Beacon dictionary of theology

For Further Reading: Kittel, 3:413-31; a Companion to the Bible, 59-63; ZPEB, 1:884-87.

W. E. mccumber

CLEANSING. Three kinds of cleansing are to be found in the Scriptures: physical, ceremonial, and moral.

Jesus referred to the first when He instructed, "Wash thy face" (Matt. 6:17) as a preparation for fasting. Peter insisted that baptism had a deeper significance than simply washing dirt off (1 Pet. 3:21). Yet physical cleanliness was very important in the life of the Jewish people. It was easy for them to suppose that they were clean because their bodies were; but Jesus rebuked this illusion by insisting that cleansing the hands did nothing for the heart (Matt. 15:1-20). In this discourse Jesus was teaching that the deeper defilement— man's real problem—was not dirt on the body but sin in the heart.

Ceremonial uncleanness and ceremonial cleanness were very prominent in the Mosaic system. A typical example was the contamination accruing to the person eating an animal which had died of itself. "He shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water" (Lev. 17:15) in order to be free from his uncleanness by nightfall; if he did not bathe—or ceremonially cleanse himself —his contamination remained.

That which defines either defilement or cleansing as ceremonial is (1) both the defilement and the cleansing are symbolic rather than moral, and (2) the cleansing depends on the exact performance of a prescribed ritual, or ceremony. God saw the pedagogical value of such ceremonies as a means of inculcating (1) the concepts of clean and unclean; (2) a sense of responsibility before God in observing the required rituals; and, by transfer, only (3) to come to see the seri

122

CLEANSING (cont.)

ousness of the reality symbolized—-the real uncleanness of sin and the need of a real cleansing from it.

The tendency of the Hebrews, however (as has been the tendency of all ceremonialists of whatever religion), was to be content with the ceremony or to suppose that the punctilious observance of the niceties of the ceremony was in itself sufficiently virtuous to constitute an acceptable substitute for inner change. This leads to the blight and barrenness of a ceremonial religion.

The peril of ceremonialism was seen at the very threshold of the Christian era by John the Baptist, who refused to baptize as a mere form. There was no automatic guarantee of true forgiveness simply by receiving or being in the water. Therefore he insisted on repentance, even evidences of repentance (Luke 3:8-14), without which the ceremony would be valueless. The history of Christianity would be brighter if the Church had maintained John's insight. Ceremonialism has symbolic and pedagogical value, but no saving power.

Moral cleansing is the reality which ceremonial cleansing only pictures. It is a real purging of the heart from sin, a purging made possible by the blood of Christ and actual by faith.

The crucial theological issue is whether the cleansing provided in the Christian scheme of redemption is expiatory only, or also a purging, or removal, of the evil propensity itself. There is a feeling of cleanness and of newness in the assurance of forgiveness. Pollution in the sense of defilement, guilt, and condemnation is gone. Is this, however, merely a feeling of cleansing resulting from an objective, or forensic, transaction, or is it also a subjective cleansing, or purification, at the level of character—a substantive change in the inner being?

Undoubtedly the provision of the Cross is for a thorough heart cleansing. That cleansing of acquired depravity is a concomitant of the first work of grace is implied by Paul's description of the Corinthians: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11). That kind of cleansing which is ascribed to the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit is a subjective, or inner, cleansing.

But cleansing from inbred sinfulness is a boon of grace also. This can be seen, for one thing, in the figure of fire, in contrast to water. Forgiveness is the cleansing for which water is a fitting type (Matt. 3:11; John 3:5; Acts 22:16; Eph. 5:26, nasb;

Titus 3:5). Fire, however, is the official insignia of Pentecost—"He Himself will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt. 3:11, nasb). On the Day of Pentecost fire, not water, was one of the inaugural signs. Fire is a deeper cleansing agent than water, reaching the inner recesses of the heart. And according to Peter, this is exactly what Pentecost did (Acts 15:9), thus fulfilling the promise of Malachi: "And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to the Lord offerings in righteousness" (Mai. 3:3, nasb).

The fullness of that cleansing possible can be seen also in a study of katharizo, a verb found 30 times in the NT, and variously translated "make clean," "cleanse," "purify," and "purge." Only once is its use clearly ceremonial (Heb. 9:23). Once it is used in a ceremonial metaphor but with a moral intent—"Cleanse your hands, ye sinners" (Jas. 4:8). Twelve instances refer to the healing of lepers, obviously a substantive cleansing of a physical disease. The rest relate to the cleansing of man from sin.

In some cases the cleansing is primarily expiatory, i.e., the cleansing of guilt (Acts 10:15; Eph. 5:26, nasb; Heb. 9:14, 22; possibly 1 John 1:7). But in other cases the cleansing of the sinful nature is clearly in view (1 John 1:9; Acts 15:9; Titus 2:14).

Twice we are told to cleanse ourselves. For the sinner to "cleanse his hands," he would have to put away his evil deeds and bring his guilty hands to the Cross. This (again) is the expiatory level. But believers are to cleanse themselves of "all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God" (2 Cor. 7:1, nasb). We cleanse ourselves by confession, repudiation, and appropriation. That which we confess is the inner defilement which we find, that which we repudiate is every alliance which fosters the defilement, and that which we appropriate is the covering of the Blood and the sanctifying office of the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13).

Since the depraved and fallen heart of man, Jesus said, is the source of all inward and outward sin (Mark 7:21-22), a purified heart would have to be much more than a forgiven heart. It could be nothing less than a heart healed of its corruption, so that it ceased to be a fountain of "evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts," but instead was the throne of the Spirit and the fountain of piety and holiness.

Speaking psychologically, this cleansing is the correction of the excessive egoism of the self. It is the purging of the sin which can be spelled with

CLERGY—COMFORTER, THE

123

a capital I—sin. The self is subdued and chastened, and subordinate to divine rule. The abnormal warfare is over between self-will and God's will.

The psychological questions sometimes raised concern the extensiveness of the cleansing of memory, of the subconscious, and of personality flaws and mental complexes. These questions relate to the distinction between carnality and humanity. The purifying of the heart is from sin, and God designs that it should be entire. But "heart" is the moral seat of life—the hidden springs. The heart is not the total person, only the quality center. Much in the area of the subconscious and of mental aberrations cannot be said to be the condition of the heart, in God's sight; hence is not the objective of the cleansing in the sanctifying work of the Spirit.

See carnal mind, carnality and humanity, acquired depravity heart purity, clean (unclean), purity and maturity, eradication.

For Further Reading: Wiley, CT, 3:442-48, 454-63, 487-96; Taylor, Holiness the Finished Foundation, 82-102, Richard S. Taylor

CLERGY. The clergy consists of those persons who have been set apart—usually by ordination —for special religious services. The term clergy is derived from the Greek kleras which often means "lot" or "chosen by lot."

The concept of special persons in the Church to carry on distinctive functions is generally traced to Jesus who chose and set apart 12 apostles whom He trained for their work. Furthermore, the Apostolic Church set apart 7 men to carry on appointed tasks (Acts 6:3). Later persons were set apart as bishops and deacons (1 Tim. 3:1-13). All of the NT ministers were recognized for the work they performed; they were not primarily office bearers.

Persons today are called to the ministry by an inner and God-given sense that they ought to be full-time workers for God. Their subjective sense of oughtness is normally confirmed by the congregations to which they belong and/or by delegates of a conference or a synodical meeting.

The term clergy has traditionally embraced bishops, priests, presbyters or elders, and deacons, though some churches in the Reformed tradition have lay deacons. There have been times when the minor orders of ministry and even members of religious orders were considered clergy.

Many clergymen today are pastors of local churches or parishes, and they must carry on a threefold work that consists of (1) preaching, teaching, and public worship; (2) pastoral care through a personal ministry to members; and (3) administration of the affairs of the congregation. These functions differ greatly, and they demand broad training and experience.

See minister (ministry), church government, elder, discipling.

For Further Reading: Lightfoot, The Christian Ministry; Gore, Ministry of the Christian Church; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the Early Centuries; Purkiser, The NT Image of the Ministry. W. CURRY mavis

COLLECTION. See tithe.

COMFORT. The Greek word paraklesis is rendered "consolation" and "encouragement." 2 Cor. 1:4 uses the word parakaleo which means "to call to one's side so as to derive strength and support." In John 14:16 and 16:7, parakletos is used, meaning one who stands with an individual, such as an attorney, and pleads his case; one who gives strength through affirmation, who consoles in the midst of pressure and challenge, and who supports with presence and advice.

The English word is from the Latin confortis, which means "brave together." Comfort, then, is that emotional support we derive from the knowledge that another is sharing our load with us. This sense of reassurance is intensified when the other is God.

Comfort in its NT setting, therefore, for the believer, is that consolation, sense of rest, encouragement, strength, and hope which one receives from knowing that God is in charge. It is the strength which comes from knowing that behind events is a God who can take life's worst and turn it into something meaningful (Rom. 8:28); that God can somehow nurture life through its hard, broken moments, encouraging the heart in the process, giving strength, and infusing grace. This is consolation indeed in life's most desperate hours.

See comforter, compassion, paraclete.

For Further Reading: cc, 6:314; Robertson, Word Pic-
tures, 4:208 ff; Uoyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the
Mount, vol. l. C. Neil Strait

COMFORTER, THE. Jesus is the only Person in Scripture who speaks of the Holy Spirit as a "Comforter." The Greek word parakletos, translated "Comforter" in the KJV, occurs five times in the NT: four times referring to the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 28; 15:26; 16:7), and once in reference to Christ (1 John 2:1). Parakletos is a compound noun derived from para, "by the side of," and kaleo, "to call," and has the root meaning of "someone called to one's side." There are several


suggestions for the best English equivalent for this Greek word: "Comforter" (kjv), "Counselor" (rsv, niv), "Advocate" (neb), and "Helper"

(nasb).

Jesus' statements concerning the "Comforter" explain (1) who He is, (2) how He is to come, and (3) what His work will be.

First, Jesus identifies the Comforter as the Holy Spirit (John 14:26) and explains that He is the Spirit of Truth (v. 17; 15:26; 16:13). The Comforter is not a power; He is a person with power. He is to be "another" (of the same type as Jesus himself) "Comforter" (14:16).

His coming into the lives of the believers is equivalent to Christ's personal presence; He is the successor of Jesus' person. The believer is not the initiator or the cause of the Holy Spirit's coming; He is sent to the aid of the believer by the Father as the result of Jesus' prayers (John 14:16, 26; 15:25; 16:7). He could not come as "Comforter" until Christ left the earth (16:7). The world (unsaved people) cannot receive the Comforter because it (they) "seeth him not, neither knoweth him" (14:17). His place of abode is with the believer (v. 17), and that forever (v. 16).

The primary work of the Comforter is to exalt Christ (16:14). He does not speak from himself (v. 13), but communicates only the truth He has received about Christ (15:26; 16:14). This communication involves both bringing back to mind what Jesus had personally said to the disciples (14:26) and revealing truth about things to come (16:13). He thus functions as both a Reminder and as a Teacher. Jesus promises His disciples that the Comforter will guide them into all truth (v. 13). This latter promise is passed on to all believers (1 John 2:20, 27).

The Comforter also has a work in reference to the unsaved world. As such He is a convictor. He convinces and convicts "the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment" (John 16:8). How He does this is not clear. Many commentators believe that He does this by His work and influence in and through the lives of the believers; however, He undoubtedly impresses directly the mind and conscience of sinners.

See holy spirit paraclete.

For Further Reading: Braumann, "Advocate, Para-
clete, Helper," NIDNTT, 1:88-91; Morris, The Gospel Ac-
cording to John, 662-66; Carter, The Person and Ministry
of the Holy Spirit, 126-43; Ladd, A Theology of the New
Testament, 286-97. allan p. brown

COMMAND, COMMANDMENT. The concept of commandment appears almost immediately in the relationship between God and man. As a free moral agent, man had the privilege and the responsibility of choice. In order to guide man in the proper use of this power, God said to him, "Thou shalt not" (Gen. 2:17). This is known as "The law of positive command." This law is the basis of the relations between God and man from that time onward. God commanded simple obedience. In the final analysis, this is what God has expected from His creation in every generation.

The right to command is based on God's revelation of himself as the infinite, holy Creator of the universe and all that is in it. Man as the lower, created being is thereby subject to the authority imposed upon him. Law is nonrestrictive in that its authority extends over all within its prescribed sphere, not just the obedient (Rom. 13:3).

When Moses wrote the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), the basic relationship between God and man was not changed. Again, God was asking for obedience. The primary differences were two: First, the law was now written so that it could be read again and again. The Israelites were without excuse. Second, through the commandments God pointed out areas of life to be guarded in conformity to the known will of God—both religious and social. In brief, all of life is under the watchful care of an almighty, ever-present God. The ceremonial law which follows in the Book of Leviticus is the practical outworking of the inner relationship between God and man.

It was this inner relationship that was so important in the ministry of the prophets in their day (e.g., see Mic. 6:7-8) and for Christ in His day (Matt. 23:1-39). The relationship of Christ to the law or commandments is summarized in His own words, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (5:17).

The basic demand for simple obedience has not been changed. The ministry of the Word of God has been directly toward the goal of man's acceptance of and submission to the divine directive. Ultimately all of mankind will be held accountable for obedience to the revealed will of God (Rom. 1:14-25).

In recent years, beginning with German higher criticism about 1850, there has been an effort on the part of liberal theology and liberal scholasticism to discount the idea of a written revelation from God to man. It is held that OT concepts of law and authority are vestiges of an archaic past and should not be considered authoritative for today. According to this view, God reveals himself in a new way to each generation and to each

COMMISSION, GREAT—COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATION

125

individual. Obedience, then, is not to a written standard but to an intrinsic personal "revelation."

The NT presents no conflict between the commandments and the gospel of love. The gospel, instead of repudiating the law, anticipates obedience to all the commands of God as an expression of love toward God and man.

See obedience, law and grace. For Further Reading: Baker's DCE.

LEROY E. Lindsey

COMMISSION, GREAT. See great commission.

COMMON, COMMUNITY. These words have an apparent relationship in English usage. The terms mutual, joint, together, or group suggest a concept similar to common and community. In the biblical languages, however, the word "common" may have two quite different connotations. It may mean that which is mutually shared or that which is profane.

"Common" in the OT may refer to a group sharing in a single (Heb. ehad, one) purse, as in Prov. 1:14. Or it may refer to that which is "common" (Heb. chol) bread, presumably to be used by the masses as opposed to holy bread (1 Sam. 21:4, rsv), which is for divine use exclusively. The Hebrew term (chol) may be translated "profane" in the OT, especially in Ezekiel (cf., e.g., RSV of 7:21; 20:21-22, 24), or it may mean that which is polluted or sexually defiled (Gen. 49:4,

rsv).

"Common" in the NT is also used in two significant ways. It is used primarily to indicate that which is public, shared by the group or universal (Gr. koinos). Examples of this usage are the common faith (Jude 3) and common possessions (Acts 2:44; 4:32). This meaning is contrasted with that which is peculiar, unique, individual, not shared with many (also Gr. koinos).

Two meanings provide the tension from which develops the understanding that common is merely ordinary or lacks honor and esteem. Peter abhorred the thought of eating meat that was common or unclean (Acts 10:14-15). The Pharisees considered themselves religiously superior to the common people (Heb. am ha eretz, people of the land). Holiness and separateness from the larger community of humanity were in some ways equated. Identification with society in general jeopardized one's holiness. There is a concern that by being common one is profaned.

The term community may refer to a geographical neighborhood or any homogeneous group of people united by a common bond. The concept is expressed in the NT by "church" (ekklesia), "city (polis), and "synagogue" (synagoge). Koinonia, "fellowship," conveys a sense of community. Two meanings merge—that which is shared and that which is peculiar. A community has that in it which is common to all in the community at the same time it has that which distinguishes it from other communities. The church community is that "communion of the saints" or separated people who celebrate their union in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper as Communion.

See koinonia, church, fellowship, love, secularism.

For Further Reading: Gager, Kingdom and Community; "KOINOS," Kittel, 3:789-809; "Common," IDB, 1:663; N1DNTT, 1:635-39; "Koinonia," N1DNTT, 1:639-44; GMS, 594; "Common, Commonly," Vine, ED,

1:212. Kenneth E. Hendrick

COMMON GRACE. Common grace is a Calvinistic term referring to the grace God gives universally for the purpose of preserving the human race from total putrefaction and self-destruction. It accounts for whatever benevolence and nobility there is in the unregenerate world. It is not designed to lead to salvation, thus is sharply distinguished from the Calvinistic idea of efficacious grace, which has personal salvation as its certain objective. The Wesleyan doctrine of pre-venient grace differs in that (1) universal or common grace has as its objective not only the preservation of civilization but personal salvation, and (2) it is efficacious only in those who respond to it and cooperate with it.

See prevenient grace.

For Further Reading: Wiley, CE, 2:344-57.

Eldon R. Fuhrman

COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATION. A sharing either by giving (Gal. 2:2) or receiving (Phil. 4:14) or by interchange (alluded to in v. 15). The medium is usually conversation, and a bridge of mutual understanding and empathy is essential to make it effective. Various Greek words are translated "communicate" in the KJV, principally dialaleo from which comes the English dialogue (Luke 6:11; 22:4—"discussed," niv), and homiled, which simply means "to speak with" (Acts 24:26). The verbal aspect eilso comes through in such phrases as "filthy communication" (Col. 3:8—"filthy language," Niv; "foul talk," rsv).

The more inclusive word related to communication, however, is koinonia, which is used of the fellowship and sharing characteristic of the Early Church. It is variously rendered "communion," "fellowship," "contribution," "distribution," etc. (e.g., Rom. 12:13). This puts the emphasis on

126

COMMUNION, HOLY—COMPARATIVE RELIGION

nonverbal communication and includes both the sharing of goods and of spiritual blessings. It is also part of almsgiving which implies that communication is not always a two-way street. Illustrative of the latter is the offering to the Jerusalem church from the Gentile Christians (Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4; 9:13).

In Paul's instruction to Timothy to urge the wealthy to be "willing to communicate" (1 Tim. 6:18) he uses a cognate of koinonia which is more accurately translated "to be generous," or as the NIV has it, "willing to share." The same root word occurs in Rom. 12:13, "Distributing to the necessity of saints" (kjv), which in newer translations conveys the idea of sharing with those in need.

It is in this spirit of sharing that bridges of communication with others are built and thus avenues of witnessing opened up. "Ye shall be witnesses unto me" (Acts 1:8)—communicators of the faith.

See speech, koinonia, stewardship, good works.

For Further Reading: HDB, 1:460; Baker's Dictionary of Practical Theology, 330-63; ISBE, 2:688 ff.

J. Fred Parker