Category Archives: Current issues

Posted on

A multicultural church—Acts 13:1-3

The church in Antioch spearheaded the mission to the rest of the world beyond Judea. Nearly all Christians today, and certainly all Gentile Christians, have spiritual roots in this church in Syria. Apart from this mission, the church could have been stillborn in the first century, had the Holy Spirit allowed such a thing to happen.

But the Antioch church’s mission began as an accident—or better yet, simply grew naturally. Once it began, however, the church became intentional about carrying out the task further.

Some of the first followers of Jesus were apparently ready to wait for God’s kingdom in Jerusalem—until Saul of Tarsus began persecuting the church there (Acts 8:3). Then the believers from there were scattered (8:4), and the Greek-speaking, immigrant Jewish believers in Jerusalem scattered to other places where they could speak Greek. Although rural Syria spoke Aramaic, the dominant language in cosmopolitan Antioch was Greek.

Eager to share their experience with others, these scattered, bicultural believers became unintentional missionaries (11:19-20). International migrations today often spread the gospel also. In some Western nations where traditional Christianity has been on the decline, for example, African, Asian and Latino/a Christians are growing new, evangelizing churches.

Unintentional missionaries—Christians scattered due to persecution but sharing Christ where they traveled—started the first house-churches in Antioch (Acts 11:19). These first Antioch Christians, living and working among Gentiles as well as Jews, began sharing the gospel with Gentiles (Acts 11:20). (The likeliest Greek reading of 11:20 speaks of “Hellenists,” a term used earlier for Greek-speaking Jews in Jerusalem in 6:1. Here, however, Hellenist Gentiles were in view—Greek-speaking Syrians.) Thus it was not surprising that they would eventually consider evangelizing Gentiles elsewhere. In fact, they embraced among them a former leader of the persecution that scattered them to begin with: Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who now had a call to evangelize the Gentiles (Acts 11:26).

Antioch was the major cosmopolitan center of the eastern Roman Empire, attracting a wide range of people from various parts of the Empire. Antioch’s various residents, already experiencing geographic and cultural transition, often tended to be more open to new ideas than those who had remained for a long time in their traditional location. Ministering to such a wide range of immigrants, the leaders of the Antioch church reflected similar diversity among themselves.

The leaders of the church were prophets and teachers (Acts 13:1). (Some think that the first three names, including Barnabas, were prophets, and the last two were teachers; but Barnabas also taught, according to 11:26. Probably all had both gifts, although they may have varied in their emphases.) Some of these leaders presumably came from Jerusalem (11:27), including Barnabas (11:22). Most, however, at least had significant cross-cultural backgrounds. For example, Barnabas, though from Jerusalem most recently, was originally from Cyprus (4:36); he probably had ties with some of the Cypriotes who helped evangelize Antioch initially (11:20).

Besides Barnabas, the leadership team included Simeon called “Niger” (13:1). Simeon was a common Jewish name, and “Niger” a common Roman name, which could suggest that he was a Jewish Roman citizen like Paul. But in this case, the expression “who was called Niger” differs from the other names in the list, perhaps suggesting a nickname. In this case, it would be meant descriptively: “Simeon the Dark” or “Simeon the Black,” observing his dark complexion, perhaps from northern Africa.

Less debatably, Lucius was explicitly from Cyrene in North Africa (13:1), and thus was perhaps one of the original founders of the Antioch church (11:20). Cyrene was in an area earlier settled by Phoenicians, with indigenous North African inhabitants and many Greek and Jewish settlers (sometimes estimated at one-third each). The culture included a mix of these various elements. “Lucius” was a common Greek name, but non-Greeks also used Greek names in places where Greek was spoken. Many non-Jews converted to Judaism, so we do not know the ethnic background of Lucius’s ancestors.

Between Lucius from North Africa and Simeon the Dark one may find significant African representation in leadership in this Greco-Asian church. (Greeks and Romans considered both Judea and larger Syria to be in Asia, so the entire leadership team likely comes from Asia and Africa. Europeans and their descendants should not feel left out, however, since in Acts Paul is eager to preach in Rome, and Romans 15 shows that he also wanted to evangelize Spain.)

Perhaps of special interest to many African-American Christians, the list may also include those descended from slaves. That Manaen was “brought up with” Herod Antipas could mean that he was a playmate from another noble family, but it could also suggest that he was a family servant. In that culture (as opposed to U.S. history) an aristocratic family’s servant could wield great social power and wealth, whether before or after being freed. Often aristocrat boys freed their servant playmates when both grew up, providing them powerful positions.

In Manaen’s case, this is merely a possibility. In Saul’s (Paul’s) case, however, it is likely. A majority of Jews who were Roman citizens were so because their ancestors had once been slaves in Rome. (In the first century BCE, Rome enslaved many Judeans and brought them to Rome.) Once a Roman citizen freed a slave under certain conditions, that slave became a Roman citizen, as did the slaves’ descendants.

Saul of Tarsus was probably one of the Cilicians who belonged to the synagogue of Freedpersons in Acts 6:9. The term translated Freedpersons there designates those freed by Romans, hence signifying this synagogue as a prestigious institution in Jerusalem—a congregation started by Jewish Roman citizens. Acts 6:9 notes that this synagogue of Freedpersons included Jewish people from various locations (including Cilicia, where Tarsus was, and where Saul’s ancestors may have migrated from Rome). It thus seems likely that Paul was a Roman citizen (16:37) because, several generations earlier, his ancestors were slaves in Rome.

In any case, this list of leaders shows a great diversity of backgrounds. What matters more than all the differences, though, is what binds them together. These leaders worship God, praying and fasting, and are ready to hear His call when He speaks (Acts 13:2). Whatever our diverse backgrounds on other points, the one God we serve unites us by his Spirit. This diverse, cosmopolitan church, with its diverse leadership team, birthed a vision that Jesus had already imparted in Acts 1:8. Empowered by the Spirit, two emissaries from this church were preparing to reach the world!

Posted on

Problems with Hume’s argument against miracles: part 2

Continued from part 1: http://www.craigkeener.org/?p=4311

To be credible, Hume believed, eyewitnesses must be educated, socially respectable Western white persons such as Hume and his circle; he avers that only such people have something to lose by lying. Today, of course, I can cite numerous witnesses who meet all his criteria, including medical doctors, philosophers, and plenty of fellow PhD’s. Not all of the witnesses began as Christians before the events they claim to witness, contrary to suspicion of religious bias (as if bias is endemic only to persons with religious convictions; as a former atheist, I can attest firsthand that bias is not limited to a single ideology).

A particular case allows us to understand more concretely how Hume might apply his criteria. Hume takes an example from then-recent history: Marguerite Perrier, niece of the famous mathematician and theologian Blaise Pascal, had a long-term, organic fistula in her eye that emitted a foul odor, seemed to accompany bone deterioration, and separated her from her peers because of the smell. She was instantly and publicly healed when touched by a relic (and few of us today would defend the relic’s authenticity), and the Queen Mother of France sent her own physician to examine this event. Hume points to this experience, noting that it was public, widely attested, even medically verified. It is far better verified than biblical miracles. Yet, he says, we do not believe this account; so why should we believe any other?

And then Hume moves on. He offers no argument; he simply takes for granted that no one will defend this account. Why? The setting in which Marguerite Perrier was healed was the early Jansenist movement, and nobody liked Jansenists; they were too Augustinian for French Jesuits, and, more to the point of Hume’s primary audience, they were too Catholic for Anglicans and Presbyterians. His Christian contemporaries who were accustomed to dismissing each others’ miracle claims without contrary evidence would not argue Hume’s point. But what if their sectarian dismissals were premature?

Challenging Hume’s Argument Today

David Hume was a smart man, and I do not believe that if he were around today, even he would argue his case the way he did in his day. (Admittedly, that is a postHUMous argument—sorry for injecting a bit of HUMor here.) It was one thing to deny credible eyewitness claims when the available sample size was so limited, and when most of his largely Protestant context relegated miracles to the distant past.

It would be a quite different to dismiss miracle claimants’ credibility a priori, or to make claims about uniform human experience, if there were millions of people who claimed to be witnesses. This is especially the case if one does not exclude witnesses based on sectarian or ethnic considerations.

Today, in fact, we have a fuller knowledge of global human experience, or at least the claims about such experience, and we can readily say that hundreds of millions of people claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing. No one would argue that all of these claims represent genuine miracles, much less that they can be explained only in this way. But with hundreds of millions of claimants, it is simply not possible logically to start with an a priori claim about human experience on the matter being uniform.

In 2006, a Pew Forum survey of ten countries (representing most continents, including North America) interviewed Pentecostals, charismatics, and Christians who claimed to fit neither category. Given the percentages in the 231-page report’s executive summary, it appears that hundreds of millions of people in these ten countries alone (i.e., not even including other countries) claimed to have witnessed divine healing. Nor are such claims limited to one religion, although other surveys show millions of people with centuries of non-Christian background converting to Christianity, often despite great social pressures to the contrary, because of extraordinary miracles in Christian contexts. A 2004 survey of U.S. physicians reports that over half believed that they had witnessed miracles during their practice. (We can keep in mind here that those with scientific training tend to define miracles more narrowly and rigorously than do many others.)

My own sample size of hundreds of sources is more limited, but from written sources and my own interviews, I conclude that many of these cases are significant. They include most of the range of miracles reported in the New Testament, including instant disappearances of blindness, resuscitations from apparent (and sometimes clinically documented) death, the instant vanishing of goiters, and the like. Again, some of these are medically documented. Although I initially collected such accounts much more deliberately for my book on miracle accounts (Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011]), I have since come across many more, and often with fuller documentation than available at the time.

I will not digress from my main point here to elaborate examples, but I conclude by reinforcing the point of my brief response to David Hume here. Hume’s a priori dismissal of credible eyewitness support for miracles, and thus his argument from the uniformity of human experience and nature, does not work in a twenty-first century context. That is not to say that Hume might not have tried to argue against miracles from a different standpoint, or to seek other ways to counter his contemporaries’ apologetic use of biblical miracle claims. It is to say that the case that Hume argued, on which most modern assumptions that dismiss miracles are based, is no longer logically tenable.

Posted on

False prophets

Lamenting that some people are taken in by false prophets, teachers, etc. Christ’s REAL servants sacrificially serve others and seek Christ’s honor. Those who seek the honor for themselves are liable to become false prophets, teachers, etc. The video is 8 minutes and 41 seconds.

Posted on

Problems with Hume’s argument against miracles, part 1

Most people today who start from the premise that miracles don’t or won’t happen knowingly or unknowingly depend on the influence of Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776).

Hume did not originate the key ideas in his essay on miracles; most are recycled from arguments of some earlier deist writers, as Robert M. Burns has demonstrated (The Great Debate on Miracles: From Joseph Glanvill to David Hume; Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1981). It was Hume, however, whose influence mainstreamed these ideas so that some subsequent thinkers simply took for granted that he had established the case. Many thinkers from his own time forward offered strong responses to his case, including more sophisticated challenges based on mathematical probabilities, but Hume’s reputation in other areas lent credibility to his argument on this one.

Today scholars have published major academic critiques of Hume’s work. Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne has been influential (The Concept of Miracle; London: Macmillan, 1970), and more recent critiques include J. Houston’s Reported Miracles: A Critique of Hume (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), David Johnson, Hume, Holism, and Miracles (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999), and John Earman’s Hume’s Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Against criticism that Earman critiqued Hume’s argument because of Christian bias, Earman replied that he is not a Christian; he simply thought Hume’s argument was a poor one.

Violating Nature

Scholars reconstruct Hume’s argument in various ways, though Burns is probably right that we should fill the lacunae based on Hume’s assumptions of then-current deist debates. At the fundamental level, Hume’s argument is twofold: miracles violate natural law, and we lack credible eyewitnesses for miracles. In sum (acording to the most common understanding of Hume’s argument), miracles contradict uniform human experience.

The second part of his argument (the lack of credible eyewitness support for miracles) is probably meant to support the first part: lack of experience of miracles points to the ordinary course of nature (or, Hume would say, the uniform course of nature). Hume is trying to use induction to establish a negative, deductive argument—an argument that does not fit even his own normal approach. Hume normally did not believe that a finite number of examples could establish with certainty that something would always be the case—except when it came to miracles. (He could argue that it is improbable based on his circle of evidence, but his sample size proves too limited, as we shall see.)

Modern conceptions of natural law tend to be more descriptive than prescriptive, but Hume’s conception of natural law did not even fit the dominant paradigm of his day. Newton and his early followers were theists who affirmed biblical miracles; they did not regard God, the Legislator, as subject to his own laws. For Hume to argue that we cannot expect miracles because a God could not or would not “violate” natural law is an assumption, not an argument. It assumes without argument what no Christians believed anyway: a God subject to natural law. Defining miracles as “violations” of natural law lends the impression that God breaks such laws when he acts in nature; but this requires one to assume an uninvolved creator (as in deism) or no God at all.

A human who act in nature, by, for example, catching a falling object, does not “violate” the law of gravity; persons can act within nature without violating it. Why must God be less an actor than human persons? Moreover, most biblical miracles do not even fit a tamer definition of miracle that requires an action without nearer (as opposed to more distant) natural causes: when God used a strong east wind to blow back the sea in Exodus 14:21, the proximate cause was the east wind, and Moses and his rod functioned as agents, even though God was the ultimate cause.

No Credible Witnesses

The second part of Hume’s essay, probably meant to support the first half, is particularly problematic. To argue that uniform human experience absolutely excludes miracles, one must have comprehensive knowledge of uniform human experience. Instead, Hume argues that there are no credible eyewitnesses for miracles, but circularly uses the uniformity of human experience to challenge the credibility of witnesses. By almost everyone’s definition of miracles (as opposed to less conspicuous divine activity) they are not part of nature’s ordinary course; we don’t call them “miracles” when they are our common, easily predictable experience. But in some kinds of circumstances, what we consider ordinary is not ordinary: in black holes and cases of superconductivity, physical laws appear different than under many other conditions, inviting broadened definitions of overarching laws. If we do not a priori rule out the possibility of special divine activity, it would be rational to even expect special experiences during such activity.

Various subsidiary arguments inform Hume’s argument against reliable eyewitnesses. These arguments help him to narrow the field of evidence that should be acceptable, excluding testimony from nonwhite peoples and from antiquity. He excludes, for example, claims from non-Western and nonwhite civilizations. Hume considers such peoples “ignorant and barbarous,” fitting his ethnocentrism in his other work. One could elaborate at length on his ethnocentrism, e.g., his denial of any truly great achievements in Asian and African civilizations, his widely-used support for slavery, and so forth. See e.g., C. L. Ten, “Hume’s Racism and Miracles,” Journal of Values Inquiry 36 (2002): 101–7; Charles Taliaferro, and Anders Hendrickson, “Hume’s Racism and His Case against the Miraculous,” Philosophia Christi 4 (2, 2002): 427–41; and my “A Reassessment of Hume’s Case against Miracles in Light of Testimony from the Majority World Today,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 38 (3, Fall 2011): 289–310.

Since all religions claim miracles at the beginning, he mistrusts miraculous claims from the beginning of religions. Hume’s target here is fellow Enlightenment thinkers, such as John Locke, who used early Christian miracles as evidence for Christian faith. But Hume is not correct that all religions claim miracles at their beginning, nor would the claims of some religions automatically cancel out those of others, any more than the discrediting of one witness for a case would discredit all the witnesses. (Moreover, Hume merely presupposes, with some of his contemporaries, that religions’ claims are mutually exclusive, so that genuine superhuman activity could not occur in more than one.) Excluding testimony in religious contexts presupposes what it would hope to prove.

Continued in part 2, next week …

Posted on

Spiritual Gifts in 1 Cor 12—14 (part 1)

Some kinds of church bodies accept only particular kinds of gifts, hence amputate certain kinds of members. Some other kinds of churches pile together the amputated members and celebrate that they are an ideal body. Yet ideally, a body that is whole welcomes all its members.

Some value teaching but disregard prophecy (but 1 Thess 5:20!); some exalt tongues but resent teaching; and so forth. We need to appreciate all the gifts. By definition, gifts given by God’s grace are good. We just need to make sure that we use them in the right ways!

Purpose of gifts: Build up Christ’s body (1 Cor 12)

We should therefore keep in mind the purpose of gifts: to build up Christ’s body. God gives us gifts especially to minister to others. If we use them to boast of our superiority we abuse them. We dare not despise others’ gifts, no matter how small they seem. Nor dare we minimize the value of our own gifts.

In explaining this point, Paul waxes eloquent. Many Corinthian Christians unimpressed with Paul’s rhetoric, so he uses here the rhetorical technique called anaphora: three times he repeats but varies the same sort of expression: “varieties of … but the same” (12:4-6). Then he offers his thesis in 12:7: “But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good” (NASB). Then he again uses rhetorical repetition, linking diverse gifts with the phrase, “to another …” (12:8-10, varying the Greek terms for “another”). In 12:11, he returns to “the same Spirit,” as in 12:4, bracketing the entire section.

Then he elaborates on the point that the body works as one yet has many members (12:12, 14, 20, 27). He dwells on this point at length; dwelling-on-a-point was an approach that orators used when they wanted to reinforce a matter. Paul takes his body metaphor to grotesquely graphic lengths: we don’t want our eye or foot declaring independence from body! Today we might even think of tissues that become harmful to the rest of the body, as in the case of cancers or gangrene (cf. 2 Tim 2:17). God forbid that any of us should become gangrene to the rest of the body of Christ! We should use our gifts to serve the rest of the body, and also recognize that we ourselves need the rest of the body and its gifts.

We don’t routinely amputate members of our body because we think some less important than the others. We don’t tear out some members because we think, “That one’s dispensable! Oh, here, I’ve got two eyeballs, let me get rid of one!” We don’t normally regard any of our members as dispensable, because all of them have functions that contribute to the whole. Indeed, Paul says, we work harder to protect weaker members and to clothe the less public members (12:22-26).

Paul goes on to note gift-roles in 12:28-30. Of these, he ranks only the first three: apostles, prophets, and teachers. (Those of us who are teachers can let out a big cheer now!) The others are unranked, although Paul probably lists tongues last because of its abuse in Corinth (1 Cor 14).

The way of love (1 Cor 13)

1 Corinthians 12 and 1 Corinthians 14 are about spiritual gifts, and it’s no coincidence that 1 Corinthians 13 lies right between them. (Those of you who are good with math may have already noticed this pattern.) 1 Corinthians 13 is no mere abstract treatise on love, despite Paul’s use of epideictic rhetoric here to praise the character of love. 1 Corinthians 13 is showing why love is central in the proper use of spiritual gifts.

We should note the verses that frame Paul’s elaboration about love: 1 Cor 12:31 and 1 Cor 14:1. These verses are explicit that we can seek for spiritual gifts; it is not simply a matter of what we are born or born again recognizing, but we can pray for God to give us particular gifts (1 Cor 12:31; 1 Cor 14:1, 39). (God is, of course, sovereign in which ones he gives us, knowing what is best for the body as a whole; 12:7.) But Paul is also clear which gifts we should particularly seek. Love seeks the best gifts—best being defined by love as those gifts that build up the body.

Paul demonstrates that, without love, use of gifts is worthless. Gifts are valuable but we abuse them if we do not deploy them to serve and love. In 1 Cor 13:1-3, Paul declares that love greater than all God’s gifts to us; in modern terms, love rather than unmerited gifts is a sign of “spirituality.” (Even if love, too, is a fruit of God working within us; Gal 5:22; 1 John 4:19.)

Paul uses hyperbole, or rhetorical overstatement, here, to reinforce his point graphically. Even if I spoke in all tongues, communicating in all languages, I would be nothing without love! (Most Anglo Americans speak just one language. Most of my African friends speak three or four. But even if we spoke all languages …) Having all knowledge—a status that not even the world’s greatest scholars dare claim—and all faith so as to move mountains (a hyperbole borrowed from Jesus), would not grant us status before God. Even if we work hard to develop these gifts, these skills are gifts, not merits, and they are worthless without love.

The point, of course, is not that God’s gifts are bad. God’s gifts are by definition good. But if we use them only to honor ourselves and not to build up Christ’s body, if we deploy them selfishly rather than to serve lovingly, we miss the point for which God gave us the gifts. He gives us gifts so we can participate together as Christ’s body in building one another up, in being agents of God for one another.

In 1 Cor 13:4-7, Paul describes what love is like. Sometimes we think that Paul is merely praising love. He is praising love, but he is also implicitly reproving the Corinthians. Love is not jealous (zêloi; 13:4)—but the Corinthians are (3:3). Love is not arrogant (phusioô; 13:4)—but the Corinthians are (4:6, 18-19; 5:2). Love does not seek for oneself (ou zêtei ta heautês; 13:5); in 10:24 Paul exhorts the Corinthians to seek not for oneself but for others (i.e., not one’s rights but preventing others from stumbling).

Paul again waxes eloquent with rhetorical patterning in 13:7: four times he begins with panta (“all things”). Love, he declares, puts up with all things (13:7a). This evokes Paul’s earlier example of himself in 9:12: he puts up with all things (using the same term, stegô) to prevent others from stumbling.

(Continued in part 2)

Posted on

Word Gifts and Christ’s Body—Ephesians 4:11-13 (part 2)

(continued from part 1, p=4275http://www.craigkeener.org/?p=4275)

The mature body, like her head

The ultimate goal of such equipping is unity in believing and knowing Jesus (4:13a). Thus we will function as Christ’s full body (4:13b). When we act together as Christ’s body, the world can see Christ through us. (Of course, that does not mean that all will like us; they did not all like our Lord, either.) This does not mean that we dare get a “big head” as if we have “arrived”; some have emphasized our wondrous role in Christ so much that they have forgotten how solely dependent this role is on Christ himself. We as Christ’s body function properly only as we all remain in connection with our head, our Lord Jesus Christ (4:15-16).

Nor is Paul providing an eschatological scheme or predicting a progression toward maturity through history. Rather, such unity is always the goal, for the church in every generation. Still, the world has yet to see the body of Christ functioning fully in mature unity of knowing and trusting Christ. God delights to reveal his wisdom in forming the church even to the angelic hosts (3:10), and I suspect that he will have a generation through whom he can prove what he can make of new creatures in Christ. After all, Scripture speaks of preaching Christ’s good news among all peoples before the end (Matt 24:14) and of the full harvest of gentiles coming in (Rom 11:25). May we become that generation!

Ultimately, Christ’s body must grow up, no longer immature, taken in by false teaching (4:14). In this context, such false teaching at least includes whatever would take our attention away from Christ and his body and put it on human leaders. In contrast to false teaching, we must lovingly speak truth (4:15), i.e., God’s word consistent with the gospel. Thus we will grow up to be like Christ our Lord (4:15). Paul shows that this is accomplished not by forced ecclesiastical conformity, but by conforming to Christ and nurturing one another in love (4:16)

How do we avoid such “winds of teaching” (4:14)? For one thing, we must make sure that those sowing the ministry of the Word are genuinely serving Christ’s body. Thus one must test those who call themselves apostles (as in Rev 2:2). Paul was definitely not against apostles, since he was one. But he challenged his rivals in Corinth as “false apostles” (2 Cor 11:13). Why? Paul as a true apostle suffered greatly for the gospel (11:23-33). He broke new ground, reaching lost people and preparing them to carry forward the mission (10:14-16). His rivals, by contrast, were false apostles, boasting as if they had won the Corinthians to Christ. They were boasting in other people’s labors. Those who grow big churches or denominations by siphoning members from other churches rather than really reaching people for Christ ought to consider what they are doing. Granted, true teaching may attract many new members, and we do need true teaching. But those who want the title had better be willing to pay the spiritual cost.

Scripture also warns against false prophets (e.g., Matt 24:11, 24). Some of these are certainly outside the church (Rev 16:13), but others pretend to be believers—wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). They misrepresent Christ (1 John 4:1) and exploit God’s people (2 Pet 2:1-3). We may also speak of false evangelizers: those who proclaim another gospel, whether by inflating themselves (2 Cor 11:4) or by supplanting Christ’s finished work with other requirements (Gal 1:6). False teachers can overlap with false prophets (2 Pet 2:1).

Meaning of apostles and prophets here

The New Testament uses the title “apostle” in two ways. The Gospels and Acts usually restrict the title to the Twelve (Acts calls even Paul and Barnabas apostles only in one passage!). Cessationists are right about the Twelve: the Twelve have ceased! Paul, however, applies the title more widely (e.g., 1 Cor 15:5-7), to various ground-breaking agents authorized by Christ, such as himself (Rom 1:1); James (Gal 1:19); Andronicus and Junia (Rom 16:7); and probably Silas and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1; 2:7).

What we have today is the second kind of apostles. For both kinds of apostles, we may expect signs confirming their reaching the lost (2 Cor 12:12), but especially and most extensively sacrificial suffering for the gospel (e.g., Matt 10:16-39; 1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 11:23-33).

Like apostles, evangelists and pastor-teachers, prophets remain necessary so long as the church needs to come to maturity (Eph 4:11-13). In the Bible, we see a range of different forms of prophecy. Sometimes prophets prophesied to nations; at other times they prophesied to individuals. In the latter case, Scripture most often record prophecies to kings (because of the focus of the historical books), but apparently many were expected also to prophesy to many others (e.g., 1 Sam 9:6-9; 2 Kgs 8:1). Before the exile, prophetic books were often arranged in poetry, but most prophecies found in historical narratives are more prosaic. Prophecies often echoed earlier prophecy (e.g., covenant lawsuits in prophetic books), so we can expect that they were often rooted in prior Scripture.

Some preachers today want to deny that this gift continues. But it existed throughout biblical history (though more in some times than others), and there is no biblical indication of it ceasing until Christ’s return, when we see him face to face and no longer need such partial revelation (1 Cor 13:8-12; cf. 1:7).

Those who deny its continuance typically claim that continuing prophecy would compete with Scripture as God’s Word. This claim, however, is plainly false, since prophecy flourished at the time that Scripture was being inspired and never competed with it. They are overlapping but different forms of revelation. Many prophets prophesied during the OT era without their prophecies being recorded in Scripture (e.g., 1 Sam 10:10; 19:20; 1 Kgs 18:4). If just two or three believers prophesied in average weekly meetings in just about a hundred house churches in the first century, we might envision somewhere around 400,000 prophecies in first-century churches. These prophecies are not recorded as Scripture (or else our New Testament would take quite a bit longer to read through—and woe to us professors who have to survey it all in one semester).

Prophecy about personal direction or prophecy that is essentially Spirit-led biblical exhortation does not add to Scripture, if it is genuine prophecy. There is no reason to assume that postbiblical prophecy that does not teach new doctrine adds to Scripture any more than assuming that for postbiblical teaching. Unfortunately, the doctrine that prophecy must cease is a postbiblical teaching. Who, then, risks adding to Scripture?

Some protest, Scripture does not explicitly predict prophecy’s cessation, but if you read Scripture with the right theological system, you will see that it must cease. So where does this theological system come from? If it imposes on the text what is not there, is not this system adding to Scripture? That is, this argument for the cessation of prophecy is guilty of the very error that it attributes to those who continue to prophesy.

Having said this, of course, all prophecy must be evaluated (1 Cor 14:29). We know in part and we prophesy in part (13:9), so we must evaluate both prophecy and teaching based on what God has already revealed. Scripture is not all that God has ever spoken (see discussion above about Scripture noting true prophets without recording their prophecies). But it is the canon—the true measuring stick—for all claims to revelation. It is the already-tested Word that Christians as a community agree on as certain. Those unwilling to stand under its verdict, whether in prophesying or teaching, inevitably end up condemned by its verdict.

Meaning of pastors and teachers

Finally, and relevant to the discussion of prophets just concluded, Paul lists pastors (literally, shepherds) and teachers. The Old Testament (and the ancient world in general) often speaks of leaders as shepherds; good ones are supposed to care for the sheep. For this role, teaching is crucial.

In fact, the grammar may suggest here not a fivefold ministry but a fourfold one, against common traditions: pastors and teachers are closely linked: the Greek reads tous men apostolous, tous de prophêtas, tous de euaggelistias, tous de poimenas kai didaskalous. That is, four of the groups are distinguished with tous de, whereas pastors are linked with teachers (the Greek term kai can mean “and” or “even, i.e.”).

At the very least, pastors and teachers linked closely together. Scripture elsewhere insists that pastors must be able to teach (1 Tim 3:2; 2 Tim 2:24; Tit 1:9); it is essential to know and teach the Scriptures, and to do so according to the true gospel.

We don’t need to agree on every secondary detail of understanding. But we must be united on the gospel and work for unity and the maturity of Christ’s body.

(Continued from part 1, http://www.craigkeener.org/?p=4275)

Posted on

Word Gifts and Christ’s Body—Ephesians 4:11-13 (part 1)

There is much talk about the gifts listed in Ephesians 4:11. In context, however, these gifts appear, like other spiritual gifts (Rom 12:6-8; 1 Cor 12:8-10, 29-30), in the context of Christ’s body (Rom 12:4-5; 1 Cor 12:12-27). Their function is not so those so gifted can boast in how important or valuable they are, but so they can serve the body of Christ, equipping all believers for their ministries/gifts in the body.

Setting in Ephesians: Unity

The setting in Ephesians is an exhortation to unity. Ephesians 1—3—the first half of the letter—keeps emphasizing ethnic unity, the unity of Jews and gentiles in Christ. (And if God would transcend in Christ’s body a barrier he himself established in salvation history, the unity of Christ’s body must also surmount every other barrier.) The exhortations later in Eph 4:17—5:2 address relationships, especially members of Christ’s body loving and forgiving like Christ.

Paul also addresses serving one another in the household (Eph 5:21—6:9). Since at least the time of Aristotle, ancient household codes often told the male head of the household how he was to rule his wife (cf. 5:22-33), children (cf. 6:1-4), and slaves (6:5-9). But Paul addresses wives, children and slaves as well as male householders, and his code is the only one we know of in antiquity framed by mutual submission: serving one another (5:21; 6:9). Given Jesus’s teachings about serving one another, the Spirit’s fruit in us, as well as Christ’s example, should make us all eager to serve one another, in Christ’s body generally and in our families.

Just before addressing Christ’s body in our passage (4:4), Paul urges believers to be diligent to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (4:3). “Keep” often means “obey,” as in keeping commandments, but here may mean “preserve.” Christ, who is our peace, has made us one body in him (2:14-16). Now we must preserve that unity by showing humility, gentleness, and patiently putting up with one another (4:2).

Christ’s body earlier in Ephesians

The context relates even more directly to Christ’s body. The theme of Christ’s body appears earlier in Ephesians. Ephesians was a circular letter, but Ephesus was a major destination for the letter. Many Ephesian Christians had been dabbling with other spirits and worshiping other gods before their conversion (Acts 19:18-19, 24-29). Paul assures them, however, that in Christ they are exalted above all spirits (Eph 1:20-23; 2:6). We are Christ’s body (1:23), Paul says, and since all things are under his feet (1:22) that means that these spirits we once honored are now beneath us.

That does not suggest that we go ordering those spirits to do our bidding—that is exactly what magic was all about. Rather, it means that we are no longer subject to their sin-stirring influence, no longer subject to the devil’s schemes (2:1-3). Later in the letter Paul explains how we therefore can resist the devil (4:27): by treating one another right (4:25—5:2), and by living according to truth, righteousness, faith, salvation, and the gospel (6:10-12).

As Christ’s body, Paul says, we are the “fullness of the one who fills all” (1:23). This is because God fills us up with his love and his Spirit (3:19; 5:18). “All” in 1:23 may refer to all believers (as in 4:6), thus reinforcing unity: we are the product of Christ filling all of us to bring us toward the full measure of being like Christ (4:13).

Christ’s body in Ephesians 4

Paul uses the image of one body to highlight unity. Thus, for example, the husband and wife become one flesh and one body because they are united (5:23, 30). Likewise, Christ brings together Jew and gentile in one united body (2:16; 3:6). We as believers today may be different ethnically, denominationally, and so forth. But if we divide from one another over such ethnic or denominational differences, we undercut the unity for which Christ died. We wound Christ’s one body!

In this context, the purpose of spiritual gifts is to build up Christ’s body (4:12). If we boast in our gifts or demean those of others, we harm Christ’s body and abuse God’s own gifts to us, that were given for the opposite purpose! Each member, united to Christ, is needed for Christ’s body (4:16).

Paul’s image was familiar to ancient audiences, but Paul uses it in a different way. In earlier Rome, the lower class people protested that they were doing all the work while the upper class people just enjoyed the fruits of others’ labors. So an upper-class man named Menenius Agrippa argued that everyone has their function in society, like different members of a body. The upper class was like a stomach; the poor people did the work, and the upper class was necessary to consume the food. In other words, he was saying: keep your place.

But more like some Stoic thinkers, Paul used the image of the body in a very different way. For Paul, there is only one head, namely Christ (4:15-16). Far from lording it over us or exploiting us, he laid down his life to save us (5:25). Each member of his body is equally valuable for the body’s overall function, despite our diverse roles. It is not a matter of some “big” leaders being super-gifted while “ordinary” Christians lack gifts or ministries. Rather, all of us are gifted to minister to one another and to the world around us, just in different ways. The so-called “big” leaders must be facilitators, equipping the other members to grow in their ministries.

Another difference is that the body image is much more organic for Paul than for Menenius Agrippa: Christ actually dwells in us (3:17). On an individual level, the fruit of the Spirit reveals his character in us. But as we function together as one body in him, his character should also be expressed in us corporately as a body. Various aspects of Christ’s ministry are revealed in different members.

Grace given to each of us

Various aspects of Christ’s ministry are revealed in us as diverse members, but “But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift” (4:7 NASB). Each of us plays an important and special role—male or female, young or old, Asian or Latin American, Anglican or Baptist, and so forth. Each of us has gifts for the rest of Christ’s body, and should welcome the other gifts in Christ’s body.

At great cost to himself, Christ made us one and made gifts available. Now exalted, Christ has given gifts (4:8). Paul supports this by paraphrasing Psalm 68:18. The original language of the psalm says that the one who ascended took plunder rather than gave it. But everyone understood that, having taken plunder, victors distributed it among their followers. Christ has taken captive some—such as apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers—to serve as gifts to the rest of Christ’s body.

Paul notes the gifts given by Christ: as just noted, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastor-teachers (4:11). What these particular gifts share in common is the ministry of God’s Word. Through God’s message, given in different ways, these ministers build up the rest of Christ’s body. Their purpose, in fact, is to equip all members of the body for the work of ministry (4:12a) so they can build/be-built-as Christ’s body (4:12b). Those who claim to be apostles, prophets, evangelists or pastor-teachers but exploit God’s people rather than serving and equipping them are more like wolves in sheep’s clothing. (continued in part 2)

Posted on

Some key themes in Galatians

The New Perspective(s) and older perspectives come to different conclusions on various points, such as “faith in Christ” vs. “faith of Christ,” the meaning of “works of the law,” and so forth. I connection with my new Galatians commentary, Influence magazine published an article by me on this topic.

https://influencemagazine.com/en/Practice/Jesus-Followers-in-Step-With-the-Spirit

Posted on

Sinful Leaders: Why do some people with powerful gifts live sinful lives?

We hear about lots of (happily not most) ministers falling. This is not surprising, because ministers are human, and the Bible tells us that humans know how to sin. But sometimes we are particularly surprised because someone seems particularly gifted or “anointed” by God; God is using them in people’s lives, and then we discover that they have been living in serious, secret sin the entire time.

Jesus did not say, “You’ll know prophets by their gifts.” He says, “You’ll know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:20). Some false prophets (Matthew 7:15) even convince themselves that they prophesy and do miracles in Christ’s name, but if they live lives of disobedience, they are not in a relationship with Christ (Matthew 7:21-23).

Then there are those who start well but don’t finish well. God called Samson, and the Spirit empowered Samson. But Samson was playing around with sin. In Judges 16, even though he has just been sleeping with a prostitute, the Spirit of God still empowers him and gets him out of the situation. As the chapter progresses, God’s Spirit is still working in him while he is sleeping with Delilah. But eventually, his sin catches up with him. God is merciful, but he won’t be mocked. Samson “loses his anointing,” though he did not lose it as quickly as some of us might have expected. Ultimately, Samson does end up finishing well, but finishing much earlier than he would have finished he not wallowed in sin (Judges 16:28-31)

Then there are those who manifest the power of the Spirit not because they are people of the Spirit but because the Spirit is strong in that place. In 1 Samuel 16:13-14, the Spirit of the Lord departs from Saul and rests on David, and an evil spirit from the Lord (or a spirit of judgment) rests on Saul. In 1 Samuel 18:10, Saul is even prophesying by this harmful spirit. But in 1 Samuel 19:20-24, he sends messengers to kill David. Overwhelmed by the Spirit of God, these messengers fall down and start prophesying. When the first messengers fail, he sends more, and the same thing happens. After two such failed attempts to kill David, Saul goes to kill David himself. Yet he too falls down and starts prophesying by God’s Spirit, while David escapes.

Saul was no longer a man of God’s Spirit, but because he was in a setting that was full of God’s Spirit (because of Samuel and the prophets he was mentoring), the Spirit worked even through him. Sometimes people are gifted because others are praying. Gifts are not given to us in any case because of our virtue: then they would be earned rather than gifts. Gifts are given to us for Christ’s service, so we dare not boast in them. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 4:7: “What do you have that you didn’t receive [from God]? And if you received it [from God], why do you boast as if you didn’t receive it [from God]?”)

Do not assume that someone is walking with God simply because God seems to be using them. Do not be surprised when some people who seem anointed by God fall. (In some cases, it is partly the fault of followers who put God’s servants on a pedestal instead of supporting them in prayer as brothers and sisters in Christ.) Likewise, do not assume that someone whose ministry may not look big to you is less faithful. Indeed, we don’t know people’s hearts, where they’ve come from or what they’ve been through. Since we don’t know other people’s hearts, we can’t compare ourselves with them as better or worse. Thus Paul says, “I don’t even judge my own self. I don’t know of anything against me, but that doesn’t make me right. It’s the Lord who judges” (1 Corinthians 4:3b-4).

The Corinthians were trying to evaluate whether Paul or Apollos was a better Christian celebrity to follow. Paul warns them: don’t judge before the time (1 Corinthians 4:5). God alone knows the heart, and there will be many surprises on the day of judgment.