# Romans 12:6-8 - Offices or lay gifting?



## TheOldCourse (Nov 30, 2014)

After reading one amongst many admonitions to the lay-person to serve in their church and community based on Romans 12, I read Calvin's comments on the passage and found a rather different interpretation. Calvin interprets the various gifts (prophecy, ministry, teaching, exhortation, giving, ruling, and showing mercy) as describing the gifts given specifically to the various church offices rather than those given all members (including laypersons) of the body of Christ. My interest piqued, I spent a good deal of time consulting older commentaries and found that, while there were differences in matching gift to office, every pre 19th-century Reformed commentary I could find interpreted the statements as describing the gifts provided properly and exclusively to the officers of the church with little awareness of a direct application to the lay-person. Take Charles Ferme (d. 1617; excellent commentary by the way) as an example:



> 6 He now returns to the injunction concerning those who are in or have charge in the Church of God and subjoins the second part of it wherein he prohibits all those who in any way have charge of Christ's flock from the abuse of the gifts which they have received for the edification and advantage of the Church of God as the apostle elsewhere testifies that the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every one who has it "for profit" namely for the benefit and advantage of the Church. This part of the injunction is accordingly distinguished from the preceding inasmuch as the apostle has there prohibited arrogance in the case of any one assuming what he does not possess or being more wise than he ought to be wise whereas he here prohibits the abuse of a gift received. The second part of the enjoining therefore is this whoever in any way has charge in the Church of God should rightly and faithfully use the gift which he has received for the benefit of the Church and not abuse it. This which is the general proposition of the second part of the injunction the apostle omits illustrating it however both by its cause and by a special induction of particulars. "But having different gifts according to the grace which has been given unto us." This is the cause of the second part of the injunction from which the apostle thus reasons 'We who are in the Church of God and have charge of Christ's flock have received different gifts and these proceeding from the Spirit through grace,' or which is the same thing 'we have received gifts every one his own and that freely from God through the Spirit'
> 'Let no one therefore abuse his gift but let every one use it for the benefit of the Church. '
> 
> A Logical Analysis of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans pp. 265-266



So with Martin Luther, John Gill, Theodore Beza, David Pareus, and Thomas Wilson. Andrew Willet's (d. 1621) commentary is particularly interesting as he surveys a fairly wide range of Reformed interpretation of the verses but there is no hint of a "lay-person" interpretation. It's only when you enter the 19th century that I start finding hints of a more egalitarian interpretation when Hodge allows for such an application but still finds the primary reference of the passage to be church officers. Even Barnes (who I had assumed would be Hodge's foil) interprets it as describing church offices, although he has a more idiosyncratic view of the offices involved. 

When you turn to modern interpreters, on the other hand, I see little to no acknowledgement of this even being a possible interpretation of the text--all I have read include at least some of the giftings--especially serving/ministering, exhorting, giving, and showing mercy--as those proper to all believers including laypersons. There is little interaction with the older view. I have fewer modern commentaries at my disposal (and none before me, so I'm going by memory or by second hand), but this includes Moo, Murray, and Shedd (although I believe he does make some mention of the older view). 

I'm less surprised by the change in interpretation as I am by how universal it seems to be and how little serious interaction between the two I can find. This causes me to wonder whether there hasn't been a more fundamental change in interpretive presuppositions and theology regarding the church rather than mere exegetical differences. I haven't spent as much time on it, but I wonder if we won't see the same difference in other spiritual gift and body analogy passages like 1 Cor 12.

Thoughts? Comments? My Latin is poor so I'd love to see if someone else is familiar with some of the older untranslated Romans commentaries like Cocceius and Melville (how is that still untranslated?) or is aware of more modern commentaries that do contain significant interaction.


----------



## Gforce9 (Nov 30, 2014)

Very interesting, Chris....


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Nov 30, 2014)

I agree, this is very interesting. Thanks for posting, interest piqued.


----------



## Afterthought (Dec 1, 2014)

I seem to recall finding the "office" view in various works defending Presbyterian government (e.g., _Jus Divinim_, or Rutherford's works).


----------



## MW (Dec 1, 2014)

Thankyou, Chris. Well noted! Where are you sourcing the views of Beza and Pareus?

Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist Translation and John Brown of Wamphray's Exposition uphold the "church-office" view.

Melville definitely should have been translated by now.

To expand on Raymond's comment, from the Presbyterian perspective, the "church-office" view of this passage is basic to the argument for ruling elders.


----------



## chuckd (Dec 1, 2014)

> So with Martin Luther



Do you have the Luther quote?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

MW said:


> Thankyou, Chris. Well noted! Where are you sourcing the views of Beza and Pareus?
> 
> Thomas Cartwright's Confutation of the Rhemist Translation and John Brown of Wamphray's Exposition uphold the "church-office" view.
> 
> ...



I had found Beza's view referenced in other sources and in a 1599 English translation of his New Testament with annotations, however, after looking at them more closely it appears the English translator included the annotations of a couple of other gentlemen as well I'm not certain those are, in fact, by him. I've tried finding a primary source but to no avail--it looks like a French version of his Romans commentary was reprinted relatively recently, but that is of less use to me than Latin. For Pareus, he was referenced in Willett and, as best as my faltering Latin enables me, I found confirmation in his untranslated commentery: "Davidis Parei In divinam ad Romanos S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolam Commentarius". 

As an aside, for many years I wondered why there weren't more commentaries by our older Reformed authors on the Scriptures. Little did I know how many are out there and even digitalized but lying untranslated. I'm surprised that, for all of the translation of topical works, so few have undertaken to translate commentaries into the vernacular.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

chuckd said:


> > So with Martin Luther
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have the Luther quote?



Not before me, I don't believe it's digitalized in English (at least under Common Domain) and I had borrowed the book from a friend. He actually interpreted those who give as referring to those who teach the word rather than either Christian charity or diaconal ministry, which I found interesting. As I recall he was less clear about the showing mercy gift as applying an office of the church than those Reformed writers and made some lay applications, but he still emphasized the "church-office" view repeatedly as being that which Paul was properly teaching and warned against pretending to those offices by the uncalled.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Dec 1, 2014)

I think leaders have higher intensity of the gifts. Elders should have stronger gifts of teaching than deacons. Deacons moreso than most members.

The whole church is challenged to teach each other with all wisdom in Colossians. All should show mercy. All should be generous. There also were women prophets who did not hold office.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2014)

I was looking into this today and yes, noting that women also had gifts of prophecy, wondered how that fits with the "office" view. All very interesting and encouraging.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Dec 1, 2014)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was looking into this today and yes, noting that women also had gifts of prophecy, wondered how that fits with the "office" view. All very interesting and encouraging.



The commentators mentioned above took, without exception as far as I recall, the use of "prophecy" in this passage to refer to the ordinary work of the minister of word and sacrament rather than the extraordinary office. They felt constrained to take it that way by the ordinary nature of all of the other gifts mentioned and the context of the passage as a whole.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Dec 1, 2014)

Thanks, that's helpful.


----------

