|
[Note:
The Greek and Hebrew fonts for viewing this document
can be found at:
http://www.bibleworks.com/fonts.html]
Discipleship and the Body of Christ
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
II.
“Words Mean”
A.
An Example from the Pentateuch
B.
Old Testament to New Testament Transition Issues
III.
Uses of the Word “Disciple”
A.
The Use of “Disciple” in Hellenism
B.
The Use of “Disciple” in the Old Testament
C.
The Use of “Disciple” in Judaism
D.
The Use of “Disciple” in the New Testament
1.
“Disciple” in the Gospels
2.
“Disciple” in Acts
E.
Summary of “Disciple”
IV.
Transition to the Body Concept
A.
Meaning and Usage of “Example”
1.
Of Apostles and Their Associates
2.
Of Local Church Officials
3.
Of a Local Congregation
4.
Implied and General References to
tuvpoj
5.
Negative References to
tuvpoj
B.
Meaning and Usage of “Mimic”
C.
Summary of “Example” and “Mimic”
D.
Meaning and Usage of “one another”
E.
Summary of “one another”
V.
The Fellow-Concept
A.
Introduction
B.
“SuVn” Words
VI.
Conclusion
VII.
Bibliography
Many books have been written in recent years on the subject of Christian
discipleship. The Gospels and Acts always comprise the exclusive exegetical
and philosophical basis for these books. The primary reason for this is that
the word manqavnw and its cognates
are only found in the New Testament in the Gospels and Acts, where they
appear some 260 times. In comparison, in all the epistles, these words do
not have a single occurrence. This state of affairs has been observed by
Ryrie, who noted that
"the word disciple never appears in the New Testament outside the
Gospels and the Book of Acts. This may be because a disciple was expected to
physically follow his teacher wherever he went, and this meant leaving his
family and occupation so as to be able to be with that teacher all the time.
After Christ's resurrection and ascension, this aspect of discipleship was
impossible, so the word was used less frequently in the Book of Acts
and not at all in the remainder of the New Testament."
Such a situation raises at least three questions. The first question that
arises is whether the absence of the word is theologically significant. It
is a recognized fact that the repetition of biblical words is often
significant. The second question is that if this change is indeed
significant, how so? Why might the usage of these words by the later writers
of the New Testament have ceased so abruptly in the logical development of
progressive revelation? The third and final question that arises is whether
there are any implications for the ministry of the local church? This
paper will attempt to discuss these questions and related issues.
Biblical exegetes recognize the importance of individual words and patterns
of words when interpreting the text of Scripture. The importance of words
can be summarized by the statement “words mean”.
In short, this perspective can be described as word theology and
explained as the communication of God’s revelation to man based on
repetition of key words in Scripture. God began His divine revelation to man
with key words in Genesis. They function as thematic links carried
throughout Scripture, some of which culminate in the book of Revelation. The
Bible is built upon the principle of word theology.
The Pentateuch provides a springboard for numerous terms that perpetuate
thematic links throughout the Old Testament and, at times, the entirety of
Scripture. Two word themes initiated in the creation account and receiving
heavy emphasis throughout the Pentateuch (yet still perpetuated throughout
both Old and New Testaments) are “land” (#r,a,)
and “blessing” (hk'r'B.). The
preparation of the land and the divine blessing are important to the author
of the Pentateuch because these two themes form the basis of his treatment
of the patriarchal narratives and the Sinai covenant.
The translation of the Hebrew term #r,a,
as “land” over against the western rendering of the term “earth” is
significant. “Land” more accurately conveys the intended meaning in the
immediate context as the author describes God’s desire to prepare land
suitable for mankind to inhabit. The first two chapters of Genesis describe
the process through which God made the land inhabitable. The imagery of
verse 9, which pictures the waters gathering to one place and the submerged
land surfacing is to be read in light of the subsequent accounts of the
Flood (Genesis 6-9) and the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14-15).
Jeremiah 27:5 reveals that biblical writers may well have understood that
the “land” referred to in Genesis 1 actually referred to the Promised Land,
I have made the land (#r,a'h'), the
men and the beasts which are on the face of the land (#r,a'h')
by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and I will give it to the one
who is pleasing in My sight. (NASB)
The development of the #r,a,
(land) and hk'r'B.
(blessing) themes evidences possibility for a theme to be significantly
completed (i.e. issue settled) in one part of Scripture yet perpetuated
throughout other parts of Scripture. One example is Joshua 11:23, which
states “So Joshua took the entire land...and he gave it as an inheritance to
Israel...”
Joshua’s conquest brings significant closure to the textual issue that,
finally, the Israelites have gained occupancy to the land as promised by
Yahweh to Abraham in Genesis 12:7, “...to your seed I will give this land.”
Yet the land issue is a continual backdrop to the entire Bible as God allows
other nations conquest of the land at certain times as a result of Israel’s
disobedience (i.e. Judges 3:7-8, 12-14; 4:1-3; 6:1-6; 10:6-18). The
captivity of both Israel and Judah is compared with like terminology in the
following two passages:
So Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria to this
day. (2 Kings 17:23)
So Judah was led away into exile from its land. (2 Kings 25:21)
It is no coincidence that these verses are so closely akin in terminology.
The author of Kings is, no doubt, developing the
#r,a, theme initiated in the
Pentateuch. One might look for a stopping point for the land issue,
however, the gospels are full of this theme as Roman rule prevails a people
desperately looking for Messiah to make a royal appearance and save the
day. The #r,a,
theme is furthered with the dispersion issue described in James 1.
Revelation records the ultimate showdown between God and His adversaries in
the very #r,a, God created and
purposed for his chosen people to dwell in.
The importance of recognizing terms in the received text to give them their
proper emphasis cannot be underestimated. The New Testament is based on
this same word theology, yet for some reason, its terminology is not
given the same ear Old Testament terms receive. One possibility may be the
dispensational lines that exist for some, but not for others. Another
reason may be attributed to the transition from Hebrew to Greek text. It is
reasonable to explain this transition between a Hebrew and Greek word as
containing a thematic link even though textually one views two different
words. For example, Matthew 1:23 contains the Greek word
VEmmanouh,l
(Immanuel) meaning God with us. This is equivalent to the
Hebrew laeƒWnM'[i in Isaiah 7:14
with the same meaning. Just because the language of the day in Israel
changed due to the rule of a particular nation does not mean thematic links
are incapable of being carried over. The interesting thing about the
Matthew 1:23 reference “God with us” is that it, along with Matthew 28:20,
forms a bookend to the book of Matthew. In 28:20 Christ says, “...lo, I am
with you always...” Again, words mean, and Matthew uses
repetition to communicate one of the key themes of the book.
There is a great deal of interest and discussion about discipleship in the
church today. A brief look at the great amount of available literature that
deals with this topic supports this conclusion. In spite of, or perhaps as a
result of this situation, it is difficult to determine a unified definition
of discipleship. However the believers today are constantly encouraged to
“make disciples.” They are told that “making disciples” is one of the
foremost duties of the local church. Ideally each believer should disciple
another believer at any given time. Some suggest that each believer should
have a discipleship relationship with at least two people at any one time:
one “greater” and one “lesser” (i.e. in maturity level) than he or she.
Believers are exhorted to engage in the practice of discipleship because
this is the method by which the church grows, spiritually and numerically.
Despite the many differing definitions of and exhortations to discipleship,
there are some common elements. One author presents a simple but helpful
description of the discipleship process:
I.
The teacher does and the learner observes;
II.
The teacher does with the learner;
III.
The learner does, and the teacher observes;
IV.
The learner, now disciple, does himself.
The first question that will be discussed in this chapter is whether this is
a correct presentation of discipleship model of the New Testament. The
second important question is whether the church today is actually called to
reproduce this exact model of discipleship.
The word maqhthvj is derived from
the verb manqavnw, to learn. A
maqhthvj is therefore primarily “a
learner” or “one who follows one’s teaching.”
The term is first mentioned in the writings of Greek antiquity several
hundred years before Christ’s ministry on earth.
Maqhth,j was a common designation
for an “apprentice” or “someone who followed a teacher or a specific school
of philosophy.” Examples of the latter use are the disciples of Socrates
(470?-399 BC ).[8] These
followers considered themselves disciples even after their teacher had died.
In addition to that the maqhtai,
were always viewed as the counterpart of a
dida,skaloj.
There is thus no maqhth,j without a
dida,skaloj. The process [of
teaching and learning] involves a corresponding personal relation.
The close relationship between disciple and the teacher was characteristic
of this mode of teaching. Another characteristic of the
disciple-teacher/master relationship was the “direct dependence of the one
under instruction upon an authority superior in knowledge.”
After the time of Socrates, the term
maqhth,j lost its character as a technical term and became part of
the ordinary speech in the Greek society.
The Hebrew equivalent of the Greek
maqhthvj is dymil.T;.
With the great number of teacher-student relationships (e.g. the prophet
schools) in the Old Testament one might suspect to find the term “disciple.”
Yet that is not the case. Maqhth,j
does not occur at all in the LXX. In the Hebrew Old Testament
dymil.T is found only once in 1
Chronicles 25:8. Nevertheless the LXX translates
dymil.T in that verse with a
participle form of manqa,nw rather
than maqhth,j. The overwhelming
evidence shows that the teacher/disciple relationship as found in Greek
antiquity is absent from the Old Testament.
In spite of the fact that the concept of discipling is not present in the
Old Testament it was known in first-century Judaism. Here the word
“disciple” (dymil.T;) had, just
like in the Greek tradition, a technical meaning. In its technical sense,
dymil.T referred to those who
devoted themselves to the study of traditions of Judaism and the Scriptures.
Just as in Hellenism, the Jewish disciples attached themselves to a
recognized master. This master or rabbi enjoyed absolute authority in
relation to his disciples. The disciples would leave their homes to live
with the rabbi. The teaching usually took the form of questions and answers,
repetition and memorization. The rabbi was not only responsible for the
education of his disciples, but also to provide food and lodging. The goal
of this mode of teaching was to bring the disciples to a level at which they
themselves were considered “teachers of the Law.”
Since the master-disciple relationship or model is not based on the Old
Testament, the question is how this form of teaching became established in
Judaism. K. H. Rengstorf presents the following explanation:
In developing these views [of disciples as members of a school or tradition]
later Judaism was under influences that could come only from Hellenism,
where they were firmly established.] We may finally venture to say that the
dymil.T;
as such came into Judaism from the educative process of the Greek and
Hellenistic philosophical schools.
There seems to be an agreement among historians that the rabbinic schools of
later Judaism were modeled after the Greek example. This is consequently
also true for the relationship between the masters/rabbis and their
disciples.
The word “disciple” occurs in two different forms in the New Testament, as a
masculine or feminine noun (maqhth,j(
maqh,tria) and as a verb (maqhteu,w).
It is interesting to note that while there are a total of 257 occurrences of
the masculine form in the NT, the feminine noun can be found only once and
the verb form only five times. A preliminary conclusion at this point is
that the term “disciple” in the New Testament is predominantly a description
of a person, not an action.
Even more astounding is the fact that the above mentioned occurrences of the
word “disciple” are limited exclusively to the Gospels and the book of Acts.
Could it be that the “curious absence”
of the word “disciple” from the epistles has some significance?
Before further conclusions can be drawn in regard to this phenomenon, it is
necessary to look at the New Testament books in which a form of the word
disciple actually does occur.
The frequencies of occurrence for the
maqhth,j related words are worthy of consideration. Of the 257 times
that a form of the word maqhth,j
appears in the New Testament, 227 are located in the Gospels (88 % ). The
remainder is found in the book of Acts. Per individual Gospel, “disciple” on
average occurs almost twice as often as in Acts. Looking at these numbers,
there seems to be a great emphasis on discipling (the disciple concept) in
the Gospels and, to a lesser degree in the book of Acts. This stands in a
significant contrast to the fact that no form of the word “disciple” appears
in the epistles.
While the evangelists often used the term “disciple” in a general sense as a
synonym for “believer” (John 8:31; 13:35; 15:8), most of the time it refers
to the twelve apostles (Matt. 10:1, 11:1; Luke 6:13, 9:1).
They were Christ’s disciples, he was their teacher/master (dida,skalo’’j;
Matt. 17:24; Mark 4:38, 9:38; John 13:13-14). The mode that Jesus employed
to train the Twelve was apparently similar to that used in Hellenism and
Judaism. Jesus Christ called the Twelve by person and instructed them to
leave their homes and follow him so that he could train them. This
corresponds with the Jewish method of the day whereby men were trained as
future religious leaders. The Twelve would certainly have been familiar with
this method of training. Lawrence Richards lists several parallels between
the traditional way of teaching in Hellenism and later Judaism and Christ’s
method as found in the Gospels:
It is abundantly clear from the Gospels that Jesus adopted this
well-established contemporary pattern for training the Twelve. Hints abound
in the Gospels. The Twelve were chosen ‘to be with him’ (Mark 3:14). Jesus
kept them with him on his travels, and after they had heard him teach the
crowds and seen him heal the sick and demonized, Jesus often questioned the
disciples or answered their questions. He clearly expressed the common
opinion when he said ‘a student [mathetes] is not above his teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher’ (Luke 6:40).
And, after a time, Jesus sent the Twelve out as his representatives, with
authority to heal and with clear instructions concerning what to preach (cf.
Matt. 10).
At this point it is important to realize that Richards is not saying that
Jesus Christ was in any way like the rabbis of his time. Neither is he
saying that the content of Christ’s teaching was the same. As a matter of
fact the content of Christ’s message was so radically different from that of
the rabbis that they continually felt threatened by him.
Christ was certainly a far superior master. But the important similarity
lies in the method of teaching, the master-disciple relationship
between Christ and the Twelve. Rengstorf comes to the same conclusion:
In its fixity of usage the NT maqhth,j
is closely related to the rabbinic dymil.T;.
Explicitly or implicitly the maqhth,j
is always accompanied by the didavskaloj
around whom the maqhtai, gather.
As previously mentioned, the word “disciple” appears considerably less
frequently in the book of Acts than in the Gospels. While in the Gospels the
term “disciple” was predominantly the designation for the Twelve Apostles
and other followers of Christ, it became a synonym for all Christian
believers. The birth of the church at Pentecost and the subsequent explosive
advance of the Gospel is the most likely reason for this change.
In addition to that change, there is also a very interesting transition that
takes place in Acts. In Acts 11:26 Luke records that the disciples were
first called Christians in the city of Antioch. This small statement adds
some important information to the discussion, especially in light of the
fact that the term “disciple” does not occur at all in the epistles. Based
on Acts 11:26 and the absence of “disciple” in the epistles, one might
conclude that the term “disciple” was gradually being replaced by other
terms such as “Christians.”
Again, this transition began shortly after the birth of the church. Could it
be that this was a direct result of the newly established institution of
the Church?
It has been shown in this section that the method of discipling as it is
found in the New Testament has its root in Hellenisms and later Judaism.
Christ used a mode of teaching with which those whom he taught would have
been very familiar. One of the main distinguishing factors between Christ’s
use of this style of teaching and that of his rabbinical contemporaries is
that Christ’s disciples were not following a school or tradition but the
Lord himself. When Jesus said, as recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, “You
have heard it said...but I say to you...”(Mt.5:18ff), he was unequivocally
stating that He alone was the authority behind his words. He had no need to
buttress His position by quoting other rabbinical authorities as the other
teachers of His day commonly did (Mt.7:28-29).
While today a great amount of writing on the subject of discipling is
dedicated to the “making of disciples” (maqhteu,w),
the epistles of the New Testament do not share this focus. As a matter of
fact the verb maqhteu,w can be
found only once in the book of Acts (Acts 14:21). If “making disciples” is
actually one of the most important mandates to the individual believer and
the local church, why does it receive so little attention in the New
Testament outside of the Gospels? While
maqhteu,w occurs once in Acts it does not appear at all in the
epistles whose principles are viewed as normative for the church today. The
only logical explanation for this phenomenon is that Christ’s method of
discipling is not directly applicable to the church today. The reason is
that a number of elements of Christ’s method cannot and should not be
reproduced today. The process of discipling as practiced by Jesus Christ has
already been explained. Certain men would leave their homes to attach
themselves to a master/teacher. This was true in Hellenism, Judaism, and the
New Testament. Both Christ and his followers were connected by a strong
master-disciple relationship. Employing the contemporary teaching method of
his time, Christ imparted a large body of knowledge on his disciples. The
relationship continued even after Christ’s ascension. Those who were
personally trained by Jesus were enabled to become themselves authoritative
masters after Christ’s example.
Again, the church today is not able to fulfill the same qualifications.
There are no Christians today who could become authoritative masters on the
level of either Christ or the apostles to whom large numbers of followers
could attach themselves. Reproducing Christ’s example today would require an
“elite class”
of Christians with apostle-like authority.
Now that it has been shown that Christ’s method of teaching is not directly
applicable to the church today, it must be answered what method the church
should apply. In the next chapter several terms will be analyzed that
characterize the method of Christian nurture based on the epistles. It is
not the intention of this discussion to prove that discipleship, as it is
commonly understood today, is wrong. Rather, it wants to show that the New
Testament epistles portray a method of Christian nurture with a different
emphasis than the Gospels.
While the word “disciple” is very commonly used in the Gospels and Acts but
does not appear in the epistles, some concepts overlap. Two such concepts
are communicated by the words tuvpoj
and mimevomai.
A.
Meaning and Usage of “Example”
In the New Testament, the Greek word
tuvpoj speaks of the mark resulting from a blow or an impression,
such as the imprint that made by a die upon a slug of metal in the process
of minting a coin. When used in the context of human relationships, it
speaks of an individual having an influence on another. Today, in similar
fashion, we may speak of an individual “making an impact” on another. The
idea is the influence of one upon another that results from character or
lifestyle.
The word is typically translated as “example” or “pattern” in the KJV.
The word tuvpoj has
several different categories of referents in the NT. It is used to refer
positively to apostles and their associates, to local church
officials and to local church congregations, as well as
negatively to the failures of Israel. This section will examine these uses
and their contexts in an attempt to draw out any implications for local
church practices.
In Phil.3:17, Paul exhorted the Philippian believers to follow the example
of his life. Note Paul’s use of the plural “we”, apparently speaking of his
coworker Timothy whom he mentioned in his introduction. But Paul and
Timothy were not the only ones who lived an exemplary lifestyle. The
Philippians had both the remembrance of Paul and living example of those
among them who had already “caught on” to Paul’s example. Some may object to
the application of this exhortation today, saying that only Christ, and
maybe the apostles were worthy of such emulation. But this passage
indicates that Paul himself recognized that there were some outside the
apostolic circle who had attained a consistency of godly lifestyle that was
worthy of emulation.
In 2 Thessalonians 3:9, Paul mentions that he and his associates limited
their privileges in order to set an example for the believers in
Thessalonica. We find here that Paul considered Silvanus and Timothy as
among those who were worthy of emulation, even though they were not
apostles. Paul recognized that exemplary leadership existed outside of
apostolic circles. Like the apostles, they chose hardship and self-denial
for the cause of Christ. In this case, these men chose to limit their right
to make their living from the Gospel so as to provide an example to the
Thessalonian church of hard working, financially independent believers.
2.
Of Local
Church Officials
Several passages mention the responsibility of local church officials to
function as examples for the rest of the body. The value of leaders living
as worthy examples of the mature Christian life cannot be underestimated.
In Titus 2:7, Paul instructs Titus to be an example in good works, moral
purity, and doctrine. It matters little whether Titus was actually sent to
Crete as a pastor or apostolic envoy. In either case, he was to set an
example, both for the church leaders he was appointing and for all the
believers.
In 1 Timothy 4:12, Paul instructs Timothy to be an example to the believers
in every area of life. The content of Paul’s instruction to Timothy in this
epistle indicates that Timothy was operating in more of a pastoral role than
was Titus.
These instructions from Paul to Timothy are typically understood as normal
responsibilities of the pastor of the local church. There is no textual
reason why being an example should not be understood as part of the
responsibility of the pastor. Neither is there a practical difference
between Timothy as an example in this passage and Paul as an example in
other passages previously mentioned. So here again we see that living a
lifestyle worthy of emulation is a key element of local church leadership.
One of the most interesting and powerful passages relating to this subject
is 1 Peter 5:1-3. Here Peter instructs elders to be examples to the flock.
Peter specifically states his position as a fellow elder, and in doing so
sets aside any apostolic privilege. This man, in a frame of true humility,
recognized that there is a proper time and place to receive glory. The
present age is not the time to receive glory, but rather to show themselves
as “examples to the flock”.
In 1 Thessalonians 1:7, Paul commends the Thessalonian believers because
they had imitated him. By doing so they had themselves become examples to
believers in the surrounding areas. The context of the passage reveals that
they had become examples by their proclamation of the gospel, their
spiritual purity, and their expectation of Christ's return. Their
conversion and subsequent lifestyle led to a powerful Christian testimony in
the surrounding area.
There are other uses of and allusions to
tuvpoj, which also shed light on the example theme. In Philippians
4:9, though Paul does not specifically use the word
tuvpoj, the idea is implied. Paul
is confident that the peace of God will rest upon those who follow his
example. He does not hesitate to invite others to emulate his life style or
put his teaching into action.
Another use of tuvpoj is found in
Hebrews 8:5, where the Scripture speaks of an inanimate object to be
duplicated, specifically, the tabernacle to be replicated by Moses based
upon the “pattern” which he saw on Mount Sinai.
There are also a number of negative references to
tuvpoj, which is to say that some
examples should not be followed. In 1 Corinthians 10:6,11, Paul
refers to historical instances of Israelite rebellion against God, which the
believers at Corinth would be wise to avoid repeating.
In the New Testament, the Greek word
mimevomai refers to the act of one imitating another. The noun form
of the word, referring to the one who performs the imitation, appears as
mimhthvj.
The verb and noun forms are translated as “follow” and “follower” in the
KJV.
In 1 Corinthians 4:16-17, Paul writes that he sent Timothy as an example,
which he expected the Corinthians to follow. Paul urges the church to mimic
him. It is interesting to note that Paul bases his plea on the fact that he
led them to Christ. If they were going to follow anyone, it should be him.
Humanly speaking, he gave them spiritual life, since he was their father in
the gospel. Even so, Paul offered Apollos as another godly individual
worthy of imitation (4:6). This demonstrates that his motive was indeed to
promote Christlikeness in them, and not just to exalt himself as the only
one worthy to be followed.
In 1 Corinthians 11:1-2, we see a logical progression of imitation:
believers following Paul who followed Christ. Paul offered himself as a
tangible example of Christ’s life: no abstract concept, but flesh and blood.
Paul wasted no opportunity in educating others on the implications and
possible consequences of following Christ (1 Corinthians 4:10-16).
Regardless of the challenges, leaders and laymen alike should make it their
goal to manifest Christ in their character, lifestyle, and ministries.
However church leaders are especially obligated to set the pace. This
progression makes it difficult to escape from the idea that the believer is
obligated to emulate the life of Christ. Though neither
mimevomai nor
mimhthvj is used, the same idea is also communicated in 1 John 2:6,
where John writes that the one who abides in Christ must pattern his life
after Christ.
In the case of Ephesians 5:1, Paul exhorts the Ephesians to imitate not man,
nor even Christ, but God Himself. Since part of God’s intent in regenerating
believers is to restore the image of God in man (Colossians 3:10), it
follows logically that the believer should strive to imitate God. Granted,
the ability to imitate God is heavily dependent on the believer’s knowledge
and comprehension of Scripture. Yet Scripture fleshed out in a live example
provides tangible model for emulation. This explains why the vast majority
of exhortations to follow and to imitate, look to human beings as an
example. Even so, these human examples are valid only insofar as they
emulate the example of the God-Man, Jesus Christ.
Paul described the results of conversion at Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians
1:6-7. These two verses point out
the obvious relationship between mimic and example: mimicry demands an
object to emulate. This emulation was not based on a superficial knowledge
of Paul and his team members. Rather, the Thessalonians came to know Paul’s
exemplary character because a close relationship had developed between them.
Now that he had provided a worthy example for them, Paul would be satisfied
with nothing less than that his followers would themselves in time become
models for their fellow believers. Again, in 1 Thessalonians 2:14, Paul
praises the Thessalonians because they had imitated the example of the
churches in Judea which were willing to suffer for the testimony of Christ.
In this the Judean churches became a worthy example for the Thessalonians.
Hebrews 6:12 also exhorts believers to imitate the example of faith
demonstrated by Abraham. Though this passage is unique in that it is an
exhortation against apostasy, it is still useful for this discussion. It
demonstrates that lives worthy of emulation are documented in Scripture, and
in sufficient detail as to be of value in instructing believers in every
age.
The apostle Peter also addresses the issue of imitation in 1 Peter 3:13.
Here Peter speaks not of a human model for imitation, but of the principle
of moral excellence as worthy of emulation.
Paul writes in 2 Thessalonians 3:7, 9 to remind the Thessalonians of the
example he and his co-workers set for them. This passage contains both
tuvpoj and
mimevomai. The close relationship
between example and mimic is very clear here.
Similarly, Philippians 3:17 contains both words, again used in close
relationship within the same verse. Paul emphasizes his own role as an
example, while charging the Philippians to follow him. The extent of the
example, which they were to follow, is his entire walk in Christ, not just
one area of his life. Paul is ever trying to expand the company of those who
are following Christ with him. He has no desire to put himself on a
pedestal. Rather, he recruits those who would follow Christ together with
him.
In Hebrews 13:7, the example of local church leaders is held up as worthy of
imitation. This refers to the godly example that pastors should be for their
congregations. The people are exhorted to follow their leaders' example.
The apostle John writes in 3 John 1:11 of the need for believers to follow
that which is good. This Scripture also refers to holy living, which is in
accord with the principle of moral excellence, similar to the 1 Peter 3
passage.
The uses of tuvpoj and
mimhthvj have been now considered.
An attempt was made to group together related uses of the words. The
categories above are not ideal, partly because some passages contain both
forms. Yet these passages are important in that they demonstrate the
interrelationship of concepts between one who is an example and one who
imitates the example.
These Scriptures also reveal an important principle. Paul was not ashamed,
nor did he hesitate to assert himself as an example for the believers he
worked with. It may be safely said that if Paul’s primary focus Godward was
to glorify Him, his primary focus manward was to be an example of
Christlikeness for others. He made it perfectly clear that he did many
things to be an example worthy of emulation. He often limited his own
freedom for the benefit of others. One instance where he did this was with
his financial arrangements. His desire to model financial self-sufficiency
to the Thessalonians was a high priority.
Obedience to divine command was ultimately directly or indirectly at stake
when addressing the issue of imitation of Christ. Christ set the example
for the apostles. The apostles set the example for the first century
believers who had little if any of the New Testament Scriptures. The later
church has had the inscripturated example of both Christ and the apostles.
We observe in tuvpoj and
mimhthvj continuity with some of
the discipleship concepts contained in the Gospels and Acts. Yet there is a
distinct difference in the tone of authority expressed by leaders.
This is as we might expect if the apostles understood and applied Jesus
statement in Matthew 20:23-25.
But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of
the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise
authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be
great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among
you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
We find that those involved in local church leadership are to function not
as masters, but as examples for the flock. In addition, all
believers are to imitate exemplary behavior wherever it is found. Leader and
layman alike are obligated to both be examples and do imitate, for the glory
of God and the benefit of the body. Those in the congregation who are
successful imitators of Christ should themselves be held up as models worthy
of imitation.
In attempting to offer arguments that the Body-of-Christ principle found in
the epistles differentiates from the discipleship model in the gospels, the
one-another concept must also be evaluated. The one-another term,
avllh,lwn, involving approximately
thirty-five separate commands to believers in the church age, must be
addressed. Abbott and Smith recognize
avllh,lwn as a reciprocal
pronoun being defined as “of one another, mutually.”
Richard Young describes the term as involving a “mutual action,
relationship, or interchange between persons.”
It is as simple as a mutual relationship. It bears great contrast to
Kittel’s definition of discipleship previously mentioned.
In order to show what great contrast exists between the commands Scripture
has given the church age believer and the traditional discipleship model,
several avllh,lwn examples will be
evaluated. “Admonish one another,” in Romans 15:14, and “teach one another,”
in Colossians 3:16, were concepts totally foreign to the traditional
master-disciple relationship. There was absolutely no room for the disciple
to admonish or teach his master as predicated by the words of Jesus in
Matthew 10:24, “a disciple is not above his master…” Likewise, the concepts
of “be subject to one another” (1 Peter 5:5) and “submit to one another”
(Eph. 5:21) are unheard of in the responsibility of the master to disciple.
The relationship was top-down and one-directional. It is even
questionable to assume that a disciple could edify his master (1 Thess. 5:11
“...edify one another”) or that a master would run the risk to “confess his
faults” (James 5:16) to his disciples.
The outworking of the one-another commands within the Body of Christ
concept, however, brings responsibility to every believer not to wait to be
discipled, but to personally build into those around him as commanded by
Scripture specifically addressed to the church age. Could this be the
answer to growing God’s church into the maturity spoken of in Ephesians
4:12-13? This approach is to be contrasted with the unequal role of
discipler and disciple, which is not oriented to either mutual ministry or
teamwork within the body.
The various forms of “one another” commands in the epistles indicate a
unique mode of interaction among the members of the Body of Christ. This
interaction is based on the recognition that each believer has something
positive to contribute to the body, as well as the privilege of receiving
something positive from others.
Some of the most profound teaching in regard to the church can be found in
the Pauline epistles. In order to explain and characterize the nature of the
church, the apostle Paul uses a unique figure of speech. When speaking of
the church, he often refers to it as the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), and
makes distinct analogies to a physical body. The use of this metaphor leads
to a number of implications regarding the character of the body.
First, there is the relationship between the body and its head. Paul clearly
identifies the head as Jesus Christ (Eph. 4:15) while all believers of the
present age comprise the body (1 Cor. 12:12). Just as the head in a
physical body has preeminence, so does the head of the Body of Christ (Col
1:18). This preeminence implies that the head directs and guides while the
body is in a position of subordination (Eph. 5:24a).
Second, there is the relationship between the individual members of the Body
of Christ. One of the key principles regarding this body is its unity and
the cooperation of its members. Paul describes this unique relationship in
the book of Ephesians:
...the head, even Christ: From whom
the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part,
maketh increase of the body unto the edifying
of itself in love. (Eph. 4:15c-16)
In addition to the straightforward teaching on unity and cooperation within
the body, Paul and other writers of the epistles also use a number of words
to convey these characteristics of the relationship that exist between the
members of the Body of Christ.
B.
“SuVn”
Words
One group of words that express the relationship within the Body of Christ
are words compounded with the preposition
suVn. The basic meaning of suVn
is “with” in the sense of a “physical or metaphorical togetherness.”
SuVn
seems to imply at least in its fundamental sense the idea of things being
'with' each other. This does not mean that they are exactly the same thing,
but that the way they are being characterized by the author implies points
of similarity.
The list of compound words formed with the preposition
suVn consists of 12 items. The
following list only included those words that are relevant for our study of
the Body of Christ.
1.
Fellowheir, sugklhronoVmo":
Among other verses, this word appears in Romans 8:17 and Ephesians 3:6. In
both verses it provides information about the Body of Christ. In Romans
sugklhronoVmo" denotes the
relationship between believers and Jesus Christ. Believers are the heirs of
God's promises and fellowheirs with Christ. In the passage in Ephesians 6
Paul stresses the fact that Jews and Gentiles are now part of one and the
same body – the church. Thus the word fellowheir here speaks of the mutual
relationship of believers as privileged children of God.
2.
Fellowcitizen, sumpoliVth":
Ephesians 2:19 is the only occurrence of the word “fellowcitizen” in the New
Testament. It stands for the unity within the Body of Christ. While the
Gentiles used to be “strangers from the covenants of promise” (v. 12), they
are now “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (v.
19). There are no more divisions. All believers, Jews and Gentiles alike are
members of one body in which they all enjoy a new intimate relationship with
one another.
3.
Fellowlaborer, sunergoV":
SunergoV" appears a total of
thirteen times in the epistles (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 4:3; 1 Thess. 3:2; etc.).
In many of these verses it becomes clear that the apostle Paul viewed his
companions as fellows in the ministry. This seems to suggest equality
between them and the apostle. In some places the word
sunergoV" is translated as “helper”
or “fellowhelper.” This translation suggests that those in ministry are to
help each other to fulfill their ministries without emphasizing a hierarchy
between them. It is interesting that Paul uses this term although he was an
apostle, which distinguished him from his companions.
4.
Fellowprisoner, sunaicmaVlwto":
The word “fellowprisoner” can only be found in three verses in the New
Testament (Rom. 16:7, Col. 4:10, Philem. 1:23). It is possible that these
passages refer either to an actual imprisonment of Paul or to a spiritual
imprisonment “in Christ.” Although it may be difficult to determine the
actual nature of the imprisonment, it is clear that the word
“fellowprisoner” reflects the strong tie that must have connected Paul and
his companions. It also creates the image of suffering for the sake of the
ministry.
5.
Fellowservant, suVndoulo":
Only the two saints, Epaphras and Tychicus (Col. 1:7, 4:7), are addressed as
“fellowservants” in the New Testament. The word focuses on the serving
aspect of ministry. Paul and his companions were not alone in ministry as
servants of Christ, but were “fellowservants” of one another. The term
implies a special intimacy between these believers who were in ministry
together. The use of the word dou'lo",
“servant” or “slave”, with the prefix “suVn”
suggests that these companions in the ministry had to be willing to do hard
work with a servant's attitude. But they would not be alone since they were
“fellowservants.”
6.
Fellowsoldier, sustratiwVth":
Two more believers are called “fellowsoldiers” by Paul (Phil. 2:25, Philem.
1:2). The image that comes to mind immediately is warfare. Paul and his
companions were involved in a spiritual warfare. The enemy is Satan and his
angels (Eph. 6:12). It is commonly known that fighting together with someone
creates an extremely strong bond. Such a strong bond must have existed
between Paul and his companions in ministry. The word also suggests dangers
and hardship. Believers who are actively involved in ministry need to
realize that they are fellowsoldiers, men and women fighting for a common
cause against a common enemy.
7.
Yokefellow, suVzugo":
The word “yokefellow” is only found once in the New Testament (Phil. 4:3).
It is an adjective used substantively. The way this word appears in context
here, Paul could be addressing some companion of his. But many feel that
“yokefellow” is actually a proper name because it occurs in a group of
proper names (vv. 2-3).
Whether that is the case or not, “yokefellow” conveys the idea of one person
being under a yoke together with another in order to accomplish a common
task. The imagery further implies that both are pulling in the same
direction and thus are displaying a high degree of unity.
8.
Bond/band, suVndesmo":
The word suVndesmo" does not refer
to any individual believers, but to the relationship among members of the
Body of Christ. This is true for three of its four occurrences in the New
Testament (Eph. 4:3; Col. 2:19; Col. 3:14). In Ephesians 4:3 the word “bond”
is used to express the strength of unity between believers. Paul compares
the unity that binds the believers together to ligaments in the human body.
The same picture is applied in Colossians 2:19, but here the head is also
mentioned. The meaning of the verse is this: each believer is connected to
the head, Jesus Christ. Through this connection all believers become joined
with each other. Unity is the primary consequence of this bond. But the
close connection is also the cause for growth within the body. Colossians
3:14 adds yet another aspect. The love that believers have for each other
strengthens the bond between them.
9.
Labor (with), sunaqleVw:
This verb is probably better translated “to strive together with” as in
Philippians 1:27. The idea is that in order to effectively proclaim the
Gospel, believers must “strive together with” one another “for the faith of
the gospel” (Phil. 1:27). This requires a close relationship between them in
addition to great commitment and dedication.
10.
Fitly joined together (with),
sunarmologeVw:
Used only in Eph. 2:21 and 4:16 this word carries the idea of strong unity
among the saints.
Saint Paul uses this word to indicate the fact that all the parts or members
[of the body of Christ] are joined together in such a way that the ensemble
has real inner and outer unity, real harmony.
11.
Build together (with),
sunoikodomeVw:
Paul uses this word only once (Eph. 2:22). In context it refers to Body of
Christ, which is compared to a building in which all believers are “builded
together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” In other words the
church is made up of believers who work together so that they support the
entire building, which is the Body of Christ.
12.
Knit together (with), sumbibaVzw:
In three out of six verses in the New Testament in which the word
sumbibaVzw is used, it refers to
the intimate relationship, which should be found among the members of the
Body of Christ (Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:2; Col. 2:19).
It has been previously demonstrated that Christ taught his disciples using
the customary “master-disciple” relationship method of that day. Jesus was
justified in doing so because He was the God-man and ultimate master. The
rabbis of the day however were not fit for such a task. The result was that
Christ condemned the systematic process by which they trained men to follow
in the sages’ footsteps. He warned that one should not “be called rabbi”
(Matt. 23:9-12) and that one “must first be a servant” (Matt. 20:25-28).
Jesus rejected the elitist mentality of the day and prepared his followers
for a new and better way of spiritual training. This better way has come to
known through the New Testament epistles as the Body of Christ. In the
body, those who lead do so by serving and by setting an example of
godliness. The change in New Testament terminology from “disciple” to
“believers”, “Christians”, “brethren” etc. reflects a paradigm shift from a
“master/discipler-disciple” orientation to a “body“ orientation. The
development of the body metaphor produced within the church a new
self-understanding as a company of believers who are all uniquely enabled by
the Holy Spirit to serve God and edify one another.
One of the observations made in this study is that, based on the frequency
of noun forms, the word “disciple” is primarily the description of a person
rather than an action. If this is true, why not be willing to employ the
methods emphasized in the epistles? The epistle were in a unique way written
for and are applicable to the church. Even if we grant that the making of
the disciple is the primary goal and end product of the maturation process,
we must conclude that emphasis in the biblical record is not on the method
but on the result. The authors believe that the result, whether called a
“disciple” or a mature Christian (Eph. 4:13-14), is most readily
accomplished via the mutual ministry of the entire church and not the
one-on-one work of the “super spiritual” individuals with the “have nots”.
The church was meant to function within this new body paradigm where each
member functions in a God-given role for the benefit of the whole. The
studies of this paper indicate the necessity of such a body-oriented
ministry. That is, all believers within the local church are actively
involved in ministering to one another and are working together for the
cause of Christ on the basis of their individual abilities. “Discipleship-”
oriented models of ministry may inadvertently promote a dichotomy within the
Body of Christ: the “spiritual haves” (pastors/teachers and their disciples,
usually few) and the “have-nots” (everyone else). The well-known researcher
George Barna confirms the impression that a “top-down” model is very common
among churches today.
In the American Christian church, we are still a top-down
institution. Despite all the talk about creating laity-driven churches, the
vast majority of our religious institutions are created, organized, led,
managed, programmed and evaluated by the paid professionals we call clergy.
Such a model of ministry within the local church may deny in practice
that every believer has a spiritual gift for the profit withal (1 Cor.
12:4-12). Indeed, the essential principle behind the doctrine of the Body
of Christ is that each member is organically connected to Christ, and
therefore contributes to the welfare and benefit of the whole. Each
believer has tremendous, God-given potential to benefit his fellow believers
and to glorify God.
What then should be the goal for all believers in the church age? Not
“disciples” but spiritual maturity (Eph. 4:13-14). This is not to say there
are no similarities between these two concepts. Rather, that the God
ordained means to accomplish godly character, spiritual maturity and
fruitful service in the context of the church must be different than the
method employed by Christ in the Gospels. The epistles still require offices
of leadership in the church. Hence, there is still an element of “top-down”
authority necessary for the proper operation of the local church. Yet the
church leadership is charged with the responsibility of seeing that
believers are equipped for ministry, that their God given potential is
unleashed. This is to be accomplished through mutual ministry within the
Body of Christ. Ephesians 4:12 is often understood as speaking of the
primacy of pastors and teachers. Those who see themselves gifted to perform
such roles must not misunderstand their proper, Scripture-based function:
not as the focus of attention and authority but as those who are charged to
equip others for ministry to exercise whatever their Spirit-gifted abilities
may be.
A new dynamic has entered the scene since Pentecost. It is the formation of
the Body of Christ. Since its establishment upon the foundation of truth as
revealed through the apostles and prophets, the church itself is now the
“pillar and ground of the truth”. This is a statement that the church as a
whole is the repository and expounder of divine truth insofar as it teaches
and lives the inscripturated “faith which was once delivered unto the
saints” (Jude 3).
If the “disciple paradigm” is less than optimum for the present church age,
could this be the reason why the statement “20% of the people do 80% of the
work” is such a common description (with almost proverbial status) of the
operation of the average church today? The New Testament indicates that the
era of Christ and the apostles was unique and transitional. Likewise, the
methods used during this transitional time period to promote spiritual
growth and to pass on divine revelation were temporary. The inauguration of
the church led to a change in how believers were to be most effectively
equipped for maturity and ministry. In the present church age, this goal is
most effectively accomplished through mutual ministry of the members of the
Body of Christ to one another by exercising their God given spiritual gifts.
Barna, George. Today’s Pastors. Venture, CA: Regal Books, 1993.
Bauer, Walter, ed. A Greek Lexiicon of the New Testament and Other Early
ChristianLiterature, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979.
Earle, Ralph. Word Meanings in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1986.
McGrath, Brendan. ““Syn” Words in Saint Paul,” CBQ 14 (1952):
219-226.
Meye, Robert, P. “Disciple.” In The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1:947-948. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979-1988.
Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd
ed. England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.
Rengstorf, K. H. “maqhth,j.” In
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, Transl.
and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 4:415-460. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.
Richards, Lawrence O. “The Disappearing Disciple: Why is the Use of
‘Disciple’ Limited to the Gospels and Acts?” In EJ (Spring 1992)
3-11.
Ryrie, Charles C.. So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus
Christ. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989.
Vine, W. E. “Disciple.” In Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old
and New Testament Words,” ed. by Merrill F. Unger and William White,
Jr., 171.New York: Nelson, 1985.
__________. “Philosophy.” In The World Almanac® and Book of Facts 1997
is licensed from K-III Reference Corporation. Copyright © 1996 by K-III
Reference Corporation. All rights reserved.
|
