SUBSCRIBER LOGIN






Search First Things

Advanced Search

RSS

Masthead

Recent Comments

  • Nikolai Volk: Tom, (1) When I was addressing TUAD (another clarity issue here, my apologies), I was pre-empting the...
  • Truth Unites... and Divides: Tom Gilson: “If you’re going to suggest I take that position for that reason, then...
  • fleander: Your number of Christians dying for their faith is woefully inflated. It counts every Christian who dies in...
  • Tom Gilson: You write, However, this state of affairs does not in any way force you to accept their conception of...
  • Tom Gilson: What frustrates me about this: I’m not talking about that now. If your standard for banning...
  • Nikolai Volk: And to further clarify my response to Kevin, notice that he said, “Homosexuality is idolatry...
  • Archives

    Categories

    Monthly


    « Previous  |Home|  Next »         

    Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 4:38 PM

    During the final meeting of the semester in my introductory-level courses I always read aloud to my students Matthew 20:20-28, which tells of the outrageous request made by the mother of James and John to Jesus that he give her two sons the highest places of honour in his kingdom. This, of course, elicits protests from the other disciples, while Jesus himself indicates that his kingdom is about, not achieving human greatness, but practising servanthood.

    One element of this passage puzzled me until recently. The New International Version renders verses 25-28 as follows:

    Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (emphasis mine).

    Jesus Washes the Disciples' Feet

    Could it really be that Jesus is deprecating authority and thus commanding his followers to refrain from exercising it so they can be servants instead? How can we square this with Peter and Paul’s words in I Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-7 respectively? Might it be an example of semitic hyperbole along the lines of Luke 14:25-27? That was my conclusion.

    Two years ago, however, I had the opportunity to sound out my esteemed friend and colleague, Al Wolters, about this passage, and especially the Greek word, κατεξουσιάζουσιν (κατεξουσιάζω), which is translated here as “exercise authority.” He pointed out that the word is rare, occurring only here and in the parallel passage in Mark 10:35-45. Apart from these, the word hardly occurs at all even outside the New Testament.

    The construction of the word, however, may provide a clue to its meaning. The prefix κατα- is added to εξουσιάζω, the latter of which means simply to exercise authority. The use of this prefix, especially when the object of the verb is rendered in the genitive case (αὐτων), may imply that the compound verb has a negative connotation. This is certainly true of the immediately preceding verb, κατακυριεύουσιν (κατακυριεύω), which the NIV translates as “lord it over” and which is followed again by the genitive pronoun αὐτων. Thus it may be that the New Revised Standard Version best translates the passage as follows:

    ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’ (emphasis mine)

    Servanthood does not stand in contrast to authority, as some believe. One need not relinquish authority to be a servant. (In fact, I would argue that it is impossible for human beings created in God’s image not to have authority.) Those in authority, including kings, emperors, prime ministers, presidents and parliamentarians, are mandated by God to exercise their authority precisely as servants of God and neighbour. If they do not, then they abuse authority.

    2 Comments

      David D. Flowers
      January 26th, 2010 | 11:43 pm | #1

      “Authority” that looks like Christ is always power-under, not power-over (lording it over) folks. If the authority is not a spiritual authority earned by calvary living… it isn’t the authority of Christ.

      The police officer has an authority that looks like a gun and a badge (power-over). Christ-followers have an authority that always looks like the cross (power-under). It is earned and made firm only in sacrifice. The authority Christ speaks of among his disciples is a spiritual authority that comes by self-sacrifice and humble service.

      These leaders are not appointed by men to rule over in Gentile (governmental) hierarchy, but proven worthy by their actions and in faithfulness to the Lord. You know these leaders, not by badges or any “office” they hold, but by their lives. And real spiritual authority doesn’t stand on the stage, but sits with the people in a shared-life of discipleship.

      David T. Koyzis
      January 27th, 2010 | 9:14 am | #2

      Legitimate authority is both “authority-over” and “authority-under.” Power is not the same as authority; at most power is a means at the disposal of authority. In the classroom authority belongs to both instructor and student. Teaching authority and the authority of the student are not identical or symmetrical, but each is genuine authority all the same.

      “Authority-over” is no less christlike than “authority-under.” Each is a proper avenue of service before God and neighbour. Faithfulness and the “shared life of discipleship” do not rule out formal offices of “authority-over.” Otherwise we can make no sense of the Petrine and Pauline texts cited above. Of civil government John Calvin famously asserts that “[i]ts function among men is no less than that of bread, water, sun, and air; indeed, its place of honour is far more excellent.”

      Of course, we should not forget that “authority-over,” like “authority-under,” is subject to abuse, simply because it is exercised by sinful human beings. However, this in itself cannot be an argument against authority; after all, everything that God created good is capable of being abused. Remember: abusus non tollit usum. The abuse of something does not rule out its legitimate use.

      It is not authority as such, but abusive authority, that Jesus is criticizing here. The NRSV translators got it right.

    Links

    Blogs

    Find Us

    Contact