Category Archives: Biblical

Early Leadership Language in the NT Church

In the earliest church, shortly after the death and resurrection of Christ, leadership was charismatic rather than appointed. In other words, people emerged as leaders because they were particularly close to Jesus while He was on earth and/or the church sensed a special working of God in their lives (see Acts 1:15-26 for example). Over time these charismatic leaders became known by the titles apostle and prophet.

According to Luke 11:47-50, the ancestors of the scribes and Pharisees killed the (Old Testament) prophets (verses 47-48), just as the scribes and Pharisees would kill the “prophets and apostles” that God sent to them (verses 49-50). So both apostles and prophets in the New Testament are the successors of the Old Testament prophets (see also Eph 2:19-22). The apostles and prophets together were agents of God’s revelation to the fledgling church. As such, they naturally became the leaders of the first generation of believers in Christ.

(apostolos– apostle)
The root meaning of “apostle” concerns one who is “dispatched for a specific purpose,” a messenger or ambassador of some kind. The status of such an “apostle” depends on the status of the one who sends him or her (John 13:16). The “apostle” can be simply a messenger between ordinary individuals. But when the “apostle” is sent by a king or by God, his or her status becomes extraordinary. It is as if the sender is present in the person of the one sent. The title “apostle” is rare in Greek outside the uniquely Christian context.

In the New Testament, therefore, the apostle is highly honored by other believers as a special envoy direct from God. In the fullest sense, Jesus is the ultimate apostle (Heb. 3:1-2), in Him the definitive revelation of God has taken place (Heb. 1:1-3). All other apostles derive their authority from Him. These became the pre-eminent leaders of the church after the ascension of Christ. Although the term originally applied to the twelve disciples alone (Matt. 10:2; Mark 3:14; Luke 22:14, cf. Acts 1:26), the body of apostles eventually extended beyond the twelve to include Paul (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1, etc.),  Barnabas (Acts 14:14; 15:2), James (brother of Jesus– Gal. 1:19)  and others (Rom. 16:7).

The office of apostle required some sort of direct calling from the New Testament Jesus, in Paul’s case a call to reach out to the Gentiles (Acts. 9:15; Eph. 3:1, 8). Powerful leaders of the second generation, such as Apollos and Timothy, who did not have a direct call from Jesus, are not called apostles (1 Cor. 3:3-9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; 1 Thess. 3:2). So the office seems to have been limited to the first generation of Jesus’ followers (1 Cor. 15:8). The duties of the office centered on traveling from place to place proclaiming what the apostle had experienced with Jesus (1 Cor. 9:1, 5; Eph. 3:5). In the process apostles would found and administer new churches (1 Cor. 15:10-11; Eph. 2:20). They would appoint elders to head up those churches but would retain an authoritative role over them.

(prophêtês– prophet)
The Greek root of “prophet” is a compound word, combining a Greek word for “speaking” with the prefix “pro” which is ambiguous in meaning. It can mean “speaking openly” or publically, much like preaching. But it can also mean “speaking ahead of time” or “in advance.”

We see New Testament prophets at work in the Book of Acts (Acts 11:27-30; 15:30-32; 21:10-14). Their messages were accepted as authoritative by the church and an obedient response was expected, so prophets had a significant leadership role in the earliest church. At the same time the church struggled in one case with just how to apply the prophetic message to a specific situation (Acts 21:12-14).

It is interesting that although Paul speaks prophetically to the churches (1 Cor. 14:6), he never calls himself a “prophet.” This suggests that the designation “apostle” includes the gifts and activities of the prophet and more (2 Cor. 12:1-7: Eph. 3:3-7). Apostles and prophets are equal when it comes to being the objects of direct revelation. But the apostle’s authority is even greater than the prophet because of the special commission of leadership and the unique relationship in time to the first-century Christ-event. The apostles were more directive while the prophets led by influence.

With the close of the first Christian century the office of apostle seems to have died out and prophets have become increasingly rare. Well before then, charismatic leadership was increasingly replaced with appointed leadership. We’ll look more at that in my next blog.

What Makes Christian Leadership Different

In the previous blog I reviewed the major words for leadership in ancient government and society. We noticed that such words could be used in the New Testament for secular leaders, God, Christ and even demons. But they are never used for human leadership in the church, except for proistēmi, which had a strong extended meaning of service and caring concern. Most of these words focused more on dominance, superior rank, authority over and heirarchy, which are not appropriate in the church.

In this blog I will share the three most important leadership passages in the NT (in my opinion) and briefly comment on their significance. The first is the “poster child” for Christian leadership: the footwashing example of Jesus in John 13. After washing the disciples’ feet, Jesus said the following (John 13:13-17, ESV): “You call me Teacher and Lord [one of those dominance terms in ancient Rome], and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master [lord again in the original], nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.” While Jesus is willing to apply a dominance term like “lord” to Himself (as Creator He has that right), He here transforms the meaning of this term. The one who leads in the church is to be the chief servant. Real greatness is measured not in power, fame or position, but in willingness to serve.

The second major passage is 1 Thessalonians 5:12-15 (ESV): “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you [this is proistemi, the one secular leadership word used in the church] in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.” The first two verses express how members are to treat their leaders. They are to esteem them highly and to seek peace among themselves rather than strife and rebellion. Paul doesn’t address here what to do when leadership roles are abused, but offers a basic attitude that will shield us from the pride of thinking we know better than those who are over us. The last two verses express the style of leadership that is appropriate for the church. Admonition can include “knocking sense into” for those who need that, but centers in encouragement, help and patience. There is no place in the church for leaders who retaliate on account of criticism. Their role is to seek what is best for those they are leading.

The final passage is the best of all, in my opinion: Matthew 10:20-28 (ESV): Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. 21 And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” 22 Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” 23 He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” 24 And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” The behavior of Jesus is the measure of Christian leadership. We are not to lead the way secular rulers and bosses lead, we are to move among followers like a servant or even a slave, whose sole interest is in assisting those under him or her to be the best that they can be in Christ. The interesting thing is that “servant leadership” is catching on in the corporate world, just as many leaders in the church forget their original mandate.

I have chosen to use the English Standard Version because it has the same kind of clarity as the NIV, but stays a lot closer to the original structure of the Greek text. It is not perfect, no version is, but seems to cut the middle of many issues as well as any translation in the English language.

Leadership Options in the Early Church

The ancient world had a number of words for leadership in politics and society. A very common word group is a;;gw (agô) and the related word h`gemw,n (hêgemōn), from which we get the English word hegemon. The root meaning of the verb means “to direct the movement of an object from one position to another” The noun form hêgemōn is used in civic and military contexts (see Mark 13:11; Luke 22:54; John 8:3; Acts 17:15; 20:12). In the NT this word is used for the leadership of God, Christ or the Holy Spirit in human lives (Rom 2:4; 8:14; Gal 5:18) but it is never used for human leadership in the church.

Another common word for leadership in the ancient world is avrch, or a;rcwn (archē, archōn), from which we get English words like monarch (rule of one), patriarch (rule by father) oligarch (rule by the few, the one percent!), and archaeology (study of old things). The word group has a double root meaning, “beginning” (first in time) or “ruler/authority” (first in power or position). It is used in the NT for governors or other secular rulers (Luke 12:11; 20:20; Titus 3:1), demonic powers (Rom 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Col 2:10, 15) and Christ (Col 1:18; Rev 3:14). It is never used in relation to leadership in the church.

Another common leadership word in the ancient world is kefalh, (kephalē), the word for head, the part of the body that contains the brain. It is used for people of high status or superior rank like the patriarchs (Exod 6:14, 25), the leader of a tribe (Num 7:2; 2 Chr 52), and leaders in general (Exod 18:25; Num 25:4; Judg 11:11). It implies a hierarchical leadership system (Exod 18:21) with some people over others. In the New Testament, it can be used in the basic sense, as a metaphor of Christ and the church or for the husband’s role in the home (Eph 5:25-27). Since the church is a living organism, “head” is applied only to Christ, it is never used for the human leaders of the church.

A fourth ancient word for leadership is kuri,oj (kurios), often translated as “lord.” The root meaning of the word is “having power.” It combines a sense of might (power, ability to compel obedience) and right (legitimacy, legal authorization). The verb form implies control and dominance. It was used as a title for the gods as well as earthly kings and emperors. In the NT is it used for owners of land, slaves and animals, also for husbands (1 Pet. 3:6), fathers (Matt 21:30), high officials (Matt. 27:63), respected individuals (Acts 16:30; Rev 7:14), and the emperor (Acts 25:25-26). The NT applies the term in OT references to Yahweh (Matt. 4:10; 5:33; Acts 4:26) and with reference to Jesus (Matt. 4:7; Phil 2:9-11), but it is never used with reference to leadership in the church.

The last ancient word we will look at is proi<sthmi (proistēmi), one who is “over” others. The root meaning of this term is “to put before,” “to go first,” “to exercise a position of leadership, rule, direct.” But this word also has a related meaning: “to have an interest in, show concern for, give aid.” It combines leadership with a strong sense of caring concern. This is the only major leadership word in ancient society that was used by the early Christians for leadership in the church (1 Tim 5:17; 1 Thess 5:12).

Conclusion: The common words for leadership in ancient Greek all occur in the NT. They can be used with reference to secular leaders, God, Christ, and demonic powers. But even though these words were commonly used in the Greek Bible of the early church (the Septuagint), they are never used for leaders in the church, except proistēmi, which has a strong sense of service and caring concern. The NT uses alternative terms for leaders in the church. Why? We’ll look at some of the key NT texts in the next blog, but suffice it to say now is that there are forms of leadership that are not appropriate in the church, forms that focus on dominance, superior rank, authority over and heirarchy. Christian leadership is to have a servant focus, driven by caring concern rather than the privilege of authority. In the ancient world, this made Christian leadership distinct.

Models of Christian Leadership

One of the biggest challenges in any kind of faith work these days is leadership. Without leadership few good things happen in this world, yet how do you do good leadership? Do you follow the models of western corporations? How about those of democratic governments? Or would you prefer the more autocratic leadership style of a Vladimir Putin or a Bashar al Assad? Does the New Testament have anything to say about these various styles of leadership? Should followers of Jesus exhibit a leadership style that is different from the models in the popular consciousness?

It goes, perhaps, without saying that the ultimate source of all leadership models is God, the author of creation. Like the manufacturer of an automobile, who provides a manual for that car’s use and care, God is in the best position to understand human beings and how they function as individuals and in groups. But this assertion does little to assist us in the project of understanding leadership principles. No one has ever seen, heard or touched God. So direct knowledge of God, or of the leadership principles He manifests in governing the universe, is not available to us.

In Scripture, however, God has chosen to reveal Himself in human language. The Bible is not a complete revelation of God, but it offers inspired testimonies of how God spoke and acted in specific human situations over many centuries. While God’s self-disclosure is limited by the human context, the Bible offers the clearest revelation of the eternal God available to the human race. This is the place where all Christian leadership models must be tested.

The New Testament portion of the Bible is centered on the life, death, resurrection and heavenly ministry of Jesus Christ. As God in human flesh, He is the clearest revelation of God. He models God’s way of leadership in terms that human beings can understand. As a result, nearly every leadership title in the New Testament is applied to Jesus at one time or another. He is called “servant” (Phil. 2:7), “apostle” (Heb. 3:1), “prophet” (John 4:44; Acts 3:22-23), “overseer” (1 Pet. 2:25), “deacon” (Rom. 15:8), “ruler,” (Rev 1:5), “captain” (Heb 12:2), “shepherd” (John 10:1-7; Heb. 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25), and “lord/master,” (Eph. 6:9; Phil. 2:11; Col. 4:1), among others. Any study of Christian leadership principles, therefore, must begin and end with Jesus Christ.

Jesus not only modeled on earth what God is like, He also mentored the apostles in the divine principles of leadership. After His ascension He sent the Holy Spirit to inspire the apostles and the Christian prophets to carry on the work that He had begun on this earth (John 14:16-17, 26; 16:12-13). The apostles then passed on to others what they had received from Jesus (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3; 1 John 1:1-4). As He Himself told them, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” (John 13:15, NIV, cf. 13:13-17) Those who were closest to the earthly Jesus absorbed His leadership skills directly. Jesus is the clearest revelation of God. His apostles have passed on the clearest revelation of Jesus.

In the New Testament, this role was particularly played by Paul (1 Cor 11:23; 15:3). While not one of the twelve disciples, Paul frequently applied the title “apostle” to himself (Rom. 11:13; 1 Cor 9:1-2; 15:9). In Acts 20:17-35 Paul gathered the elders of the church of Ephesus at Miletus to pass on what he had learned from Jesus. As the faithful disciple of Jesus (20:19, 24) he is able to mentor the elders of Ephesus. The heart of Christian leadership is to be like Jesus, doing and teaching what Jesus taught. Following in the leadership path of Jesus includes servanthood (Luke 22:24-27; John 12:26; Acts 20:19), self-sacrifice (Acts 20:19-23), a strong sense of accountability (20:26-28), vigilance in the face of spiritual threats (20:29-32), and service, not for pay, but out of a strong sense of being commissioned by Jesus Himself (20:33-35). This is the starting point for a New Testament view of leadership.

Conclusion (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth)

In a series of three blogs I have briefly reviewed the two main approaches to Scripture exhibited in the discussions over women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. One is the proof-text method, designed to “take the Bible as it reads.” This method collects biblical texts on a particular topic to determine the Bible’s overall teaching on that topic. The other method explores the Bible as a whole, seeking to understand each portion in light of the issues Bible writers were facing. It seems self-evident that both methods have value and should be practiced by those who desire to know God’s Word. But what has distressed people is the discovery that the two methods have led people to opposite opinions in regard to ordination and the role of women in ministry. For some, this raises questions about the value of hermeneutics at all. They may abandon careful Bible study thinking that there is no reliable way to know the Bible’s actual meaning. Others reject the method that didn’t produce their desired results and limit themselves to one method or the other. But since the two methods naturally correct each other, rejecting one or the other subjects people to the weaknesses of their preferred approach, which I have laid out in the first blog in this short series.

At a time when the church is threatened with division, we should practice more careful study of the Bible rather than less. Devotional methods of reading, taking the Bible as it reads to me today, can be very beneficial to one’s spiritual experience. But when the church is divided, careful exegesis in context is required to make sure we are all reading the same text. Human beings are too prone to self-deception to simply “take the Bible as it reads.” Internal mechanisms frustrate our desire to know the word and leave us likely to read ourselves into the Bible. I have laid out in the previous two blogs a way to bypass some of those defense mechanisms and reconcile the two methods with a simple approach that anyone can do. This approach was presented in five parts.

1) Approach the Bible with prayer for the Spirit’s guidance and much self-distrust. 2) Use a variety of translations. 3) Spend the majority of one’s Bible-study time in the clear texts of the Bible. 4) Spend the majority of one’s Bible-study time reading the Bible rather than engaged in selective study. 5) Subject oneself to the criticism of peers who are studying the Bible as carefully as you are (if you are following the first four principles). This method does not guarantee that all things will instantly become clear. But this method puts one on a path where the Word of God can gradually transform one’s understanding of God and truth and become more attuned to the Spirit that inspired the Bible. It also builds humility, as broad reading of the Bible will make one aware of how little one actually knows about the Bible. The end result (after decades of careful study) will be true lay Bible scholars who know how little they know and, therefore, handle God’s Word with great respect and reverence.

Such an approach leads to the discovery that not every question we ask of the Bible receives a clear and unequivocal answer in the Bible. On such matters it is better to allow for personal conscience. Unity does not require complete uniformity. When our peers are divided on what the Bible means, it may clearly show us that the Bible is not clear on that subject. Such occasions are not invitations to violence (whether in word or deed) but opportunities to shower grace and charity upon each other.

A Practical and Biblical Hermeneutic: 2) Five Principles for Bible Study

God’s people today desperately need an approach to biblical study that is authentic, simple, practical, and available to all. The following five principles, I believe, fulfill those requirements.

A) Authentic Prayer and Self-Distrust.
When you open the Bible, it is important to open it in much prayer and self-distrust. If human hearts are exceedingly wicked and deceptive, then the greatest barrier to Scriptural understanding is the lack of a teachable spirit. If you don’t have a teachable spirit, then it doesn’t matter how much Greek you know or how many Ph.D.’s you accumulate, your learning will not open the Word to you. True knowledge of God does not come from merely intellectual pursuit or academic study. It arises from a willingness to receive the truth no matter what the cost (1 Cor 2:14; 2 Thess 2:10; James 1:5).
So I’d like to suggest that you begin your study of the Bible with what I call authentic prayer. That means prayer for a teachable spirit. Prayer that God will open your heart, bypass your defense mechanisms, and teach you what you need to know. Authentic prayer goes something like this: “Lord, I want the truth no matter what the cost to me personally.” That’s a hard prayer to pray. But that kind of prayer will open the way to fresh insight into the Word.

B) Use a Variety of Translations.
Every translation has its limitations and weaknesses, and to some degree reflects the biases of the translator(s). So the safest course of action for a Christian who doesn’t know the original languages is to compare several translations against each other. Let’s suppose you are comparing five different translations of a particular text. If all five translations agree, the underlying Greek text must be reasonably clear. On the other hand, if all five translations go in different directions, it is a signal that the original language is ambiguous in some way. But if four translations say roughly the same thing and the fifth is way different, you have just discovered the bias of that fifth translation. The authority that you as an interpreter give to any particular translation of a text will depend on the level of certainty that it is accurately based on the original. Looking at a variety of translations breaks us away from pet readings that feed our own biases and can give anyone a clearer picture of the original text.

C) Favor the Clear Texts
If you want to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, spend the majority of your time in the sections of Scripture that are reasonably clear. There are many parts of the Bible that are reasonably clear and others that are quite difficult. A great safeguard to your study of Scripture is to spend the majority of your time in the sections that are reasonably clear. The clear texts of Scripture establish the reader in the common ground of the Bible and the great verities of its message, safeguarding the interpreter against an inappropriate use of texts that are more ambiguous.
Adventists in particular seem to gravitate to the ambiguous texts of the Bible, texts that are difficult to understand because they can point in more than one direction. People who misuse the Bible tend to work with unclear texts, treat them as if they were clear, and then base their theology on this “clear” reading. When people spend the majority of their time in the difficult texts of Scripture they usually end up having to distort clear texts of Scripture because the message of the clear texts contradicts the theology they have developed from the unclear texts. But if you spend the majority of your time in the clear texts of the Bible, they will gradually shift your thinking in a more biblical direction.

D) Favor General Reading
A fourth, and most vital, principle is to spend more time reading the Bible than “studying” it. People often study the Bible in a fragmented way. They study a verse at a time, and then compare that verse with all kinds of other texts found in a concordance. In a way the concordance becomes their real Bible. They take a word, look at snippets from 300-400 texts, and pick out those that seem to say what they believe the Bible is saying. The best safeguard against such unintentional misuse of Scripture is much general reading of the Bible. Broad reading of the Bible sensitizes you to the literary strategies of the biblical authors. Use of a concordance, on the other hand, puts you in charge of the process, instead of the biblical author. The process is even more dangerous when the concordance is a computer. One can look at text after text without ever reading them in context.
The use of a concordance and the comparing of scripture with scripture has its place. But when you spend all of your time comparing scripture with scripture you can lose the forest for the trees. General reading of the Bible, on the other hand, helps you to look at the big picture and put isolated texts together with their contexts so that the meaning can become clear. It safeguards the reader against bizarre interpretations of its isolated parts. General reading helps bring you into a teachable spirit and helps you see the text as it was intended to be read. The Bible is not supposed to learn from us; we are supposed to learn from the Bible. Hence the recommendation, “Spend the majority of your time reading the Bible instead of studying it.”

E) Criticism of Peers
A vital principle for the study of the Bible is to give careful attention to the criticism of peers, in other word, anyone who has given the biblical text the same kind of careful attention you have. As I mentioned before, one of the biggest problems in biblical understanding is that each of us have a natural bent to self-deception (Jer 17:9). That self-deception is so deep that sometimes–even if you are praying, using a variety of translations, and focusing on the clear texts and broad reading–you can still misread the Bible on your own. So the best antidote to self-deception is to constantly subject one’s own understandings to the criticism of others who are making equally rigorous efforts to understand those texts.
Two kinds of peers are particularly valuable: 1) people who have studied the text carefully and who disagree with you, and 2) people who are particularly gifted or experienced with the tools of exegesis, including the original languages. We need the criticisms of others who say, “I’ve looked at this text carefully and I just don’t see what you are seeing. To me the text says something totally different.” It may be painful to listen to that kind of criticism. But we need to. You see, I don’t learn much from people who agree with me because we already see things the same way. It is people who disagree with me, who see the text differently than I do, who can teach me something about the text. We all have certain blind spots with regard to the Bible. These blind spots are rooted in our self-deception. But when I am confronted with someone very different from me, someone of another race, or even another religion, I am confronted with realities in the text that I would never have seen on my own. I may not end up agreeing with them, but my view of the text will be sharpened. Even in the study of the Bible, we need to listen to others, particularly people who have also studied the Bible carefully and have come to different conclusions than we have.

A Practical and Biblical Hermeneutic: 1) Self-Deception and Bible Study

There is a major problem that we all face when we open the Bible: self-deception. One Scripture deals directly with this problem: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jer 17:9) The problem described here is self-deception. It is easy for us to read our own ideas, concepts, and needs into Scripture and turn the Bible into a book that reads just the way we believe. Human beings naturally–even unconsciously–tend to avoid ideas and situations that would be painful to them. So whenever you come face-to-face with the Bible, knowing that you are looking for truth, there is a tendency for the natural defense mechanisms of sin to get in the way. In a sinful world, it is natural to read the Bible in such a way as to avoid learning what we don’t want to know. And we often do it without realizing it.

The best safeguard against self-deception is an exegesis (discovering God’s original intention for a text) based on the original languages, the Greek and the Hebrew. Genuine descriptive exegesis is more difficult for me in English (my native language), because English is filled with associations to my own, personal past. For me, every word of the English Bible triggers associations with my own previous life experience. It evokes the events and contexts in which I encountered those words before. It’s almost impossible, therefore,  not to read my own ideas into the Bible when I read it in English. Reading one’s self into the Bible is perfectly natural until one becomes conscious of the need to learn a better way of reading the Bible.

Learning to read the New Testament in the Greek, for example, allows you to break the bonds of the past and experience the text as it was meant to be experienced when it was first written. To learn the Greek of the New Testament is to break away from the familiar associations that blind interpreters to the deeper connections of the text. When an interpreter develops a reading knowledge of the Greek New Testament, associations start popping up that would not have been seen in translation. But here’s the best part. Once you have exegeted a biblical text, you can never read it the same way again. You cannot avoid the deeper implications of that text as might have been possible before.

The problem with exegesis based on the original languages is that most people who study the Bible will never have the opportunity to learn Greek or Hebrew. So such a requirement would limit good biblical study to an elite few, and this does not seem to be God’s intent in giving us His Word. Is it impossible, then, to do serious, honest exegesis? I don’t think so. I believe there are five simple, practical safeguards that will help anyone interpret the biblical text while avoiding the kind of bizarre misreadings that come so naturally to the human condition. These five principles provide interpreters with the kind of biblical balance that is necessary when dealing with divisive theological issues.

On Biblical Hermeneutics (The Science of Biblical Interpretation)

Recently many people are suggesting that support for a Yes vote at the General Conference is grounded in a “new hermeneutic,” reading the Bible differently than the way the pioneers of Adventism read it. There is some truth in this suggestion and it bears some careful investigation. The implication some suggest is that the new hermeneutic results in a fundamental distortion of the Bible’s message regarding the role of women, a message that is clear and unequivocal. To read the Bible any other way is to place oneself in rebellion against the clear teachings of God. This is a serious accusation and I believe it arises out of a shallow understanding of hermeneutics.

There are in fact two basic hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation), but the right and wrong of this issue is not as simple as some would make it. There is a way to read the Bible that is seemingly safe and secure, but often does not withstand detailed investigation. That way is sometimes called the “proof-text method.” It involves using a concordance to select passages from all over the Bible that seem to address a particular topic and attempting to understand their collective weight in light of current questions and concerns. At its best this method is a form of biblical theology, gathering everything the Bible says on a topic and seeking to learn from that data how to understand the mind of God on that topic. This method has been used within the Adventist Church from its very beginning and is quite efficient in quickly exposing biblical evidence related to a topic. It leads to relatively easy conclusions that work for a time, but tends to gloss over many things along the way. At its worst it is a powerful way to pick and choose one’s evidence and confirm preconceived opinions. At its worst it appears to honor the Bible while ignoring or distorting the message of the Bible. The selective method without exegetical (careful understanding of the original context) controls makes it too easy for one’s personal biases to determine what texts count as evidence and which ones don’t. The quality of the outcome can depend more on the character of the interpreter than the evidence itself.

The other hermeneutic is grounded less in concordances and more in broad reading of Scripture. One explores the Bible as a whole, taking it book by book and seeking to understand the questions the Bible writers were addressing and the issues they were facing. The interpreter recognizes that God meets people where they are (there is plenty of Scriptural evidence for that assertion– see the opening chapter of my book Everlasting Gospel, Everchanging World), so the teaching at any given point in the Bible may not be a final word on all related issues, but may be a specific answer to a specific issue in that time and place. Understanding the meaning of each text in its context is crucial to developing a biblical theology that can address today’s issues. In the Bible God sometimes allows or even seem to approve of actions that elsewhere are treated as wrong (how about the seeming approval of polygamy in 2 Sam 12:8?). So comparing Scripture with Scripture may still leave one short of explicit answers to every one of today’s questions, requiring one to explore where God’s revelation is trending. This is the method that has led Christians to abolish slavery, even though the New Testament seems not to forbid it (Eph 6:4-9).

At its best this method takes the whole Bible and its original contexts into account. It helps us discern what is clear in God’s revelation and what is not. It avoids the selectivity of the proof-text method and provides safeguards against our natural human biases. But this method also has its limitations. Few people have the desire or the time to master the Bible as a whole. Even for those who do, the process is lengthy and subject to human forgetfulness. In addition, understanding the context of each biblical story and message is best served by knowing the biblical languages and a great deal about ancient history and culture. This makes it easy to leave deep Bible study to the experts, who may become our authorities on what the Bible says rather than allowing every member to do their own diligence in the Word. In addition, projecting the “trajectory” of what God is doing in this world is often necessary, but it too introduces a human element into the process that can project trajectories God Himself might not recognize. So this method is not a fool-proof answer to all questions when the church is divided.

I have used both methods and see that there are strengths and weaknesses in each. A healthy church will not be limited in its approaches. But the outcome of my decades of study in hermeneutics indicates to me that God has not chosen to satisfy our curiosity about all matters in His Word. At creation God granted human beings intellect, reason and considerable freedom. Such freedom is best exercised when we don’t know the answer to everything. God calls us to sharpen our minds by wrestling with the difficult issues that He has chosen not to settle. So when the church, after years of study, remains divided on a question, humility and kindness are the appropriate response. Everyone agrees that the Bible is clear on how we should treat one another. What a shame it would be if we hammer others on things that in the Bible are not truly clear, while transgressing those teachings of the Bible that all agree are clear.

Why Would One Want To? Part 2

For the first two reasons one might want to share the message of Revelation 13, please see the previous blog.

3) A third reason to share this truth at the right time and in the right way is that it is liberating to many people. The truth about the Papacy as a system can bring tremendous freedom to people who have assumed the Papacy was God’s vicar on earth and thus followed every teaching in detail, even those that are disturbing and questionable on the very face of it. Think of the Scala Santa, the holy stairs in Rome. The faithful ascend the stairs on their knees saying an Our Father on every step. Why? Because, as the plaque on the wall says in several languages: “The following indulgences may be received, in accord with the usual conditions: PLENARY INDULGENCE– on all Fridays of Lent, and once more each year on an occasion of one’s choice. PARTIAL INDULGENCE– on all other days of the year, as long as one is sincerely repentant of one’s sins.” This is the very thing that Martin Luther and so many others sought to overthrow 500 years ago. For some this leads to a slavery of righteousness by works. To others it paves the way for  a “do whatever you like” permissiveness. What kind of monstrous picture of God requires sinners to evaluate their salvation by the depth of the callouses on their knees? And these specific indulgences were ordered by the direct authority of various popes.
    I received a taste of the power of indulgences for myself when I was young. After a visit to the Scala Santa, I went to Vatican Square to hear the Easter address of Pope Paul VI on April 4, 1969. To my surprise I heard him say in English (the message was repeated in several languages) that all those present would receive a complete indulgence for all sins past, present and future. So I guess in some sense I’m covered. While that was a whole lot easier than climbing the Scala Santa on my knees, I have to admit that it involved no heart commitment on my part. So if I had taken it as seriously as some in the square probably did, it would likely have led me to a life of carelessness and self-indulgence. Salvation simply by being in the right place at the right time.
    To me it is shocking that in the name of Christ a system that governs the actions of a billion people reduces the gift of the cross to something that can be earned by actions or money. Yet the core teachings of the system they adhere to are seriously flawed. The public face of Catholicism has softened since the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965, but it has never changed its fundamental teachings on salvation. Notice the following Papal actions in the last fifteen years: 1) expansion of the ways in which believers can earn indulgences, 2) elaboration on the punishments to be meted out to apostates and heretics (those words could well include you and me), 3) exhortation to believers to make sure that civil legislation respects the duty to keep Sunday, and 4) reaffirmation that priests have the power to forgive sin and to re-create their Creator in the mass. This doesn’t sound all that different from the church of the Middle Ages. I’m sure that the people ascending the Scala Santa include some of the nicest and kindest people on earth. But don’t nice and kind Catholics deserve to experience the freedom of the gospel as much as anyone else?
    It remains official teaching that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church and believers can only receive salvation by participating in the sacraments of the church. Those who refuse these sacraments will suffer eternal damnation, no exceptions. It can be such a relief to Catholics to learn for the first time that Jesus died for them personally, that they can go directly to Him without a human intermediary, that they don’t have to earn the love of the Father. As Jesus Himself said, “I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you.” (John 16:26-27)  If people are being freed by a message, we cannot let embarrassment prevent us from this sacred work. Pope Benedict XVI made it clear that Vatican II did not make any changes to the historic Catholic doctrine concerning salvation. Ironically, a sizable and growing segment of Catholics now believes that the end-time antichrist will arise from within the Catholic Church, probably a pope.

4) Finally, a good reason to share even unpleasant truth is the fact that Jesus is coming. Oddly enough, since September 11, 2001 many Seventh-day Adventists have lost a sense of the nearness of Christ’s coming. They are losing confidence in prophecy at exactly the time when prophetic events seem closer to fulfillment than ever before. If you want detail on this read my book Armageddon at the Door for a detailed picture of the intersection between Bible prophecy and the kind of events that went down in the context of September 11. What an irony. Losing confidence in prophecy at the very time end-time like events are happening. More and more Adventists today see prophecy as antagonistic rather than liberating. They reason that people have enough fear in their lives already. Why burden them with more by studying scary prophetic beasts?
    The best answer I can think of is this: Being prepared for the end of time is better than not being prepared. Jesus is coming back whether we are calm or nervous. The heart of the end-time gospel is Revelation 14, and it includes a warning against counterfeits. Adventists must present Jesus clearly. That is the heart of our mission. And many people won’t see Jesus clearly or be ready for His return unless the truth about counterfeit forms of salvation and other real issues of the end-time are presented in detail. So that is a fourth reason for sharing this message even though it might not be popular to do so.

Do You Have to Become a “Christian” to Follow Jesus?

The early church faced an interesting situation in Acts 15. Leadership was pressured to choose between structural unity and pragmatic diversity. Structural unity could easily have been achieved had the church remained a sect within Judaism. All Gentile converts would have had to become Jews in order to receive Jesus. The end result would have been a unified church that would have had little impact on the massive Gentile world.


There were many in the church who wanted to go in that direction. Representatives of that group went to Antioch and insisted that salvation was dependant on circumcision according to the laws of Moses (Acts 15:1-2). At the Jerusalem Conference, as recorded in Acts 15, Christian Pharisees insisted not only on circumcision but entire adherence to the law of Moses (Acts 15:5). In essence, Gentile Christians were to be treated the same as Jewish proselytes. Peter, Paul and Barnabas argued against this position on the grounds of God’s acceptance of Gentiles through the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:8), the role of grace in salvation (Acts 15:11), and the abundant evidence that God was working miracles in response to the Gentile mission (Acts 15:12).



James, the half-brother of Jesus, added to these arguments the sense that the Gentile mission was a fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 15:13-18). He argued that Amos 9:11-12 predicted a time when a descendant of David would create circumstances in which large numbers of Gentiles would seek the Lord. If that prophecy was being fulfilled in the mission of Paul and Barnabas, then the church should put no unnecessary barriers in the way of Gentiles receiving Jesus: “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19). The strictures of Acts 15:20-21 were designed to make fellowship possible between Jewish and Gentile Christians. So unity in diversity was preserved.


In other words, the fundamental issue addressed at the council described in Acts 15 was less theological than a matter of community identity. Many feel this situation has a parallel in the outpouring of Muslim interest in Jesus today. They feel that the church of our day needs to make accommodations similar to those of Acts 15 in relation to this new work of God.


Perhaps we could apply the situation of Acts 15 to the current situation in the following way. The issue of Acts 15 was: Does a Gentile have to become a Jew in order to become a Christian? The early church leaders answered, “No.” In a Seventh-day Adventist context the issue today could be expressed: Does a Muslim have to become a “Christian” in order to become a Seventh-day Adventist? When becoming a “Christian” in the Islamic world includes eating pork, drinking alcohol, dressing immodestly, and having a lax attitude toward obedience, what does becoming a “Christian” have to do with Adventist faith?


Obviously, the word “Christian” can mean different things to different people. To some the word “Christian” means “culturally Western” more than a spiritual concept. To Muslims the word has political connotations more than religious ones. A Christian is one who opposes Muslim faith with smart bombs, Playboy magazines, and economic sanctions. Ideally, the word “Christian” means one who is a genuine follower of Jesus, but how many of these do you know? Even the best of labels can be more confusing than helpful sometimes. An unpredictable God often turns our labels on their heads.