"The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages." Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.” - (1 Timothy 5:17-18)
What is “double honor” referring to here? What if when Paul suggested that the elders among us are worthy of double honor he meant that we should honor them? If we read the entire passage in context, this would seem to be the case. After saying that they are worthy of “double honor” he goes on to say that accusations against elders shouldn’t be taken at face value but must be supported by two or three witnesses. This seems to imply that what is due the elders who teach is respect, or “double honor”.
The examples of the ox treading out grain and the worker deserving his wages is simply meant to support his original statement that, because they work to preach and teach their brothers and sisters in the church, we should reward them with double honor. How? Well, by not listening to rumors about them or entertaining false accusations against them for one thing.
If “double honor” is financial support, then when Paul commands us to “Honor one another above yourselves” (Romans 12:10) does this mean we should financially support everyone and that the elders should receive twice as much? Far from it.
If Paul meant to suggest that they should receive financial compensation, then why doesn’t he just come out and say so? He doesn’t give any guidelines for how much they should be paid, or how how often, etc. In light of the passage in 1 Corinthians 9 we’ve already examined, it would seem that Paul would be violently opposed to the idea of providing “a material harvest” to someone just for teaching the scriptures in love.
For this verse to be taken to mean that elders in the body are to be supported financially, we should find evidence elsewhere that this was ever practiced in the early Christian church and no such evidence exists. Even in the second century when Cyprian attempted to introduce the idea of tithing in the Church to support the overseers, no one supported the idea and it was rejected. What does this tell us? First of all, that it wasn’t the custom or practice of the early church to financially compensate the elders or overseers. If it were, why would Cyprian propose it as if it were a new idea? Secondly, we learn that the idea was so foreign and objectionable that no other church leader agreed with Cyprian’s idea. The church did not financially support their leaders. In fact, we know historically that the Church didn’t formally introduce tithing until the year 777 a.d. under Charlemagne.
“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others. Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. Similarly, if anyone competes as an athlete, he does not receive the victor's crown unless he competes according to the rules. The hardworking farmer should be the first to receive a share of the crops. Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this.” - (2 Timothy 2:6)
This passage, taken in context, is using 3 different metaphors: A soldier, an athlete, and a farmer, to communicate 3 different principles to Timothy. First, that as a soldier of Christ, Timothy should not concern himself with the affairs of the world but instead should focus completely on obedience to Christ. Secondly, that as an athlete who runs the race to win it, he can only emerge victorious if he obeys the rules of the race. Third, Paul reminds Timothy that if he is faithful and obedient to Christ he will receive a share in the harvest that is to come. This is not a verse about financial support, as far as I can tell.
If you want further proof, beyond the New Testament accounts, I'd recommend looking at the Apology of Tertullian, a 2nd Century Church Father. As he attempts to explain what early Christians believe and practice regarding money he says:
“Even if there is a treasury of a sort, it is not made up of money paid in initiation fees, as if religion were a matter of contract. Every man once a month brings some modest contribution- or whatever he wishes, and only if he does wish, and if he can; for nobody is compelled; it is a voluntary offering...to feed the poor and to bury them, for boys and girls who lack property and parents, and then for slaves grown old..."
Once again, no mention of the offering being used to support elders or leaders within the local assembly of faith.
As I’ve already said, there is little historical or new testament evidence to support the idea that leaders within the Christian church were financially compensated. Apostles, missionaries and traveling church planters were offered support in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat and perhaps a care package to take with them on their journey to the next village. But the idea of financial support for those who teach and edify the local Body of believers is unknown in the new testament scriptures.
I understand that this is a hotly debated issue in the Body of Christ and so I leave room for others to believe differently about this than I do. I’m not against anyone who serves as a full time senior pastor or who takes a salary as a servant of a local church. I think it’s wonderful that these people have felt God’s calling on their life to serve others for the sake of Christ.
However, it is my personal conviction that everyone who follows Jesus is a member of the priesthood of all believers and that we are all ordained into the ministry of the Gospel of Christ. All of us are called by God to serve others, preach the Gospel and teach those who respond to follow Jesus daily. We should all rejoice that our true reward is the same as Paul’s:
“What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” (1 Corinthians 14:18)
-kg
Showing posts with label pastoral salary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pastoral salary. Show all posts
Friday, October 08, 2010
Thursday, October 07, 2010
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Part 1
In the debate over whether or not pastors or church leaders should receive financial support for their service to the Church there are three main verses to look at.
In part one I will look at 1 Corinthians 9:7-18. In part two I will combine the verses found in the two epistles to Timothy in one article.
Comments are welcome, but please first take the time to read my entire article before you respond. Please also keep this conversation friendly and focused on the topic, not the author or the commenters.
Thanks,
-kg
**
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - PART ONE
Before we can even begin to have this discussion it must be pointed out that there is no New Testament analog for our modern day senior pastor. The closest you can get to leadership in the New Testament church is a group of elders, or overseer, but not one single leader who handles all teaching, preaching, counseling, and administrative duties.
This fact makes it very difficult for us to effectively guess what the Apostles might have taught on the subject of whether these senior pastors should receive financial compensation. One might wonder if the Apostles would be even more concerned that one single person was leading the local church himself than whether or not that person should be compensated financially. But, I digress.
If we can attribute the function of the local senior pastor to the work done in the New Testament church by elders, then there might be grounds for arguing that a pastor in our modern day churches should be supported financially. That's more of what this article will attempt to discuss.
Let's begin by looking at 1 Corinthians 14 and what Paul has to say regarding whether or not Apostles should receive financial compensation for their work.
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?" - (1 Corinthians 9:7-12a)
If we stop right here, (and most do), it would seem that Paul believe quite strongly that those who minister in the Body of Christ should rightfully expect to “reap a material harvest”. However, let’s continue to read further and see where Paul is going with this argument before we make up our minds.
“But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” - (1 Corinthians 9:12b-18)
Here, Paul affirms that Jesus has commanded that those preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. This sounds pretty convincing for those who believe that pastors should be put on the payroll. But “those who preach the gospel” are evangelists, and like Paul and the other apostles, travel from town to town preaching to the lost and helping to establish churches. That's not what senior pastors do. They, like the elders and the overseers in the New Testament church, remain with the local assembly to provide ongoing spiritual guidance under the leadership of Christ.
Paul is not arguing that those who remain behind and who facilitate the regular gathering should be financially supported here in this passage. What’s more, he goes on to say, in the strongest words possible I might add, that “he would rather die” than to “hinder the gospel of Christ” and to offer his preaching of the gospel “free of charge.”
Does this really come across as a glowing endorsement for financially supporting those who preach the gospel to you? To me, taken all together in context, it would seem that Paul feels that it’s more than a little possible for such practice to “hinder the gospel of Christ.” This should give us pause, I believe.
I also believe it’s no small distinction to point out that travelling missionary evangelists like Paul and the other apostles are the only ones who have any right to material harvest, according to the New Testament. Historically, we know that this support was usually in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat for as long as they remained in the city preaching the gospel to the lost. It did not correlate to $50k a year and a housing allowance with medical and dental benefits.
In 2 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9 Paul reveals more of his attitude about receiving support from the Church:
"Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so."
Here Paul tells us that receiving support from another church in order to preach to the Corinthians was comparable to "robbery" in his mind. Suffice it to say, he didn't feel comfortable with doing it, but he did agree to this at least in this instance in order to devote himself to the service of the Believers in Corinth.
The Didache, written in the late first or early second century, was a collection of teachings used by the early Christian church to guide them in church matters. Here we find the following instruction:
“Let every Apostle, when he comes to you, be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, a second likewise; but if he abide three days, he is a false prophet. And when he departeth let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.” – (Didache 11:4-6)
So, clearly, there were those, even in the early Christian church, who desired to fleece the flock and the leaders of the church provided instruction on how to deal with them. Specifically, those who ask for money were considered to be false profits, which suggests also that Paul’s passionate example (in 1 Cor 9:12-18) had an impact on how the church supported those who were apostles.
Now, I'm not saying that our senior pastors are trying to fleece the flock. Most of them are humble servants of Christ who have responded to a genuine call on their life to encourage their brothers and sisters in Christ and teach them to obey the words of Jesus. Many of my dear friends are senior pastors and I have been an associate pastor myself who served alongside these men and have myself been supported financially by the church.
But that was before I felt God calling me to leave that model in favor of one where all of the offering from the church could go to help the poor in the community. I, like Paul, felt that it hindered the gospel, and my own walk with Christ, to participate in a system where the church spent most of the money received on herself and not on the poor and the broken around us.
In our next article we'll see what Paul has to say in his letters to Timothy regarding elders in the church and what compensation - if any - they are due.
-kg
In part one I will look at 1 Corinthians 9:7-18. In part two I will combine the verses found in the two epistles to Timothy in one article.
Comments are welcome, but please first take the time to read my entire article before you respond. Please also keep this conversation friendly and focused on the topic, not the author or the commenters.
Thanks,
-kg
**
FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - PART ONE
Before we can even begin to have this discussion it must be pointed out that there is no New Testament analog for our modern day senior pastor. The closest you can get to leadership in the New Testament church is a group of elders, or overseer, but not one single leader who handles all teaching, preaching, counseling, and administrative duties.
This fact makes it very difficult for us to effectively guess what the Apostles might have taught on the subject of whether these senior pastors should receive financial compensation. One might wonder if the Apostles would be even more concerned that one single person was leading the local church himself than whether or not that person should be compensated financially. But, I digress.
If we can attribute the function of the local senior pastor to the work done in the New Testament church by elders, then there might be grounds for arguing that a pastor in our modern day churches should be supported financially. That's more of what this article will attempt to discuss.
Let's begin by looking at 1 Corinthians 14 and what Paul has to say regarding whether or not Apostles should receive financial compensation for their work.
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain." Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?" - (1 Corinthians 9:7-12a)
If we stop right here, (and most do), it would seem that Paul believe quite strongly that those who minister in the Body of Christ should rightfully expect to “reap a material harvest”. However, let’s continue to read further and see where Paul is going with this argument before we make up our minds.
“But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast. Yet when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, for I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make use of my rights in preaching it.” - (1 Corinthians 9:12b-18)
Here, Paul affirms that Jesus has commanded that those preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. This sounds pretty convincing for those who believe that pastors should be put on the payroll. But “those who preach the gospel” are evangelists, and like Paul and the other apostles, travel from town to town preaching to the lost and helping to establish churches. That's not what senior pastors do. They, like the elders and the overseers in the New Testament church, remain with the local assembly to provide ongoing spiritual guidance under the leadership of Christ.
Paul is not arguing that those who remain behind and who facilitate the regular gathering should be financially supported here in this passage. What’s more, he goes on to say, in the strongest words possible I might add, that “he would rather die” than to “hinder the gospel of Christ” and to offer his preaching of the gospel “free of charge.”
Does this really come across as a glowing endorsement for financially supporting those who preach the gospel to you? To me, taken all together in context, it would seem that Paul feels that it’s more than a little possible for such practice to “hinder the gospel of Christ.” This should give us pause, I believe.
I also believe it’s no small distinction to point out that travelling missionary evangelists like Paul and the other apostles are the only ones who have any right to material harvest, according to the New Testament. Historically, we know that this support was usually in the form of a place to sleep and food to eat for as long as they remained in the city preaching the gospel to the lost. It did not correlate to $50k a year and a housing allowance with medical and dental benefits.
In 2 Corinthians 11, verses 7-9 Paul reveals more of his attitude about receiving support from the Church:
"Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so."
Here Paul tells us that receiving support from another church in order to preach to the Corinthians was comparable to "robbery" in his mind. Suffice it to say, he didn't feel comfortable with doing it, but he did agree to this at least in this instance in order to devote himself to the service of the Believers in Corinth.
The Didache, written in the late first or early second century, was a collection of teachings used by the early Christian church to guide them in church matters. Here we find the following instruction:
“Let every Apostle, when he comes to you, be received as the Lord; but he shall not abide more than a single day, or if there be need, a second likewise; but if he abide three days, he is a false prophet. And when he departeth let the apostle receive nothing save bread, until he findeth shelter; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet.” – (Didache 11:4-6)
So, clearly, there were those, even in the early Christian church, who desired to fleece the flock and the leaders of the church provided instruction on how to deal with them. Specifically, those who ask for money were considered to be false profits, which suggests also that Paul’s passionate example (in 1 Cor 9:12-18) had an impact on how the church supported those who were apostles.
Now, I'm not saying that our senior pastors are trying to fleece the flock. Most of them are humble servants of Christ who have responded to a genuine call on their life to encourage their brothers and sisters in Christ and teach them to obey the words of Jesus. Many of my dear friends are senior pastors and I have been an associate pastor myself who served alongside these men and have myself been supported financially by the church.
But that was before I felt God calling me to leave that model in favor of one where all of the offering from the church could go to help the poor in the community. I, like Paul, felt that it hindered the gospel, and my own walk with Christ, to participate in a system where the church spent most of the money received on herself and not on the poor and the broken around us.
In our next article we'll see what Paul has to say in his letters to Timothy regarding elders in the church and what compensation - if any - they are due.
-kg
Friday, June 12, 2009
INTERVIEW: DR. G.K. BEALE (Part 2)
This is the final half of my interview with Dr. G.K. Beale, author of "The Temple and the Church's Mission."
In this interview we discuss the Tribulation, End Times Suffering, Deception and Persecution, and Pastoral Support.
Those who know me already know I disagree with Dr.Beale on the issue of pastoral support and clergy, but our dialog here is interesting regardless of where you land on these issues.
PART 2
Keith: What are the practical impacts of the teaching in your book? If I understand now that the Church is the promised, end times Temple, how does that practically work out in my life and my faith?
Dr. Beale: What it means is that where we’re standing now in God’s redemptive, historical program is that we’re part of the end time Temple, and it’s a literal Temple. The literal, again according to Hebrews, is not always the physical. In this case the physical has always pointed towards God’s presence with His people. So Christ is the Tabernacle-ing Temple in John 1 and his resurrection continues that Temple and so the point of the Temple, and the point of my book, is to show that this Temple is to be expanded. The way that occurs in the New Testament is through believers being made in the image of God. What do you do with images? The same that happened with Adam in Genesis. He’s made in the image of God and you put him in the Temple, which is the Garden of Eden. So, when we become believers we become part of the Temple of God but we’re images in the Temple to reflect Him. If that is the case, then as we go out into the World, whether through the testimony of Word or Life, we’re to spread the presence of God. As people come to faith through our life or word, or both, basically what’s happening is that this is the Temple expanding. God’s presence expands outward from us, through us, to others.
That also happens through suffering. In Revelation chapter eleven if you wanted to consult my commentary, it says you’re to measure the temple and the altar and the one’s worshiping in it but not to measure the outer court but cast it outside. What in the world is going on there? Well, the long and the short of it is that Temple is God’s presence, the Believers are in that Temple, the measuring has to do with their salvific condition, and they’ll never be removed from God’s presence, but the outer court is the physical side of the Temple. That is where the priests of Israel sacrificed so it becomes very clear in verse one when it says to measure the altar, that’s a specific of chapter 6 and verse 9, where it says beneath the altar I saw the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.
So, one of the ways believers spread the presence of God, yes it’s through their testimony, yes, it’s through the word of God, but one of the main ways that God’s presence is manifested to the world is when the world pressures us to compromise our faith and our testimony - when we’re unwilling to compromise – we remain loyal to God and it brings suffering we are sacrificing ourselves on God’s altar. Unbelievers, at those times, will see that, and that is often what gets their attention and leads them to faith in Christ.
I think that we become the priests, we’re the temple of God’s presence, we’re the sacrifice and that’s because we follow the Lamb wherever He goes. According to Revelation chapter 14, He’s the temple, He’s the Priest, and He’s the Sacrifice. Of course, our sacrifice is not like His in terms of being vicarious and substitutionary, but ours is a witness and it pleases God to manifest His presence through suffering. As Paul says, in 2 Cornthians and elsewhere, “My power is manifested in your weakness” and I think that can be applied to the Temple.
So, I think that these are very practical things. Whether it’s a peer group that’s pressuring you to conform or whether it’s a boss who’s asking you to be unethical, or if it’s a Government to stop believing in Jesus, when we refuse to compromise and we’re faithful priests in the Temple, then the presence of God spreads and the Temple expands.
Isaiah 57 says the Temple is a place of prayer, and we are a people of prayer. We ought to be a people much more in prayer. We’re priests who teach, although we know that the epistles that there elders and deacons who have the gift of teaching, but to everyone there is an expectation that we should know the scriptures and should be able to pass along that knowledge, even if they don’t have the gift of teaching.
So, generally, priests are mediators between God and the unbelieving world. Those are some reflections. Adam and Eve would have increased God’s presence among them by remembering God’s word and obeying it and they didn’t do that.
Keith: One thing I find fascinating in doing this kind of study, especially as you’ve just outlined it, is the idea of Temple, Priest and Sacrifice. We start with Jesus who equates His body with the Temple, He was, Himself the sacrifice, the Lamb of God, and we know from Hebrews that He performed the function of the High Priest. Then we see where every believer is now, in Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, a member of the priesthood of the believer, and the living, daily sacrifice.
Certainly, for myself, once I went through the Scriptures and understood these things completely, it revolutionized my personal faith. It seems to be something the Apostles and the early Christians fully understood. I think, especially, being Jews they understood how these concepts of Priest and Temple and Sacrifice were fulfilled in Christ, and then they continue on to explain how we are now also the Temple of God, and the living sacrifice, and the priests of God.
I guess what fascinates me is that these concepts are taught separately in the Church today but not connected in this way, at least not with any actual expectation that we are going to, as followers of Jesus, fully embrace our identity as Temple, Priest and Sacrifice.
If I look at Church today, in practice, I think these ideas almost appear to be radical and controversial. If I were to stand up today in a pulpit and preach and teach these things on Sunday morning I suspect that the majority of people would say, “Wow, I never understood this before.”
How do react to that? How did we end up with a faith where these ideas are so foreign?
Dr. Beale: Some thoughts that come to my mind are that, there is very little emphasis on expository preaching in churches today. When one faithfully preaches through the Old and the New Testaments one will come across the ideas.
In the New Testament, for example, if one has eyes to see and ears to hear, the idea of inaugurated eschatology is all over the place, including of course, the Temple. What you said about the Temple is no less true than other things. If you said that we’re experiencing the Great Tribulation now many people would begin to throw tomatoes at you. But 1 John 2:18 says, “Children this is the last hour. You’ve heard it said that anti-Christ is coming. I tell you, many anti-Christ’s have already come and from this we know that it’s the last hour.”
We’re at the last hour! Why? Because the spirit of the end times anti-Christ was there at the beginning of the Church. This come from Daniel, chapters 8 through 12, and part of what the anti-Christ, the end times opponent, was doing towards the end of Daniel chapter eleven was to deceive the Church. That’s exactly what’s going on today. The anti-Christ, though not physically present, is sending his emissaries to deceive so the end has begun. The final tribulation isn’t universal yet but it has begun, it is occurring in selected areas, has done so since the time of the beginning of the Church and at the end of time it will be universal so it certainly will increase.
Most people wouldn’t say we’re in the latter days today, although they may admit we’re on the verge of it. I think a lot of this has to do with a larger notion of eschatology and what it really is. Is it only about the future? Many in the conservative church would say so. Others look at it as something that has already begun and will continue into the future.
The conservative scholars, people who teach in seminaries and colleges, are more aware of this but this has not filtered out much in the congregations or among pastors.
Keith: Why do you think that is? Is it because once a seminary graduate becomes a teaching pastor he sort feels gun shy about teaching something that may be seen as unconventional?
Dr. Beale: While there are a number of conservative scholars who are aware of these things I don’t think it’s paramount in their teaching, even in seminary. So, I don’t think it’s something on the top of their students minds when they go out into the ministry.
For myself, in about a year I’ll finish a book that’s called “Transformation of the Old Testament and the New” which is a Biblical theology of the New Testament arguing that the way to understand it is that the latter days have begun and the march towards New Creation, specifically, has begun, and the major notions of justification or reconciliation or doctrine of the Spirit, are to be understood as facets of these things.
For example, Paul will talk about how he’s been crucified with Christ and how it is not he that lives but Christ who lives in him. The notion of living, when most people read that, they assume that he’s only talking about the Christian life. And yeah, that’s true, but it’s resurrection life. It’s the life of eschatological resurrection and that makes a big difference. The reason it does is because Paul starts giving commands that the Christian should start living differently from the world. Why? Because they are able to.
Keith: Right.
Dr. Beale: Put philosophically, for the Christian, essence precedes existence. Who you are determines what you do.
Keith: Amen.
Dr. Beale: Where many unbelievers would say, “No existence precedes essence; what you do in life determines who you are.” Which sounds kind of moral, sounds kind of good, but it’s not the Biblical view.
Keith: Absolutely. I think it’s easy to get confused by the “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” question. When you get into the discussion of doing good works and serving others this always comes up. My wife Wendy and I do a little work with the poor here in the community, and with our church family. We often hear people question whether we’re trying to earn our salvation or wonder out loud if we’re unsure of our salvation and we’re trying earn God’s favor, or what have you. But, what I find fascinating is that if we go to Ephesians where Paul tells us that we’re saved by grace he continues on to add, “to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So, I always use the phrase “Swimming will never make you a fish, but if you’re a fish you will swim” to explain this apparent dichotomy.
Dr. Beale: Beautiful. I like that.
Keith: We don’t do good works to be saved, but if we’ve become new creatures in Christ, by Grace, then we will do the things that new, transformed creatures do and that, Biblically, involves doing good works.
Dr. Beale: If you don’t swim then you might ask, “Am I really a fish?”
Keith: Yeah, exactly. This is what fish do, so why are you not acting like one?
Dr. Beale: Or at the very least, maybe you are a fish but you haven’t started swimming just yet. Eventually, if you are new creation it will show itself.
Keith: I don’t want to get you into too much trouble here but I know my next question is a little controversial so I’m just going to ask it and you can respond as you wish, ok? I mean, I’m not trying to lay landmines for you so whatever feel comfortable discussing is ok with me.
Dr. Beale: Well, I’ll be quite frank that the teaching on the Temple that I’ve laid out doesn’t have to affect a particular model of the Church. Having said that, I do think that there’s a model for the Church laid out in the pastoral epistles in terms of eldership, deacons, and the sacraments in Corinthians and elsewhere the marks of a church are spelled out to include church discipline.
I also believe that first and second Timothy say that the teaching and preaching of the Word, and of course believers gathering together, are to be expected. I do think that leadership structures have been laid out from the pastoral epistles, for myself. I think there are to be elders and deacons. In terms of tithing I don’t think that the Temple notion determines that issue but other considerations apply. I wouldn’t say that the “tenth”, which is what “Tithe” means in Hebrew, has to be given. It can be, and it could be a good rule, but that aside we know that there should be giving and it should be from the heart. That’s the bottom line.
In terms of a building, again, you can have a house church or you can have a building or whatever the Lord leads one to do. The same with the building fund and a paid clergy. Paul says Elders (1 Timothy 5) are worthy of double honor and that meant money because they worked so hard at teaching and preaching that they needed to be supported. So, I do think that there’s a basis for this in 1 Corinthians 9 where he says, “do not muzzle the ox while he’s threshing”.
So, those may just be my reflections. I don’t see them as flowing out of the Temple notion, though I’m always open. I certainly don’t have the last word on the Temple, or any of these things. So, those would be my reflections on those questions.
Keith: I really do appreciate your perspective Dr. Beale. This is something that I am studying as well and trying to understand as well from scripture as well.
Dr. Beale: I think that’s an important consideration as well. What is it that scripture lays out? Then, what kind of liberty do we have that is extra-biblical but not anti-biblical? Theological seminaries are not biblical in the sense that we’re commanded to have them. But I don’t see them to be unbiblical. Having said that, I really see that what seminaries do, ideally, ought to be in the context of the local church or group of churches united together – which is what some are, they’re denominational seminaries.
Keith: One of the things that I really personally struggle with is the idea of taking a salary as a pastor. When we felt called initially to plant a church where 100% of the offering could be given to the poor in the community, I made a conscious decision to redefine what “being in the ministry” meant. Today, even though I’m working a regular, tent-making job, I still do just as much ministry as I did before, when I was a paid on-staff pastor. It’s just that I don’t receive a salary or an income from loving and serving my brothers and sisters in the Body. I provide for my family by working as a writer in a marketing department during the week, and that is also my ministry. It’s my mission field.
The scriptures I looked at were some of the same ones you’ve already mentioned but also where Paul argues pretty strongly that “those who preach the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel.” He affirms that. He totally does mean that and he actually says that Jesus has commanded this, but then he follows it with saying that he would personally rather work with his hands and not be a burden to the local church. He admits that he has in the past received compensation for his service but feels that he was robbing God, or the church, by doing so. So, he paints a picture that there is liberty for both.
Dr. Beale: I would say that what he does say in 1 Timothy 5 there probably is the norm however. Not only should there be elders, but those who particularly work hard at preaching and teaching should be compensated, I believe. Of course there could be someone who is wealthy and doesn’t need the money, or someone like yourself who has opted not to take a salary, so there are those exceptions. I do think that those would be exceptions because there are some who put so much into the teaching and the work of pastoring that that’s all they do.
Keith: I mean, sincerely, to ask your opinion on this because I’m curious to know, and I'm sure you have studied this much more than I have scratched the surface on, but do you believe it was the norm during the first century church, under the Apostles that elders were supported financially? I’ve tended to think of support as being what was provided to travelling missionaries who were going to plant churches and preach the Gospel to the surrounding villages, maybe there were taking their wives along as Paul mentions. I’ve always thought of “support” as being a place to stay, or food and water for the journey to the next village or maybe a small offering to help them get to where they were going next, but not so much we’re going to take care of you for the rest of your life. More like, when you come to our town you can stay with me, eat at my table, you can sleep here, not so much like, “Here’s your monthly check.”
Dr. Beale: Well, for myself I would see it as both. I don’t think Acts is really speaking to this issue the way that Paul does. In terms of Elders in 1 Timothy 5, but it’s clear in that passage when it says they are “worthy of double honor” it’s not just respect but it’s actually financial support. Yeah, what you’re saying is definitely included but I wouldn’t say that that’s all there is.
Keith: The other thing I was going to ask you is something I will admit I’m biased about since I lead a house church. But, for most of my spiritual life, even as a pastor on staff at a traditional church, the ideas of the priesthood of the believer were largely unknown to me. We’d say, “you’re the Temple of the Holy Spirit” but I still go to that building over there and that’s really my Church. Instead of thinking of it more as something I embody and that we together are the Body of Christ. So, sometimes, in my experience anyway, these are ideas that I didn’t seriously consider until I stepped away from a traditional model. After that I began to really see these things differently and began to experience these things in a more tangible way. While I was involved in a traditional church, however, “Temple” was the building we were meeting in, the “Priesthood” was about the pastor we elected and so on. And I’m not trying to say that these things are wrong, but sometimes these physical elements end up distracting us from the reality.
Dr. Beale: Well, I suppose they could. If one viewed the Church as the Temple, that is the physical church, and if one viewed the Pastor as the only Priest then that would be a wrong view. I think that all believers are Priests, but then of course we know that this is fleshed out further that there were some with different gifts. Some were evangelists, some had different gifts. I think if you had a physical structure with really good teaching then, hopefully people really wouldn’t have the wrong idea.
Keith: Can I change the subject a bit and go back to something you alluded to earlier? You were talking about how we, as the new Temple, help the Temple and the Presence of God to spread is through suffering. You suggested that this was one of the ways that we help to spread the Temple presence of God in the Earth today. I agree with you on that but I wanted to ask you to elaborate more about the fact that the Spirit of Anti-Christ is already at work and that, in effect, we are in the End Times now.
So, what I was wondering is, as we see the Church both being persecuted and, at the same time, growing stronger under that persecution, in places like Korea and China and Africa and the Middle East, in fact, pretty much anywhere you see persecution really. It’s as if our suffering for the Gospel, as we encounter that Spirit of Anti-Christ, which again creates the suffering, it’s as if the Tribulation has never really left the Church. It maybe something that we, in America, don’t realize because we are not suffering for our faith and I tend to think that when we say “The Church” as Americans we really mean, “The American Church.”
Dr.Beale: You have to remember that if you read Daniel 7 through 12 for example that suffering and persecution is only one facet of the Tribulation. The second major facet is deception.
Keith: Wow.
Dr. Beale: (Laughs) Most of Paul’s letters were written because of deception with the Church.
Keith: True. We wouldn’t really have most of the New Testament if it weren’t for Paul’s letters to correct deception and immorality in the Body at that time.
Dr. Beale: So deception, combined with overt suffering and persecution is a very powerful example of how the Tribulation started in the First Century and continues today.
I mean, you do have sectors of the Church where there is deception, and others where there is suffering, but at the very end it will be universal deception and suffering.
Keith: Well, we’ve been going almost an hour here now so if you need to go I understand.
Dr. Beale: Yes, actually we’re installing a new pastor today and I didn’t realize that it was today. I was hoping to be able to make the very end of that.
Keith: Certainly. I understand. I really do appreciate your time and sitting and talking with me about these issues.
Dr. Beale: Well, I enjoyed taking about them. That’s what I do! (Laughs) It’s what you do too.
Keith: Yes sir. Thank you so much, Mr. Beale.
Dr. Beale: You wanted to talk about this issue on Shadows and Types?
Keith: I would love to if you have the time.
Dr. Beale: I’ll give you some quick reflections on that. A lot of allegory has happened, a lot of misuse of types has occurred and I would just say that there are four or five ways to put controls on that so it’s not unbridled.
One is in the Gospels wherever you find the fulfillment formula and it’s attached to an event in the Old Testament then you’ve got a classic type. Like in Matthew chapter 2 where it says, “Out of Egypt I have called my son” and it reflects back on Hosea chapter 11 and that’s just a reflection back on the event of the Exodus. That’s a very difficult passage but I think the notion of typology is that earlier events from the Old Testament prefigure and foreshadow events in the new. So they’re not prophecy by words but prophecy by events and patterns.
When you find a fulfillment formula, or language like that such as, “It was necessary for this to happen so that the scriptures might be fulfilled” or “the promises came” as in 2 Corinthians chapter 1. When you find that kind of language, as in 2 Corinthians 7, chapter one, “therefore having these promises…” those are all indications of that prophecy has been fulfilled. And when just events are quoted and not overt prophecies that’s typology as in the case of “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.
So, sometimes you can discern from the Old Testament that those events were seen as prefiguring events, even from the author’s vantage point.
Secondly, another way to discern types is repeated patterns like when you’ve got Adam in the Garden disobeying and then you have the same imagery of Adam applied to Noah. Then you have some of the same imagery applied to Israel. What you have there is a recapitulated pattern and when you find those patterns and then see them again in the New Testament those may be candidates for typologies.
Thirdly, in Old Testament narratives like the Book of Judges, when you have the narration of speedy rises and falls of leaders like the Judges, or in Isaiah chapter 22 where you have the same. This is where God’s commission is not fulfilled and cries out for fulfillment. When these are not fulfilled there’s a lack and yet alongside this there’s various points in the history of Israel where we’re told that one is to come, as in Isaiah chapter 9, who is going to fulfill these things. So, when you put those together – the speedy rises and falls of leaders, and the very lack of fulfillment suggests that this needs to be filled in and there’s going to be one to fulfill these things eventually. You have these characters who negatively point forward –these prophets and priests and kings.
A fourth criterion would be, when you have a clear reference to a type like the first Adam is a type of the last (Romans 5:14). When you go back in the Old Testament and see characters who are patterned after Adam, very clearly, those probably also are good candidates for types of Christ’s. Even negatively. I mean, Adam himself was a negative type.
For example, Noah is patterned after Adam and I would say that he is also a negative type of Christ. On the other hand, 1 Peter chapter 3 presents the days of Noah as a type of the days of the coming of the Son of Man and the Apostasy.
So, those are just some reflections on typology if you’re interested. I would encourage you, if you don’t have this book…and it’s not going to put that much money in my pocket, but there’s a book I’ve edited that’s called, “The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts”.
Keith: Wow. Great title.
Dr.Beale: It’s a debate on different views of how the Old Testament used in the New Testament. In the last few chapters I have definitions of typology and examples of it. It’s published by Baker Book house.
If want to really delve in, Don Carson and I edited a book “A Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament” that was a 10 year project that just came out in 2007.
At any rate, if you’re really interested you could delve further.
It’s been a pleasure to chat.
Keith: It’s been a blessing for me as well.
Dr.Beale: Thanks and may God bless you in your ministry.
Keith: God bless you as well.
**
In this interview we discuss the Tribulation, End Times Suffering, Deception and Persecution, and Pastoral Support.
Those who know me already know I disagree with Dr.Beale on the issue of pastoral support and clergy, but our dialog here is interesting regardless of where you land on these issues.
PART 2
Keith: What are the practical impacts of the teaching in your book? If I understand now that the Church is the promised, end times Temple, how does that practically work out in my life and my faith?
Dr. Beale: What it means is that where we’re standing now in God’s redemptive, historical program is that we’re part of the end time Temple, and it’s a literal Temple. The literal, again according to Hebrews, is not always the physical. In this case the physical has always pointed towards God’s presence with His people. So Christ is the Tabernacle-ing Temple in John 1 and his resurrection continues that Temple and so the point of the Temple, and the point of my book, is to show that this Temple is to be expanded. The way that occurs in the New Testament is through believers being made in the image of God. What do you do with images? The same that happened with Adam in Genesis. He’s made in the image of God and you put him in the Temple, which is the Garden of Eden. So, when we become believers we become part of the Temple of God but we’re images in the Temple to reflect Him. If that is the case, then as we go out into the World, whether through the testimony of Word or Life, we’re to spread the presence of God. As people come to faith through our life or word, or both, basically what’s happening is that this is the Temple expanding. God’s presence expands outward from us, through us, to others.
That also happens through suffering. In Revelation chapter eleven if you wanted to consult my commentary, it says you’re to measure the temple and the altar and the one’s worshiping in it but not to measure the outer court but cast it outside. What in the world is going on there? Well, the long and the short of it is that Temple is God’s presence, the Believers are in that Temple, the measuring has to do with their salvific condition, and they’ll never be removed from God’s presence, but the outer court is the physical side of the Temple. That is where the priests of Israel sacrificed so it becomes very clear in verse one when it says to measure the altar, that’s a specific of chapter 6 and verse 9, where it says beneath the altar I saw the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.
So, one of the ways believers spread the presence of God, yes it’s through their testimony, yes, it’s through the word of God, but one of the main ways that God’s presence is manifested to the world is when the world pressures us to compromise our faith and our testimony - when we’re unwilling to compromise – we remain loyal to God and it brings suffering we are sacrificing ourselves on God’s altar. Unbelievers, at those times, will see that, and that is often what gets their attention and leads them to faith in Christ.
I think that we become the priests, we’re the temple of God’s presence, we’re the sacrifice and that’s because we follow the Lamb wherever He goes. According to Revelation chapter 14, He’s the temple, He’s the Priest, and He’s the Sacrifice. Of course, our sacrifice is not like His in terms of being vicarious and substitutionary, but ours is a witness and it pleases God to manifest His presence through suffering. As Paul says, in 2 Cornthians and elsewhere, “My power is manifested in your weakness” and I think that can be applied to the Temple.
So, I think that these are very practical things. Whether it’s a peer group that’s pressuring you to conform or whether it’s a boss who’s asking you to be unethical, or if it’s a Government to stop believing in Jesus, when we refuse to compromise and we’re faithful priests in the Temple, then the presence of God spreads and the Temple expands.
Isaiah 57 says the Temple is a place of prayer, and we are a people of prayer. We ought to be a people much more in prayer. We’re priests who teach, although we know that the epistles that there elders and deacons who have the gift of teaching, but to everyone there is an expectation that we should know the scriptures and should be able to pass along that knowledge, even if they don’t have the gift of teaching.
So, generally, priests are mediators between God and the unbelieving world. Those are some reflections. Adam and Eve would have increased God’s presence among them by remembering God’s word and obeying it and they didn’t do that.
Keith: One thing I find fascinating in doing this kind of study, especially as you’ve just outlined it, is the idea of Temple, Priest and Sacrifice. We start with Jesus who equates His body with the Temple, He was, Himself the sacrifice, the Lamb of God, and we know from Hebrews that He performed the function of the High Priest. Then we see where every believer is now, in Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit, a member of the priesthood of the believer, and the living, daily sacrifice.
Certainly, for myself, once I went through the Scriptures and understood these things completely, it revolutionized my personal faith. It seems to be something the Apostles and the early Christians fully understood. I think, especially, being Jews they understood how these concepts of Priest and Temple and Sacrifice were fulfilled in Christ, and then they continue on to explain how we are now also the Temple of God, and the living sacrifice, and the priests of God.
I guess what fascinates me is that these concepts are taught separately in the Church today but not connected in this way, at least not with any actual expectation that we are going to, as followers of Jesus, fully embrace our identity as Temple, Priest and Sacrifice.
If I look at Church today, in practice, I think these ideas almost appear to be radical and controversial. If I were to stand up today in a pulpit and preach and teach these things on Sunday morning I suspect that the majority of people would say, “Wow, I never understood this before.”
How do react to that? How did we end up with a faith where these ideas are so foreign?
Dr. Beale: Some thoughts that come to my mind are that, there is very little emphasis on expository preaching in churches today. When one faithfully preaches through the Old and the New Testaments one will come across the ideas.
In the New Testament, for example, if one has eyes to see and ears to hear, the idea of inaugurated eschatology is all over the place, including of course, the Temple. What you said about the Temple is no less true than other things. If you said that we’re experiencing the Great Tribulation now many people would begin to throw tomatoes at you. But 1 John 2:18 says, “Children this is the last hour. You’ve heard it said that anti-Christ is coming. I tell you, many anti-Christ’s have already come and from this we know that it’s the last hour.”
We’re at the last hour! Why? Because the spirit of the end times anti-Christ was there at the beginning of the Church. This come from Daniel, chapters 8 through 12, and part of what the anti-Christ, the end times opponent, was doing towards the end of Daniel chapter eleven was to deceive the Church. That’s exactly what’s going on today. The anti-Christ, though not physically present, is sending his emissaries to deceive so the end has begun. The final tribulation isn’t universal yet but it has begun, it is occurring in selected areas, has done so since the time of the beginning of the Church and at the end of time it will be universal so it certainly will increase.
Most people wouldn’t say we’re in the latter days today, although they may admit we’re on the verge of it. I think a lot of this has to do with a larger notion of eschatology and what it really is. Is it only about the future? Many in the conservative church would say so. Others look at it as something that has already begun and will continue into the future.
The conservative scholars, people who teach in seminaries and colleges, are more aware of this but this has not filtered out much in the congregations or among pastors.
Keith: Why do you think that is? Is it because once a seminary graduate becomes a teaching pastor he sort feels gun shy about teaching something that may be seen as unconventional?
Dr. Beale: While there are a number of conservative scholars who are aware of these things I don’t think it’s paramount in their teaching, even in seminary. So, I don’t think it’s something on the top of their students minds when they go out into the ministry.
For myself, in about a year I’ll finish a book that’s called “Transformation of the Old Testament and the New” which is a Biblical theology of the New Testament arguing that the way to understand it is that the latter days have begun and the march towards New Creation, specifically, has begun, and the major notions of justification or reconciliation or doctrine of the Spirit, are to be understood as facets of these things.
For example, Paul will talk about how he’s been crucified with Christ and how it is not he that lives but Christ who lives in him. The notion of living, when most people read that, they assume that he’s only talking about the Christian life. And yeah, that’s true, but it’s resurrection life. It’s the life of eschatological resurrection and that makes a big difference. The reason it does is because Paul starts giving commands that the Christian should start living differently from the world. Why? Because they are able to.
Keith: Right.
Dr. Beale: Put philosophically, for the Christian, essence precedes existence. Who you are determines what you do.
Keith: Amen.
Dr. Beale: Where many unbelievers would say, “No existence precedes essence; what you do in life determines who you are.” Which sounds kind of moral, sounds kind of good, but it’s not the Biblical view.
Keith: Absolutely. I think it’s easy to get confused by the “Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” question. When you get into the discussion of doing good works and serving others this always comes up. My wife Wendy and I do a little work with the poor here in the community, and with our church family. We often hear people question whether we’re trying to earn our salvation or wonder out loud if we’re unsure of our salvation and we’re trying earn God’s favor, or what have you. But, what I find fascinating is that if we go to Ephesians where Paul tells us that we’re saved by grace he continues on to add, “to do good works which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So, I always use the phrase “Swimming will never make you a fish, but if you’re a fish you will swim” to explain this apparent dichotomy.
Dr. Beale: Beautiful. I like that.
Keith: We don’t do good works to be saved, but if we’ve become new creatures in Christ, by Grace, then we will do the things that new, transformed creatures do and that, Biblically, involves doing good works.
Dr. Beale: If you don’t swim then you might ask, “Am I really a fish?”
Keith: Yeah, exactly. This is what fish do, so why are you not acting like one?
Dr. Beale: Or at the very least, maybe you are a fish but you haven’t started swimming just yet. Eventually, if you are new creation it will show itself.
Keith: I don’t want to get you into too much trouble here but I know my next question is a little controversial so I’m just going to ask it and you can respond as you wish, ok? I mean, I’m not trying to lay landmines for you so whatever feel comfortable discussing is ok with me.
Dr. Beale: Well, I’ll be quite frank that the teaching on the Temple that I’ve laid out doesn’t have to affect a particular model of the Church. Having said that, I do think that there’s a model for the Church laid out in the pastoral epistles in terms of eldership, deacons, and the sacraments in Corinthians and elsewhere the marks of a church are spelled out to include church discipline.
I also believe that first and second Timothy say that the teaching and preaching of the Word, and of course believers gathering together, are to be expected. I do think that leadership structures have been laid out from the pastoral epistles, for myself. I think there are to be elders and deacons. In terms of tithing I don’t think that the Temple notion determines that issue but other considerations apply. I wouldn’t say that the “tenth”, which is what “Tithe” means in Hebrew, has to be given. It can be, and it could be a good rule, but that aside we know that there should be giving and it should be from the heart. That’s the bottom line.
In terms of a building, again, you can have a house church or you can have a building or whatever the Lord leads one to do. The same with the building fund and a paid clergy. Paul says Elders (1 Timothy 5) are worthy of double honor and that meant money because they worked so hard at teaching and preaching that they needed to be supported. So, I do think that there’s a basis for this in 1 Corinthians 9 where he says, “do not muzzle the ox while he’s threshing”.
So, those may just be my reflections. I don’t see them as flowing out of the Temple notion, though I’m always open. I certainly don’t have the last word on the Temple, or any of these things. So, those would be my reflections on those questions.
Keith: I really do appreciate your perspective Dr. Beale. This is something that I am studying as well and trying to understand as well from scripture as well.
Dr. Beale: I think that’s an important consideration as well. What is it that scripture lays out? Then, what kind of liberty do we have that is extra-biblical but not anti-biblical? Theological seminaries are not biblical in the sense that we’re commanded to have them. But I don’t see them to be unbiblical. Having said that, I really see that what seminaries do, ideally, ought to be in the context of the local church or group of churches united together – which is what some are, they’re denominational seminaries.
Keith: One of the things that I really personally struggle with is the idea of taking a salary as a pastor. When we felt called initially to plant a church where 100% of the offering could be given to the poor in the community, I made a conscious decision to redefine what “being in the ministry” meant. Today, even though I’m working a regular, tent-making job, I still do just as much ministry as I did before, when I was a paid on-staff pastor. It’s just that I don’t receive a salary or an income from loving and serving my brothers and sisters in the Body. I provide for my family by working as a writer in a marketing department during the week, and that is also my ministry. It’s my mission field.
The scriptures I looked at were some of the same ones you’ve already mentioned but also where Paul argues pretty strongly that “those who preach the Gospel should make their living from the Gospel.” He affirms that. He totally does mean that and he actually says that Jesus has commanded this, but then he follows it with saying that he would personally rather work with his hands and not be a burden to the local church. He admits that he has in the past received compensation for his service but feels that he was robbing God, or the church, by doing so. So, he paints a picture that there is liberty for both.
Dr. Beale: I would say that what he does say in 1 Timothy 5 there probably is the norm however. Not only should there be elders, but those who particularly work hard at preaching and teaching should be compensated, I believe. Of course there could be someone who is wealthy and doesn’t need the money, or someone like yourself who has opted not to take a salary, so there are those exceptions. I do think that those would be exceptions because there are some who put so much into the teaching and the work of pastoring that that’s all they do.
Keith: I mean, sincerely, to ask your opinion on this because I’m curious to know, and I'm sure you have studied this much more than I have scratched the surface on, but do you believe it was the norm during the first century church, under the Apostles that elders were supported financially? I’ve tended to think of support as being what was provided to travelling missionaries who were going to plant churches and preach the Gospel to the surrounding villages, maybe there were taking their wives along as Paul mentions. I’ve always thought of “support” as being a place to stay, or food and water for the journey to the next village or maybe a small offering to help them get to where they were going next, but not so much we’re going to take care of you for the rest of your life. More like, when you come to our town you can stay with me, eat at my table, you can sleep here, not so much like, “Here’s your monthly check.”
Dr. Beale: Well, for myself I would see it as both. I don’t think Acts is really speaking to this issue the way that Paul does. In terms of Elders in 1 Timothy 5, but it’s clear in that passage when it says they are “worthy of double honor” it’s not just respect but it’s actually financial support. Yeah, what you’re saying is definitely included but I wouldn’t say that that’s all there is.
Keith: The other thing I was going to ask you is something I will admit I’m biased about since I lead a house church. But, for most of my spiritual life, even as a pastor on staff at a traditional church, the ideas of the priesthood of the believer were largely unknown to me. We’d say, “you’re the Temple of the Holy Spirit” but I still go to that building over there and that’s really my Church. Instead of thinking of it more as something I embody and that we together are the Body of Christ. So, sometimes, in my experience anyway, these are ideas that I didn’t seriously consider until I stepped away from a traditional model. After that I began to really see these things differently and began to experience these things in a more tangible way. While I was involved in a traditional church, however, “Temple” was the building we were meeting in, the “Priesthood” was about the pastor we elected and so on. And I’m not trying to say that these things are wrong, but sometimes these physical elements end up distracting us from the reality.
Dr. Beale: Well, I suppose they could. If one viewed the Church as the Temple, that is the physical church, and if one viewed the Pastor as the only Priest then that would be a wrong view. I think that all believers are Priests, but then of course we know that this is fleshed out further that there were some with different gifts. Some were evangelists, some had different gifts. I think if you had a physical structure with really good teaching then, hopefully people really wouldn’t have the wrong idea.
Keith: Can I change the subject a bit and go back to something you alluded to earlier? You were talking about how we, as the new Temple, help the Temple and the Presence of God to spread is through suffering. You suggested that this was one of the ways that we help to spread the Temple presence of God in the Earth today. I agree with you on that but I wanted to ask you to elaborate more about the fact that the Spirit of Anti-Christ is already at work and that, in effect, we are in the End Times now.
So, what I was wondering is, as we see the Church both being persecuted and, at the same time, growing stronger under that persecution, in places like Korea and China and Africa and the Middle East, in fact, pretty much anywhere you see persecution really. It’s as if our suffering for the Gospel, as we encounter that Spirit of Anti-Christ, which again creates the suffering, it’s as if the Tribulation has never really left the Church. It maybe something that we, in America, don’t realize because we are not suffering for our faith and I tend to think that when we say “The Church” as Americans we really mean, “The American Church.”
Dr.Beale: You have to remember that if you read Daniel 7 through 12 for example that suffering and persecution is only one facet of the Tribulation. The second major facet is deception.
Keith: Wow.
Dr. Beale: (Laughs) Most of Paul’s letters were written because of deception with the Church.
Keith: True. We wouldn’t really have most of the New Testament if it weren’t for Paul’s letters to correct deception and immorality in the Body at that time.
Dr. Beale: So deception, combined with overt suffering and persecution is a very powerful example of how the Tribulation started in the First Century and continues today.
I mean, you do have sectors of the Church where there is deception, and others where there is suffering, but at the very end it will be universal deception and suffering.
Keith: Well, we’ve been going almost an hour here now so if you need to go I understand.
Dr. Beale: Yes, actually we’re installing a new pastor today and I didn’t realize that it was today. I was hoping to be able to make the very end of that.
Keith: Certainly. I understand. I really do appreciate your time and sitting and talking with me about these issues.
Dr. Beale: Well, I enjoyed taking about them. That’s what I do! (Laughs) It’s what you do too.
Keith: Yes sir. Thank you so much, Mr. Beale.
Dr. Beale: You wanted to talk about this issue on Shadows and Types?
Keith: I would love to if you have the time.
Dr. Beale: I’ll give you some quick reflections on that. A lot of allegory has happened, a lot of misuse of types has occurred and I would just say that there are four or five ways to put controls on that so it’s not unbridled.
One is in the Gospels wherever you find the fulfillment formula and it’s attached to an event in the Old Testament then you’ve got a classic type. Like in Matthew chapter 2 where it says, “Out of Egypt I have called my son” and it reflects back on Hosea chapter 11 and that’s just a reflection back on the event of the Exodus. That’s a very difficult passage but I think the notion of typology is that earlier events from the Old Testament prefigure and foreshadow events in the new. So they’re not prophecy by words but prophecy by events and patterns.
When you find a fulfillment formula, or language like that such as, “It was necessary for this to happen so that the scriptures might be fulfilled” or “the promises came” as in 2 Corinthians chapter 1. When you find that kind of language, as in 2 Corinthians 7, chapter one, “therefore having these promises…” those are all indications of that prophecy has been fulfilled. And when just events are quoted and not overt prophecies that’s typology as in the case of “Out of Egypt have I called my son”.
So, sometimes you can discern from the Old Testament that those events were seen as prefiguring events, even from the author’s vantage point.
Secondly, another way to discern types is repeated patterns like when you’ve got Adam in the Garden disobeying and then you have the same imagery of Adam applied to Noah. Then you have some of the same imagery applied to Israel. What you have there is a recapitulated pattern and when you find those patterns and then see them again in the New Testament those may be candidates for typologies.
Thirdly, in Old Testament narratives like the Book of Judges, when you have the narration of speedy rises and falls of leaders like the Judges, or in Isaiah chapter 22 where you have the same. This is where God’s commission is not fulfilled and cries out for fulfillment. When these are not fulfilled there’s a lack and yet alongside this there’s various points in the history of Israel where we’re told that one is to come, as in Isaiah chapter 9, who is going to fulfill these things. So, when you put those together – the speedy rises and falls of leaders, and the very lack of fulfillment suggests that this needs to be filled in and there’s going to be one to fulfill these things eventually. You have these characters who negatively point forward –these prophets and priests and kings.
A fourth criterion would be, when you have a clear reference to a type like the first Adam is a type of the last (Romans 5:14). When you go back in the Old Testament and see characters who are patterned after Adam, very clearly, those probably also are good candidates for types of Christ’s. Even negatively. I mean, Adam himself was a negative type.
For example, Noah is patterned after Adam and I would say that he is also a negative type of Christ. On the other hand, 1 Peter chapter 3 presents the days of Noah as a type of the days of the coming of the Son of Man and the Apostasy.
So, those are just some reflections on typology if you’re interested. I would encourage you, if you don’t have this book…and it’s not going to put that much money in my pocket, but there’s a book I’ve edited that’s called, “The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts”.
Keith: Wow. Great title.
Dr.Beale: It’s a debate on different views of how the Old Testament used in the New Testament. In the last few chapters I have definitions of typology and examples of it. It’s published by Baker Book house.
If want to really delve in, Don Carson and I edited a book “A Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament” that was a 10 year project that just came out in 2007.
At any rate, if you’re really interested you could delve further.
It’s been a pleasure to chat.
Keith: It’s been a blessing for me as well.
Dr.Beale: Thanks and may God bless you in your ministry.
Keith: God bless you as well.
**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)