Particular Fruits ol the Spirit
Why dc›es Paul list these particular frults of the S[oirit / Could he have listed others as wells Paul's ‹other writings do indeed suggest that thls par- ticular list of the fruits the Spirit produces in the believer (Gal. 5. 22-23) i pity); {y ;33 )tj , as arc [lis 1igts taf spirituiil flftS (Se0 EPh. 5'9, i - ›
Nevertheless, the sample ‹ f fruit he lists pros'ide a g‹ od sense ‹af the
kind) of life the Spirit produces. Legalistic re1ipi‹ n often leads to quarrels and spiritual competition; it is self-centered, empowered only by thc flesh,
that is, by the self (Gal. 5:13—15, 19-21). Joy contrast, the Spirit summons
us t‹ self-sacrificial, loving servanthocod. The Spirit prcaduces cooperation and wholescxne relationships wirhin Chrlst's body (Dat b./ b—): 10) Hi› presence and influence in ‹our Its es is evident when we begin t‹a act r‹ ward cach other as he acts tc›warcl us. Much of the frL1it Paul lists involves how
we treat each rather.
The Spirit and How We Liv‹• 79
Love
The lru it Pruil trets fii et is the inost important, bc›th in this context ( 5: 2 2; sec 5:1 3—1 5; 5:2ó—6: 2) and universally as ivell. Paul elsewhere lists t,iith, hc›J›c, anet lovc as primari Christian virtues (Gal. 5:5-6; Col. 1:4-5; 1 Tlics9. 1:) ), but the greatest is always lovc ( 1 Cor. 13:13). For many anc icrit u’riters, love was but cine virtue amb ng inany. Early Christian u ritcrs, htiwever, fol1‹ wing]esus' own interpretation of biblical law (Mark 1 ::9—31; J John 13:34-35; 15:12; Ron 13:8—10), agreed that love was pri lnary.
Love is the fruit Paul most wishes to emphasize here, because it fulfills the moral intention ‹ f the whole law (Gat. 5:14; 6:2). The Galatians were concerned to fulíill the law through their own efforts, but throughout the letter Paul insists that if Christ's Spirit lives in them, they will fulfill the lriiv's intention simply by the fruit of love. Instead of legalistic attempts at human moral achievement, they needed to depend in faith on Christ’s hn- ished work and to live out that faith by walking in love (Gal. 5:6). When we accept God's loving act to make us right with him, we are frecd from a clesire for personal spiritual achievement or competition and can devote ourselves to the needs of tathers. Many of the other expressions of the Spirit's prcsence relate to this fruit of love—for example, peace w'ith one anothcr, patience wlth r ne another, meekness (Gal. 5:22-23; 6:1). “Agalnst these,” Pr ul cries, “no law exists!” (5:23; see also 3:18; 6:2).
Je is the language of celebration and w‹arship that believers tiffer because wc have confidence that Goes is worth us (Pee. 5:11; 9:14; 1 3:5; 32:11; 3 3:22;
4i 4, 43 4, 48 , 11, 63 7, 67 4, 71 23, 105 43, 119 162, 13 9, 16, 149 )
éruec Christians who ‹are accust‹vnecJ sc›1ely to ratio nally orientccJ worship serv iccs resent the spirit of celcbration in many African A inerican, i‹ n- Wc+tern, trak$ ltlon‹l1 PCt3tect0Stal ChtlrCheS, al4d CJtlJer churches whose mcm- vers clay° worth me re than one la.racJ at a tnne. Church services should include
‹4 1‘8fit›nal ctamponent of teachinp, and it is J ossible for einotion to become clls‹ rclerly, but the fact that Paul pute joy second in his list of the Spirit's fi‘ it ›1 ou Id clirillenge us te recu aluatc wr›rship styles if they regularly sup- ère» ‹*\' if cc une, ‹ ur specific ways of cxpressing j‹ y and pralse and sens-
***fi joel's pi catness, whetlacr demonstratively (f‹ r exemple, b ciancing, P». )t . 1 1 ; 1 §°7: 3; 13Ö:4) or int re c}uietly (fay be int still before God, Ps.
4 ! C’), t4rC il11 vitllcl; the cliftere nc ce are often culturally based.' In many
traditi‹ nal black Baptlst, Latin‹a Pentecr›sta1, and rather churches, pec›p1e struggle in difficult jobs all week long and gather to celebrate the goodness of God in bringing them through another week.
But whether quietly or loudly, we should rejoice in the Lord as a sign of our trust in him. Although trials sometimes make joyous celebration diffi- cult (the psalms are full of mourning as well as joy), under normal circum- stances, remembering what Christ has done fear us should cause us to rejoice (Phil. 4:4-7; 1 Thess. 5:16—18; James 5:13).
Peoce
Peace is the opposite of what the Galatians were experiencing; it is the end of strife (see James 3:14-18). While it might occasionally mean inner tranquility (perhaps in Rom. 8:6), Paul typically uses the term hence to mean reconciliation or right relationship with God (Rom. 5:1; compare Eph. 6:15), with one another (Rom. 14:19; Eph. 2:14—15; 4:3; Col. 3:15; 1 Thess.
5:13), and even with outsiders (Rom. 12:18; 1 Cor. 7:15; perhaps 2 Thess. 3:16). Paul regularly regards peace with one another as a fruit of the Spirit. Christians must preserve the unity of the Spirit established among us because God has connected us by means of the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). All his gifts are intended to bring us into deeper unity in the one body and one Spirit (Eph. 9:4-12, and esp. v. 13), a goal that is lived out by loving one another (Eph. 4:25—5:2; 1 Peter 1:22).
In a similar way, personality conflict was hurting the Philippian church (Phil. 4:2-3), so Paul's letter to them presents examples of submission and servanthood: Jesus (2:5—11), Timothy (2:19—24), Epaphroditus (2:25-30), and himself (2:16-18). In this letter Paul emphasizes unity ( 1:27-2:4) and notes that God's peace will guard the hearts of his per ple when they learn to treat one anc›ther peaceably and take their needs before Gem (4:2-9). Although we apply the word /ellowshiQ glibly today to any ct›nversation between Christians, Paul emphasizes the “fellowship of the Spirit” (2:1; see also Acts 2:42—44; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 John 1:3). As important as customary interpersonal bonding may be, our unity runs deeper than that: The same God lives inside all true Christians, and no one can act like a Christian while despising another member c f Christ's body. We canny t help what others do to us, but insofar as it depends on us, we should be at peace with all people (Rom. 12:18).
Needless to say, if we exercise such peace, we will not divide frcxn one
another over issues secondary to the gospel—including different interpre-
Gift and Givc r
nations abr›ut spir it ua1 gifts ‹incl hcarlng Gc d's vc›ice. Brim-again Christians in the United St» tes ‹ire deeply Div ited on many issues, anal some have attacked the genuineness of others' Christianity next ‹only over differences in views about spiritual gifts but als‹ different views regarding women's ministry, the cnd time, or the nature of human free will. In view of the bra ader challenges facing us from our culture, such divisic›ns are tragic. Unity does next mean that we agree on all details, but it does mean that we 1‹ ve each other and work together for the good of the gospel in spite of our differences.
LongsuJering
Longsuffering (or patience, or endurance) could refer to enduring any trial (Col. 1:11; James 5:10-11), but Paul usually applies it to relation- ships. Longsuffering characterizes Grad as he puts up with humanity (Rom. 2:4; 9:2 2) and represents how apostles face opposition (2 Cr›r. 6:1-6). Longsuffering also characterizes how we are to deal with one another (Col. 3:12-13; 1 Thess. 5:14). Paul regularly links this fruit with love ( 1 Cor. 13:4; 2 Cor. 6:6; Col. 3:12-14) and meekness or humility (Eph. 4:2; Col.
3.12-13).
Kindness
In Paul’s letters, kindness most ‹often represents God's kindness toward those who don't deserve it (Rom. 2:4; 11:22; Eph. 2:7; Titus 3:4). This is also the way the word is used in Greek versions of the Old Testament ( reflecting language Greeks used for benevolent rulers). But kindness can also represent the ap‹ st‹ tic model of kindness tc ward persecute rs (2 Cor. 6:6) and the way we should show mercy to one another in Christ's body (E}’18. 4: 2; CCL. 3: I)). IU PiiLl1'S VieW, StlCh behaVitJf iS Flt3t Flatt4Fal foF people until they hr4ve been made new in Christ (Rom. 3:12). This does not mean th‹it unbelievers arc never k ind (cc›inpare Acts 2 7:3; 2b:2) but rather that C?hristicinfi should ‹ilways be.
Cjoodness
God dness characterises the statc of obedient believers (Rom. 15:14; 2 Th€SS. }:11) anal alom with righteousness and truth can also serve as a
?*neral sriiiiinary fear Gc›d's work (spiritur l fruit) in ccur 1lves (Eph. 5:9;
Col. 1.10) Paul br›rrr^ws the term frr›in the Greek tr‹inslat lr n of the Old
The Spirit and How \Ve Live b1
Tcstrunent, where it could refer t‹ “gc od things” materially (Eccles. 4:8; 5:11; 6:6; 9: lb), to God's unmerited gift-giving tr› his people (Neh. 9:25,
) 5), but also tc› right moral actic›n (J udg. 8:35 [some manuscripts]; 2 Chrc›n. 24:16), the opposite of wickedness (Ps. 52:3). Perhaps Paul uses this term as a general way to cover any moral excellence not included in his other terms.
Fnitii
Faith, or (as many scholars translate it here) faithfulness, refers to the Old Testament idea that one shc›ws trust in God by cleaving to him in obe- dience based on a relationship with him. Paul also emphasizes such trust as dependence solely on God (who alone is completely dependable) and often urges such faith(fulness) in oppositic›n to legalistic works in Galatians. We cc›me to Christ and the Spirit by receiving Christ's message in faith, and we continue to grow in faith by the new presence of the Spirit within us (Gal. 3.2—5, 5.5).
Meekness
Meekness means one is unassuming and loving rather than self-cen- tered. Such a person is not timid but rather provides the sort of gentle answer that turns away wrath (Prov. 15:1; 1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Tim. 2:25; James
1:21; 3:13; 1 Peter 3:15). Paul uses Jesus as his model of meekness (2 Cor. 10:1; compare Matt. 11:29) and expects believers to treat one another the same way (Eph. 4:2; Col. 3:12). Jesus resisted injustice verbally (Mark
12:38-40; John 18:23) and s‹ametimes even forcefully (Mark 11:15—16), but he did next grasp for human power (Matt. 12:19-20; 21:5). He was a “meek king” (Matt. 21:5); often ancient kings proved to be angry tyrants, but rulers who contr‹ 11cd their passicins and treated subjects and enemies with kindness were called “meek.”' M‹›st relevant to this context, one who exhibits this fruit of the Spirit shows compassion rather than an attitude of condescensi‹ n t‹a a fellow Christian entrapped in a sin (Gal, 6:1; com- pare 1 Cor. 4:21).
Set{-Control
Beith in the Greek language in general and in Paul's wrltings, self-cc n- trtil refers to self-discipline and control over one's appetites—whether sex-
Gilt and Civer
ua1 ( 1 Cor. 7:9) or the sort of cJiscipline requlred when training for athletic crxnpetitions, which provides an illustration of Christian discipline ( 1 Cor. 9:25). Disciplining c›urselves to maintain a regular quiet time, to guard ccur tongue, or ro say no tea a habit in our lives need not depend solely can human effort (the “flesh”). Whether we recognize it or not, a Christian’s success in such endeavors is the fruit of God's Spirit.
Lists of virtues were common in antiquity, and like many of these other lists, Paul's list probably represents merely a sample. Nevertheless, the fact that love is at the top of Paul's list is no coincidence (compare also 1 Cor. 13:13). We should seek to develop such qualities in our lives (2 Peter 1:4—11). Indeed, they characterize our identity in Christ and show what our life should look like as we submit to the Spirit's gentle leading from within. No spiritual gifts declare us to be people of the Spirit if we do not walk lovingly and meekly toward others.
The Spirit and Submission (Eph. 5: 18—21)
Whatever else Paul might wish to tell us about a Spirit-filled life, he tells us that it affects the way we live. Whereas Acts emphasizes especially that the Spirit empowers us for evangelism, Paul tells us that the Spirit empow- ers us for worship and relationships with others. Paul warns us to bear the fruit of the light (Eph. 5:9) because we are no longer what we were (Eph. 5:8). Then, in Ephesians 5:18, Paul contrasts the wrong kind of inspiration that comes from drunkenness with the good kind of inspiration that comes from being filled with the Spirit.
In Greek, Paul follows the command “Be filled with the Spirit” with sev- eral subordinate clauses, like “giving thanks” and “submitting.” These clauses presumably provide examples of the life that f1c›ws from being Spirit- hlled. Moved by the Spirit, believers will wc›rship God with singing and tlianksgix ing (5:19—20), an experience most of Paul's readers probably expe- rienced in their house-churches. If Spirit-led worship occurred in the time of David ( 1 Chron. 25:1-7), we may be sure that the ideal Christian expe- rience of Spirit-led worship is even fuller (John 4:23—24; 1 Cor. 14:26; Eph. 6:18; Jude i0).’
But the Spirit-filled life necessarily includes more than the sort of we r- Shlp and praise we utter with our lips. It includes “submitting y‹aurselves tc one another in reverence fr r Christ” (Eph. 5: 21). Although not all trans- lations reflect the idea expressed by the Greek text here, this is another
Th c Spirit and Hon' \\’c Live
sUbcii‘clinatc clause explaining what the Splrit-filled life is like. No one who beats his wife or children, spreads slander in a congregation, or harbors per- petual unforgiveness in his ‹ r her heart is full of the Spirit, no matter hc›w many supernatural gifts he or she claims to have. Because religious people can embrace all the general principles of Scripture yet often pretend that most o1 the Bible’s corrections do not apply to them, Paul fortunately goes on to describe just what he means by mutual submission.
Writing from a Roman jail cell, Paul was well aware of the crisis facing the early church: The Roman elite who c‹antro1led the Empire were para- noid about subversive cults undermining traditional Roman family struc- tures and suspected Christians of being among those subversive cults. Paul instructs Christians to uphold the best values of rheir society, and to do so, he borrows some traditional forms used to communicate ethical wisdom. Philosophers from the time of Aristotle on had provided lists of instruc- tions as to how the male head of the household should rule his wife, his children, and his slaves. Paul instructs wives to submit to their husbands, minor children to obey their parents, and slaves to obey their masters. In offering these instructions, Paul nowhere compromised Christian ethics. Christtans should submit to those in positions of authority, and the male head of the household always exercised authority over wives, children, and slaves in that society. (For worried readers, I believe that Paul would adapt the way he applied his principles for different cultures; most Christians today agree that he would address different cultures differently, at least regarding slavery. But different views r f hraw we should reapply Paul’s teach- ing here today do not affect the primary point I am mak lng.)’
While accomm‹ dating those Roman values that did not conflict with Christian virtues, Paul also› recognlzed that Christian virtues went con- sic)erably beyond Roman ethlcs. Not only those in subc›rdinate positions but also rhose in positi‹ us of authority must humbly serve others. Thus, nowhere does he merely repeat the philosc›phers' traditional exhortation f‹ r husbands tc rule their wives, children, and slaves, Instead, Paul expects husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church and laid down his life for her (Eph. 5:25). In our society, many brays try t‹a becr›me men by maklng babies instead c f raising them, by seeking power taver others rather than by using responsibly whatever power they have to serve others, by abusing women instead of respecting, honoring, and serving them. Through- out human history, those who seize power are often also seized by it, becom- ing oppressors of other people. The Spirit's way, h‹awever, is different. A
p n rit-It lled husband must scrve his wife even tr› the point of 1ov ingly try-
ing drawn his life for her.
In a similar way, Paul exhorts fathers not tc› frustrate the lr children by unfair discipline. Discipline must always be for a child's good, never a prod- uct of a parent's anger (6:4). Finally, after Paul has exhorted hc›usehold sl u es to obey their masters with sincerity, he calls on masters to do the same tr› them, recognizing that all taf us stand the same before Goal's author- ity (6:9). If taken to their natural conclusion, such instructions wr›uld abol- ish the abuse of authority, hence abolish slavery itself.
In other words, Paul calls us to honor the auth‹ rity roles of ccur culture, if we are in subordinate positions (although he enc‹aurages slaves to improve thelr situation when posslb1e, 1 Cor. 7:21). If we are in positions of author- ity, we are to recognize that our authority comes from God'S Call and oppor- tilnity to help others and not from anything in ourselves; we are responsi- ble to serve. The Spirit-filled life ls a life marked by genuine subrnisslon to rune another. Christians who cannot submit to others, cannot take respon- sibility, and cannot humble themselves in loving service tr ‹others care not yielding to the full life of the Spirit. Christians whoa gossip, slander, and act arrogantly or with an authoritarian attitude quench the fruit of God's Spirit. This i?s true es en if these shine Christians are able tc› exercise spiritual gifts, claim leading roles in God's work, or if others rank them highly in God's kingdc›in. God will judge us for our character and r›bedlence, not fear how much power he gas e us (c‹ mpare Matt. 7:15-23; 1 Cor. 3:6-15; 4:1-5).
I t is not surprlsing that Paul defines the Spirit-filled life partly in terms of re1atir›nships in this passage. The Christians he addresses apparently had s‹xrc problems in this area, because through cout this letter Paul ei• r hasizes unity (especially Eph. 4:1-16) and relationships (4:25—5: 5). Yet the Spirit affects relr4tionships in ‹other churches as well (Gal. 5:i2-6:)). Nor is Paul
the only New Testiiinent writer to cc›nnect the Spirit’s pc over in ccur lives
with li‹iu' w'e treat cach tether.
The Fruits of Pentecost (Acts 2:44—45)
Before leaving the fruit of the Spirit, we sh‹ndcJ note that even Acts, which emphasizes the Spirit's equipping us fr r ministry, teaches that the l° rit procJuces moral transfc rmation. As in Ephesians, this ink ra1 trans-
The Spirit and How We Live S5
Although the immediate sign of the Spirit's c utpouring at Pentecost was a prophetic emp‹ werment fc›r witness, c)emonstrated by speaking in tongues (Acts 1:8; 2:4, l 7—18), the climax of Luke's depiction of the event is the long-range impact of Pentecost in 2:41—47. The cultural diversity of the Jewish pilgrims present at Pentecost (2:9-11) anticipated the cross-cultural unity of the church and became part of a united church representing many cultures (2:41—42; 4:36; 6:1, 5). Believers grew in unity around the apos- tolic teaching and prayer (2:§2, 46-47), and apostolic signs and wonders continued (2:43).
Besides the numerical growth of the Christian community, the commu-
nity grew in its cohesiveness through the believers' commitment to one another. The Greek term fear “fellowship” (2:42) could mean economic sharing as well as spending time together. When we go out to dinner with friends from our church, we often think we are doing well; anal to be sure, such fellowship is better than the isolation many churchgoers feel today. But the first Christians were far more serious about fellowship in the bibli- cal sense than we are. The believers “shared all things in common” (2:44). “Sharing all things in common” does not mean they moved into dor- mitories or lived on the street together. It does mean that whenever one member of the Christian family had a need, other members sold their pos- sessions to meet that need (2:45). No one claimed that their possessions were theirs alone; everything belonged to the whole body of Christ (4:32). While we might not trust some church leaders today to distribute the church’s resraurces equitably (4:35; 6:1-6), the principle remains valid: People matter more than possessions. We should therefore use our resources t‹ meet others' needs (Luke 16:9-15). Our frequent resistance to this bib- lical idea may suggest how difficult it is fear the Spirit to get through to us
when the “m‹ ral fruits” he wants to address go as deer as our wallets or
purses.
Luke was not describing a practice with which he disagreed. The Greek phrases he uses to describe the church's sharing of p‹ ssessions portray the ideal community; he presents the early Christians' actlvlty in glowing terms. But while Luke uses phrases ancient writers applied to some rather ideal communities such as the Pythagoreans and Essenes, the Christians' relin- quishment of personal pre perty was more voluntary than in thc›se other cir- cles (5:4)—it was not "communistic." We should next for this reason, hr›w- ever, tone it dtiwn. The point of the difference is prec lsely that God rather than rules transformed their hearts. By valuing tone anc›ther metre than their property, the Jerusalem Christians showed their concern for God's priori-
tie› Thi› was not a human iclea; it w s pencratecl by the fcllowslilp c›f the H‹›1 Spir it. We may contrast te day's standard r f fellcawship, by which mem- bers c›ften c)c not even kn‹aw inany others in the church and single members vatten leave as lonely as when they came.
V'e can challenge the w‹ rld's values by how we live. Since my c‹ nver- sion 1 ha e always endeavored to live simply, in part te› make the wisest use of my resources for the kingdc m. Anc›ther reason for this commitment, ht ivever, has been the desire to protest and defy by my own lifestyle the world's fa1seh‹ od that possessic›ns have anything to do with happiness. Research files dominate my one -bedroo m apartment; I do have a bed, but it is rented along with the apartment. I do not have a car or a television, the ugh I will pro bably need a car soineday, and if I get married, I am sure my wife will demand some changes in my lifestyle. Most of my incc›me cur-
rcntly poes to needs in developing countries. (Let it never de said that every- one who affirms spiritual gifts propagates a materlalistic "prc›sperity gospel"! ) I do not expect all Christians to share my current lifestyle; indeed, those ith families would not be able to do so. I use it slrnp1y as an example that material abundance is not necessary for happiness. Sacrificing all our time and resources for things that matter eternally is far more fulfilling than
squandering them on momentary pleasures or whims.
By collecting money for the saints in Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8-9), Paul applied and expanded this principle of sharing mode led by the J erusalein church. Now churches in different parts caf the world would help one and ther. When Christians in one part of the world are in need today, rnore afÏluent parts of the Body of Christ must help them. As late as the sec- cent century, enemies of Christianity continued to comment on how Chris- tians cared for ‹ene another by sharing thcir pc›ssessions.
,Q{tp p [3c pgcctjtit)pt je c¡jlTlc rFlrCr ‹3F1Ü UW CRUfCE COU ÏÜ HSC U1C4EC O( its fiincls for church Buildings rather than fr›r carlng f‹ r the peer or for freeing sl;ty p¿, t}jp ra) ;j} pp1TilTli(ment elf early Child f iatJl tt9 CVOc ftif O14C rlFtC4tÉU r
bclan to wane. Yet this c‹ minitinent characterized both the hrst (Acts 2:44-45) and second (Acts 4:)4-37) outpourings c›f the Spirit, and one wr›uld expect that it should accu inpany truc outpc›urings of the Spirit tcaday. It f‹ l1‹awcd the renewal moveiucnts of the Waldensians, Franciscans, and Moravians. 11 was part raf the teaching ‹ fJ‹ahn Wesley, Charles Flnney, and
‹›t1 ers. Wcsle and many r th er lcaders in past outporirings of the Spirit en plaaslzecl hard wr›rk, thrlft, and pcner‹ sity. Althouph ‹ome who claim to be spokespersons of the Spirit tr may einpliasize how many possessions they
The Spirit iind Htiw We Live
can get front God, true people of the Spirit emphasize he w much they can give tc serve their brothers and sisters and rhe cause of Christ.
When we Flare to believe Jesus’ claims, we live acccarding to the princi- ple that people matter more than possessions. As a lover of Christ, one can- not accumulate possessir›ns that have no eternal value while people for whom our Lord died go hungry or wirhour the gospel. We should nor, of course, be like some early and medieval ascetics who acted as if food, drink, sleep, and other gifts of God were bad; God wants us to enjoy his creation (1 Tim. 4:3M; 6:17). Possessions are not evil—they just have no value com- pared with greater human need and the work of God's kingdom. One way the ascetics do shame us, however, is that they understood at least the value of sacrifice, something most of us, especially in Western Christendom, have forgotten. If we really love Christ, we will love others. And this fruit of the Spirit is not just a mushy feeling; ir requires action and commitment.
Conclusion
Dare we believe that we are actually new in Christ? home of us trust too much in our own abilities; some of us are too consumed by our own fail- ings; all of us must learn to depend on Christ's work in us by his Spirit. If we wish to depend on him more fully, we should begin to ask him to do his work in us (John 14:13). But we should be warned: The fruit of God's pres- ence in our lives involves not just a changed heart but changed behavior that reveals a changed heart. It means that we must change how we relate to others, even when it costs us sc mething.
Ave Spirilual Gilts for TodayÎ
had volunteered to do the class presentation on Rudolf Bultmann in our Ph.D. seminar on biblical interpretation. (Bultmann was a tj ajor twen- tieth-century scholar who believed that supematuralaccounts in the New Testament were edifying myths.) After summarizing some ‹of Bultm ann 's pos- itive contributions to biblical scholarship, I critiqued what I tht,ught was a fatal tlaw in hls rejection of biblical miracles: “Bultmann declares (hat no one in the moc4ern world believes in miracles—and thereby excludes most people
today from the mt3dCm world.”
I had scanned the classroom before spcaking, silently c‹ untinp the nm- her c›f stuc4ents who would likely agrec then God has dr›ne miracles. “HÎS )C)ÎC that modern people cannot accept God acting visibly in history excludes from the modem world most ‹ f us around this table,” I continuer “Indeed, Bultinann excludes not only c›rthodox Christians, Jews, and Mn *> S, )Ut spiritists, traditional tribal re1igic›nists, and others who believe in supernat- ural phenomcna—in short, everyone dut Western rationalists and the athe- istic Marxists who adopted some of their views. Bultmann defines Ut mod- em world simply c n the basis c›f his mid-twentieth-centiiry Western ><^ **« elitism—making hirn an ethn‹ centric culturel high t.”
Gift and Giver
N ; t,t {}y, rrry pr ud i tc p rt3deSSo 1’, When ITD Wc k lee W to de th e SCh et 1'S 1‹3S t
reinaining Bultinannlan, objected. “Bultinann has his presuppc›sitic›ns, but you have y‹aur presuppositions ton !” he responded, appearlng more than mildly irritated.
“That is true,” 1 conceded. “When 1 was an atheist, 1 denied that miracles
coulé happen. As a Christian, I insist that God can do miracles. Bur an agos- tic, neutral starting point would be to ask, What evidence is there for c r against miracles / Te› argue against miracles inductively, Bultmann would have to examine every possible clalm to a miracle and show it to be false. (And even then he would not have proven that such a claim could neeer be true.) But all I have to do to begin to argue that miracles do happen is to cite cred- ible eyewitness evidence.”
So I started d‹aing just that—listing instantaneous healings I had wit-
nessed in answer to believing prayers, particularly when I had been the per- scan liealed or the person praying for another's healing. Finally, I concluded, “Now if anyone still wishes to deny that miracles can happen, the next log- ical step is to challenge my credibility as a reliable eyewitness.” Whether out r›f politeness to me or for lack of a good argument, the professor quickly changed the subject.
Bultinannian professors are hardly alone in their skepticism. Altht›ugh the church for most of its history believed that miracles could still occur (and sometimes was credulous enough to embrace even many false once), sc›me parts of today's church are skeptical about most supematural claims. After the rise c f the modem Western prejudice against miracles, some Western Christians, while acknowledging that miracles happened in the Bible, cre- atcd a system that forced them ni discount evidence that miracles happen in modem times. Their skepticism is perhaps undcrstandable. This is nent the first time in hist‹ ry that circumstances led God's people to wonder whether God inight continue lois powerful works in their generatic›n (]ucig. 6:13).
MitlJy ofhCr ()hriStl‹4ns wht0 ackntJwlcdQe th‹4t God c‹t1J Still )CJ lTlir0cl€s III i31àS\\ Cr tO [3r‹1\'er cl‹1inà th‹lt super1)aËural ÇiftS Have cec3Sed, FULIS ÜtJubtllàÿ that God d‹›es mircicles the saine way tte dlcJ them in biblical times. Given the frequcnt abuse and felgning c›f some pifts today, this position hai a mea- sure of appeal. But despite many excepti‹ ns, Gc›d most often performed his m iracles in the Bible in c‹ njunction with the prayers or ininistry of sera ints ttc ap[^ointed to reprcscnt him; because this is a pattern throuphout the entlre
!1^1c, t3nc wtc(11) need clCPlr ÜlÜlical eviC)ence thtlt at SC8lTle pt8int tlài$ pi4ttcrl3
+18*8!!lCl CÎà‹41àJe. ThiS chilÇter Will cllScLlSS whether HFC bibllc‹3l evlClencc cU Lu-
all›’ http «›rts s ch a J°osltion.
Arc Spiriruiil (i i t ts for Tc›dii\ ! 91
dcl US wi ‹.f) fCm«fkS t)‹3t t)t1SC W)C3 d»U)t th«t t3C‹ dCtS ‹IN) Seed S
today as he did in the Bible are a sort of“Bible Deists.” Whereas the original (3eists thought that God began the universe and then withdrew from active involvement, some Christians today act as the ugh God withdrew as soon as the Bible was completed.'
Most likely the majority of Christians today acknowledge that supernat- ural gifts remain available, although few of us currently witness them with the same magnitude and regularity as in Acts, Yet many of us who acknowledge that miracles of a biblical scale can happen traday (including some Pente- costals) would be scared out of our wits if one actually happened to us. So per- vasively has Enlightenment culture's anti-supematuralism affected the West- ern church, especially educated European and North American Christians, that most of us are suspicious of anything supernatural. Is it possible that God has something more to teach his church today about supernatural gifts /
Did Spiritual Gifts Cease in Early Church History?
Spiritual gifts have become a major issue of controversy, especially since the mainline charismatic renewal of the 1960s and 1970s took the experi- ence of these gifts beyond the confines of classical Pentecostalism. (As noted in the introduction, by “charismatic” I mean those who afhrm and seek to practice clmrismata, Paul’s term for spiritual gifts; I am not describing a set of views. This sense of the term includes Christians from a wide variety of denominations as well as from independent churches.)
Some observers continue to maintain what is called the traditional “ces- sationist” position: Supernatural spiritual gifts—that is, any (or most) gifts that we cannot also explain in natural terms—have passed away. Proponents of this view usually argue their positit›n based on 1 Corinthians 13:8-10 ter Epheslans 2:20 and especially from history. But the evidence for their inter- pretation is hotly (and rightly) disputcd by c›thers. Those wht deny that these gifts continue today must also find rather explanations for charismatic phe- nomena among genuine fellow Christians. In the past, some attributed such phenomena to demons, but psychological interpretations are more frequent today.
Yet even if we excluded the modem Pentecostal and charismatic move-
ments, the church throughout history continued to believe that supernat- ural gifts did persist or periodically recur.' For example, the early church fathers provide abundant evidence that gifts such as prc›phecy and miracles
9j Gift and Giver
continued) in thcir c wn time, even if not as abundantly as in the first cen- tury.4 C hristians in the medieval and modern periods continued to embrace these activities of the Spirit.’ It is in fact cessationism that is not well docu- mented in earlier history; it seems no coincidence that it arose only in a cul- ture dominated by anti-supematuralism.‘
The argument that spiritual gifts ceased in history, however, would not be a very good argument against spiritual gifts today even if it were certainly true. That gifts should cease is not a logical conclusion based on the assertion that they did cease. First, signs and wonders waxed and waned from one period to another (though they were never absent) even in the Bible; they were especially prevalent in times of revival. Could they not become common again in times of revival today/
Second, the argument that gifts ceased and therefore should cease is an
argument based on one kind of experience. Yet those who make this argu- ment simply dismiss the experience of hundreds of millions of Christians today (estimated at over four hundred million—Pentecostals and charis- matics may represent the largest single block of Christians after Roman Catholics). Some people's claims of spiritual experiences are inauthentic, but cessationists must be quite sure of their exegesis before they dismiss all of them.
Contemporary Views Concerning Spiritual Gifts
Other observers, while acknowledging that spiritual gifts could in theory occur today, have been understandably reticent to embrace them because of the excesses that have occurred in charismatic circles in recent decades. Some Christians approve of spiritual gifts in principle but have had little contact with them personally and find little reason to actively seek them for their c›wn lives. Others embrace spiritual gifts personally but feel that other issues in the church are more pressing. Still others (probably representing the major- ity of mainline Pentecostals and charismatics) believe that spiritual gifts are critical and that the entire church should embrace them. Finally, a minority of people (mainly in traditional United Pentecostal and some Apostolic cir- cles) believe that the particular gift of tongues-speaking is essential for sal- vation. (Yet I know a number of people even in those churches who do not htild this view.) From my own and others' observations of various sectors of the body of Christ, it appears that both extremes—the extreme cessationists (whti deny miraculous gifts today) and those who require tongues for salva-
Are Spiritual Gifts for T‹iday? 93
tion—are bec‹aminp an lncreasingly small mlnc rity. Mrast Christlans fall into various mc›derate positions between these two extremes.
Like other recent Pentecostal and charismatic scholars such as Gordon Fee and fc›rmer cessationist Jack Deere, I believe the position that supernat- ural gifts have ceased is one that no Bible reader would hold if not previously taught to do so. lt is also a position based on a modem reading of the text shaped by Enlightenment culture. At the same time, it is a possible evan- gelical view, in contrast to the other extreme: Adding any condition to sal- vation—whether tongues-speaking or anything else—distorts the sufficiency of Christ and enters the realm of heresy. Many people who hold some dan- gerous views in theory are fortunately not consistent with those views in prac- tice, and undoubtedly many who claim to hold this view in theory are our brothers and sisters in Christ. But however Christian in practice some hold- ers of the tongues-for-salvation view may be, the view itself remains a deadly distortion of Christ’s gospel.
The views between these extremes not only fall within mainstream evan- gelicalism but differ on relatively minor points.’ Many of us hold a somewhat eclectic position, which stands a chance of emerging as the general consen- sus (if a consensus emerges). We do not believe that supernatural gifts rep- resent the most important issue facing the church today, but we do believe that they point us to a nonnegotiable, crucial issue: They call us to depen- dence on God’s Spirit in our ministry to others. We do not believe that those who exercise particular spiritual gifts are more “spiritual” than others, but we affirm that all spiritual gifts should rightly belong to the entire body of Christ today (rather than specihc gifts being segregated in specific parts of the church).
God provides gifts to serve the church not to exalt individuals. Many of us have learned from experience that there are nondivisive ways to teach non-Pentec‹astal churches about spiritual gifts (especially by not overem- phasizing them to the exclusion of other rritical issues) that can sensitive them tc› greater dependence on the Spirit. Many Pentecostal churches will likewise profit from a fresh examination of spiritual gifts, because among Pentecostals, as among non-Pentecostals, many of the gifts rarely function adequately.
Because the term charismatic has come to mean different things to differ- ent people, I reiterate that I am using cfirismatic tra describe those who embrace spiritual gifts in practice, whether they belong to churches that prac- tice them or next. In the broadest sense of the term, of course, all Christians are charismatic, because God gifted each of us with a special role and pur-
Gift and Giver
pt„c when Hoc Spirit baptized us into Christ’s bed ( 1 Cor. 12:7—1 3; c Britain
,pe,ins “grace-gilt”). But even in the narrc wer sense in which we employ the label here, we do next intend the speclfic views that have become associated with the label in scxne settings. Many noncharisinatics rightly object to the prosperity teachlng and to the way many popular charismatic minlsters han- dle Scripture. But these practices have nothing ter do with being charismatic per se and stemmed from later fashions of one wing ‹ f the charismatic move- ment, not from the original charismatic renewal. (In fact, some anticharis- matic fundamentalist ministers have applied Scripture with equal disregard for its context, and many who disavow prosperity teaching are not for that reason any less materialistic.) We are speaking solely ‹ f charismatic views concerning spiritual gifts.
Further, while such teachings do call into question how sensitively some
charismatics are functioning in the spiritual gift of teaching, they need not in every case negate the reality of their personal experience in the Holy Spirit. Teaching is admittedly one of the higher-ranking gifts (1 Cor. 12:28), and those whose teaching is unsound disqualify themselves from the office of pas- tor (1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:24; Titus 1:9). Nevertheless, to teach soundly, teach- ers must acknowledge the need for other gifts as well. We are not training only other teachers! As diverse members of Christ's body, we all need one another and need to draw on one another's gifts (1 Cor. 12:28—31). The fact that one person lacks the gift of teaching and another lacks the gift of heal- ing is all the more reason to learn and profit from one another's gifts. When we yield to God’s Spirit, he brings forth the fruit of humility so we can learn from one another (Gal. 5:22—6:2), maintaining the unity of the Spirit in Christ's body (Eph. 4:3-13). If we are humble, we are more likely to gain a hearing when we seek to bring greater truth to the rest of the church.
The Importance of Spiritual Gifts and Miracles Today
Although some have argued that miracles are limited to specific periods ln biblical history, a simple survey of the Bible shows this argument to be mis- taken. At the same time, however, miracles do seem to cluster in certain gen- erations in hist‹ ry, both in the Bible and subsequently. When one examines the Bible and church history, one quickly sees that the distribution of mira- cles is not random. Israel would often stray far from God until he raised up servants to lead them back to his law, a process repeated throughout history. Although not all God's servants worked miracles (Gideon, Jeremiah, and
Are Spiritual Gif ts for Today. 95
Jc›hn the Baptist, for lnstance, did not), the raising up raf true prophets espe- cially preceded times of revival, and such activities as miracles and renewals of worship (for worship, see repeatedly in l and 2 Chronicles) often accom- panied these prophets or times of revival.
Recognizing that God is sovereign over times of revival is not the same as supposing that we can do nothing to make ourselves more prepared for them. Our generation must seek God's face, to ask him to perform his pur- poses in our world today. Yet we must also be ready to allow God to do what- ever must be done to answer that prayer—even if it means judgment and stripping from us the things we value, so we may learn to value what really matters. Our spiritual forebears prayed that God would embolden and empower his servants in proclaiming Christ by granting healings, signs, and wonders (Acts 4:29—30). (Although the xIv separates this into two sen- tences, the Greek favors the translation: “grant us boldness by stretching out your hand to heal” [compare KJv] or “while stretching out your hand to heal” [compare csv, etc.]; see also Acts 19:3.) Signs and wonders provide a powerful attestation of God's power and interest in this world and summon attention to the gospel we proclaim.
More important and critical, however, is the prayer for the Spirit's empow- erment. In Luke’s Gospel, the Lord's prayer for the coming of God's kingdom and deliverance from temptation is in a context of prayer that climaxes in an entreaty for the ultimate gift: God's Spirit (Luke 11:1—13). In the broader context of Luke's emphasis on the Spirit, this is a prayer for empowerment that we may do the work that is a prerequisite for the final coming of the kingdom.
A Biblical Case Supporting Gifts for Today
Several lines of evidence suggest that miracles and supernatural gifts should continue to function in toc)ay's church. Although many othcr lincs of evi- dence are possible, I seek here to provide merely a sample t›f the arguments that could be offered.’
First, Luke presents the empowerment of the church at Pentecost as a nar- rative experience for Christians. As we noted above, this experience includes empowerment to speak by the Splrit's lnspiratir›n, especially for witness, and in Acts it at least often inclucles “inspired” utterances such as prophecy ‹ r tr›ngucs. (I rrn not arguing that tliesc must happen in every case, ‹only that they, like the experience they often accompanied, are fear tc day.)
C*ift and C*iver
second, the Gospel writers ( in this case we will use Matthew as an exam- ple) present Jesus' miracle-working ministry as a model for disclples. This does not, of course, imply that all of us should be equally proficient in all gifts,
as Paul points out. It does imply, however, that the church, thrc›ugh sotnc of
its members, should carry on these acts.
Third, Paul's presentation of the gifts is inseparable from his view t›f the church. That is, Paul believes that every member of Christ's body has a spe- cial function and should contribute his or her gift(s) for its strengthening. Paul d‹ es not envision that any of these specihc functions in the Ready she uld cease to operate before the Lord's return. Indeed, he explicitly declares that our imperfect gifts will cease only at that time ( 1 Cor. 13:8-13). Fr›r the sake of this chapter's length, I will defer examination of the specific gifts in two of his m‹are commonly cited lists until the following chapter, alth‹augh I will explore some other issues related t‹a gifts while examining the passages that
address them.
Is the Gift of Pentecost for Today? (Acts)
Although I addressed Pentecost in chapter 3, I need t‹ add scxne obser- vations here concerning the continuance of the gift of Pentecost. Referring to the “gift of the Spirit” earlier promised to all believers (Acts 1:4-5), Peter explicitly says that “this promise” is not only for all his hearers who turn tt› Christ but for their descendants and “all who are far off,” all whom the L‹ard calls (2:38-39). Perhaps unwittingly at this point, Peter speaks the language r f Scripture: Those who rare “far off' represent the rest of]oe1's “all flesh,” the (Gentiles (Isa. 57:19; Eph. 2:17). Peter had also quoted, “Whoever calls on the name of the L‹›n› shall be savecl,” trom Joel 2:32 (Acts 2:21). He ape t the i eat ‹›f his sermon explaining that this n› tati‹›n i» » » t‹' calll‹ ›pc° 'f- lu all r›n the mime c›f]esus (Acts 2:25, 34-36). Nr›w he fit4ishes thc 1***c r
bcl‹›nps to all who turn from sin and accept Jesus Christ as Lord. Acts assurr+cs thin the lift mac4e available at Pentecost remains in torce.
Further, Peter's opening quote from Joel lndicates that the gift must remain toga)'. Perer correctly interprets Joel's prophecy as referring to “the last days” ( : 17), understanding from Joel's context (J‹ el 3:1 ) and frt›m th‹at raf ‹other
} ro{oliets (ft,r examp›1c, Isa. d§:3 ) th‹it God wt till pr ur ‹but his ptr it in the encl t iinc. “Least days” was ;, bilalical cx{arcssi‹›n f‹›r that per lock (lea. 2: 2 ; M icali 4:1 ). The outpoured Spirit signals that Christ lfas taken his seat at the Father's
Art Spiritual Gifts ft3r Todé1\’? 97
right hand (Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:)3-35) and that his reign has in one sense been inaugurated. Unless Gc›d allowed the last days tr› begln and then retracted them—pouring out his Spirit and then taking his Spirit back, attesting Christ's reign and then cr ncealing it—we trust still be in the era of the outpoured Spirit.
More to the point, the very structurc of Peter's argument requires that this gift be available throughout this present age as people are saved through trust- ing in Christ. When foreigners are amazed to hear disciples speaking in other languages under the Spirit’s inspiration, Peter insists that this fulfills Joel's prophecy about the Spirit of prophecy being outpoured in the last days. This being the case, Peter argues, the rest of the prophecy is also in effect: Who- ever calls on the name c f the Lord will be saved (2:21). Salvation and the gift of the Spirit belong to the same era; indeed, those who embrace Jesus receive the gift at conversion (2:38; see the discussion above in chapter 3). Of course, not all aspects of Pentecost are normative for all of this age.
Some aspects of the first Pentecost—such as the wind and fire—were not repeated after Acts 2. But while sc›me narratives in Acts do leave room for debate as to how requenfly tc ngues accompanied the gift of the Spirit, in practice, tongues (alongside prophecy) clearly marked reception of the Spirit's prophetic empowerment (ability to sFeak for God) in Acts 2:4; 10:44—47;
and 19:6. In fact, when Peter hears the Gentiles speaking in tongues, he mar-
vels that they “received the Spirit in the very same way that we did” ( 10:47). Acts provides a pattern that suggests that such prophetic phenomena at least omen accompany the gift of the Spirit in the sense Luke emphasizes (see chap. 9) without ever suggesting that the pattern should change. Since (1) the gift is permanent (2:39), (2) Luke three times uses t‹angues-speaking to attest the reception of the gift, (3) he depicts this response as a phenomenon aris- ing from the Spirit's inspiration rather than frs m human culture (2:4), and finally, (4) he nc›where implies that this phenomenon was to cease, a heavy 1 urden of pre of lies ‹on anyone who would argue that tongues have ce‹ased tric)‹iy. Luke {Presents a inoclel c›f the S[aint's working in his n‹irr‹itis es, and if he had wished to restrict aspects ‹ f the model that were not relevant t‹ his audience, we w‹ uld expect him to have made this restriction clear." (For c‹amments on interpretive method here, see the appendix: “What Can Hible Stt rles Te ch Us?" Though we must be careful how' we do it, the Bible is clear
that we can learn principles from nrarrative [2 Tim. 3:16].)
Nor is the contlniiing w‹ rk of the Spirit in Acts limitecl to speak ing in t‹ mues. Acts emphasizes the iniracle-working ininistrics practicecl by the origincil ‹apostles ( 5:12), later ape stlcs ( 14:3), and ‹other Spirit-empowered
Gift and River
witnesses (6:S). As noted earlier, in Acts, slgns and wonders remain the pri- mary method of drawing people's attention to the gospel (see 2:5—41, 43; 3.11—4.4, 5.10-11, 12—16; 6:3, 5, 8-10; 8:6-7, 13, 39—40, 9.34—35, 40—42;
13:9-1?; 15:12; 16:25—34; 19:11-20; 28:5-6, 8—10;'° see especially 4:29—31;
Id:3, 9), a1thc›ugh well-educated Christians also engaged in public lecture and debate forums (6:8—10; 17:2—5; 18:28; 19:8-10), and the gospel was also passed on through the personal witness of individual Christians (8:4).
As we noted in chapter 3, the Splrit's supernatural empowerment for our
witness is a critical feature in Acts. Eyewitness testimony of what one has heard and seen” applies both to eyewitnesses of the risen Christ (4:20) and to eyewitnesses of subsequent phenomena performed by his power (2:33; compare Luke 2:20). Moreover, the “word of God" or “word of the Lord,” which in the Old Testament referred primarily to the past or present procla- mation of God's prophets, in Acts refers especially to the saving gospel of Christ (6:7; 8:4, 14; 10:44; 13:44; 14:3; 16:32; 17:13; 19:20). Whether through
the Splrit's leading in our words, or by God answering our pravers in ways that demonstrate miraculously the reality of his reign, the Spirit’s supernat- ural empowerment remains essential in evangelism.
In Acts, God's Spirit empowered his church to evangelize the world,
whether by signs or with boldness to speak or both. Can anyone think that we need his power any less to complete the task in our generations We should note, however, that in response to the hardships of their time, early Chris- tians sought this continuing empc›werment for evangelistic signs and won- ders through prayer (4:29-31). If the church today often lacks such power, it may be in part because we have not sought it or because we have sought it only for our self-aggrandizement rather than for the evangelization of the world.
Are Miraculous Signs of the Kingdom for Today? (Matthew)
As noted above in chapter 3, Mark pc›rtrays Jesus as the one who can answer his people's prayers and emphasizes that Jesus empowers his fc›11ow- cm berth to do miracles and to suffer for his honor. Matthew recounts this srune point from another perspective.
Jesus’ Signs
In chapters S and 9, Matthew provides ten speclfic examples of Jesus' heal- '••s r er in nine accounts, interweaving these practical demonstrations of
Are Spiritual Gifts for Todiiy?
Jesus' auth‹ rity with a recurring summons to submit to that authority (b:18-22; 9:9—17, 35-38). Although the Gospel writers draw spiritual pc ints frs in these accounts, most of these stories teach us something about physi- cal healing as well.
Let us take the example of the cleansing of the leper in Matthew 8:1—4. This story teaches us about the nature of faith and about our Lord's heart toward the infirm. The leper approaches Jesus with complete trust in his authority. Though his situation is desperate, he likewise humbly acknowl- edges that the choice of whether or not he is healed belongs to Jesus (8:2). Acknowledging that God has the right to refuse a specific prayer need not indicate a lack of faith, as some suppose. It may simply indicate respect for God's authority (Gen. 18:27, 30, 32). Biblical faith is not a formula by which God can be manipulated but a relationship with one whose character we have come to trust. At the same time, Matthew shows us something about Jesus' character: He Printed to heal the man (8:3; Mark 1:41 speaks of Jesus' “compassion”). Jesus was so concerned with the man’s condition that he touched the untouchable, thereby sharing the leper's uncleanness in the eyes of his own culture (8:3). Whatever God’s purposes may be in a specific situ- ation, none of us would doubt that Jesus' character and compassion remain the same today.
Another healing story includes two miracles: the healing of a woman who had been bleeding for years and the raising of a dead girl. Jesus again appears ready to heal and even to restore to life, as his response to Jairus shows (9:18-19). The bleeding woman adds a new element of teaching to the story, however. She had SCandnious faith (9:20-21). Under biblical and Jewish law, this woman communicated ritual impurity to anyone she touched. For her to press her way tra Jesus in a crowd, therefore, was scandalous. For her to intentionally touch Jesus' cloak—thereby rendering him unclean in the eyes of observant Jews—was even more scandalous. Yet she was desperate. She lived in a society in which women could next earn ade‹quate money tc› survive
‹ n their c›wn, and her condition virtually guaranteed that she could never marry. So convinced was she of Jesus' power that she acted scandalously, des- perately staking everything on his ability to heal her. The narrative con- cludes, not with Jesus rejecting her or concealing her touch, but publicly acknowledging her condition and sharing her uncleanness in the eyes of soci- ety so that he could publicly pronounce her healed (9:22). Jesus accepted her desperation as an act ‹ f faith (9:22). That our Lord Jesus shrews such mercy should not surprise us: He is the one who bore our infirmities, suffering in ‹our place so we might go free (8:17).
Are Spiritual C ifts for Today'
101
Matthew eii4phasizes t heat cc›inpassi‹ n was Jesus’ riniary tnc›tivation for iii inistry t‹ people (9:36). If his character remains the same t‹ day, we may I e c‹›niident that Jesus still wishes to heal and deliver m‹iny pec›p1e as he did l‹ np ago. But Jesus also explicltly dcclares that he needs more workers to complete the task of proclaiming the kingdom and healing (9:37-38). When Jesus came in the flesh, he could be in only one place at a time; hence, he was limited in how many people he c‹auld heal until he trained others to help wlth the wrark (9:37). So he instructed his disciples tc› pray for more workers (9:38). One need not read much farther to find that those Jesus taught to shame his compassion became workers themselves (Matt. 10:10). Thus, Jesus multiplied his mission by means of his followers.
The Disciples’ Ministry
Some aspects of this first mission, such as its limitation to Israel (10:5—6), are later specifically revoked (28:19). But for the most part, Matthew intends the mission discourse in chapter 10 as a model to teach the church how to continue to evangelize. This is clear because of the follrawing:
- The commission to “go” makes this passage a model for the Great Com- mission in 28:19 (althc›ugh the emphasis there is on disciple-making through baptizing and instructing).
The disciples here perpetuate the kingdom message of John the Bap- tist and Jesus (3:2; 4:17; 9:35; 10:7), and this message of God's author- ity is also ours today (28:18—19).
The disciples are to demonstrnte God’s reign the way Jesus did, through healings and excarcisins (9:35; 10:8), a commission Matthew nowhere revokes (in contrast t‹ his subsequent revoking of 10:5-6).
These signs fulfill Scripture and attest n‹ t simply to Jesus' earthly mln- istry but also› t‹ his message of the new era, the kingdc›m of G‹ d (11:4—6; see Isa. 35:5—6).
The compassion that mc›tivated Jesus (9:36) remains operative, as does the principle of agency for the se who remain Christ's representatives by the gc spel ( 10:40—42).
- Acts and Paul's writings show us that Jesus’ commission t‹a heal and to
live simply remained the standard for early Christian missionaries.
- Mc›st tellingly, Matthew here includes material about the end time that corr+es from elsewhere in Mark. (Ancient I ir graphers had the freedcxn to rearrange their scaurces.) Like Clark, whom we examined in chap-
ter 3, Matthew believes that Spirit-empowered ministry involves per- secutic›n ( 10:17-39). Plainly, his idea of God’s empowerment dc›es not guarantee an easy life, as some Christians today hope.
Especially in view of point 7, Matthew does not just tell us about the iirst dÎsCiples' commission (though he does that too); he also tells us that rhis mis- sion must continue and will not be completed until the Son of Man retums (10:23). Thus, Matthew intends this discourse as missionary instructions for his own audience, not just a rehearsal of the past. Each of the above points could be explained and defended in greater detail, but together they suggest that rhe signs of the kingdom should continue among us today. By sysrem- atically excluding enough of the biblical evidence from consideration (say, all narrative, or worse yet, all biblical evidence before the death of the apcas- tles), one can prove almost anything. But if the entire New Testament speaks to us, what John Wimber and others call “power evangelism” should remain one lmportant method of evangelism.
Gifts as Initial Evidences of Apostleship?
Before turning to the continuance of spiritual gifts in Paul's writings, we must address one objection not included elsewhere in this chapter. Hebrews 2:3—4 indicates that God confirmed the message of the first witnesses with signs and gifts of the Spirit, and from this some have inferred that these signs and gifts had ceased by the time the author of Hebrews was writing. If this argument were correct and addressed the only purpose of signs, it would actu- ally prove too much for most of its proponents; it would suggest that God does not perform miracles today!
But the argument is inadequate tc› carry even the minimum weight placed
on it. The author of Hebrews is warning that since the gospel of Christ is a greater revelation than the law, those who› neglect it will face greater penalty (Heb. 2:1-3). God had confirmed the message with notable signs in the past (2:4), but this no more suggests that God had stopped working signs than it suggests that the gospel would no longer be preached. The verb for God's bearing witness with signs is simultaneous with the verb for Christ's first wit- nesses preaching about him. In both cases it refers to the time when the Hebrews received the gospel. If God's miraculous bearing witness has ceased, one could argue in the same manner that the preaching ‹ f Christ has also ceased. Those who believe that God provided signs to attest Christ's wit-
102
Gift und Giver
A re Spiritual Gifts for Today?
n » S rnJ be riyht, but even if Grad sc inetimes attestecl witnesses, this is har‹l1y the c n1y purpose of signs in the New Testament. God is more often said to attest his message, not just the first witnesses to that message (for exam- ple, Acts 14:3), so it is reasonable to expect God to continue to use signs to confirm his message today. Nor do Paul's later letters indicate the disappear- ance of gifts, as sc›me have thought (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). Somec›ne next being healed (2 Tim. 4:20) was not a new phenomenon; some in an ear- lier period were not miraculously healed (Gal. 4:13—14; Phil. 2:27).
Are All Biblical Spiritual Gifts for Today? (Paul)
Paul treats the cfirismnta, or“grace-giftings,” in several different contexts, but all the relevant passages associate these gifts with members of the beady r f Christ—which we all regard as continuing today. Each of these passages must be seen in their larger context so we can learn more about Scripture and the gifts as well as answer some objections.
Whereas ancient culture recognized the idea that some exceptionally holy men had power with God or with gods, Paul claims that every believer has a speclal relationship with God and specific assignments from God. This is significant because it means that according to Paul all Christians are charis- matic—endowed with special gifts to build up others. As Siegfried Schatz- mann puts it, Paul characteristically “regarded all the communities of believ- ers as charismatic communities. He did not give the slightest indication that he knew of charismatic and noncharismatic churches." Neither does he provide the slightest indication that he expects the cessatic›n of any partic- ular gifts (as opposed to c thers, such as pastoring or teaching, thar we all rec- ognize must remain today)." Three of Paul’s surviving letters address gifts, always in the context of the body of Christ (Romans 12; I Corinthians 12; Epheslans 4; compare 1 Peter 4:10-11).
(Note By Blogger: Due to the length of the book which this content is from I have broken it up into a short series of blog posts.)
No comments:
Post a Comment