l( PRO T EST ANT REF 0 R M E D THE 0 LOG CAL J OUR N A L Ths Jounal s publshed and dstpbuted n lmted quanttes, at no ohage, by the TheologcaZ School of the Ppotestant Refomed Chuches. nteested pesons desng to have the names on the malng lst should addess the Edto, Pof. B. Hanko, at the addes8 of the school. 1146 Fankln Steet, S.E., Gand Rapds, Mchgan 49607. l THEOLOGCAL SCHOOL of the PROTESTANT REFORMED CHURCHES Gand Rapds, Mchgan Decembe, 1972 Volume V, Numbe 1 l
Qml t TABLE OF CONTENTS Edtoal Comments---------------------------------------------v Pof. H. Hanko The Old and New Man n Scptue------------------------------- 1 Pof. H. Hanko Famly Vstaton----------------------------------------------25 Pof. H. C. Hoeksema **** - -
: EDTORAL COMMENTS --Pof. H. Hanko-- )! l Wth ths ssue of the Jounal we begn Volume V. t seems supsng when one stops to thnk about t that fve yeas of publcaton have aleady passed. That ou God has made t possble to publsh ths pape fo so long s eason fo gattude. n the meantme, the lst of those who eceve the Jounal has also steadly nceased. The lst of those who eceve ths pape ncludes names fom many dffepats of the wold as well as many fom ou own county. Because the Jounal s sent wthout cost t s possble, of couse, that some of you who eceve t do not cae to have the Jounal any longe. We ae theefoe, askng all those who do not wsh to eceve ths pape to wte us so that we may emove you names fom ou malng lst. The cost of publshng and malng the Jounal s qute hgh, and we would lke to send the Jounal only to those who ae eage to eceve t and who enjoy eadng t. n ths ssue Pof. Hoeksema ncludes an expanded lectue whch was ognally gven to an Offcebeaes' Confeence of Classs East. t deals wth the subject of "Famly Vstaton." We ae awae of the fact that famly vstaton s an aspect of the wok of the offce of elde whch s emphaszed almost exclusvely wthn the Refomed tadton. Howeve, even n many Refomed ccles, ths pactce has fallen nto dsuse. Nevetheless, hstocally, the chuches of the Refomaton have always consdeed ths an mpotant pat of the esponsblty of the offce of elde; and the wok eaps untold fut n the lves of the people of God. f ths atcle seves the pupose of nceasng hee and thee the emphass placed upon famly vstaton, and f t leads some who have not pefomed ths wok befoe to ntoduce t n the own congegatons, ths atcle wll not have been n van. Pof. Hanko contnues hs dscusson of the old and new - v -!
l F". 17" man n Scptue. Hopefully ths dscusson wll be completed n next Spng's ssue of the Jounal. The Edtos take ths oppotunty to expess to all ou eades ou snceest payes fo the blessngs of Almghty God upon you n ths season n whch we commemoate the bth of ou Lod Jesus Chst and the gace of the etenal Jehovah n the new yea whch les ahead. t J \ - v -
F l e-! 1 l! "' J THE 0 L DAN D N E H MAN NS C RP T U R E --Pof. H. Hanko-- A BREF REVEW Although ths essay s ntended to be a contnuaton of a fome atcle n the Jounal, t s well to begn wth a bef evew snce ou pevous atcle appeaed almost a yea ago. n ou fome atcle we called attenton to an atcle n The anpe of Tuth n whch Donald MacLeod developed hs thess that the tadtonal dea of Paul s concept ':the old man P was eoneous. Especally he nveghed aganst thee pats of ths tadtonal dea: 1) that the old man s to be equated wth ndwellng sn; 2) that the old man emans n the beleve; 3) that the puttng off of the old man s a lfe-long pocess. n poof of hs contenton that these deas ae wong, the autho dscussed the thee passages ttjhe'e -the tem 'old manl s found. Two of these passages, Col. 3: 9 and Rom. 6: 6 make use of the aost tense n Geek when descbng the puttng off o cucfyng of the old man. Snce) the autho clamed, these aost tenses speak of a once-fa-all acton, the puttng off of the old man s somethng whch happens only once n a lfe tme. The egeneated chld of God has hs "old man : put off once and foeve, and need neve do ths agan. Eph. 4: 20 s the thd passage whch uses the tem "old man'; and ths passage must be explaned n the lght of the othe two. MacLeod's concluson s theefoe, that one makes a seous mstake when he speaks of the old man as stll pesent n the egeneated chld of God. We also called attenton to a sees of two atcles whch appeaed n the Refomed Jounal n t hch D. Anthony Hoekema expessed concen fo the fact that the Chstan, geneally speakng, has too owan eotmate of hmselfom a sptual pont of vew. He makes a plc;a fo a moe postve self-mage n the lfe of the Chstan. He does not want the Chstan any longe to have such a low appasal of hmself, but hopes that he can pesuade the Chstan to upgade ths sptual self-mage so that he sees hmself moe as a sant than as a snne. - 1 -
( (.("'J m mn \ \ l n suppot of ths contenton, D. Hoekema also deals wth thee exegetcal poblems. ' The fst s a consdeaton of the well-known passage) Rom. 7: 14-25. D. Hoekena takes the poston that ths passage speaks of Paul as an unegeneated man,.e., Paul s contastng hee hs fe po to egeneaton wth hs lfe afte egeneaton. Hence, the athe sevee thngs Paul has to say about hmself n ths passage ae thngs whch wee tue of hm only befoe he was egeneated. They ae tue of hm no longe. And the chld of God theefoe, must not gan fo hmself a self-mage pattened afte what Paul has sad n Rom. 7= 14-25. Secondly, D. Hoekema comments on vaous passages n John. Especally John 3: 9 daws hs attenton. Dscussng ths passage n connecton wth 1: 8,9 and 2: l Hoekema ntepets ths to mean that ;the egeneate peson may on occason fall nto sn, but he cannot lve n sn. j' Sn n the beleve f s lfe s not habtual, but extaodnay and nfequent. Thdly, D. Hoekema teated befly Phl. 3: 7,8 to pont out the decsve natue of the vctoy ove sn. Hs concluson was that t s a seous mstake to speak of an old man as stll pesent n the beleve. Afte efeng also to the same passages as HacLeod, Hoekema concludes that the old man s an old way of lvng whch the chld of God has foeve abandoned. t s tue that the beleve stll sns occasonally, fo he has not yet attaned to complete pefecton; but, nevetheless, the beleve must consde hmself to be done fo all tme wth the old man of sn whch was n hm. AN MPORTAN QUESTON The questons posed by these atcles ae mpotant. tue fo seveal easons. Ths s n the fst place, they ae mpotant because they nvolve questons of the ntepetaton of Scptue. Any subjects whch deal wth such mpotant Scptual concepts as old man l; and lnew man 1 and whch deal wth exegess of mpotant texts n Scptue ae subjects whch ought mmedately to ouse ou nteest. Secondly, thee ae as appeas fom the atcles, vaous mpotant doctnal questons whch ae mpled. He efe not only to the whole doctne of sanctfcaton whch s nvolved n ths - 2 -.1
. [.J t \ ( (! F ' dscusson, but also vaous aspects of ths doctne. MacLeod, e.g., waned n hs atcle aganst the eo of antnomansn and pleaded fo hs poston as a way to escape antnomansm. Because antnomans have always attempted to escape pesonal esponsblty fo sn by blamng all the sns on the old man, they have fallen nto the eo of denyng effectvely the wok of sanctfcaton n the lfe of the chld of God. On the othe hand, especally Hoekema (as we ponted out n ou last atcle) comes vey close to fallng nto the eo of pefectonsm whch teaches, not so much that the beleve actually does attan sptual and ethcal pefecton n ths lfe, but that nevetheless, the beleve comes vey close to pefecton because sn"s only an nfequent and occasonal lapse n hs conduct. And t must be emembeed that pefectonsm has always been chaactestc of Amnansm Ths s not so stange when one stops to thnk about t, fo Amnansm and pefectonsm have ths n common that they neve qute manage to take sn seously. That s, they always tend to speak of sn only n elaton to the deed, and seldom as t s pat of man's natue. Hoekema 1 s Amnansm comes though especally n hs poston that Rom. 7: 14-25 s a descpton of Paul po to hs egeneaton. Thdly, thee ae pactcal consdeatons nvolved n ths queston. Does the egeneated chld of God have an excuse to blame hs sn on hs "old man and thus escape pesonal esponsblty fo hs sn f he mantans that he stll possesses such an old man? s ths the logcal concluson? o, at least, the nevtable esult? s t tue, as Hoekema mantans, that the whole dea of an old mant stll pesent n the beleve, leads to an unwaanted and hamful "self-mage': fo the Chstan? s such a fself-mage" n conflct wth the descpton of the chld of God as God's t\lod descbes the egeneated and sanctfed sant? And yet, thee ae othe pactcal consdeatons. The whole queston of sanctfcaton s an mpotant one fo the Chstan also fom a SUbjectve pont of vew. Befoe hs own sanctfed conscousness he must know what Scptue has to say about the wok of God n hm. He must know what God has accomplshed though - 3 - l
.( - - ' \. 1 t ' \! gace n hs lfe. f he sees hmself as wose than he ought, he not only mght be tempted to dodge the esponsblty fo hs sn, but he wll fall nto the eo of dong despte to the wok of sanctfcaton whch God has wought wthn hm. But f someone tells hm ncoectly that he s almost pefect, he mght be dven to despa by all the sn whch he stll fnds n hmself and conclude that, snce the nom of the sanctfed chld of God s nealy pefecton, he s not sanctfed. Hence fo moe than one eason, we do well to consde ths whole queston n the hope that t wll contbute to the dscusson of the meanng of sanctfcaton; but also wth the paye that t wll be of some assstance to pastos who must deal daly wth sheep who face the poblem of sn. WHAT ABOUT THE AORST TENSE? At ths pont n ou essay t becomes necessay to examne the Scptual passages whch menton the '!old man'- and especally concentate on the whole queston of the aost tense whch looms as such an mpotant pat of the agument. But befoe we do that, t s well to take a look at Rom. 7: 14-25. Ths passage eads: Fo we know that the law s sptual: but am ca:'nal, sold unde sn. Fo that whch do allow not: fo what would, that do not; but what hate) that do. f then do that whch ]ould not, consent unto the law that t s good. Now then t s no moe that do t, but sn that dwelleth n me. Fo know that n me (that s, n my flesh), dwelleth no good thng: fo to wll s pesent wth me) but how to pefom that whch s good fnd not. Fo the good that would do not: but the evl whch would not) that do. Now f do that would not, t s no moe that do t, but sn that dwelle-th n me. fnd then a law, that, when would do good, evl s pesent wth me. Fo delght n the law of God afte the nwad man: But see anothe law n my membes, - 4 -
wang aganst the law of my mnd, and bngng me nto captvty to the law of 1! L {M " F' 1 ( man that am! who shall delve me fom the body of ths death? thank God though Jesus Chst ou Lod. So then wth the mnd myself seve the law of God; but wth the flesh the law of sn. Admttedly, ths s not an easy passaf>e J and thee ae poblems n ts ntepetaton whch fnd no eady solutons. But ths need not, at ths pont, detan us The queston whch we face s whethe ths passage s a statement of the apostle Paul n whch he descbes hs lfe po to hs egeneaton; o whethe he speaks of thngs concenng hmself as a egeneated chld of God. Ths s an mpotant queston fo ou dscusson. f Paul s speakng as a egeneated chld of God and descbng hmself as one who s egeneated (as we b=leve that he s), t cannot but stke us that he has some vey unpleasant thngs to say about hmself and he pesents a vey hash descpton of hs sptual lfe even though he s saved and estoed by the powe of God's gace. But what f the passage descbes Paul befoe hs egeneaton and conveson? s ths a possble ntepetaton? We beleve that t s not. And we beleve that a caeful examnaton of ths passage wll show ths. n the fst place, t s clea fom the context that Paul s speakng of hmself, and of Godjs sants wth hm as he and they have been made dead to the law and alve to Chst. (vs. 4) He theefoe contasts hs fome state and the fome state of Gods people \'1th the pesent one. ::Fo when we vee n the flesh, the motons of sns, whch wee by the law, dd wok n ou membes to bng foth fut unto death. But now we' ae delveed fom the law, that beng dead wheen we wee held; that we should seve n newness of spt, and not n the oldness of the lette., (vss. 5, 6) He s theefoe thoughout, speakng of the pesent state of the beleve. Ths s also tue of the concluson of ths ente passage: ' thank God though Jesus Chst ou Lod 0 So then wth the mnd myself se \.e the law of God; but \.vth the flesh the law of sn." - 5 _.
l t \t F1 t ) Speakng of hs pesent state, he cbncludes wth a shap contast between what he does wth the mnd (he seves the law of God) and what he does wth the flesh (he seves the law of sn). He does both--at the same tme. n the second place, f one takes the poston that Paul s speakng hee of hmself as he was po to hs egeneaton, he ascbes to hmself powes whch Scptue eveywhee and emphatcally denes to the natual man apat fom gace. Paul speaks of the fact that) apat fom gace and the wok of salvaton n hs heat, he s able to condemn the evl whch he does (vs. l5) he s able to wll the good and hate the evl (vss. 15, 19); he s able to wll not to do the evl (vss. 16) 20); he s able to delght n the law of God (vs. 22). These ae pecsely actvtes of the mnd and wll whch Scptue says ae mpossble fo the man who s devod of the gace of God. Man s, by natue, totally depaved. He s, accodng to Eph. 2: 1, ;'dead n tespasses and sns." Not only s he unable to do anythng good n the sght of God; he s unable even to wll the good. Hs wll s n bondage to sn. t s no wonde then that the Amnans especally have always nssted that ths passage efes to Paul po to hs egeneaton. (cf. ou fome atcle.) t s only n ths way that they have been able to mantan the poston that the natual man s able to wll the good. And t seems obvous that anyone who deses to efe ths passage to Paul po to hs egeneaton must, of necessty, fall nto the seous heesy of Amnansm. n the thd place j we must be vey clea on the pont that Paul s not hee a pefectonst. He does not speak of an occasonal lapse nto sn o an nfequent falue on hs pat to do exactly what the law pescbes. Fom ths pont of vew, Paul has some vey unpleasant thngs to say about hmself--even though he s egeneated. And evey chld of God who knows hmself n the lght of the Wod of God wll agee. Paul wtes that, although he hates evl, nevetheless, he stll does evl. He does not want the evl, yet he commts t. He knows that n hmself (that s, n hs flesh), dwells no good thng. He has the wll to 1-6 -
1 t! l L F ( l \ do the good, but he knows not how to pefom t. The good that he deses, he does not do, and the evl whch he does not dese, he does. And he s folcad to conclude wth the btte cy: lo wetched man that am! who shall delve me fom the body of ths death?l; Ths s not the language of a man who stands on the bode of pefecton. Ths s not a man speakng who has almost attaned to the pefecton of full sanctfcaton. Ths s not even what a man says who fnds most of what he does to be good. t s the language of a man caught up n a sevee and btte battle aganst sn whch ages mghtly wthn hm and pesses fom hm a shap and angushed cy. n the fouth place howeve we must not be led by all ths to conclude that Paul has vey lttle good to say about the wok of sanctfcaton wthn hm. The antnomans have made captal of ths passage. They have ponted to all these sevee expessons whch Paul uses to descbe hms2lf and have concluded that the egeneated chld of God can eally expect nothng good to come foth n hs lfe. They have dwelt long and extensvely on the shap ctcsm of hmself whch Paul makes) and they have ovelooked completely the many thngs whch Paul says about the wok of gace n hs heat. {e must not make ths mstake. Paul nssts hee on seveal mpotant tuths. Although he does evl nevetheless, he does not allow t. (vs. 15) Although he does evl he does not wll t. And) n fact, he consents to the law that t s good. (vs. 16) The wll to do good s cetanly pesent wth hm and he delghts n the law of God afte the nwad man. n fact he can even say that although he does the evl, t s no moe he that does t, but sn whch dwells n hm. He hates eveythng he does. And) ndeed; even to see hmself as a wetched man s the wok of gace wthn hm and ths sptual nsght s somethng whch can only be the fut of sanctfcaton; fo the snne, apat fom gace s unable to make such a sptual evaluaton of hmself. And, although he asks.the queston Who shall delve me fom the body of ths death? he mmedately adds the answe wth a thllng cy of thanksgvng that he s delveed by God though Jesus Chst. He pesents hmself theefoe) as a wang Chstan who s deeply mmesed n a fece and unelentng battle. The battle s - 7 -
{!, l ' 1 m ( caed on wthn hmself between the law of God whch he seves wth hs mnd and the law of sn whch he seves wth hs flesh. The battle s constant and wthout elef. The stuggle goes on all hs days. The tenson and conflct s always thee. Sometmes ndeed sn comes to the foe n hs lfe--so much so that he speaks of the fact that "" commt these sns: f do the evl whch would not. 11 But the battle descbed s not one n whch the outcome s uncetan. t s not a battle whch can, at any tme, go ethe way. t s not a battle n whch Paul hmself does not know who shall fnally be the vcto. t s a battle n whch the "nwad man" s always vctoous. Sn s always conqueed n hm. He can and does est always n the delveance that s hs fom God though Jesus Chst. Fnally, Paul makes a shap dstncton hee between the 11 nwad man and hs flesh. All the good whch he pefoms s the good of the nwad man. And all the evl whch s stll so much a pat of hs lfe s evl whch hs flesh commts. t s tue that he does not dvoce hs flesh fom hmself. He does not, as the antnomans do, hold, so to speak, hs flesh at am's length and accuse hs flesh, as somethng apat fom hmself, of all these hoble sns whch ae pesent wth hm. He makes no effot to shft the blame fo hs sn away fom hmself and on to hs flesh whch s not eally a pat of hm. f ths wee what he does, he could neve say: :Fo the good that would,.!.. do not: but the evl whch would not, that do. t Nevetheless, he dstngushes shaply between the nwad man whch delghts n the law of God and hs flesh and the sn whch dwells n hm. Ths s also the dstncton whch Scptue makes n othe places between the nwad and the oute man. Cf. e.g., Co. 4: 16: ufo whch cause we fant not, but though ou outwad man pesh, yet the nwad man s enewed day by day. And ths s pncpally the same dstncton whch Scptue makes betvleen the "old man \; and the "new man. t And that bngs us to those passages whee these tems ae used. t wll be emembeed that when the authos whch we quoted n ou fome atcle took the poston that the beleve has once and fo all tme put off the old man, they based the - 8 -
j l f. l f17 \ [! aguments n lage pat on the fact that n Col. 3: 9 and Rom. 6:6 (two of the thee pasoages whee the expesson ':old man H s found) the apostle uses the aost tense. ntepetng the aost tense n the Geek as ndcatve of one-fo-all acton, these men took the poston that the puttng off of the old man s a oncefo-all event. Puttng off the old man s nethe a contnuous pocess no a pesent duty; t s an accomplshed fact. t s ncoect, theefoe to speak of the old man as emanng n the beleve. (Banne of Tuth, p. 15.) Befoe we ente nto a dscusson of these passages, t s woth ou whle to nvestgate whethe o not the aost tense s pecsely the knd of tense whch the authos asset. A close nvestgaton of ths matte wll pove the opposte. t s tue that the basc meanng of the aost tense n Geek s that t ndcates, geneally speakng, punctla acton. n ths espect, t dffes fom the mpefect tense whch ndcates contnuous acton begnnng n the past and, usually, contnung up to the pesent. The aost s theefoe a tense whch gves a snapshot, n dstncton fom the mpefect tense whch pesents a movng pctue. But although ths s the basc dea of the aost, thee ae many dffeent uses of t n the New Testament. We may enumeate the followng: l l left on ths matte such gammas as A Gamma Of The Geek New Testament, by A. T. Robetson, pp. 831 ff., Moods and Tenses Of New Testament Geek, by E. D. Buton, pp. 31 ff., Essentals of Newlfestament Geek, by R. Summes, p. 67. These uses ae less clealy dstngushed n Wne's New Testament Gamma, pp: 275 ff. l - 9 - F'.
l l 1) The ndefnte aost, sometmes called also the hstocal o constantve aost. Whle the basc dea of ths use of the aost s that t descbes a past act n ts undvded entety, thee ae thee dffeent knds of acton descbed, and ths use of the aost s subdvded as follows; a) a momentay acton. Such a use s found n Acts 5: 5 whee Ananas s descbed as gvng up (lswusev) the ghost. b) an extended act o state whch nevetheless consttutes a sngle fact. Thus Paul uses the aost n Eph. 2: 4 to descbe the geat love of God wheewth He loved (nyaaev) us. t would be altogethe contay to the Scptues to say that ths vese descbes a love of God whch s a once-fo-all act, completed and fnshed n the past and no long tue today. And t s qute possble that t s ths useo( the aost whch s found n Co. 3: 9 and Rom. 6: 6. -- c) a sees of acts consttutng _a sngle fact. Thee s also ths use n Scptue, an example of whch may be found n Mt. 22 28. Ths vese contans a queston of the Jews put to Jesus n whch they ask the Lod to whch one of seven bothes a sngle woman would belong n heaven because all seven "had (axov) he n lfe. 2) The nceptve aost, also sometmes called the ngessve aost. Ths use emphaszes the begnnng of acton whch leads to some state esultng fom the acton. An example of ths s found n Co. 8: 9: "Fo we know the gace of ou Lod Jesus Chst, that, though he was ch, yet fo you sakes he became poe, (e'jl'l:wxeucev):j that ye though hs povety mght be ch.,1 The Englsh tanslaton fnds t necessay to make use of the wod llbecame l to expess ths dea. 3) Thee s what s called a esultant aost o effectve aost. The emphass of ths use s upon the nd of the acton. t theefoe mples effot o ntenton although almost always successful effot. A clea example of ths use s found n Mt. 27: 20. The chef pests and eldes ae hee descbed as pesuadng (nelcgv ) the people to ask fo Baabbas nstead of Chst. 4) Thee ae two addtonal uses of the aost whch ae not so elevant to ou dscusson. a) the gnomc aost whch s used n vaous povebs and - 10 -
" compasons whee the Englsh would use the pesent. An example of ths s n Pete 1: 24: ffo all flesh s as gass, and all the gloy of man as the flowe of gass. The gass wtheeth (c;t)pa..vet) ), and the flowe theeof falleth away ( f1tttaev)." b) the epstolay aost whee the wte puts hmself n the place of hs eade and descbes a fact pesent fo the wte but past by the tme the eade eads t. Eph. 6: 22 contans such an aost: <'1teJ.Wa.}. t s clea fom all ths that the meanng of the aost must be settled by the context f one s to detemne the pecse shade of meanng whch the autho has n mnd. And, fom a consdeaton of these vaous uses along wth the whole use of the aost n Scptue, we may conclude that the pecula chaactestc of the aost tense s that t lays emphass on the acton of the veb and on the natue of the acton, and has lttle, f anythng, to do wth actual tme. Wllam J. Matn, n an essay enttled Conthans 11: 2-16: An ntepetaton:,2 wtes extensvely concenng the use of the aost (along wth the pesent mpeatve) n the Geek. 'Whle dstngushng between the two, he nevetheless ponts out that the aost s often used to ndcate actons whch can go on fo some tme because the aost emphaszes acton. He wtes: A vast lteatue has gown up aound the poblem of the chaacte of the aost n geneal and the Geek aost n patcula. fule the Geeks themselves ecognzed that the tensefoms combned tme-elaton and "aspectt n the meanng, they efeed to the futue and aost smply as ndetemnate foms of the vebs outsde the tenses pope. l 2Apostolc Hstoy And The Gospel, ed. by Wad Gasque and Ralph P. Matn: Eedmans Publshng Co., 1970, pp. 231-241. - 11 -
Tffl. (T'3ll " J l F'! '. To descbe acton whch s completed n the past, thee s anothe tense n Geek, the pefect. Pecula to the pefect tense s the fact that t descbes acton completed n the past, but always n such a way that ths acton esults n a state whch contnues untl the pesent. One would thnk that f, n the passages efeed to above, Paul had meant to descbe an acton completed n the past but whch esults n a state contnung to the pesent, he would have used the pefect tense. Ths s, n effect, pecsely the way n whch MacLeod descbes the puttng off o cucfyng of the old man. Fom all ths we may conclude that thee s no agument whch can be based on the use of the aost tense n suppot of the contenton that we, no longe, because we ae sanctfed, possess an old man. But what about the passage n Eph. 4: 22-241 The whole passage, begnnng wth vs. 20, eads: But ye have not so leaned Chst; f so be that ye have been taught by hm, as the tuth s n Jesus: That ye put off concenng the fome convesaton the old man, whch s coupt accodng to the decetful lusts; And be enewed n the spt of you mnd; And that ye put on the new man, whch afte God s ceated n ghteousness and tue holness. The agument centes n the phases "that ye put off", and "that ye put onn. These phases ae tanslatons of two Geek wods whch, gammatcally, ae aost nfntves. The agument hee also s that these aosts ae ndcatve of a once-fo-all act whch was completed n the past and whch s not to be pefomed eve agan. MacLeod, n hs atcle, calls attenton to the fact that the nfntve has vaous uses n the Geek, and that, almost cetanly, the dea s not hee that of an mpeatve. The apostle does not mean to admonsh the Chuch to "put off the old man l and hput on the new man.t\ He s athe statng a fact--a fact whch has taken place at the moment of the egeneaton and whch cannot be epeated. t s tue that the nfntve has vaous uses n the Geek - 12 - F
New Testament. t s also tue that the nfntve as an mpeatve almost neve appeas, f at all. But ths does not alte the fact that even hee the aost nfntve can have the foce of acton whch goes on ove a peod of tme. Most pobably these nfntves ae to be taken as nfntves n a noun clause. apostle means to say that ths puttng off of the old man and puttng on of the new man s the content of what the Ephesans had head and had been taught. (vs. 21). We can make theefoe, a few obsevatons on ths passage. n the fst place, we call attenton agan to the fact that the aost tense of the nfntves need not necessaly denote a smple snapshot acton completed n past tme. Hendckson, n hs commentay on ths vese efes to John 2: 20 whee an aost passve ndcatve s used to denote the acton of buldng the temple, whch acton was caed on ove a peod of foty-sx yeas and was stll n pogess. 3 The aost s not concened pmaly wth tme elements. The Rathe t s ntended to emphasze the natue of the acton descbed by the veb. n the second place t s vey nteestng to note that, although the two nfntves n vss. 22 and 24 ae aosts, the nfntve n vese 23 s a pesent. {hen Paul speaks of the enewng of the mnd, he uses a pesent tense whch must necessaly ndcate an acton whch contnues and must contnue thoughout the lfetme of the beleve. t seems but natual theefoe, l fl'ml 3New Testament Commentay--Ephesans; Bake Book House, 1967; footnote on pp. 2l3:} 214. He wtes: 1These aosts Uto put off" and "to put on t do not ndcate that the actons to whch they efe ae done once fo all, at ths o that moment n the lfe of the addessed. They smply summaze. They gve a snapshot vew. They do not ndcate anythng at all wth espect to whethe puttng off the old man and puttng on the new man takes place n a moment o coves a lfetme. The aost n John 2: 20 efes to an actvty that had aleady lasted foty-sx yeas! Hee n Eph. 2: 22-24 t s the natue of the ndcated actons and the context n whch the aosts occu--the fact that they ae joned by means of the pesent duatve nfntve efeng to the contnung pocess of mental enewal--that establsh the lfelong chaacte of the puttng off and puttng on. - 13 -
. l ", F l that, because ths enewal of the mnd stands n such close connecton wth the puttng off of the old man and the puttng on of the new man, (not only gammatcally, but also as fa as the ntenal thought s concened) that all efe to actvty whch contnues n the lves of God's people. Fnally, although as fa as the gamma s concened, these nfntves do not cay the foce of mpeatves, one cannot escape the fact that the mpeatve dea stands n the backgound. The whole context conssts of a sees of admontons. n vese 17, the apostle uges the Chuch not to walk as othe Gentles walk, n the vanty of the mnd. Now suely, f ths was no longe tue of the beleves n Ephesus, thee would be no need of an admonton wth espect to ths sn. acleod s wong at ths pont. He wtes: Secondly, the Apostle's descpton of the old man does not allow us to beleve that ths desgnaton s applcable to the Chstan beleve. He s 'coupt accodng to the decetful lusts? (vs. 22), he epesents 'the fome convesaton' (vs. 22) when they walked as 'othe Gentles walk, n the vanty of the mnd, havng the undestandng dakened, beng alenated fom the lfe of God though the gnoance that s n them, because of the blndness of the heat: who beng past feelng have gven themselves ove to lascvousness to wok all uncleaness wth geedness.' "Can we possbly thnk of a beleve as answeng ths descpton?" asks Pofesso Huay. Howeve keenly awae Paul s of hs own snfulness and that of beleves by eason of ndwellng, emanng sn, he neve appoaches to such a chaactezaton of a beleve,' (Pncples of Conduct, 1957, p. 216). But the fact of the matte s pecsely that the old man can be chaactezed exactly n ths way. And the fact s that ths old man emans even n the beleve. f t s not thee, the! - 14 -
l \ l " F" \ l F \ need fo the stong admonton n vss. 17-19 s gone: Ths say theefoe, and testfy n the Lod, that ye hencefoth walk not as othe Gentles walk, n the vanty of the mnd. Havng the undestandng dakened, beng alenated fom the lf of God though the gnoance that s n them, because of the blndness of the heat: Who beng past feelng have gen themselves ove unto lascvousness, to wok all uncleanness wth geedness. tvhy s ths descpton of the ungodly Gentles so mpotant? And why does the apostle uge upon the Ephesans not to walk n ths way, unless the vey eal possblty exsts that they do exactly that? The apostle contnues. He emnds the Ephesans n vss. 20-24 what they have leaned when they leaned Chst. They have leaned exactly that the lvs ought to be dffeent. They have leaned that they must not walk n the ways of the Gentles because they put off the old man, ae enewed n the spt of the mnd and put on "the new man. t s but natual then to etun agan to the dect mpeatve fom of addess, as the apostle does n vss. 25 ff. No one can doubt theefoe, that thee s also mpeatve foce mpled even n these nfntves. Ou concluson s theefoe, that an appeal to the aost s nsuffcent to suppot the clam that the egeneated beleve no longe possesses an old man. The dstnctve featue of the aost tense s that t emphaszes the acton of the veb, and does not usually concen tself wth the tme nvolved. A LOOK AT PERTNENT TEXTS We tun now to a postve consdeaton of the vaous texts whch ae nvolved n ths queston. We cannot hee offe a complete exegess on these passages, but thee ae seveal featues of them whch have mpotant beang on ou Sll bj ect. The fst text s Romans 6 4-6: Theefoe we ae bued wth hm by baptsm nto death: that lke as Chst was - 15 -
l pm ; (11m \t. (. ased up fom the dead by the gloy of the Fathe, even so we also should walk n newness of lfe. Fo f we have been planted togethe n the lkeness of hs death, we shall be also n the lkeness of hs esuecton: Knowng ths, that ou old man s cucfed wth hm, that the body of sn mght be destoyed, that hencefoth we should not seve sn. The context of ths passage speaks of a cetan objecton whch was, n Paul's tme aleady, ased aganst the tuth of justfcaton by fath alone wthout the woks of the law. Ths objecton s stated as follows: "Shall toje contnue n sn, that gace may abound?" Ths objecton has appeaed epeatedly n the hstoy of the Chuch. t s bascally the objecton of antnomansm and s ased aganst the tuth that God justfes Hs people out of pue gace, by fath, and that n no way, ae the woks of the law the gound of ou justfcaton. The objecton states that ths makes good woks useless and n van. What pupose s thee n pefomng them f we ae justfed anyway? Ou justfcaton has nothng to do wth ou woks. n fact, t s pobably pefeable to contnue n sn, fo ths wll esult n a geate manfestaton of the gace of God. Paul answes ths objecton, but n a vey stkng way. He does not answe t by sayng: the objecton s nvald. t does not follow as a concluson fom the pemse. Thee s somethng wong hee wth the logc. sayng that ths s absolutely mpossble. Rathe, he answes the objecton by That s, t s mpossble fo anyone who s justfed to make such an objecton. t s mpossble fo anyone justfed actually to lve ths way--that he contnues n sn. f he makes such an objecton and actually conducts hs lfe accodngly, ths s smply poof that he s not justfed. The eason fo ths s that God does not only justfy Hs people; He also sanctfes them. n othe wods, those who make ths Objecton deny the wok of sanctfcaton. And, f they actually lve accodng to ths objecton, they show they ae not - 16 -
- 1 '!! fm4 l! 1, sanctfed; and they ae not justfed. Justfcaton and sanctfcaton belong togethe. Justfcaton s the gound of sanctfcaton; and sanctfcaton) must accodng to God's own pupose, follow fom justfcaton. Paul wtes: Know ye not, that so many of us as wee baptzed nto Jesus Chst wee baptzed nto hs death? Theefoe we ae bued wth hm by baptsm nto death: that lke as Chst was ased up fom the dead by the gloy of the Fathe, even so we also should walk n newness of lfe. 1 (vss. 3,4.) Paul s speakng hee, obvously, of the sacament of baptsm. But he s not meely speakng of the outwad sgn and seal, but also of the nwad and sptual ealty. To be baptzed nto Chst n sptual ealty s to be ncopoated nto the fellowshp of Chst's death and esuecton. How s ths possble? t s possble because, n the fst place, Chst s the legal and epesentatve Head of Hs people. He epesented them when He went to Hs coss. He stood n the place. He assumed esponsblty fo the sn and gult whch was the's. Hs people wee n Hm n ths judcal sense. As the Head of Hs people, He ded; but also, as the Head of Hs people, He ose agan. Thus, Hs people ded wth Hm on the coss and ose wth Hm when He aose fom the gave. But ths wok of Chst, accomplshed on the coss of Calvay, s also ealzed n Hs people by the powe of Hs Spt. The fgue of baptsm s the fgue of bual n the blood of Chst. On ths sde of that bual stands the snne wth all hs sn and gult, destned fo hell as the object of God's wath. But though the death of Chst all ths s taken away. Chst accomplshed t all. When He ded, we ded. And when He aose, He left behnd all the sn and gult whch He had taken as Hs own on behalf of Hs people and enteed nto etenal lfe. So, fo us, on the othe sde of bual wth Chst and though the esuecton, we stand n holness and ghteousness, hes of heaven and objects of God's love. Passng though the baptsm of bual wth - 17 -
l! - l,,. l ( Chst and 1sng wth Hm we leave behnd all that s taken away n the coss and eceve all that s ou salvaton n gloy. Thus God pefoms not only the wok of justfcaton wheeby the ghteousness of Chst s mputed to us, but He also pefoms the wok of sanctfcaton so that the holness whch Chst eaned fo us s actually woked n us though the powe of Chst's death and esuecton. Ths s a vey mpotant pont. Thee have been two eos whch have appeaed n the Chstan Chuch and whch seem, at fst glance to be opposte extemes. Thee s, on the one hand, the eo of Antnomansm whch, n ts moe adcal fom, denes the necessty of good woks. Thee ae dffeences n antnomansm. Some antnomans take the poston that, whle good woks ae desable, they ae not by any means necessay. Whethe one who s justfed does good woks o not s not eally an mpotant queston. t s good f he does; but thee s no eal need fo good woks. Othe, moe adcal antnomans, take the poston that good woks ae hamful. t s fa bette that the justfed chld of God avods them, fo they can do nothng else but ob the gace of God of ts pecous chaacte. Thee s even a cetan knd of pactcal antnomansm whch appeas fom tme to tme n the lves of God's people. Ths knd of antnomansm s not nteested as such n the theoy of ths poston. Rathe t makes evey effot to excuse sn n the lfe of the beleve wth a multtude of effots towads self-justfcaton. But all these excuses come to the pont whee they deny the seousness of sn because one s justfed by gace alone. Patly n ode to escape ths knd of antnomansm, some have fallen nto the eo of Amnansm. They have easoned that t s a geat mstake to deny the necessty of good woks, and the only way to avod that mstake s to take the poston that good woks ae necessay fo salvaton. They thus make good woks, n one fom o anothe, the gound of salvaton. God saves those who do good woks and He saves on the bass of good woks. That seems, n the mnds of many, the only altenatve to the eo of antnomansm. And, because Amnansm always teaches that salvaton s - 18 -
F""! l m \ l dependent upon good woks (among whch good woks s usually to be ncluded the wok of fath) Amnansm always has stong pefectonstc tendences. f salvaton s dependent upon good woks n any sense of the wod, good woks poceed fom the natual ablty of man and not fom the wok of salvaton. These good woks cannot be both the bass of salvaton and a pat of salvaton at the same tme. Ths s obvously absud. And Hth the tendency to ascbe to man apat fom gace the ablty to do good comes the tendency to deny total depavty and the falue to take sn seously as ooted n mans natue.. Pefectonsm s not fa eooved fom such a poston and t ought not to stke us as beng stange that pefectonst tendences ae often to be found among those who espouse some fom of Amnansm. Ths s evdent especally fom Hoekema's atcle when he speaks of occasonal lapses nto sn and descbes sn as faults whch now and then appea n the lfe of the beleve And ths was n connecton wth an exegess of Romans 7 whch could only be Amnan. But) whle these two eos of antnomansm and amnansm seem to be poles apat) opposte extemes, nevetheless t s vey stkng that they both ae bascally gulty of the same eo. They both deny the soveegn wok of sanctfcaton. t s tue that they deny ths wok fom dffeent vewponts. The antnoman denes that God pefoms such a wok n the heats of those who ae justfed. And the Amnan denes, at least n pat, that the wok of sanctfcaton s the wok of God. But the fact s that both have ths n common, that they deny the Scptual doctne concenng sanctfcaton. Ths s vey sgnfcant and stkng. Thus Paul teaches, n Romans 6) that t s mpossble to contnue n sn that gace may abound because beng baptzed n Chst s beng bued wth Hm nto ls death and s beng ased wth Hm nto newness of lfe. Now t s tue that n a cetan sense of the wod ths s a wok of God whch happens only once n the lfe of the chld of God. Thee smply can be no doubt about ths at all. Suely thee s no peson who beleves that the lfe of the chld of God s a lfe whch begns wth total depavty, poceeds to sanctfcaton evets back to total depavty, has sanctfcaton epeated n t, asan lapses nto total depavty and agan s
pm \! m f'" enewed by sanctfcaton. When God sanctfes Hs people, He makes them holy and that wok s p8scved n them thoughout all of lfe untl they ae fnally made pefectly holy n heaven. n that sense of the wod, MacLeod s coect when he nssts that beng bued wth Chst and ased wth Hm s somethng whch happens only once n the lfetme of the chld of God. But the queston s not thus answeed. The queston emans whethe ths sanctfcaton s a completed wok at the vey fst moment when t s pefomed. Does God sanctfy entely so that He makes Hs people completely fee fom sn? The answe, qute obvously, s no. And so the oblga"ton ests upon anyone who dscusses ths poblem to spell out caefully and pecsely what ths wok of sanctfcaton s n the lfe of the chld of God whle he stll lves n the wold. f beng bued wth Chst and beng ased wth Hm means to be sanctfed, s thee not a sense n whch the fut of ths wok of Chst and ou unon wth 11m contnues though all of lfe? And s thee not a sense then, n whch we can speak of daly beng bued wth Chst, and daly sng wth Hm? t s wth ths n mnd that we can tun to vese 6 whee the apostle speaks of the old man: Knew 0"_' g ths, that OU!" old man s cucfed wth hm) that the body of sn mgh"t be destoyed that hencefoth t.e should not se:vc sn. Now t s tue that, just as sanctfcaton s a wok of God whch s pncpally accomplshed at that moment when God enews the heat and that ths wok of sanctfcaton s ooted n the coss, so also at thut moment of sanctfcaton, the old man s also cucfed. t s tue also that ths s a wok of God whch s pncpally complete. But the fact emans -'cha:t:l even as sallctfcaton s only accomplshed n pncple n hs lfe) so also s the cucfxon of the old man also accomplshed n pl'ncple. The fgue s ndeed of the old man nal(d wth Chst to the coss. The old man s theefoe, klled. He ded when Chst ded. But that old man s, afte all, we ouselvs as we ae apat fom gace. - 20 -
We ded as the old man of sn. But the concluson cannot be that we now no longe have an old man wth Nhch we must westle., Fo ths would mply that sanctfcaton s complete and we ae now! pm ' v pefect That ths s also the meanng of the apostle s evdent fom the followng consdeatons: 1) n the fst place, he dscusses the pupose of the cucfxon of the old man and defnes ths as beng 'that the body of sn mght be destoyed." Thee has been some dspute between commentatos as to the pecse meanng of the phasebody of sn : ('t alslj.cl 'tle; <'\l-lc1p'ttu,). Some have ntepeted ths to mean 'the whole mass of sn;.e., they have seen n ths an expesson whch efes to all the sns whch the beleve commtted befoe hs egeneaton. Ths s the poston of Calvn among othes. But dffeent commentaes have ponted out that Paul s speakng n the context of the close unon between body and soul and of the fact that the body s the nstument by whch the soul functons and though whch the sns of the soul come to manfestaton. (Cf. vss. 12,13). fuateve may be the pecse meanng (and we favo the latte), the fact s that ths cannot be ntepeted n such a way that all sn s foeve gone n the lfe of the Chstan. Scptue s vey clea on the pont, and none wll deny that thee s much sn yet pesent n the egeneated and sanctfed sant. of the cucfxon of the old man, f then ths s the pupose and ths pupose s acheved and, f sn stll emans, then t can only be because the old man s cucfed n pncple. 2) Secondly, anothe pupose clause s also added. The fst pupose clause s expessed by va wth the SUbjunctve, whle the second s expessed by the atcula nfntve n the genetve case. And ths second pupose clause s not expessve of the pupose of the cucfxon of the old man dectly but s a subodnate pupose to the fst pupose clause.e., the body of sn has been destoyed wth the pupose that sn should no longe.. 4 have d omnlon ove us. n 4Some commentatos make ths a esult clause. Pupose and esult ae closely elated, both lookng at the same thng fom a dffeent pont of vew. The dffeence makes no essental alteaton n ou agument. - 21 -
m, m 1 l 1 1 \ \!!! Hee then s what the apostle means when he speaks of the cucfxon of the old man. Sn has no moe domnon ove us. Now, notce that the apostle does not say that sn no longe exsts n us. He does not say that the esult s that ou old man s foeve gone. Rathe he says that the pupose of the cucfxon of the old man s that the body of sn s destoyed, and that the pupose of ths destucton of the body of sn s that sn no longe has domnon ove us. Ths s mpotant. Ths s the fut then of sanctfcaton. t ends n the destucton, utte and complete, of the domnon of sn. And ths theme the apostle caes on n the followng veses. Ths same dea s epeated n vese 9. n vese 11 also the apostle admonshes the chuch to leckon ye also youselves to be dead ndeed unto sn.;' Agan, the apostle does not say,"sn s dead n you. L Ths would be n conflct Hth the est of Scptue and would volently oppose the evey day expeence of the chld of God. Rathe) the apostle speaks of the fact that we ae dead to sn. Ths s qute dffeent. And so he can add: "Let not sn theefoe egn n you motal body, that ye should obey t n the lusts theeof. Nethe yeld ye you membes as nstuments of unghteousness unto sn: but yeld youselves unto God, as those that ae alve fom the dead, and you membes as nstuments of ghteousness unto God. Fo sn shall not have domnon ove you...' vss. 12-14. Thus, whle n a cetan and pncple sense sanctfcaton s one wok accomplshed once fo all, n anothe sense, t goes on all ou lfe long. And lkewse) even as ou old man was once, pncpally, cucfed, so also does that same old man have to be put to death all ou lfe long. Wth ths also Calvn agees. He wtes, n hs comments on ths passage: The old man, as the Old Testament s so called wth efeence to the New; fo he begns to be old, when by egees he s destoyed by a commencng egeneaton. (The undescong s ouls). But, what he means s the whole natue whch we bng fom the womb, and whch s so ncapable of the kngdom of God, that t must - 22 -
1, pm",,. fm:l t (!!Wl \ ( m \ t m \ l t ' so fa de as we ae enewed to eal lfe. Ths old man, he says, s fastened to the coss of Chst, fo by ts powe he s slan: and he expessly efeed to the coss, that he mght moe dstnctly show) that we cannot be othewse put to death than by patakng of hs death. 5 Thee ae a couple of moe emaks befoe we end ths atcle whch we wsh to make. n the fst place, ths s also the teachng of the Hedelbeg Catechsm: Of how many pats doth the tue conveson of man consst? Of two pats; of the motfcaton of the old, and the quckenng of the new man. What s the motfcaton of the old man? t s a sncee soow of heat, that we have povoked God by ou sns; and moe and moe to hate and flee fom them. What s the quckenng of the new man? t s a sncee joy of heat n God, though Chst, and wth love and delght to lve accodng to the wll of God n all good woks. (Lod's Day XXX, Q. & A. 88-90.) t s clea that the Catechsm also consdes ths a pocess whch goes on thoughout lfe. n the second place, t s clea fom all ths that MacLeod's descpton of the tadtonal vew of the old man s not adequate. You wll ecall that he descbed the tadtonal vew of the old man as beng "ndwellng sn.!' Ths s not complete. Scptue makes t vey clea that the old man s not meely ndwellng sn, but s also the coupt and pevese natue wth whch we ae bon and whch s, n the wods of the Confesso Belgca: a coupton of the whole natue, and an heedtay dsease,wheewth nfants themselves ae nfected even n the mothe's womb, and whch! " l 5pngle tanslaton, Eedmans 1948-23 -
" l " poduceth n man all sots of sn, beng n hm as a oot theeof; and theefoe s so vle and abomnable n the sght of God, that t s suffcent to condemn all manknd. n the thd place, we have not yet dealt wth the queston of what pecsely s meant by the pncple kllng of the old man n dstncton fom ths wok of sanctfcaton as t contnues n the lfe of the chld of God. Ths s an mpotant queston, but t shall have to wat, along wth ou teatment of the othe texts, untl the next ssue of the ounal, D.V. m'! (mtl -24-
ṙ) 1 f ( FAMLY VSTATON --Pof. H. C. Hoeksema-- The mmedate occason of ths atcle les n a equest of the Offcebeaes' Confeence of Classs East of the Potestant Refomed Chuches. The equest was fo an ntoducton at the Octobe, 1972 meetng whch would deal wth thee questons concenng Famly Vstaton. Those questons wee: 1) What s the natue of famly vstaton? 2) What s the pupose of famly vstaton? 3) By whom should faly vstaton be conducteg? At that meetng of offcebeaes the wte pomsed to expand on the emaks whch he made oally n a futue ssue of ths jounal. Besdes, thee was one aspect of the subject n whch the eldes wee especally nteested and on whch the wte could only suggest a few thougts at the tme, namely, the method, o actual pactce, of famly vstaton. And the pomse was made that n ths atcle that aspect of the subject would be teated n geate detal. Hence, ths contbuton to ou jounal s n fulfllment of the pomses mentoned above. At the S2me tme, ths atcle may be consdeed as somewhat of a sequel to the confe'ence papes on Pastoal Counsellng whch appeaed n Volume V, Numbe 2 of ths jounal, and patculaly as a sequel to GOne of t1.e ell3.(s made n the COtll"lse of the dscusson at tha confeence, a dscusson whch s summazed n the same ssue of c u johl"lnal. The w te f s pesonal nteest n the subject stems n gene:'c"ll fom the fact that pastoal counsellng--o, as we pefe to call t n ou seenay, Po:lencs--s "'. e o. tl : subj ec ts vlhch he s eued to teach n the semnal"ly; and f'1lly vstaton belongs n that aea of Pomcncs, although t also belons n the aea of Chuch Polty n 80 fa as t s equed by ou Chuch Ode. n ths connecton W also hasten to wan the eade that famly vstaton s but one phase of the study of Poencs; and we shall have to pe-suppose some of the pncples of Pomencs n the pesent dscusson athe thon state them and elaboate on them, lest we nvolve ou8elves n a much boade dscusson than _. 25 -
. " : s pope at ths tme. As fa as ou specal nteest n famly vstaton s concened, we may note that t stems, n the fst place, fom the convcton that t s a Refomed and Scptual pactce whch ought to be upheld, especally n ou day when t s nceasngly de-emphaszed and even abandoned. n the second place, t stems fom the convcton that we have somethng unque and somethng of wothwhle and postve value as fa as pastoal cae s concened n ou custom of famly vstaton. Thee s n ou day a athe lage emphass on pastoal counsellng ( do not cae fo the tem, but ths s the popula temnology of ou day), and especally an emphass on pastoal counsellng n the sense of dealng wth specal poblems--fequently the poblems of ndvduals. And much of the dscusson of pastoal counsellng centes on ths poblem-solvng aspect of counsellng; so-called theapeutc counsellng has the emphass. Thee s vey lttle wtten and sad about what we mght tem the "nomal sheep and lambs" of Chst's flock hee on eath. And famly vstaton s concened fo the most pat wth those nomal sheep and lambs. H n the thd place, ou nteest stems fom the convcton that famly vstaton, ghtly conducted, s and can be a valuable nstument n pastoal cae and n the lfe and well-beng of the membes of the flock and of the flock as a whole. Moeove, f offcebeaes ae wllng to wok at t, ths valuable nstument of famly vstaton can be mpoved and made even moe valuable. t s n ths connecton that we ntend to gve some attenton n ths atcle to the Method and Pactce of famly vstaton n connecton wth the thee questons mentoned above. We shall do that especally n connecton wth ou teatment of the Pupose. Ths s pobably the aea n whch most offcebeaes dese help, as well as the aea whee thee s oom fo mpovement. The wte s no longe a local pasto and s no longe called to engage n pastoal cae. But he emembes well that as a novce mnste he faced the task of famly vstaton fo the fst tme wth no lttle tepdaton. Ths s qute possbly the one task whch s most dffcult fo a new offcebeae, be he pasto o elde. Not mpobably t emans the most unattactve aspect of the wok of many a pasto and elde even though he may become - 26 -