there must be divisions

[jonathanbchristian]

there must be divisions to see who is approved of God. See attached art

 

[Dave-W]

Where are the Messianics on your graph?

 

[dayhiker]

I don't understand that graphic all all.

 

[Biblicist]

there must be divisions to see who is approved of God. See attached art

I see, you've pointed out that there are two primary streams within the Full Gospel movement which lead to the Heavenly Realm, with the first being the Pentecostals and with the Charismatic movement which began in the 60's and 70's; and where cessationism is essentially dead in the ground with no feet to stand on.

With your "Blasphemies of gifts..." I presume that you meant to say "Blasphemies against the gifts...".

PS. As many contemporay Christians don't always see the important difference between the Pentecostal and charismatic movements this means that your chart could easily be misunderstood.

 

[bloodbought09]

Truth and power. I somewhat agree but there are other spirits that masquerade as the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I would include those who have received another spirit. Do not get me wrong at all, I am baptized in the Holy Spirit and fire. Part of that fire is standing for the truth and against error such as gay marriage and abortion but standing for morality is not enough, we must still be born-again. And the Spirit of faith will give us spiritual backbone while the jellyfishes fall by the wayside.

 

[bloodbought09]

I see, you've pointed out that there are two primary streams within the Full Gospel movement which lead to the Heavenly Realm, with the first being the Pentecostals and with the Charismatic movement which began in the 60's and 70's; and where cessationism is essentially dead in the ground with no feet to stand on.

With your "Blasphemies of gifts..." I presume that you meant to say "Blasphemies against the gifts...".

PS. As many contemporay Christians don't always see the important difference between the Pentecostal and charismatic movements this means that your chart could easily be misunderstood.

Criticism of the gift of the Holy Spirit is very close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but the unpardonable sin is rejecting Christ till death.

I do not find cessationism in the bible but I do see "these signs will follow those who believe..."

 

[Biblicist]

Truth and power. I somewhat agree but there are other spirits that masquerade as the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

What do you mean by the "spiritual gifts" exactly?

 

[bloodbought09]

What do you mean by the "spiritual gifts" exactly?

1 Corinthians 12

Word of knowledge, word of wisdom, faith, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, discerning of spirits, administrations.

 

[bloodbought09]

Alright, I missed healing and miracles.

 

[Dave-W]

1 Corinthians 12
Word of knowledge, word of wisdom, faith, tongues, interpretation of tongues, prophecy, discerning of spirits, administrations.

Actually, 1 Cor 12 has 2 different lists, and you missed a few.

The first list: 1 Cor 12.8-10 (9 total)

word of wisdom
word of knowledge
faith
gifts of healing
miracles
prophecy
discerning of spirits
tongues
interpretation of tongues

The 2nd list: 1 Cor 12.28 (8 total)

apostles
prophets
teachers
miracles
gifts of healing
helps
administrations
tongues

And there are other lists in Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 2 Pet 4.

 

[bloodbought09]

Actually, 1 Cor 12 has 2 different lists, and you missed a few.

The first list: 1 Cor 12.8-10 (9 total)

word of wisdom
word of knowledge
faith
gifts of healing
miracles
prophecy
discerning of spirits
tongues
interpretation of tongues

The 2nd list: 1 Cor 12.28 (8 total)

apostles
prophets
teachers
miracles
gifts of healing
helps
administrations
tongues

And there are other lists in Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 2 Pet 4.

Thank you. That is where I saw administrations. My girlfriend and wife to be has the gift of administrations.

 

[Biblicist]

Alright, I missed healing and miracles.

That's okay, your typo has been forgiven.

My question was somewhat mischievous as many Christians (be they Full Gospel as well) seem to hold to a rather abstract idea as to what is meant by the term "spiritual-gifts". This has not been helped by the way our translators have employed the term as Paul never used the term himself.

But I agree with you in that the 9 Operations of the Spirit found in 1Cor 12:7-11 are the complete list;

1. Wisdom
2. Knowledge
3. Faith
4. Powers (aka, miracles)
5. Healings
6. Prophecy
7. Discernment of spirits
8. Tongues
9. Interpretation of tongues

Whereas 1Cor 12:28 are Offices;

1. Apostle
2. Prophet
3. Teacher
4. Powers
5. Healings
6. Administrations
7. Helps
8. Tongues (and interpretation)

Of the 8 Congregational Offices, I would deem only four to be Spirit initiated (in bold) whereas the remaining four are based more on our temperament, character and personality.

The Office of Administrations seems to involve areas of leadership but not necessarily with those of the Elders and Deacons, it could refer to those who lead home groups or other forms of ministry.

The Office of Helps probably refers to those who have a pastoral ministry where their abilities could be used for counselling, prayer and with other areas of support.

 

[Dave-W]

Of the 8 Congregational Offices, I would deem only four to be Spirit initiated (in bold) whereas the remaining four are based more on our temperament, character and personality.

And where would you place all the ministry gifts from Romans 12?

6 Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; 7 if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; 8 or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Prophecy
2 Service
3 Teaching
4 Exhortation
5 Giving
6 Leading
7 Mercy

 

[Biblicist]

And where would you place all the ministry gifts from Romans 12?

6 Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly: if prophecy, according to the proportion of his faith; 7 if service, in his serving; or he who teaches, in his teaching; 8 or he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

1 Prophecy
2 Service
3 Teaching
4 Exhortation
5 Giving
6 Leading
7 Mercy

As my position is that Paul never uses the term “spiritual gifts”, where I follow 1Cor 12:1 Περὶ δὲ τῶν πνευματικῶν, which is ‘spiritual matters or things’ and with 12:4 Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων, which is ‘varieties of free-graces’ and most importantly with 1Cor 12:7 φανέρωσις τοῦ πνεύματος ‘operations/manifestations of the Spirit’; in light of this, if you had both the time and patience I could ask you to spend a bit of time where you could possibly answer the question for me.

With the construction of Rom 12, where Paul says in verse 6 “according to the grace given us”, I’m not sure if Paul is speaking of the Operations of the Spirit (12:7-11) or to the grace that we have been given due to our reception of the Spirit when we were saved; or the ‘grace’ may be due to the Father having adopted us as his children where we have been blessed in the New Covenant.

With reference to my opening paragraph, when it comes to;

1 Prophecy
2 Service
3 Teaching
4 Exhortation
5 Giving
6 Leading
7 Mercy​

I would see that prophecy has possibly been singled out as being representative of the 9 Operations of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11). As this is the only one of the seven that is operated by the Holy Spirit, Paul could probably have made reference to any of the other 9 Manifestations of the Spirit as well.

Beside prophecy, which is both an Operation of the Spirit (1Cor 12:7-11) and a Congregational Office (12:28), the only other item in the list that is an Office is that of Teaching which not an Operation of the Spirit. Leadership is probably being equated with the Office of Administrations (12:28) but Service, Exhortation, Giving and Mercy are best seen as being fruits of the Spirit, though Service may be more of an attitude as would Giving be.

With Eph 4:11 where we have what is popularly referred to as the supposed “Five-fold ministry gifts”, I see these not as being gifts as they appear to be things “not given” but “left behind” for the Church after the Lord ascended. As Israel and indeed the world has always had those who have an apostolic (missionary, church planting) demeanour along with those who have a pastoral heart and who have a zeal (evangelists) for whatever they many be involved in; then I would say that we all fit into at least one of these five roles.

 

[Dave-W]

Biblicist - I would submit that your analysis is way too Greek and not near enough to Hebraic thought to be of use. The Greek approach is to subdivide everything thing down to component parts; (exactly what you are doing) while Hebraic thought looks at everything as a whole or part of a whole. Specifically with spiritual gifts Paul uses the various giftings as different parts of the same body (read 1 Cor 12)

I see your differentiation between "operation of the Spirit" giftings and "temperament, character and personality" giftings to have no biblical merit.

Remember Paul was not trained under the tutelage of Aristotle or Socrates; but Gamaliel the Great, grandson of the Jewish sage Hillel. But he was writing to people who were more familiar with Aristotle than Hillel. So he used one to explain the other.

 

[Biblicist]

Biblicist - I would submit that your analysis is way too Greek and not near enough to Hebraic thought to be of use. The Greek approach is to subdivide everything thing down to component parts; (exactly what you are doing) while Hebraic thought looks at everything as a whole or part of a whole. Specifically with spiritual gifts Paul uses the various giftings as different parts of the same body (read 1 Cor 12)]/quote]


I see your differentiation between "operation of the Spirit" giftings and "temperament, character and personality" giftings to have no biblical merit.

Remember Paul was not trained under the tutelage of Aristotle or Socrates; but Gamaliel the Great, grandson of the Jewish sage Hillel. But he was writing to people who were more familiar with Aristotle than Hillel. So he used one to explain the other.

You should find my reply interesting. Even though Paul certainly included a few Hebraisms this post should hopefully be able to demonstrate that Paul’s thought was indeed Greek where he (and/or his scribes) followed the principles of Graeco-Roman rhetoric.

This brings us to the first question as to Paul who was the Apostle to the Gentiles, was his train of thought conditioned more by his Hebraic religion or was he conditioned more through his childhood experiences where he was raised as a Roman citizen, in a Roman/Jewish family within a Roman culture. Furthermore as he used scribes to pen his letters who were themselves either Greek or well-schooled in Graeco-Roman rhetoric, then we need to also ask about their influence on his thoughts as well.

The first problem that we have is that we do not know when he moved to Jerusalem or with his education back in Antioch. We know that he was not an accomplished scribe which we can tell from his “see how large my letters are” but this does not mean that he was not schooled in Graeco-Roman rhetoric, though it does appear that he was not deemed to be an accomplished orator.

As Paul’s letters were written in Greek then we should not be surprised to discover that he uses not only Greek words but that he (and/or) his scribes compiled then into the accepted rhetorical structure of the day, otherwise his letters would be incomprehensible to his Greek audiences. The interesting thing about the Scriptures having first been compiled in Greek, is that this would have enabled those who were fluent within Greek and their native tongues (i.e., Latin, Farsi & Arabic) to convey Paul’s letters which were compiled using strict Graeco-Roman rhetoric and logic into their respective languages.

Since the 80’s there has been an incredible amount of scholarly work undertaken regarding the socio-rhetorical of the Pauline Letters which was built on the background of the earlier research into the general Greek and Latin classics; this research has shown that Paul’s Letters did not stand out amongst the Greek literary works of the day, in that they were not some new form of supposed “Christianese” as his letters followed typical Graeco-Roman argumentation.

Paul would have fully understood that his letters would be read by audiences that were fully conversant with the Graeco-Roman style of rhetoric; as most of those who encountered his materials would have received them orally within church meetings he would (and did) ensure that his letters would have the same impact on its hearers as would any other major letter written during his time.

Conflict & Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (1995) pp.44,45

Paul's Use of Rhetoric

Since reading was almost always done aloud, the difference between reading and speaking was often small. “The categories of eloquence were imposed on every form of mental activity,” including the writing of letters. “Hellenistic culture was above all things a rhetorical culture, and its typical literary form was the public lecture.” The same can be said of Greco-Roman culture.

Letters in the hands of a Cicero or a Paul became surrogates for and extensions of oral speech, especially of dialogues, and the rhetorical conventions of public speech and discourse were carried over into such letters. Rhetoric gave Paul a means to relate to and impress his Corinthian audience. Even those with little education had heard speeches that followed the conventions of rhetoric and were able to appreciate much of Pauls artistry.
​

Witherington provides a breakdown of a Hellenistic letter (p.44) with;

• The exordium is the beginning part and is aimed at making the audience open and indeed well-disposed toward what follows.
• The narratio then explains the nature of the disputed matter.
• The partitio or proposition which follows the narratio or is included in it, is where the essential proposition(s) of the speaker and perhaps also of the opponent are laid out.
• The probatio brings in arguments to support the speaker’s case.
• In the refutation which is often included in the probation the opponent’s arguments are disproved or weakened.
• Finally, the peroratio recapitulates the main points of the probation attempting to arouse the audience’s emotions in favor of the speaker’s viewpoint by amplifying what has been said before.

When you read commentaries that were produced since the late 80's, they recognise the Hellenstic letter style, where now the old idea that Paul spoke in a Christianese form of Hebrew is no longer accepted. Paul was either very competent with his Hellenstic arguments or maybe he employed professional scribes to polish up his deliberations.

To summarise, even though Paul was a Hebrew scholar, he was still raised within a Hellenistic culture and most importantly, as he was the Apostle to the Gentiles he would be compelled to communicate with then through a Hellenistic mindset. With Paul, we see a very skilled Hellenistic artitian who has demonstrated (maybe through a scribe) that he is more than capable of employing Hellenistic language and idioms.

 

[Dave-W]

As to "when Paul (Saul actually) moved to Jerusalem," that would have been as a young child, probably about 9 or 10. All the research I have read IGNORES the Jewish culture of the day. It has been preserved in the pages of the Mishnah and Talmuds.

Synagogue training in reading and memorizing the Hebrew scriptures started at about age 5. Those who showed aptitude for Torah learning went on to a regional yeshiva for a year or 2 and those at the top of those classes were sent to one of the 2 Pharisee schools in Jerusalem, Beit [house of] Shammai and Beit Hillel. Since we know that he studied under Gamaliel, we know he was in Beit Hillel since Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson. Even there he says he was "ahead of his peers" and sat at the master's feet. That means he was being groomed for a seat in the Sanhedrin. one of the requirements for Sanhedrin membership (Gamaliel was head of the Pharisee side of the Sanhedrin) was the ability to speak many languages. (70 actually but that was said to be spread across the entire assembly) So he was required to be fluent in at least several languages.

So I submit that he was NOT "raised within a Hellenistic culture," but rather used his intense Hebraic training to educate the Gentiles he was called to with the knowledge of the God of Israel in terms they could comprehend.

==========================

ETA: I would encourage you to read some Messianic takes on Paul, like Brad Young's "Paul the Jewish Theologian," or Joseph Shulam's "Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans."

 

[Biblicist]

So I submit that he was NOT "raised within a Hellenistic culture," but rather used his intense Hebraic training to educate the Gentiles he was called to with the knowledge of the God of Israel in terms they could comprehend.

ETA: I would encourage you to read some Messianic takes on Paul, like Brad Young's "Paul the Jewish Theologian," or Joseph Shulam's "Commentary on the Jewish Roots of Romans."

It does seem that your position is difficult to substantiate and as Paul's family were Roman citizens then we are compelled to acknowledge that he would have had some exposure to Graeco-Roman education. Most importantly, as he wrote his letters in Greek and not Hebrew where his rhetorical style was fully Hellenistic, then any Hebraisms that he employed were understandably encased within Hellenistic thought and not Hebrew.

As I mentioned earlier, for well over 20 years Christian scholarship has recognised the Hellenistic communication style that Paul (and/or is scribes) employed. When we compare Paul's writings, as they are written along the same lines as other Hellenistic writings then they must be viewed as Hellenistic and not Hebraic. It makes no sense to believe that Paul would spend his time writing complex letters to the Churches in the Greek speaking empire; if he had followed Hebraic thought then his letters would have made no sense where his readers would have laughed them off.

 

[Dave-W]

While it was true his family were Roman citizens, he also says they were Pharisees. That means Jewish to the core. That also means they (his forefathers) had to be trained at one of the Pharisaic training schools, discipled by a Pharisee master.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

It makes no sense to believe that Paul would spend his time writing complex letters to the Churches in the Greek speaking empire; if he had followed Hebraic thought then his letters would have made no sense where his readers would have laughed them off.

Not so. Paul was highly intelligent and the Hebraic style and thought are clearly there but only to those who recognize it. Since he was writing to helenists, he wrote in their language; so fluently that his underlying Hebraic thought pattern goes unrecognized by most.

Again I suggest you look at the books I recommended, especially the one by Brad Young.

 

[Biblicist]

While it was true his family were Roman citizens, he also says they were Pharisees. That means Jewish to the core. That also means they (his forefathers) had to be trained at one of the Pharisaic training schools, discipled by a Pharisee master.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.



Not so. Paul was highly intelligent and the Hebraic style and thought are clearly there but only to those who recognize it. Since he was writing to helenists, he wrote in their language; so fluently that his underlying Hebraic thought pattern goes unrecognized by most.

Again I suggest you look at the books I recommended, especially the one by Brad Young.

I went and had a quick look at Young's material on Google Books but unfortunately the copy they supplied did not contain any footnotes so I was unable to see where he was reviewing his peers.

He did make one comment that surprised me where it went along the lines of "Paul could write Greek as if it was his native language"; this was a bit of a surprise as it is a recognition that Paul was thinking along Hellenist lines as it's impossible to write a complex Hellenist letter unless it follows accepted Graeco-Roman rhetoric. I should point out that no-one knows exactly how skilled he was in Greek though he certainly was not a skilled letter writer; even Paul admits in Galatians that his handwriting is large which sets him apart from the professional scribes.

As there have been many linguists who have studied Paul's writing style where they have demonstrated this his letters follow strict Hellenistic patterns, then there is really no value with trying to find any Hebraic lines of argument though he does employ a number of Hebraisms in his letters but even these are still phrased within a Hellenist mindset. Paul's letters could easily be used by secular ancient Greek classes as his letters are so Hellenistic where they match those of the letters that have been discovered throught the Empire.

As I mentioned earlier, up until the early 80's it was popular to suggest that Paul or his scribes employed a special form of Christian Greek but this has now fallen to the wayside where it is essentially universally acknowledged that Paul's Letters match the Hellenistic style of the other well known writers and scribes of his period.