7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 4)

In a sermon titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” delivered by Archibald Alexander to Princeton University, Alexander makes seven observations on the idea of “rightly dividing” Scripture.

The fourth observation is important for many reasons, but especially for the discipleship of the Church. Alexander writes,

Rightly to divide the word of truth, we must arrange it in such order, as that it may be most easily and effectually understood.

Alexander, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth,” 125

Alexander is encouraging ministers to help their flock grow through the systematic, progression of biblical doctrines and principles. The wise minister moves from foundational doctrines to deeper truths of the faith, guiding the people of God into a greater awareness of sound doctrine, finer skills in discerning that doctrine, and consistent application of those truths.

“Principles” and “Foundation”

One does not deep dive into the hypostatic union if a believer is a new convert completely ignorant of the basic story of redemption, in other words. There must be basic principles, or to borrow the phrase from Paul in Hebrews, there must be “elementary principles” that are laid as “a foundation” (Heb. 6:1, ESV). Alexander calls them “principles” and “the foundation.”

There is, no doubt, a depressing ignorance of the basics of the Christian faith. Ligonier and Lifeway‘s partnership in the “State of Theology” surveys are as enlightening as they are discouraging. What was once common knowledge of the average churchman is now devoid of many seminaries’ required education.

For example, many books have and are being written presenting basic Trinitarian theology. The Creeds and Confessions of the Church, bathed in the battles of such debates, were gifts to the Church used to her growth in orthodoxy and identification of and separation from heterodoxy.

“Go on to Maturity”

“But he must not,” writes Alexander, “dwell forever on the first principles of the doctrine of Christ, but should endeavour to lead his people on to perfection in the knowledge of the truth” (125).

It is vital the lay down the right foundation, but it is equally vital to move toward greater maturity, in both doctrine and practice. It takes wisdom, patience, and grace to steer the people of God from foundational truths to deeper ones. The wise minister will know the flock over whom God has placed him as undershepherd. He will preach and teach the Word in such a way that both the newer believer and the mature believer are able to be fed.

Closing Remarks

This observation is needed today. Given the theological state of the church, ministers must preach the Word in a systematic and progressive way, building a solid theological foundation and then moving toward the deeper truths of the faith. Here are a few recommendations.

1. Pastors should themselves be given to doctrinal maturity. If they are to aid in people moving past foundational truths to maturity, they must know those doctrines of maturity.
   
2. Pastors should know the flock. They cannot lead them to maturity unless they know where they are at doctrinally. This takes time and effort.
   
3. Use the Creeds and Confessions. These documents of the Church have withstood theological debates, heretical attacks, and the test of time. They are precious tools given to the saints and the shepherds of the church for their growth in maturity. The Apostles’ Creed is simple but not simplistic. It provides a great summary of theology. The Nicene Creed helps expand that apostolic doctrine against the heresies creeping into the church since the days of the apostle John. The other Confessions, the Second London Baptist Confession being the best, in my opinion, are built on those foundations and expand the doctrine and practice, providing an excellent example of maturity in life and doctrine.
   
4. Be patient. One of the best pieces of advice I have received is from Mark Dever (not personally, of course!). He encourages ministers to take a long-view approach to church ministry. Plan on being there at the church for 30–40 years, and this will help taper the impatience of human nature. The pastor, Lord willing of course, realizes that he does not have to “mature” the church overnight. It will take time, time in prayer, time in study, time in preaching and teaching, time in loving the sheep, time in loving the Good Shepherd.

“Rightly to divide the word of truth, we must arrange it in such order, as that it may be most easily and effectually understood,” writes Alexander. May we be pastors who take this observation seriously, to the glory of the Triune God and for the good of His people.

---

Check out the previous posts:

Observation One

Observation Two

Observation Three

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 3)

We have visited Princeton University to listen to Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology, give a lecture titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.” He has given two previous observations on what this means (Observation One and Observation Two). He gives his next observation,

“The skillful workman must be able to distinguish between fundamental truths and such as are not fundamental.”

Archibald Alexander, “Rightly Dividing the Word of truth,” 124–125

Alexander presents the importance of differentiating between fundamental truths and truths that are not fundamental. Alexander’s words here are helpful for two extremes. One follows the path of the Independent, Fundamental Baptist (IFB). In this world (and others like it) everything is a fundamental truth–music, dress, etc. The other extreme treats all doctrines as “not fundamental” to the faith, which is equally as dangerous. Liberal theology would be a good example of this danger.

Fundamentalism–Everything is a Fundamental

First, this is an important aspect of “rightly dividing the Word of truth” to me personally as it relates to the extreme of IFB. I was saved and raised for many years in the IFB. This post will be a little more personal than others, but I hope it will prove helpful to others who have experienced a similar background in the IFB world. As the name implies, IFB churches hold to the “fundamentals” of the faith, such as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, etc. (For more on the history of fundamentalism, I highly recommend Justin Taylor‘s article, “The 4 Phases of Protestant Fundamentalism in America.”)

What started on good motives, the desire to stand faithful for the fundamentals of the faith, quickly devolved into naming everything fundamental and separating with everyone who held to different beliefs and/or practices. Taylor writes about this phase of fundamentalism, the fourth phase,

“Within this fourth phase, a somewhat legalistic form of Christianity develops. Strict regulations become unwritten laws. Any capitulation to popular culture is synonymous with the sin of worldliness. Throughout most of the 1970s suspicion was raised against anyone who wore sideburns, long hair, beards, flair-bottom pants, boots, wire-rimmed glasses, or silk shirts. All members of the empire in good standing were required to submit to behavior codes and regulations of personal grooming and fashion.”

To the fundamentals of the faith were added music styles, Bible versions, certain clothing, hair styles, etc. This is the world in which I was raised (not that my parents were like this, they were great!). In my Bible college training, it was common to have preachers mock others for their dress or music standards. In fact, one preacher publicly ridiculed a student for wearing fashionable pants! You were excluded or looked down upon if you did not follow the patterns set by those in the faculty and administration (as well as the churches that supported this college). There are many problems with this approach to the Christian faith, but perhaps the greatest is that it collapses everything into one bowl of confusing “fundamental” soup.

Eschatology provides a good example of differentiating between fundamental truths and truths that are not so. Discussions on the end times are important, but it is not a fundamental of the faith. Believers know that the Scriptures teach that Jesus will return, but the details surrounding that return may be debated. You can be a Christian and be an amillennialist, premillennialist, or even a postmillennialist! There are some in the IFB world, however, that would disagree. You must be a premillennialist, or else you are denying a fundamental of the faith. Why? Because they are not rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

Alexander writes, “All Bible truth is important and no part is to be rejected or neglected. But some truths must be known and believed, or the person cannot be saved; while there are other truths which true Christians may be ignorant of, and while ignorant may deny.”

IFB churches, institutions, and pastors in particular, would benefit greatly (both personally and ecclesiastically) if they learned to distinguish between fundamental truth and truth that is not so.

Liberalism–Nothing is a Fundamental

Kevin DeYoung has written an excellent article titled, “Liberalism Is (Still) a Threat to Fundamentalism.” DeYoung’s article focuses on a sermon that was delivered by Harry Emerson Fosdick delivered during the battles between the fundamentalists and liberal theologians, Fosdick being an able representative of liberal theology.

Quoting Fosdick, DeYoung writes, “For him [Fosdick], it was a “penitent shame that the Christian church should be quarreling over little matters when the world is dying of great needs.” Those “little matters” were not little at all, however. They were truly the fundamentals of the faith. Fosdick’s desire to exalt “love” over any and everything was a key mark of liberal theology. However, liberal theologians denied the divinity of Christ, one could not be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word if they denied that fundamental truth, which is ironic because the first and greatest commandment, according to the Lord Jesus, is to love the Lord your God.

We must be careful to avoid this extreme as well. In present culture, holding to any sort of doctrinal standard is looked down upon. The proliferation of “non-denominational churches” is a perfect example of this desire to minimize doctrine (include both fundamental truth and truth not so). Rightly dividing the Word of truth distinguishes between fundamental truth and truth that is not so.

Diagnostic Tool for Distinguishing Truth

I will close with Alexander’s helpful remarks on the “two grand marks of fundamental doctrine.” (125)

First, “that the denial of them destroys the system.” (125) A denial of the virgin birth of Christ, for example, destroys the Christian religion. Likewise, a denial of the premillennial reign of Christ does not destroy the Christian religion.

Second, “that the knowledge of them is essential to piety.” (125) In other words, if I deny this doctrine will I be able to grow in holiness? Deism, the belief that God is no longer involved in the present world eliminates the need to pray. One can easily see how this denial inhibits growth in holiness.

Alexander’s words are most helpful. Rightly dividing the Word of truth involves distinguishing between fundamental truth and truth that is not so. Are you rightly dividing the Word of truth?

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 2)

In our previous post, we introduced the first of seven observations Archibald Alexander made on “rightly dividing the Word of truth.” The second observation is, “It is necessary to divide the truth not only from error, but from philosophy, and mere human opinions and speculations.”

Philosophy

In this warning, Alexander is warning against giving in to too much philosophical speculation. There is nothing wrong with metaphysics. In fact, in another excellent book, Craig Carter’s Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, Carter makes a superb argument that all engage in metaphysical reasoning, it is just a matter of what kind of metaphysics one is using.

Alexander seems to be warning against the empty, merely speculative aspects of metaphysics, devoid of any connection to the Word of God. He writes, “Thus, it often happens, that a sermon contains very little Scripture truth. After the text is uttered, the preacher has done with the Bible, and the hearers are fed, or rather starved, by some abstruse discussion of a subject, not treated of in the word of God; or which there is taken for granted as a thing which requires no discussion, or which is above the human intellect” (124).

Mere human opinions and speculations

Here Alexander is warning against imposing the preacher’s views into the text. He writes, “They are forever connecting with the doctrines of God’s word, their own wire-drawn and uncertain speculations” (124).

One may immediately think of the Pharisees in the earthly days of Christ (cf. Mark 7:13). The Pharisees added their own views to the traditions given in the sacred Scriptures. However, this reminder is needful today.

Many preachers will try to defend their view using Scripture, rather than developing their views from Scripture and then presenting them. In the first, preachers abuse the Word by placing themselves in authority over the Word of God. They do not study it and then interpret it. They find words that are connected with their own views and take them out of context.

In the second, the preacher submits to the Word of God. He submits his views to the truths of Scripture. He studies intently what the Word says and what it means, and after this develops his view, constantly returning it to the Word to measure it against the perfect standard of truth.

Implementing observation 2

How can the preacher avoid this too errors? First, gain a proper view of philosophy and metaphysics. Here Carter is most helpful, “Theology is the study of God and all things in relation to God. Metaphysics is theological when it allows biblical revelation to determine the true ontological nature of reality as it contemplates the biblical teaching on God and all things in relation to God.” (Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition, 64)

Carter notes that all people engage in metaphysics, even if they do not know the word nor what it means. Preachers who herald the glorious promises of the Word of God should be biblical philosophers.

Second, preachers should be very careful when inserting their own views into their preaching and teaching. There are few times indeed when the preacher should share “his thoughts.” When it is appropriate to do so, the preacher should make it abundantly clear that what he is saying is truly his own views and not biblical.

By following Alexander’s words, preachers can “rightly divide the Word of truth.”

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 1)

Archibald Alexander, the first professor of theology at Princeton University, preached a sermon titled, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth.” In his sermon, Alexander sought to elaborate on Paul’s exhortation for ministers to “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). He offers seven observations.

1. The truths of god’s Word must be carefully distinguished from error

Alexander’s first observation addresses the minister’s need to expose false teaching. He is to utilize the Word of God like a scalpel and cut out the rancid, infected teachings that infiltrate the Church.

Although this is not popular today, ministers who seek to divide the Word of God rightly must be willing and able to expose error. In being willing, ministers must realize that they will not nor, if they serve the Lord faithfully, cannot be friends with the world (James 4:4–5). Worldly doctrine is false doctrine and must be called out, both in public and in private.

In being able, the minister must “do [his] best to present [himself] to God as one approved” (2 Tim. 2:15, ESV). Being an able minister means being a master of biblical doctrine. He should be so familiar with right doctrine that the moment a whiff of false teaching enters his nostrils he is on high alert. This requires diligent and consistent study of right doctrine. The Creeds and Confessions of the Church (my personal favorite being the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith) are most helpful. Having faced the test of time and fought the various theological battles, these documents are wonderful, systematic, and doxological presentations of true, God-glorifying and church-edifying doctrine.

The minister must move beyond his own willingness and ability to help teach and train the church, too. Alexander writes, “By a clear exhibition of gospel truth, on all the important points of religion, the people should be so instructed, and so imbued with the truth, that error shall make no impression on them.” (124)

In order to divide the truth of God’s Word rightly, then, ministers must be willing to distinguish truth from error.

---

These observations can be found in further detail in the book The Pastor: His Call, Character, and Work printed by Banner of Truth Trust.

“Clear Guidance,” Helpful Words from Ferguson

Our church is currently conducting a book study through Sinclair Ferguson’s book, Maturity:Growing Up and Going On in the Christian Life.

In chapter five, Ferguson is discussing the need for “clear guidance.” Christians should and need to submit to God as He directs their lives. Of course, this is almost taken for granted. However, the difficulty lies in how this happens.

Much proceeds the quote I am about to provide, so I encourage you to purchase and read the book in its entirety. However, as I reflect on my own upbringing, I think the quote may be helpful for many. Let me briefly explain that before giving Ferguson’s quote.

I grew up in an independent, fundamental, baptist church (hereafter IFB). There is much that could (and probably should) be said about this strand of Christianity, but one aspect that is pertinent to this post is the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is quite popular for Christians in this branch to make statements like:

• “Brother, the Lord told me to do this….”
• “I feel the Lord is leading me to move here…”
• “The still, small voice told me that this would happen…”
• “The Lord spoke to me in such a powerful way and clearly guided me to do…”

I am sure other phrases are out there, but these summarize this idea of the leading of the Spirit. It was always a concern to me during my phase of IFB life, but I could not quite pinpoint why. Perhaps it was the subjectivitism necessary for such views. Or, maybe it was the lack of clear Scripture regarding this leading.

Whatever the cause for concern, it was there. Reading Ferguson’s work on the leading of God has been instrumental in straightening out my befuddled thinking. He writes,

“We should not, however, deny that strong impressions may be made on our minds by God’s truth or that we may be constrained to pursue them. This is quite consistent with the principle that the Spirit of God illumines our understanding through God’s word. Clarity often comes slowly, but the extended process of understanding how God’s word applies to the flowing river of his providence in our lives. But that process may also climaz in a single moment of illumination, when the Spirit brings together the fragments of an unclear picture that had developed over time. Then everything is clarified. This is part of the supernatural character of the Christian life. It is always lived by faith, by dependence on the Scriptures and the Spirit’s help enabling us to see how they apply to our lives. The Bible does not come to us in the form of a series of answers to our set questions. It comes in its own context (which we need to understand) and speaks into our context (which we need to be able to interpret) in order to lead us into the will of God.” (90)

May we all seek to move away from our subjective approaches to God and His work in our lives, reorient our thinking to His Word, and follow the illuminating and gracious work of His Holy Spirit!

“When Race Trumps Merit” -A Brief Word

My parents gave me the book, When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives, by Heather Mac Donald. After hearing a lecture by Mac Donald about the book, I was eager to read it.

Structure of the book

Although statistical data are woven throughout, the book is easy enough to read. After an introductory chapter, Mac Donald walks the reader through three parts, grouped together by category.

The first part, “Science and Medicine” (pages 31–67), addresses the implications of “disparate impact” that has had on scientific and medical research. Mac Donald documents the negative results of DEI on these fields and the conjunctures the future if this trend is maintained.

The second part, “Culture and Arts” (pages 71–206), demonstrates the interaction of DEI with art and music. Mac Donald discusses multiple examples of the detrimental impact DEI is having on these fields as well.

The third part, “Law and Order” (pages 209–272), interacts with crimes, criminals, and several statistical studies. As with parts 1 and 2, this section weaves statistical data throughout without bogging the reader down with the details.

brief comments

This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of Mac Donald’s work. I am sure you can find those in other places. However, I do want to share some of my own thoughts about the book.

First, I enjoyed Mac Donald’s style. She does a great job of discussing statistical information without losing readability. Books of this nature tend to lean toward readability or deep statistical analysis. She combines the two well.

The second thought I had reading this book is how differently people can view the world. Reading some of the quotes by others in Mac Donald’s book is, at times, depressing. The negativity, double standards, lack of care and compassion, and hate are a sad reality of the United States at present. I suppose this should to surprise me (a biblical view of humanity helps remind us of our sinfulness), but it does.

A third thought I had while reading Mac Donald’s book is the need for consistency. She decries the use of anecdotal evidence on behalf of the left (and rightly so), but then uses some from the right. It would certainly strengthen Mac Donald’s work (which, in my view, is already strong) if she were to be consistent in this matter.

conclusion

Overall, I recommend the book. It is an easier read, culturally important, and anchored in facts and reality (all lacking in today’s public discourse).

“A Knowledge of the Truth” and the Two Options Before Us

The second letter of Timothy is a treasure trove of biblical truth and encouragement to remain steadfast in the midst of suffering. I have been laboring through this epistle, an epistle I have read at least thirty times, and I am still learning so much!

One of the aspects that have stood out to me in my preparation is the various responses to the truth and the reasons for those responses. In this post, I would like to share two of those responses and the accompanying reasons for them. But first, let us consider some introductory thoughts.

Introductory Thoughts on Truth in Paul’s Second Letter to Timothy

In Paul’s second letter to Timothy, he writes about God’s truth many times. For time’s sake, we will just consider the connections in chapter one. Though not directly a reference to a particular passage, he mentions “the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus” (1:1).

In 1:8 Paul exhorts the young pastor to avoid being ashamed “of the testimony of our Lord.” That testimony is certainly the verbal witness of the apostles and disciples, but as we consider the inscripturation process we can certainly make the case that this would eventually include the Gospel accounts.

In 1:13 Paul commands Timothy, “Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me.” Again, Paul spoke to Timothy about the Gospel and related truths. However, he is also wrote to Timothy about the Gospel and related truths. In his first letter, he explained, “I am writing these things to you so that…” (1 Tim. 3:14). Not only could Timothy remember the words spoken by Paul, he could also read the words written by Paul.

Additionally, Paul commands Timothy to, by the Holy Spirit, “guard the good deposit entrusted to you,” which must include the verbal and written truths of God (1:14).

These are all connections to God’s truth, whether given in verbal or written format.

A Saving Knowledge of the Truth–By God’s Grace

The first occurrence of the phrase “a knowledge of the truth” can be found in 2:25. In that passage, Paul is instructing Timothy, and by extension all ministers of the Word, how to respond to who teach contrary to biblical doctrine. These individuals engage in “foolish, ignorant controversies,” which have the result of “breed[ing] quarrels.” (You can also read 2:14–19 to see additional details about these false teachers)

Contrasted with those self-serving, unbiblical teachers, the servant of the Lord should be gentle, patient, able to teach (no doubt harkening back to the office of the pastor, cf., 1 Tim. 3:1–7), and one who would be able to endure ill-treatment, all while “correcting his opponents with gentleness” (2 Tim. 2:24–25). What is the goal? What does Paul hope to achieve in encouraging ministers to behave in this manner?

“God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,” he writes (2 Tim. 2:25). The goal of ministering in this way was the hope that the individual would be led to a knowledge of the truth. But how does the individual reach that knowledge? By God’s grace.

Paul has already highlighted the grace of God in his own life (1:1) as well as the lives of other believers (1:8–10). He will encourage Timothy to be strengthened by the grace of Jesus (2:1). Furthermore, he informs Timothy that “I endure all things,” many of which are recorded in the book of Acts) “for the sake of the elect” (2:10). Returning to the events recorded in the book of Numbers, Paul connects the grace-filled election of Moses and believers in the OT which the church in the NT (2:19).

God would grant the individual repentance, and that in turn would lead them to “a knowledge of the truth.” When contrasted with our next response, we see this is not simply a head knowledge. It is a soul-transforming knowledge, or a salvific knowledge. The difference is that God provided repentance in this response. So what is the other response?

A Damning Knowledge of the Truth–By Man’s Nature

After Paul provides those pastoral encouragements to Timothy (2:24–26), he moves on to life in the end times. One characterization of end-time people will be their rejection of the truth and selfishness.

Paul tells Timothy to “avoid such people,” and then elaborates on their wickedness by taking advantage of “weak women” (3:1–6). Then Paul goes on to describe these people as “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth” (3:7). There seems to be a connection back to his first letter to Timothy in 1:3–7 and 4:1–5. Apparently, these individuals had some knowledge of God’s truth, whether spoken or written. Paul characterizes them as “always learning,” which begs the question, why have they not repented? They are learning but never arriving to a knowledge of the truth because it is in their very nature to do so.

These are the individuals whom Paul has already described as self-serving and not God-pleasing (3:1–5). The difference is that God has not granted them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. They are left to their own natures and, though they may increase in the knowledge of some truth, it is not coupled with God’s saving activity. Rather than expanding their hearts to receive the saving truth of God, their fallen hearts cause them to expand their heads but ultimately “deny” the power of godliness to take sinful humans and transform them into saints. It is merely a head knowledge, which leaves the individual no-wiser to salvation and far more responsible on “that Day,” (1:12, 18; 4:8).

Implications for today

How should we respond to Paul’s teaching?

Individually, let us take great care when we read the Scriptures, or engage in Bible study, or attend services at church. We should seek to grow in our knowledge, not for the sake of obtaining greater intellectual abilities, but to know God. We should pray for God’s help in apprehending His truth and living it out.

Corporately, as pastors let us pray for those to whom we minister. Let us ask God for His divine grace to draw individuals to repentance and life through the Gospel. As we prepare sermons, our lips should always be moved by the names of those who attend church services.

Corporately, as Christians, let us pray for those with who attend services with us. Let us ask God not only to work in our own hearts, but in their hearts as well.

As we consider a knowledge of the truth, there are only two options before us: repent by God’s grace or ignore it by our own natures to our everlasting peril.

If God works in our hearts and leads us to a knowledge of the truth, we can join Paul at the end of our time on earth and say,

“I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.” (2 Tim. 4:7–8)

Is there an office of “evangelist?” Examining the Scriptures (Part 1)

Introduction

In our last post, we briefly discussed the fact that the New Testament does not specify the roles of evangelists, nor does it define an office of the evangelist. We noted at the end of that post two passages of Scriptures in which evangelists are specifically mentioned, and as promised, we will look at these.

Ephesians 4:11, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers.”

In this chapter, Paul discusses the gifts the ascended Lord Jesus provides for His Church. They are given in this order in this verse: apostles, prophets, evangelists, and shepherd-teachers. These gifts, Paul tells us, are given to build up the body of Christ (i.e., the Church). Hamilton comments on this, “These gifts are the ministers who will lead the church to build itself up in love for the display of God’s glory in the world (Eph. 4:9–16).”[1] We will comment on each one of these gifts, and then make some conclusions.

Gifts to the Church

There do seem to be two levels of apostleship in the Scriptures. First, there were the twelve apostles divinely called, ordained, and empowered by the Lord for the foundation of the Church (cf. Eph. 2:20; Acts 1:12–26). Second, there seem to be some who were identified as apostles but distinct from the twelve apostles (for example, Barnabas is called an apostle in Acts 15:2).

David Dockery is helpful here, “Apostles and prophets were foundational for the church’s work (Eph. 2:20; 3:5). Apostles served as spokespersons for God, bringing new revelation and understanding to the church.”[2] Gregg Allison is clearer when he writes, “The office of apostleship was by divine design a temporary position of authority in the early church.”[3] Thielman provides additional information, writing, “The apostles and prophets together form the foundation of the new multiethnic people of God (2:20), a position that belongs to them because of their critical role in taking the gospel to the Gentles (3:5). Of the two groups, however, the apostles are always mentioned first, and in 3:5 they are described as both ‘holy’ and as Christ’s apostles. They hold this place of greatest foundational importance because of their connection with the historical Jesus.”[4]

The second gift Christ gives to His Church is the prophet. It is closely tied to the apostle, as can be observed in the passage itself as well as Dockery’s words. His words are equally helpful here, “Prophets provided exhortation, edification, and comfort to the church (1 Cor. 14:3). They had authority while speaking under the Spirit’s inspiration. Prophets primarily revealed God’s will for the present (forth-telling) and occasionally predicted the future (foretelling).”[5] Agabus, in Acts 11:27–30, provides us with an example of foretelling. The apostles and prophets were closely related, albeit distinct, foundations for the early church.

The next of the four gifts is the evangelist. Dockery writes, “Evangelists were gifted to spread the gospel and to plant churches, patterns that continue to this day.”[6] Interestingly, Eusebius makes this remark, “Then, leaving their [individuals after the apostles] homes, they took up the work of evangelists, eager to preach the message of faith to those who had never heard it and to provide them the inspired Gospels in writing. As soon as they had laid the foundations of the faith in some foreign place, they appointed others as pastors to tend those newly brought in and then set off again to other lands and peoples.”[7] It seems, then, there are two potential ways of seeing the evangelists.

One is to view them, as it appears Eusebius does, as itinerate church planters in connection to the apostles. Perhaps it is helpful to think in terms of “junior apostles.” They were not apostles, but they were like apostles. This seems to coincide with Paul’s command to Titus to appoint elders (Titus 1:5).

The other view, the one presented by Dockery, suggests that these early church planters continue today. No doubt there are church planters and missionaries (in terms of domestic and international work). These individuals go to places where there are no churches and attempt to establish one. In this sense, the evangelist continues today.

We will revisit these ideas in future posts, but for now, move on to the next group of gifts to the church: the pastors. Interestingly, the pastors and teachers have a unique rendering in Greek. We will not spend any time discussing this, but it is a fascinating point worth your time. For now, our focus remains on the gifts. The pastor, as Thielman writes, “simply means ‘shepherd’ and was often used metaphorically for a political or religious leader in the ancient Near East.”[8] These were the leaders of the church, appointed by God, gifted by God, and ordained by God (see 1 Timothy 3:1–7). Today, this is typically what people think of when they hear the term “pastor.” The New Testament teaches that individual churches were to have multiple pastors. I encourage you to consult Alexander Strauch’s book, Biblical Eldership, for an accessible defense of the topic.

Conclusion

In the first post, I make five assessments regarding the use of “evangelist” today. The first statement was “The New Testament does not specify the roles of evangelists and does not define the office of evangelists as distinct from other church roles.” It would appear from our findings that this statement is false. However, this is only a surface-level assumption. If we are considering the redemptive-historical development of the Church, then no doubt there were evangelists, individuals gifted by God for the preaching and establishment of churches. However, as we consider the pastoral letters of 1 Timothy and Titus, we can see that the only two offices Paul addresses in the church are the pastors-elders and the deacons. We will address this more in future posts.

---

[1] James M. Hamilton, Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, Crossway: 2010), 483.

[2] David S. Dockery, “The Church in the Pauline Epistles,” in Kendell H. Easley and Christopher W. Morgan, eds., The Community of Jesus: A Theology of the Church (Nashville, B&H Academic: 2013),109.

[3] Gregg R. Allison, The Church: An Introduction (Wheaton, Crossway: 2021),73.

[4] Frank Thielman, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Ephesians (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2010), 273.

[5] Dockery, “The Church in the Pauline Epistles,” 109.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Eusebius, The Church History, translated by Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids, Kregel:1999), 125.

[8] Thielman, Ephesians, 275. It is also worth noting that the NT uses multiple terms to refer to the same office. See Allison, The Church, 74–75.

Past Posts in this Series

Is there an office of “evangelist?” Five Reasons to Reconsider

Is there an office of “evangelist?” One Reason to Reconsider

---

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 4)

by bobbyhowell23 April 29, 2024

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 3)

by bobbyhowell23 April 18, 2024

7 Observations on Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Trip to Princeton (Part 2)

by bobbyhowell23 April 15, 2024

“Isn’t the Love of Jesus Something Wonderful?” Encouragement in Song

John Peterson wrote the hymn “Isn’t the Love of Jesus Something Wonderful?” (the hymn is also titled “There Will Never Be a Sweeter Story”) in

You can read about John W. Peterson’s life here.

There are three verses that present a blessed truth about the love of Jesus. The first verse describes the marvelous love of Jesus for sinners. This “story” is found in the Scriptures, a delightful love letter of God’s redeeming love for His people. God’s love is demonstrated, John tells us, through the giving of His Son (1 John 4:9). This is a remarkable truth about our gentle and lowly-in-heart Jesus!

The second verse describes the infiniteness of Jesus’ love. It is said, “All that is in God is God,” meaning that God’s attributes are not properly attributes in the sense in which we think of human beings. They are God. “God is love,” John tells us in 1 John 4:8. More boundless than the universe, and far-reaching than the smallest particle, God’s love extends to those fallen people and not only saves them but keeps them. God protects His children and brings them safely to glory: through the wonderful love of Jesus.

The third verse demonstrates the incomprehensibility of God. Being finite, we cannot understand God. We can grasp certain aspects, and love is certainly in that realm. We understand and feel the love of our family and friends. But these are nothing compared to the infinite and unimaginable love of God. For eternity we will praise God for the love which we enjoy but cannot comprehend.

Read the words and relish the wonderful love of Jesus today!

There Will Never Be A Sweeter Story,
Story Of The Saviour’s Love Divine;
Love That Brought Him From The Realms Of Glory,
Just To Save A Sinful Soul Like Mine.

Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful,
Wonderful, Wonderful?
Oh, Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful?
Wonderful It Is To Me.

Boundless As The Universe Around Me,
Reaching To The Farthest Soul Away;
Saving, Keeping Love It Was That Found Me,
That Is Why My Heart Can Truly Say:

Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful,
Wonderful, Wonderful?
Oh, Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful?
Wonderful It Is To Me.

Love Beyond Our Human Comprehending,
Love Of God In Christ How Can It Be!
This Will Be My Theme And Never Ending,
Great Redeeming Love Of Calvary.

Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful,
Wonderful, Wonderful?
Oh, Isn’t The Love Of Jesus Something Wonderful?
Wonderful It Is To Me.

John W. Peterson

Unveiling the Distorted Scripture: Decoding the Cornerstone Speech’s Biblical Blunders

“You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29, ESV)

Jesus bluntly tells the Sadducees in response to their foolish question regarding the resurrection. Since the fall of Satan, individuals and groups of people have demonstrated their errors by not knowing the Scriptures (cf. Gen. 3:15). People have either ignored the teachings found in God’s Word or have completely misinterpreted them entirely.

At times, this ignorance of Scripture has minimal effects on the individuals themselves or society at large. A modern example is those who limit their diets to follow the dietary laws of the OT. At other times, this ignorance of Scripture has massive effects on both the individuals themselves and society at large.

One such example comes to us in the form of a political speech given by Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States of America. I stumbled upon this speech during some historical research and was absolutely amazed. Stephens references the Bible in his speech, and he is wrong because he does not know the Scriptures.

(You can access the speech here)

After enumerating several “improvements” of the new Constitution of the Confederate States of America, Stephens begins to demonstrate his error. He says,

“But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other—though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.”

To begin with, one of the reasons for the establishment of the new constitution was the subjugation of Africans in slavery. Stephens continues,

“Those ideas [that slavery was inherently wrong, being a violation of ‘the laws of nature], however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the ‘storm came and the wind blew.’”

Stephens is referencing the end of Jesus’ sermon on the Mount. In this last story, Jesus demonstrates the insecure nature of a life built on any other foundation than His own life and teachings (Matt. 7:24–27). Stephens is showing a misinterpretation of astounding levels, attempting to defend his racist ideas of Africans with the Scriptures.

Stephens makes more terrible comments, but I want to pick up where he again brings the Bible into his speech. He references Canaan by saying, “He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system.” The passage of Scripture to which he is referring is Genesis 9:25, where Noah pronounces a curse on Ham for his sin (of which scholars are undecided on the specificity of Ham’s sin). Stephens is justifying his view of African slavery upon a faulty interpretation of Scripture, ultimately describing Africans as “the inferior race.”

There is one more example from Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech” which we will examine. In the same paragraph in which we find reference to Canaan, he says, “For his [God] own purposes, he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” He is referencing 1 Corinthians 15:40–41. In that passage, there is no discussion of the differences within humanity. In fact, Paul distinguishes humans from animals (1 Cor. 15:39). He is not dealing with a superior of one ethnic group over another, yet Stephens is wrong because he does not know the Scripture.

What lessons can we draw from the error of Alexander Stephens? I see three lessons.

First, we must know the Bible and its context. We cannot simply draw out phrases and use them to our advantage without considering the context. If the hearers cared about the teachings of Scripture, imagine how differently that speech would have gone. Instead, the reporter present records several “applauses.”

Second, we must follow the example of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and examine the Scriptures when individuals attempt to teach something from the Scriptures. We cannot brush aside bad teaching or sinful teaching, even though it may go against our political, economic, or personal goals. Believers should have corrected Stephens’ misuse of Scripture.

Third, we must realize that politics, while important, is a servant of biblical teachings, not its master. When our political views impede upon the teachings of Scripture, we must repent of those and change our political views to align with God’s Word.

Image Credit