A surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion - Craig Blaising

"The Brethren Movement ... rejected the special role of an ordained clergy, which perpetuated such ecclesiastical divisions, and stressed instead the spiritual giftedness of ordinary believers and their freedom, under the Spirit's guidance, to teach and admonish each other from the Scripture.

By enhancing the integrity and responsibility of the laity, Brethrenism witnessed a surge of interest in Bible study and private devotion."

found in Craig A. Blaising, and Darrell L. Bock. Progressive Dispensationalism: An up-to-Date Handbook of Contemporary Dispensational Thought (Wheaton: BridgePoint, 1993), 10.

Obviously, this is not the topic of the book. Blaising mentions the Brethren movement because he sees that "dispensationalism first took shape in the Brethren Movement in early nineteenth century Britain." Yet, it is an interesting thought ... could the concept of clergy be hindering Bible study and private devotion?

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - 1 Timothy 5:22 - Part 5 of many

While lacking any terminology referring to the appointing/calling/choosing of elders, this passage is often assumed to refer to elder commissioning. The understanding of commissioning derives from the assumptions made about the other two passages in the personal letters of Paul containing laying on of hands terminology (as will be seen below), combined with the general use of the laying on of hands terminology (as seen in the discussion above). The context of the passage seems to indicate that the people being commissioned are elders.[1] Whether this passage refers to the commissioning of elders in general or to the commissioning of replacement elders in particular cannot be ascertained by the text.[2] Towner further comments that the second person singular of epitithēmi “envisions Timothy as taking the lead in the procedures (though it is not necessary to rule out participation by others in leadership).”[3] The personal note of the letter does diminish the certainty of this conclusion, though, and there is nothing in this passage that warrants the limiting of participation to only the leadership. Regardless of who is performing the commissioning, the text does furnish another important insight into the laying on of hands. This laying on of hands must not be done “hastily” for it might result in sharing “in other people’s sins.” [4] We do not see here a pouring of one’s personality into the person on whom one is laying his hands (contrary to some of the understanding of Daube’s samakh concept), but the reverse process might be seen where the sin of the one receiving the imposition of hands affects the one imposing his hands. This could point to a pattern of “creating a representative or substitute,” for the sin of a representative reflects on the one he represents. Again, this passage does not deal with transference or impartation of authority.

[1] Verses 17-20 clearly refer to elders, and since the consensus from commentators is that v. 21 refers to vv. 19-20, and not to the whole chapter, it logically follows that v. 22 has to continue the train of thought about elders. See Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 372; William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 46 (Nashville: Nelson, 2000), 316; and George W. Knight III, The Pastoral Epistles, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 237. The fact that the concept of sin flows throughout this entire section (vv. 20, 22, 24) also serves to confirm this tie.

[2] It does seem unlikely that this passage refers “to the later church ritual of reinstating a penitent sinner” (Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317; see also Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n72).

[3] Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374. One has to wonder if Towner’s limiting the action of laying on of hands to the leadership is anachronistic or due to his perceived understanding of 1 Tim 4:14.

[4] For this causal interpretation, see the discussion on μηδὲ in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 317-18 or Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 374n73.

Community Mentoring - David Nelson

". . .[I] note that it was a variety of members of God’s church who formed my life as a disciple of Jesus. And among those examples, some of them influenced me concurrently – the body of Christ was used by the Spirit to shape my life. . . . life in the community of faith, the cultivation of a liturgical life, and the enactment of faith as a way of life is the stuff of real discipleship. And the church should be diligent and intentional about shaping the life of the community to allow for relationships that form mature disciples. . . .And I’ll note that this is what happened to me the past month while joined together to learn with my friends from overseas. We together, in community – studying together, arguing together, eating together, living together – helped to form one another in Christ."

These are but a few sentences from David Nelson's blog post entitled I Was Never “Mentored”: A Report from the Field, Part 3, where he opines on the appropriateness of community mentoring versus one-on-one mentoring, or the Paul/Timothy model, as some would call it. It is nice to see yet another great theologian (for another example see Community of Theologians - Malcom B. Yarnell III) point believers to the importance of the community. Now, what are we going to do about it?

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Acts 13:3 - Part 4 of many

Acts 13:3 uses the same terminology for the laying on of hands as Acts 6:6. Preceding this practice, the Holy Spirit had instructed the believers at Antioch to aphorizô, “set apart, appoint,” Paul and Barnabas for the work to which He had called them. Therefore the first element to note in this passage is that there was a prophetic word from the Holy Spirit (v. 2). The second is that prayer and fasting was central to the event (v. 3). Third, as in the Acts 6 passage, there is ambiguity as to who laid hands on them: the prophets and teachers or the congregation.[1] Fourth, as in the passage above, the commissioning in this passage does not seem to denote any transfer of power, but could be interpreted as the creation of representatives of the church in Antioch. The return to Antioch of Paul and Barnabas to give a report to the church about the work that God had been doing through them (Acts 14:26-27) could give credence to a representative understanding of their commissioning.

[1] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 479. For example, note that Culpepper leans toward the whole congregation while Bruce believes it is their “colleagues” who laid their hands on them (F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, 246).

Global Warming 2010

Fort Worth, TX, just received 12.6" (32cm) in a 24 hour period.

The dogs really enjoyed frolicking in the snow.

We enjoyed paying tribute to our favorite Calvin and Hobbes series:

Hobbes: "Snow Sharks?" Calvin: "That guy's a goner."

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Acts 6:1-7 - Part 3 of many

Acts 6:1-7 recounts the appointing, kathistēmi, “to assign someone a position of authority” (v. 4), of the seven over the business of daily food distribution. Associated with this appointing, the New Testament records the action of the church and of the apostles in their commissioning of the seven. There are multiple elements to be noted in this passage. First, those chosen were to be from among the church in Jerusalem, and they were to be “of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom” (v. 3). Second, prayer was central to the event (v. 6). Third, hands were laid on the seven (v. 6). The laying on of hands terminology used here is epitithēmi, “to lay/put upon,” used in conjunction with the term for hand, cheir, cheiros. This terminology is repeated in Acts 13:1-3, 1 Timothy 5:22, and with a slight variation in 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6, that is with the use of epithesis, “laying on,” instead of epitithēmi. Fourth, this text does have some ambiguity about whose hands it is referring to: the apostles’ or the congregation’s.[1] Many commentators believe the hands in question to be the apostles’. Out of those, some see this as a congregational decision, but not a congregational laying on of hands,[2] and some seem to focus mainly on the apostles’ role.[3] On the other hand, the text does allow for the antecedent to be the ones who set them in front of the apostles, making this a congregational practice.[4] Fifth, while Culpepper sees a clear parallel in the structure of this passage with the structure of the Numbers 27:16-23 inauguration of Joshua by Moses,[5] this passage does not indicate that any power was transferred from the apostles to the seven. Sixth, Culpepper also notes a topical parallel with the Numbers 8:10 dedication of the Levites. [6] An argument could be made here that the apostles or the people were creating representatives to take care of a specific issue on their behalf.

[1] See Beverly Roberts Gaventa, The Acts of the Apostles, Abingdon New Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003), 115.

[2] See for example F.F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 122, who states that “it was the community as a whole that selected these seven men and presented them to the apostles for their approbation; it was the apostles who installed them in office”; Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 478, states that “the insertion of Codex Bezae makes it clear that only the apostles laid hands on the seven, but the sense of the text is that the whole congregation performed this rite”.

[3] See for examples: Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 237, believes that this is samakh performed by the apostles; Ammonius Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 6.6 in Francis Martin, ed., Acts, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, NT V (Downers Grove: IVP, 2006), 71; Jaroslav Pelikan, Acts, Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 94-5.

[4] Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, The Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 398, suggest that “the text as it stands probably means that the whole assembly, including the Twelve, prayed and performed the rite.” Cf. Harrison, in Everett Falconer Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago: Moody, 1975), 106-7, is among many commentators who point this out as a possibility, but then argues against it. Harrison’s argument centers on the apostle’s statement in v. 3: “whom we may appoint over this business” (emphasis mine).

[5] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 478.

[6] Ibid.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - χειροτονεω - Part 2 of many

A few words should be said about one of these terms: χειροτονεω (cheirotoneô), “to elect or choose someone for definite offices or tasks.” The nineteenth century Baptist theologian John Gill, based on comments made by Beza, Erasmus, Vatablus, and H. Stephanus,[1] states:

ordinary officers, as elders and pastors of churches, were chosen and ordained by the votes of the people, expressed by stretching of their hands; thus it is said of the apostles, Acts xiv. 23, When they had ordained them elders in every church, χειροτονησαντες, by taking the suffrages and votes of members of the churches, shown by the stretching out of their hands, as the word signifies; and which they directed them to and upon it declared the elders duly elected and ordained.[2]

While this understanding of cheirotoneô is supported by BDAG, which states that it is “lit[erally] ‘stretch out the hand’ in voting,” and agrees with this understanding as used in 2 Corinthians 8:19, BDAG does suggest that the text of Acts 14:23 “does not involve a choice by the group; here the word means appoint, install, w[ith] the apostles as subj[ects].”[3] Based on the rest of the writings of Gill in this section of his work, it is evident that he was very careful not to allow anything that could open the door for hierarchical-archbishopcy. This could be the reason for his insistence on a congregational use of cheirotoneô in a passage that does not support it.[4] Nevertheless, this corporate understanding of cheirotoneô and its tie to hand raising should be kept in mind when thinking about the topic at hand.

More central to the present discussion are two passages in that list found in the book of Acts: Acts 6:1-7 and Acts 13:1-3, where the church commissions[5] some believers for a specific task. In the next post we will begin looking at New Testament passages starting with these two.

[1] Gill, in John Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, new ed., vol. 2 (London: Bradbury and Evans, 1839), 581nx, states that “Χειροτονησαντες, per suffragia delegissent, creassent: so Beza, Erasmus, Vatablus, H. Stephanus. Ortum est hoc verbum ex Græcorum consuetudine, qui porrectis manibus suffragia ferebant – Beza in Act 14,23.”

[2] Ibid., 581.

[3] BDAG, s.v. χειροτονεω.

[4] Gill further states that “though there was χειροτονια, a stretching out of the hands; yet there was no χειροθεσια, imposition of hands, used at the ordination; neither of extraordinary officers, as apostles; nor of ordinary pastors or elders of churches, in the times of Christ and his apostles” (Gill, Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, 581). While Gill’s comment is technically correct, for χειροθεσια is not found in the Greek New Testament or in the LXX, here again, it seems that Gill is pressing his point by apparently ignoring the possible parallel use of επιθεσις in conjunction with χειρ in 1 Tim 4:14 and 2 Tim 1:6, so as not to allow for the ordination practices of the Roman church.

[5] For the time being, the term ‘commission’ will be used instead of ‘ordain’, so as not to confuse or bias the discussion.

Ordination - Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1 of many

If you are thinking that things are not very clear so far, you might be looking forward to looking at the New Testament evidence for some clarity. Sorry, things are not much clearer in the New Testament record. As mentioned earlier, a lexical investigation of the English word ‘ordain’ in the NKJV reveals that it is used to translate seven different Hebrew and Greek terms, and in none of the New Testament passages in which ‘ordain’ appears is it used with the meaning of “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church.” A New Testament understanding of ordination will therefore have to be gleaned from passages which seem to offer a pattern of appointing or setting aside and their associated Greek terms. Passages in the New Testament dealing with appointing/calling/choosing for a specific task include: the appointing of the twelve (Mark 3:14; Luke 6:12-13), the appointing of the seventy (Luke 10:1), the choosing/appointing of the seven (Acts 6:1-7), the setting aside/appointing of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:1-3), the appointing of elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5), the choosing of emissaries by the churches (such as Acts 15:22; 2 Cor 8:19), and the appointing of Paul (1 Tim 2:7; 2 Tim 1:11). In addition, as indicated earlier, if there are any parallels between the New Testament practices and the Old Testament practices of ordination, they may be found in the practice of laying on of hands.[1] Attention, therefore, traditionally has been placed on additional passages that refer to the laying on of hands also, even though these passages might not explicitly relate to appointing practices (1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6).

In the above list of Scripture passages, one discerns a clear grouping of passages that affirm the concept of appointing/calling/choosing, but which furnish no information as to praxis.[2] These passages are not totally void of benefits for the present discussion. They provide insight as to who did the choosing and who was chosen and for what purpose: Jesus appointed the apostles, the seventy others, and Paul in some of the above passages; in other passages, the apostles, the elders, and/or the whole church chose messengers, helpers, and traveling companions; Paul and Barnabas, as well as Titus, appointed elders. In addition, these passages also provide a list of terms associated with appointing/calling/choosing, whose lexical variety demonstrates the lack of a single unifying term used for this concept of appointing/ calling/choosing.

In the next several days/weeks we will look at these terms and these passages to try to make some sense of the New Testament evidence.

[1] Culpepper goes as far as seeing the laying on of hands as “central in ceremonies of Christian ordination” (Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 471).

[2] These passages include Jesus’ appointing of the twelve in Mark 3:14, which uses ποιεω, “make, do, or cause,” but which BDAG suggests could be translated “appoint” as in Hebrews 3:2; and Jesus’ choosing of the twelve in Luke 6:13, which uses εκλεγομαι, “to choose (for oneself).” This latter term is also used in Acts 15:22 for the choosing of the men who were supposed to travel to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas and report the advice given by the church of Jerusalem by word of mouth. Likewise, Luke 10:1, just states that Jesus also appointed seventy others; here αναδεικνυμι, “to assign to a task or position,” is used. In both 1 Tim 2:7 and 2 Tim 1:11, Paul speaks of his appointing as a preacher, etc. and uses the term τιθημι, “to assign to some task or function.” The choosing of traveling companions is described by χειροτονεω, “to elect or choose someone for definite offices or tasks,” in 2 Cor 8:19. The same term is used of Paul’s and Barnabas’ appointing elders in every church. Καθιστημι, “to assign someone a position of authority,” is used in Titus 1:5 for Titus’ responsibility to appoint elders in every city. All definitions are from Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt, F. Wilber Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker [BDAG], 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism

Some have suggested that the New Testament practice of ordination has its roots in rabbinic Judaism’s practices;[1] therefore, while heeding Culpepper’s warning to take “special care,” pre 70 A.D. Jewish practices will be briefly examined. According to Stancil, Löhse argues for a connection between the rabbinic practice and the New Testament practice stemming from the similar practice of laying on of hands.[2] Daube concurs and emphasizes that in rabbinic times samakh was “restricted to two uses,” one of which was “the ordination of a Rabbi.”[3] Daube thus proceeds to imply that the New Testament practices were based on the rabbinical practices. Culpepper disagrees, stating that “evidence for the laying on of hands prior to A.D. 70 as a ceremony in which individual teachers authorized their students to teach is lacking, and whether it was practiced at this time is debated.”[4] Due to the uncertain historicity of the practice of laying on of hands at the time of the writing of the New Testament, and due to the clearer evidence found in Old Testament practices, it would seem wise to disregard rabbinic evidence about the laying on of hands for the research at hand. This does not imply ignoring all rabbinic tradition, since other practices and traditions might be enlightening for one’s understanding of the New Testament.

Stancil highlights that there existed other similarities and some significant differences between ordination in rabbinic Judaism and in the New Testament, besides the laying on of hands. The similarities he points to are the New Testament existence of the office of elder, which he believes “was a direct borrowing from Judaism,” and that the ordination of a rabbi made a rabbi’s ministry universally valid in any synagogue, as he assumes was the case with the ordination of an elder.[5] If historically valid, the first similarity might point to some validity in using rabbinic tradition to inform the New Testament tradition. As for the second similarity, it is only beneficial if a direct relationship between the rabbinic and New Testament practices is found. With regard to differences, Stancil identifies the following: the rabbinic ceremony granted new authority to the new rabbi, the want-to-be rabbis were required to complete a course of study before their ordination, rabbinic practices lacked the accompaniment of prayer, and there was a lack of focus on the impartation of the Spirit in the rabbinic rite.[6] While his comments are thought provoking, the presence of differences coupled with the lack of concrete evidence for similarities suggests that the best approach is not to focus on rabbinic tradition for the research at hand.

There are other initiation ceremonies that existed in pre 70 A.D. rabbinical practices. Culpepper describes the “elevation to the chair” rite of appointment to the Sanhedrin and lesser courts, which, while interesting, finds no parallel in the New Testament and therefore is of no interest to the research at hand, even if this were, according to Philo, the type of ordination associated with the seventy elders (zāqēn, presbyteros) of Numbers 11:16ff.[7] Moreover, Daube mentions that he sees a tie between the seven chosen in Acts 6 and the ‘Seven of a City’: seven dignitaries chosen to look after the affairs of a Palestinian city who had power of administration, so much so that “the Seven of a City are as if they were the city itself.” Daube unfortunately does not give any specifics of the ceremony associated with the inauguration of the seven, except for the fact that he categorically states that it did not include the rite of samakh.[8] The absence of the rite of samakh renders the inauguration of the seven unhelpful for this research. At the end of the day, the arguments for the rabbinic roots of New Testament ordination lack substance.

In the next several posts we will look at New Testament "data" and then we will finally put it all together.

[1] This is the main hypothesis of the work of Daube in Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism. Stancil also refers to the work of Edward Löhse in Edward Löhse, Die Ordination im Spätjudentum und im Neuen Testament (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951). In regard to the word of Löhse, Culpepper suggests that Löhse’s “anachronism and over-generalization in this area, . . . provoked vigorous discussion since the publication of” his work in 1951. “In particular, Lohse’s conclusion that ‘Christian ordination was modeled on the pattern of that of Jewish scholars, although early Christianity filled it with a new covenant’ has been sharply challenged” (Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 474).

[2] Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists,” 18.

[3] Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 229.

[4] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 475. Culpepper asserts that “most evidence dates from A.D. 200 or later and at points tendentiously attempts to root prevailing practices in the past” (Ibid., 474). He also concludes his section on “Jewish Procedures” by calling for more research to sort out and clarify the evidence and stating that “until the origins of various traditions are determined more accurately, one cannot be dogmatic” (Ibid., 476).

[5] Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists,” 22. One has to wonder if Stancil is not being anachronistic when he makes a parallel to present practice when dealing with ordination “extending beyond the confines of the ordaining congregation.” There is no evidence in his writing that he is here pointing to New Testament or early church evidences for such a practice.

[6] Ibid., 22-4.

[7] Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” 474-5. Culpepper is more comfortable with this ordination evidence because it is drawn from a tradition described in the Assumption of Moses which “dates from the opening decades of the first century A.D. or earlier and is the only evidence for ordination in pre-Christian Judaism.” Here, interestingly, “no laying on of hands is mentioned.”

[8] Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism, 237.

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part III

As mentioned in the last post we will now look at four interesting uses of samakh in conjunction with yad as found in Numbers 8:10; 27:18, 23; and Deuteronomy 34:9.

The Numbers 8:10 passage deals with the cleansing and dedication of the Levites, where we read that “the children of Israel shall lay their hands on the Levites” (Num 8:10).[1] The first relevant feature to be observed is that this is a congregational laying on of hands. The second feature has to do with the purpose of the laying on of hands, which the rest of the chapter explains. God had taken the Levites, instead of the first born of Israel, and had “given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his sons from among the children of Israel, to do the work for the children of Israel in the tabernacle of meeting, and to make atonement for the children of Israel” (Num 8:19). One therefore could possibly see this ceremony as “creating a representative or substitute” for the children of Israel (to use Daube’s category), and the laying on of hands could be a symbolical representation of this transference.[2] Third, while one could argue that, due to their newfound position, the Levites had power over the Israelites, there is nothing in this ceremony or in their new position which implies that this dedication imparted authority to them.

The other three passages (Num 27:18, 23; Deut 34:9) deal with the inauguration of Joshua. Here we find that Moses was to take Joshua son of Nun, a man filled by the Spirit, and lay his hands on him to inaugurate him and give some of his authority to him. That being the case, the pattern seen in this passage is different. First, this is an individual laying on of hands, not a congregational one. Second, the laying on of hands is central to the ceremony.[3] Third, the purpose of this inauguration is a transfer of authority. This is evidenced in Deuteronomy 34:9 where it is implied that the children of Israel heeded Joshua, because Moses had laid his hands on him. Mattingly further suggests that Moses’ “hand became a visible representation of YHWH’s communication and of YHWH’s power,” and therefore his “act of laying his hands on Joshua became a visible enactment of the ‘word’ of YHWH with all of its attendant concepts of power.”[4] Some suggest that Deuteronomy 34:9 supports the idea that the Spirit that filled Joshua was there as a result of Moses’ laying on of hands; to this notion, Stancil rightly argues that the Numbers passage clearly stated that Joshua already had the Spirit in him before Moses’ laying on of hands.[5] In any case, this is not, as Daube would understand it, a “pouring of one’s personality into another being.”

Later on we will come back to this "data" combined with "data" from Rabbinic Judaism (which we will tackle in the next post), and "data" from the New Testament, and analyze what Scripture has to say. For the time being, can you think of any other Old Testament "data" that I should have considered?

[1] Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (NKJV) of the Bible.

[2] In any case, there is definitely no indication in the text that this is an act of the children of Israel “pouring of one’s personality” into the Levites, the other definition for Daube’s samakh category.

[3] Mattingly, in Keith Mattingly, “The Significance of Joshua’s Reception of the Laying on of Hands in Numbers 27:12-23,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39.2 (Autumn 2001): 198, through a careful textual and structural analysis, makes a convincing argument that “YHWH appears to be stating that all the other actions depend on” hand-laying.

[4] Ibid., 207-8.

[5] Wilburn Thomas Stancil, “The Practice of Ministerial Ordination among Southern Baptists: a Theological Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1979), 17.

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part II

As we mentioned last time, we determined that only one Old Testament practice could possibly have had some impact on the New Testament community as a setting apart custom: the laying on of hands. A lexical analysis for this practice in the Old Testament results in the identification of three terms that, when associated with the term for hand, yad, or with the term for right hand, yamin, come into play in this discussion. The terms are: samakh,[1] sim,[2] and shith.[3] In his classic chapter on the laying on of hands, Daube lumps sim and shith into the same category, due to their synonymous use in the narration of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons,[4] and contrasts them with samakh. His rationale is based on lexical differences, where he emphasizes a perceived physical difference; his understanding of samakh involves “leaning one’s hands upon someboyad or something,”[5] versus the placing of one’s hands as understood in the use of the other two terms. For Daube, the difference between the samakh terminology and the sim / shith terminology is substantial and can be summarized as follows:

The first kind of imposition is applied to certain offerings, to Levites at their consecration (which was in the nature of an offering by the people), to Joshua at his ordination by Moses and to a criminal convicted of a capital offence. It indicates, we suggest, the pouring of one’s personality into another being, the creation of a representative or substitute. . . . The second kind of imposition is applied in blessing and, to some extent, in healing. It indicates the transference of something other than, or less than, the personality; it means the employment of a special, supernatural faculty of one’s hands.[6]

The validity of Daube’s conclusions on this terminology will be discussed later. The current task is to take a closer look at their Old Testament usage due to its possible connections with the New Testament practices. Let us therefore briefly deal with each term, one at a time. Out of the eighteen appropriate constructions of sim and yad or yamin, and the four appropriate constructions of shith and yad or yamin, none are of interest to the present discussion, for even though we see the laying on of hands in Genesis 47:17-18 as a symbol of blessing, it is not related to a setting aside, installation, consecration, dedication, commissioning, or ordination. On the other hand, out of the twenty-five appropriate constructions of samakh and yad, there are four uses of interest to this research: Numbers 8:10; 27:18, 23; and Deuteronomy 34:9. In the next post we will look these passages and their use of samakh.

Go to Part III

[1] Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [BDB] (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), s.v. samakh. BDB simply defines it as “lean, lay, rest, support, uphold, sustain.” It is used 47 times in the Old Testament, 25 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand. The majority (18) of these 25 uses deal with the sacrificial system and the laying on of hands on an animal offering. One use is the laying on of hands on the blasphemer about to be stoned (Lev 24:14).

[2] BDB defines sim as “put, place, set.” It is used 552 times in the Old Testament, 18 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand, or with yamin, the term for right hand.

[3] BDB defines shith as put, set. It is used 80 times in the Old Testament, 4 of which are associated in some way with dy, the term for hand, or with yamin, the term for right hand.

[4] David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinical Judaism (London: Athlone Press, 1956; reprint, Salem: Ayer Company, 1992), 225. Daube’s argument is based on the fact that in Genesis 48:17 Jacob laid (shith) his right hand on the head of Ephraim, but in Genesis 48:18 Joseph complains and tells his father to put (sim) his right hand on the head of Manasseh.

[5] Ibid.; emphasis mine. Here he states that “the rite of ‘leaning one’s hands upon somebody or something’ involves the exercise of some force and the force is concentrated at the base of the hand, near the joint.”

[6] Ibid. Daube, from this point on, looks at Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament witness and proceeds to categorize all the cases of imposition of hands into these two categories he has created from what he gleaned from his Old Testament lexical study. Daube never makes a strong case for limiting the field to these two categories, and I believe he errs in importing his understanding associated with these two categories into the New Testament, and he especially errs in forcing New Testament passages into these two categories which the terminology and context of the New Testament do not support.

PDF-XChange Viewer

In my doctoral work I have to do a large amount of reading. While I read, I usually underline and make notes on the documents I am reading (I never the learned the lesson that my dad tried so hard to inculcate in me of not writing in books). Since the documents in questions are often PDFs, I was in the habit of printing said documents so I could mark them up. When you have documents like Gill's A complete body of doctrinal and practical divinity or David Benedict's Fifty Years Among the Baptists. that is a lot of printing. So, I set on a journey to find good tool I could use to mark up the PDF itself.

There is of course the full version of Adobe Acrobat, but it is quite costly. So, if like me, you would prefer a free alternative, let me suggest PDF-XChange Viewer. This great piece of software allows you to underline, make notes, etc., rotate pages, and much more, and then save the PDF with these notes. It also allows you to search your notes or go through them sequentially, making research and discussion very efficient.

So, if you are looking for a good, FREE, PDF mark up software, give PDF-XChange Viewer a shot.

EndNote & Palm

SWBTS recently signed a contract with EndNote to distribute this reference / bibliographical software to its students. I promptly installed it on my machine and have been playing with it for a few weeks now. I like the software and will use it to continue cataloging my library, therefore, as you can imagine, I will probably write posts on it from time to time.

As for today's post, it has to do with syncing my EndNote library from my computer to my Palm handheld. Yes, that is a neat feature that comes with EndNote X3: you get the Palm version of the software which gives you the ability of having your library on your Palm. Unfortunately, every time I synced my Palm I got the following error:

EndNote: Unable to find selected library to sync, or no library selected.

I had correctly configured it in EndNote (under Tools/Configure Handheld Sync . . .), but somehow it still could not find my library. I found a clue to a possible solution here. For some reason, pointing to my library file (.enl) in its My Documents location did not work. To solve my syncing problem, I had to copy my library file to the Program Files/Palm/Add-on directory and then configure EndNote to sync with that file. While that is mighty inconvenient, for the time being I have a solution to my problem. Hopefully in the future I will find a better solution; if so, I'll let you know. If you know a better solution, let me know.

Things we learned about Texas - Agave Nectar

Well, I'm not sure this is a Texas thing, since this product is made in Mexico and the company that packages it is headquartered in Onsted, Michigan, but we did discover it in Texas, so it fits in this series.

Agave Nectar is, according to its manufacturer, an "organic nectar from the Agave Plant [which] is great for those who are looking for low glycemic index foods. . . . Natural sweetening properties and blending characteristics make Agave Nectar perfect for coffee, tea, smoothies, and other beverages. It is also a delicious topping for breads, toast, pancakes, and waffles."

We use it as syrup on pain perdu and waffles. It has the same consistency and color as regular store-bought pancake syrup. It is healthier than those fake maple syrups out there (full of corn syrup and all) and, although it is expensive, it is less than half the price of real maple syrup. We give it two thumbs up and the Disseau housekeeping seal of approval!

Ordination - Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I

While Israel is not the church, Old Testament practices have the potential of not only giving insight into God’s desire for His people, but also of giving an understanding of the kinds of practices and concepts with which the early, mainly Jewish, church would have been conversant. A lexical and topical study of Old Testament passages dealing with the inauguration of people into specific positions within the nation of Israel, such as leaders, elders, kings, prophets, priests, Levites, etc., could provide much needed insight into the practice of ordination. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of passages describing such practices. As Culpepper notes, for example: “little is known about the ‘ordination’ of prophets, when there was some such ceremony.” [1] Indeed, all that is known of the anointing of Elisha (1 Kgs 19:16) is that he was to be anointed, and there is no description of consecration, dedication, or installation of Samuel (there is only a description of his divine call) or of Elijah, for example. Nevertheless, this scarcity of passages on the topic does not constitute divine silence on the issue. Passages such as the consecration of Aaron and his sons (Exod 29:1-37, Lev 8), the dedication of the Levites (Num 8:5-26), the installation of the seventy elders to share Moses’ burden (Num 11:16-30), the inauguration of Joshua (Num 27:12-23), the anointing of Saul (1 Sam 9:27-10:25), the anointing of David (1 Sam 16:1-13; 2 Sam 2:1-7; 5:1-5), and the anointing of Solomon (1 Kgs 1:31-40; 1 Chr 29:21-25), do give us some insight into Old Testament practices.

In these passages, one can discern four main trends in practices: the ceremonial washing or purification of those being consecrated or dedicated, the offering of animal sacrifices to the Lord, the anointing with oil, and the laying on of hands. [2] Of interest to this paper are only the trends which find parallels in the pages of the New Testament. Therefore, no matter what one’s view of the tripartite nature of the law and its application to New Testament believers, [3] one will quickly agree that the first two trends, since they find no attestation in any of the practices of the New Testament church, are of no value to our discussion. [4] As for the anointing with oil, the New Testament describes various anointments of Christ with oil and the anointing of the sick with oil. Obviously, the anointing of the sick with oil is not pertinent to our discussion. As for the anointing of Christ, it is directly related to His death in Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8, and John 12:7. This is not an anointing associated with a setting apart for a specific role or function, but a symbolic preparation for the Messiah’s substitutionary death. Therefore, the anointing with oil is irrelevant to the discussion in this paper.

This leaves only one practice that could have had some impact on the New Testament community as a setting apart custom: the laying on of hands. We will discuss this practice next time.

Go to Part II

[1] R. Alan Culpepper, “The Biblical Basis for Ordination,” Review and Expositor 74, no. 4 (Fall 1981): 473.

[2] The practice of ceremonial washing or purification is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons and in the dedication of the Levites. The practice of sacrificing an offering is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the dedication of the Levites, and the anointing of Solomon. Also of interest here is the fact that the Levites themselves were presented as an offering to the Lord. The practice of anointing with oil is found in the consecration of Aaron and his sons, the anointing of Saul, the anointing of David, and the anointing of Solomon. The practice of laying on of hands is found in the dedication of the Levites and the inauguration of Joshua.

[3] For a discussion on the topic see Stanley N. Gundry, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), and Maël Disseau, “Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)” [on-line]; available from http://maelandcindy.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-mosaic-law-tripartite-some-final.html; Internet.

[4] One could hypothesize that these practices are no longer needed, because the work of Christ on the cross has cleansed believers from their sins by paying the required sacrifice, and, while interesting, this line of inquiry is outside the scope of this paper.

SWBTS - received a donation of Dead Sea Scroll fragments

Recently SWBTS received a donation of some fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls from Exodus 23, Leviticus 18, and Daniel 6.

Things we learned about Texas - recycling

This is not the first city we have lived in that recycles, but I must say that Fort Worth is probably the first city we have lived in where the recycling can (blue in the picture) is two to three times larger than the normal trash can (brown in the picture). You can actually ask for a larger trash can, but this is their incentive: "Recycle more, pay less. The more you recycle, the less garbage you have. The less garbage you have, the smaller cart you need. The smaller the garbage cart, the less you pay per month."

In addition, the list of recycling items is also very extensive:

Paper (Paper clips and staples are OK.)

• Advertising circulars
• Carbonless paper
• Cardboard – corrugated cardboard. Large boxes must be broken down or cut to fit inside the cart.
• Catalogs
• Envelopes – with or without windows
• Junk mail
• Magazines
• Newspapers – all sections
• Office paper – file folders, letterhead, sticky notes, printer paper, calendars, school papers
• Paperback books
• Paperboard – cereal boxes (liners removed), soda and beer carry cartons, dry goods packaging, paper towel and toilet paper cores.
• Paper bags
• Phone books

Metal Containers (Please rinse. Labels can be left on.)

• Aluminum drink cans – do not flatten
• Aluminum baking tins – durable; not disposable
• Steel or tin food cans and lids
• Empty aerosol cans – with spray nozzle; remove plastic lid unless part of the can
• Empty steel paint cans – must be empty and dry; a thin skin of dry paint on bottom and sides is OK; remove lid and recycle

Glass Containers (Please rinse. Labels can be left on. All colors accepted.)

• Bottles and jars – remove metal and plastic lids and recycle
• Ceramics
• China
• Dishes
• Mirrors – must fit inside cart with lid closed
• Windowpanes – no auto glass

Plastic Containers (Please rinse. All colors accepted. Must be hard plastics.)

• Bottles, cups and jars – with #1 through #7 recycling symbols on bottom of container; remove caps and lids and recycle
• Food trays, tubs and bowls – with #1 through #7 recycling symbols on bottom of container
• Plastic eating utensils

See: http://www.fortworthgov.org/dem/info/default.aspx?id=8434

Ordination - quick lexical investigation

As mentioned in the last post, there seems to be little cohesion among different traditions as to the purpose and meaning of ordination [1], and even in the Free Church tradition, different groups historically have understood ordination in different ways. This might be due to the fact that even a lexical investigation of the English word ‘ordain’, as Patterson points out, “provides limited assistance on the subject of ordination.” In the King James Version ‘ordain’ is the “translation of more than twenty Hebrew and Greek terms,”[2] but this wide use of the word was apparently reconsidered in the more modern New King James Version where it is only used to translate seven of those Hebrew and Greek terms. The etymology of the term is also not very helpful in the matter. The term surfaced in the English language in the late thirteenth century with the meaning “to appoint or admit to the ministry of the Church.” It is held to have come from the Latin ordino, ordinare, through the Old French ordener.[3] Following the trail, investigating the verb ordino reveals that it comes from the noun ordo, “order,” and besides its traditional meaning of “to order, set in order, adjust, dispose, regulate,” there are a few secular first century attestations of its use as “to ordain, appoint to office.” Its ecclesiastical meaning of “to ordain as a priest or pastor, to admit to clerical office,” finds attestations as early as the fourth century, as in Lampridius’ history of the third century Roman emperor Alexander Severus, but, surprisingly, its fifth century use in the Vulgate is mostly not ecclesiastical, rather it is used with the plain meaning of “to order, set in order, adjust, dispose, regulate.”[4]

All of this sheds little to no light on the practice of ordination as seen in the New Testament. Therefore in the next post I will start looking at the Biblical data on ordination, starting with the Old Testament.

---

[1] In the 1993 book Anyone for Ordination?, editor Paul Beasley-Murray presents eight different traditions representing: Anglican, Independent, Methodist, ‘New Church’, Anabaptist, Roman Catholic, United Reformed, and Baptist. In these traditions, the range of understanding goes from sacramental to only recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit and from for clergy only to for all believers.

[2] Paige Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” 251.

[3] Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary, s.v. “ordain,” [on-line]; accessed 15 November 2009; available from http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ordain; Internet. Here is a sample of other modern definitions: Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority;” Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “to invest with ministerial or sacerdotal functions; to introduce into the office of the Christian ministry, by the laying on of hands, or other forms; to set apart by the ceremony of ordination; to set apart for an office;” or Concise Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “ordain:” “confer holy orders on.”

[4] Charlton T. Lewis, Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879), s.v. “ordĭno,” [on-line]; accessed 15 November 2009; available from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry%3Dordino; Internet. The only possible ecclesiastical use of ordino in the Vulgate might be found in 2 Cor 8:19. This verse is to be discussed below.

Things we learned about Texas - Driver Licences

When we first arrived, we went to get our TX driver licences. We showed up at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) office and were first of all pleasantly surprised that their hours of operation for that day were 8:00 AM to 7:00 PM (now, that is only on Thursdays, but still, that is better than the office in NC which closes at 5:00 PM everyday). We then waited in a short line to be informed that since we own a vehicle, we needed to get our vehicle registered BEFORE we could get our driver licences (I'm not sure what you do if you do not have a vehicle). THEN we could come back, and provided we brought our old driver licences, social security cards, and birth certificates or passports (in my case my green card), we could get a new licence without having to take a written or practice test (and the people rejoiced greatly, for I hate to study for those written tests).

So, we headed to the Tarrant County Tax Assessor Office to get our vehicle registered. After waiting a few minutes for our number to be to called, the lady kindly informed us that we needed to have our vehicle inspected BEFORE we could register our vehicle. When we mentioned that it would have been nice if the lady at DPS had told us that, the lady at the Tax Office answered that unfortunately the DPS always tells people to go see them first.

We then headed to get our car inspected. It passed, praise God, but by the time they were done, it was too late to get any of the rest done.

Here is the lesson: when you move to TX, FIRST get your car inspected, SECOND get your car registered, and THIRD get your driver licence.

Ordination - Intro

It is a clear Fall Sunday afternoon in the parking lot of the facility for First Baptist Nowhere, several cars are pulling in. Distinguished men dressed in suits exit their cars, Bible in hand. One, two, three, ... it seems that most of the pastors of the local association have answered the invitation. After a couple of handshakes and a few greetings, they enter the building and all gather in a room. The door is shut swiftly. A few hours later, the door opens again and the pastors emerge through it, smiling and leading a young gentleman to the sanctuary. There, a service is soon to take place: an ordination service. After some songs and a commissioning sermon, the ordination council will present the young man as a candidate for ordination. They will proceed to lay their hands on this young man, and they will congratulate him. The excitement in the crowd will be mixed. Many will see this as a happy occasion, God has called yet another believer to “the ministry,” but several will not really understand what just happened before their very eyes.

Rarely explained, often controversial, the concept of ordination is one which, in this day and age, has resulted in much ink being spilt [1]. Yet, not withstanding all the books and articles which have been written, there still seems to be little cohesion among different traditions as to the purpose and meaning of ordination, and even in the Free Church tradition, different groups historically have understood ordination in different ways. Since the term ordination is not found in Scripture, our task cannot be to see how the term is used in Scripture, but has to be to answer the following question: does the New Testament support the concept of ordination? In light of the answer to this first question, a second question will also be addressed: what is ordination and what are its characteristics? To accomplish this, this series of posts will use the following approach: the data will be presented with a minimum of analysis; next, the data will be analyzed and the analysis summarized; finally, a proposal will be presented based on this summary.

Introduction
Quick Lexical Investigation
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Old Testament Part I, Part II, and Part III
Evidence in the Pre New Testament Context - Rabbinic Judaism
Evidence from the New Testament - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6
Analysis and Discussion of the Biblical Data - Intro, Commissioning Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, and Ordination
So What of Ordination?
Proposal - Part 1 and Part 2
Ordination - Conclusion

Excursus 1 - The NT Concept of Ministry
Excursus 2 - Hierarchy in the Body of Christ

---

[1] The number of volumes written on ordination is great and their approach and scope varied. As if the topic were not unsettled enough, recently the topic of ordaining women has caused many to examine the concept of ordination yet again, resulting in at least three entire journal issues dedicated to the topic in the last three decades: see Review and Expositor 78.4 (Fall 1981), Contents 23.3 (July 1988), and Perspective in Religious Studies 29.3 (Fall 2002); in addition to other articles in journals and books: see Paige Patterson, “The Meaning of Authority in the Local Church,” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem (Wheaton: Crossway, 1991), 251-264, or Vera Sinton, “Called, Gifted, and Authorized – An Anglican Woman’s Perspective,” in Anyone for Ordination?, ed. Paul Beasley-Murray (Tunbridge Wells, Kent, England: MARC, 1993), 137-156, for just two examples among a plethora.

Things we learned about Texas - Intro

We have now been in Texas for over three months. In a limited time here, we have discovered several interesting things about this state: some interesting, some annoying, and some just plain humorous. So, I figured that I would share some of these in a new series: "Things we learned about Texas."

Pendleton. Baptist Church Manual - A book review

Pendleton, J.M. Baptist Church Manual, rev. ed. Nashville: B&H, 1966. 178 pp. $ 4.36.

A Virginia native and a great proponent of landmarkism, the late James Madison Pendleton was a prolific book and newspaper author, writing such titles as An Old Landmark Reset, a hymn book entitled The Southern Psalmist, and the very popular Baptist Church Manual, which is now in its fifteenth printing since it was first published in 1867.

Summary

The Church Manual is divided in seven chapters and five appendices. In broad strokes, it could be said that the seven chapters deal with doctrine and the appendices deal with praxis, if that would not run the risk of understating the practicality of doctrine and its discussion. Pendleton starts by spending a whole chapter on the nature of the church. While he admits a larger meaning for the term, “the redeemed in the aggregate” (5), he quickly points out that a majority of passages refer to a local assembly. He therefore defines a church as “a congregation of Christ’s baptized disciples, acknowledging him as their Head, relying on his atoning sacrifice for justification before God, and depending on the Holy Spirit for sanctification, united in the belief of the gospel, agreeing to maintain its ordinances and obey its precepts, meeting together to worship, and cooperating for the extension of Christ’s kingdom in the world” (7) He then proceeds to discuss the “moral and ceremonial” (8) qualifications of the membership of such a church. The moral requirements are repentance and faith, both of which have to precede the ceremonial requirement of baptism. Some attention is then dedicated to how a new church is constituted and how members are received and how membership is ceased.

The second chapter details the officers of the church. Said “officers are not necessary to the being of a church,” as can be seen by the absence of their mention in the definition he gives for a church, but “they are necessary to its well-being” (22). Pendleton identifies the “two officers that each church should have” as pastors and deacons (23), but also introduces two other officers, one which is “a prudential arrangement for each church to have,” namely the church clerk, and the other one being the trustees, which “are generally the legal custodians of the church property” (37).

In the third chapter entitled the “Doctrines of the Church,” Pendleton, after a short introduction, reproduces J. Newton Brown’s “A Declaration of Faith,” which is nothing less than the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 with an added church covenant and a prayer. In the introduction to this chapter, Pendleton informs the reader that the “Bible contains the revelation of God to man,” and declarations of faith “are not substitutes for the Scriptures. They are only exponents of what are conceived to be the fundamental doctrines of the word of God” (41-3).

Pendleton continues into chapter four by tackling the ordinances of a church, which he identifies as two: baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In the section on baptism, after defining baptism as “the immersion in water, by a proper administrator, of a believer in Christ, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” Pendleton like many of his epoch, spends much time reasoning that baptism has to be by immersion. He then logically continues on to the proper subject of baptism where he argues that s/he has to be a believer, and therefore not an unbeliever or an infant. While talking of infants, he does undertake to deal with the issue of the death of un-baptized infants. As for the Lord’s Supper, Pendleton sees it “chiefly and supremely” as a commemoration of the death of Christ, so much so that he states that “the death of the Lord should monopolize all the power of memory” (89). Much of the subsequent discussion is to establish that “the meeting of a church is indispensable to a scriptural observance” of the supper (90). Church membership is thus used to imply the prerequisite of baptism for the supper.

As for church government, Pendleton identifies three distinct types: Episcopacy, Presbyterianism, and congregationalism. Pendleton identifies the salient features of Episcopacy as a church government which “recognizes the right of bishops to preside over districts of country” where the “bishop is officially superior to other ministers” and of Presbyterianism as a church government which “recognizes two classes of elders –preaching elders and ruling elders” (100-1). Three are the distinctives which he attributes to congregationalism: “that the governmental powers is in the hands of the people,” “the right of a majority of members of a church to rule,” and “that the power of a church cannot be transferred or alienated” (101-2). He then proceeds to argue for congregationalism alone is the New Testament model.

The penultimate chapter addresses the disciplines of the church or “the process by which the spiritual improvement, usefulness and efficiency of a church are promoted” (117). This includes formative and corrective discipline. The later is the major focus of this chapter. As for the last chapter, Pendleton separated the duties of the church into two categories: the duties to one another and the duties to the world. The latter includes personal evangelism, Sunday School, distribution of Bibles, etc., and sustaining missions.

As for the appendices, they include practical information on the business meeting of a church, various templates for letters and forms, a brief marriage ceremony, a section on associations and councils, and a section on Baptist declarations of faith. One has to wonder, though, how many of these are original to Pendleton, since Appendix V contains postmortem dates.

Critical Evaluation

Pendleton definitely wrote this manual as a defense of Baptist ecclesiology as the New Testament model. His justifications are often scripturally based, lexically sustained, and logically reasoned. There are times, though, when the reader is left wanting a more substantial scriptural basis for what Pendleton’s ideas and is frustrated by his repeated “lack of room” argument (see 26 for example). At other times, the scriptural justification is simply not found, and I am not only talking of points where he clearly deals with “secular” issues, like the necessity of trustees, but also about points where one would expect Scripture not to be silent on the issues. Throughout, he is very much so apologetic in his approach and often uses the writings of his opponents to convincingly support his assertions.

His starting the book with a discussion on the nature of the church is very much so appreciated, for such a discussion is often lacking and always necessary when dealing with ecclesiology. One has to wonder, though, if Pendleton would have thought that a non-cooperating church was actually not a church. The same could be asked about his necessity to meet together for worship. Would a congregation that meets together primarily for edification (1 Cor 14:26) and encouragement (Heb 10:25), understanding that God has called them to worship at all times (Rom 12:12, Rev 4), not be a church?

Reading Pendleton, I found myself shocked to find much of what I see as wrong with typical Baptist ecclesiology being stipulated by a pastor and Bible scholar. Let me deal with only one issue as an example, due to lack of space (can you say tu quoque?). While claiming to be an advocate of congregationalism, which he defines as the majority rules and the minority submits (which begs the question: is this understanding of congregationalism really the New Testament model of unity, love, and dying to self?), Pendleton practically advocates ruling elders called deacons. The Pendletonian pastor has “an authority not belonging to other church-members” (27), yet his duties “are preeminently spiritual” (31) and therefore there is a need for deacons, whose duties are both spiritual and secular and who are “a connecting link between the pastor and the needy one of the church” (33). One can see how ruling deacons got their start with such a train of thought. Pendleton displays some inconsistency, for he proceeds to argue for a plethora of standing committees so that the deacons can “share with the pastor in the spiritual ministries of the church,” which is their “role that is consistent with the place of the office in the New Testament” (35). Does he mean by that, that the deacons’ secular duties, which he argues for, are unbiblical? Is any of this true, Biblical congregationalism?

Conclusion

I conclude that Pendleton is a must read for two reasons. First, it does provide some good Biblical and lexical information about some core Baptist beliefs. Second, it allows us to understand better the background which undergirds the current typical Baptist church model. If we are to regain a New Testament church model, it is essential that we understand where people are and why they believe what they do.

Yarnell. “From Christological Ecclesiology to Functional Ecclesiasticism." - A short review

Yarnell, Malcolm. “From Christological Ecclesiology to Functional Ecclesiasticism: Developments in Southern Baptist Understandings of the Nature and Role of the Churches.” Paper presented to the Anglican Communion-Baptist World Alliance International Theological Conversations, Wolfville, Nova Scotia, 11 September 2003.

In this article, Yarnell proposes to “elucidate developing understandings of the nature and role of the church” in Southern Baptist circles to show that “Southern Baptists have traded their original Christological ecclesiology for a functional ecclesiasticism” (1). It is not clear why understandings is plural, since he is tracing the historiography of one group, which he ultimately presents as having a relatively homogeneous ecclesiology. Yarnell’s journey begins, as is often his style, with a historical overview, where he traces Baptist foundations to the Reformation Church of England. Probably for the benefit of his audience, Yarnell spends much effort teasing out the common roots and similar beliefs of our English Baptist forefathers and their Anglican forefathers. It is not clear if Yarnell ignores the other forefathers of the modern Baptists due to his scope or due to his historical beliefs. Nevertheless, he finds parallels in Baptist and Anglican views of the Bible, justification, and prayer. He sees the beginning of tensions when “radicals were denied episcopal preaching licenses.” One is not clear if Yarnell believes that had the bishops agreed to license these radicals, they would not have separated, for he concludes that the difficulties ultimately lay with ecclesiology.

Yarnell transitions to a discussion of the historically Christological ecclesiology of our Baptist forefathers. He sees the genesis of Baptist ecclesiological doctrines in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and attributes the identification of the “locus classicus for early Separatists and Baptists” (Matt 18:20) to Anglican liturgical practices. It is in this passage that, according to Yarnell, early Baptists found inspiration for the authority of the gathered congregation. Christ, as prophet, priest, and king, our only Mediator, is the one who “dispenses the authority to preach, to pray, and to rule” (4). In these three offices of Christ, they saw the three marks of the church: the Word, the sacraments, and discipline. “God and His people came together in covenant and to form the local church” (4).

Yarnell eventually migrates his setting to the New World and focuses on the development of the Southern Baptist Convention. Yarnell sees a gradual transformation caused by the freedom of the New World, the eighteenth and nineteenth century evangelical awakenings, the frontier mentality, and the American governmental system. The transformation finally culminated in a separation from the early Baptist “ideological roots” due to a “general lack of education . . . coupled with the self-sufficient nature of the churches” (6). All that remained was the functional ecclesiasticism which was lacking ideological roots. This, coupled with individualism and liberalism, resulted in the demise of church discipline and resulted in a “crassly voluntaristic understanding of the nature of the church” (7). It is on this low note that Yarnell transitions to the last part of his essay, where he presents the average ecclesiastical model of the typical Baptist church. He divides this section into three parts: churches in relation to their people, churches in relation to God, and churches in relation to “the other.” His description of the typical Baptist church is unfortunately accurate and does prove his point. While Yarnell seems to identify the typical Baptist church’s problems and their causes, he does not offer any suggestions of how to return to a Christological ecclesiology, as a matter of fact, his article ends rather abruptly.