For years I have been running a youth ministry with a significant volunteer staff. We have had staff meetings in the past, but this year I really want to make the effort to have monthly meetings with the staff. We recently had our first meeting of the year. You might wonder what we talked about and what we did.

Many times staff meetings are planning meetings. Let’s get everyone in the room to brainstorm next month’s events and decide everyone’s roles. Possibly it’s just me, but I find it easier to plan most events myself and I don’t find that my volunteers really care to have much input in this area. I pray for the Lord to give me direction and work with the other ministries as we put our camps and conferences and such on the calendar.

If we didn’t plan events, what did we talk about then? First, we had a devotional. This week we discussed the topic, ‘Why Do Youth Ministry’. Afterward we discussed philosophy of ministry. Finally, we talked about why I wanted them to know that stuff. How many of your volunteers have considered their philosophy of ministry or the purpose of youth ministry? I wanted them to understand the heart behind the practices. As youth workers, we rarely do anything without a reason (whether we realize it or not). My reasons are hidden in my understanding of God’s word, so I wanted to share that with them.

One of the things I feel is incredibly important is small groups with regular small group leaders. In the past we had small groups, but leaders rotated. I want regular leaders working with the same group of kids, so that it becomes discipleship not teaching. The size of our youth group warrants at least four small groups, so there is no way I can have close relationships with all the teens, myself.

One of the men on staff mentioned something about the group that I would be taking. I had to confess that I would not be taking a group. Immediately it occurred to him that my small group was in the room. And isn’t this a biblical model? Jesus called the twelve, but they were just twelve among seventy. And even amidst the twelve there were three which received more personal training. If we are going to have strong ministries, the leaders need to see spiritually feeding into their volunteer staff as being of first importance. It’s top down leadership.

A wise man once told me that a ministry leader, whether the pastor, the worship leader or any other leader, should be training up men to replace himself. What a blessing to the teens of my church and community if I had a volunteer staff, any of which could step directly into my shoes without further training.

I’ve become convicted that having a staff meeting is critical to the functioning of the group as a whole. My hope and prayer is that holding regular staff meetings will unify all of the leadership from Sunday School teachers to small group leaders. And I believe it will result in a leadership team that’s ready to take on more of the challenges of ministry.

As I write this, my prayer for your ministry is that God would raise up leaders and equip you to train them, that your ministry would grow both in number and in devotion to Christ.

Most of us don’t know anything different, so it can seem odd that we ask the question, ‘Why do youth ministry?’, but there is a distinct sense in which answering this question will effect the way we look at youth ministry and, indeed, in the way we serve in youth ministry.

The technical term for teen or youth is ‘adolescent’. The term comes from the Latin adolescere, the verb for ‘growing up’. In contemporary times, most agree that adolescence occurs roughly during the teen years; it is marked by chemical changes in the body, beginning at puberty and ending when entering a new phase of life, young adulthood, around 19. Modern psychologists also go so far as to mark a post-adolescent phase of young adulthood from about 20-40.

Classically, there was no distinction made for teens and certainly not for young adults. When a child was physically able to work and mentally able to make intelligent decisions, they were considered a man or a woman. Certainly younger men and women did not command the respect that older men and women did, but there was no distinction made as to their phase of life.

As psychology progressed, chemical changes and later, brain function changes, began to effect that way that our society viewed the teen years. It began institutionally as government, schools and intellectual circles recognized the distinction. Eventually, however, the teens themselves began to recognize themselves as being adolescent. So, teens have been displaced socially and personally. They are able to make conscious moral decisions, yet are not held responsible for such.

This has incredible ministry implications. Many churches simply do not have youth ministries. There is severe stratification in how these churches handle the adolescent years, all of which cater to the church’s observation of the non-necessity of the distinction and none of which cater to the needs of the individual from within their socio/cultural setting. Even though youth ministry may have been unnecessary at a time, we now find ourselves with a distinct group of people who identify with each other in such a way that they are set apart from all other groups in the church.

I believe it would be wrong to take a dogmatic approach to the situation in which we either try to convince our youth that they are adults or demand that they are simply children as this would clearly be challenged by the adults of the church as well as the teens themselves.

The foundation for this belief can be seen in the definition of ministry. Ministry in its simplest definition is ‘the administration of God’s grace.’ To do ministry is to administer God’s grace upon people, to go between God and man to bestow upon them the mercies of God. Traditionally this is done by the preaching of the word of truth, the Gospel, whether corporately or personally. Similarly, a minister is the vessel that goes between God and men to bestow upon them God’s mercies.  A ministry is a corporate environment where God’s grace is bestowed upon people by ministers of that grace.

There is a distinct sense in which the Gospel message is able to transcend all boundaries; where children and seniors can come together to hear the word of God and respond to it. But, as is evidenced by the churches distinguishing of other ministries (ie. Men’s Ministry, Children’s Ministry, etc.), there is a need in many circumstances to form a ministry to meet the needs of another certain group of people, that they would hear the truth more effectively.

In light of all that has been said, the following is the scriptural foundation for youth ministry:

For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

(1 Corinthians 9.19-23)

Paul seems to be suggesting a model of ministry in which we cater to social stratification. Where society creates a distinction, whether that is a cultural distinction, a gender distinction or an age distinction, we create a ministry with the specific intent of preaching the gospel from within those social strata. Here are a few other observations:

1. Paul recognizes his freedom. He understands that this is not the only model for ministry, but he clearly believes it is the best. I would not criticize a church or an individual for taking a different view.
2. Paul believes that this method for ministry will yield a better result. He wants as many people to get saved as possible. If changing his own traditions and practices to become like another will result in a clearer presentation of gospel truth, then it is worth every ounce of effort.
3. Paul does this so that he might ‘share with them in its [the gospel’s] blessings’. In other words, he is confident that this model of ministry—one in which we cater to social stratification—is the most fruitful model of ministry.

In conclusion, whether it is right or wrong that society has birthed this concept of adolescence, I cannot say for certain. But, it is easily observed that a distinction has been made. We, as the church, have the freedom to operate a youth ministry, or not, but we must realize that recognition of the need for youth ministry will most certainly result in kingdom fruit.

On a side-note, I believe that our society has also warranted need for young adult ministries, specifically young singles (college/career) and young married couples.

I got this email a couple days ago and was waiting to respond until I had the time to respond well. This young man is dealing with a situation that reflects many teens today.

Ryan from Oregon asks:

I’m turning 13 Feb. 19 and I’ve been a Christian all my life. My parents raised me going to church. My mom plays the piano at church. I love God and pray a lot, but I feel like I’m just stuck in a black hole of sin. I always fight with my brothers and sometimes cuss to be cool. There are other things I’ve done that I regret. Can I have some words of wisdom or just a little advice on being more happy and staying on the right path with God?

In most Christian churches today, our children are being taught moralism; they are taught that life is about right and wrong. This creates an unnatural focus on sin. We sin as everything ‘bad’ we do. But, sin is bigger than that. Sin is anything which works against God’s purposes for us.

Think about it this way: God created Adam and Eve. Why? He wanted to have communion with them. He wanted to live among them. He wanted to get to know them and He wanted them to get to know Him. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, the communion between Adam and Eve and God was broken because the trust was broken. Ever since Adam and Eve, all mankind has been born ‘broken’ and we do not have communion or relationship with God.

God wants to restore that broken relationship. That’s why Jesus died on the cross; so that the death that we should experience due to our lack of communion with God would be placed on Him and we can commune with God.

How does this knowledge help the problem?

Well, Adam and Eve’s sin worked against God’s purposes. It wasn’t that God was mad because they disobeyed (that’s moralism), instead God was grieved because their disobedience broke their relationship. We have to understand that God is grieved over sin.

When Ryan cusses and fights with His brothers, God doesn’t roll His eyes and exclaim, “Here we go again!” Instead, he grieves over the breaking of the relationship that Ryan has with Him.

In light of this revelation, let’s look at three areas of Ryan’s story.

1. We can all relate to the ‘black hole of sin’ that haunts us. Sometimes we become so deep in sin that it is easier to sin than to face reality. What we need to realize is that God wants nothing more than to save us from the black hole. He wants to restore us. If you want to get out of the black hole, you need to do three things and be committed to them. 1) Ask God daily for deliverance. Tell Him that you hate your sin as He does and you want to be restored to a right relationship. Confess your sins by name (ie. forgive me for hitting my brother Jimmy). 2) Read the Word. Most 13 year olds are not avid Bible readers. Read one chapter of the Gospel of John every day, asking yourself about the things that Jesus is doing in the stories. 3) Accountability. Find an older boy in the youth group or a man who you trust. Confess your sins to him and ask him to pray for you and hold you accountable to your sins.
2. The second area is regret. We certainly are not happy that we have sin in our past, but we all do. God does not want us to focus on our past sins. Instead, he wants us to focus on our future obedience. Our past sins don’t ruin our current relationship. Those sins have been forgiven.
3. Finally, happiness. I don’t think happiness is a good goal to have. Happiness comes in moments at baseball games and times telling jokes with friends. This is great, but it’s momentary. What we need is joy and satisfaction. These come only from honestly living your life to honor God and to spread the good news of Jesus Christ. As we do this, God blesses us with joy and through His Spirit allows us to find satisfaction in our efforts.

I hope this can be an encouragement for others dealing with the same situations and to other youth workers, like myself, who have teens struggling with the same issues. God bless you as you pursue a life lived for the glory of God.

INTP (rational)

Introverted     Intuitive          Thinking         Perceiving

Jami and I sat down to take the Jung Typology Test because I needed to take it for my Foundations of Ministry class. It was a lot of fun and we learned a lot about ourselves. Here are some snippets from the analysis with my own notes.

TYPELOGIC.COM INTP PROFILE

INTPs are pensive, analytical folks. They may venture so deeply into thought as to seem detached, and often actually are oblivious to the world around them.

I just thought I got distracted easily.

Precise about their descriptions, INTPs will often correct others (or be sorely tempted to) if the shade of meaning is a bit off.

Jami and I had a good laugh about ‘shade of meaning’. As she is a Lit major, she is educated in grammar and very adamant about it’s form. I believe language is a social construct and is in constant need of contextualization. For this reason the particular shade of a word or the inflection given in delivery is of particular importance in understanding what the speaker is trying to communicate.

INTPs are relatively easy-going and amenable to almost anything until their principles are violated, about which they may become outspoken and inflexible.

This is me to a ‘T’.

A major concern for INTPs is the haunting sense of impending failure…An INTP arguing a point may very well be trying to convince himself as much as his opposition.

This is so true. When I write I don’t try to get the big picture in my mind before hand. Instead I see writing as a point of exploration. It goes hand-in-hand with data collection. My argument is formed through the process of communication, so as communication persists beyond the writing process, the argument is continually refined, resulting in a lack of confidence in any seemingly ‘final’ argument.

INTPs thrive on systems. Understanding, exploring, mastering, and manipulating systems can overtake the INTP’s conscious thought. This fascination for logical wholes and their inner workings is often expressed in a detachment from the environment, a concentration where time is forgotten and extraneous stimuli are held at bay.

Yeah, this is me. For example, I tend to have more fun refining my hermeneutic, than actually practicing hermeneutics. I’d rather build the system than use it, like a guy who builds rollercoaster, but doesn’t like to go on them.

One of the tipoffs that a person is an INTP is his obsession with logical correctness. Errors are not often due to poor logic; apparent faux pas in reasoning are usually a result of overlooking details or of incorrect context.

Yeah, you should read my thesis. Since we can never collect all the data, every argument is subject to failure upon the introduction of new data. That’s why Solomon can say that wisdom is meaningless.

Games NTs seem to especially enjoy include Risk, Bridge, Stratego, Chess, Go, and word games of all sorts.

This statement is clearly dated. I’d say Carcassonne and Settler’s of Catan. Soon I’ll be purchasing Dominion and we can add that to the list too.

Famous INTPs:

• Socrates
• Rene Descartes
• Blaise Pascal
• Sir Isaac Newton
• James Madison
• John Quincy Adams
• Dwight D. Eisenhower
• Gerald Ford
• William Harvey (pioneer in human physiology)
• C. G. Jung, (Freudian defector, author of Psychological Types, etc.)
• Albert Einstein
• Charles Darwin
• Rick Moranis (Honey, I Shrunk The Kids)
• Tiger Woods

Fictional INTPs

• Sherlock Holmes

I’m a particular fan of Descartes, Rick Moranis and Sherlock Holmes, for no reason which is obvious at this time, although, I do find playing and listening to music to help facilitate deep thought just like Sherlock Holmes.

RATIONAL PORTRAIT OF THE ARCHITECT (KEIRSY.COM)

A lot of this was already said above, but not in the same words, so I found it helpful.

Architects…are the master designers of all kinds of theoretical systems, including school curricula, corporate strategies, and new technologies. For Architects, the world exists primarily to be analyzed, understood, explained and re-designed.

I think this manifests theologically in my hermeneutic. I just can’t help but conclude that there is a proper hermeneutical system where everyone would understand the same exact truth from the Bible since God is unchanging and His truth is unchanging.

External reality in itself is unimportant, little more than raw material to be organized into structural models. What is important for Architects is that they grasp fundamental principles and natural laws, and that their designs are elegant, that is, efficient and coherent.

Reality is blurred. Logic is pure. Nuff said.

Architects are rare—maybe one percent of the population—and show the greatest precision in thought and speech of all the types. They tend to see distinctions and inconsistencies instantaneously, and can detect contradictions no matter when or where they were made.

I knew I was different.

It is difficult for an Architect to listen to nonsense, even in a casual conversation, without pointing out the speaker’s error. And in any serious discussion or debate Architects are devastating, their skill in framing arguments giving them an enormous advantage.

Ouch. I often get into theological conversations with people and even if I don’t have the data to prove my point, I can certainly use reason to thwart theirs. Jami’s observed this many times as well.

Architects regard all discussions as a search for understanding, and believe their function is to eliminate inconsistencies, which can make communication with them an uncomfortable experience for many.

Yeah, I definitely see conversation as a means for communication not for entertainment, so semantics and reason are very important.

Architects are driven to find the most efficient means to their ends, and they will learn in any manner and degree they can. They will listen to amateurs if their ideas are useful, and will ignore the experts if theirs are not. Authority derived from office, credential, or celebrity does not impress them. Architects are interested only in what make sense, and thus only statements that are consistent and coherent carry any weight with them.

My professors hate this. I’ll quote the most unlikely sources because what they said is pure and reasonable over some scholar who makes convoluted arguments.

Architects often seem difficult to know. They are inclined to be shy except with close friends, and their reserve is difficult to penetrate.

My close friends think I’m outgoing and find it odd when I tell them I don’t like talking to new people at church.

Able to concentrate better than any other type, they prefer to work quietly at their computers or drafting tables, and often alone.

I can get lost in study for hours. I remember once, when I was in third grade, I was studying rocks on the playground—by myself—and got so involved in it that I didn’t hear the bell and was an hour late getting back to the classroom.

Architects also become obsessed with analysis, and this can seem to shut others out. Once caught up in a thought process, Architects close off and persevere until they comprehend the issue in all its complexity.

When I made my Spiritual Gifts test, I worked on it day and night for almost three days strait.

Architects prize intelligence, and with their grand desire to grasp the structure of the universe, they can seem arrogant and may show impatience with others who have less ability, or who are less driven.

I’d have to clarify the statement. Intelligence is reason, not data. I have little patience for proof-texting an argument. Please just tell me why it is reasonable.

I got to preach to the whole congregation on New Years Day. If anyone missed it, here is my manuscript and a recording of the message.

INTRO

I was talking to a friend of mine at school about my preaching topic. I wanted to do something that was New Years related—it just seemed appropriate. I have taught on vows three times over the last six months and felt that would probably be appropriate. My friend didn’t think so. Over the next few hours I began to ponder what my truest desires for this church were; what could this church accomplish in 2012 that would bring me the most joy?

I love this church. There is some ambiguity surrounding the word church as we use it in the English language. For example:

Is the church a building? To a great degree, I do love this place. I grew up going to church in this building. When we drive by this building in the car, the kids say, ‘there’s the church’. There is something nostalgic and sentimental about this building for me, but this building is not the church.

Many times we refer to a church by their leadership? ‘That’s John MacArthur’s church’ or ‘Rick Warren’s church’ ‘Jim DeVore’s church’. I love our pastors and our elders. They have been great mentors to me. But, our pastors and elders—our leaders—are not the church.

How about the community? We are, after all, Cornerstone Church of Littlerock. We identify with this community. Often when we talk about ‘the church’ we are referring to the body of believers in a community. In missions discussions, we often talk about ‘the church in England’ of ‘the Church in South America’ as a way of quantifying the body of evangelical believers in a particular geographic region. I do love Littlerock. Jami and I were both raised here. We decided to buy our house here. I have lots of great God fearing friends in the community. Our families live here. But, the church is not this community.

The apostle Paul went to great lengths to identify the church in several places. I don’t think any other definition serves my purposes better. When I say I love this church, I mean what Paul wrote. In Romans 12.4-5 he wrote:

For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

We are individually members of one another. That is to say that every one of us who meet, in this building and are a part of this community and submit to the leadership of this body of believers—we are each, individually, a member of Christ’s church. We are all uniquely gifted for service in the body; each one of us is valuable for the progression of the gospel and the building up of Christ’s church. When I say I love this church, I mean no less than that I love each and every one of Christ’s people here today.

So for each one of you—the church—my desire is the same as that of the apostle John for his churches. This should be a familiar passage for most of you, especially if you attend regularly and have heard Pastor Jim preach through second and third John.

I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth. (3 John 1:4)

Let’s get a quick handle on the context. John is writing this letter to a dear friend Gaius. In verse 3 you can see that John is happy to see that Gaius is ‘walking in the truth.’ They had issues with teachers coming in and teaching false doctrines and taking advantage of the believers, even leading some astray. There is a sense that John must have feared for his friend Gaius and was happy to hear he was standing firm in the truth. Verse 4 comes as almost a footnote—a generalization—from John in which he makes a blanket statement about all of those whom he ministers to. He has no greater joy than to hear that they are ‘walking in the truth.’

For most of us, we will read a verse like this and make a sensible assumption about what it means, but sometimes this can be an underestimation of the value of such a verse. In this verse, there are three character traits which we will look at that will help us to understand more clearly what it means to walk in the truth.

BODY

1. Reflect the truth (walk).

It’s pretty obvious that walk is not referring simply to walking. It is an idiom. In general walking has to do with living. To ‘walk the walk’ is to show what you believe by your actions. To ‘walk on egg shells’ is to carefully consider your words and actions. To ‘walk a thin line’ is entertain opposing views (ie. the line between the world and Christ). If we are going to walk in truth, our lives will be a reflection of the truth that we find.

1. Be IN the truth (in—as opposed to by).

The Greek word used for in is ἐν. This word is most commonly translated as ‘in’ or ‘by’. But, all major translations translate it as ‘in’, in this verse. The verse simply makes no sense if translated by. My Dad always says, “Almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.” If I’m going to blow up a building and I throw a hand grenade by it that might do the trick. I don’t have to throw it in the building. But, in all other circumstances, by is just not good enough.

I could ask you this. Do you want to spend your eternity in heaven or by heaven? Just near it or actually in it? If I go to the lake to go swimming, I’m going to need to be in the lake to get wet, not just by it. In the same way, we must walk in the truth. Whatever this truth is we must be steeped in it. We have to be getting wet. We can’t be observing it from a distance. When we walk in the truth, we walk a narrow path. It’s not good enough to cut our own path that stays in eye shot, so that those on the path can see us and count us as with them; we must walk in the path of truth.

All this to say, be consistent. We will certainly falter in our walk and get out of the path, but get back in it. Don’t think that walking in your sin and simply being near the path is close enough.

1. Be real, genuine or authentic (truth).

Let’s start by asking, ‘What is the truth?’ Truth is what is real, genuine or authentic. To recap quickly, walking in the truth is living a life in consistently in pursuit of reality, genuineness and authenticity. Another way to say it is that we seek what is real. We have heard it said time and time again that no one’s theology is perfect. I’m not satisfied with that. I want to know the truth. And so in every way, we should desire to live according to the truth; always seeking, always refining our ways, and constantly being sanctified as we live lives which are closer to the truth.

‘Walking in the truth’ is an idiom. There is a sense in which truth simply means truth in this statement and certainly there is nothing in the text that would cause us to pursue this idea of truth to some further end, except for the author of the letter. We can look at John’s other letters and get a better idea of what he meant by truth. I think we find that easily in John 14.6 when John records Jesus’ words, “I am the way and the truth and the life.” Jesus is the truth.

And I think we will find that this understanding is consistent with the idea of truth anyway. John tells us in John 1 that Jesus is the very word of God made into flesh. Everything that Jesus did and lived is the demonstration of God’s truth. I don’t want to leave you with this abstract concept of walking in the truth, so let’s look quickly at four ways that we can walk in the truth.

EXHORTATION

1. Live according to Christ—John 14.6
2. Live because of the Gospel (the word or testimony of truth)—Ephesians 1.13, James 1.18
3. Live as a hard worker of the truth—2 Timothy 2.15
4. Live in humility—Ephesians 4.1-2 (the calling is to come to Christ—to truth), Colossians 3.12 (God’s chosen ones are those who He saved), 1 Peter 5.5 (instruction to the church.)
   1. Explain the context of the verses
   2. Define humility

CONCLUSION

Tie the three points into the opening illustration.

If we, as individuals, live according to Christ, remembering the gospel of our salvation, working hard for the truth and living in humble submission to Christ and one another, imagine what God will do in His church…

• …in this building.
• …with this leadership.
• …in this community.

If you are going to make a New Year’s resolution this year, resolve to pursue truth and walk in it.

Todd from North Carolina asks:

Where do we find Bible authority for celebrating the birth of Christ?

That is a great question. There actually is no command to celebrate the birth of Christ in the Bible.

We began celebrating the birth of Christ in the 4rth century. It was a decision made by the Roman Catholic bishops. They chose to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December as a way to overshadow the Pagan Winter Solstice celebrations. The pagans didn’t really conform to Christianity. Pagan rituals were allowed into the celebration of Christmas which remain in essence today.

The question is, “If it’s not biblical, then why do we still celebrate?”

There is a long history of celebrating important events in the Bible. God even commanded Israel to celebrate as a remembrance of many important events. Where we are not commanded in  any way to celebrate Christmas, we most certainly are at liberty to, so long as we remember we are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ our savior and not Santa Clause or any other social ritual promoted today.

I was reading in John 6 this morning and came to verse 44, where I felt I needed to study it out a little to truly understand the meat of the passage. Here is a Greek-English breakdown of verse 44, followed by my own translation:

no one (οὐδεὶς) has power (δύναται) to come (ἐλθεῖν) to (πρός) me (με) if (ἐὰν) not (μὴ) the (ὁ) Father (πατὴρ) that (ὁ) sends (πέμψας) me (με) draws (ἑλκύσῃ) him (αὐτόν) and I also (κἀγὼ) will raise (ἀναστήσω) him (αὐτὸν) in (ἐν) the (τῇ) end of the days (ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ).

No one has power to come to me if the Father, sending me, does not draw him and I will also raise him in the end of days.

The conundrum which the Jews were dealing with had to do with Jesus claiming to have come down from heaven, but they knew him as the son of Mary. Their question is essentially, ‘How could you have been born and raised of Mary and also have come down from heaven?’

Jesus responds with, ‘No one has power to come to me if the Father, sending me, does not draw him and I will also raise him in the end of days.’

Contextually, we see that he is addressing their unbelief. He is, as is fairly obvious by the text, saying that we can only come to Christ if God the Father draws us to Christ. This is the first and foremost proof text for the Calvinistic perspective on election—that God predestined some for salvation and others for condemnation.

My apologies to anyone who is hoping for an argument against it; I need to get back to working on a hermeneutics project for school, but I’ll leave you with one thought: the word of God is true; therefore, this statement is true. If there is to be reconciliation with this passage and arguments for our freedom to choose Christ, I suspect we will only find the answer by doing a lengthy study on dispensational pneumatology—the study of the Holy Spirit’s role and activity in varying dispensations or era.

Clearly the Spirit takes on a different role in the church dispensation than he did in the pre-mosaic era or in the era of Israel. If we are to define a dispensation that ranges from either post-exilic times or from the coming of John the Baptist until the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, it will be difficult to define the workings of the Spirit for lack of data, but that is probably the only place a valid argument might lay.

Over time many readers of the Bible have identified and studied the role and progression of covenants in the Bible. Understanding the progression of the covenants will help to understand God’s purposes in the narratives of Genesis, the Pentateuch and the whole Bible. This paper will trace the development of the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants to reveal God’s purposes within them.

Development of the Noahic Covenant

The Noahic covenant was a covenant made between God and Noah, but ultimately with all of mankind. The backdrop for the covenant was given in Genesis 6 when “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (v. 5). God grieved over all creation and was sorry that He had made them; yet God was pleased with Noah (vv. 6-8). The Noahic narrative describes an act of God’s mercy upon mankind; where man was sinful, God chose to use Noah to preserve His creation.

The Noahic covenant was foreshadowed in Genesis 6. God said that He would establish His covenant with Noah, a statement directly followed by His instruction to build the ark (v. 18). As the narrative progresses, Noah and his sons build the ark, God brings two of every animal into the ark and God exacts His judgment upon the wicked generation, preserving Noah and his sons from within the ark while the rest of mankind was destroyed by the flood (Genesis 6.19-22; 7; 8.1-19).

There are two movements which serve to setup the establishment of the Noahic covenant. The first comes in Genesis 8. God recognizes that “the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth” (v. 21). Given that God had just destroyed nearly the entire creation, He vows never to do so again. In fact, in His promise to preserve the seasons, God vows never to destroy every living creature again until the end times when the entire earth will be destroyed (v. 22).

The second movement comes in Genesis 9. God echoes His command to Adam in Genesis 1.28 when He tells Noah to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (v. 1). God chooses to preserve mankind as a whole through the line of Noah and not through any other means. God also gives mankind the ability to fulfill the command given to Adam to “have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1.28) in that He both allows Noah and his sons to eat meat and He places the fear of man into the hearts of the animals (v. 2, 3).

It is in this movement that the purpose of the Noahic covenant is seen. God tells of the importance of the lifeblood of an animal. Noah is given two commands. First, man is not to eat the blood of an animal (v. 4). Second, because the life is in the blood, man is not to shed the blood of man, lest his own blood be shed (v. 6a, b). Man’s life is to be honored because man was made in God’s image (v. 6c). These statements are bookended by the command to multiply and fill the earth (v. 1) and a command to all mankind (the you in verse 7 is plural in the original) to fill the earth. The purpose of the Noahic covenant is to reestablish mankind upon the earth; to restore the life which God destroyed in the flood.

The establishment of the covenant occurs in Genesis 9. It is at this point that God promises to Noah and his offspring after him (all mankind) not to destroy all mankind and animals again by a flood (vv. 8-11). The following verses describe the sign of the Noahic covenant (vv.12-17). When the rainbow appears in the sky, God will remember His promise to Noah and to all mankind, not to destroy them by a flood, regardless of their wickedness. God then shows the sign to Noah, that he too will remember the covenant. Therefore, the rainbow serves as a reminder to mankind of God’s promises and of the purpose of the covenant, to fill the earth.

Development of the Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic covenant was a covenant made between God and Abraham. As mankind filled the earth again after the times of Noah, they proved to be wicked just as before the flood. The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant between God and Abraham, where God promised to make a great nation out of Abraham. This was to be a holy nation, devoted to God. The first eleven chapters of Genesis describe this need by narrating man’s wickedness and pursuit of rebellion against God.

The foundational elements of the Abrahamic covenant are found in Genesis 12. God commanded Abram to go out from the land he was living in without any exact direction (v. 1). He then gives Abram a promise which will come if Abram is obedient to this task. Abram is promised to be made into a great nation (v. 2a), he is promised blessing and reputation (v. 2b) and he is promised that he will be a blessing to others (v. 2c). Abram will become the standard by which people of the earth will be blessed, “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse” (v. 3a). And finally, it is given that all families (nations or peoples) will find blessing in Abram (v. 3b).

The covenant with Abram is made in Genesis 15. God gives Abram a vision, where he promises him two things. First, He promises Abram that his descendents will become countless as the stars in the sky are countless. Abram is concerned about this because he has no physical heir, but God promises him an heir (vv. 1-5). Second, God promises Abram possession of land. He shows him the promised land (the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites (vv. 19-21)) and tells him that his descendants will posses this land (v. 18). This is the land which the holy nation which God will bring out of Abram will posses.

The sign of the Abrahamic covenant comes in chapter 17 when God says, “You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you” (v. 11). The covenant agreement is that the male children of Abraham (God changed Abram’s name to Abraham in v. 5) must have their foreskins removed—circumcision—and God will bless them with an inheritance (v. 8-13). God says that any who are not circumcised have acted against the covenant and will be cut off from the people of God (v. 14).

The purpose of the Abrahamic covenant is that Abraham’s seed would become a great nation, but that they would be a holy nation. Abraham was to “command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18.19). The idea is that other nations would see the blessings of God’s people and that they would desire to follow God in order to receive the same blessing. This is what is meant by, “all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him [Abraham]” (Genesis 18.17). The purpose of the Abrahamic covenant is that the nation which came out of Abraham would lead other nations to follow God.

Genesis 22 affirms the blessings if the covenant. Abraham was tested by God and proved to be obedient. Because of this God promises to fulfill the covenant promises: to bless Abraham (v.17a), to multiply Abraham’s descendents beyond numbering (v. 17b), to give them the land of their enemies (v. 17c), and to bless all nations through the nation which would come out of Abraham (v. 18). This covenant promise is based on Abraham’s obedience, not the nations obedience.

Throughout the book of Genesis, God is faithful to this promise to Abraham. On several accounts, God reaffirms His promises made to Abraham (26:2-5, 23-25; 28:10-17; 35:9-12; 50:24). God is faithful to remember the covenant as the nation is faithful to keep with the sign of the covenant of circumcision. These promises as recounted in the latter parts of the narrative are twofold: to bring a nation out of the descendants of Abraham and to deliver them into the land of their enemies.

As the remainder of the Pentateuch (and the remainder of the Bible) is read, the Bible reader will see the promise of the Noahic covenant played out repeatedly. As mankind pursues wickedness, God yet has mercy on them and does not destroy the work of His hands. The latter books of the Pentateuch and the books of the former prophets will show God’s faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant as the holy nation of Israel is formed out of the seed of Abraham and in time, delivered into the land which God had promised them. Even under the New Covenant we await the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant as prophesied by the Apostle John.

The goal of grammatical- historical hermeneutics is to uncover the truth of scripture by uncovering the meaning and implications of the passage from the language of the original text in its original context. That is, what was actually being said to the original audience and why was it being said. This approach gives the student of scripture pure insight into God’s intent behind the scriptures and allows the implications to be properly understood and applied within a modern context. There are two approaches that must be taken to the scripture: content analysis and context analysis.

CONTENT

The content has to do with what the passage actually says. What are the words used and how do they fit together? The art of interpretation comes through in the student’s ability to first understand what the message says and then craft it into an English sentence which best represents the truth of scripture. The two approaches to content are lexical and syntactical analysis.

Lexical analysis has to do with the meaning of the actual words. Many words have multiple meanings. Same as a trunk could refer to the elongated nose of an elephant or the storage compartment in your car, many Hebrew and Greek words can mean drastically different things. More often than not, the context is used to determine the intended meaning of the words, however there can also be etymological implications when determining the meaning. It should be noted, however, that etymology alone is not a reliable means itself for determining the meaning of a word.

Syntactical analysis has to do with the relation of the words, phrases and clauses. Identifying the relationship of the words in the original language, allows the student to accurately translate them into a grammatical English structure. When words are not placed in the correct order, they can drastically change the meaning of the text. For example, exchanging the subject for the direct object can be drastic. To say that “Jim pet the dog.” is far different than “The dog pet Jim”.

CONTEXT

Context has to do with the situation in which the text was written. We don’t live in the time that the text was written, nor do we live in the culture in which it was written. We probably are not even familiar with the genre which the text belongs to because they are no longer commonly used. Knowing the context will allow the student of scripture to accurately translate the words as well as provide the framework necessary for determining the purpose of the text and deriving implication. There are three contexts which must be considered: historical, cultural and literary.

The historical context places the scripture into the setting in which it was written. It can be valuable to know the narrow and the broad history of the text. For example, when dealing with Solomonic writings such as Ecclesiastes, it is valuable to understand the history of Israel and the Davidic reign as well as the context of Israel in relation to the rest of the influential world.

The cultural context has to do with the traditions and practices of the people group being discussed by the text. To understand the cultural context is often to understand the principle behind the text. For instance, the levitical command to not boil a goat in its mother’s milk is inexplicable if we do not understand the symbolism derived of the practice within the Canaanite culture. The principle is to not identify with ungodly people. This principle is lost without the cultural context.

Finally, the literary context allows the student to see what is happening in the story. The Bible is a complete work and therefore valuable to knowing where the passage exists within the story of the Bible. However, it is also valuable in understanding where the passage exists within the book itself. Questions should be asked. Where does the passage fit into the purpose of this book? Where does the passage fit within the structure of the book? What is the literary genre? The literary context also goes deeper to the immediate context; the student must consider the preceding and proceeding passages to be certain that the implications of the passage are fully understood within the context in which they are given. Like a letter is best read from beginning to end, any book of the Bible—and any passage within it—should be read from beginning to end and understood within the context of the whole.

It is only when considering the content and the context of a passage when you can understand fully what a passage says, but more so, why it says it. The goal of Bible interpretation is never to know what a passage says—simply for knowledge’s sake—but to understand why it says what it says. It is the ‘why’ that is essential for understanding the implications of the Bible so that they can be applied to real life within any cultural setting.

Theology of Disciple Making

A recent influx of missions discussions in the church has prompted some thought regarding conflicting interpretations of Matthew 28.19-20a. In general, there is not notable discrepancy as to how to translate the words from the original Greek to English, however there are stark difference in how we understand the English translations. The following grammatical analysis is intended to bring clarity to the text by analyzing the major areas of discrepancy, followed by the evangelistic implications of the passage and concluding with a practical mathetology.

Interpretations of Matthew 28.19-20a

ESV

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.

Young’s Literal

Having gone, then, disciple all the nations, (baptizing them — to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you,)

GW

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to do everything I have commanded you.

Douay-Rheims 1899

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:

Jay P. Green Literal 1985

Going, then, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to obey all things, whatever I have commanded.

Synthesis

Therefore, going, train up disciples in all nations by baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and by teaching them to obey all things which I have commanded you.

Problems in Interpretation

The Going Issue

There are two common understandings of the command, ‘going, train up disciples’. When there are theological differences, most will cling to one side of the argument or the other—black or white. These are the opposing views (1) the command to make disciples means ‘as you go, wherever you go’ or (2) this is an imperative command to go to other nations to make disciples.

The command, ‘going, train up disciples’ can be compared to the statement ‘running, bring me the hammer.’

In the 2^nd sentence, running is the means by which the hammer was brought. If it said, walking there would be a completely different implication. Running has a sense of urgency to it. In the same way, the word going is the means by which we are to train up disciples and brings implication to the statement.

Given the grammatical analysis, there are two implications. (1) This is not an imperative, a command to go to another nation as the imperative is to ‘train up’ and (2) there is an implication of purpose and intent in the training up of disciples.

Neither of the common views are, therefore, correct if the grammar is understood properly. The first understanding is not correct because it denies purpose and intent; it allows you to do whatever you want so long as you are making disciples in the process. The second is also not correct as there is not a command to go somewhere specific; the command is to train up or make disciples.

As is often the case in theological dispute, the truth lies in the middle. We are to be going intentionally and purposefully with the intent of training up or making disciples, however the going is the means to the end, implying purpose and intent in disciple making, not an imperative command to go to another nation.

At the same time, we all need to be intentional and purposeful in the command to train up or make disciples—we need to be going to do this! Many will be called to fulfill this calling in overseas missions work with an unreached people group. Many will be called to do this locally. Many will be called to all sorts of places in-between.[1]

The Baptizing and Teaching Issue

There is another problematic portion of this passage. Many people see three commands in this passage: Make disciples, baptize and teach. It is clearly observed that there is no command in the passage to baptize or teach. The only command is to make or train up disciples.

Again, let’s look at this grammatically. The command in the ESV is, “…make disciples…, baptizing them…, teaching them…” Let’s say you were told to “Make a cake, mixing the ingredients, baking at 350°” What is being said? This is a command to make a cake which also provides instructions on how to accomplish it. Therefore, in the synthesis of the passage, the words by and and are inserted to indicate baptizing and teaching more clearly as the instructions for training up disciples, in light of the grammatical analysis.

Evangelistic Implications

The ‘Making Disciples’ Issue

There is some concern about how to translate mathetusate (μαθητεύσατε). The word means to train up disciples, but is often used in the sense of making disciples. There is a simple nuance between making and training up, but there is really no reason to prefer one translation over another, except that to say ‘train up’ would be a more literal approach. In the end, mathetusate is not simply to make disciples, but to train them up, so regardless of how it is translated, the implication remains the same.

Regarding Evangelism

Given this translation and interpretation, this passage does not appear to directly relate to evangelism; at least not superficially. However, in that a disciple is a follower of Christ and a follower of Christ is one who, by faith, responds to the gospel message, it can certainly be concluded that this passage, by exclusion, presupposes and even emphasizes the necessity of gospel presentation as a foundational element of disciple making.

All that to say, Jesus did not tell the disciples to present the gospel to people in order to make them disciples—that was obvious and therefore implicit in the disciple making process.

Concluding Thoughts

It would be a vain effort not to provide some sort of practicum for mathetology at this point. The following is a list of application derived from the previous arguments.

• Make an intentional effort to train up disciples. Don’t expect that people will come to Christ as a natural consequence of ‘living your life your own way’ (as you go).
• Pursue God’s calling for your life. Not all are called to the mission’s field, but as you are, you must heed that calling. In the same way that every member of the body cannot be a hand or an eye, we cannot all be overseas missionaries, nor can we all refuse the call to be overseas missionaries.[2]
• People become disciples by no other means than that they respond in faith to the message of the gospel.[3] However, in this passage, Jesus gives a 3 step plan for the training up of disciples:[4]

1. Evangelize
2. Baptize
3. Catechize

Evangelism alone does not make disciples; Jesus prescribes baptism and catechism as a consequence to evangelism recognizing that faith does not always occur as a response to the hearing of the gospel message.

In that this passage was presented to the disciples just prior to the ascension, it can be concluded that Jesus was giving this command to the church and not to the individual.[5] Not denying the obvious implications for the individual in the text, God’s soteriological purpose is fulfilled through the church. Therefore, the church as a universal institution is charged with the evangelizing, baptizing and catechizing of all nations. As the church is represented locally and there is no universal church authority aside from Christ, every local church should have an intentional and purposeful model (not necessarily a program) for obedience to this charge.

Without being overly pragmatic, a model constructed from the first few chapters of Acts demonstrates a practical philosophy. Evangelize many. Baptize those who agree. Catechize those who are willing.