliminary to evaluating the biblical data, a brief definition of what is meant here is that God knows everything there is to know. That God knows everything there is to know is to say that God is omniscient. Omniscience comes from two words, omnis, “all,” and scire, which means, “know”; consequently, it means knowledge of everything – a perfect knowledge.[10] God has perfect knowledge of the past, the present, and the future from the human point of view; furthermore, if God has perfect knowledge of the future, then this suggests that God has foreknowledge. This aspect of God’s omniscience specifically focuses on God knowing the future acts as if they were already done.[11] Interestingly, Casper W. Hodge observes that God’s omniscience is frequently connected with His omnipresence” (2 Chron 16:9, Pro 15:3, Psa 139).[12] These concepts will be further embellished as Brents’s specific lines of contention are addressed.

Old Testament evidence suggests that God is omniscient. Notice an example from the Exodus where God revealed the future of Abraham’s offspring in Egyptian bondage (Gen 15:13–15). When Moses is called, God is prepared to deliver them from this servitude (Exod 3:8–9), but Moses is warned that Pharaoh will harden his heart and not let the Israelites go easily (Exod 7:14) until the last plague is sent upon Egypt (Exod 11:1).[13] God was fully aware of the future events, and this assurance that God knew what would happen was a vital part of the confidence of Moses, as were the miraculous abilities and supernatural experiences he had gone through (Exod 3:4–6, 4:1–17).

New Testament evidence likewise provides strength to the picture that God is omniscient. An example from this group of canonical material is found in 2 Peter. One scholar reflects upon this material in light of omniscience and free will and points out: “Divine revelation as it is expressed in 2 Peter does not present a God who is learning, relenting, at times taken by surprise or retracting his eternal counsel.”[14] 2 Peter 3:14–18, as suggested by Neyrey, reflects the “themes and issues raised” from the beginning of the letter.[15] Edmond Hiebert likewise notes this connection based upon dió (“therefore”) in 3:14 and suggests two points: “these exhortations are based on what has been written” so far; and the author insists, “that the link between faith and conduct must be maintained” in light of the coming judgment.[16] This observation is vital in light of the heretical religio-philosophical school of thought under attack in 2 Peter 2:1–3:13. Thomas R. Schreiner, observes:

Peter’s argument is not pragmatic […] he did not invent the idea of a future judgment to foster ethical living now. On the contrary, the day of the Lord, consisting of both judgment and salvation, was bedrock reality for him. On the basis of this reality, believers are exhorted to godliness.[17]

This moral argument is given weight and authority throughout 3:14–18 in three ways: the inspired revealer of God’s knowledge reminds his audience of the coming judgment which is sure  (3:14–15a).[18] God knows the future outcome of these false teachers and those who live immorally; therefore, “what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness” (3:11).

Brents’ attack is really quite simple: God is omniscient, but he only knows what can be known and what respects the free moral agency of humanity. This would necessitate that there are some things that God cannot know – which are the future actions of mortals. As an example of this, he cites Genesis 6:5–6 where the Bible says:

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and he was grieved in his heart.

Brents asks why state that God “saw” the world bankrupt of morality if it was not new from God’s perspective?[19] “Why did God grieve over a result which was as plain to Him before He created man as when He saw the overt acts of wickedness performed?” Again he asks, “Could there be anything unknown to him whose understanding is infinite?”[20] Brents believe there is, and here is his argument; which is somewhat analogous to the attribute of omnipotence; observe, 

if there are some things which God can not do, though omnipotent, may there not be some things which He DID not know, though omniscient?”[21]

“God is as infinite in power as He is in understanding. No one, we suppose, will deny that He is omnipotent as well as omniscient, yet there are some things He can not do; e.g., God can not lie [….]” because they are inconsistent with his other attributes and the free agency of man.[22] Therefore, Brents’s reasons,

He did not know, before making man, just how wicked he would be, simply because such foreknowledge would have been incompatible with the free agency and responsibility of man. To be a responsible man must be free.”[23]

Any knowledge of future events, says Brents is equivocal to an immutable decree that cannot be averted, thus there is no freedom to “falsify” God’s foreknowledge –hence where is the freedom.[24]

In response to Brents, several things may be said. First, it is believed that too high a premium has been made upon a small sampling of Scripture that employs accommodative language, depicting God as repentant for making humanity. Brents argues that the accommodative language argument is fallacious, however, for two reasons: accommodations must embody the same thought. The other reason is that if the same thought is not employed then some form of deception is being undertaken, conveying, “one thought when he designed to convey another.”[25] Brents takes it one step further and suggests that God could have said that He knew from the beginning that man would fall and that he was not surprised by man’s spiral into immorality. The problem with this is that it does not square with the rest of the biblical evidence, a sample of which has been demonstrated above. Furthermore, as Hodge observes:

It is true that the Scripture makes use of anthropomorphic forms of expression as regards the way in which God obtains knowledge (Gen 11:5; 18:21); nevertheless the constant representation of the Scripture is that God knows everything. This perfect knowledge of God, moreover, is not merely a knowledge which is practically unlimited for all religious purposes, but is omniscience in the strictest sense of the term.[26]

Furthermore, as will be developed later God is outside of time God does not live a linear life where life “exists of moments following one another,” C.S. Lewis observes.[27] There is a genuine anthropomorphic accommodation (i.e. “God is described in human terms”) when God reacts sadly to the fall of man, as instantaneously as humans would, demonstrating both concern and contempt for sin.[28]

Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom.

Brents is very clear that if God knows everything including the future events of humans, then that goes against free agency. He argues that if God knows a thing then it is as sure as an immutable decree. The problem Brents has with this analogy is that while the force of both foreknowledge and an immutable decree may be similar in that the future cannot be changed, the latter has participation in selecting one’s future destiny; whereas, with the former, it is simply a matter of knowing, not a matter of imposing a certain destiny. Hence the argument Brents articulate is quite problematic, for one of his major premises is crippled. Though we would not agree with everything said by Arthur Pink, he makes a good observation relative to this point:

It should, however, be pointed out that neither God’s knowledge nor His cognition of the future, considered simply in themselves, are causative. Nothing has ever come to pass, or ever will, merely because God knew it. The cause of all things is the will of God.[29]

In keeping with the critique of Brents, Pink’s observation likewise contributes to the credibility of the notion that knowledge is not causative. Simply because a person may know how an engine works, does not imply that this person is responsible for all engines everywhere to function. It simply means that this person knows what will occur under the present circumstances. Therefore, taking this limited illustration to a divine scale, God knows all the circumstances and what will happen under those circumstances, but does not decree that they occur in the sense of direct cause for it to occur. Humans are still left with their free agency intact.

Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is.

Perhaps the greatest flaw in Brents’s argument is the implied presupposition that God acts in a linear existence as man does. Part of this has to do with Brents’ view of the biblical statements, for example, consider the case of Abraham offering Isaac (Gen 22:12). The text says that when Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac, God through an angel said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld you son, your only son, from Me.” Brents responds to this passage as follows:

What can this mean? “Now I know that thou fearest God.” Did He always know it? Nay, how did He then know it? “Seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me.” Does not this language imply that God saw in Abraham a degree of faithfulness unseen before?[30]

Indeed, from the surface it appears to be the case, and honestly, there is a sense that God did experience something new about Abraham, for Woods writes that the phrase “Now I know” suggests the idea that God now knew “by experience.”[31] This would imply that there is a difference between God foreknowing a thing, and then actually experiencing it; which furthermore demonstrates that knowing and the action are mutually exclusive. Yet Brents asks, in light of Hebrews 11:7, where this was design to “try” Abraham,  “How then could God try Abraham if He knew Abraham would past the test”? Brents then argues that in order to be a true accommodation, Abraham should have been to whom this statement was addressed: “Now you know” what kind of faithful service you can render to God, for “an accommodation of language to thought would require a change like this”[32] But as noticed above, God is outside of time.

Returning to the aspect of God living in a non-linear – outside of time – environment, C. S. Lewis provides helpful information. He writes:

How could He [God] at the same time be God who knows everything and also a man asking his disciples “Who touched me?” You will notice that the sting lay in the time words: “While He was a baby” – “How could He at the same time?” In other words I was assuming that Christ’s life as God was in time, and that His life as the man Jesus in Palestine was a shorter period taken out of that time […][33]

But Brents argues that since Christ had a limited foreknowledge of future events (time of his return Mark 13:32), then it means that God in heaven may have a limited foreknowledge of future events. He makes this leap of argumentation:

It is one thing to know all things, and quite another to foreknow all things –one thing to know a thing, and quite another thing to know a thing before it is a thing, or when it has no existence.[34]

Then he says that the term “all” in all things may “indicate a great amount or a great number, when it must not be understood without limit.”[35] Brents moves to say that since all has this meaning, as demonstrated in his examples (all the people were baptized by John, though many rejected him; John’s audience only knew that which John was writing about; love does not believe lies though it believes all things), “then we shall continue to believe that our Heavenly Father had power to limit the exercise of His foreknowledge to an extent compatible with the free-agency and accountability of man and the scheme of salvation devised for him, until we are shown a more excellent way.”[36]

The problem here is simple. Brents assumes that Christ on earth shares the same omniscience as God in Heaven, but this is not so. Particularly is this true when Christ affirms that God knows certain future events that the Son did not; for example, the establishment of the kingdom (Acts 1:6–8). More specifically though, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among mortals, He emptied himself of certain qualities that he shared while being with the Father in Heaven. Philippians 2:5–8 reads as follows:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

All that Brents may argue from Mark 13:32 is that Jesus had limited foreknowledge, which is consistent with his departure from heaven to take upon human appearance. Furthermore, Brents’ discussion and argumentation cannot extend to God in heaven, since the Father and the Holy Spirit never divested themselves as Christ did. Consequently, Brents’ argument against the foreknowledge of God does not stand.

Conclusion

At first glance it appears that Brents offers a strong case as he moves from position to position, setting forth his claim that the classical concept of God’s foreknowledge is flawed, and that God’s knowledge is only about things that can be known, and that such things must occur in order for him to know. However, in the process of his argumentation, it appears that Brents is flawed in several particulars. Although Brents argues that unlimited foreknowledge is unbiblical, it is maintained in this paper that unlimited foreknowledge is biblical.

The basis for this assertion lies in three lines of reasoning. First, the Bible describes God as knowing everything there is to know. Second, God may know everything there is to know without infringing upon human freedom. Third, God is outside of time, and cannot be confined by linear constructs as human existence is. With these things in mind, we close this discussion.

Endnotes

  1. T. W. Brents, “Foreknowledge of God,” The Gospel Plan of Salvation, 17th ed. (1874; Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987), 75. All italics are original to the text of the sermon unless otherwise noted as “emphasis added” (i.e., emph. added).
  2. Brents, Gospel Plan, “Predestination” (7–12), “Election and Reprobation” (13–40), “Calvinistic Proofs Examined” (41–73), “The Foreknowledge of God” (74–87), and “Hereditary Depravity” (88–116).
  3. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  4. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74–75.
  5. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 75.
  6. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  7. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  8. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  9. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  10. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 85–87.
  11. Charles Hartshorne, “Omniscience,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 546.
  12. Charles Hartshorne, “Foreknowledge, Divine,” Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 284.
  13. Casper W. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” ISBE 2:1128.
  14. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  15. J. Daryl Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate,” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 86.
  16. Charles, “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter,” 247.
  17. D. Edmond Hiebert, “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a,” BSac 141 (1984): 331.
  18. Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (Nashville: Broadman, 2003), 393; see also, Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 334, and Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia:  Fortress, 1986), 449.
  19. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 334.
  20. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  21. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76.
  22. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  23. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 76–77.
  24. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 77.
  25. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 74.
  26. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 79.
  27. Hodge, “Foreknow, Foreknowledge,” 1128.
  28. C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, rev. ed. (1952; repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960), 146.
  29. Wayne Jackson, “Anthropomorphism,” Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications, 2002), 8; Clyde M. Woods, Genesis-Exodus (Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972), 17.
  30. Arthur Pink, The Attributes of God (1930; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 20.
  31. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  32. Woods, Genesis-Exodus, 56.
  33. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 80.
  34. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 147.
  35. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 83.
  36. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.
  37. Brents, “Foreknowledge,” 84.

Works Cited

Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. WBC 50. Edited by David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983.

Brents, T.W. “The Foreknowledge of God.” Pages 74–87 in The Gospel Plan of Salvation. 17th ed. 1874. Repr., Bowling Green, KY: Guardian of Truth Foundation, 1987.

Charles, J. Daryl. “The Language of Providence in 2 Peter: Some Considerations for the ‘Open Theism’ Debate.” Presbyterion 29 (2003): 85–93.

Hartshorne, Charles. “Foreknowledge, Divine.” Page 284 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

_____. “Omniscience.” Pages 546–47 in Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Vergilius Ferm. New York: Philosophical Library, 1945.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. “Selected Studies from 2 Peter Part 4: Directives for Living in Dangerous Days: An Exposition of 2 Peter 3:14-18a.” BSac 141 (1984): 330–40.

Hodge, Caspar Wistar. “Foreknow, Foreknowledge.” Pages 1128–31 in vol. 2 of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Edited by James Orr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Jackson, Wayne. Bible Words and Theological Terms Made Easy. Stockton, CA: Courier, 2002.

Johnson, Luke T. The Writings of the New Testament:  An Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1986.

Lanier, Sr., Roy H. The Timeless Trinity for the Ceaseless Centuries. Denver, CO: Lanier Publishing, 1974.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. Revised edition. 1952. Repr., New York: Macmillan, 1960.

Neyrey, Jerome H. 2 Peter, Jude:  A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 37C. Edited by William F. Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1993.

Pink, Arthur W. The Attributes of God. 1930. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 2003.

Woods, Clyde M. Genesis-Exodus. People’s Old Testament Notes. Vol. 1. Henderson, TN: Woods Publications, 1972.

Do We Have the Old Testament?

On By Jovan PayesIn 2003, Bibliology, Christian Apologetics, College Papers, Freed-Hardeman University, Old Testament, Research Papers, Textual Criticism, TheologyLeave a comment

A person of faith often assumes that there are no problems ascertaining the wording of certain passages. But reality demonstrates that there are instances where this proves to be untrue. What a believer expects God to do in His providential care of the planet may not always line up with how life unfolds itself, but such disorientation has been common among the faithful.

Despite all the miracles employed to compel Pharoah to release the Israelites from Egypt, when the environment became less than comfortable fear and panic overcame God’s people (Exod 14). Even Moses had initial problems with understanding the situation he was faced with when he was sent to Pharoah to have him release the Israelites (Exod 5). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that a person of faith at times needs “more” in order to calm their nerves.

The following brief study gives attention to the textual basis of the Old Testament, considering a few lines of thought that contribute to a more informed outlook on how copies of the Hebrew Bible have been transmitted into modern hands, and what the sources of the copies used today so that translators are able to produce translations of the Hebrew Bible.

It must be emphasized that this is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject. So much more is available for analysis; be that as it may, a survey of this material is sufficient to adequately support the above affirmation of the adequate veracity of the Hebrew Bible.

A Skeptic’s Concern

A skeptical approach to the Bible essentially argues that for a collection of books so old, for a collection of books that have passed through so many hands, or for a collection of anonymously published volumes, it is a hard sell to affirm that the Bible – here the Hebrew Bible – is trustworthy in any sense.

Regarding the textual certainty of the Bible in general, skeptic Donald Morgan puts the matter bluntly in the following words:

No original manuscripts exist. There is probably not one book that survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations were made to the originals by various copyists and editors.[1]

The argument basically affirms that there is no way for the Bible to be an accurate record of the words of God, and therefore, it is not “trustworthy.”  The sheer force of this argument is designed to rob the Bible believer’s faith in God. Implicit with this is the futility of having a religion founded upon the Bible’s guidance.

What can be said of this dire depiction, except that one must not be persuaded by mere affirmations, but instead by the available evidence. Not only is it paramount to see the evidence, but it is imperative that a proper evaluation is given to it.

The OT Accurately Transmitted

The Scribal Evidence

The overall scribal evidence suggests that the Hebrew Bible has been adequately preserved. The “scribe” trade goes back very early in recorded antiquity and therefore is a field of has a rich heritage of scholarship and workmanship behind it.[2]  J. W. Martin notes that the field of transmitting literature is a known trade skill from the 2nd millennium B.C. and observes, “men were being trained not merely as scribes, but as expert copyists.”[3]  Copying occurred during the Babylonian exile. F. C. Grant writes, “in far-away Babylonia the study and codification, the copying and interpretation of the Sacred Law had steadily continued.”[4]

This means that extending back beyond the time of Abraham (19th century B.C.) and Moses (15th century B.C.), down to the time of the exilic and post-exilic scribes (the predecessors to the “scribes who copied and explained the Law in the New Testament times”),[5] “advanced” and “scrupulous” methods would likely be used to copy any text, including the Hebrew canon.

The next question in need of an answer, though, is: what were those methods? Briefly, observe the mentality and professionalism which exemplify the sheer reverential ethic towards the transmission of the Biblical text characterized by the scribes.

The Hebrew Scribes revered the sanctity of the Scriptures. Moses commanded the people not to “add to the word,” nor to “take from it” (Deut 4:2). The Hebrews respected this command. Josephus weighs in as support for this point. In arguing for the superiority of the Hebrew Bible against the conflicting mythologies of the Greeks fraught with evident contradicting alterations to their content, Josephus bases his argument upon the reverential mentality towards these writings.

Josephus testifies to this sense of reverence (Against Apion 1.8.41-42):

[41] It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; [42] and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them.[6]

William Whiston, Translator

Even though there are variants, produced by scribes, the fundamental historical truth stresses that the Hebrew scribes revered the Scriptures and dared never to add or take away from them. This important truth must not be forgotten. Moreover, this fact emphasizes the great care they had with the transmission of the text.

The scribal methods changed as time progressed, and this seems to be for the better and for the worst. One thing is transparent, however, and that is this: consistent with the reverential appreciation of the scriptures, the Hebrew scribes exercised acute professionalism in their methods, however superstitious they were at times. Rabbinic literature testifies to the early scribal school. Clyde Woods reproduces 17 crucial rabbinic rules demonstrating the rigors of the early scribal methodology.[7] The specifics concerning the writing materials, the preparation of the document, the veracity of the authenticity of the template, the conduct displayed when writing divine names, and other critical rules are thus enumerated underscoring the diligent professionalism of the early scribes.

The Masoretes succeeded and exceeded these scribes as a professional group of transmitters of the Hebrew Bible, laboring from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1000.[8] Lightfoot summarizes a number of procedures the Masoretes employed to “eliminate scribal slips of addition and omission.”[9] The Masoretes counted and located the number of “verses, words, and letters of each book,” thereby passing on the text that they have received. This intricate methodology in preservation is of extreme importance in modern textual studies,[10] and answers the reason why these reliable “medieval manuscripts” are commonly the underlying text of modern English translations[11] and represented in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (cf. English Standard Version).[12]

The concern for the accurate preservation of the Biblical text cannot, however, dismiss the fallible humanity which copied the text by hand, thereby producing inevitable scribal variations.[13] René Paché recounts the “herculean” endeavors of scholars evaluating the variants which have “crept into the manuscripts of the Scriptures” (e.g. B. Kennicott, Rossi, and J. H. Michaelis). These labors have also encompassed the analysis of the oldest versions and numerous citations and allusions from Jewish and Christian works. Robert D. Wilson’s observations in his work, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, noted that the 581 Hebrew manuscripts studied by Kennicott are composed of 280 million letters comprised of only 900,000 variants. These variants are boiled down to 150,000 because 750,000 are “insignificant changes” of letter switches.[14]

This is represented as 1 variant for every 316 letters, but putting these unimportant variants aside, the count stands at 1 variant for every 1,580 letters. Moreover, “very few variants occur in more than one of the 200-400 manuscripts of each book of the Old Testament.”[15] The point that needs recognition, however, is that we must recognize that the scribes have done their best, but there are variations that must be accounted for. These variations are not sufficient enough to call into question the adequate preservation of the Hebrew Bible.

Textual Evidence

After evaluating some of the problems in the textual evidence for the Old Testament, it can be said that the overall material adequately preserves the Hebrew Bible. This investigation is comparable to a roller coaster. There are both ups and downs, making one more confident while at the same time bringing some concern. For example, Peter Craigie notes, “there is no original copy of any Old Testament book; indeed, not even a single verse has survived in its original autograph. This is not a radical statement, simply a statement of fact.”[16]

The Bible believer might feel a bit disconcerted to know this fact, but there is no genuine need to feel this way. Truth endures because of its very nature no matter if one destroys the materials upon which it is written (Jer 36:23-32). Moreover, the scribal evidence adequately demonstrates an amazingly high level of accurate transmission and preservation of the Old Testament, even though the autographs are not available. One might speculate as to why these important documents are not providentially preserved for posterity, but the observation that such a course of action “is a highly dangerous procedure” is promptly recognized.[17]

Nevertheless, there are historical issues relating to this question and to the question of why there are such a small number of manuscript copies of the Old Testament when compared to the textual evidence of the New Testament. The most important fact is that the Hebrew scribes destroyed old manuscripts (autographs and copies). Clyde M. Woods writes:

The relative paucity [i.e. smallness of number] of earlier Hebrew manuscripts is due not only to the perishable nature of ancient writing materials (skins and papyri) and to the effort of hostile enemies to destroy the Hebrew Scriptures, but, perhaps more significantly, to the fact that the Jews evidently destroyed some worn out manuscripts to prevent their falling into profane hands.[18]

This explains why there is comparatively less textual witness for the Old Testament than for the New, however, as Donald Demaray notes, “there is the compensating factor that the Jews copied their Scriptures with greater care than did the Christians.”[19] There are accounts of scribes having burial ceremonies for the manuscripts,[20] and the storage “of scrolls [in a “Genizah” depository] no longer considered fit for use.”[21]

Cairo Genizah - Cambridge Library Blog - Fig1
Image Credit: Cambridge University Library Special Collections. “Fragments from the Cairo Genizah prior to conservation and cataloguing [sic]” (Emma Nichols, “Conservation of the Lewis-Gibson Collection: Re-Treatment of Manuscript Fragments from the Cairo Genizah“)

A second major factor is the A.D. 303 declaration by Emperor Diocletian to destroy any “sacred” literature associated with the Christian religion.[22] F. C. Grant frames the significance as follows:

As never before, the motive of the Great Persecution which began in 303 was the total extirpation of Christianity: […]. The first of Diocletian’s edicts directed to this end prohibited all assemblies of Christians for purposes of worship, and commanded that their churches and sacred books should be destroyed.[23]

This would further contribute to the lack of Hebrew Bible manuscripts.

Modern manuscript evidence for the Hebrew Bible, therefore, does not include the autographa (“original manuscripts”) and is generally never expected to, as desirable as the obtainment of these documents is.[24] What remains is the collection of manuscripts which together allow textual scholars to reproduce as close as possible the Hebrew Old Testament. This body of textual evidence goes very far to close the gap between the present day and the autographa. What are these manuscript witnesses to the Hebrew Bible? There are primary and secondary witnesses but where space is limited to the manuscripts.

Bruce Waltke observes that the textual witnesses to the text are the extant Hebrew manuscripts and Hebrew Vorlage obtained from the early versions of the Hebrew text.[25] While the term “manuscript” is typically recognized, the term Vorlage is probably unfamiliar to the general Bible student. This term refers to the text that “lies before” the translation or a theoretical “prototype or source document” from which it is based.[26] The Masoretic text (MT), the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) are the principal manuscript witnesses. These manuscripts coupled with the Vorlage are the “documents” at our disposal.

Craigie’s presentation on this material[27] when compared to Waltke leaves something to be desired, and that something is more data and deeper investigation. However, Craigie presents the evidence that the manuscript evidence (including early translations) extends from the 2nd century B.C to the MT of the late 9th century B.C.[28] Leaving a considerable gap, as he notes, of “several centuries, the time varying from one Old Testament book to another, between the earliest extant manuscripts and no longer existing original manuscripts.”[29]

Waltke presents a fuller presentation of the two substantiating Craigie’s observations and would extend from the available data that the Vorlage of some of the DSS and SP points to a Proto-MT at least somewhere in the 5th century B.C.[30] Moreover, the oldest evidence is found in 2 extremely small silver rolls containing the Aaronic priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26, dating to the 7th or 6th centuries B.C.[31] The text reads: 

May Yahweh bless you and keep you;
May Yahweh cause his face to
Shine upon you and grant you
Peace
(Michael D. Coogan)

Consequently, the worst case holds that the textual evidence goes only to the 2nd century, while the best case goes back some 300-500 years further back to a purer source as of yet unavailable.

H. G. G. Herklots has compiled a generous amount of information concerning the production of harmonization work which underlies the works of present-day manuscripts.[32] By doing this Herklots highlights that there are variations in the textual witnesses that the early stewards of the text attempted to dispose of but this has in some sense complicated the matter, making the study more laborious than it already is.[33] Variations are not as problematic as the skeptic supposes. To be sure, there are occasions of serious textual dissonance, but these are far from the plethoras of insignificant, obvious, and correctable variations.[34]

Waltke affirms, that “90 percent of the text contains no variants,” and of the remnant “10 percent of textual variations, only a few percent are significant and warrant scrutiny; 95 percent of the OT is therefore textually sound.”[35] Douglas Stuart notes that when considering the variations, “it is fair to say that the verses, chapters, and books of the Bible would read largely the same, and would leave the same impression with the reader, even if one adopted virtually every possible alternative reading.”[36] The variations of the extant textual evidence hardly, therefore, pose an indomitable problem to the adequate preservation of the Old Testament. The skeptic’s argument has no leg to stand upon.

Extra-Hebrew Bible Sources

Besides the extant Biblical literature of the Hebrew Bible, there are miscellaneous sources that demonstrate the veracity of the text, and implicitly note the accountability of the Hebrew Bible to a textual investigation. While these witnesses cannot reproduce the entire Old Testament, they can be compared with the manuscript evidence for accuracy and enlightened evidence when certain passages or words appear obscure. Briefly, consider two sources.

First, the Targums are a set of Jewish works in Aramaic that are paraphrastic (i.e. “interpretive translation”) of parts of the Old Testament.[37] Targums are said to be used in the synagogue to give the Aramaic-speaking Jews the “sense” of the Hebrew Bible.[38] This is comparable to the verbal translation that had to occur at the inauguration of the Law under Ezra, where there were assistants who “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (Neh 8:8 ESV).

Targums have been written upon every section of the Hebrew Bible; they ranged from “very conservative” to “interpretive” (Onkelos and Jonathon respectively), and are useful for the light they show upon traditional Jewish interpretation.[39] In the history of the transmission of the Hebrew Bible, at times the Targum was placed along the side of a Hebrew text, a Greek text, and a Latin text (as in the Complutensian Polyglot) to “enable a reader with little Hebrew to understand the meaning of the Scriptures in his own language.”[40] It seems agreeable to suggest and affirm that the Targum serves as an appropriate and practical source to obtain a general understanding of the Hebrew text, which will definitely aid the textual scholar in analyzing obscure passages.

Second, there is the New Testament, which is a virtual galaxy of Old Testament citations and allusions as it connects Jesus and his followers as a continuation -fulfillment- of its message. Consequently, it serves as a proper witness to the passages cited or alluded to. E. E. Ellis writes:

there are some 250 express citations of the Old Testament in the New. If indirect or partial quotations and allusions are added, the total exceeds a thousand.[41]

The Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Society, has 2 notable reference indexes. The first index lists the “Quotations” while the other catalogs “Allusions and Verbal Parallels.”[42]

The New Testament writers used and quoted not only the Hebrew Bible, but also the LXX (with some variations suggesting different Greek translations), and other sources such as the Old Testament Targums.[43] In addition, the New Testament, in terms of textual evidence (manuscript, early version, and patristic quotations), is the most attested document from antiquity[44] emphasizes the reliability of the New Testament evidence for the Old Testament.[45]

Concluding Thoughts

In summation, we have examined some of the evidence in a survey and observed that the typical skeptical claim against the Bible is fallacious. We are more than confident that the textual transmission of the Bible has adequately preserved the Bible. There are so many avenues from which data pours in that for all practical purposes the gap from these extant materials to the originals is irrelevant. Gaps of greater magnitude exist for other works of antiquity, but no finger of resistance is pressed against their adequate representation of the autographic materials.

The Bible experiences this sort of attack partly because ignorant friends of the Bible fighting with a broken sword affirm that we have the Bible and that it has no textual problems. Other times, skeptics misrepresent textual studies of the Bible in order to support their case that the Bible is not the inerrant inspired word of God. Be that as it may, the scribal evidence demands that the scribes held a high reverence and professionalism in the transmission of the text, the textual evidence is, though having some problems, near 100 percent sound. Moreover, the New Testament and Talmud are examples of sources that uphold the Biblical text and allow textual scholars to examine the accuracy of the textual data.

Finally, the skeptical attack has been viewed a considered only for it to be concluded that it is fallacious and of no need to be considered a viable position based on the evidence. In connection with this conclusion, observe some observations by Robert D. Wilson and Harry Rimmer. Rimmer writes that a scientific approach to the Bible inquiry is to adopt a hypothesis and then test it and see if there are supportive data that establishes it. He writes:

If the hypothesis cannot be established and if the facts will not fit in with its framework, we reject that hypothesis and proceed along the line of another theory. If facts sustain the hypothesis, it then ceases to be theory and becomes an established truth.[46]

Wilson makes a similar argument and ties an ethical demand to it. After ably refuting a critical argument against Daniel, Wilson remarks that when prominent critical scholars make egregious affirmations adequately shown to be so, “what dependence will you place on him when he steps beyond the bounds of knowledge into the dim regions of conjecture and fancy?.”[47]

Endnotes

  1. Donald Morgan, “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems,” Infidels Online (Accessed 2003). Mr. Morgan is just a classic example of the skepticism that many share regarding the integrity of the biblical record.
  2. Daniel Arnaud, “Scribes and Literature,” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.
  3. J. W. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” in The New Bible Dictionary, eds. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1254.
  4. Fredrick C. Grant, Translating the Bible (Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961), 8 (emph. added).
  5. Grant, Translating the Bible, 10-11.
  6. Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987).
  7. Clyde M. Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 98.
  8. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1255; René Paché, The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, trans. Helen I. Needham (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969), 187.
  9. Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), 92.
  10. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 92.
  11. Peter C. Craigie, The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986), 32.
  12. English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), ix.
  13. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 91.
  14. Robert D. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, revised ed., Edward J. Young (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1967), .
  15. ctd. in Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 189–90.
  16. Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
  17. Dowell Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament,” in God’s Word for Today’s World: The Biblical Doctrine of Scripture (Kosciusko, MI: Magnolia Bible College, 1986), 104: “The books of the New Testament were originally copied by amateurs,” the variants multiplied from persecution pressures and translations issues up until the “standardization of the text” in the 4th to 8th centuries A.D.
  18. Woods, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 96.
  19. Donald E. Demaray, Bible Study Sourcebook, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964), 35; Flatt, “Can we be Certain of the Text?,” 106.
  20. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
  21. Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57; Paché, Inspiration and Authority of Scripture, 187-88; F. C. Grant notes that the Synagogue of Old Cairo’s Geniza has been found, throwing “great light upon Biblical studies” (Translating the Bible, 40). Biblical scrolls were discovered from 1890 and, onwards including Targums and rabbinic literature (Martin, et al., “Texts and Versions,” 1256-57).
  22. Michael Grant, The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476 (1985; repr., New York, NY: Barnes & Noble, 1997), 208.
  23. Grant, Translating the Bible, 208.
  24. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 90.
  25. Bruce K. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation, eds. David S. Dockery, et al. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994), 159-68.
  26. Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2001), 128.
  27. Craigie, The Old Testament, 32-37.
  28. Craigie, The Old Testament, 36, 32.
  29. Craigie, The Old Testament, 34.
  30. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 162.
  31. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 163.
  32. H. G. G. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions (New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957), 29-40, 109-23
  33. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 116-23, Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 164-167.
  34. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
  35. Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157-58.
  36. qtd. in Waltke, “Old Testament Textual Criticism,” 157.
  37. D. F. Payne, “Targums,” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1238.
  38. Payne, “Targums,” 1238.
  39. Payne, “Targums,” 1239.
  40. Herklots, How Our Bible Came to Us, 35-36.
  41. E. E. Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” in The New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), 1071.
  42. Barbara Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002), 887-901.
  43. Ellis, “Quotations (in the New Testament),” 1071.
  44. Wayne Jackson, Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974), 70-75.
  45. Harry Rimmer, Internal Evidence of Inspiration, 7th edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946), 36.
  46. Wilson, A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, 98.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara, et al. Editors. The Greek New Testament. 4th rev. ed. Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 2002.

Arnaud, Daniel. “Scribes and Literature.” NEA 63.4 (2000): 199.

Craigie, Peter C. The Old Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1986.

Demaray, Donald E. Bible Study Sourcebook. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1964.

DeMoss, Matthew S. Pocket Dictionary for the Study of New Testament Greek. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001.

Ellis, E. E. “Quotations (in the New Testament).” Page 1071 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Flatt, Dowell. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – New Testament.” Pages 103-10 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Grant, Fredrick C. Translating the Bible. Greenwich, CT: Seabury, 1961.

Grant, Michael. The Roman Emperors: a Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 B.C.–A.D. 476. 1985. Repr., New York, NY: Barnes, 1997.

Herklots, H. G. G. How Our Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions. New York, NY: Oxford University, 1957.

Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith In an Age of Doubt. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press, 1974.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Translated by William Whiston. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Lightfoot, Neil R. How We Got the Bible. 2d edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.

Martin, W. J., et. al. “Texts and Versions.” Pages 1254-69 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Morgan, Donald. “Introduction to the Bible and Biblical Problems.” Infidels Online.

Paché, René. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture. Translated by Helen I. Needham. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1969.

Payne, D.F. “Targums.” Pages 1238-39 in The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962.

Rimmer, Harry. Internal Evidence of Inspiration. 7th edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946.

Waltke, Bruce K. “Old Testament Textual Criticism.” Pages 156-86 in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. Edited by David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994.

Wilson, Robert D. A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament. Revised edition. Revised by Edward J Young. Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1967.

Woods, Clyde. “Can we be Certain of the Text? – Old Testament.” Pages 94-102 in God’s Word for Today’s World: the Biblical Doctrine of Scripture. Don Jackson, Samuel Jones, Cecil May, Jr., and Donald R. Taylor. Kosciusko, MS: Magnolia Bible College, 1986.

Family Ministry: Evaluating Garland on “Power and Roles”

On By Jovan PayesIn 1 Timothy, 2017, Christian Leadership, family, Family Studies, Freed-Hardeman University, Genesis, Graduate Work, Jesus Studies, Mark, marriage, Marriage Studies, Research Papers, Women Studies

In the December 2015 issue of the Gospel Advocate magazine, my article, “The Widows Church of Christ” was published.[1] It focused on my experience one summer filling in at a small congregation near Freed-Hardeman University that at the time was composed exclusively of women and widows. In the piece, I briefly retold a conversation I had with one of the sisters there, rehearsed a few biblical examples of areas of women’s evangelistic involvement, and discussed women’s role in the assembly.

A reader called my attention to share her disagreement with the following few lines:

Scripture shows that Christian women prophesied and prayed in New Testament times (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 22:8-9), taught the Word of God accurately (Acts 18:26), and brought people to salvation (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:14-15). Christian women also served one another in many diverse ways (1 Timothy 5:2; Titus 2:3-5; Acts 9:36-43). Too, Christian women were patrons, fellow workers for the truth, and “house church” hostesses (Romans 16:1-16).[2]

She disagreed with my assessment, but not because the early church used women in its ministry. She said, “I disagree because we [i.e. women] are stupid.” I responded, “Who told you women are stupid?” She matter-of-factly responded, “we are.” I flatly denied her claim. I do not know who taught her this, all I know is that an entire life in the church has not changed her mind. Unfortunately, this has not been my only experience.

Many women in church ask me to speak on their behalf about ideas. Why? It is not because they are shy, but because they are “women” and women have no “right to share” ideas about the church. Perhaps it is not fair to put all the blame on the church. However, if the church truly embraces a culture of female dignity and equality as image-bearers of God, and equality as recipients of salvation (Gal 3:26-28), then it would be hoped that our sisters and fellow heirs in Christ should have a better perception of themselves as women in the church and society, and as wives and mothers in the home.

The issue at hand may be reduced to one word —power. Who has the power and who does not in the family, the church, in the world? Who should? Furthermore, what is power, and is it an innate quality or something else. The late Diana A. Garland (d. 2015), former dean of the Baylor School of Social Work at Baylor University, discusses power in detail within the sociological perspective of marital relationships and the impact of biblical interpretation in a chapter of her insightful volume, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide.[3]

In it, she provides a working definition of power, explores Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33-37, summarizes gender roles in the home within the American context of the last century, and offers her interpretations of certain key biblical passages (Gen 1-3; Col 3:18-19; Eph 5:21-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6; 1 Cor 7, etc). It is argued here that Garland has presented a cohesive argument regarding power and Jesus’ teaching about power, but they are not complete discussions. Furthermore, Garland presents a brief social-historical summarization of gender roles which reflects a hierarchy —a model of marital headship— that has a built-in “inferiority of women” point of view. Garland’s interpretive trajectory is built on this framework.

This is problematic because Garland generalizes this viewpoint as one that is shared across cultures and eras, which it is not; moreover, she proceeds an attempt to dispel the notion that the biblical references of marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. Garland offers an egalitarian framework, but although she raises important concerns, I believe a complementarian framework is a better-supported framework for matters of church work.

Definition of Power

Defining Power

In the first place, it is important to understand Garland’s point of view on power, gender roles, and hierarchy.[4] Garland provides a working definition of power that is helpful as a starting point for the present discussion and builds her discussion of power with M. Weber’s words in mind: “the probability that one person is able to exert his or her will despite resistance from others.” Such power may be an influence on another “whether or not that influence is resisted or even recognized by any of the actors.” From this it is suggested that power is not best thought of as a personal characteristic but instead as an influence from relational dynamics; thus, “power is,” Garland concludes, “a dynamic in all family relationships. We are always attempting to influence one another.”

While she regards power as ultimately “neutral” she points out that this relationship influence may be used for good (protect the vulnerable) or for ill (take advantage of the vulnerable).

Power and Gender Hierarchy

Garland paints a picture of a community and culture which shapes a power dynamic within the family that has historically given men more power in marriage than women.[5] Similarly, family theorists David H. Olson and John DeFrain suggest: “Tradition has dictated that considerable power go to the males in the family,” and add the caveat, “but women often have more power than they or anyone else admit.”[6] Still, Garland argues that culture and economics have played a historic role in reinforcing certain gender roles in the home and the workforce.

For example, Garland argues that in “traditional” homes husbands earned a living for the family, and gave their wives “an allowance,” and the wife, in turn, managed the emotional and interpersonal relationships of the home. As an extension of the prevailing culture, the church followed suit by emphasizing strong hierarchal gender roles where men had authority and power, while women were expected to submit and obey their husbands in keeping with a military-type paradigm of authority and submission.[7]

Vulnerable and Inferior Women

This unavoidably led to what Garland speaks of as a view of hierarchy—or headship—with a built-in “inferiority of woman” model. In this view, women are vulnerable, in need of protection, in need of structure, and in need of a man to insulate them from the attacks of Satan.[8] She cites Judith Miles as her “poster child” of this viewpoint, who argues in her own work, “I was to treat my own human husband as though he were the Lord, resident in our own humble home.”[9] Consequently, she would never question her husband on anything because such was to question the Lord himself.

Unfortunately, not only did some hold that women were theologically vulnerable, but some even advocated women were emotionally not “up to the task” of ministry. The rise of a liberation movement of women stems was therefore a response to this form of hierarchy model that held an implied inferiority view of women. As the woman’s liberation movement emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, the church, according to Garland, was threatened by the rise of demands by women for better (egalitarian) family relationships.

This is Garland’s starting point: a historically rigid view of hierarchy and gender roles in society and the home as reinforced by society and church, which not only implied an “inferior woman” model but in many cases overstated the headship of man.

Inferiority Illustrated

Garland’s portrayal should not be dismissed out of hand as it relates to the American church. The relationship between culture and church is not always easily discernible. The church has been affected by this type of “inferior women” hierarchy and has been reaping the whirlwind of this type of gender oversimplification. A few examples are in order.

Roy H. Lanier, Sr., in his Contending for the Faith column, “The Problem Page,” once responded to a letter from an elder’s wife.[10] Her problem focused on her husband’s mistreatment and undermining of her maternal role based on stereotypical female “problems” (emotional and biological). His dismissive treatment of her had now trickled down to their children. Lanier’s response was extensive and centered on a demonstration from Ephesians 5:21–33 that headship does not permit, nor condone, such treatment. Lanier argued, “it is obvious that her husband does not love her as Christ loves His church.”[11]

In F. Dale Simpson’s 1972 book on leadership, Simpson addressed the problem of women in the mission field: “most married missionaries have to overcome the resistance of their wives to go to a foreign mission field.”[12] Therefore, while

women are biologically stronger than men… are as intelligent as men and more careful about details… women are not as temperamentally suited for carrying out the great commission as men.

F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age

Simpson offers only his experience and his opinion about the temperament of women in the mission field.

Long-time missionary and educator, Earl D. Edwards, provides a correction based on several behavioral studies.[13] Edwards rightly points out that different genders tend to have differences that are present at birth and socially amplified; yet, such gender-specific roles (functions) are gender differences and are not a reflection of gender inferiorities or superiorities.[14]

The Struggle is Real

In short, Garland is addressing a real problem about church culture and power, and how it relates to women and wives. It strikes at the heart of a woman’s worth in the home and in the church, and in ministry in general. The church would be wise to hear her call to be alert to this problem. However, Garland does not reject a simply abusive hierarchal power within the marriage as expressed in certain stereotyped gender roles. She clearly rejects any hierarchy with a power structure within marriage—i.e., male headship is not biblical and therefore not normative biblical teaching.

Jesus’ Teaching on Power

In the second place, Garland moves toward a brief exploration of Jesus’ teaching about power in Mark 9:33–37 and uses it to frame her discussion of power dynamics within two broad Christian family contexts: gender roles and discipline.[15] 

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?” But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, “If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all.” And he took a child and put him in the midst of them, and taking him in his arms, he said to them, “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” (Mark 9:33–37 ESV)

In this passage, Jesus’ illustrates and demonstrates the true use of power in light of the fact that the disciples had been arguing over “who was the greatest” (Mark 9:34).[16] The passage is, then, a corrective focused on “how his followers should use what they have to serve others rather than exalt themselves.”[17] Indeed, greatness is measured in service, in welcoming the smallest, least powerful, to the most vulnerable of society (Mark 9:35). Unfortunately, the disciples still did not retain the lesson since Jesus must correct them again (Mark 10:13–14); yet, Garland sees Jesus’ point as follows:

Rather than using your power to benefit yourself, use it to serve and benefit others. Order your life as Christians by protecting and caring for those most at risk of others abusing their power.[18]

Diana Garland, Family Ministry

Garland affirms that Jesus “used his own power to care for them” by completing the passion of the cross which he predicts three times (Mark 8:31; 9:30–31; 10:32–34). Power is never conserved for oneself but instead is the instrument to serve others. Elsewhere Jesus says, 

The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. (Luke 22:25–26).

Garland’s Miscue

What appears to be lacking in Garland’s treatment of power in Mark 9:33–37 is the broader literary concern with discipleship in the kingdom of God which begins in Mark 8:26 and ends in Mark 10:52.[19] This is not a small matter because, in Mark 8:34, Jesus frames the discussion of true discipleship: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

To follow Jesus means to submit to his plan, to submit to one’s role in the kingdom of God. “Discipleship… comes then with the commitment to humility and self-denial, rejection and suffering.”[20] The hard lesson the disciples continued to fail to appropriate is that the kingdom of God is at the disposal of others—especially the vulnerable—is the transformative experience of discipleship. Thus, power and one’s role are interwoven. Jesus demonstrates this by submitting to his role as God’s servant on the cross (Luke 22:42).

The matter is not simply about power and influence, for Mark 9:33–37 and Mark 10:13–16 teach that discipleship includes one’s submission to God’s transforming kingdom. It is not that Garland is wrong, but that her framing appears incomplete which, for the attention given to her work overall, is a significant oversight.

Overgeneralizations on Power and Gender Roles

In the third place, Garland generalizes that power and gender roles have been male-dominated across cultures and eras, which it is not.[21] This is an important drawback. The American church may be influenced by the surrounding culture and societal gender role expectations (even as traditional roles are presently eroding), but extrapolating from it that all cultures share a similar or comparable power structure along gender lines in families is problematic.

Cultural Anthropology

Not all cultures share the same expectations for gender roles. For example, Paul G. Hiebert, anthropologist and missionary, writes,

while most societies place some responsibility on the father for rearing the child, this is not universal. But the biological and social dependency of an infant on its mother is recognized in all social societies.[22]

Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology

It appears that certain biological relationships (mother-child) have built-within them influences that exert power on behaviors, and while they may manifest differently in various cultures, they do not imply inferiority or lack of equality. These relationships, do, however, create forms of power management that can create a displacement of power. This is a vital element to evaluate Garland’s overarching premise that power exercised implies the inferiority of one influenced by another.

The Psychology of Parental Authority

Psychologists David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall describe that within parent-child relationships authority, or, power, is observable in three parenting styles: authoritarian, permissive, and authoritative.[23] The extent to which parents try to control their children is, “the most heavily researched aspect of parenting.” Parents either “set rules and expect obedience” (authoritarian) which tends to affect their children’s social skills and self-esteem. Or, they “give in to their children’s desires” (permissive) which tends to develop children who are agreeable and immature. And, parents who “are both demanding and responsive” (authoritative) tend to produce children who are well-rounded emotionally and socially.

A parent’s use, abuse, or nonuse of power can tend to have drastically different outcomes. The presumed element here in these relationships is that a parent is in a hierarchal relationship with their children (cf. Eph 6:1-4), and within this relationship, power is being managed and applied. Garland’s overarching point is that this is in principle antithetical to Jesus’ teaching on power, but power and role are inseparable. 

Family Power Management

Olson and DeFrain explore the wide range of “family power” management which is of significance here. According to them, “family power is the ability of one family member to change the behavior of the other family members.”[24] And while Garland concedes that “power” and “influence” are morally neutral, she approaches the subject of gender roles, power, and marriage from a morally negative point of view. Yet, as Olson and DeFrain point out, power —particularly family power— is a complex, dynamic interactive feature of a family system. Everyone in a family has power and everyone exerts it on the other member of the family. Even infants, according to Garland, have power. Yet, Garland suggests that a male headship hierarchy historically has mitigated women’s power in the marriage relationship, and therefore, empowers men and silences women, encouraging male power and delegitimizing female power and influence. Garland is not wrong if painting with broad strokes.

Marital Hierarchy

Garland’s argument that the removal of the hierarchy in male-female roles in marriage and family, and therefore must be applied to the church, is problematic.

Garland attempts to dispel the notion that the biblical references to marriage and family headship do not teach an “inferiority of women” model. The creation account in Genesis 1–3 “provides,” according to Garland, “the primary foundation for a hierarchical understanding of husband-wife relationships.”[25] The order of creation does not prove male headship nor female submission; instead, Garland proposes that the pre-fall notation of “them” in Genesis 1:26–31 suggests shared dominion, shared identity, and a shared name. Moreover, the woman was not simply a “helpmeet” (KJV), but instead, is a soul-mate helper who is a “bone-and-flesh mirror image of the man who remains incomplete without her.”[26]

The Hebrew term ‘ezer certainly points to a “help” that comes from someone strong (Gen 2:20), as it is used in “warrior-esque” passages (Deut 33:29; Ezek 12:14), and is even used to describe God (Exod 18:4; Psa 121:1–2, 8). Thus, this is not a chain-of-command relationship where Eve is the weaker and more vulnerable of the two.

Garland provides a view of these passages that are cohesive and within reason of the evidence, but it is in Genesis 3:16, where the trouble lies. Garland argues that change after the fall is not a curse from God, but instead a pronouncement by God of how the relationship between Adam and Eve will now be.

In her view, God is being descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not an edict that imposes a new hierarchical relationship based on gender. Observe Garland’s argument that the fall

results in dire consequences for their relationship: the husband now shall rule over the wife. This new development implies that it was not what God had originally determined for their relationship. The dominance of the husband in Genesis 3:16 is described, not prescribed… it is the consequence of their joint disobedience.

Thus, the idea of hierarchical gender relationships is nothing but “a perversion of God’s intention in creation. The partnership has been destroyed. Sin disfigures the good God offered us.“[27] A variety of authors have offered a similar take in recent years. Linda L. Belleville, for example, is certainly at the forefront of pressing this interpretive option against the traditional view of male headship from Genesis 2–3.[28] Belleville, likewise affirms:

male rule finds no explicit place in the Bible’s theology at all. Adam’s sin is noted (Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:20-22), as is Eve’s deception (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14). But the man’s rule over the woman is not cited even once (not even for the husband-wife relationship). The simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT. The woman is nowhere commanded to obey the man (not even her husband), and the man is nowhere commanded to rule the woman (not even his wife).[29]

Belleville likewise suggests that Genesis 3:16 is a statement of the natural outcomes of the husband-wife relationship to follow due to the “fallen condition” of the world.

Garland, Headship, and the Biblical Narrative

It is the view taken here, in response to Garland––and to some degree Belleville––that Genesis 1:1–2:3 and 2:4–25 do provide the foundation for the traditional view of gender roles and should be regarded as normative.[30] The account of day six in Genesis 1 is a broad-picture passage. It speaks to the equality shared between man and woman as a distinct created order, or class, that is made in the image of God, and for this reason, have a human responsibility together to “have dominion… Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:26–28). But, when day six is given an expanded view in 2:4–25, the foundation for how human power is to be managed is explained—it is to be done in a relationship with someone just like Adam.

This power and influence are managed between husband and wife (2:20–24). And while the family power style is not explained in Genesis 2, Genesis 3:16 becomes an informative model of the way the husband-wife relationship exists outside the garden due to sin as God punished Adam (3:17–19) and the serpent (3:14–15), so God punishes Eve (3:16).

Problems with the Descriptive View

The argument that God is only describing how things will be, clearly undermines several theological themes which begin at this point. These are not mere descriptions of the fallen world.

First, God declared the serpent’s dust-filled days but also that he will feel the consequence of a crushed head by “the woman’s” offspring. This is not descriptive, this is a proclamation of Divine action and judgment upon the serpent, and salvation for humanity (John 16:11).

Second, God declared that Adam would face further hardship in the production of food and nourishment. Adam already understood work. He knew how to til and maintain the vegetation of the garden since day six (2:15). Whatever is forthcoming outside the garden for him is new and punishment for his sin. They are consequential.

And finally, God addresses Eve’s actions with further pain associated with childbearing and nuance to the relationship between her and her husband. When God says, “I will surely” do this and that, it must be interpreted as a consequence. The most pertinent here is the following, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16b).

The curse upon Eve is clearly speaking of a matter of power management within the husband-wife relationship. It is the same vocabulary and issue of power management in Genesis 4:7 with Cain and his personified anger who desired to control Cain. Cain must rule over its desire. Moreover, the language is found again in the Song of Solomon, where the bride turns this “curse” into a wedding vow, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me” (Song 7:10). Contrary to Belleville’s claim that the “simple fact is that male rule does not reappear in the OT,” the Bible does recognize implicitly male headship.

Biblically Grounded Patriarchy is Never Condemned

Interestingly, Old Testament scholar Bruce K. Waltke points out that of all the social injustices mentioned by the prophets of Israel, patriarchy is never mentioned among them. Following Abraham Heschel, he argues:

They challenged the injustices of their culture. The prophet is an iconoclast, challenging the apparently holy, revered and awesome beliefs cherished as certainties, institutions endowed with supreme sanctity. They exposed the scandalous pretensions, they challenged kings, priests, institutions and even the temple.[31]

Waltke is probably correct when he argues that the problem that often affects interpretation is the definitions of concepts of patriarchy and equality brought to bear on the texts of Scripture. Eve was every bit Adam’s equal. They both shared the power and authority over the creation given to them by God. That power was to be worked out in their marriage in some form of family power style.

In Genesis and throughout the rest of the Bible, the family power structure to manage power is a hierarchy, with the husband as head of the wife and as Christ head of the church (Eph 5:23). Yet, such headship does not exist in a vacuum. A husband’s headship does not exist properly without being sacrificial, loving, or nourishing. Neither does it embrace a tyrannical hold on his wife. He is to be as self-sacrificing as Jesus was and is for the church. If the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the church —his bride— then one should be careful in calling headship structure “a perversion of God’s intention” and a “partnership” destroyed as Garland has. For this reason, her work and view would be detrimental to family ministry.

Endnotes

  1. Jovan Payes, “The Widows Church of Christ,” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.
  2. Payes, “Widows Church of Christ,” 30.
  3. “Power and Roles” is chapter 11 in Diana R. Garland, Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide, 2d ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012), 370–411.
  4. Garland, Family Ministry, 370. All proceeding quotations in this paragraph are from page 370.
  5. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  6. David H. Olson and John DeFrain, Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths, 4th ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2003), 213. Power, control, and authority are continuously exercised in families, and struggles for personal power in families are exceedingly common. 
  7. Garland, Family Ministry, 372.
  8. Garland, Family Ministry, 373.
  9. Ibid.
  10. Roy H. Lanier, Sr., “An Elder’s Wife has a Problem,” 20 Years of the Problem Page (Abilene, TX: Quality, 1984), 1:177–81.
  11. Lanier, “An Elder’s Wife,” 178.
  12. F. Dale Simpson, Leading the First-Century Church in the Space Age (Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972), 121–22. 
  13. Earl D. Edwards, “The Role of Women in the Work and Worship of the Church,” Protecting Our Blind Side: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ (Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007), 255–57.
  14. Edwards, “Role of Women,” 156–57.
  15. Garland, Family Ministry, 371–72.
  16. Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version of The Holy Bible (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001).
  17. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  18. Garland, Family Ministry, 371.
  19. Jovan Payes, “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak,” In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark, ed. Douglas Y. Burleson (Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015), 376–77.
  20. Payes, “Leaders Stand Up,” 376.
  21. Garland, Family Ministry, 372–92.
  22. Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology, 2d ed. (1983; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 197.
  23. David G. Myers and C. Nathan DeWall, Psychology in Everyday Life, 3rd ed. (New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014), 84.
  24. Olson and DeFrain, Marriage and Families, 213.
  25. Garland, Family Ministry, 374.
  26. Garland, Family Ministry, 376.
  27. Garland, Family Ministry, 376–77. Emphasis original.
  28. See Linda L. Belleville, “Women in Ministry: An Egalitarian Perspective,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, rev. ed., ed. James R. Beck (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 21–103.
  29. Belleville, “Women in Ministry,” 31.
  30. Bruce K. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40; reprinted in Bruce K. Waltke, The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 457–75.
  31. Waltke, “The Role of Women in the Bible,” 30.

Bibliography

Beck, James R. Editor. Two Views on Women in Ministry. Revised edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Edwards, Earl D. Protecting Our “Blind Side”: A Discussion of Contemporary Concerns in churches of Christ. Henderson, TN: Hester Publications, 2007.

Garland, Diana R. Family Ministry: A Comprehensive Guide. 2d edition. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hiebert, Paul G. Cultural Anthropology. 2d edition. 1983. Repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Lanier, Roy H., Sr. 20 Years of the Problem Page. 2 volumes. Abilene, TX: Quality Publications, 1984.

Myers, David G., and C. Nathan DeWall. Psychology in Everyday Life. 3rd edition. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2014.

Olson, David H., and John DeFrain. Marriages and Families: Intimacy, Diversity, and Strengths. 4th edition. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Payes, Jovan. “Leaders Stand Up for the Weak.” Pages 375–81 in In My Place: The Servant Savior in Mark. Edited by Douglas Y. Burleson. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 2015.

_____. “The Widows Church of Christ.” Gospel Advocate 157.12 (Dec 2015): 29–30.

Simpson, F. Dale. Leading the First Century Church in the Space Age. Abilene, TX: Quality Printing, 1972.

Waltke, Bruce K. The Dance Between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013.

_____. “The Role of Women in the Bible.” Crux 31.3 (Sept 1995): 29–40.

A Time for Self-Defense (Esther 8)

On By Jovan PayesIn Commentary, Freed-Hardeman University, Lectures, Old Testament

[This is a pre-publication version of the chapter submission for the 87th Annual Freed-Hardeman University Lectureship (2023), Henderson, Tennessee. This is part of the lectureship book: For Such a Time as This: Restoring God’s People in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (Link to book). Listen to the audio lecture as delivered here.]

In 483 B.C., Esther (Hadassah, Esth. 2:7) and her adoptive Jewish father-figure Mordecai rise to the innermost court of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I, 486–465 B.C.) only to face the malcontent Haman who desires to eliminate the Jews spread across the vast Persian empire[1] through a state-sanctioned “pogrom” (Esth. 3:1–15, 5:9–14).[2] In chapter eight, Esther and Mordecai take advantage of Haman’s missteps and execution (cf. Esth. 6:13; 7:1–10).

The ascendant Mordecai uses his newly minted authority to issue a “self-defense” law protecting these diaspora Jews from this state-sanctioned genocide. They may now protect themselves from Haman’s pogrom across the Persian empire (Esth. 8:9). Esther inaugurates the Feast of Purim to commemorate their deliverance (Esth. 9:20–32). Since ancient times, the book is read as part of this spring feast along with “noisy, merry and secular” merriment (Webb 111).

The narrative of Esther leads the reader to reflect on the interplay between “coincidence,” human evil, divine sovereignty, and Israel’s preservation through its conflict-resolution story-arch. Esther 8 continues to speak to God’s people who must often live in hostile, secular, or unfavorable societies, calling on the faithful to endure the “Hamans” of their own time and to trust in God who can reverse the fate of his people.

EXEGESIS

Genre and Literary Movement

Esther is written in historical prose and outlines this history in dilemma-resolution format: how will the Jews of the Persian diaspora survive a state-sanctioned pogrom? The answer provides the historical foundation for the celebration of Purim. The narrative moves forward through a series of unfolding “coincidences” within the Persian court of Ahasuerus quickly immersing the reader into the crux of the story (Arnold and Beyer 272).[3] The artistry and realism of this story rely heavily on humor (satire), irony, and recurring motifs (Longman and Dillard 219–20). Clearly, Esther offers a unique kind of historical storytelling, one which forces the reader to conclude God is at work protecting his people from genocide.

Esther 8:1–17 is critical to the literary progression of the book’s plot as it functions as a bridge to the resolution of the narrative (LaSor, Hubbard, Bush 534–37). Haman’s plot to “destroy” the Jews by decree in a year’s time is introduced (3:1–15), and Mordecai successfully enlists Queen Esther to intercede (4:1–5:8). Matters complicate when an infuriated Haman plans to kill Mordecai on the “gallows” (5:9–6:14). [All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version unless otherwise noted.]

During a feast, the effect of Haman’s pogrom on Esther and against her people is revealed to the king; then, by a colossal misunderstanding, Haman is executed on the gallows built for Mordecai (7:1–10). Mordecai ascends to Haman’s position, with his estate, and then writes an edict authorizing the provincial Jews to protect themselves (8:1–17). This only partially resolves the problem. The full resolution takes place later in the “battle” of Purim (9:1–19).

Exegetical Analysis

Esther 8:1–17 reports how Mordecai and Esther “revoke” the disgraced Haman’s pogrom by authorizing the diaspora Jews across the Persian empire to protect themselves.

The Succession of Mordecai (Esth. 8:1–2)

Haman is treated as an “enemy of the state.” Following Haman’s execution (Esth. 7:10), the “foe and enemy” of the Jews is treated as “an enemy of the state” by the confiscation and transference of his estate and his position to Mordecai (Esth. 7:6; 8:1–2). Zeresh, Haman’s wife, had previously given him an ominous prediction of his impending failure (6:13). King Ahasuerus moves quickly to settle the custody of Haman’s estate, his position, and the royal signet ring.

According to ancient custom, traitors and other enemies of the state would have their wealth confiscated by the state. Haman himself included this element in his plan, likely to remunerate the potential taxes lost with the elimination of the Jews (Esth. 3:9, 13; Berlin 41). Limiting the evidence to ancient historians aware of this practice in Persia, consider two examples. Herodotus reports a comparable story that King Darius I (521–486 BC) avenged the wrongful “destruction” of Mitrobates and his son by executing Oroetes (Satrap of Lydia), confiscating his estate and returning it to Susa (Histories 3.127–129).[4] Josephus published a letter from Cyrus II (559–529 BC) to the returning Jewish exiles under governor Zerubbabel, cautioning that any Jews who violate his “injunctions” for the rededication of the temple would be crucified and “their substance brought into the king’s treasury” (Antiquities 11.17; Ezra 6:11).[5]

The second movement is the promotion of Mordecai to Haman’s role as “vizier.”[6] Interestingly, Herodotus recounts the promotion to “ruler of Cilicia” of a relatively unknown Persian figure named Xenagoras, for saving King Xerxes’ brother Masistes (Histories 9.107.3). The event is comparable, but not exact, in that Mordecai was already known and honored by the King; further, Mordecai is elevated much higher (Esth. 3:1–2).

Wasting no time, on the second day of the feast (Esth. 7:2; 8:1), Mordecai receives the king’s signet ring previously entrusted to Haman (Esth. 3:10; 8:1). This is a significant move of power reversal. Apparently, the ring remained with Haman until his execution, but now it is entrusted to Mordecai (Esth. 8:2). This brief “ceremony” mirrors the problem-solution pattern of Haman’s edict, finalizing with Mordecai’s public recognition as the king’s “vizier” (8:15–17). Progress toward a resolution continues, and hope is taking root.

The Countermand of Haman’s Pogrom (Esth. 8:3–8)

Haman’s death has not annulled his pogrom, however, since it is irrevocable (Esth. 3:12). Clearly, the narrative has shifted in the right direction but not far enough. All is not lost, but all is not gained. Queen Esther and the newly minted vizier must continue to find a way to realize the hope of “relief and deliverance” the Jews desperately need as the pogrom looms nine months away (Esth. 8:9, 12). Will it come from “another place” (Esth. 4:14)—i.e., God—or will Esther and Mordecai sense the urgency to use their high position to preserve their fellow Jews (Kaiser, et al. 252)? Will these series of fortunate events continue?

Esther initiates a dialogue with King Ahasuerus by daringly asserting herself through humble intercession (fell to his feet, weeping, pleading; Esth. 8:3). Esther is still committed to her resolve, “if I perish, I perish” (Esth. 4:16), as her words were about a week’s time old (Esth. 4:16; 5:1, 4, 8, 9; 6:1; 7:1; 8:1). Esther’s gamble proved successful again (cf. Esth. 5:2), as the king grants her another unbidden audience by “holding out the golden scepter to Esther” (Esth. 8:4). This was a necessary risk, nothing had been truly gained since the pogrom was an unalterable law (Esth. 3:6). In the words of Cline, “How can an unalterable law be altered?” (Cline 393). This will prove to be the wrong question to ask. The king is asked to act one more time against Haman’s “plot” (Esth. 8:3). The solution does not prove to be straightforward.

The dialogue is framed as a short problem-solution interaction (Esth. 8:5–8). The king seems not to understand that Esther is representing more than just herself and Mordecai (Esth. 7:3–6). It is clear that Esther uses it all (her ancestry, her marriage, her favor) to her advantage as she seemly goes beyond court language. The rhetoric is loaded with this history in mind and she has not been afraid to use it on behalf of her people (Esth. 5:8; 7:3). She presumes on the “eye” of the king which she has gained (Esth. 8:5). Gaining the king’s favor has been her path from her time in the harem and nights with the king (Esth. 2:3, 12, 14), to gain his favor, love, and the crown (Esth. 2:15, 17).

The king himself will not personally “revoke” Haman’s letters with the plot against the Jews (Esth 8:5, 8). The word translated “revoke” (shūb), with a basic sense of “turn, return,” carries a wide spectrum of meanings in different contexts and relationships (BDB 996–99). This is apparent in Esther, such as a spatial “return” to a person (Esth. 2:14; 6:12; 7:8; 9:25), a verbal “response” (Esth. 4:13, 15), and politically to “reverse” a law (Esth. 8:5). The problem, again, is the law is an official irrevocable edict of the king (Esth. 8:8; cf. 1:9).

The king’s move is to delegate to another to write the law. Esther and Mordecai may use the authority of his name and his seal to “write” as they “please with regard to the Jews” (Esth. 8:8). Although a number of critical scholars balk at the supposed flippant way these irrevocable laws and their despotic use of power are enacted in Esther, the narrator’s historical knowledge of the inner workings of the Persian court commend good reason to believe its realism (Longman and Dillard 216, Archer 464–67, Kaiser, et al. 254). There is a subtle wrinkle in Ahasuerus’ words to Esther and Mordecai, as he seems to imply there is a way to countermand a law in such a way as to make it powerless (Esth. 8:10–12). They received authority, but not a map, highlighting that this could have gone as bad as it went well.

The Ascendency of Mordecai (Esth. 8:9–17)

Esther 8:9a timestamps Mordecai’s “self-defense law” to Sivan, twenty-third, 472/1 BC. This is about two months after Haman had enacted his pogrom on Nisan, the thirteenth of the same year (Esth. 3:7, 12). Looking forward, Mordecai only had about nine months to protect the Jews in Susa and across the Persian empire from genocide (Esth 8:12).

Esther 8:9b–14 reports how Mordecai commanded the king’s scribes to write the countermand “self-defense” edict and to dispatch its copies across the vast terrain of the Persian empire in a hurry. It is seemingly Mordecai’s first act of business. Little did Mordecai expect that when he exchanged messages with Esther to take her newfound position to protect the Jews (Esth. 4:11–17), he himself would also be God’s providential instrument. He looked for “relief and deliverance” from “another place,” even from Esther. This was perhaps an unexpected turn of events, as are all moments when God places “us” into the heart of the story.

Cline describes Mordecai’s countermand as “ingenious” (393). The king provided no direct advice but seemingly implied there was a loophole. Mordecai, then, read between the lines of power and “effectively” annulled it. Seemingly, he concluded that if a law cannot be revoked, it can be countermanded. The narrative mirrors Haman’s enactment of his pogrom (Esth. 3:12–15; 8:9b–14).[7] Mordecai’s decree is a revised duplicate of Haman’s original, but with significant differences. He adds the permission of the Jews to defend themselves with lethal force, even permitting them to plunder their aggressor’s goods (Esth. 8:11). Again, there has been movement but no final resolution. Two Persian laws exist, one which allows the Persians to attack the Jews, and another authorizing the Jews to protect themselves.

This new decree is sent out by “couriers, mounted on their swift horses that were used in the king’s service…” (Esth. 8: 10, 14). There was a courier road system established by Darius I, known as the “Royal Road” which extended from Susa to Sardis in the west (Yaumachi 1:343). On average, a route of 1,700 miles could be covered by the average person in ninety days (19 miles a day), but royal couriers (rākibum) could cover the same mileage in a week (243 miles a day) as they traded horses and rode through the night (Herodotus, Histories, 8.98; 5.52–53). Additionally, the “swift horses” (rékesh) are specialized horses used in the king’s royal dispatch systems (1 Kings 4:28; Mic. 1:13; BDB 940). In the course of about nine months (Sivan to Adar), these riders would carry multiple copies of the decree, likely engraved clay tablets, from Susa to all the provinces from India to Ethiopia.

The narrative quickly fades and opens to the public presentation of Mordecai in Susa, the capital, arrayed as a member of the royal court (fine royal garments, a great golden crown; Esth. 8:15). This is quite a turn of events for what initially seemed to be a “tag along” figure to his adoptive daughter. Only through a series of fortunate events, interwoven with despair, had he come to this point as the “invisible” hand of God protected his people in the diaspora of Persia. Mordecai’s presentation to the public is likely the first sign to the Jewish community in Susa that things in Persia have truly changed in their favor (Esth. 8:17).

What had become his ascendency story, quickly became the cause of the city of Susa to rejoice; but now more importantly this transition of power gifted the Jewish people four things: light, gladness, joy, and honor (Esth. 8:16). Additionally, the favor now given to Mordecai and his people led many citizens of Persia to “declared” (or “professed”) “themselves Jews” as well (Esth. 8:17). The form (miteyahadim) is unique in the Hebrew Bible. It is not clear if this is a “conversion” to Jewish beliefs, customs, or practices; or, pragmatically, aligning with the Jews for advantage (Berlin, 80; Mangano 110). Berlin is right, however, “there was no middle ground” (80). Much had been gained, but things still wait to play out. The glow of hope is on the horizon.

Finally, there is some “unfinished business” to round out this discussion. Since ancient rabbinic times, it has been suggested that the tension between Haman, the Agagite (Esth. 3:1), and the Jews in Persia materialized an extended hostility between God and the Amalekites (Webb 126–28). Exodus 17:14b reads, “that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” The notation that Haman is a descendent of Agag, king of the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:8), seems to lend support to this view, though other possibilities may exist. In parody to the various nations with long-held grudges against Israel (Ammon, Edom, Moab, etc.; Ezek. 25:1–17), Mordecai seemingly only inflames Haman’s preexisting hostility toward all the Jews. This ancient tension seems like a likely explanation for the roots of Haman’s anti-Semitism.

Again, what are the odds that the chief antagonist and architect for the genocide was a descendant of Agag, king of the Amalekites the enemies of God (Deut. 25:17–18)? What are the odds, that the man who replaces him is Mordecai, a descendant from the same clan of King Saul (Esth. 2:5; 1 Sam. 9:1–2)? The demise of Haman and the ascendency of Mordecai seem to play out as part of God’s continued protection of Israel even if they are in Persia (Gen. 12:3).

ILLUSTRATIONS

The Hiddenness of God

In the original Quantum Leap series (1989–1993), a fictional Dr. Samuel Beckett created the technology to time travel within his own lifetime. The opening narrator to the show says Beckett was

driven by an unknown force to change history for the better… leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong…[8]

It was the first show I watched where a Sci-Fi show made God a subtle but hidden main character, who was significantly aligned with Beckett’s desire to do good. Even in the reboot, they raised the potential of God again,

Something supernatural is not entirely impossible. Sam Beckett believed that God was guiding the quantum accelerator.[9]

There are times in our lives when all we know is that God is doing something in our lives, but we must live in faithful service to God with the hope that we may one day learn what that “something” is.

The Corruption of Power

Although humanity was created to subdue the earth and have dominion over it for good (Gen. 1:28), history is replete of individuals amassing and abusing their power. These regimes have brought tremendous human evil into the world. Clay Jones outlines a short but appalling list (49–56):

  • Russia’s starving to death of 5–7 million people to quell an uprising of Ukrainians between 1932–1933;
  • Nazi Germany’s genocide of 6 million Jews and an equal amount of Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Gypsies, and the handicapped;
  • in December 1937, 300,000 people were raped, tortured, and murdered by the Japanese army in an event known as “The Rape of Nanking”;
  • Mao Tse-tung (d. 1976) is known to have buried alive 46,000 scholars in China;
  • since 1973, the legal system of the United States has permitted us and our neighbors to put to death more than 58 million babies through abortion.

Esther 8 reminds us of the importance to use opportunities of power to protect, with force if necessary, the vulnerable against evil forces (Creach 96).[10]

APPLICATIONS

Timeless Applications

First, Let us pray for our civic and religious leaders “that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way” (1 Tim. 2:2). Imperfect people of God can be used as part of God’s sovereign economy over world affairs. The portrayals of Esther and Mordecai are not always flattering; in fact, they are very compromising.

Esther works her way through the harem to win the king’s favor. Mordecai is an arrogant man, whose spite likely accelerated Haman’s attack on the Jews. Nevertheless, they accepted that God is working through their rise to the royal court and used their opportunity to be God’s instruments to protect his people (Esth. 4:14; 8:1–17).

Second, let us live with confidence that God intervenes in our lives. Divine providence is purposeful intervention. A definition of providence defined by the “natural law” of deism is a dead end, as it fails to account for the supernatural nature of an interventional God. Providence is by definition a supernatural manipulation of the human story to accomplish God’s will.

The ascendency of Mordecai and the “self-defense” law of Esther 8 do not happen without a series of seemingly disconnected events orchestrated together for the common good of the diaspora Jews. Perhaps, providence may be described as a “nudge” (Philm. 15), but that nudge is the result of supernatural intervention.

Timely Applications

First, let us embrace the “exile” and “pilgrim” components of our faith. We do not have a border-bound nation as such, we are pilgrims and our citizenship is in heaven (1 Pet. 1:1, 17; 2:11). Most commentaries highlight the secular nature of Esther and the Jews in Persia, and yet, it is rich with faith, divine providence, divine faithfulness, and feasting and fasting. Western Christians are facing the overt secularization of the culture and our youth. Every generation needs to learn how to navigate the societies of our birth with love and godly concern to share the gospel, with the knowledge that our citizenship lies in the heavens (Phil. 3:20).

Second, let us use wisdom and prayerful patience when deciding when to use force to protect the vulnerable. Not every issue is genocide, nor is every social figure a Haman. As “social justice” issues reemerge as a cultural touchstone in the United States, the church must take on its challenge with wisdom, awareness of the issues, and humble approaches that empower every Christian with the confidence to speak truthfully and to act graciously against injustice in our communities.

Christians must not only distinguish between the obligations owed to the government and to God (Matt. 22:21) but also distinguish between what is just and unjust (Rom. 12:1–2). Martin Luther King, Jr., following Augustine, rightly observed, “an unjust law is no law at all” (lex iniusta non est lex).[11] God’s people must not fall prey to the fallacy, “it’s the law of the land,” when we have a higher law, “we must obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29).

ENDNOTES

  1. The “decree” and “edict” which Haman organized to “destroy” the Jews and seize their wealth is often described as an ancient pogrom. A pogrom is “an organized massacre” and is particularly associated with the historical persecution of the Jews. For the purpose of this study, the term will be used alongside genocide.
  2. The story reflected in Esther is unique in that it is the only canonical text which provides information about the Jews between the return under Zerubbabel (538 B.C.) and Ezra (458 B.C.). The Jews living among the “127 provinces” represent the third group of Jews, those who did not return with Zerubbabel (Provan, Long, and Longman 295).
  3. David Allan Hubbard in his chapter on Esther notes, “Coincidences in Esther are the fingerprints of God’s hand at work” (LaSor, Hubbard, and Bush 538).
  4. This follows A. D. Godley’s translation of Herodotus, Histories.
  5. This follows William Whiston’s translation of Josephus, Antiquities.
  6. The type of figure Haman held described as being “advanced” and a throne “set” “above all of the officials with him” (Esth. 3:1–2), has given cause to describe him as the king’s vizier, or something along the lines of a Prime Minister. This is the role Mordecai now holds. A cuneiform tablet in Borsippa mentions the name Marduka, a financial official of King Xerxes I (cf. Ahasuerus), which is an Akkadian equivalent to Mordecai. Although it cannot be proved to be Esther’s Mordecai, the “coincidence, if only that, is very interesting” (Báez-Camargo 137).
  7. The parallels: the timestamp, the date for the law, the language of the edict, the use of the king’s scribes, the same recipients (satraps and governors), provincial languages and scripts, in the name of the king, the use of the king’s signet ring (with its unique crest), and dispatched by couriers.
  8. Words from the season one prologue of the original Quantum Leap series.
  9. Quote from the reboot season 1, episode 7, “O Ye of Little Faith.”
  10. Jerome F. D. Creach addresses the symbolic theology of God warring against “the enemies of God” (Sodom, Egypt, Amalek) while largely dismissing the historical reliability of Esther. Immaterial to his approach is his astute observation that the legacy of human evil “makes understandable other parts of the Bible that seem to permit violence in defense of the powerless and vulnerable” (96).
  11. “An Unjust Law is no Law at All: Excerpts from ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Intercollegiate Studies Institute, January 18, 2021, November 24, 2022.

WORKS CITED

“An Unjust Law is no Law at All: Excerpts from ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Intercollegiate Studies Institute. January 18, 2021. Accessed: November 24, 2022.

Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 3rd edition. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Báez-Camargo, Gonzalo. Archaeological Commentary on the Bible. Garden City: Doubleday, 1984.

Berlin, Adele. Esther. The JPS Bible Commentary. Edited by Nahum M. Sarna. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2001. Logos electronic edition.

(BDB) Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. Logos electronic edition.

Cline, David J. A. “Esther.” Pages 387–94 in Harper’s Bible Commentary. Edited by James L. Mays. New York: Harper, 1988.

Creach, Jerome F. D. Violence in Scripture. Interpretation. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Kindle edition.

Herodotus. The Histories. Trans. by A. D. Godley. Ed. A. D. Godley. Medford, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920. Logos electronic edition.

Jones, Clay. Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions. Eugene: Harvest House, 2017. Kindle edition.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged. Trans. William Whiston. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987. Logos electronic edition.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996.

LaSor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, and Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Longman, Tremper, III., and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Mangano, Mark. Esther and Daniel. CPNIVC. Edited by Terry Briley and Paul Kissling. Joplin: College Press, 2001.

Provan, Ian, V. Phillips Long, Tremper Longman, III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

Webb, Barry G. Five Festal Garments: Christian Reflections on the Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. “Communications and Messengers.” Pages 337–57 in vol. 1 of Dictionary of Daily Life in Biblical and Post-Biblical Antiquity. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2014–2016.

Why Balance Still Resonates Today

On By Jovan PayesIn Balance, Book Reviews, Christian Leadership, Church Leadership, Freed-Hardeman University, Gospel Advocate, Ira North, Leadership, Leadership Ethics1 Comment
51WDYSYSX1L

Ira North, Balance: A Tried and Tested Formula for Church Growth (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1983), paperback, 156 pages.

In the academic Spring of 2004, I was enrolled in Freed-Hardeman University’s Masters in New Testament program. I took a course entitled, “The Education Program of the Church.” One of my favorite experiences was reading the book, Balance: A Tried and Tested Formula for Church Growth, written by Ira North (1922-1984).

Judging from North’s accomplishments, it is reasonable to assume why his last contribution to congregational development was selected as mandatory reading for the class. After all, North came from a strong Restoration Heritage pedigree of church leaders, was an accomplished student (Ph.D. Louisina State University), a “known” preacher throughout the Nation, editor of the Gospel Advocate (1977-1982), and educator in Speech and Bible at David Lipscomb University for 18 years.[1]

Aside from the bright red sport-jacket that has become iconic Ira North, it is his relationship with the Madison church of Christ (Madison, TN) which has memorialized him among church leaders. From 1952 until his death in 1984, North worked with the Madison congregation and the effect of his collaboration was the development of the largest church of Christ in the world in 1984 (from about 400 to well over 4,000 members).[2]

Despite the fact that in 1959 North authored, You Can March for the Master, his most celebrated work is Balance; some might say, it is his ninth symphony. Surely, then, the experiences (the good, bad, and ugly) North pulls from, and articulates in meaningful aphorisms is worth the time and energy it takes to read through the book’s 156 pages.

10 Main Points to Explore

In order to have a strong congregation, North places a high premium on common sense. It is the most general of all the points in the book, but common sense is particularly emphasized in the maintenance of the balance of organization, never overly emphasizing one program to the exclusion of all the others. Ideally, when the teaching program is strong, the congregation is mission minded, and is diligent to provide benevolence, church machinery will be in a balance homeostasis. The church symmetrically pushes forward in each biblical emphasis.

Proper usage of time is vital to the well-being of a congregation in two ways: building use and worship time. North asserts that the church building usage should reflect the business would model – everyday and with regular hours. After all, North argues, the building was designed to be an avenue to serve Christ. More functional and meaninful use of the building is good stewardship of facilities, time, and money. Time management likewise applies to the worship period. “Dead air” should not exist, but instead the worship service ought to be well organized, streamlined, and spiritual. Whenever a congregation keeps its worship and Bible class time within the specified time mentioned in the bulletin or other public notices, then it is obvious that the church is focused upon being an asset to the spiritual development of its members and visitors, without being taxing on the individual time needs of each family. In six words: worship can be timely and spiritual.

Designing a broad program for the work of the church is vital to secure a well-rounded, inclusive labor “in the vineyard.” An approach to implementing scriptural programs should not isolate a few members to do the work of the church. The local work was never designed to run on the backs of a few people (Acts 6.1-4). Thus from the beginning of design, the Bible school curriculum, benevolent programs, and other endeavors for the church, a key component should be that any member of the congregation may participate and contribute their abilities to the cause of Christ (i.e., the vineyard). In other words, make it church policy that the work of the church be inclusive so that all may “enlist.”

The delegation of responsibility to qualified members of the congregation stimulates congregational mobilization. In other words, use “in house” abilities, or to use another slogan, “keep it in the family.” When brethren in a local congregation have responsibility in their hands for specific “church-related” tasks, it alleviates the entire burden from being on a small group of people. More work can be accomplish. Add to this the use of members qualified through their own particular skill sets (accounting, management, baking, encouragement, etc.), then two things are accomlished; The maximization of quality work and specialized work. Because members are in place to accomplish tasks they are familiar with, then personal ownership of the work of the church materializes and the need to serve the Lord is satiated. A true benefit to the congregation is to have members serving in ways they already have the “know how” for Christ.

Another staple for church growth, according to North, is to remain creative and willing to try new ways to help the congregation look for creative and Scriptural ways to fulfill biblical commands. For example, the building can be used as the hub of so many programs as the church develops benevolent programs and evangelistic outreach programs which puts the church in a positive light in the community. A congregation that is busy can generate interest and appreciation from the community, which may encourages people to consider the Gospel. North’s point is not to engender a “stay busy for busy sake” disposition, but instead to break the stagnant complacency found in many congregations. Sometimes a program sounds good on paper, but not in practice. However, whether the programs “work” or not, the church should try numerous biblical ways to serve Christ in the community.

Maintain a positive and optimistic attitude, because it raises a congregation’s atmosphere to higher spiritual altitudes. Since Christianity is a positive religion, it follows that those who subscribe to its teaching out to be so infused with its goodness that it flows over into the atmosphere of a congregation.  Joy, peace, thankfulness, and love are not the hidden fruits of the Spirit, instead they are those things which have become manifest, so these are emotions and blessings that we should expose to the world. It is true that Christains are people, and consequently it is not always the easiest thing to be “happy go lucky.” North feels it is better to be proactive in encouraging and fostering a congregational atmosphere to is positive and loving. This reinforces the attractiveness of the Christian religion, as set forth in the Scriptures (1 Pet. 4.10; Rom. 13.8-14), as being a vibrant and good force in the world.

It is absolutely necessary that the work of the church is inclusive(i.e., social, economical, and age demographic). An extension of designing the congregations programs for all groups in the church, North emphasizes that attention needs to be paid to each individual person in the church. This will make them feel as if they are a part of something and not left out. Members of the Madison congregation would shake hands with each other and with their visitors before each service. North affirms that a strong church needs to implement ways for personal contact and interaction that develops the feeling of mutual dependency among its members.

Evangelistically, North advocates that in order to grow, a congregation ought to search for the one. Whether it is VBS, a “Gospel Meeting,” or a regular service the evangelistic emphasis ought to be on the one, i.e., the individual person. This is echoes the Scriptural teachings of Jesus in the parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son (Luke 15.1-32). One more person stimulates constant growth and encourages others to be evangelistic. To be successful, evangelism does not have to be by “the thousands and ten thousands”; it can be a simple and steady stream. There is no reason a whole congregation cannot do this. In order for a congregation to thrive it must continue to search for the one.

At all cost a congregation ought to “give diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4.3; emphasis added). Unity is one of the bedrocks of the Christian religion and must be established in order for true benefit to occur for the church. This affects the atmosphere and purposeful drive of the church in the work of the Lord. Attitudes needs to be set aside, personal ambition ought to be cast away, differences must be “handled with care,” and the goals of Christ must be realized. Members  must truly work together and respect the various roles they play in the congregation.

North advocates that in order to grow, a congregation ought to go all out. This seems to be an extension of the broad church program, the focus upon the individual, and keeping the unity of the church together. All ages ought to be considered for care. If any group in the church needs special attention, all must be done to secure a spiritually invigorating program to help those needs. The widows and the orphans are not the only ones who are “afflicted.” The church can help in those areas where God has desire for there to be help.

Concluding Thoughts

This brief reflection cannot emphasize sufficiently the various beneficial observations North has provided in Balance. North’s “common sense” advice is balanced, focused, and all encompassing; moreover, this common sense served him well while he ministered to the congregation in Madison, Tennessee for 32 years. It is desired that these reflections portray the power of the book in some fashion. All ten points have been thoroughly infused into each chapter and underline the point that there are many factors involved in church growth; it is not simply “a” single factor which is the key.

It is not our conviction that should these principles be employed in the life of a congregation that the church will grow by the thousands, but we believe it is better to say that a congregation that incorporates these principles will breed the right atmosphere for great things to be accomplished for the cause of Christ.

References

  1. Gospel Advocate 126 (1984), 124.
  2. Robert E. Hooper, “North, Ira Lutts (1922-1984),” Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, eds. Douglas A. Foster, et al. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005), 569-70.