foundations journal volume 13

8/12/2019 Foundations Journal volume 13

1/50

foundationsIssue No 13utumn 984

ContentsEditorialMartin Luther and National LifeEry DaviesReview of Theological Journals 1983-84Ery DaviesAre there Apostles today?Hywe JonesReview article: Living as the people of GodHywelJonesO.T. ReviewsStephen DrayFocus: 1, Eternal PunishmentEry Davies

page 1page 2

page 11

page 16

page 26

page 31

page 34

The personal views of authors are not necessarily endorsed by all the churches ofthe BEC.

For more information about the British EvangelicalCouncil please write to the General Secretary:Rev. Alan Gibson BDBEC, 113 Victoria StreetST. ALBANS Herts. L1 3TTel: 0727) 55655 ~ .f l J . I T I ~ t I f V A ~ II f l r


2/50

found tionsA Theological Journalpublished by the

British Evangelical CouncilPrice 1.25Issue No.13utumn 984

Martin Luther and National LifeTheological Journals 1983-84

Apostles today?Book Reviews

Eternal Punishment


3/50

Foundations is published by the British Evangelical Council inNovember and May; its aim is to cover contemporarytheological issues by articles and reviews, taking inexegesis, Biblical theology, church history andapologetics - and to indicate their relevance to pastoralministry; its policy gives particular attention to thetheology of evangelical churches which are outsidepluralist ecumenical bodies.

Editor Rev Dr Eryl Davies MA BD23 Bryn Eithinog

AssociateEditors

Price

Orders

BANGOR, Gwynedd, N. WalesUK LL57 2LAAll MSS, Editorial Correspondence and Publicationsfor Review should be sent to the Editor.Rev Professor A.C. Boyd MA BDRev S Dray MA BDRev N. RichardsRev H.R. Jones MARev Professor J.D. MacMillan MA BD1.25 post free within the UK.f remitting in currencies other than sterling allow atleast 1 equivalent in addition to cover exchange costs.

Cheques to be made out to BEC .should be sent to:BEC113 Victoria StreetST. ALBANS, Herts. ALl 3TJ

This is the fruit that is to follow from this one-ness, namelythat Christ's word is to break forth more and more and beaccepted in the world as God's word, in which an almighty,unconquerable power and the treasure of all grace andblessedness reside. Martin Luther on John 17:21


4/50

ditorialn early notice about oundations appearing in an evangelical magazineexpressed the hope that the BEe would soon improve the format to make

it worthy of the contents. It has taken us six years Whilst deeply gratefulfor those who made it possible for the journal to appear at all in thoseinitial years we are pleased that the first fully type-set issue is now in yourhands. It will not go unnoticed by readers concerned to exerciseresponsible stewardship of limited financial resources that thisimprovement has been possible with o increase in price even for the nextsix issues.A word of explanation is needed about the number of articles in this issuefrom one pen The Editor, Dr. Eryl Davies, had already planned toinclude another of his reviews of Theological Journals (so valuable tobusy men ) together with the article on "Eternal Punishment", a subjectincreasingly questioned among professed evangelicals today. It was thenthat we received several requests from men who had attended the 983Luther Memorial Conference in London to publish his address onLuther and National Life". Although responding with appropriatemodesty, the Editor has yielded to our pressure and readers will judge forthemselves the wisdom of that decision.The "Apostles Today? article (Rev. Hywel Jones) is included this timebecause of contemporary pastoral problems in our churches. The viewwhich maintains that the apostolic office is valid for our generation issubjected to exegetical examination in a stimulating way. Giving priorityto this article has meant deferring until a future issue the planned item onHoly Spirit, Holy Bible, Holy Church .Mr. Jones has also contributed a major review of an important book onthe relevance of the Old Testament for social ethics (Living as the Peopleof God, C. Wright) . The crucial need for an evangelical consensus in thechurch's approach to burning social problems today highlights theimportance of clear thinking on this subject.It has been a feature of oundations from the outset that we haveincluded reviews of new books to indicate their theological standpointand practical value. Stephen Dray supplies as further selection on OldTestament commentaries.


5/50

Martin uther and National ifeEry aviesThe substance ofan address given at the BEC annual conference n West-minster Chapel London on 9 November 1983.

"Had I desired to ferment trouble." wrote Luther, "I could havebrought great bloodshed upon Germany. Yea, I could have started sucha little game at Worms that the Emperor would not have been safe. Butwhat would it have been? A mug's game. I left it to the Word." Suchrestraint in the face of enormous social, political and religious problemshas led some to think of the reformer as a heartless man, lacking in socialconscience. Advocates of liberation theology, for example, wouldprobably have deemed it their 'Christian' duty to help the exploitedGerman peasants in the 1525 uprising and with a World Council ofChurches grant to have supplied the peasants with weapons But Lutherbelonged to a different breed altogether. He was essentially "a man ofthe Word. a preacher and professor of biblical theology with strict viewsabout the need for parsons to mind their own business.,,2Clearly there is a wide divergence of opinion today within Christendomand amongst Evangelicals as to how believers and churches ought torespond in society to pressing practical issues such as war, nuclearweapons, injustice, corruption, immorality, pornography, racism, unemployment, euthanasia and abortion, etc. Many questions are beingasked today concerning the role of the Christian in society and whether itis biblical for churches to do anything more than its distinctively spiritualministry in order to curb the expressions of sin in society. In this article,therefore. I want to pinpoint then apply some of the more importantbiblical principles which Martin Luther both recognised and used asdeterminative in his own response to a contemporary situation whichincluded problems of violence, the maintenance of law and order,corruption, social unrest, political opportunism, charismatic extremismas well as the problem of a persecuted Christian community.Preliminary ObservationsBefore I isolate these major principles in Luther's writings, I want tomake two preliminary observations:A. s we should expect, there are inconsistencies as well as developmentin the writings of the reformer so that I do not want to rubber-stamp all

2


6/50

that Luther wrote or practised. My aim here is to ask, what were the bigprinciples which influenced Luther's social ethics?B. I believe Luther would be unhappy today with the way in which manyprofessing Christians approach social issues. We tend to concentrate onthe question, what can we do as individuals or churches to restrain sin?How can we obtain a more just society? Is there anything more we can doto influence the Government for good? f we are to discharge our Godgiven responsibilities and also face up to the awful realities of our contemporary situation, then, of course, we must ask such questions.Nevertheless, there is the subtle danger of a Pelagian, man-centredapproach to social ethics on our part when we stress human activity andresponsibility without an adequate biblical perspective. At this point,Luther reminds us that prayer is the most potent weapon we have butprayer must be used extensively, believingly and perseveringly even inour approach to social ethics. Again, rather than ask, what believers orchurches can do to restrain sin or promote justice, Martin Luther beginswith God. The reformer continually emphasises what God is alreadydoing in society in confronting the devil , in restraining wicked peopleand in thwarting and over-ruling their evil deeds and designs. The duty ofbelievers then, according to Luther, is to 'Co-operate' (an important andtechnical word for Luther) with God in what He is already doing insociety rather than looking around for something novel and eye-catchingto do. I intend to follow this Lutheran and biblical approach to socialethics by asking, What is God Doing in Society?ProvidenceBefore we can answer this question, we need to remind ourselves ofLuther's profound doctrine of Providence.The God of the Bible and of Luther is the living God who rules over Hiscreation, who is abundantly kind to all creatures and who directs humanaffairs. His will cannot be resisted, changed or hindered,,,3 insistsLuther and history is the outworking of the divine decrees. But we mustalso think in terms of the living devil. There are only two alternatives forman, he argues, either subjection to God or subjection to the devil.Between the two, he adds, man stands like an animal to be ridden. IfGod be the rider, the creature goes where God wills ... f Satan be therider, he goes where Satan directs. Man cannot freely choose to leap tothe side of one or the other of these riders or to seek one o pt. t is theriders themselves who contend to win and possess man. Now it isagainst the devil, depraved sinners and all forms of sin that God uses twodifferent but related forms of government, namely, the Earthly and theHeavenly or Spiritual in order to restrain wickedness, promoterighteousness, love and external peace. The kingdom of God's right

hand is that of the spiritual which makes sinners into Christians

3


7/50

whereas the kingdom of His left hand , the earthly, restrains thewicked so that they have to keep the peace outwardly and be silentagainst their will. These two kingdoms oppose sin in different ways.Three OrdersWe reach the heart of Luther's social ethic when we observe that in hislater writings he speaks of Three Orders ('offices' or 'hierarchies')runnning through and expressing the earthly kindgdom of God insociety, namely, the home, the state and the church. Here again Satanfights God fiercely over these offices for while they are God-appointed,the people who fill these offices can belong to God or the devil. In hisexposition of Psalm 101 in 1534-5, Luther states that those who occupyand practice them are usually of the devil and this affects the way inwhich the duties of these offices are fulfilled. According to Luther therecan even be a Satanic transformation of these earthly offices yet, on theother hand, God can and frequently does renew and transform theoffices in His common and saving grace. For these reasons the threeorders never stand still and must not be approached in merely political orsocial terms.This teaching concerning the activity of the devil in society is far morerelevant to social ethics than is usually acknowledged today. Forexample, one writer has recently provided impressive evidence that KarlMarx was aSatanist who sold himself to the devil and who aim was thedestruction of Christianity rather than concern for the proletariat. Onethird of the world's population is now ruled by Marxist governments.Again, in Britain there are reliable reports of witches' covens andSatanist groups which are seeking to destroy Christian marriages,undermine Christian families and churches. Christians, declaresLuther, know there are two kingdoms in the world, engaged in fiercemutual combat. One of these Satan rules ... in the other which alwaysopposes and battles with Satan's kingdom, Christ rules. Do we recognise this conflict (cf. Ephesians 6: 12 ? Let us now look in more detail atLuther's teaching concerning the three offices which express God'searthly kingdom in society.The omeThe foundational order, Luther insists , is the domestic one, namely,marriage, parenthood and the family unit.Luther claims that marriage transforms and also supports the otherorders and ought itself to be supported and encouraged by the 'orders' ofthe state and the church. He describes family life as a school forcharacter for it is in the family where the child learns to respectauthority and people, where he learns wisdom and how to make

4


8/50

decisions as well as appreciating the value of mercy. Luther rightlyconcludes that all these qualities and benefits reinforce the properexercise of government and promote social harmony and justice. Ourconcern is that this basic office is being undermined in our contemporarysociety. A soaring divorce rate, the widespread practice of adultery andco-habitation with a staggering nine hundred thousand single-parentfamilies recorded in Britain for 1981, large numbers of battered wivesand children compel us to ask whether there is anything else we can do toinfluence or change this situation.The StateThe second office acknowledged by Luther is the State, including themagistrates, government, Queen or President.Earthly government, he writes, is a glorious ordinance of God and asplendid gift of God,,,6 the Creator. The implications of this principle

are far-reaching and we will now pinpoint them briefly:-(a) This splendid office of secular rule should be accepted reverently, notreluctantly, the reformer argues, thankfully not complainingly for it is anoffice appointed by God.(b) It is the duty of all citizens to obey the authorities and in this contextLuther frequently refers to Romans chapter 13. Obedience, heaffirms, is the crown and honour of all virtue. Filtering into Germanyat this time were mercenaries from the cities of Italy who - alongside theselfish ruling princes, the preaching of extremists like Thomas Muntzerand the excitement aroused by astrological predictions which evenattracted a theologian of the calibre of Melancthon - incited an alreadyexploited peasant population to rise in rebellion in 1525. Luther wasadamant. Man's duty, whatever the grievance, is to be subject to thehigher powers (Romans 13:1). As he had refused to spearhead national, political resistance to Rome in the early 1520's so now again herefused to encourage or support the peasants in their rebellion. He thenwrote his famous Against Murderous and Thieving Hordes of Peasants condemning the uprising in no uncertain way. On biblicalgrounds, Luther was convinced that rebellion against the civil rulers wassinful and also counter-productive in that it resulted in far greater evils.He concedes, however, that there are occasions when rulers exceed theirauthority and when it is necessary to obey God rather than men. In histreatise, Of Earthly Authority , for example, Luther remonstrates withthe Roman Catholic rulers who forbade citizens to read Luther's Bibleand demanded that such Bibles be surrendered and burnt: You are atyrant and over-reach rourself and command where you have neither theright nor the power. Nevertheless these are rare exceptions to the ruleand citizens must obey the civil rule wherever this is possible.c) In common grace, unbelievers have sufficient integrity, wisdom and

5


9/50

sense of justice to rule a country competently. I t is not necessary for theemperor to be a Christian to rule, Luther boldly declares, it issufficient for the emperor to possess reason. s He goes further byclaiming that pagans are often far more skilled than believers in secularrule. This claim is at variance with the modern tendency amongst evangelicals to vote for an MP or President only because he professes to be aborn-again believer. What Luther does allow, however, is that thebeliever should be the most socially conscious of all for love is in hisheart and he is thus most free to serve. Furthermore, if God provides anation with rulers who are both wise and Christian then this is for Lutheran unusual but signal favour of God to that people.(d) We have the important duty as citizens of guarding the office ofsecular rule. I want to elaborate this crucial point for I discern inLuther's writings at least six ways in which the office of secular rule canbe safeguarded. t is protected, first of all, through precept and examplein the family. Secondly, by safeguarding the distinction between thespiritual and earthly realms. The secular authorities, complainsLuther, always seek in the name of the devil to teach and instruct Christhow He should conduct His church and His spiritual rule. Similarly, thefalse priests and sectaries, not in the name of God, always seek to teachand instruct people how they should conduct secular rule. Thus the devilis unrestrained on either side and has much to do ..... The vigorouspreaching and teaching of the Word was regarded by Luther as the mosteffective way of avoiding confusion between these two realms. Thirdly,we guard the office of secular rule by appreciating its necessity for thewell-being of people in society. The purpose of this office is therestraining of sin, the promotion of external peace and justice. I f evil isnot resisted by secular rule, remarks Luther, then three disastrous resultswill ensue, namely, social anarchy, freedom for the devil to workunhindered and, finally, the overthrow of God's earthly kingdom.Enforcing the message of Romans 13 the reformer insists that the use offorce in restraining sin and wickedness can never be removed becausesociety cannot be christianised. We also guard this office, fourthly, bybeing prepared to suffer injustice. I f believers attack their rulers, Lutheradds, they must surrender the name of Christian. Fearing that some ofthe extremist peasant leaders were misinterpreting Israel's release fromcaptivity in Egypy under Moses, Luther argues that this was neither arevolt nor a pattern for rebellion. In his Admonition to Peace (1525) heassures the peasants that when conditions appear impossible to bear,God is still at work and will raise up a man to restore justice and peace.In the meantime, the gospel teaches that Christians ought to endure andsuffer wrong, and pray to God in all their necessities but, Luther warns,you are not willing to suffer and, like the heathen, force the rulers toconform to your impatient will ...9 Such an attitude is often regarded


10/50

today as political conservatism and a hangover from medievalphilosophy concerning the sanctity of the social order. However, wemust say in reply that Luther was not opposed to change and, in fact,agreed with many of the grievances felt by the peasants. He even urgedthe Princes to make radical changes to benefit the peasants but, forLuther, the change must come about in God's way and time, not throughlawlessness.Fifthly, prayer is another means by which we can safeguard t ~ office ofsecular role. The only useful thing the exploited peasants could do, inLuther's opinion, was to pray to God that He should support the orderHe instituted on earth and establish greater justice in society. Hechallenges the peasants: You adduce the children of Israel as anexample, saying that God heard their cry and delivered them. Why thendo you not follow the example ...? Call upon God yourselves and waituntil He sends a Moses. 1 Do we take seriously the apostolic injunctionin 1 Timothy 2:1-2? Sixthly, there is for Luther another way in which wecan safeguard the office of secular rule. Since a true Christian lives notfor himself but for his neighbour and ... the sword is a very great benefitand necessary to the whole world to preserve peace ... to punish sin andprevent evil ... he serves, helps and does all he can to further the government ... he considers what is for the profit of others. lI Instead ofcomplaining about, and criticising, the inadequacies and corruption oflocal or national governments, individual believers should, as part oftheir vocation, serve and influence these rulers in positive ways.Therefore, continues Luther, if there is a lack of hangmen, soldiers,judges, rulers, etc. and you are qualified, you should offer your servicesand seek the job so that necessary government may by no means bedespised and become inefficient or perish. 2 In relation then to thisoffice of secular rule, God's people have solemn responsibilities to fulfil.The ChurchWe turn briefly to the Third Office of which Luther speaks. t is one ofthe distinctive features of Luther's ecclesiology that he regards thechurch as the third order within the earthly kingdom thus complementingthe offices of Home and State.I do not intend to develop his ecclesiology here.except to note that inreaction to the Roman Catholic domination of the state and theindifference of some sects to the state as well as his own distinctionbetween the visible and invisible aspects of the church, the reformer overreacted by making the church almost subject to the state and territorial aswell as spiritUal in character.Two Major PrinciplesMy concern here is to ask, how, in Luther's view, were believers expected

7


11/50

to express their faith in society? I have already suggested and detailedsome Lutheran answers to this question but in conclusion I want to drawattention to Two Major Principles which characterised the holy living ofLuther and his people in the world.The first major principle is that of Co-operation.An unbeliever who fulfils his vocation faithfully is a co-worker with Godeven though he may be unaware of the fact. The believer, on the otherhand, is free to serve God in love and in the strength of the Holy Spirit.Describing the inseparable relationship between faith and love, Luthermaintains, just as faith brings you blessedness and eternal life, so it alsobrings with it good works and is irresistible. 3 Faith' is the moral livingforce of love, it is something living, busy, active and powerful and it isimpossible that it should not unceasingly bring about good and thisgood involves co-operation with God.But what is the nature of this co-operation? How do believers co-operatewith God? Luther's answer is that we co-operate with God by fulfillingour callings responsibly in personal, domestic, social and churchcontexts. Luther's social ethic then majors around these callings andoffices for such work is wellpleasing to God and brings forth trueChristian fruits in temporal and bodily matters, as ruling a land orpeople, bringing up children, serving and working ... whether as afarmer, tailor, servant, soldier or carpenter .. . ,14 etc.Yet the question remains, is there something additional we should bedoing? What happens, for example, when the 'offices' are corrupted byevil men and even by Satan? Here again we must 'co-operate' with God.For example, we should inform, encourage and support rulers as theyendeavour to maintain and apply the laws of the realm. Believers shouldalso pray more for unbelievers that they will be able to use their officesmore consistently to restrain sin. Again, the 'works' of the believer areused by God to enter daily into earthly situations in order to influenceand change them as He pleases. But what happens when all this fails toeffect a change? Should we pick up our banners (or ETs or Sword andTrowels) and start demonstrating or witholding our taxes? Certainly not,replies Luther. We should expect God to deal with the corruption moredirectly and radically by ordaining temporal judgments such as drought,rebellion or even war as divine punishments. To the princes at the time ofthe peasants' rebellion, Luther wrote, it is not the peasants merely whohave set themselves against you but God Himself .. . ISAnother aspect of co-operation is love for one's neighbour. SeveralLutheran scholars like Bainton, Ebeling, Rupp and Wingren emphasisethe centrality of the neighbour in Luther's ethics for the law, the offices,the vocations and the gospel are all directed beneficially and downwards

8


12/50

towards the neighbour. We see the centrality of this principle in thereformer's description of a Christian - the person who receives thegospel in his heart and is surprised to find he then has love for hisneighbour. According to Luther, this love finds joy in people and inmeeting the desperate material needs of our neighbours. Love alsoinvolves obedience to the law of God, truthfulness, fairness, kindness,etc. Another description he gives of the Christian is of someone whoreceives from above and then gives out below so that the Christianbecomes as it were a vessel or tube through which the stream of divinegoodness flows unceasingly into others ... ,16 Denying that our workshave any meritorious value before God, Luther stresses that we must loveour neighbour for the neighbour's sake just as a road leads to aninsignificant little house and goes no further. But Luther warns of acarnality which makes even believers pick and choose not only thepersons it loves, but even the qualities it loves in them and thus it onlyloves its neighbour ... because he is learned, rich, merry, attractive and itdislikes or despises whatever is corn mended under another label, theunlearned, the fools and the sinners ... 17 Is the wide rift between thechurch and sections of society such as the working class due in somemeasure to a selective loving and concern on our part? Another exampleof co-operation with God for Luther is applicatory preaching. Preachingin Wittenberg on the parable of the king who cancelled his servant's debt8 November 1528), Luther says in conclusion, you want to beChristians while still practising usury, robbing and stealing. How dopeople who are so sunk in sins expect to receive forgiveness ... but mysermon is for crushed hearts who feel their sins and have no peace. 18The second major principle which governed Luther's social ethic wasPrayer.He insists, first of all, that there mllst be regular praying and rebukesChristians for rushing to their earthly tasks and vocation without firstpraying to God. The result of such prayerlessness is that God is barredfrom their labour. He believed that God alone sustains, renews andtransforms the 'offices' He appointed in society and He alone can makethem effective against sin and Satan. Prayer is the door through whichGod the creator and lord enters creatively into the home, the factory, thecommunity, the school or the government etc. so prayerlessness meansthere will be little blessing upon vocations and little, if any, improvementin society. Through prayer, he adds, we commend everything that isin good order, bring into order what is in disorder, bear what cannot bebettered, triumph over misfortune and hold fast to what is good.However, there are times and situations when, according to Luther, allhuman ways are 'blocked' and no help or relief is found by ordinaryprayer and daily obedience. In such a time of need and necessity,


13/50


14/50

Review o Theological Journals 1983 4The ditorEvaIigelicals at the Cross-roads was the rather startling headline to theeditorial in Theological News (vo1.l5, No.2). During the past twodecades, the editorial continues, there has been an enormous increasein involvement in evangelism and in relief and in social services. Evangelicals are in need of a doctrine of the Church to integrate these twostreams and to define priorities (p.2). We heartily agree and so doesProfessor Klaas Runia in a fascinating article in the Evangelical Reviewo Theology (vol.8, No.l) entitled, 'Evangelicals and the doctrine of theChurch in European Church History' . He suggests three reasons why it isnecessary for evangelicals to give thought to the doctrine of the Church;One reason is that the main churches of Europe are at present passingthrough one of the most serious crises in history . Secondly, ecumenical,sociological or political solutions are neither hopeful nor helpful . But,thirdly, evangelicals cannot afford to be smug at this point for theChurch is one of the most neglected parts of our doctrine (p.4l).Professor Runia recognises realistically that the way forward is far fromeasy. Are evangelicals not hopelessly divided, not only as to theirdoctrine of the Church, but also as to their actual place within theChurch? Some belong to established or national churches. Others belongto Free Churches. Others again belong to assemblies of Brethren orcharismatic groups. How can we ever find a common doctrine of theChurch in such a situation? He suggests some pointers from aEuropean-historical perspective. For example, there often was (and isa one-sided emphasis on the spiritual nature of the Church. Ido notdeny, of course, that the deepest secret of the Church is that t is thepeople of God, the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit ... But... we have often over stressed the distinction between the visible andinvisible aspects of the Church ... and used this distinction as a means ofescaping from the troubles in our local church or denomination ...(p.51). Also, there was (and still is) a one-sided emphasis on thespiritual unity of the believers without its visible expression (cf. John17:21,23). Runia's final pointers are that we need to give urgent attentionto the question of separation and, at the same time, make a study ofchurch discipline (p.54).The guest editorial by Dr. David M. Howard in the recent issue of Theo-logical News (vo1.l6, No.3) reminds us that the problem of

11


15/50

hermeneutics is one of the most vital issues with w9ich the Church muststruggle today (p.2). In this respect the Theological Commission of theWorld Evangelical Fellowship has study units doing some original workin the area of hermeneutics and the Church, ethics and society, missionand evangelism (issues concerning the integration of converts from Islaminto the Church) and pastoral ministries (questions such as polygamy andthe Church in Africa) while another study unit is focusing attention onthe Church and China, working out biblical principles and strategyconcerning Church and State in totalitarian situations.Volume 7, No.l of the Evangelical Review o heology was, in the reviewer's judgment, both an important and stimulating issue for itincluded the papers given at the Third World Theologians' ConsultationSeoul, Korea in 1982. These papers mark an historic moment in thedevelopment of third world theological reflection. The degree of unityachieved in the midst of incredible diversity and tensions of cultures,mission and ecclesiological heritages, economic and political systems isremarkable. t reflects a common determination to uphold the primacyand authority of Scripture and devotion and obedience to one Saviourand Lord. e may find fault with the wording of the Seoul Declaration,but its central thrust is clear and augurs well for the theologicalundergirding of the churches which will embrace three-fifths of theworld's Christians by the 21st century (p.7). Once again these papersraise the crucial question of her me ne uti cs.The first paper by Ismael E. Amaya is a Latin American critique ofWestern theology. He is unhappy with the systematising approach ofWestern theology which has often been dogmatic ... philosophical andtraditional rather than biblical (p.13). Or. Amaya argues that most ofthe weaknesses of Western theology are related to ideology and technology resulting in a failure to deal adequately with the issues of riches ( dothe words of Jesus in Matthew 19:24 have any meaning for a richsociety? p.22), abundance and waste, overeating and obesity, ecology,social problems such as divorce, drugs, corruption, civil rights, etc. Thisarticle is inadequate and unbalanced as a critique of Western theologyand the relationship between systematics and the scriptures needs to beexpounded more carefully but there is ample food for thought there.This is followed by a brief African critique of Western theology by BillySimbo dealing with the roots and results of Western theology and anAsian critique of Western theology by Han Chul-Ha. Principal Simbosees the Hebraic thought pattern of Third World cultures with its strikingresemblances to the Old Testament world view and cultures as thedistinctive feature distinguishing Western theology from Third Worldtheology (p.32). Twelve more chapters follow in which Third Worldtheologians indulge in self-criticism and seek to construct a more biblical


16/50

theology within the framework of their own cultures. All this makesgood reading and these brethren need our prayers and practical support.Congratulations to The Evangelical Quarterly for some valuable articlesparticularly in 1983. I am referring to the April and luly issues '83.Allow me some space just to whet your appetite The April issue wassuperb despite the fact that I did not agree with some of the conclusionsof various writers. This issue took as its theme 'Calvin and Calvinism'and in the light of recent controversy concerning the agreement ofCalvin's theology with later Calvinism here is an issue not to be missed.Paul Helm wrote on Calvin and the Covenant, Unity and Continuitywhile lames Torrance dealt with The Incarnation and LimitedAtonement. Tony Lane then provided a well-documented essay on TheQuest for the Historical Calvin in which he contrasted and comparedvarious attempts to find out what Calvin actually said on various controversial issues. Some of this discussion is open-ended but fair and his mainconclusion which many will want to question is that "Calvin did not giveway to a controlling principle in his theology, whether that be theCalvinist doctrine of the eternal decrees or of Barthian 'Christomonism'.Calvin was prepared to recognise both God's universal love for allmankind and his desire for all to repent and his purpose that some onlyshould be saved" (p .113). The final article is by Charles Bell on Calvinand the Extent of the Atonement in which he attempts a critical appraisalof contributions by Helm, Lane and Kendall, and suggests no-one shouldbe dogmatic in their evaluation of Calvin's teachingSimilarly the luly '83 issue was provocative and relevant with its majorarticles on Inerrancy. The first one was entitled Inerrant the Wind: TheTroubled House of North American Evangelicals which was a criticalsurvey by Robert Price of current approaches to the question of theinerrancy of the Bible and another one, Short Study: Inerrancy,Dictation and the Free Will Defence - briefly questions ways ofdescribing the manner in which God's inerrant word was communicatedthrough the means of human authors.A more thorough and reliable treatment of inerrancy is found in theJournal of the Evangelical Theological Society (vo1.25, No.4, which isthe silver anniversary issue of the journal). This is an outstandinglyuseful and competent discussion of subjects such as Biblical Inerrancy:The Last Twenty Five Years, Raking up the Past, The Chicago Statementon Biblical Hermeneutics, The Bible and the Conscience of our Age,Upholding the Unity of Scripture Today, From Tatian to Swanson, fromCalvin to Bendavid: The Harmonisation of Biblical History, John Calvinand Inerrancy, The Doctrine of Inspiration Since the Reformation, TheBible and Protestant Orthodoxy: The Hermeneutics of CharlesSpurgeon, lacques Ellul's View of Scripture, Let's ut 2 Tim. 3:16 Backin the Bible, The Love Poetry Genre in the Old Testament and the

3


17/50

Ancient Near East: Another Look at Inspiration and, finally, Re-Examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and PracticesUsed to Negate Inerrancy. If you want to keep abreast of the inerrancydebate and want a good, historical perspective on the subject then readthis issue in its entirety.Then in Vox Evangelica XIV (biblical and historical essays from LondonBible College), Or. Tidball writes on 'A Work so Rich in Promise: The1901 Simultaneous Mission and the Failure of Co-operative Evangelism'(pp.85-t03). During its brief heyday, writes the author, the NationalCouncil of Evangelical Free Churches initiated, in 1901 a united missionto the nation in an attempt to stem the growing tide of secularism andbring the masses back to church. The nineteenth century had seen agrowing proliferation of home mission agencies both of adenominational and independent kind but this was to be evangelismconducted on an unprecedented scale and would attempt, for the firsttime, to secure the national co-operation of the Free,Churches. The 1901Simultaneous Mission is significant in that it established a pattern of cooperative evangelism which has subsequently been repeatedly adoptedwith approximately the 'same results being achieved. t is surprising,therefore, that it has been so neglected by historians and ... churchmen(p.85). In the opening section we are given the background to the missionbefore being given a glimpse of the quality of co-operation. Sixdenominations were represented on the central committee and the FreeChurches greeted the proposals for the mission with enthusiasm. Becauseof the threat of Romanism and sacerdotalism, only a few Anglicansparticipated in the mission but the most serious threat to the unity of themission came from the Evangelical Alliance who were concerned aboutunorthodoxy of one missioner, Charles Aked but the Alliance' waseventually pacified even though Aked was unsound in a number ofdoctrines. Several missioners like Gypsy Smith, John McNeill and F.B.Meyer conducted meetings in London before reaching out to theprovinces. In evaluating the effectiveness of this mission, Dr. Tidballwrites of the excitement and approval in the religious press as well asstatistics detailing the number of converts in the various centres. Andyet, underneath the triumphalist image projected, all was not well. Allagreed that the Simultaneous Mission had been a failure in reachingthose outside the church (p.96) and an examination of the growth rateof six main nonconformist denominations reveals that the effect of themission on overall church growth was marginal. The mission continuedthe pattern, already established, that more and more evangelistic effortproduced less and less result ,as the nineteenth century progressed ...Sadly, concludes the writer, eight decades later, the same methodsand style of evangelism are still being adopted, in the mistaken belief thatit is a means of reaching the nation. If it was a work 'so rich in promise'4


18/50

it has to be said that the promise has never been realised (p.1 (0).Relevant? Incidentally, in the previous number there is another historicalessay by David Bebbington on The Gospel in the Nineteenth Century,that is, as it was understood in England among evangelicals. Thenineteenth century, we are told, as much as the eighteenth, shapedevangelicalism for the twentieth. f today we wish to stand in thisevangelical tradition, we need, like nineteenth century evangelicals, to beconversionist, activist, biblicist and crucicentric ... The centrality ofChrist crucified is the legacy of the nineteenth century to the twentieth,and to the twenty-first (p.27).Before I complete this review, I want to refer to the fifth bi-annualconference of the Fellowship of European Evangelical Theologians(FEET) which was held in West Germany from 13-17 August 1984.About seventy members attended from most of the Western Europeancountries, including members from East Germany, Poland, Hungaryarid Czechoslovakia and news of church life and theological study inmany of these countries was encouraging. The conference theme was theplace of experience in Christian theology and life which, in ourexistentialist age bereft of absolutes and dependent to a large extent onemotion and experience, is a relevant subject. One session dealt with theplace of experience in theologies as diverse as those of Schleiermacherand Barth while in another session the contributions of contemporarytheologians are evaluated. The final paper on the biblical theology ofexperience was given by the FEET chairman, Professor Klaas Runia ofKarnpen, Netherlands. The conference, writes Professor HowardMarshall, achieved a useful purpose in enabling the participants toengage in honest self-examination, to widen their understanding of otherevangelical traditions and to recognise afresh the reality of the gifts ofthe Spirit with which God continues to enrich His Church.Theological Newspublished quarterly by the World Evangelical Fellowship TheologicalCommission. Donations invited in lieu of subscriptions to:John Langlois, Les Emrais, Castel, Guernsey, C.l., U.K.Evangelical Review of Theologypublished in April and October by the World Evangelical Fellowship, 5.50 annual subscription. Available from:Paternoster Press, 3 Mount Radford Crescent, Exeter, EX24JW.

Also available from Paternoster are Vox Evangelica and The Evangelical Quarterly.Journal of the Evangelical Theological Societypublished quarterly. Enquiries to:Simon J. Kistemaker, Reformed Theological Seminary, 5422

Clinton Boulevard, Jackson, Mississippi 39269.

5


19/50

Are There Apostles Todayywel l nes

t is a widely known fact that the term apostle is not used exclusivelyof the Twelve in the New Testament (Romans 16:7). That is not to bewondered at for the term represents a common enough reality andconcept in the first century, meaning to be sent from another as hisrepresentative . However, it is to be realised and remembered that notall apostles are sent ones in the same sense, nor are they all of asingle kind. t is important to ask and to note in each case who did thesending and how or in what circumstances people were sent. Attentionshould also be paid as to why or on what mission they were sent. Whenthis is done, we see that the Lord Jesus was sent personally by HisFather; the Twelve were sent personally by the Lord (and there areobvious differences between the Lord and the Twelve , together withtheir respective tasks); Barnabas and Epaphroditus were sent by thechurches of Antioch and Philippi respectively, as were others by otherchurches, for example, the messengers of the church at Corinth 2 Cor.8:23), and there are yet others who are termed 'sent ones , though whosent them, how and why they were sent is not specified in the NewTestament. In studying the subject of apostleship, and doing so particu-larly in the present climate of deep disagreement, it is so important tomake these distinctions. Otherwise, confusion will become worseconfounded. An example of the importance of this procedure is in 1Thessalonians 2:6, where Paul, Silas and Timothy are described asapostles of Christ . There are differences to be noted here between thethree mentioned in terms of their being sent.

6


20/50

However, even when this kind of discrimination characterises our studyof the ew Testament, not only is the disagreement over apostlestoday not resolved, but conflict continues and even intensifies. This ischiefly because the real crux of the debate is not focussed on withprecision, let alone examined. For example, it is possible for someonewho studies the ew Testament on this matter to arrive at the followingframework for the uses of the term apostle in those sacred writings,namely, the Lord Himself, the Twelve , and a group of churchcommissioned evangelists, missionaries or inter-church messengers.Now, such an outline has no obvious point of contact with that emphasison apostles and apostolic ministry which is so characteristic of thecontemporary Charismatic movement broadly considered. This isbecause the crux of the conflict is not touched on. Where does it lie? t isto be found in two matters which, though they are capable of being distinguished for the purposes of teaching and study, become closely interrelated in the case which is presented in favour of apostles today .These are:The nature o Paul s apostleshipThe kind o apostles referred to in Ephesians 4:11.t has been said that the onus clearly rests on those who assert thatapostles were only intended to be a temporary institution, to prove itfrom the Scripture . This is the aim in this article and its achievementwill be attempted by examining each of these two points in turn.The Nature o Paul s ApostleshipOne contemporary charismatic leader, namely Mr. Arthur Wallis, haswritten as follows in Restoration magazine:

In considering the question 'apostles today', it is crucial to seethat Paul belonged to a third distinct class of apostle.The two other classes implied in this quotation are the Lord and theTwelve . This statement is most helpful, both in its clarity and also in itsemphatic nature. The first step in the case presented for apostlestoday is to dissociate Paul from the Twelve (with whom it is claimedhe cannot be properly bracketed anyway) and to associate with Paul allthe others who are termed apostles in the ew Testament. So, theframework that results is the Lord, the Twelve and then Paul and therest. n this way a different kind of apostolic succession becomes possibleand, of course, in the event, actual.This framework will be examined, of course, by necessary implicationwhen the narrower issue, namely Paul's apostleship is focussed on. So, aquestion is framed. Did Paul belong to 'the Twelve' in the sense ofsharing a common apostleship with them or not? To the answering ofthis question we now turn, aware and grateful that Paul himselfaddresses this question and answers it. His reply was that he was one with

17


21/50

theTwelve .Paul's repeated claim that in nothing was he behind the very chiefestapostles 2 Cor. 11:5 and 12:11, KJV) is most probably to beunderstood as a sarcastic reference to those who were presentingthemselves to the church as apostles and troubling it. A similar situationis referred to at Ephesus in Revelation 2:2. However, the olderinterpretation of the statement which referred it to Peter, James andJohn, the inner circle of the Twelve is perhaps not wholly out ofplace. I f that interpretation were to be admitted, it would, of course,settle the matter under consideration with clarity and finality. But such ause will not be made of that text.Paul's own substantiation of his link with the Twelve is presentedin those letters where his status as an apostle of Jesus Christ needed to beintroduced or even asserted because it was in some way being challengedor even denied, that is Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Galatians. It isin the light of what he has to say in these epistles about his apostleshipthat expressions like an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God lCor. 1: I; 2 Cor. I: 1; Eph. 1: I; Col. I: 1; 2 Tim. 1 1), or the other variantsof this theme l Tim. 1: 1; Romans 1: I; Galatians 1: 1; Titus I: 1) are to beunderstood. In what sense Paul was an apostle he makes particularlyclear in I and 2 Corinthians and Galatians.The obvious problem which Paul's apostleship raises is connected withtime and its passing nature. In choosing a replacement for Judas Iscariot,in accordance with Holy Scripture, Peter said, I t is therefore necessarythat of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesuswent in and out among us - beginning with the baptism of John, untilthe day that He was taken up from us - one of these should become awitness with us of his resurrection. (Acts 1:21,22, NASB)Now those terms could neither have described Saul of Tarsus nor even,and this is more important, Paul, the believer in Jesus Christ. He couldnever (or so it surely seemed) qualify for apostleship under those terms.And this not only because he was an unbeliever, which was the least of it,even though he was such an unbeliever, but, and this was the insuperableobstacle, because an era of revelation had passed by irrevocably. JesusChrist would not only not be baptised again and minister on earth, butHe had been raised from the dead and gone to heaven, having appearedto the Twelve over a period of forty days. Those elements so necessaryto apostleship surely could never recur. Only from those present in theUpper Room, before the day of Pentecost came, could an apostle ofJesus Christ arise. Therefore, by lots, for the choice of an apostle wasdirectly the Lord's and this needed to be preserved as much as possible,Matthias was numbered with the eleven apostles (Acts 1 26).Paul was acutely aware of this theological situation for he knew the dif-

8


22/50

ference that Pentecost had made (Galations 4: 1-7). Yet he never saw thisas constituting a problem which stood in the way of his being an apostleof Jesus Christ like the Twelve . He saw it as part of the amazing,incredible wonder that Christ Jesus had made him an apostle. Everythingwas against it: his previous life, his devastation of the church, hisblasphemy, his unbelief and the passing of time, but Christ made all ofthese as nothing 1 Cor. 15:9,10; Galatians 1:13-16; Ephesians 3:8; 1Timothy 1:13-15). t was Paul's boast and claim - all glory to the graceof God in Christ Jesus - that his apostleship, when viewed in relation tothat of the Twelve only differed from theirs in that he was as oneborn out of due time l Cor. 15:8). His was an apostleship which fullyharmonized with the norm, but it was given in an abnormal, theologicalchronological situation. What the Twelve were given before and onthe day of Pentecost, Paul was given after.In Paul 's presentation of his apostolic credentials in 1 and 2 Corinthiansand Galatians, or the magmfication of his office (Romans 11: 13), heconcentrates on the very two matters which distinguished the Twelveas they are described in Acts 1:23,24 and 10:39-42. These were thatapostles of Jesus Christ had to be able to be witnesses of His resurrectionand had to be recipients of revelation from Him. Paul was convincedthat he passed on both counts with flying colours, and it is what he hadto say on both these matters which supplies the basis for associating himwith the Twelve . Let us consider what he had to say on each count.The Apostle of Jesus Christ - A Directly-Commissioned Witness of HisResurrection from the DeadThe apostle of Jesus Christ is one who not only proclaims that Christrose again, but one who declares that he has seen Jesus Christ who haddied and had been bured, physically alive. On this point, could anythingbe clearer that Paul's challenge, Am I not an apostle? Have I not seeJesus our Lord? 1 Cor. 9:1). In the list of resurrection appearanceswhich he records in 1 Cor. 15, he includes himself, saying, And last ofall, He was seen of me also (verse 8).t is important to realise and stress that what happened to Paul on theroad to Damascus was not in the nature of a vision, that is, somethingwhich is made present only to the inward sight and having no objectivereality in time and space. Though Acts 26:19 speaks of a vision, it refersto the kind of sight which results from an appearing (Acts 26: 16), thatis an event of actual self-disclosure. t was, therefore, an incident of thesame kind as those recorded in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7) (the same verb isused) when the resurrected Lord made Himself visible and tangible. Hewas as physically present on the road to Damascus as He had been on theroad to Emmaus. Paul was physically blinded by the One whom he

physically saw - the Lord Jesus Christ, raised from the dead physically.

19


23/50

sa result, Paul could preach that Christ had been raised from the deadas emphatically as Peter could and in the same sense (Acts 25:19).The apostle of Jesus Christ, however, was more than a witness of theresurrected Christ. He received a commission directly from Him. Otherssaw Him alive again without being sent by Him as His representatives tothe world and to His future church, for example, Mary Magdalene inJohn 20: 17 and the five hundred referred to in 1 Corinthians 15 :6. TheLord appeared to some in order to commission them as His apostles(Acts 1:2-8; 10:41,42). He did this with Paul .Acts 26:16-18). Paul wascommissioned as an apostle by the resurrected Christ Himself (Galatians1: 15-17).Now, Paul does not only lay claim to this event-experience but says thatit occurred last of all 1 Cor. 15:8). This means that Paul was the last;and was to be the last to whom the resurrected Christ physicallyappeared. No other person like him, therefore, could be added to theband of the apostles of Jesus Christ. Only one was to be added out ofdue time to the Twelve . The reference to the twelve apostles of theLamb in Revelation 22: 14 is, therefore, a figurative one, representingcompleteness and is not to be taken literalistically.The Apostle of Jesus Christ - A Chosen Recipient of Revelation fromHimTo the eleven disciples in the Upper Room before His crucifixion, theLord Jesus Christ promised the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Among theseveral benefits which He would give to them for their work of witnessbearing (John 14:27) was the revelation of truth - truth previouslydeclared which the disciples had not understood (John 14:16) and truthnot yet disclosed because the disciples could not then receive it (John16: 12). So, as from Christ, the Spirit would bring to remembrancewhat Christ had said and lead into all the truth: and show what was tocome . This is how apostles were able to preach the gospel in the worldand found churches in the truth. They were to teach disciples from allnations to observe all that Christ commanded them . They were made,therefore, infallible in all their actual teaching, whether in oral or writtenform 2 Thess. 2: 15) because they were recipients of revelation fromJesus Christ Himself, the Truth Incarnate. (The case of Peter inGalatians 2 does not contradict this claim because there we have anexample of fallibility of conduct. t was what Peter did (Gal. 2:12) whichwas not in accord with the gospel and not anything he said. Paul dealtwith him on the basis of the gospel which they both believed.)How does Paul fit into this situation? He does so without any difficultyat all. He insists that just as no human being had appointed him to be anapostle (Galatians 1: 1), so no human being had taught him the gospel

20


24/50

(Galatians 1:11 and 12a). For 1 would have you know brethren that thegospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neitherreceived it from man, nor was taught it. t was Paul's claim that hereceived his gospel through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians1:12b). Not only was the gospel divine, but he received it in a divinemanner. This claim he supports by three arguments in Galatians 1 and 2.They are as follows:-i) Before his conversion, he could not have been taught by theapostles because he was a persecutor and his conversion waswithout human instrumentality. While after his conversion, hehad no extensive contact with the disciples (Galatians 1: 13-24).(ii) When he did eventually confer with the leaders of theJerusalem church, it was not to learn the truth from them andthey recognised that he already had the gospel and so theyhad nothing to add to him (Galatians 2:1-10).(iii) So independent was he of the other apostles that he openlyrebuked one of them, Peter, when his conduct undermined thegospel of divine grace common to them both (Galatians 2: 11-21).t was, however, not only God's way of salvation, so to speak, which wasrevealed to Paul. t was by revelation from Christ through the Spirit thathe learned that Gentiles were to be included with Jews in the one churchof Christ, without their having to embrace Judaism as well (Ephesians3:3-5). That was also the case with regard to problems concerning

marriage. Paul's expressions not I but the Lord and I not the Lordrefer to the distinction between teaching which the Lord gave while Hewas on earth l Cor. 7:10 cf. Matt. 19:6) and teaching revealed by Him toPaul through the Spirit after His ascension l Cor. 7: 12,25 and 40). Thelatter revelation relates to cases not covered by the former. Though thereis a difference of opinion about it, the same can be said of Paul's accountof the Lord's Supper 1 Cor. 11 :23 and following). The prepositions usedwhich are prefixed to the two verbs received and delivered are notonly used in connection with the transmission of information from onehuman being to another in the New Testament. After all, did not theLord tell him that He would appear to him in the future as well? (Acts26:16).So, Paul qualified for the Twelve , so to speak, on the same grounds asdid they - he too was a directly commissioned witness to Christ in Hisresurrection nd a divinely chosen recipient of revelation from Him forthe nations and the church. Now, it was as a result of this that he (andthis would apply to the others of the Twelve as well) was a wisemaster builder 1 Cor. 3:10), laying a foundation by his doctrine for thechurch for all time and in every place.

2


25/50

Under this heading of PauPs claim to be, in effect, ranked with theTwelve , two other elements need to be mentioned. The first concernsthe acceptance of that claim and his reception as an apostle by James,Peter and John, the pillars of the Jerusalem church. Though Titus, aGentile convert, and Barnabas, a colleague, accompanied him (and,therefore, Barnabas was given the right hand of fellowship as well asPaul), yet Paul is distinguished from them both in Galatians chapter 2. twas recognised that Paul had been entrusted with the gospel to theuncircumcised, just as Peter with the gospel to the circumcised (Galatians 2:7,9). Not only was Paul certain that theologically he belonged tothe Twelve , but Peter and John, two of the Twelve , were soconvinced as well. The second element concerns the divine confirmationgiven by signs and wonders that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ l Cor.9:2; Hebrews 2:4; Galatians 2:8).Paul, therefore, is not to be dissociated from the Twelve . 1 Corinthians 15:5 and 8 in which it is alleged that he so differentiates himself isno more than a desire on his part to be historically and chronologicallyaccurate - a concern which is so essential to the meaning and force ofthis great passage. 1 Corinthians 15:5 is a reference to the elevendisciples, the survivors of those who had come to be known as theTwelve . Paul was not among them physically when the Lord revealedHimself physically to them (John 20: 9 and Luke 24:36 and following). 1Corinthians 15:8 is, as we have seen, a reference to the grounds on whichPaul claimed to be associated with them.It is true that Paul did also have another kind of apostleship. But this heshared with Barnabas because they were apostles of the church atAntioch (Acts 14:4 and 3: I and following). In this, they were notcommissioned directly by Christ, that is, without human instrumentality,but mediately via the church. That is the third kind of apostleshippresented in the New Testament - men sent to preach the gospel, plantchurches and those women who helped them (Philippians 4:3), andhaving planted them, to cause them to prosper. This apostleship is notcharacterised by directly given revelation and infallibility in communication. Epaphroditus was another example of this kind of apostleship(Philippians 2:25).However, Paul was primarily an apostle of Jesus Christ. The LordHimself did the choosing, the sending, the showing of Himself alive andthe disclosing of His truth to him. This is what Paul was, first andforemost - or to quote him, the last and the least l Cor. 15:8,9).Paul is not a different class of apostle, distinct from the Twelve .The Apostleship o Ephesians 4:We turn now to the second point presented in favour of apostles

22


26/50

today . t concerns the identity or type of apostles referred to inEphesians 4:11 Though this is a separate matteJ, it becomes joined withthe point already considered in the case presented by Mr. Wallis for"apostles today . He writes:- This third category of apostles referred to in Ephesians 4: 11 are,according to Paul, the gifts of the ascended Christ (Eph. 4:7-11).They are thus to be distinguished from the Twelve" who wereappointed and commissioned by Christ in the days of His flesh. Ina word, the appointment of the Twelve" was pre-Pentecostal,that of Ephesians 4 apostles was post-Pentecostal. Paul was, ofcourse, the outstanding apostle of the Ephesians 4 order and heloved to recount his personal meeting and commissioning by theascended Christ.

Clearly, what has to be considered is the intimate connection between theascension of the Lord Jesus Christ and His giving of these apostles to thechurch. We shall face up to this by once again settjng ourselves aquestion to answer. t is this. What is meant in Ephesians 4:8-10 by theexpre ision He ascended"?t has been a mistake, often repeated in the course of the church'shistory, to regard the expressions He descended" and He descendedinto the lower parts of the earth" too literalistically. Doing that has givenrise to strange notions about what our Lord allegedly did between Hisdeath and resurrection. Those quoted expressions are theologicallyfigurative for the immeasurable cQndescension of 'the Lord Jesus Christ

and His humiliation. By the same token, to regard the correspondingexpressions He ascended" and He ascended up far above all heavens"as referring exclusively or even primarily to the event of our Lord'sascension is to make the same sort of mistake. He ascended" is theologically figurative for the infinite exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ,corresponding to and consequent upon, His humiliation, which isrepresented by the expression He descended".Psalm 68 as a whole is in Paul's mind in this passage, that is, Ephesians4:1-16, and from it he quotes with interpretation in verse 8. This Psalmstruck two notes, namely Jehovah's victories over the foes of His peopleand His dwelling among them as Lord, distributing the blessings of Hisreign . Some commentators say that the occasion of this Psalm was theark's return to Jerusalem. However, the theme is conquest and codwelling. The "ascending on high referred to in Psalm 68:18 has the hillof the earthly Zion in view where the Lord's reigning presence andactivity was symbolically presented to the p e o p l ~ u t in reality, to thosewith faith. The Lord Jesus Christ's ascent in Ephesians 4 is Hisexaltation to reign among and for His people, following and because ofHis death.

23


27/50

Now, of course, it is not being suggested that our Lord's ascension doesnot figure in His exaltation. His exaltation would be incomplete withoutit, if such a possibility may even be theoretically considered. But what isbeing stated, not suggested, is that our Lord's exaltation did not beginwith His ascension. The exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ began withHis resurrection from the dead. He ascended in Ephesians 4 includesthe resurrection. Paul makes this clear in Ephesians 1 20 where he speaksof God's power being manifested in Christ when He raised Him fromthe dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, farabove all .When the resurrection is included in our thinking about Ephesians 4:8-11 the picture alters significantly about the Identity of those apostlesmentioned there. No longer are the Twelve necessarily excludedbecause it is not the ascended Christ that is in view, but the exaltedChrist, that is, raised, reigning and to ascend, who gives them to Hischurch. John 20:19-23 records such a giving or o m m i ~ s i o n i n g when,after showing the disciples His hands and side, Jesus said, As theFather sent me, even so send I you. He then gave them an assurance ofthe Holy Spirit's bestowal to equip them for the task as He had been.Luke 24:36 and following records the same truths as does Matthew28:18-20. Acts 1:2 calls them apostles and 1:13 lists their names. Acts 2:1records their actual empowering.So, Ephesians 4: 11 should not be regarded as of necessity teaching postascension apostles because of the expression He ascended . These arepost-exaltation apostles and they are the Twelve with Paul included.In Ephesians 4, the major perspective is that of a theological standpointwhereas in 1 Corinthians 15 it is an historical or chronological one. Paulnever recounted his personal meeting and commissioning by theascended Christ . To suggest that he did is quite inaccurate. Paulreferred to what happened on the road to Damascus as a meeting withthe resurrected Christ. We have seen this from 1 Cor. 15:8. Galatians 1:1is quite explicit on this matter, namely, Paul an apostle by Jesus Christand God the Father who raised him from the dead . On the road toDamascus, the fact that Jesus Christ had ascended was immaterial; whatwas important and shattering was that He was no longer in the grave. Hehad triumphed and was Lord. s raised, He reigned among and for Hispeople in converting Saul and calling him to be an apostle.One other point is mentioned in the case argued for apostles today . tis based on the preposition until in Ephesians 4: 13. In effect, it is acase built on the continuing need of churches to be brought up to theunity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to a mature man,to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ .This is termed an experiential foundation in distinction from that

24


28/50

historical foundation laid by the Twelve". Such a foundation, it isargued, can only be supplied by present day apostles and these are themaster builders 1 Cor. 3:10).We have seen that the twelve and Paul constitute one group theologicallyon the basis of Romans, and 2 Corinthians and Galatians, and thatEphesians 4:11 can refer to this group. On this showing, what sense canbe made of the preposition until ? Though these apostles are no longeron earth, their teaching remains, preserved by the head of the churchwho gave it to them, for churches in every age and place. The church orchurches today do, therefore, have apostolic ministry - Paul, Peter,John and Matthew - and by them, Christ speaks by His Spirit to thechurches.The fault for the condition of the churches is not, therefore, to beattributed to their lack of apostles, but to the failure of and want ofpastors, teachers and elders and the mutual encouraging of one another.All these are to edify, that is, build up others in the faith and in grace andthe knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The need foredification is not the proof for the need of apostles.There are, therefore, no apostles today in the sense being argued for inthe current charismatic scene. The twelve and Paul were Christ's masterbuilders. All others seek to work according to their pattern, given by theLord and recorded by His Spirit. However, there are other apostles ,that is church-appointed men and women who devote themselves to thework of the gospel. These can be better described as pastors, teachers,preachers, evangelists, or missionaries.In this category, from time to time, there have been those whose labourshave been so significantly owned of God in raising churches from ruins,rubble, dust and nothing that their contemporaries or successors justlyregard them as having something apostolic about them, for example, theReformers, the apostle of the North'1, the apostle of the Peak , theapostle of Pembrokeshire". Their work has demanded the figurative useof this term because of its undisputed colossal nature. May many moreof their calibre be raised up

Rev. Hywel R. Jones Ms minister of Wrexham Evangelical Church Clwyd and a member ofthe faculty of the London theological Seminary.

5


29/50

llevielV ~ r t i l eLiving s the People o odC J H WrightIVP 1983 224pp 5 95The relevance of Old Testament ethics

Mr. Wright declares his aim inwriting this book as attemptingto provide a comprehensiveframework within which OldTestament ethics can be organised and understood. (p. 9). Inthe Prologue he demonstrateshow necessary such an overviewis by a reconstruction of a discussion -,- a Shaftesbury Projectmeeting, perhaps - in whichvarious approaches to OldTestament moral and sociallegislation are expressed. In thebook he proceeds to unfold hisown. This is, therefore, not onlya book about Old Testamentethics but about Old Testamentinterpretation.The work falls into two parts.Part (pp .19-64) is general innature and is entitled TheFramework of Old TestamentEthics . Part 2 is devoted to aconsideration of particular areasof that field (pp.67-212). Mr.Wright focusses attention onsocial rather than individualethics, apart from the very lastchapter of the book, becauseIsrael was a community. Ageneral bibliography and extensive bibliographical referencesfor each chapter (and subject)

6

together with biblical and subjectindexes complete this important,enlightening and thought-provoking book.The author describes his proposed framework in terms of anethical triangle . This herepresents diagrammatically withGod at its apex and with Israeland the land forming the cornersofits-base. He writes:-

Old Testament ethics are builtupon Israel's understanding ofwho and what they were as apeople, of their relationship toGod, and of their physicalenvironment - their land. Thesewere the primary factors of theirtheology and ethics ... in a triangleof relationships, each of whichaffected the others. (pp. 19-20)

Though it may be felt that toomuch is made of Israel's understanding in this statement ratherthan God's revelation beingreferred to, the content of thebook is not a psychological studyof Israel's self-consciousness, butan examination of the data foundin the Old Testament. (After all,understanding is a necessaryprecondit ion of ethicalbehaviour.) The content of theOld Testament is presented inrelation to the big theological


30/50

themes namely Creation, Fall,Redemption, Eschatology andthe inter-relationship between thetwo Testaments. These supply thegrid on which the Old Testamentis interpreted.Part 1 unfolds the significance ofthis ethical triangle by asurvey of Old Testament ethicalteaching viewed from itstheological, social and economicangles. (The first of these isprimary and conditions the othertwo while they in turn eitherreflect the actualisation of thefirst in the life of the nation, orits absence.) In this part of thebook historical and propheticmaterial is included as well as thelegislative sections of the OldTestament. Mr. Wright succeedsin demonstrating howharmonious Old Testamentliterature is and that it is God'scovenantal relationship withIsrael which supplies itsintegrating factor. Many pointswhich are most relevant to an OldTestament theology are to befound in these chapters. Of particular importance for the majorthesis of this book as indicated inits sub-title is the section with theheading Israel as God'sParadigm (pp.40-45). In this,Israel is regarded in terms of thetotality of her character andexistence as intended to displayGod's paradigm (pattern) forliving to the nations. The sectionon the land is most helpful. Mr.Wright sees land-theology asproviding a measure r gauge ofthe effectiveness of the other two

angles i.e. Israel's spiritualrelationship with God and hersocial shape as God's people.In this part attention is given toOld Testament material andreferences to the New Testamentare rare.Part ' 2 applies the framework ofPart 1 to particular matters.These are Economics and theland; Politics and the world ofnations; Righteousness andjustice; Law and the legal systemSociety and culture and the Wa;of the Individual. Each of thesechapters is a mine of informationabout the Old Testament and willrepay careful study inconjunction with an open Bible.They will also make what Israelought to have been come alive.There are studies here on theland, the Tower of Babel, the

v ~ l u of life, the monarchy,dIffering responses to heathennations and culture, theDecalogue, punishment, capitaloffences, family law, and slavery.The discussion about the wiseman in Proverbs in the light ofwhat is said elsewhere in the OldTestament about the characterof God is most striking andfruitful. The continuance andtreatment of many of thesethemes in the ew Testament isdealt with and the eschatologicaldimension of the material is alsohighlighted i.e. a perfectedcommunity in the heavenly land.The most distinctive feature ofthis book, however, and certainlythe most thought-provoking is

27


31/50

the claim that Israel as a societywithin as given territory wasintended by God to convey apattern of social ethics for othernations (heathen ones) in theirown lands and that it is the responsibility of Christians,especially those in the variousprofessions to translate theprinciples behind Israel's formatinto different cultural settings.Mr. Wright bases this on thebelief that Israel's existence andcharacter as a society were to be awitness to God, a model orparadigm of his holinessexpressed in the social life of aredeemed community. (p.43).y a paradigm he meanssomething used as a model orexample for other cases where abasic principle remainsunchanged, though detailsdiffer. (p.43). This means thatIsrael's social ethics shouldbecome mut tis mut ndis India'ssocial ethics.The significance of this as ahermeneutical principle can beseen by comparing it withtypology with which at first sightit may appear to bear closesimilarities in that typology tooexhibits a continuity of principlewith differences of detail. Butthey are by no means identical. Infact they are widely apart.Typological interpretationenables Mr. Wright to say thatIsrael's social life in its divinelygiven form and land is a type ofthe church's life of fellowship inChrist begun on earth and con-

28

summated in heaven. This issound. In this hermeneuticalmethod there is an identity ofprinciple or reality, in this casefellowship with God, but withthat progression from a lowerand provisional plane (the land)to a higher 'and permanent plane(Christ). Such correspondenceand progression is of the essenceof Typology.y contrast, Paradigmatic interpretation refers to a continuity ofprinciple with different detailsbut on the same plane of reality

that is between Israel as a nationin its land and other nations intheir territories (see the treatmentof the land and the Jubileepp.88ff). Mr. Wright regards theJubilee as referring typologicallyto Christ's ministry and message,eschatologically to theconsummation and paradigmatically to those situations whereland tenure and land reform arepressing issues of social andpolitical dispute. (p.IOI).In evaluating paradigmatic interpretation it is important to bearin mind that both typological andeschatological interpretationhave points of anchorage in theNew Testament. Paradigmaticinterpretation is, however, basedexclusively on the Old Testamentand New Testament corroboration for it is wanting. Thisraises a serious question againstits validity for while the OldTestament is not to be devaluedas Holy Scripture, it is not tostand alone without the New


32/50

Testament's endorsement andperspective.On what Old Testament basisdoes Mr. Wright rest his case forregarding Israel as a socialparadigm for other nations?There are two main grounds atleast. On the one hand, Israel wasto be a kingdom of priests(Ex. 19:6) and a light to thenations (Isaiah 42:6). As prieststaught the word to the people, soif Israel as a nation Were to be apriesthood, the implication isthat they would represent God tothe peoples of mankind in ananalogous way. God's way wouldbe manifest in their life as anation. (pAl). As it was Israel'smission which the Servant of theLord took on, Israel havingfailed, so what was said of theServant can be said of Israelnamely that she was to be a lightto the nations . Mr. Wrighttherefore says, I f Israel wasmeant to be a light to the nationsthen that light must be allowed toilluminate. (ppA3-44).Accepting that for me is asupportable rendering of theHebrew in Exodus 19:6 instead ofthe more usual to me , (thoughthe latter accords better with theemphasis on Israel as God'sspecial treasure, dearer than thewhole earth, of which expressionit is partly explanatory) andaccepting that as a priest Israelwas to teach others in her time asher priests taught her, the bigquestion to be faced is Whatwas Israel to teach? What was the

word she had to bring? Was itGod's way in her life? (Wouldthis not by analogy make theChurch the Church's message?)Was her message not identicalwith her light i.e. God's word ofjudgment and salvation inrelation to a Coming One - TheMessiah.? He was her light and itwas His coming which broughtbrightness to her (Isaiah 60: lff)and so to the Gentiles (Luke2:32).On the other hand Israel isbelieved to be a paradigmbecause the features of er constitution as a society Mr. Wrightsees as being the reiteration andamplification of creationprinciples which centre instewardship, e.g. sharedresources, work, growth andshared produce. To these couldbe added marriage, the familyand the Sabbath. These are reemphasised and given visibleform in Israel in the context ofredemption and against thedeleterious effects of the Fall.This is a very useful way ofintegrating Creation andTheocracy. Wh'ile, however, itcan be continued very fruitfullyinto the context of the church itcannot be extended to includenations which have no knowledgeof grace and redemption. Just asthe Passover and the Exoduspreceded the Theocracy so it isthe gospel alone which canrenovate a society.Your reviewer, therefore, hasserious doubts not only about the

9


33/50

validity of paradigmatic interpretation but also about the valueof Christian social ethics as adiscipline and pursuit because thesubject is fraught with suchdifficulty and danger.On the one hand the difficulty istwo-fold. First, Mr. Wright isalert to the error as well as theimpossibility of a simplistic transference of Israel's features to acontemporary society. We aretold that it is the principlesbehind the various laws etc. thatare to be applied to differingcultures by Christian economists,sociologists, lawyers etc. Is thisnot a pipe-dream? Given thedifficulty, which is great, ofagreeing on what those principlesare what likelihood is there ofgetting economists, educationalists etc. etc. to agree on how theyshould be applied in a complexand fallen society? Secondly, byChristian social ethics he does notmean the Christian's own ethicsin society but the ethics of theredeemed applied to societywhich is fallen. Is not thatdifficulty almost insuperable?Will such an attempt not smackof legalism and pride and breedhypocrites?Further, there is an inherentdanger in this enterprise. t is thatit could prove detrimental to trueevangelism and even ultimatelybecome a substitute for it. Onehad the feeling at times in readingthis book that in spite of herfaults being recognised, Israelwas being spoken of too highly,almost as an Old Testament30

saviour. One place would be onpage 4 where we read there isindeed something 'incarnational'about the role of Israel in the OldTestament". The figure of theServant of the Lord is pointed toas an-example of this for in Isaiahthe Servant is sometimes Israeland sometimes the Messiah.While that is a fact, a betteradjective would "representative"rather than "incarnational". (Isthe church 'incarnational' too?Or is this a typical Nonconformist comment on the workof an Anglican? )Further to this and when speaking of the Servant and his workMr. Wright declares that it wasto exemplify and generate allthe sodal blessings that shouldhave been displayed in thenation (emphasis original) thathe came. As the passages quotedwith reference to this statementspeak of justice and righteousness which deal first andforemost with God's relation toman and not with one man andanother, let alone one nation andanother, the adjective spiritualwould be better. This is the greatdanger that is inherent in socialethics - it may become anothersocial gospel.However. this is an excellentbook - plenty of nails for one'sknowledge and goads for one'sthought (Eccles. 2: 11). We lookforward to Mr. Wright's nextwork God's People in God'sLand which a footnote in thiswork tells us is forthcoming.Hywel R Jones


34/50

New ooks on theOld TestamentOld Testament commentariesremain in full spate as this articleconfirms.The Daily Study Bible has beenmentioned in these reviewcolumns before (See Founda-tions JO). Since then, the serieshas moved on apace and thirteenvolumes have now been produced. Almost uniformly theyoffer sound, generally conservative exposition with an emphasisupon the final canonical form ofthe text and upon the applicationto the individual reader. They aresemi-popular in format and presentation.Perhaps the least satisfactory ofthe volumes under review here isthat entitled Genesis 11 byJ .c.L. Gibson. The author viewsthe Patriarchal narratives asmythological history and iswilling to subject the theology ofGenesis to criticism. He criticises,for example, the nationalism heclaims is implicit in Genesis 14.lnview of the fact that there are somany good commentaries onGenesis most readers of thisarticle will regard the purchase ofthis volume as an unnecessaryextravagance.The same could not be said forthe Exodus volume by the lateH.L. EIIison2 which providessound, thorough exposition withperceptive pastoral applications.Ellison s views on miracles will

not necessarily commend themselves but should not unduly prejudice the reader in the use of thishelpful over-view of the Book ofExodus.Waiter R i ~ g a n s contribution onNumbers is less conservativethan that of Ellison although,theauthor s more liberal views donot markedly mar this excellent

little book. Riggans uses aChristological hermeneutic withgreat profit in seeking to applythe scarcely handled passages inNumbers to the present believerthrough Christ. He thus furnishesmuch valuable material forpreachers.The book by David Payne onSamuel (Le. 1 and 2 Samuel) isvery similar to that of Ellison. 4 Adouble concern is evident: first,to unfold the theology of the twobooks (a much needed task) andthen secondly to showespecially at the level of Christianleadership, the relevance of thetheology to today.With reference to these fourvolumes as a whole (and with the

e x ~ p t i o n of GibsQn s book)expositors of each of these Biblebooks will want to use and willvalue the practical help providedby these volumes in the proclamation of God s Word. Thesevolumes show that these bookscan be preached.All that G.A.F. Knight producesis worthy reading - a fact whichis true of his double-volumecommentary on the Psalms in thesame series. 5 His style and

31


35/50

technique is lively. He seeks touncover the original situation ofthe Psalm (often in a dramaticway) and then to provide aparaphrase which encompassescontemporary application. Thismethod sometimes exposes hisiberal tendencies (as for exampleIn Psalm 110 where the Psalm isonly regarded as 'Messianic' in alimited sense and where the NTuse is regarded as 'rabbinic' andnot normative for the ChristianChurch today). Nevertheless forlively devotional reading and forproviding comment which gets tothe heart of the relevance of eachPsalm, these books are invaluable.Robert Davidson's book entitledJeremiah 1'6 covers the first 20chapters of the prophecy. Typicalof ~ s t modern scholarship,DavIdson does not credit all thecontent of Book of Jeremiah tothe prophet. Nonetheless thislittle volume is to be r ~ o -mended as providing a usefulsurvey of the Book by means of asort of 'expanded paraphrase'.Thus, it will be of value to thestudent or preacher seeking towork out the overarchingmessage and structure of theBook while wrestling, at the sametime, with the more detailedcomme(ltaries. Davidson is thinon application although therelevance of the prophet smessage lies only just beneath thesurface of his comments.The volume on Ezekiel by PeterCraigie

is an excellent outline of

3

the prophet s message by anunimpeachably orthodoxevangelical scholar. t is almostidentical in format to that ofDavidson.Mention of Ezekiel leads to thenecessary reference to two otherc-ommentaries that have recentlyappeared on the Book. We are indebt to John Job for his superbstudy guide entitled, Watchmanin Babylon,.8 He provides theessential background data necessary and then gives a surveyoutline of each passage, a Christian interpretation/applicationtogether with questions forfurther study. Here is a volume toget us into and appreciating thismysterious Book. t is highlyrecommended.Few Bible students who haveconsulted the Hermenia series ofCommentaries will be unaware ofthe massive (in every sense of theword) contribution they make toBiblical exposition. Fewer stillwho have consulted, for example,H.W. Wolff s volumes on'Hosea' and Joel and Amos' willbe unaware of their value to theserious Bible Student. Thus, afurther volume in the series, W.Zimmerli s life s-work onEzekiel (volume 2 coveringchapters 27 and onwards) is mostwelcome. 9 As to be expected, thevolume includes detailed textualanalysis, form and history ofreligions criticism from a liberalperspective and expositiontogether with a highly usefulstatement of the teaching of the


36/50

passage set against the entirebook. This last feature is highlystimulating and suggestive.Doubtless, this work will be thestandard critical commentary onEzekiel for a long time and , usedwith discernment, should enrichall study and proclamation of theBook for the more scholarlypreacher.1 J.C.L. Gibson: Genesis IISt. Andrews Press322pp. 2.952. H.L. EJlison: ExodusSt. Andrews Press204pp. 2.953. W. Riggans: NumbersSt. Andrews Press252pp. 2.954 D.F. Payne: SamuelSt. Andrews Press281pp. 2 .955. G.A.F . Knight : Psalms 1 11St. Andrews PressI, 337pp., II, 369pp. 2.95 each6. R. Davidson: Jeremiah ISt. Andrews Press

166pp. 2.957. P.C . Craigie: EzekielSt. Andrews Press322pp. 2.958. J. Job : Watchman in BabylonPaternoster Press101pp. 2.209. W. Zimmerli: Ezekiel2Fortress Press606pp . 19.50

Readers of this journal will alsobe interested to know that BakerBook House have recently issueda new edition of R.B. Girdle-stone s Synonymns of the OldTestament . Originally publishedin 1871 this volume was alwayssuperior to that of Trench on theNew Testament and althoughdated is still valuable. Coded toStrong s Exhaustive Concor-dance and with an attractive type-face this edition is commended.The Grace Baptist Assembly hasbegun a series of recommendedreading lists. Two are currentlyavailable on the Old Testament.These include Old TestamentIntroduction and Commentarieson the Pentateuch. Others onChurch History, Scripture, NewTestament Introduction and Godand Man are also available.Details may be obtained from:Mr. John Cooke, 5 SwissAvenue, Watford, Herts. WDl7LL.

Rev. Stephen P Dray MA BDis minister o Zion BaptistChurch New Cross London.

33


37/50

FocusThis article is the first in n important series entitled Focus in which weintend to draw attention to major biblical doctrines. The purpose of theseries, first ofall, will be to uphold and elucidatefoundational scripturaltruths then, secondly, to report and comment on the way in which thesedoctrines re regarded in our contemporary situation. Prompted y arationalist/existentialist philosophy and encouraged y a new mood ofChristian humility involving a flexible , open attitude towards thetruth, many church leaders and theologians in our generation haveseriously modified or rejected all the foundational orthodox doctrines ofScripture. Sadly, n increasing number of evangelicals, too, areabandoning n orthodox position on a number of important doctrines.In Focus, therefore, we intend to provide n over-all view of these developments and alert readers to the wind of change blowing strongly atpresent through the churches.Thirdly, we want to challenge Christians to think more biblically andtheologically in relation to these doctrines. For example, do weunderstand and appreciate the teaching and implications of these truthsourselves? Our final purpose in this series will be to encourage and helppreachers teach and contend for these

foundations journal volume 13

Documents