This passage presents us with some surprises. The first is that in these very early days of the church in Jerusalem we find complaining; it’s there in the very first verse. But this was a time when God was powerfully blessing the preaching and teaching of the apostles, a time when the Holy Spirit was working through the gospel bringing large numbers – much larger than anything we have experienced – to faith in Jesus Christ. On the day of Pentecost 3,000 had been added to the 120 who had gathered for prayer in Jerusalem. In chapter 4:4 we read: But many of those who had heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to about 5,000. Then in chapter 5:14 we are told: And more than ever believers were added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women. And here the opening words are: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number. It is surely surprising, almost a shock, to find complaining in the middle of such growth and such an evident work of the Holy Spirit.
And more than that. In the beginning of chapter 5 we have the tragic story of Ananias and Sapphira. The result of that sad episode was this: great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things. You might have thought that that fear would still linger on and people would fear to complain. Then, in the second half of chapter 5 we are told of the arrest of the apostles, and the desire on the part of many of the members of the council to put them to death. Humanly speaking, it seems that it was only through the intervention of Gamaliel that this did not take place. So you might also have thought that this increasing opposition would have brought the believers together and would have silenced all complaints in view of the need to stand against the threat and danger that faced them all.
There are other surprises that I could point to, but the one which is most important for our purpose this morning is this. Doesn’t it seem surprising that this complaint, this problem, was dealt with so harmoniously and quickly? An apostles’ meeting, a church meeting, and by the end of that the whole thing was settled! Perhaps it wasn’t quite as quick as it might appear because no time scale is given, but the problem was certainly sorted out with efficiency to everyone’s satisfaction. And here is where we see the condition of the church and the working of the Holy Spirit in it at that time. Problems and difficulties will always arise; they will arise in times of revival, in times of growth; they will arise unexpectedly. The presence of problems, even complaints, says nothing about the spiritual condition of the churches in which they occur. But how they are handled, and whether they are dealt with wisdom, spirituality and efficiency and brought to a successful outcome, says a great deal.
In turning to this passage I have six headings; so you will be able to keep track of our progress through the passage.
1 The occasion
The occasion is described in the opening verse: Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number. A problem arose because the church was growing, numbers were increasing, and also because there were two different groups of people within the church, Hebrew speaking Jews (or to be more accurate, Aramaic speaking Jews) and Greek speaking Jews. Both these factors led to the problem and the complaining. Taking the second of them first, we can note that British society is now more diverse than it has been for centuries, perhaps than it has ever been, and this is bound to affect churches. Then, if a problem can arise when a church grows, it can also happen when a church shrinks in size. It can happen when circumstances alter, or when the membership alters. Alteration may simply come about through the passing of time, the same people may be there, but now they are all older, and not able to do what they used to do. Or it may be that the numbers are much the same, but older, more mature Christians have passed away, some, perhaps, have moved away, and there are now many new believers who need teaching and establishing in the faith. As we all know, problems of many different sorts are inevitable in church life.
I am not one who favours change when there seems no need for it. I think there should be a definite sense of stability and continuity in church life. There does need, of course, to be a constant measuring of a church’s life against the Scriptures and this may well lead to changes which enable the church to reflect more adequately Scriptural priorities and principles. But new problems and complaints have to be responded to as well. And churches are confronted with plenty of these nowadays. If possible it is obviously better to anticipate them beforehand, or at least to spot them early on before any complaining begins. With hindsight we might feel that the apostles could perhaps have realised that the daily distribution of provisions for the widows was getting too much for them to handle adequately by themselves. Just as, with hindsight, we can see that many difficulties which arise in churches were gradually developing over a fairly long period. There is a difficult balance here. On the one hand we don’t want to be problem-orientated, always looking to see what problems are lurking round the corner, or to react to trends which may never develop into problems at all. On the other hand, if real problems can be nipped in the bud it is much better for everyone.
The point I want to make here is just this. As time goes by and as churches grow or shrink, as circumstances or personnel change, so new opportunities, needs and problems arise. We need to be ready for them.
2 The problem
The problem concerned the ministry of care within the church at Jerusalem. Such a ministry is always necessary, though the type of care may change with different circumstances. In those days it was care for the widows, and that care was primarily a material one, it was the livelihood of the widows that was threatened because they had no husbands to provide for them. Throughout the Bible we find that God has a care for vulnerable people, the widow and orphan are often mentioned, as is the stranger. The foreigner who came to live within the borders of Israel was naturally at a disadvantage and could very easily be despised and neglected simply because of his origin. Times have changed and by and large people’s material needs are met in our own country, so that there is not the same need for such provision – though we must not overlook the needs of brothers and sisters in many other parts of the world.
One of our problems is often that of isolation and loneliness, whether we are thinking of widows, widowers or older couples, all of whom are generally living longer these days. Families no longer live in close proximity to each other. The state provides for people to come in to help with cleaning and meals and medical needs. But the elderly often spend long periods without seeing other people. Many of them are unable to get out to public worship or to enjoy fellowship with other believers. Unless someone comes to see them, they remain alone feeling cut off and sometimes spiritually dry, in need of encouragement and ministry of the word and prayer. Not for a moment am I suggesting that the ministry of care is restricted to older people, I am just using this as an example, bearing in mind that it was widows in our passage.
Underlying the complaint was a relational problem. As we’ve seen this arose because of two slightly different groups in the church. They were all Jews – or at least very largely Jews – but some spoke Aramaic while the others were Greek speakers, which suggests they were probably influenced by Greek culture in other ways as well, and may have come from other parts of the Mediterranean to live in Jerusalem. As you can see it wasn’t just the widows that complained, it was the friends and relatives of the widows. Perhaps there was a general tension between these two groups in society, and sadly an opportunity was given for this to surface within the church.
Relationships are always important in church life. Many problems have a relational element to them. Sometimes a personality clash is the root cause of a problem, very often a real problem is made worse by underlying relational tensions, as seems to be so here. If I can introduce a note that is not found explicitly in the passage, it seems to me that the devil loves to spoil fellowship within churches by working on already existing tensions and pressure points. We need to watch out for him.
But there was a further element here that we need to notice. What is the precise role of the apostles, and, bringing things up to date, what is the precise role of pastors and elders? You can see that up until this point the apostles had obviously been responsible for providing for the widows. Was it right for them to continue this work; to devote more time to it; to enlarge the apostolate to take account of an increased workload? Certainly not; and this is one of the dilemmas that often exercises pastors within churches. How far should they be jack-of-all-trades, or should they be much more focused in their ministries? So, as is frequently the case, this problem had a number of facets to it, and it was important to solve it as soon as possible in such a way that proper care was exercised, relations put right, and the apostles enabled to get on with their own calling.
3 The remedy
First of all the apostles must have consulted with each other. Whether or not they were accustomed to get together for prayer and discussion about how things were going in the church, they certainly came together on this occasion. In doing so, they obviously took the complaining seriously. There is no suggestion that they took the compliant personally, as they could have done, and as others might have done in their place. You know what one or more of them could have said, ‘Why are we being criticised like this and accused of neglect? Can’t these people see how busy we are, and that we’ve been doing our best. If it wasn’t for us those widows wouldn’t have anything at all and yet all we get are complaints!’ There is no hint of anything like that; they examined the situation carefully and recognised there was a real problem that needed to be dealt with. There is a lesson for all of us in this.
They realised, too, that this situation must not be allowed to continue; it was unsatisfactory for the widows concerned and it was a source of dissension in the church. It needed to be dealt with immediately and decisively. They had met to decide a course of action and deal with the matter. There are, of course, a great variety of church matters that leaders have to consider, of varying priority and importance. Nevertheless, I fear that many leaders meetings end up being long on discussion and short on decision. I remember seeing in a Christian bookshop a poster, I think it was illustrated with animals but that doesn’t matter. It was the words that were telling: ‘When all is said and done, they’ll be much more said than done.’ I also remember one minister saying to me, about deacons’ meetings, I think, ‘We meet to decide’. It is a good motto to adopt.
The apostles also realised that if the widows were going to be cared for adequately, and if they were going to fulfil their ministry of prayer and preaching the word properly, others would have to be called in to do what they had been doing. I wonder if any of them felt they really ought to carry on doing the work themselves. Did any of them think, ‘I don’t want to give up this job, I just think we all ought to work harder’? Did anyone say to himself, ‘People will think we’re lazy, and just want to stay at home when we’re not actually preaching’? Did someone say, ‘Can we be sure anyone else will do this work properly and fairly, at least we know what we’re doing’? I don’t know, but if such thoughts passed through any apostolic mind, they all soon came to see that they were mistaken thoughts, and I would say they were actually unworthy thoughts.
But if others needed to be given this work to do, certain other things had to be decided. What sort of people would be fit for the task, how many who would be needed, and who would appoint them? All these questions could have provoked considerable discussion and disagreement among the apostles, but they seemed to have reached unanimity without any difficulty. The task of choosing the men for the job was delegated to the church; the church was to be trusted to do this, and then the apostles would pray and set them apart to their work with the laying on of hands. They decided that it needed seven men for this work. The church was very large, there were many widows and it was a formidable task to ensure they were all provided for. Incidentally, if seven men were needed it shows how inadequate it had been for the twelve apostles to try and do it all themselves. I wonder if any of the apostles thought seven was too many, or not enough? You could spend hours debating a thing like that, if you were minded to do so, couldn’t you? Anyway, they agreed on the figure seven. I can’t believe that as they left their meeting Peter would have turned to Andrew and said, ‘I still believe eight would be better’.
And so the apostles called the church together. It must have been a huge gathering, the full number of the disciples. Briefly they outlined the position to the church: It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God and serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. This commended itself to all who were there: And what they said pleased the whole gathering. Obviously this can’t be guaranteed every time. I think there were probably two elements to this. On the one hand what the apostles were proposing was so clearly wise and just what was needed that everyone concurred with it. On the other, I believe the members of the church came together with a desire to settle the matter, with great respect for the apostles derived from their ministry and what was known of their character, with good will and concern for the welfare of the whole church. As a result there was no need to discuss what the apostles proposed, but simply to get on and choose the seven men. Which was what they did.
We could imagine a different outcome. I suppose there are some here who have been present in leaders’ meetings – whether elders’ or deacons’ – and have discussed an issue at length and then brought a proposal to a church meeting only to find that the same long discussion takes place all over again and all the same considerations are rehearsed in detail once more. Suppose that had happened here; suppose one of the apostles had got up and said, ‘I think we ought to appoint eight men rather than seven. I said so in the apostles’ meeting, only to be over-ruled, but now I think we have an opportunity to re-consider the whole matter’. The result could easily have been prolonged discussion over a detail. After all if you appoint seven and that proves to be an inadequate number you can always add another later on. In our day such a discussion often comes to a conclusion with someone saying, ‘I think we ought to give ourselves more time to pray about this; let’s adjourn it, get on with the agenda and come back to it at the next church meeting.’ Which may be 3 months away.
Now it is undoubtedly important to discuss issues thoroughly; and it is important for people to feel free to speak, to ask questions and raise any concerns that they have. But decisions have to be taken, and action has to follow carrying out what was decided. In fact, of course, decisions are always taken. A postponement is a decision to do nothing, at least for the time being. At times that will be a wise decision to take, but if it is nothing but procrastination it is a hindrance to the church and can do much more damage than is sometimes realised.
As far as we know the church in Jerusalem had no set procedure for meetings or the appointment of others to ministry. The apostles acted as they did in getting together about the provision for the widows because they needed to do this. They called the church together because they realised this was the best way to proceed. We may believe that in acting as they did they were setting a precedent. Supremely, however, they were acting wisely, as spiritually minded men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We like to have our procedures all set down in a constitution, or some such document, and it is wise, probably necessary, to have agreed ways of doing things. Yet at the same time, we must not be hidebound by what has always been done in the past. Indeed, as circumstances change and membership alters, and new challenges and different issues confront the church it may well be the case that new procedures are called for. The ideal is always so to act that everyone will be pleased because they see the wisdom of what is being proposed. What works in practice is always better than theoretical or out-dated ways that hinder the functioning of the church.
4 The ministries
There has been some debate about whether the seven who were appointed here were the first deacons. It is often said that this is so; but others are doubtful because the seven are not explicitly called ‘deacons’. The way I look at it is this. The Lord Jesus, as far as we know, did not give any instructions about appointing elders or deacons. When Jesus ascended into heaven we know there were 120 disciples in Jerusalem and more than 500 brothers in Galilee, and doubtless these figures do not represent the sum total of those who believed in him. Out of these there were eleven who were given the name of apostle, and Acts has already told us how Matthias had been added to that number to replace Judas Iscariot. The apostles are very prominent in the early chapters of Acts and we know they had a crucial teaching role in the Jerusalem church because the believers after the day of Pentecost devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching. Which means they listened carefully to that teaching, believed it and lived by it. So the apostles were clearly exercising a spiritual ministry in the church, and their very action here shows them exercising spiritual oversight and seeking to remove the grounds for complaint. Notice too that they said about the seven, whom we will appoint to this duty.
The seven were appointed by the church and exercised a ministry within the church. They served the church in the specific way which was needed at that time. So we find there were two groups of men recognised within the church to fulfil two different sorts of service; one a ministry of teaching and spiritual oversight, the other a ministry that is described as ‘serving tables’. This was very necessary at the time, and its nature was more practical than directly spiritual. It was surely in this way that the Lord guided his people to develop a twofold ministry within local churches: a teaching/oversight ministry and a more practical ministry according to the needs of the church. This clearly matches with what we find later on in the New Testament with its description of elders and deacons.
The most important point is that both of these were functional ministries, both groups served in the church. They had not been appointed to confer among themselves, but to work in the church. That doesn’t mean that the apostles didn’t need to meet and discuss together, clearly in this case they needed to and so they did. It would also have been necessary for the seven to decide among themselves how they would share out the work they had to do. The point is not about meetings at all, but the carrying out of what needs to be done. Meetings are about decisions, and the work is carrying out what has been decided. The work of the seven required them to attend diligently and faithfully to providing for the needs of the widows. This still left time for Stephen to exercise a powerful ministry in other ways, but we can be sure that that was not at the expense of the responsibility that had been placed upon his shoulders.
I don’t want to over-stress this point, but experience suggests that if church leaders and church meetings sometimes find it hard to come to decisions, it seems even harder actually to implement the decisions that have been made. I say this only partly from my own experience as a pastor, but more from what I have begun to hear as I now have opportunity to visit more churches. It is true that we live at a time when people seem busier than ever, though that is partly because there is so much more that we are able to do in these days. But what we are talking about is the Lord’s work, the thoroughness and efficiency with which things that are necessary are carried out in the churches of Jesus Christ. We cannot do everything, and sometimes churches try to take on more than they can cope with. But some things are priorities, and these need to be recognised, and they need to be done properly, in a way which honours the Lord and is a testimony to those who have contact with the church.
Let’s come back to the two sorts of ministries mentioned here. There is the spiritual care of members. This is the responsibility of the pastor or pastor and elders. Not that it is always their responsibility to visit or give counsel themselves, but it is their responsibility to ensure that appropriate care is given. It is also their responsibility, as here in this passage, to see that as far as possible, others are appointed to cover those areas of church life that lie beyond their direct ministry.
Let me throw in a rather provocative suggestion because I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that we have got things the wrong way round. We tend to appoint deacons and then decide what they should do – though in many churches I’m not sure that every deacon is given anything specific to do. Some, treasurers and secretaries, for example, often work extremely hard, whereas others seem to have no particular responsibilities at all. My own belief is that we should appoint people to fulfil specific functions – as was done in Acts 6. These, then, are the deacons, the servants of the church: those who serve the church according to the task they have been given. Whether you agree with that or not I do think it is important for us to think of deacons as having a functional role in the church; there are things that they do, and they are to be done thoroughly and well. It is a fact, too, of course, that there is plenty of scope for deacons, and all church members, to act on their own initiative without waiting to be given any specific task.
5 The explanation
How is it that everything was carried out so smoothly in the Jerusalem church? As I said at the beginning everything was carried out quickly and harmoniously, and the cause for complaint was tackled and the whole situation put right. What were the factors that were responsible for this?
The first is simply this; this is a church. It is not a business or a club or a trade union or a local council; it is an assembly of God’s people. It is a spiritual body made up of those who have been born again by the Spirit’s power, who are all united by faith to Jesus Christ, children of the same heavenly Father who have been brought together into one church by God’s providential ordering. It is a fellowship of those who share a common life, a common Lord, a common hope, a common purpose, a common destiny. The reality of Christian fellowship is very marked in the early chapters of Acts. In chapter 2:42 the second thing we are told the believers devoted themselves to after the apostles’ teaching was fellowship.
Remember also these verses from that chapter: And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favour with all the people. And chapter 4:32 says, Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. I am not concerned at this point with the way they shared their goods, though that does have something to say to us today, but simply with the obvious sense of unity, of belonging, of joy together, of one heart and one soul. There is, surely, a considerable challenge here.
The second factor is their prayerfulness. Again this is something marked in these first chapters. We might almost say that the church was born in a prayer meeting. Chapter 1:14, All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. Chapter 2 begins, When the day of Pentecost arrived, they were all together in one place, suggesting they were met together for prayer once again. The Pentecost converts devoted themselves not only to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, but also to the breaking of bread and the prayers, the plural word being suggestive there. In chapter 4 after Peter and John had been released by the council we read, When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it they lifted up their voices together to God and said, Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, and they continued praying to their sovereign Lord. And then we read, And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.
It is quite clear that the church in Jerusalem prayed about everything. Here we find the apostles saying, we will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the word. And when the seven have been selected, These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them. There are two things we ought not to overlook about this. Firstly, there is here a recognition of the lordship of Christ as head of the church. This is what Peter expressed so powerfully on the day of Pentecost, God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. It was the will of Christ that the apostles and the church desired to be done. This I take it to be the whole purpose of church meetings. They are not simply a type of secular democracy; one member, one vote. The church comes together in an attitude of prayer to seek together the will of its Lord and Master.
Secondly, they expected the will of Christ to be expressed as the Holy Spirit guided them. There is, of course, considerable reference to the Holy Spirit in these chapters. It is especially remarkable to look at what we are told in chapter 15. Here we have a meeting of the Jerusalem church together with Paul and Barnabas and others representing the concerns of the church at Antioch. There was much debate and after James had given his judgement a letter was written to the brothers who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. It contained this phrase: For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements. It may be that that indicates a more definitive guidance by the Spirit than we can expect in these days, but we should pray with submission to our Head, expecting the Spirit to guide and lead us to decisions that are wise and honouring to Christ. Church meetings ought to be joyful and thankful, even exciting, meetings as God’s people are led together in ways that are good in the eyes of the Lord.
Perhaps these two are the most obvious factors, but I would like to mention two more which are not explicit here, but which I think are clearly implied by the sense of fellowship the church enjoyed. The first is that there can surely be no doubt that the members were concerned for the good of the whole church. Their sense of oneness, their readiness to give and to share, the fact that the whole gathering was pleased with what the apostles proposed all point to this. They had the welfare of the whole church and all its members at heart. How important this is. There is no individualism or factionalism here.
Then I believe we can say that there was a mutual humility and submissiveness among them. They had taken Christ’s yoke upon them and so they too were in some measure meek and lowly in heart. What Paul prayed for the Ephesians was surely found among them. Walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
And the more, by God’s grace, our churches are like this, not only will problems be solved and church meetings lead to progress and wise appointments of those who serve in the church. The spirit of love, unity and care we are thinking about will spill over into spontaneous and informal action. I was talking to someone recently who had not been able to get to any service for quite some time. He was standing at his front door when a deacon from the church came past and, stopping to speak, mentioned that he hadn’t seen him recently. My friend told him he wasn’t well, and suggested the deacon might like to drop in and see him occasionally. Here was a deacon who lived 50 yards from another member who hadn’t been to church for weeks. He had to pass his door every time he went home and yet, it seems, it had never crossed his mind even just to call and enquire how he was doing. I am afraid that that example is not an isolated case.
6 The sequel
The seven were chosen, the apostles set them apart for their work with prayer and the laying on of hands. What next? And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. A situation that could have seriously hindered the work actually resulted in even greater blessing. The apostles were set free to give undivided attention to prayer and ministry of the word. The needs of the widows were fully met, and the church just grew and grew. In fact large numbers of the most unlikely people were converted to Jesus Christ, the priests.
It would, of course, be foolish to think that if we solve a problem, or care for one another in the church, or appoint those who can a meet a present need, or if our church life is well-ordered and things are done efficiently and well, that this is necessarily going to lead to growth. But these are good things in themselves, and it is always right to do what is good. And who knows what God might yet do in churches that seek in every area of their life to glorify him?
Monday 28 February 2011
Friday 25 February 2011
Evangelists today
The word ‘evangelist’ in the Bible
There are only three verses in the Bible where the word evangelist is used, Acts 21:8; Ephesians 4:11 and 2 Timothy 4:5.
The first of these verses speaks of Philip the evangelist. Is this the Philip who is referred to in Acts 6:5 as one of the seven who were chosen to minister to the poor widows in their need and whose further ministry is referred to in Acts 8:4-40? Almost certainly this is the case, and equally almost certainly he is to be distinguished from Philip the apostle (Matthew 10:3). There are two reasons for this latter point. First, it was to free the apostles from attending to the needs of widows that the seven were appointed, hence one of the apostles would not be found among them. Second, the term the evangelist seems intended to distinguish this Philip from the apostle.
What we know of his activity in Acts 8 certainly seems to fit the definition of an evangelist given above. Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. This ministry was remarkably successful and from there Philip went on to tell the good news about Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch. The chapter ends like this: But Philip found himself at Azotus, and as he passed through he preached the gospel to all the towns until he came to
The verse in Ephesians says this: And he [Christ] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers and goes on, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ… There are two interpretations of the word evangelist in this verse. The first understands the word to refer to ‘apostolic delegates’, that is men like Timothy – and we shall look at him next – who were appointed by apostles to minister in their place, and perhaps for that reason had a special authority. Those who take this view generally go on to add that this office (if that is the right word to use) has passed away with the apostles (and prophets). But it ought to be noted that this argument only says that ‘apostolic delegates’ have passed away.
The second interpretation is to view evangelists as gospel preachers like Philip. This means that in the early days of Christianity while the apostles were the primary messengers of the gospel, alongside them others were called to communicate the gospel but without necessarily being personal witnesses of Jesus and without apostolic authority. Two things seem patently obvious. First, it was absolutely necessary that as the apostles passed away such people should take their place in the work of extending the gospel far and wide. Second, it is equally clear that the spread of the gospel historically has depended greatly on men like these. What were Carey, Judson, Hudson Taylor and many others if they were not first of all evangelists? Hendriksen, in his commentary on Ephesians says that evangelists were ‘travelling missionaries’. But why call them missionaries when evangelist will do, and when missionary today covers people with a variety of diverse ministries? Hendriksen actually tries to bring both views together when he says, ‘If Timothy, as an evangelist or travelling missionary, can serve the interests of the church best by being Paul’s representative, why should he not function as such?’ He then goes on to speak of copying ‘the flexibility of the early church’, a point which is well worth keeping in mind.
But it might be pointed out that this passage says that these ministers were given to equip the saints. Doesn’t that mean that evangelist cannot simply refer to what we today call evangelism? This does not seem fully persuasive. In the first place this is putting a precision on Paul’s writing which may not be justified. Secondly, in the nature of the case people have to be made saints before they can be equipped and it seems perfectly reasonable for Paul to cover the whole process in what he says. Thirdly, it is possible to understand the verse like this: and pastors and teachers to equip the saints… and so on.
The view that sees evangelist as apostolic delegate is really based on 2 Timothy. Paul writes: do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry. As there was already a church in Ephesus (see 1 Timothy 1:3) it is clear that Timothy exercised a ministry towards that church, something which is explicit in 1 Timothy 3, especially verses 14 and 15. Whether it is appropriate to call Timothy an ‘apostolic delegate’ or not, however, is beside the point. The question is, what is the work of an evangelist? It is perfectly possible to understand this as doing the work of evangelism; in all Timothy’s ministry to those within the church he must not forget his responsibility to those without.
This leads some to say that as Timothy was the minister in
Moreover Timothy (and Titus, 1:5) was in some sense an apostolic delegate and was not an appointed elder of the church at Ephesus and by the time the second letter was written Paul is not expecting him to remain in Ephesus (2 Timothy 4:9-13,21). So while we may learn from Timothy’s example, and remember the flexibility of those early days, we cannot equate Timothy exactly with a modern day pastor.
There is another reason for understanding evangelist in the way defined and illustrated and that is by looking at the very word itself. The word gospel in Greek is euaggelion (cf. evangel), and evangelist is euaggelistes and there is also a verb euaggelizo. If euaggelion means ‘gospel’ and the verb means ‘to tell the gospel’ or ‘to tell good news’ isn’t it very likely that euaggelistes means ‘a teller of the gospel’? You are a preacher if you preach; you are a counsellor if you counsel; so what else is someone whose business is to tell the gospel but a gospeller, an evangelist?
Evangelists in the New Testament
But it is not actually necessary to spend too much time over the word evangelist in the New Testament. Another way of approaching the subject is to ask if there are people in the New Testament who fulfil the terms of the definition (it would be possible to consider the Old Testament as well but that is not necessary). After all it is not the name or title which is the vital thing, it is the ministry itself. So in a semi-chronological order here is a survey of what we find.
First of all it is surely the case that John the Baptist fits the definition. It is said of him: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him (John 1:6,7). It is true that he preceded Jesus, but he called people to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. He prepared the way for Jesus and pointed people to him, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). It is unquestionable that he communicated good news to those who, though Jews, needed to repent of their sins.
Secondly, there is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. From a child, it appears, he learned the trade of carpenter from Joseph and followed that trade for most of his adult life. But how else would one characterise the main thrust of his three year ministry but as that of an evangelist? It is true, of course, that he also taught and prepared his disciples, but they were to become fishers of men – gospel preachers – themselves. It is surely evident that his main public speaking ministry was directed to calling people to repent. Matthew sums up at least his early ministry like this: And he went throughout all
The next example is obviously the twelve disciples themselves. They were sent out to proclaim the
We ought also to take particular note of four men whose contribution is frequently overlooked, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They all bore their witness to Jesus by writing what we call the Gospels. For this reason they are generally called evangelists. In doing this they have fulfilled an indispensable role. If we were to subtract the Gospels from our New Testament, the whole Bible would fall to pieces. The Old Testament would remain an enigma, as its fulfilment in the life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah would be absent. The letters and Revelation would also be inexplicable on their own. We owe an incalculable debt to those men. Down through the centuries their witness has been blessed of God to the conversion of millions. If anyone shows an interest in the gospel, say in the open air or door to door ministry, what is most generally given to them to read if not one of the Gospels? We do not know much about their lives but their written evangelism will go on bearing fruit until Jesus comes again.
What shall we call Peter? Did he do the work of an evangelist on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2), and in the court of the temple (Acts 3), and in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10)? Surely he did. Whatever he might have done later on, at that time he was bearing witness to Jesus Christ and calling upon people to turn and believe in him. This was gospel preaching in great power.
Then there is the apostle Paul. We rejoice in his letters and we see what a teacher and pastor he was. But that was not the primary focus of his ministry: so that from
There are others who could be considered, but this seems adequate to make the point.
Evangelists today
The fact is we all accept and support people whose main ministry is evangelism. Sometimes we call the practice church-planting and those who engage in it church planters, but unless church-planting is merely gathering together scattered Christians it involves evangelism. ‘Church-planting’ is used only to emphasise that evangelism in a new area needs to end with the establishing of a church.
There are many missionaries, including women, whose chief work is evangelistic. In fact, a very large number of people are engaged in that work in many different ways. Some write evangelistic books or tracts. Some prepare and take part in evangelistic broadcasts. Some specialise in open-air evangelism and others concentrate on evangelistic visiting. Some are more traditional preaching evangelists, others are involved in more specialised evangelistic preaching and lecturing. Some are involved in children’s evangelism, some in student evangelism, some in evangelism to ethnic minorities. Nearly all evangelical churches are glad to support a range of individuals or societies engaged in evangelistic work and do so with enthusiasm.
The present situation
a) In our country:
i. There are many areas of our country where there is little or no gospel witness. This includes large rural areas with villages and small towns, and large urban areas that have no effective gospel witness in them although there may be gospel churches within range of cars or possibly public transport.
ii. There are many churches that are small and often struggling. In many cases they are not in a position to support a pastor. Although the believers need encouragement and spiritual nurture, the real need if the church is to survive is for it to be built up by additions which almost invariably means conversions – and these are important anyway.
iii. Perhaps it might be added that the real need of such churches is not for a semi-retired pastor who is financially independent, but for someone younger, energetic, with vision and gift, who can reach out and build up the church. This is not to despise the good work that older men have done, but to face reality.
iv. Our present situation calls loudly for people to do the work of an evangelist.
b) Pastors:
i. While all pastors will necessarily be involved, and should be, in the work of evangelism, the extent of that involvement will depend on a number of factors including the gifts of the man concerned.
ii. In the past the idea prevailed of the pastor as an all-rounder, perhaps even omni-competent – the hub around which the wheel of the church revolved. It is now generally recognised that most men are not like this and have their own strengths and weaknesses. If possible it is better for them to develop and use the gifts they have, rather than struggle in areas they are not suited to.
iii. Along with this recognition has come an understanding that a team ministry is more biblical, ideally each church having a plurality of elders with a variety of gifts, especially once it has reached a certain size. This gives the opportunity for different men to be engaged in ministries that utilise the gifts they have.
iv. With our increasingly secular and pagan society impacting families within or connected with the churches come many difficult pastoral problems. Moreover things are much more complex than in the past and require pastors to be aware of all sorts of societal trends. In many cases this has considerably increased the burden that pastors and their wives bear.
v. Similarly, people no longer have the background of Bible knowledge that could be taken for granted in the past. At the same time knowledge has exploded and people are exposed to a thousand different ideas. And people of different backgrounds and religions have spread across the land. To try and minister the Word of God in the present day itself makes enormous demands on a pastor/teacher.
vi. All these considerations show that there is ample room and need for evangelists to have a ministry complementing that of pastors.
c) Evangelists
i. Regrettably over the more recent past, especially perhaps in Reformed circles, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the pastoral office to such an extent that men of evangelistic gifts have either felt marginalised or else decided that they need to become pastors rather than evangelists.
ii. This has been doubly unfortunate. Some of these have entered the pastorate but proved to be unsuitable, with discouragement and disappointment all round. At the same time the real gifts that they have, have not been used, to the detriment of the work of reaching people with the gospel.
iii. To develop this a little further, experience teaches that very often the matter of gift is very important. Some men are good at evangelism and planting churches, but are not good when it comes to the ongoing work of pastoring (and vice versa). As with Paul and his associates in the New Testament, the right thing, once a church has been established, is for an eldership to be appointed and the evangelist to move on. That was how Christianity spread and we are back in that sort of situation now. Some plant, others water, but God gives the increase.
Practical possibilities
a) There is no one blueprint for all situations, only possibilities to explore and adopt according to the need, the personnel available and the will of the Lord as discerned through prayer and the Word.
b) Oughtn’t we to look out for people with evangelistic gifts and encourage them to develop and use those gifts; if appropriate sending them for training and then out into the harvest fields?
c) We ought to honour the work that evangelists do and encourage them and utilise their gifts where we can. Evangelists can be invited to ministers’ fraternals and should be supported by prayer and giving.
d) Larger churches may believe it appropriate to employ an evangelist. In some cases his work and support may be shared with (an)other church(es). In some cases a married couple might work together, e.g. in door to door evangelism. There are a number of spheres where only women are suitable, e.g. visiting Asian women, following up mother and toddler groups.
e) An association of churches, or group of churches formed for the purpose might support an evangelist in a particular area or invite an evangelist to work for a certain time in the area.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
Christ on earth - peccable or impeccable
The question can be framed like this: Was Jesus Christ, according to his human nature, capable of sinning, though in fact he did not? I start by outlining two positions.
1. Theoretically he could have sinned, but did not.
a) Charles Hodge says: ‘The sinlessness of our Lord does not amount to absolute impeccability. As a true man, he must have been capable of sinning. That he did not sin under the greatest provocation, that when he was reviled he blessed, that when he suffered he threatened not, that he was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it had been impossible for Christ to sin, his temptation was unreal and without effect, and he cannot sympathise with his people.’
b) This would fit in with the parallel with Adam. Adam had a sinless nature, but not one which had been confirmed in sinlessness. It would seem appropriate for the last Adam to have the same nature. Hebrews 5:8,9 might suggest that Christ was only confirmed in sinlessness at the end of his obedience, as indeed Adam would have been had he continued to obey.
2. The union of the human nature with the divine nature meant that he could not sin, though he could battle with temptation.
a) This is the mainstream Reformed position. Dabney says that it is only Christ’s human nature that could be considered capable of sinning, but his humanity never existed apart from its union with the divine. He says: ‘It is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin; for this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error.’
b) Couched in the terms he uses, this may appear to prove too much. The eternal and immutable Word is immortal, yet Christ died. We do not hesitate to sing: ‘’Tis mystery all; the Immortal dies.’ If he had not been capable of dying, he would not have been able to save us.
c) Though we might say that it was his human body that died, that is clearly not enough. ‘Christ died for our sins’, it was ‘the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’. The union of the two natures in one person goes beyond our ability to penetrate and understand.
d) It might be argued that the cases are different in this respect: immortality is not, in itself, a moral attribute; but for Christ to be capable of sinning would compromise his moral perfection and that is inconceivable.
e) A further point is that to argue, as Dabney does, from the union of the human with the divine might actually mean that Christ could not be tempted. James 1:13 tells us explicitly that God cannot be tempted with evil. One might think that Dabney’s words ‘an absolute shield to the lower nature’ imply the same. In fact, Dabney’s words are rather unusual in themselves, but we can ignore that.
f) The problem, however, is compounded because some people do actually believe that Christ could not be really tempted. A visitor to our congregation who came one Sunday when I was preaching on the temptations said to me afterwards that temptation had no more effect upon Christ than electricity on cork. It is possible for evangelical Christians so to emphasize the deity of Christ that they lean towards aspects of docetism – the belief that Christ’s human body was not real, he only appeared to be human.
g) One further point; I remember reading somewhere that the first people to assert that Christ was impeccable were the Monophysites. They believed that Christ only had one nature, i.e. a divine nature. These believed that the divine nature had, as it were, absorbed the human: ‘as a drop of honey mingled with the ocean.’
3. I believe that we can state confidently that Christ was actually tempted and felt the full force of temptation in a way that is beyond anything we could experience, but that he had to face temptation as a man. It was the person who was tempted and who resisted temptation, but he had to use only the resources that belonged to him as man.
a) I have said that he had to resist temptation as a man. That is how he had to live while he was on earth; he might use his divine power to help others, but he could not do that for himself. Donald Macleod, while discussing particularly the question of Christ’s knowledge, says: ‘The other line of integration between the omniscience of the divine nature and the ignorance of the human is that just as Christ had to fulfil the office of Mediator within the limits of a human body, so he had to fulfil it within the limitations of a human mind. Part of the truth here is suggested by the first of the three temptations in the desert: “tell these stones to become bread” (Mt.4:3). The essence of the temptation was that the Lord disavow the conditions of his incarnation and draw on his omnipotence to alleviate the discomforts of his self-abasement.’ Later he summarises: ‘Omniscience was a luxury always within reach, but incompatible with his rules of engagement. He had to serve within the limitations of finitude.’ So with the temptations; he had to resist them as man. This, of course, was the whole point of the incarnation. If he could have done what was needful for our salvation as God, there would have been no need to come into the world as man.
b) While he had to resist temptation as man he nevertheless had the resources that are open to man to assist in the battle. In particular he had the presence and grace of the Holy Spirit to empower him, and he had the Word of God to instruct and guide him – and he used this to great effect.
c) If we consider carefully his need to resist temptation as man it might be possible to reconcile the two points of view in this way. According to his human nature Christ was capable of sinning, but because of the unity of his person this could actually never happen. In other words if he had ever proved incapable of resisting temptation as a man, his divine nature would have prevented him from actually sinning. However, if that was the case he would have failed in his mission to obey as man, just as it would have been so if he had come down from the cross to prove he was the Son of God. Would such a failure itself be possible?
4. In order to estimate the situation aright we might consider the Adam/Christ parallel a little further.
a) Hodge, in the quotation given, speaks of Christ’s sinlessness as man. This, however, is a very inadequate description of the situation. Adam was made in the image of God, he was holy and righteous, and had open and full communion with his Creator. The remarkable thing was that the devil was still able to find a way to tempt him into sin at all and that he rebelled so tragically. So Christ was not simply sinless – he was holy and righteous; as man he was in the very image of what he was as God. And, until the cross, he had full and unrestricted fellowship with his Father.
b) I think we are in grave danger of viewing this far too theoretically and possibly putting it into quite the wrong terms. We ask, ‘Was Christ capable of sinning or not?’ Immediately we have reduced a complex situation, which we can scarcely begin to understand in any case, to a crude question about one point, focussing on the theoretical question of possibility, whereas the important thing is that Christ proved utterly decisively by his obedience that he was gloriously capable of resisting temptation and never sinning under the most testing conditions that ever existed or could be imagined.
c) For balance I add that Christ was actually, in some respects, in a far worse situation that Adam and Eve were. Firstly, Christ was made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Romans 8:3). In other words he did not have a body which was ‘very good’, as Adam had, he had a body which was subject to all the non-moral weaknesses and illnesses of the post-fall situation. Secondly, he was in a world under the curse, not paradise, and he was surrounded by the consequences of sin in terms of suffering, illness and death. Thirdly, he was also surrounded by sin and evil, with evil people on every hand. The conditions in which he was tempted were far worse than Adam’s.
5. Summing up:
a) I personally am unhappy with people who too easily and dogmatically take either position. This suggests to me that they have not carefully thought through the issue.
b) It is certainly true that the union of the two natures meant that it was impossible for Christ to sin, but if we believe in the two natures united in one person, as we must, then we are considering someone who is utterly unique and we are faced with mystery that we certainly are not capable of understanding, at least at present. The fact that Christ could not sin does not, I believe, answer all the questions, but it does set a parameter within which these have to be considered.
c) A little earlier I raised the question whether Christ could fail. To me this is the more fundamental question and I think the answer may be both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. Think of it like this. Could Christ have died at birth, given its circumstances? Could Herod have killed him if Joseph had been slow to obey the angel? Would he have died if the Nazarenes had been able to throw him off the cliff? Could he have saved himself if he had come down from the cross? There are doubtless many other, perhaps better, questions that could be asked. This is surely a higher and more mysterious example of the sovereignty/free agency debate. Objectively speaking there were many hazardous moments in the life of Christ, times when the purposes of God seemed to hang by a thread. But God’s sovereign purpose was nevertheless always going to be fulfilled, even through the free wickedness of evil men; and supremely through Christ’s own free and willing actions as the man Christ Jesus.
1. Theoretically he could have sinned, but did not.
a) Charles Hodge says: ‘The sinlessness of our Lord does not amount to absolute impeccability. As a true man, he must have been capable of sinning. That he did not sin under the greatest provocation, that when he was reviled he blessed, that when he suffered he threatened not, that he was dumb, as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it had been impossible for Christ to sin, his temptation was unreal and without effect, and he cannot sympathise with his people.’
b) This would fit in with the parallel with Adam. Adam had a sinless nature, but not one which had been confirmed in sinlessness. It would seem appropriate for the last Adam to have the same nature. Hebrews 5:8,9 might suggest that Christ was only confirmed in sinlessness at the end of his obedience, as indeed Adam would have been had he continued to obey.
2. The union of the human nature with the divine nature meant that he could not sin, though he could battle with temptation.
a) This is the mainstream Reformed position. Dabney says that it is only Christ’s human nature that could be considered capable of sinning, but his humanity never existed apart from its union with the divine. He says: ‘It is impossible that the person constituted in union with the eternal and immutable Word, can sin; for this union is an absolute shield to the lower nature, against error.’
b) Couched in the terms he uses, this may appear to prove too much. The eternal and immutable Word is immortal, yet Christ died. We do not hesitate to sing: ‘’Tis mystery all; the Immortal dies.’ If he had not been capable of dying, he would not have been able to save us.
c) Though we might say that it was his human body that died, that is clearly not enough. ‘Christ died for our sins’, it was ‘the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me’. The union of the two natures in one person goes beyond our ability to penetrate and understand.
d) It might be argued that the cases are different in this respect: immortality is not, in itself, a moral attribute; but for Christ to be capable of sinning would compromise his moral perfection and that is inconceivable.
e) A further point is that to argue, as Dabney does, from the union of the human with the divine might actually mean that Christ could not be tempted. James 1:13 tells us explicitly that God cannot be tempted with evil. One might think that Dabney’s words ‘an absolute shield to the lower nature’ imply the same. In fact, Dabney’s words are rather unusual in themselves, but we can ignore that.
f) The problem, however, is compounded because some people do actually believe that Christ could not be really tempted. A visitor to our congregation who came one Sunday when I was preaching on the temptations said to me afterwards that temptation had no more effect upon Christ than electricity on cork. It is possible for evangelical Christians so to emphasize the deity of Christ that they lean towards aspects of docetism – the belief that Christ’s human body was not real, he only appeared to be human.
g) One further point; I remember reading somewhere that the first people to assert that Christ was impeccable were the Monophysites. They believed that Christ only had one nature, i.e. a divine nature. These believed that the divine nature had, as it were, absorbed the human: ‘as a drop of honey mingled with the ocean.’
3. I believe that we can state confidently that Christ was actually tempted and felt the full force of temptation in a way that is beyond anything we could experience, but that he had to face temptation as a man. It was the person who was tempted and who resisted temptation, but he had to use only the resources that belonged to him as man.
a) I have said that he had to resist temptation as a man. That is how he had to live while he was on earth; he might use his divine power to help others, but he could not do that for himself. Donald Macleod, while discussing particularly the question of Christ’s knowledge, says: ‘The other line of integration between the omniscience of the divine nature and the ignorance of the human is that just as Christ had to fulfil the office of Mediator within the limits of a human body, so he had to fulfil it within the limitations of a human mind. Part of the truth here is suggested by the first of the three temptations in the desert: “tell these stones to become bread” (Mt.4:3). The essence of the temptation was that the Lord disavow the conditions of his incarnation and draw on his omnipotence to alleviate the discomforts of his self-abasement.’ Later he summarises: ‘Omniscience was a luxury always within reach, but incompatible with his rules of engagement. He had to serve within the limitations of finitude.’ So with the temptations; he had to resist them as man. This, of course, was the whole point of the incarnation. If he could have done what was needful for our salvation as God, there would have been no need to come into the world as man.
b) While he had to resist temptation as man he nevertheless had the resources that are open to man to assist in the battle. In particular he had the presence and grace of the Holy Spirit to empower him, and he had the Word of God to instruct and guide him – and he used this to great effect.
c) If we consider carefully his need to resist temptation as man it might be possible to reconcile the two points of view in this way. According to his human nature Christ was capable of sinning, but because of the unity of his person this could actually never happen. In other words if he had ever proved incapable of resisting temptation as a man, his divine nature would have prevented him from actually sinning. However, if that was the case he would have failed in his mission to obey as man, just as it would have been so if he had come down from the cross to prove he was the Son of God. Would such a failure itself be possible?
4. In order to estimate the situation aright we might consider the Adam/Christ parallel a little further.
a) Hodge, in the quotation given, speaks of Christ’s sinlessness as man. This, however, is a very inadequate description of the situation. Adam was made in the image of God, he was holy and righteous, and had open and full communion with his Creator. The remarkable thing was that the devil was still able to find a way to tempt him into sin at all and that he rebelled so tragically. So Christ was not simply sinless – he was holy and righteous; as man he was in the very image of what he was as God. And, until the cross, he had full and unrestricted fellowship with his Father.
b) I think we are in grave danger of viewing this far too theoretically and possibly putting it into quite the wrong terms. We ask, ‘Was Christ capable of sinning or not?’ Immediately we have reduced a complex situation, which we can scarcely begin to understand in any case, to a crude question about one point, focussing on the theoretical question of possibility, whereas the important thing is that Christ proved utterly decisively by his obedience that he was gloriously capable of resisting temptation and never sinning under the most testing conditions that ever existed or could be imagined.
c) For balance I add that Christ was actually, in some respects, in a far worse situation that Adam and Eve were. Firstly, Christ was made ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ (Romans 8:3). In other words he did not have a body which was ‘very good’, as Adam had, he had a body which was subject to all the non-moral weaknesses and illnesses of the post-fall situation. Secondly, he was in a world under the curse, not paradise, and he was surrounded by the consequences of sin in terms of suffering, illness and death. Thirdly, he was also surrounded by sin and evil, with evil people on every hand. The conditions in which he was tempted were far worse than Adam’s.
5. Summing up:
a) I personally am unhappy with people who too easily and dogmatically take either position. This suggests to me that they have not carefully thought through the issue.
b) It is certainly true that the union of the two natures meant that it was impossible for Christ to sin, but if we believe in the two natures united in one person, as we must, then we are considering someone who is utterly unique and we are faced with mystery that we certainly are not capable of understanding, at least at present. The fact that Christ could not sin does not, I believe, answer all the questions, but it does set a parameter within which these have to be considered.
c) A little earlier I raised the question whether Christ could fail. To me this is the more fundamental question and I think the answer may be both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. Think of it like this. Could Christ have died at birth, given its circumstances? Could Herod have killed him if Joseph had been slow to obey the angel? Would he have died if the Nazarenes had been able to throw him off the cliff? Could he have saved himself if he had come down from the cross? There are doubtless many other, perhaps better, questions that could be asked. This is surely a higher and more mysterious example of the sovereignty/free agency debate. Objectively speaking there were many hazardous moments in the life of Christ, times when the purposes of God seemed to hang by a thread. But God’s sovereign purpose was nevertheless always going to be fulfilled, even through the free wickedness of evil men; and supremely through Christ’s own free and willing actions as the man Christ Jesus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)