by Richard Barcellos | May 11, 2011 | New Testament
In 1988, while taking a course in Greek exegesis at The Master’s Seminary, my professor, Don McDougal (a dear man of God!), brought to our attention the repeated mention of the concept of power in Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians (Cf. 1:19-23 [2:5-6]; 3:7, 16-17, 20-21; 6:10-20). Professor McDougal noted how Paul seems to link 1:20-2:22 with 1:19 as illustrations of God’s power (1:20-23 [God’s power in His Son]; 2:1-22 [NOTE: 2:1a, “and”; 2:1-10 God’s power in His saints individually; 2:11-22 God’s power in His saints corporately]). These observations fascinated me at the time – I had never seen the connections. After preaching through Ephesians in the late 1990s, I was able to see the connections myself. Also, a few years ago, I finally found the book Professor McDougal was referring to back in my seminary days. The book was then a dissertation written by Clinton E. Arnold. In 1989, Arnold’s dissertation was published by Baker as Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians.[1] In 2009, I purchased the book. I immediately noticed that it had recommendations by C. Peter Wagner (Fuller Seminary School of World Missions) and John Wimber (Vineyard), among others, which obviously raised a red flag in my mind. This made me hesitant to read the book, but I plowed along anyway and am very glad I did.
Arnold states his thesis clearly:
The goal of this book is to acquire a more complete understanding of the nature of and motivation for the inclusion of the power-motif in the epistle by studying the author’s development of the theme against the backdrop of the spiritual environment of western Asia Minor in the first century A.D.[2]
His method of investigation is highly commendable and very thorough.
We will begin with a detailed study of the religious milieu of the readers, highlighting those aspects particularly germane to an understanding of the first-century A.D. Jewish and Hellenistic notions of divine power and spirit “powers.”…Particular attention will be given to developing a more accurate picture of the mind-set, fears, and religious understanding of the readers. (3)
These sources will be employed together with the relevant OT and Jewish material to discern the background to the variety of terms for the principalities, powers, and authorities in Ephesians. (3)
We will also conduct a careful analysis of the passages which refer to these “powers” in order more accurately to discern the essence of the author’s message to the readers about these “powers.” (3)
Finally, a synthesis of the results of the historical and exegetical investigation in the power-motif of Ephesians will be taken into account in a final chapter. Here we will seek to explain some of the theological peculiarities of Ephesians in light of the results of the research in the preceding chapters regarding the power-motif. (4)
After 166 pages of detailed presentation and 40 pages of endnotes, Arnold concludes:
Ephesians appears to have been written to a group of churches in western Asia Minor needing help in developing a Christian perspective on the “powers” and encouragement in their ongoing struggles with these pernicious spirit-forces. (167)
He then summarizes the teaching of the epistle as follows:
(1) The superiority of the power of God and the supremacy of Christ.
(2) The access of the believer to the power of God.
(3) A new means of access to divine power.
(4) A new perspective on the [evil] “powers.”
(5) A new posture toward the [evil] “powers.”
(6) A new purpose for divine power.[3]
Several commentators cite Arnold’s work for background material, though I have not found any that recommend it without qualification. It is, after all, only a thesis by a human author working with secondary sources.
I have found the main thrust of Arnold’s thesis very helpful in understanding, not only the background of the epistle, but also its contents. The power motif is more prominent in Ephesians than any other biblical book. Acts 19:11-41 provides a divine commentary on the background to Ephesus. The structure of the first two chapters does make God’s power a prominent issue and the book ends with a long section filled with the power motif (cf. 6:10-20).
Assuming the gist of Arnold’s thesis, what is the practical utility of such historical investigation?
- It may help us understand some of the common terms, phrases, and/or themes of the epistle and why they show up so often. This is certainly true of the various power-words and themes in Ephesians. Why did Paul use so many power-words in this Epistle? The answer is, most likely, that he was combating something in the culture of the day in Ephesus and its neighboring cities.
- It may help us understand the reason for the structure of a pericope. For instance, assuming the gist of Arnold’s thesis, Ephesians 2:1-10 is not merely a proof text for total depravity and salvation by grace alone through faith alone. It is an illustration of God’s power in regeneration and a call for the Ephesians to remember that radical change of soul wrought in them by the power of God – the same power that raised Christ from the dead and exalted him “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion…”!
[1] Clinton E. Arnold, Power and Magic: The Concept of Power in Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989, 1992).
[2] Arnold, Power, 2.
[3] Arnold, Power, 168-171.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Sam Waldron | May 10, 2011 | Current Events, Sermons
Where were you when you heard the news? I was sitting on my living room couch about 10:30 pm. The phone rang. It was my son, Nate. He said, “Dad, did you hear the news, they got Bin Laden.” Usually nothing beside the weather channel gets watched on the Lord’s Day at our house, but that news seemed important enough to turn on one of the news stations. Shortly, President Obama was on with his short speech confirming the reports that US military had killed Osama Bin Laden.
All during this time the news channel kept cutting away to the growing crowd outside the White House and in Times Square in New York City celebrating the news of Bin Laden’s death. Clearly, people felt a need to celebrate the death of public enemy number one. Other things caught my eye this week. There was the couple whose son was killed on 9/11 who sat in silent celebration for 20 minutes after they heard the news. There were the newspaper headlines which voiced what surely were the feelings of many. They simply read: Rot in Hell!
To not a few Christians all of this seems entirely inappropriate. When I asked one of my religion classes at KWC if Christians should rejoice that Bin Laden was killed, the general sentiment was that Christians should not rejoice. One Christian organization seems to agree and put out these thoughts:
Gloating over death and destruction of an enemy is not the proper response. It should never be the Christian response. While our nation sought and accomplished justice with Osama bin Laden, it is unfitting to celebrate.
I suspect, however, that this level of Christianity may seem a little difficult to attain for some of us. Even though we wonder if we should feel this way, we are glad that they finally got him!
Last Lord’s Day evening I preached on Osama’s death (you can listen to or download my message from our church’s web site). Even though I am not much of an occasional preacher, Mark Redfern, one of my fellow pastors, suggested it to me and I followed his counsel and even took the verses he suggested as my text. They provide a balanced, biblical response to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. In these blogs I will look at these verses as follows: I. The Verses Contemplated; II. The Verses Compared; III. The Verses Considered.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Richard Barcellos | May 10, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Books, Hermeneutics, New Testament, Old Testament, Practical Theology
Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Three (I)
Let me make a few necessary comments on the genre and interpretation of the Gospels. The Gospels contain narrative accounts of various aspects of Christ’s earthly ministry. He taught in a very distinct redemptive-historical context and the Gospel authors each had theological purposes for choosing what they narrated and what they commented upon. We must remind ourselves that OT and NT narratives do just that – they narrate, they tell us what happened, though with theological purpose.[1] We must grant that some of the teachings of Christ in the Gospels are perpetually binding and not to be left on the shelf of narrated history. I say some because Christ commanded things to individuals that are not meant to be perpetually binding on others (cf. Matt. 26:36, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.”). But to demand a distinct type of teaching in order to justify ethics (what Wells did in the previous post) and then claim that the Gospel passages don’t contain that type of teaching is simply a wrong-headed, constricting hermeneutical procedure. What if there are other grounds for considering Christ’s teachings on the Sabbath as applicable to Christians? A much better approach would be to read the Gospels looking for teaching related to prior and subsequent revelation and then to determine ethical perpetuity based on how Christ’s teaching is related to its broader, canonical-ethical/redemptive-historical context. The Gospels are full of allusions to and echoes of previous revelation. And the Gospels set the stage for further revelation which will explain both the redemptive acts and words of Jesus Christ (Jn. 14:26; 16:13-15). We must never interpret the Gospels as an end in themselves. Two passages in the Gospels are especially instructive in light of this – Matt. 12:1-14 and Mk. 2:27-28. These texts both reach back in redemptive history, alluding to and echoing previous revelation, and set the stage for further revelation. We will look at each passage briefly in the next post.
[1] This is not to suggest that OT narratives and the Gospels are one and the same genre on every level. Whether the Gospels are seen as theological biographies, covenantal treaty documents, or a complex of different genres the presence of narrative is still true.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | May 7, 2011 | Biblical Theology, Current Events, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Practical Theology, Soteriology, Systematic Theology
“In an equally scandalous way, we are now commissioned as co-redeemers.”
Read the interesting discussion here. The comments section is worth the read.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
by Richard Barcellos | May 6, 2011 | Hermeneutics, Historical Theology
Introduction: Gerald Bray opens his discussion of Medieval interpretation as follows:
The medieval period of biblical interpretation is one of the most complex and difficult of all, and it has not received the attention it deserves from theologians or biblical scholars. Most of the work in this field has been done by medievalists, who cannot escape the all-pervasive role which the Bible played during those centuries. But medievalists have their own agenda, and it is not always possible for a theologian to gain ready access to their work. There is also the fact that centuries of training have made Protestant scholars particularly wary of the medieval period, which they have been inclined to think of as an age of darkness. As most modern biblical scholars have been Protestants, this prejudice has contributed to the relative neglect of medieval exegesis.[1]
Not only do Bray’s statements seem to reflect reality, they are peculiarly true of me. I have been trained to think of the Middle Ages as the dark era of Christian interpretation and, thus, unhelpful and unnecessary for anything good. Certainly the rise of Islam during the eighth century had its ill effects upon Western culture at large and Christian interpretive methods in particular. The old Mediterranean culture broke up and neither Greek nor Latin were universal languages. During the Middle Ages Western Christians maintained Latin while those in the East did not. Some time in the ninth century Charlemagne (Holy Roman Emperor, crowned as such by Pope Leo III) “sponsored a revival of learning, which officially recognized that the ancient world had disappeared. Latin now had to be learned as a foreign tongue, even in Italy…”[2] This and other factors, such as illiteracy and a distinctly monolithic, “Christian” culture made the common Christian entirely dependant upon professional scholars who taught the clergy and, especially, the papacy (“Church”) as the final word on interpreting the Bible.
The Middle Ages should not be viewed as a single-minded, monolithic era culturally, philosophically, or theologically. There were phases of development occurring at different places and at different times.[3] Due to this reality, various men contributed various things at different times which ended up creating the Late Middle Ages, which is what most view as the Middle Ages come to maturity and against which the Renaissance and Reformation protested.
[1] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 129.
[2] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 129.
[3] Cf. Bray’s four phases of periodization in Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 131-33.
Dr. Richard Barcellos is associate professor of New Testament Studies. He received a B.S. from California State University, Fresno, an M.Div. from The Master’s Seminary, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary. Dr. Barcellos is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA. He is author of Trinity & Creation, The Covenant of Works, and Getting the Garden Right. He has contributed articles to various journals and is a member of ETS.
Courses taught for CBTS: New Testament Introduction, Biblical Hermeneutics, Biblical Theology I, Biblical Theology II.
