6 Panels and 5 Markers for Church Expansion in Acts

Max Strange

9/17/2010

The six panels found within Acts and the five markers help develop Luke’s intention and give us a model for the church’s establishment expansion for today. Below is an annotated list of the six panels “books” within Acts. They are accompanied by five transitional markers that signal a major panel change and Luke’s advancement of the book.

Panel #1: Establishment of the Church in Jerusalem (1:1-6:7)

1. The establishment of the kingdom would not be an Israel-centered endeavor but a local launch from Jerusalem to a global encompassing extension to the ends of the earth (1:8; 2:1-13; 39).

2. The foundational twelve Apostles were solidified as the witnesses of Jesus life, death, and resurrection and commissioned to pass the gospel deposit to the churches (1:1-26).

3. The leaders knew well the Word of God (2:14-36; 3:11-26; 4:5-14).

4. The leaders took a unified stance on the truth…the eleven apostles stood with Peter as he delivered his Pentecost sermon (2:14).

5. The church was devoted to corporate gathering that consisted of apostolic teaching, fellowship, prayers, and meals (2:42-47)
6. When the Word of God increased (spread), God added new believers to the Jerusalem church (2:47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7).
7. The leaders appointed men as deacon-like qualified servants to free the Apostles to continue the preaching ministry and maximize the Word ministry (6:1-7).
8. The unity and sincerity of the church was threatened by the display of religious activity without inner integrity (5:1-11).
9. The early church in Jerusalem was temple centered (2:46; 3:11; 5:12).
10. The leaders of the church were bold witnesses (4:5-31; 5:17:-42)
11. The leader’s witness was centered on the person and work of Jesus (2:22-36; 3:12-26 ; 4:8-12; 5:17-32, 42)
Marker 1: “And the word of God continued to increase, and the number of the disciples multiplied great in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priest became obedient to the faith.” Acts 6:7

II. Panel #2Keys to the Establishment of the Church in Judea and Samaria (6:8-9:31)
1. The leaders/subordinate leaders had a deep knowledge of the Old Testament and understood how to build upon it to explain the gospel (7:1-51; 8:35).
2. The leaders had a Christocentric witness (8:5, 12, 35, 40).
3. God-ordained persecution and suffering due to gospel witness promoted Word expansion by preaching (8:1, 4-5, 12).
4. There was a leadership connection between the Jerusalem church and Samaria (8:14-15).
5. The leaders at Jerusalem (the Apostles) were supportive and sensitive to God’s unfolding plan as they heard the Gospel going out to Gentile lands (8:1-25).
6. The leaders exercised their authority to protect the church from false leadership (8:9-24).
7. Subordinate leadership (Philip), took initiative, yet did not resent or buck their superiors (8:5-25).
8. God directed the movement of His gospel southward towards Ethiopia (8:26).
9. Acts 1:8 continues to unfold.
Marker 2 “So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.” Acts 9:31

Panel #3 Keys to the Establishment of the Church in Antioch (9:32-12:24)
1. The church begins to shed its false view of separatism (10:9-22, 28; 11:1-3, 18-21)
2. God works in people’s hearts prior to salvation (Cornelius-10:1-8, 24-48).
3. God worked through aggressive evangelism by those who had a right view of God’s purposes to draw many Gentiles to Himself (10:34; 11:19-24).
4. The Holy Spirit is poured out upon the Gentiles in Cornelius home (10:45; 11:1, 17-18).
5. Baptism is commanded immediately after salvation (10:46-48).
6. Jerusalem church leaders sent Barnabas to Antioch in response to Hellenist’s Gentile’s responding positively to the Gospel (11:19).
7. God chooses the new Christian capitol called Antioch (11:25-26).
8. The teachers worked hard to preach and teach (11:23-26).
9. Barnabas worked diligently in the basic follow-up of these new Christians at Antioch (11:21-24).
10. Barnabas and Saul met with the whole group and taught them intensively for one year (11:25-26).
11. The Antioch church was involved in inter-dependence with the Judean elders to meet the needs of the Christians (11:29-30).
12. Violent persecution continues (12:2).
13. When the Word increased the kingdom increased (12:24-25).
Marker #3 “But the word of God increased and multiplied.” Acts 12:24.

Panel #4 Keys to the Establishment of the Church in Asia Minor: (12:25-16:5)
1. Under the Spirit’s direction, Antioch commissioned their best men, Barnabas and Saul. They sent their best men by laying their hands on them, an Old Testament sign that meant a transfer of authority (13:1-3).
2. The men who sere sent left a maturing, living local church (13:1-3).
3. Barnabas and Paul were sent to: (13:1-14:28)

     a. Proclaim the gospel

     b. Gather into a local community of believers

     c. Strengthen those who believed

     d. Appoint elders (14:23)

4. After the expansion work, the men went back to home-base Antioch to report and ready themselves to head back to do kingdom work (14:16-28).
5. Early church leaders of apostle and elders guarded the Gospel. Antioch sent representatives (15:2-3) and met at the Jerusalem council to protect sola gratia and sola Christus.
6. The mission team of Paul and Barnabas continued to return to Antioch, give report, and make vital mission decisions within the Christian capitol (15:35-41).
7. Leaders were committed to training faithful men to help and carry on the Apostolic deposit and the work of finding new Christian communities (15:37-39; 16:3; 2 Tim. 2:2).
Marker 4: “So the churches were strengthened in the faith and they increased in numbers daily.” Acts 16:5

Panel #5 Keys to the establishment of the Church in the Aegean Area: (16:6-19:20)
1. Under the Holy Spirit’s direction, Paul worked aggressively in seeking new areas in which to take the gospel (16:6-7; Matt. 28:19-20).
2. Paul had a ministry strategy that was flexible and malleable to the Spirit’s direction and open Gospel portals. I.e. Conversion of Lydia and Philippian jailer (16:6-40).
3. Paul skillfully contextualized the gospel to the worldview of his hearers (17:1-34).
     a. Paul knew the gospel and its connections to the Old Testament.
     b. Paul went where he knew he would gain a hearing and piggy-backed off the existing Jewish synagogue structures (17:2; 19).
     c. Paul boldly explained, reasoned, and proved the Christ from the Old Testament Scriptures with a gospel/kingdom centered message (17:2-4, 17; 19: 8).
     d. Paul reasoned in public venues to gain a hearing (17:17; 19:9).
     e. Paul found common presuppositions with his audience-common starting point (17:22-23).
     f. Paul corrected the worldview of his hearers (17:24-31).
4. God is the author of salvation and opens hearts as He determines (16:14).
5. Gospel work had three responses: some mocked, some wanted to hear more, and some believed (17:32-34).
6. Paul was terrified but trusted God in the midst of it (18:5-9; 2 Cor. 7:5).
7. Paul was occupied with the Word ministry (18:5).
8. Paul was able to do full-time ministry due to the financial giving of believers.
9. Paul established the churches by years of dedicated teaching (18:11; 19:10).
10. Paul and his team were careful to correct any who did not teach the way of God with accuracy (18:24-19:10).

Marker 5: “So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily.” Acts 19:20.

Panel 6: Paul’s Completed work and the Gospel Westward Bound (19:21-28:end)

1. Paul revisited his congregations to further establish them (20:1-12).

2. Paul gave elder qualifications that he himself modeled (20:17-38).

3. Paul spent much of his time developing leadership (20:31).

4. Paul charged the elders to shepherd the flock and rely on God and His Word (20:28, 32).

5. Paul understood the role of authorities (spiritual, governmental, antagonistic) in God’s workings and used them as tools of God (Rom. 13:1-6; 21:17-26; 28:17-22).

6. Paul used the authorities to protect himself (23:16-23; 25:10-11).

7. Paul’s boldness led to his persecution which also led church-wide boldness.

WORD Interpreting Word

Jason Strange
9/18/2010

After our Lord rose from the dead he appeared to his people. Was it mainly to shock and awe them? They needed it. Was it primarily so that their slumping hearts might be lifted up and filled with inexpressible joy, they needed that too? Was it so that his apostles might be filled with hope, strengthened with courage, commissioned and sent out? That was part of the agenda. I think the main reason was so that he could hold a 40-day crash-course in Hermeneutics. He wanted to show his people not only his resurrected body as physical, tangible, demonstrative evidence; but he wanted to confirm to his people that the Old Testament was Christocentric, it was all about Him!

Jesus here unpacks the OT and shows how all of Redemptive history has culminated to this point and that Jewish history has just climaxed with the coming of their Messiah, his death, and subsequent resurrection. Not only has Jewish history reached its peak, but all of human history has now just been significantly altered. Jesus knew they needed interpretation, he knew they needed clarification, someone to elucidate Moses, the prophets and the psalms. And by doing this he was showing himself as the author of interpretation; and without a thorough explanation of the OT this new community of believers would still be stuck in a Judaic legalistic moralistic religion, they still would need temple and sacrifice; they would still need ceremonial washings and mediation. They would still be trapped in symbol and shadow.

In Luke 24: 27, “and beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. “ Jesus is demonstrating how we are to view all of scripture and how we are to interpret. We are to interpret with one eye on Jesus and the other eye on the text. Jesus uses himself as the interpretative networking by which the Church is to properly handle our Old Testaments, not as random Sunday school stories focused on us and our circumstances but first and foremost on Christ Jesus and big picture. All the smaller details must be plugged into the big picture lest we lose the Authors intent. We distort the drama of redemption when we forget to plug the small details into the overarching story. Christ transforms the storyline, as he not only is the Author, but the central character of the play. To spiritualize the OT actually puts us at the center of the drama when as Michael Horton has said, “This character must be killed off.”

Jesus-The Ultimate interpreter began with Moses, which means he most likely took them to Genesis and worked through the whole Old Testament illuminating the text and showing that the Gospel message was there all along thus establishing a gospel centered hermeneutic. And now this gospel hermeneutic is the way by which all scripture is to read, in so doing he thus gives us the New Covenant style which flavors our understanding of Old Covenant truths. In essence he was bridging the storyline of Scripture and revealing that there was indeed a causeway of truth that connected the various points of redemptive history. He connected the dots and sketched a picture of himself. This was his ‘arch de triumph’; he arched back into the OT and grabbed it all, gathered it up and presented it as proof that he was who he said he was. This is how Jesus uses himself; WORD interpreting word.

Also in our consideration is Luke 24:44-45. Jesus told them that all things which were written about him in the in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Jesus was the prophetic fulfillment and he stayed back for those 40 days and taught them from the OT showing forth himself. The whole OT is filled with Christological symbols and signs, and Jesus showed them ‘all things’ which were written about him. (We see him as Word, promise, Law, Priest, covenant, Judge, King, Shepherd, song, wisdom, prophet ect…)

Also, in verse 45 it says that he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures. He not only was interpreting for them but he was illuminating their minds. This shows the primacy of Gods hermeneutical method and its result. It also shows God’s sovereignty in our understanding and that it is Jesus who opens up the mind for our comprehension and that there is a reversal of sin darkened minds, blinded eyes, and stopped up ears, pointing to New Covenant promises now being fulfilled.

Six Panels To Acts

By Max Strange 9/14/2010

Many people come to the book of Acts for a variety of reasons. Some do the apologetical or historical approach, others do a biographical sketch, some trace Paul’s journey’s with a Mediterranean map while others like to glimpse the good ole’ days of primitive church life. Moreover, Christians often approach Acts in a “restoration mentality” fearing that we have strayed too far into worldly ideologies, Westernization, pragmatic thinking, and/or Romish error. Unfortunately, Acts' readers have been importing much baggage, bias, and presuppositions into Luke's book and it is no wonder why Acts ends up being such a hot and highly debatable book. When the proper rules of interpretation are not first applied, debates on secondary issues commence.  Then our interpretation becomes forced by the grid we created thus making Acts into a newly transformed and hybrid proof-text toward my theological bent. No longer will it be called the Acts of the Apostles but the acts of my prejudice and the act of my new authorship. When Luke’s intent is not present, it is easy to see why water-cooler exegesis of Acts gravitate around such things as church functions and forms, water baptism and second baptism of the Holy Spirit, to tongue or not to tongue (that is the question?), the Lord’s Supper weekly or daily, etc. The A/author’s intent for the book can be more easily found when we look for the author’s intention and not our intention. Starting with an eye on Luke's structure, we begin to seek not our own intent/interests but Luke’s. His purpose (which is God's overall Christological purpose) in selecting and shaping the material, the normative patterns for the church come into focus.

Luke gives us his structure throughout Acts. These natural divisions point to Luke’s overarching theme. We see six panels in the book: (1:1-6:7; 6:8-9:31; 9:32-12:24; 12:25-16:5; 16:6-19:20; 19:21-28:30). These sections give the narrative a sense of forward movement that thrust us from Jew to Gentile lands, from Peter to Paul, from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth, as promised in Acts 1:8. Luke’s interest in this movement, orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, reveals small Judiastic beginnings that turn into a global-wide, Gentile-predominant phenomenon (92). These panels yield the meaning that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an unstoppable force. Powered by promise and Spirit, the triumphant expansion of the church and God’s intention for the church moves into sharp resolution. It is important as these panels surface, that we follow some key thoughts to control misuse of the text.

In reading Acts, always look for normative patterns that are elsewhere echoed in Scripture. A teaching can become a primary principle only if a pattern does exist and the rule of faith, using Scripture to interpret itself, is employed. Secondary principles, which ought not be held with a death grip, will be implicit statements that provide integrity to explicit statements. Therefore, it is crucial to not make secondary principles primary (normative for the Church). At the same time, we ought not forget that God communicates by explicit narrative in one place only to draw from typological implications elsewhere. The explicit narrative that has Moses striking the rock in the wilderness (Ex. 17:6) is used by the New Testament authors to imply through typology that it was Christ who was struck to provide living water (1 Cor.10:3; John 4:10; 7:38). So we are also cautious not to rule out typological implications as normative for the church.

Furthermore, when using history to back up a position, it must clearly be related to Luke’s intent. Do not make what was historically normal (or was normally done in church history) a binding principle for all Christians. Scripture must be explicit and implications must be clear in order to be binding.

In closing, Acts should be read with Luke’s interests in mind. His intention is indicated by the six panels found across the landscape of Acts which give the narrative a forward thrust. He shows us that God’s relentless Gospel expansion will push outward from Jewish to Gentile lands, from Peter to Paul, from Jerusalem to Rome, as promised. Once this intent is in our purview, normative principles and patterns in Acts, that are also echoed elsewhere and in harmony with Scripture, come to the fore. We hold on to explicit patterns, historic precedent, and typological implications that are primarily related to Luke’s intent. Conversely, we hold loosely those incidentals that are not related to Luke’s intent.

The Interpreter Has Arrived!

By Jason Strange
6/15/2010

Jeremiah says, "Israel broke the covenant." God was their husband as he betrothed them to himself, but his bride was unfaithful and went whoring after other lovers, thus committing spiritual idolatry. This was all due to the hermeneutical failure of their first parents that had wide sweeping effects. Goldsworthy has said, "ever since the disastrous upheaval of sinful man there is now a hermetic of suspicion which now characterizes rebellious humanity."

And as a result of Israel's hermeneutical suspicion and confusion they were characterized as having ears, but not hearing, eyes- but not seeing; spiritually deaf, blind, and dumb as they did not understand or discern the will God (Is. 6:9-10). They had become like the idols they worshipped. Most of these people though possessing the promises and covenants walked in darkness; the law of God was only external, written only on stone and not on their hearts. Isaiah again says, "the ox and ass knew their master, but Israel did not understand (Is. 1:3)." Even dumb farm animals know their owners, but Israel was worse off and had less sense then the ass and the ox not recognizing their Master.

When the times had reached there fulfillment God in his sovereign grace sent the Interpreter, his Son. This is why the New Covenant is a fundamental consideration to Hermeneutics because when Christ came Hermeneutics changed. (now that Messiah has come we can do Biblical theology-he gives color to the shadows, and they begin to dance in three dimensions; he takes that Messianic consciousness and gives it flesh and bone, he says I am the One who was streaming through the minds of the prophets, and the priest, and the kings). The Interpreter has arrived and as such he interprets the New and unpacks the old pealing back the layers of Old Testament history and in essence says, 'look at me! see me there, see me here'; I am God I fill the Heavens and I fill every word found in Scripture and I am its focal point .

Isaiah says now within the land of deep darkness a great light has shined. The light of the world comes and shines forth the hermeneutical beacon. Jesus says' "He who follows me will never walk in darkness." There is a darkness to hermeneutics when it is separated from Christ. There is dark exegesis, dark systematics, and dark dogmatics without Christ Jesus as the hermeneutical principle and the exegetical interpreter. The New Covenant is such that when one partakes of New Covenant realities he is moved up out of a deceased Hermeneutic and is transferred into a new realm of Hermeneutical clarity. Paul said this to the Corinthians that the 'Jews had a veil covering their hearts, but when one comes to Jesus the veil is removed (2 Cor 3).'

The Christ event inaugurates the New Covenant. It is new in the sense that it is distinct, unique, one of a kind, not a spin-off of the old, but has characteristics that set it apart as exclusively special. Israel is promised that she will be given a new heart and a new spirit; new faculties to internalize God's law which will be written on the heart. These partakers in the New Covenant will all know God; they will have an awareness of who he is. And now God vindicating his holiness through Christ death and resurrection sprinkles clean water on us giving us a cleansed conscience, removes the heart of stone, removing sin and iniquity forever. Only through Jesus could all the conditions be met and the full realization of Hermeneutic ability comes to its beach-head on Pentecost where they receive the Spirit of Christ, who now indwells his people 'leading them into all truth', guaranteeing an accurate Hermeneutical outcome for all time. He promised that he is with us till the end, and so the Church is assured that Christ will continue to illuminate his Word until He illuminates the world upon his return.

The Author's Communication: Interpreting Textual Particulars

By John Ambro
6/4/2010

Communication is a funny thing. If we don't pay attention to the particulars within the context of the whole message we miss out on the true and intended meaning of the message, and we misinterpret it to mean something completely different than the original communicator intended. We have all done this to one extent or another. A prime example of this is communication between a father and son. The son is sitting in the living room playing a video game and his father is in the kitchen. The father calls to his son to “Will you take the garbage out.” The son replies “yes” but continues to sit there. That is because he understood the particulars apart from the context. He failed to realize that his father was standing there holding a disgusting, smelly, bag of trash and wanted it taken out right then and there.

We must be very diligent that we do not do the same thing with Scripture. Taking particular verses and interpreting them apart from the full context in which we find them. Isolating particulars outside from their context leads to all sorts of issues and errors. The first issue that arrises is that when one removes the particular (i.e. an individual verse) from its surrounding context, it makes the original author mute. It places a gag order on the author and states, “what you have said has no bearing on what I read from the text”. The second thing that it does is that it not only makes the author mute but it replaces the author with the reader as the interpretive authority of the isolated particulars, and makes the reader/hearer the author.

These two things lead to all types of wacked out doctrines, heresies, and outright evil lies. No where else is this most prevalent than in the Prosperity / Health and Wealth movement. Everyday thousands of “christians” are drawn away from the true gospel of Christ, yet come running to embrace the deaf, mute, and dumb idols of “self-christianity”. Pulling scripture out from here and there, like pithy little “christian fortune cookies” focussing all on self and failing to stop and see (and read) that it is little about us and all about Christ.

But is it not just the crack pots of Christianity that this happens to. Strong Evangelical pastors and leaders, that take scripture out of context (possibly unknowingly) to fit a schema or agenda. One very respected pastor (whose name I will not mention) has isolated verses out of their surrounding context to prove a point that he wishes to drive home, unfortunately instead of knocking a home run he hits scripture out foul and knocks people out with improper isolation of texts that give others leeway to do the same. We also see the effects of isolating particulars in many Evangelical churches with their dogmatic rules and doctrine that they hold on to. This error is however in the reverse, they pull verses out of the historical, non-normative context and apply it to the 21 century church body to the detriment of the body by hindering the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the believers. For example a church that I know of has no musical instruments, and no one sings on stage (but only in the congregation) because, that is how they did it in the early church, yet they have no issues using mics for the pastor, video displays, or recording the sermons.

The error of interpreting textual particulars outside of their context can affect anyone, no one is immune to falling into this trap. So the way to stay out of this trap is to keep verses in their context of the original paragraph, chapter, book, and the whole cannon of scripture. Only then will our interpretation of scripture fall in line and under the authority of scripture itself.

The New Covenant as a Fundamental Consideration of Hermeneutics

By John Ambro 5/22/2010

“Having eyes do you not see? And having ears do you not hear?” (Mark 8:18) These should be frightening words from Christ. In today's Christendom we have many that fail to see Christ as what He claimed to be, the New Covenant. Christ established a New Covenant among His people (both Jew and Gentile). Not only did the New Covenant bring a completion of the previous covenants but it brought full illumination to shine on the shadows of the Scriptures (the Old Testament). Christ as the New Covenant has Himself established the proper interpretive hermeneutic in which we must use to interpret the whole cannon of Scripture. The New Covenant of Christ reshapes the hermeneutical grid that the Old Testament was interpreted through. Christ and the Apostles used ALL of the scriptures to show the unbelieving and blinded that Christ was there (Luke 24). This is nothing “new” as some would claim, it has been that was from the foundation of the world (Gen 3:15). If Christ and the Apostles reasoned from the Old Testament scriptures that Christ was the Messiah and the fulfillment of the covenants, then shouldn't we do the same?

There are those that do not (or do not want to) see Christ in the Old Testament, and in doing so do themselves a disservice and also a discredit to Christ. Sure they will say that there are “prophetic illusions” to Christ in the Old Testament, as in Is. 53, Ps.110, Is. 11, etc... but they stop there. They don't see Christ within the whole of the Old Testament, but they rather see Israel as the main theme throughout it all. But Christ is not the “team's” water boy, going here and there where we see short little glimpses of Him doing some remedial task while waiting for the incarnation. No, we see Him as the Quarterback, the one calling the plays, organizing the players to reach the final goal of redemption for all of those in the stands, for the cheerers and the jeerers. We see throughout the whole of scripture archetypes of Christ. From Adam, to Noah, to Moses, Joseph, David, etc... all dimly lit signposts showing the redemptive path that points to Christ. Using an Israel-centric hermeneutic in order to interpret the Old Testament leaves one wanting more, as someone panting for water as they wander through the desert. When an Israel-centric hermeneutic is used, the foundational “theme” of the OT becomes Israel and not the redemptive plan of God. It removes God from the focus placing Him on a dusty shelf to be brought out when it is suits our needs. Israel is not the unifying theme of the scriptures, the unifying theme that runs through the whole cannon of scripture is redemption for those that God has called, in the Christ.

In order for one to bring God back to the focus one must see the redemptive foundation that is throughout the Old and New Testaments. The whole redemptive plan for God's people is worked out and completed through and in Christ in the Old and New (Heb. 11:24-29). One only has to look into the first chapter of Genesis to realize that Christ is and the active participant in the redemptive story. We see Christ at creation, Gen.1:26 and John 1:1ff., and more importantly we see Christ in Genesis 3:15 which is the first covenant that God makes to man and it involves Christ, the skull crusher, the serpent destroyer, as a promise to redeem His people. It involves the redemptive plan of God to bring His Messiah to the pivot point of human history. “The meaning of truth and reality is thus asserted to reside in the Christ.” (GSH, pg. 81) Not only is Christ a participant of the redemptive story He is the culmination of the redemptive story, the fulfiller of the story, and ultimately He is the Author of it all.

New Covenant Implications on Hermeneutics

By Max Strange 5/25/2010

Adam and Eve ushered into this beautiful world a hermeneutical disaster. They brought into God’s universe an alternate way to interpret God’s Word and all of reality. They exchanged God’s interpretation for one that is rooted in autonomous human reason. This created an upheaval that made man the center of all knowledge and understanding. And as the ages pass, this new and deadly hermeneutic cause’s mankind to drift further and further into the lonely ocean of his own alienation and suspicion of God. Yet, God in His great mercy and kindness, before all the ages, had a plan. He has orchestrated a program to reinstate His interpretation of Himself and of His Universe by Himself and eject man from his own hermeneutical center. Jesus, the Word of God, brings home the new hermeneutic in the Gospel. The catastrophe in Eden is now overturned by a hermeneutical salvation. For those who believe on Jesus Christ, a true and right understanding of God and all things begins afresh. We can see that the New Covenant promised this in the Old Testament and now with the arrival of Jesus, the New Testaments declares that the New Covenant finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Thus, each Testament is actually a uniform and seamless Testament about the Christ and His New Covenant reversal of the hermeneutical revolt so long ago.

The New Covenant in a Nutshell & Its Implications on Hermeneutics

The New Covenant is a promise of restoration. After the Fall, God promised in Genesis 3:15, despite everything that had transpired that plummited the universe into a black pit of sin, a light would shine. This foreshadow announced the first clue of many to a New Covenant, even before the Old Covenant was broadcasted! As Biblical history progresses throughout its redemptive storyline, there is a Messianic consciousness. This Messiah anticipation grows throughout Israel’s history as one who will bring about a great day of salvation and overturn the spiritual deadness and remove the veil that cloaked their understanding of God. The Messianic shadow materializes in the New Testament as the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus fulfills the New Covenant and began the process of a hermeneutical renewal to the cosmos, which will find its completion at the last and great eschatological Day. He came to inaugurate the New Covenant by offering Himself as a sacrifice for sins, once for all, and absorb the wrath of God and all the damning effects of unregeneration. Jesus stood in the place of sinners and gives His righteousness to the believing sinner by grace and thus reversing the effects of the primeval rebellion of our first parents. No longer would there be a great clash of authority between creature and Creator. No longer would God’s people be a discern less, dull-eared, blind-eyed, more dumb than the ox and ass who knows not his master (Is. 1:3; 6:9-10; 44:18). The New Covenant declares that God has overturned the dreaded effects of sin by His Son Jesus. Jesus accomplished what the New Covenant promises and abundantly pardon, unstop deaf ears, open blind eyes, guarantee obedience, deposits the Spirit of God, and bring a genuine and everlasting understanding of God (Is. 35:4-5; Jer. 31:31-3; Ez. 36:26-27). The New Covenant is the grand unilateral move of God to lovingly act upon chosen sinners and bring the new creation within the human heart and eventually into an all encompassing scope of cosmic liberation (Is. 55:6-9; Rom. 8; 1 Cor. 15; Ez. 36-37). By a rational act of repentance and faith initiated grace by God’s grace, a restored knowledge of God would result(Jer. 31:31-34). All the defects of the fall and the unregenerate heart and mind are transformed to see and hear and love the Lover.

The New Covenant impacts hermeneutics because Jesus has made it certain that in relationship with Him by salvation through grace, the dead, blind, veiled, and calloused soul, is made alive. Thus, the sinner becomes able and free from His bondage to divine illumination and becomes illuminated. New ears and eyes, new desires, grace enabled action cause the believer to do God’s will and for the first time cause God to smile upon him. Jesus gives us His Spirit as the hermeneutical key to the Scriptures, which breaks wide-open new horizons of understanding, thought, and comprehension of God and of all reality. Saved sinners begin the journey of a continual awakening to spiritual realities of the glory of God. The New Covenant allows us, even with a greater intimacy than Adam, to walk with God not only in the cool of the day, but in every second of life.

Scriptures
(1) John 5:39, 46; Luke 24:27; 44-45; Isaiah 1:3; 6:9-10; 9:27; 35:4-5; 44:18; 55:6-9; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36-37

Hermeneutics: Parts To The Whole Machine

By Max Strange
6/4/2010

What are KO E36 OBD1 and VPO E36? They are parts to the same car. The first is a manifold kit that improves speed and air flow and the second is an under-drive pulley that adds 5-11 extra horsepower to BMW 3M series. Vital to the overall car’s performance are the parts. We see that parts work together for the good of the machine. Likewise, the Bible is made up of parts that fit together to make the whole work. We see this clearly in Biblical interpretation as the interpreter looks at words and how words fit the whole redemptive storyline. Engaged in word analysis, the interpreter seeks to understand what the original A/author’s intended by the terms he used. The terms must also be understood in view of the whole of Scripture, and in this way creating a comprehensive Biblical theology employed by a whole-canon-exegesis. In this way, the Scriptures maintain itself and God’s Word continues to be its own innate interpreter. Therefore, discovering a terms’ meaning and context, and being alert to some pitfalls of word analysis, seems the best starting point for exegetical discovery and maintains the integrity of God’s Word.

Words consist of s-y-m-b-o-l-s that when placed together have an assigned meaning to them. The meaning comes from the context. Sometimes words have a range of meaning but the goal of the interpreter is to understand the meaning in which the author used them and in the context in which he spoke. The interpreter knows that words have different meanings. Some meanings are implicit, some emotional in their force (ex. “ouch!”), some words reveal new meaning and significance (interpreting the O.T. in light of the N.T.), some words have a wide range of meaning, while other words are figurative. Analyzing the meaning of the word and the way the author used the word in it’s context is a good start to understanding a term.

It is helpful to study words that are repeated, used once (hapax legomena), used rarely, unclear, apparent synonyms/autonyms, or terms that carry the weight of a passage (structure of a text). Knowing this will help determine which words to zoom in. Yet, there are some pitfalls to watch out for as one seeks to dissect and know a term.

The following are common errors in word analysis:

1. The Etymological Fallacy: This is also know as "root fallacy" and assumes that the meaning of a word is governed by the of its root.

2. Illegitimate Totality Transfer: This assumes that a word carries all of its senses in one passage. It could be called meaning overload. The meaning of the term here is often imported from other contexts.

3. Semantic Anachronism: This error happens when a later meaning of a word is read back into an earlier term. This problem occurs, for example, when later Greek materials are used to support a first-century term that lacks clarity.

4. Semantic Obsolescence: This happens when one assigns to a term an early meaning that is no longer used. This occurs when terms no longer carry the meaning they once had as in the case with the KJV 1611 version.

5. Word-Idea Fallacy: This assumes that the word under study is the study of a whole idea. When one studies the word "King" they can also study other relevant terms such as "rule," or "reign."

6. Referential Fallacy: This error happens when one goes beyond the meaning/s that the author is referring to. This is when the author refers back to an earlier Old Testament text and interprets his situation in light of that O.T. reference.

7. Verbal Parallelomania: This refers to the practice of some who notice the same term (word) in several different context and automatically assumes that they are parallel concepts. Philo's use of the term logos does not mean the same thing as the Apostle John meant for that same term.

8. Prescriptive Fallacy: This argues that a word has only one meaning and it means the same thing in every passage.

9. Selective Evidence Fallacy: This is the most serious error wherein one cites only the evidence that favors the interpretation one wants to defend.

Overall, despite the pitfalls and challenges to word study, it is very rewarding to know what words mean. The interpreter ought to know the A/author’s parts for the parts make up the whole and the whole contains the parts. To know the specificity of random BMW car parts help us see the whole machine and appreciate, at first glance, those arbitrary parts in a more profound way. The parts by themselves do little, but as the interpreter moves from parts to whole in a exegetical pendulum/ladder/spiral fashion (from N.T. to O.T. and back again), the importance of parts KO E36 OBD1 and VPO E36 are truly revealed. Especially when all is known, embraced, and the machine is cruising at 120 mph.

How to Find the Author’s Meaning

By Max Strange

4/16/2010

In understanding the text of a book, in this case the Bible, one can use certain procedures to ascertain the Author/author’s intended meaning. These procedures do not negate dependence upon the Holy Spirit for divine illumination. They do, however, aid the Christian to mine God’s word with hermeneutical tools that dig into buried treasure. Here are some tools to think on.

First, the Christian must assume several things before reading the text called pre-understanding (a.k.a. presuppositions). Consciously, the Christian must be aware of his own presuppositions. Identifying and building a set of solid Biblical presuppositions will aid the Christian to determine the author’s meaning. The following are a few vital presuppositions:

• The Bible is truly God’s Word

• God’s Word can be known & Interpreted

• God is communicator

• Man is receiver/interpreter

• Man is fallen

• Man lives within a hermeneutical disaster

• Man needs God’s Spirit to overcome this disaster

• God’s Word is couched in Redemptive History

• Jesus is the main theme of all the Scriptures

• Jesus is bringing about the New Creation

Second, the Christian must take his set of presuppositions and read the text. This is not a profound statement but it is a profound activity. This procedure is technically called recognition. Recognition does not dissect the Word or proceed critically or advance technically upon. The Christian simply goes to the texts to breath in what God has breathed out. C.S. Lewis said that this should be a love activity where “tireless curiosity…intensity of imagination…unspoiled appetite…and readiness to wonder…” are all pulled together to hear God-speech. It is a time to hear from the Timeless. It is the reading of the Word where the Christian doesn’t meet himself, his ideas, or his opinions, but His God. He runs face-first into the Author with a capital ‘A.’ The Christian reader engages in active reading for a time of recognition, observation, for Gospel saturation.

The third step is called comprehension. This is what I call the “What-cha-talk'n About-Willis-Hermeneutic?” This interpretive tool basically asks questions and the most important question is this: what is the Author/author talking about? The active reader, seeking comprehension ought to ask questions. Here, the reader employs the questions of who, what, when, where, and the why. These will help to determine the immediate verse, the surrounding paragraphs, the book as a whole, and how that author elucidates how his message fits the whole of redemption within the entire Canon. This comprehension phase will also determine essential theological themes and finally the Author/author’s main purpose.

Last of all, in order to find the author’s intended meaning, one moves into interpretation. With all the previous data, a crystallized statement will be formed to know with certainty the Author/author’s intent and meaning. Here, the interpretive key is the question, “What is the Author/author talking about” within the immediate and far reaching context. It is here that the questions previously asked are now answered.

These steps are rough guidelines in order to determine the meaning of a text. When a Christian sees his own presuppositions, moves into the text to read and hear from God, seeks to comprehend with the right questions and answer them, he will arrive at a clear and faithful understanding what the Author/author in fact meant to communicate.

A Brief Review of Walter Kaiser’s Four Levels

By Max Strange
4/16/2010

Walter Kaiser submits four levels necessary for one to have knowledge of a Biblical context. These four are:

• Sectional context

• Book context

• Canonical context

• Immediate context

Sectional context tells us that one goal for the reader is to locate sections or slightly exposed seams that aid the reader to see the author’s meaning. These sections can be identified by repeated phrases, key words repeated, conjunctions or adverbs, rhetorical questions, change in time and location, or a shift from one group to another. Book context tells us the plan of the book when one joins these sectional parts together. Sometimes the author tells us the purpose plainly (John 20:31-32; Luke 1:1-4). However, in most books the purpose must be more diligently sought out by pulling the contents and transitions together from section to section and from paragraph to paragraph. Sections, details, themes, and observation are gathered to help determine the Author/author’s implied theme. Canonical context, for Dr. Kaiser, is a side item in which after all the exegetical work is performed, is used to see what God has to say on the topic. This seems to create two interpretations, one for the immediate audience and one in the far-reaching story-line, which dislocates the text under investigation from redemptive history. This also seems to communicate that the task of exegesis discovery cannot include a meta-narrative/Canon/big picture presupposition for fear that this would detract the hunt for the one meaning for the original audience. Dr. Kaiser appears to place the author at odds with the Canon and the immediate audience at odds with God’s meta-narrative or overall scope of the entire Bible storyline. Given the fact the God is the author of all of Scripture, and Genesis 3:15 is moving all of history to it climax, then it would not seem so impossible to do the work of exegesis with an overarching principle in a Christian’s presuppositional framework. Lastly, the Immediate context helps the reader to consider the prose paragraphs and assists him to discover how various sections of a book relate to one another.

Mr. Kaiser is right by stating that the “primary obligation is to find this thread of thought which runs like a life stream through the smaller and larger parts of every passage” (71). Kaiser speaks of this life streams as the thread running through it all, but he cuts this thread into little pieces that start and end with each book in the Bible. This life stream never flows through all of Scripture in a marvelous and historically redemptive way because he builds 66 dams that halt the stream. Kaiser is scared to look down the barrel of the Canon.

It should be said that the unifying theme, this Life Stream that Kaiser so speaks of, is Jesus Christ. Genesis 3:15 is the Stone in the pond that in every direction sends Jesus ripples. Christ goes out in every direction and is either there explicitly or implicitly. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “I’d rather see Jesus where He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is,” which is to say that Spurgeon’s presupposition when approaching a passage was to see Jesus Christ as that Life Stream running through it all. Even though he articulates it, Canonical context is where Dr. Kaiser is most weak and fails to employ his own advice.

Dr. Kaiser gives a good summary to help Christian’s determine context. Yet, he sells short the Canon, this Jesus Life Stream, which runs through the Bible. Perhaps, and no doubt with good intention, Dr. Kaiser reacted too strongly against Liberal theologians, and created a narrow grid to keep out those poisoners. Unfortunately, he cornered himself by only looking for the author’s meaning instead of the Author/author’s meaning. He cannot see the entire Redemptive Life Stream of Christ that harmoniously connects the 66 books of the Bible and opts for solitary and isolated book meanings. When one actually uses the Life Stream in his or her hermeneutic, Scripture interpreting Scripture makes complete sense and rising up over the hill one will finally see the great vista of historic redemption in Jesus Christ.

Edward Scissor-Hands and Bible Abuse

By Max Strange
4/7/2010

Since the beginning of the Church Age, the Word of God has been handled by many people who resemble the fictional character Edward Scissor-Hands. Inside and outside the church, people approach God’s Word with scissor hands and cut it into subjective shreds. Dangerous methods are employed as the reader becomes the new author of the material, inserting his own opinion and interpretation. These "new Bible authors" say what they want it to say instead of allowing the Bible say what it is meant to say. What emerges from many Bible interpretations an imaginary creation imposed on the text of the Bible, a quasi-spiritual meaning fashioned after the reader’s own image. The following examples demonstrate in brief, a few ways the snippers have snipped the Bible into shreds.

People often approach the Bible only from the perspective of their immediate personal circumstances. This means they interpret strictly in terms of the events going on around them. One such instance, a woman told a Christian counselor that God had told her to divorce her husband and marry another man (with whom she was romantically involved). She cited Paul’s command in Ephesians 4:2, “Put on the new man…” as the key to the decision. Yet, this new man is not literally a new “husband.” This new man is the Christian who is no longer the old man but one who has been born from above and commanded to be what one already has become. Another example that makes the point is of a young man who, at the brink of decision, had to determine whether to enlist in the Armed Forces or go to college. Opening his Bible at random, he saw a passage in Ezekiel that spoke of people coming from Tarshish to Tyre in ships (27:25). Based on that, this young man saw this as his call to join the Navy.

Next, we see how some people do not see the cultural distance between us and the original audience. In Leviticus 19:19, God commands His people not to wear garments that are made of two kinds of material. If this is so, we might as well throw out everything in our closets that blend fabrics such as wool, polyester, micro fiber and cotton and go back to the organic fig leaf. It is important to understand the context, the author’s meaning and the intended audience before one goes so far as trashing all his clothes that are made of two fabrics.

Other verses are grossly slashed by proof texting. People use Philippians 4:13, “I can do everything through him who gives me strength” to mean that they can succeed in anything they set out to do. Also, Psalm 127:3-5 speaks of sons as a heritage from the Lord and a man who has many has a full quiver of arrows is surely blessed. This popular passage, used often in weddings, is interpreted by to mean that God is commanding couples to have large families. In 1 Samuel 26:11, Pentecostals often say how one should not question the authority of the pastor or prophet. The text says, “The Lord forbids that I should put out my hand against the Lord's anointed…”

Because of the Fall of Adam, we are all led to do the above examples, and are continuously led away from a Christless interpretation. We are prone to rip verses from their context, perform wild proof-texting, employ Bible roulette, neglect the context, banish the Author/author, and make our personal interpretation reign and rule. We, so often, embody Edward Scissor-Hands as we rip through God’s precious Word with sharp blades of subjectivism and erroneous presuppositions. This is why Christian must depend on God’s Spirit to illuminate the mind of Christ they now possess. Therefore, Christians must have a sound hermeneutic that arises and builds out from God’s own Word. Let us put away our negligent Edward Scissor-Hands-Hermeneutic and have sharp minds that conform to God’s Word (Rom. 12:2).

The Hermeneutical Christ (Senus Christos)

By Jason Strange
4/3/2010

Man's big failure happened when he misinterpreted Gods word. Through the cunning and craftiness of the serpent man has lost his ability to rightly interpret God, God's world, and his relationship to both. Satan had introduced a bold new hermeneutic deconstructing Gods word and then reconstructing it in a way that led Eve to be the first human practioner of eisegesis, thus leading the human race into an epistemological wilderness.

Ever since that dark day we needed someone to step in and interpret Gods will for man. God did not see fit that we should be left in this dismal state without proper interpretation . Israel was chosen out of all the nations to be a mediatorial race, a light to the nations, an epistemological beacon. God sent mediators by way of the prophets, priest, and judges to mediate on behalf of the nation, but they failed as they bought into the Satanic man-centered Hermeneutic of the surrounding nations and they too like their parents were led away to a false interpretation of God's word. The tabernacle and the temple were the meeting grounds for this mediation, but then God's presence departed just before their deportation (Ez. 10).

We see the travesty when Gods interpretation of reality is stiff-armed: Angels rebel, man is ousted from his paradise, Gods presence is removed, Cain kills Abel, wickedness increases in the earth, Gods watery wrath is unleashed on the world, Babel is built, Sodomites are blinded, Lots wife becomes a salty pillar, Sarah laughs, Esau sells his birthright, Jacob walks with a limp, Joseph is sold into slavery, Moses strikes the rock, David commits adultery, Solomon sleeps around. Israel resorts to cannibalism. When man becomes his own interpreter he begins to unravel . Thus God's glory is profaned.

But the time of Reformation had come and the final mediator has arrived. He being the very Word of God, the first communicator before the world began, the one who spoke everything into existence comes to earth and speaks again. He communicates the message as Gods perfect messenger, that he is the focal point of all of Scripture, all of life, and all of history. He perfectly takes the words given to Him by his Father and communicates the gospel message to the world. He comes to fulfill a message already given and gives the proper interpretation of it. He incarnates Gods word, so that he is Word walking, Word talking, Word, receiving, and word responding; He is Word suffering, Word dying, Word resurrecting, Word purchasing, Word conquering, and now Word sending through His Spirit. He is the One who perfectly unveils all of history's meaning as He himself is the originator, and in Him history finds its apex.

This is also the reason way Jesus is the interpretative norm for all of Scripture. Colossians 1:15-16 says that all reality was created by Christ, through Christ, and for Christ and in Colossians 2:2-3 it says that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and understanding. Jesus has created all things for himself and He is the one who ascribes meaning to all that he has made. And being that all treasures of wisdom are found in him he is the only key to unlock those treasures. Man may be able to cut across the grain of certain truths about the universe but he can never tap into the weighty mysteries of the Godhead and the profound nature of Christ and the Gospel. Without Christ as the interpretative norm- the Scriptures become vandalized and the interpretative graffiti of the world is sprayed over the pristine wall of truth. Nevertheless, Christ stands as the epicenter for all interpretation. He makes all Scripture quake with seismic activity. Just as Galileo discovered that the sun is the center of our solar system and made astonishing gains in scientific study and inquiry so too, when we see that every passage orbits around Christ, the Church will realize its blazing center.

And last, I agree that the whole of the Bible is the Gospel. John 20:31; *Heb. 4:1-2,11; Romans 15:4; *John 5:39, *Lk 24:27, *Lk 24:24; *2 Tim. 3:15. The OT was a book of promise and the NT is a book of fulfillment, therefore the Gospel is a uniting of both, and the message of the Gospel is interwoven throughout the whole story line.

'The 3:15 Hermeneutic'

By Jason Strange
4/3/2010

In Genesis 3:15 a curse is given to Satan concerning his demise and this by the one who will crush his serpentine skull. This One who makes all this happen, this 'skull crusher' is Jesus Christ; he comes from the seed of the woman and his offspring are at war with the seed of the serpent. This is the Biblical pattern we see unfolding throughout all of the Bible.

This is what I call the 3:15 Hermeneutic , whereby this becomes the silhouette laid on top of all redemptive History. This is God's meta-narrative, his over-arching map, this becomes the paradigm , the state of things. So that all of history, every person, every decision ever made, God in his providence is working all history's minor and major events to the culmination of this one great ending, this climatic finish. This is astonishing to think about... that all of history has to bend and contort and conform and move as God is making it so, that the revelation of 3:15 can occur. This is the bulldozer pushing throughout history's time line carving out God's plan and shoving the darkness out to its edge and dumping it into hell. 3:15 hums and echoes throughout Scripture and we can begin to see it along the story line, Cain kills Abel (3:15); The flood (3:15); Sodom and Gomorrah (3:15), Israel's deliverance from Egypt (3:15) Salvation through Joseph includes not only rescue from famine, but a change of heart in his brothers (3:15), David-the giant slayer and Israel's military general subduing the nations (3:15), Jonah in Nineveh (3:15); Elijah on Mt. Carmel (3:15) ect...

When we consider how this impacts our Hermeneutics we must realize that there is an overlapping cohesive relationship between history, revelation, and salvation; Reason being: God gives revelation in real time and space. God's word creates the timeline, his word upholds and sustains the timeline and is constantly intersecting the historical timeline; this word is the message of salvation so that they are all moving in tandem with one another. The relationship is such that as we engage in biblical hermeneutics we are engaged in events that have happened in history and this history has one end in mind, one purpose, that Christ be glorified through the salvation of his people. Revelation (God's word) is moving history and redemption is its theme. Just as the sun is dragging our solar system throughout space so too is God's word carving a path and dragging us with it. So when we interpret the Bible we obviously don't disengage in history but history is in our face, we can use grammatical historical means to gain a better understanding of the people and the times, but we can also use a redemptive historical Hermeneutic so that we can see the skull crusher (as he truly is without imposing him upon the text, because he is already there) working along the time line, showing forth the Gospel and rescuing his people from enslavement of sin and death, and bringing them home.

3:15 has been partially fulfilled through Christ death and resurrection (as he has disarmed the enemy), but the complete fulfillment comes when He returns in glory and then a new-age will dawn and the enemy of our souls will be disposed of and detained, and this will usher in a new hermeneutic .

Apostolic Churches and the Apostolic Age

By Ben Zemmer

The current state of the western world bears a striking resemblance to the world at the time of the early church. George Hunter points out that functional pluralism and practical secularism – (the absence of substantial Christian influence) marked the days of Paul in ways very similar to today (Hunter, p.20). Rather than viewing the demise of “Christendom” in despair, Hunter sees the current era as a time of extraordinary opportunity (Hunter, p.22-24). He holds that if the church maintains traditional methodologies and structures, many within its ranks will follow the same fate as socio-political Christendom. To avoid this outcome and grasp the opportunity for growth, Hunter presses the importance of reaching secular un-churched non-Christians (Hunter, p.25). To those that accomplish this task well, Hunter gives the title “Apostolic Churches” because they recognize the importance of their calling and mission just as the Apostles did (Hunter, p.28). Churches that bear this title focus on the “gospel of early apostolic Christianity” and adapt “to the language and culture of the target population” (Hunter, p.28).

Hunter correctly diagnosed one of the significant problems with American Evangelicalism. Whether it is American individualism or the plain tendency of human sinful nature to be self-focused and complacent, there are great numbers of professing believers who “believe evangelism is very important, but...still don’t do it” (Hunter, p.24). Hunter made some insightful prescriptions including a renewed focus on the Scriptures, prayer, compassion, and commission (Hunter, p.29). While a focus on these areas is absolutely necessary, I would only add that such a focus and such a desired change cannot happen without the faithful proclamation of the word. The only thing that will sustain vital and real compassion for the lost is gospel reality worked in the hearts of God’s people by the Holy Spirit. The local body of believers need to see continually how the lines connect between the gospel and its outworking, particularly compassion for the lost that results in sharing the gospel. Hunter’s prescriptions because they are not laden with gospel have a tendency to man-centeredness, rather than Christ-centeredness.

Clearcreek has historically been among the category of churches that does not as a community continually reach out to un-churched un-believers. There are some wonderful individuals within the body who are gifted with evangelism, but this has not been a mark of the body as a whole. However, in recent years, Clearcreek has been growing and it is clear that the body is beginning to cast is eyes outward and gain a passion for the commission from our Great Shepherd. This is not due to any seeker-sensitive methodology, but rather the careful exposition of the Word. Greater growth will come as we corporately step out with confidence on the truths we know by grace.

Lee Stroubel’s Four Populations

By Ben Zemmer

In explaining the different types of numeric growth in American churches, Lee Stroubel charted out four different groups: churched Christians, churched non-Christians, unchruched Christians, and unchurched non-Christians (Hunter, p.26). These categories are helpful in understanding how large congregations can popup in one place or another without a significant number of conversions. However, the third item in the list is problematic, “unchurched Christians”. Within this title is the dangerous presumption that just because someone claims to be a believer but has never been involved in a local church is actually a believer. The Apostle John made it very clear that those who are true believers express love for other believes in the context of community. George Hunter called unchruched Christians, “people who believe but do not belong” (Hunter, p.26). This is a direct contradiction to the biblical theme explained and detailed in several of the epistles regarding the body of Christ. It is not possible for any member of the human body to survive if it is severed from the rest. The same is true for professing believers. No true believer will deny his need for and identity within the body of Christ. Nearly all the imperatives in the New Testament take place in the community of believers. Look for instance, at the repetition of the phrase of “one another” all across the books of the New Testament.

It is indeed helpful to understand where growth in numbers is coming from, but every believer must be wary of selling the gospel short. The vast majority of people who wander about in the western world apart from the local church are demonstrating themselves to be apart from Christ, and they need to hear a loving and clear proclamation of the gospel.

The Antioch Tradition and a Strategy for this Current Age

By Ben Zemmer

Long after Paul and Barnabas are off the scene, there is significant evidence that the missionary outlook of the church in Antioch continued planting churches as far away as North India (Pasquato and Simonetti, p.48). What kind of thinking and structure sustains mission outlook over hundreds of years as it did in Antioch? Admittedly, the early church was not the picture of perfection. As the centuries passed, what was at first only a hint of error became a gaping hole in the ramparts of Christian theology. In spite of the lurking presence of error, it is fascinating to see traces of the passion and gospel witness recorded in the book of Acts in the continued expansion of the gospel over the centuries in the regions surrounding Antioch of Syria. As one scholar said in reference to the mission outlook of Antioch in the first few centuries of the early church, “it was the local Episcopal churches who sustained the mission in the territories of the Empire” (Baus qtd in Pasquato and Simonetti, p.48). It is important to note the continued involvement of local congregations in the spread of the gospel to the far reaches of the Roman Empire.

It may be fascinating to examine ancient architecture and culture and observe the annals of kings and conquests at the time of the early church, the most important surviving record of the church in Antioch resides in the pages of Scripture.

 Acts 11:19-21 – The persecution following the execution of Stephen scattered believers from Jerusalem to Antioch who shared the gospel and made converts as they went particularly among the gentile Hellenists.

 Acts 11:22-25 – Seeing the growth of the gospel in Antioch the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to guide and strengthen the believers. Needing help in the growing ministry Barnabas sought Paul. Together the two labored among the believers proclaiming the gospel.

 Acts 11:27-30 – It was not only Barnabas who came from Jerusalem for ministering among the people of Antioch. Following the initial growth of the church in Antioch, a flow of leaders (prophets) came down from Jerusalem. Due to their ministry the believers in Antioch desired to send help by the hands of Barnabas and Paul, to fellow believers in Jerusalem suffering from a famine.

 Acts 12:25 – Clearly the mission of Barnabas and Paul to deliver aid to Jerusalem was not a mere drop off operation, but rather involved time in order to complete their service to the brothers in Jerusalem. On their return to Antioch they brought a coworker John Mark

 Acts 13:1 – Luke gives a glimpse into the leadership of the church in Antioch which included prophets and teachers

 Acts 13:2-3 – In the context of worship and fasting the Holy Spirit called Barnabas and Paul for ministry beyond the borders of Syria. After more fasting and prayer the leaders of the Church in Antioch recognized the call of the Holy Spirit by laying hands on the two of them (ordination) and sent them out.

 Acts 14:26-28 – Upon returning from their work of gospel proclamation and establishing of churches, Barnabas and Paul reported what God had done among the gentiles. This was a report that was not a mere exchange of information, but rather a reunion of close family whose sweet fellowship required “no little time” (v.28). Luke also makes it clear that it was in Antioch that they were “commended to the grace of God for the work that they had fulfilled” (v.26). This adds further significance to the laying on of hands they received at their sending. Luke reminds of an important preceding event namely their commissioning when recounting their return.

The example of the church in Antioch is both a striking and compelling one. Clearly, the outward-looking gospel-centered focus of the church there is normative because Luke weaves Antioch as one of the primary themes in his narrative in Acts. No true church willingly lives in isolation from other gospel believing churches. Antioch had much to benefit from Jerusalem, which in turn had much to benefit from Antioch. Together, the churches in both cities accomplished much for the expansion of the Kingdom of Christ through the proclamation of the gospel and the establishment of new churches.

In all actuality, the differences between the Antioch church in the first century and the gospel embracing church in the western world today are quite minimal. Just as the church expanded in Antioch through the proclamation of the gospel and the establishing of churches, so it does and will today. The western world in recent years has been in the throws of cultural upheaval. Segmented individualism paired with relativist postmodernism creates a wide variety of social demographics. It is tempting for those who have bought into a man-centered worldview, to cater ministries and even entire churches to given social groups (Gibbs, p.69). Because recent generations are increasingly postmodern, Eddie Gibbs argues that the church “authority base must be less positional and far more relational than in previous generations”(Gibbs, p.69). In his opinion, this involves a “flattening of hierarchical ecclesiastical structures”(Gibbs, p.72).

If the Scriptures had nothing to say on the matter this concept might actually be innovative. But instead, such a concept runs against the distinct pattern of church leadership laid out in Acts and the Pastoral Epistles. Instead of removing biblically instituted hierarchy, the church must increasingly call unbelievers who have been disillusioned by sinful use of hierarchy in to close relationship and interaction with the believing community (Belcher, p.101-103). While this must be distinguished from the popular postmodern concept of “belong before believe”, there is great potential to overcome harmful preconceptions about authority by the live and personal gospel witness of believers’ love for one another. The state of the unregenerate heart is exactly the same today as it was in the first century, and since the fall in the garden for that matter. Faithful proclamation of the Scriptures through preaching is absolutely necessary for the growth of the church in this age as it was in the first century (Romans 10, 2 Timothy 4). This proclamation will overflow in a desire to expand the gospel to local communities and globally. This expansion must not be a project of individual churches, but rather a interdependent undertaking of churches of like mind as seen in the relationship between Jerusalem and Antioch. There may be a great deal of variety in the outworking of these concepts, but the heart is still the same: a Christ-centered passion for his bride the church and the expanse of His fame to the ends of the earth.

A Vision for Church Leadership in the Antioch Church Tradition

Ben Zemmer

The church in Antioch played a significant part in the expansion of the gospel in a large part of the Roman Empire. The power of their example does not come from the methods they used but rather from the gospel they faithfully proclaimed (Acts 11:20). Just as it was fitting that the Jerusalem church send Barnabas to aid in the growth of the church, so it was fitting for the very leadership of Antioch to send its two most experienced shepherds for the establishing of new churches in the far reaches of the empire (Acts 11:22; 13:1-3). Antioch embodied the normative thread in Luke’s narrative which is the proclamation of the gospel and the planting of new churches (13:48-49; 14:21-23).

Just as it was fitting that Jerusalem and Antioch send out their leaders, so it is fitting that churches in nowadays do the same. The leadership of churches that embody the example of Antioch recognizes that the expansion of the gospel through the proclamation of the Word and the planting of new churches is integral to the very identity of the church. Such churches recognize the need to share the best of their resources both financial and personal with fellow believers for the strengthening of the Body and the spread of the gospel. These churches recognize that they have much to give but also to receive and learn. Relationship among sister congregations is not a condescending one, but rather a cooperative relationship for the sharpening of one another in the gospel (Acts 11:22-30; 12:25). The leadership of such churches send their own not as token representatives but rather as a very extension of themselves for the blessing of those they are set to serve (Acts 13:1-3: 14:24-28). To pattern after the church in Antioch is to follow the biblical example.

Complementary Spheres of Ministry and Authority

By Ben Zemmer

The ministry of the church cannot be biblically separated from exercise of authority (Matt. 28:18-20). This statement might fall uncomfortably on the ears of many typical Americans. For many, the word authority resonates with domineering pride and dictatorial control. This could not be farther from the biblical use of authority in the church (1 Peter 5:1-5). Authority and ministry are not two competing entities, but rather complementary aspects of the leadership Christ has established in His church.

God has lovingly given the gift of servant leaders to the church for the growth of the body into the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:11-13). The offices of Elder and Deacon compose the leadership structure through which the ministry of the church is to be directed and guided for the glory of His name (1 Tim. 3:1-13; Titus 1:5-9; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Paul appealed to the Ephesian elders that they follow his example leadership in his tireless service (Acts 20:17-38). Peter exhorted elders including himself among them to serve the flock under their care with all humility and eagerness (1 Peter 5:3-5). In both these situations neither Peter nor Paul appeal for better care of the body by removing hierarchy, but rather calling for a Christ-like exercise of the authority that God has instituted for the good of the church. It is clear from many examples in Acts that the elership provided significant ministry oversight and direction (Acts 6:1-6; 11:30: 15:2-6,22-23; 16:4; 21:18).

In addition to functioning in humble service of local congregations as elders and overseers, the leadership also formed and maintained significant and substantial ties with other churches of like mind. When the young believers in Antioch need leadership, the church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas (Acts 11:22). When the believers in Jerusalem were suffering from a widespread famine, the church in Antioch sent help by the hands of their two most experienced leaders Barnabas and Paul (Acts 11:29-30). This pattern of relationship further extended from Antioch to the churches that Paul and Barnabas later planted (Acts 14:24-28). It also manifested itself in the generosity of the Macedonian believers for the sake of the suffering believers in Judea (Rom. 15:26, 2 Cor. 8:1-5). Financial relief and physical help were not the only results of this interdependent concern. These churches encouraged and spurred each other on by their example (Phil. 4:15, 1 Thess. 1:7).

What a joy it is to serve under the leadership of elders committed to steward well the authority given them by Christ and oversee and guide ministry according to commission Jesus gave. Just as true church grows increasingly into conformity to the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:13), so Clearcreek has grown noticibly in recent years. Certainly it has grown in number, but its outlook and mission passion have grown as well. Clearcreek has increasingly awakened to its glorious priviledge and call to partake in Christ’s expanding work through the proclamation of the gospel and the planting of new churches. This awakening has been a prime example of the relationship that biblical authority has to ministry. The elders are leading the body in ministry as they contemplate more closely the relationship this church has with other like-minded churches in the area, the possibilities of a new church plant, and the vital sending role it must have to the missionaries and evangelists that are commissioned by the church. If there is an aspect of ministry and authority that Clearcreek lacks in it is this one: a corporate comissional outlook.

Both the leadership and the body desperately need to hold fast to the captivating vision of God’s work locally and among the nations through the proclamation of the word and the planting of churches. There are many practical and specific ways that Clearcreek can demonstrate its interdependence with other likeminded churches. One example would be the inclusion of other pastors in important leadership formation activities such as training in the Biblical Theology Studies Center, and in the ordination of new elders. Another might be the interaction with other likeminded churches by means of informal hospitality at the flock and family levels. Such nurturing of relationships would then grant greater visibility into other ways that the church body can individually or corporately serve one another. It would also open doors for Clearcreek’s receiving of wisdom, insight, and admonishment from other believers on the basis of the Gospel. Even the planning for a future church plant could benefit from the understanding that Clearcreek is not an island. Many solid gospel embracing churches have progressed in many ways that Clearcreek has not. It would be good for Clercreek to nurture relationships with churches that are strong where Clearcreek is week and not just borrow their materials and implement our church plant on our own in isolation.

All the above suggestions with some effort could certainly be accomplished, yet with a legalistic determination and superficial sterility that is foreign to the gospel. Such a work in the congregation and among the leadership is only accomplished by the overflow of a passion for the supremacy of Christ in all things and an awe of the gospel. This is only a work of God through the Holy Spirit. Let us all pray to this end even as we trust that He is working in us to do it because Christ has done it.

Paul’s Concept of Establishing Churches

By Ben Zemmer

A cursory study of the usage of the Greek word sterizo in Acts and the epistles yields the idea of further deepening and strengthening of the believing community as a vital part of the maturing of a new local church. In the NASB, the word sterizo is translated “confirm” (1 Peter 5:10), “establish” (Romans 16:25; 1 Thessalonians 3:13), “established” (Romans 1:11; 2 Peter 1:12), “strengthen” (1 Thessalonians 3:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:17, 3:3; James 5:8), and “strengthening” (Acts 18:23). In his epistles, Paul often uses the word to describe his relationship with the newly formed churches – newly converted believers still in many ways young and week in their understanding of the Scriptures (1 Thessalonians 3:2). Luke used a derivative of sterizo (“episterizo”) when describing the work Paul and Barnabas did when returning to their newly planted churches on their way back to Antioch (Acts 14: 21-23).

Clearly included in sterizo is the ordering of the church and appointing elders (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5). The health of a local church is in many ways tied to how well it is established in the truth – the gospel. Paul longed to preach the gospel to believers in Rome who had already heard the gospel upon their conversion, but they still needed to hear it in all its fullness and depth in order to be strengthened and established as a mature believing community (Romans 1:15). It would be incorrect to summarize Paul’s mission work as merely proclaiming the gospel and having made converts to progress on to the next city without any regard for or contact with the new believers in the new fledgling local church. In many ways his ministry was a full orbed process of leading churches from youth to adulthood, immaturity to maturity in their knowledge and application of the gospel.



Paul’s Establishing Process:

Studying Paul’s letters to the churches in conjunction with Luke’s account of in Acts can provide some helpful insight into how these churches progressed to maturity through Paul’s ministry in the gospel. Below is an approximate chronology of Paul’s pattern of establishing churches.

1. Proclaim the gospel (Acts 13:5; 14:15-17; 17:2-3; 18:4)

2. Recognize the believers (Acts 13:12, 48-49)

3. Appoint elders (Acts 14:21-23)

4. Address individual problems as they arise all the while applying the gospel (Acts 15:30; 2 Corinthians 1:15-2:4)

Paul: Household Management and Church Order

By Mr. Ben Zemmer

When giving instructions to Timothy as to how the church should function, he used the picture of a household. The common household of the day was very structured and had very defined roles and expectations. Paul took a common every day structure fundamental to the society of the day and used significant pieces of that structure as analogies for biblical truth. He was not blindly baptizing an entire social structure into Christianity, rather he was using the household structure as an effective teaching metaphor (Verner, p.106). In fact, under the lens of God’s sovereign rule over history, families exist and were created in part to demonstrate the close relationship of God to his people and His people to each other (Pythress, p.9).

All of the Scriptures and Paul’s writings in particular are rich with family terminology. The standing that believers have as adopted children of God the Father through Christ is a family picture (Galatians 4:1-7). Consistently throughout the Old Testament God referred to Israel in family terms. He spoke of his love to Israel as an adulterous bride (Hosea 4-9). In other times he spoke of Israel as His beloved son (Exodus 4:22). The Jesus Himself spoke of believers as his true family (Mark 3:35). In all the future promises for His people God scatters rich analogies of family relationship (Pythress, p.8). At the final crescendo of redemptive history Jesus Himself will dwell in fullness and glory with his people who stand before God as sons of the Father (Revelation 21:7).

Not only are the Scriptures rich with family terminology, their usage of family metaphors un-veil normative patterns for God’s people. Primary in Paul’s writings concerning the household of God is the imperative that just as one would care for an immediate family member – a father, a mother, a brother, or a sister – so should every believer care for spiritual family members in the body of Christ (Pythress, p.10). Or as Pythress stated it, “The church is like a family; therefore you must treat fellow church members like family members”(p.13). The scripture speaks in very strong terms for those who do not care for family members. Jesus even said it would be better for someone to have massive stone tied around his neck and cast into the sea than to not care for one of his children and cause them to stumble. It is in the family metaphor that believers better see their reconciliation with God in salvation which is the basis for how they should relate in love to fellow members of the household of faith (Pythress, p.14).

In sum, a primary way that the Scriptures and Paul in particular describe the people of God is in family terms. Not only are those terms descriptive, they are normative. It was Paul’s imperative to set in order the things that remain (Titus 1:5). And this order is in household terms. What a glorious truth that believers in Christ relate to God as Father in the closeness of family.