September 16, 2001

Dear friends,

Please understand that I could not write this on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday, let alone Tuesday. My heart aches over the tragedy of this past week; as I think about the terrible loss of life, and the despicable, cowardly acts that caused it, grief and anger simultaneously grip my soul. But a word is necessary, and I must write now.

There are few national tragedies that have caused the American people to come to a screeching halt. Few tragedies that rock our way of life, wake us from a fairy tale existence and cause us to come to grips with reality, depravity, mortality. Few tragedies that remind us of our own vulnerability and finitude—and stir up our faith in God. In my parents’ generation, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was the defining moment—their “day that will live in infamy.” They know where they were when the news of the attack came, and can recite the details with near-perfect recollection. When I was a child, the assassination of President Kennedy had that function in my life. I was in elementary school, learning Spanish via television. Our class got the news within minutes. Like the proverbial chicken little, I thought the sky was falling. Up until Tuesday morning, I had thought that the Gulf War would have been that defining moment in my children’s lives.

The horrific events of September 11, 2001, will forever be etched in our minds. A few minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, my wife called me and said, “Turn on the TV now!” To my horror, I saw live the second plane hit the other tower. While the events were unfolding, I called my parents to tell them the news. Since they’re on the west coast, they were just waking up. For them, it must have seemed like Pearl Harbor all over again.

You all have read the newspapers, seen news clips, heard pundits and commentators on TV and radio. There is no need to rehearse the terrifying details here. Instead, I wish to offer a perspective on this crisis in the form of Q & A. In the last four days, I have encountered a plethora of Christian attitudes. Some of them are right on target, but some are irresponsible, calloused, or naïve.

Attitudes

Shouldn’t we just forgive those who have committed these horrible acts? After all, Christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive those who have sinned against us.

In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord taught the principle of non-retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well” (Matt 5.38-39, NET).

I must admit that I deeply appreciate the piety of those folks who think that this text applies to the current situation. They are Bible-believing Christians who want to obey the Lord—no matter the cost. I side with them in this desire. My family discussed this very text yesterday morning. I reminded them of our commitment to the scriptures, that we must not give in to our emotions nor to what we think is right, but must obey the Lord in all matters. Someone asked, “Does this mean that you think we should turn the other cheek to the terrorists?” I responded, “If that’s what the text means, yes.” My wife asked, “But is that what the text means?” And there’s the rub. We dare not take verses out of context—especially at a time like this when doing so could have disastrous results. And every American Christian can surely see, in this present crisis, the nonsense of the glib line, “That’s just your interpretation.”

Now, I could offer an exegesis of Matt 5.38-39 in its context. But some might suspect that my interpretation is slanted in light of the current situation. Instead, in this case I think it is prudent to quote from various commentators and expositors who represent different schools of thought on how to interpret the Sermon on the Mount. They represent four different nationalities, too. One thing they all agree on, however, is this: Cheek-turning is on an individual, not a societal level. Listen to their words:

Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992): “ ‘Do not resist the evil person’ does not mean that we should let evil triumph throughout our communities. Jesus is referring to private retaliation, not to public order…” (126-27).

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Studies in the Sermon on the Mount, vol 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959): “Our Lord’s teaching here does not mean that we should be unconcerned about the defence of law and order. To turn the other cheek does not mean that it does not matter at all what happens in national affairs, whether there is order or chaos. … That is a complete travesty of the teaching. What our Lord says is that I am not to be concerned about myself, my own personal honour and so on. But that is a very different thing from being unconcerned about the maintenance of law and order, or about the defence of the weak and unprotected. … I assert on biblical authority that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God,’ that the magistrate is a necessary power, that evil and sin must be restrained and restricted, and that I, as a citizen, am to be concerned about that” (282-83).

In a carefully done, massive and scholarly volume by Professor Betz,¹ we read the following:

“Because every word in this apodictic prohibition is controversial, our analysis can proceed only with a careful examination of each element” (280).

“If ‘resist’ is the correct rendering, does it imply that the Christian exclude any form of self-defense or self-protection? Are all forms of prevention, avoidance, or other means of combating evil prohibited? If so, does Christian ethics demand that one allow evil to take its course? And how can one distinguish such nonresistance from compliance and collusion with evil, or at the least, with outright submission to evil?” (ibid.)

The interpretation that is ultra-pacifistic, even on a societal level, is “an unrealistic and sentimental romanticism” (281).

“… the ‘idealist’ interpretation by liberal Christian theologians has led to a thoroughly negative reading; but one must not confuse this interpretation with the meaning of the SM” (282).

Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993): “Jesus again expounds the ethics of the kingdom. What he presents is ethics directed more to conduct at the personal, rather than the societal, level. These directives are for the recipients of the kingdom, not for governmental legislation” (131).

Along these lines, it should be noted that the apostle Paul argued in Romans 13.4, “if you are doing wrong, then you will have cause to fear [governmental authority]; it is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment bringing retribution on the offender” (REB). God establishes governments to protect their own people—both from themselves and from others who would do them harm. When Paul says that ‘they hold the power of the sword,’ he is saying that they have the right, as ministers of God, to exact corporal punishment—even capital punishment. Although Paul did not know the Lord while he was on earth, he did learn of his words and ways. In several places in Paul’s letters there are echoes of dominical sayings—hints and even explicit statements that the apostle knew the Lord’s teaching. He even alludes to the Sermon on the Mount. Thus, Paul would have been in agreement with the Lord and was indirectly instructed by him. Even Hans Dieter Betz, whose view of scripture is lower than that of evangelicals, argues that “Paul’s own ideas certainly differ from those of the SM, but he approves of these maxims, which he probably received from tradition” (285).

Further, we need to point out that both in the Old Testament and the New, corporate or national punitive acts are endorsed when done as an act of self-defense. The book of Joshua is filled with such examples. And in the NT, we must never forget that the Lamb of God who suffered and died in our place is also the Lion from the tribe of Judah who will rule the nations with a rod of iron. And he will take out his vengeance on the wicked (Rev 2.27; 19.2). True, he is God incarnate, but the same Lord who instructed us to turn the other cheek will also rule righteously and banish all evil from the earth. However we think about the non-retaliation statement must be weighed with the rest of scripture—and specifically the other statements made by our Lord himself.

Sometimes it is argued that “ ‘vengeance is mine,’ says the Lord” (Rom 12.19, quoting from Deut 32.35). The implication is that we should not retaliate at all. But again, this is to ignore the context. Paul is speaking about individual believers in response to others; he is not speaking about society as a whole. This must be the case, for otherwise how could he say, in the very next chapter, that government authorities wield the sword as ministers of God?

In sum, it is the duty of both the United States and the entire civilized world to respond with all necessary force to these outrageous acts of terrorism. What much of the rest of the civilized world has endured for many years has finally come home to these shores. This was our wake-up call.

The perpetrators are obviously Arab Muslims. We need to retaliate against all Arabs—and all Muslims.

Some people overreact: they want their pound of flesh, and they want it now. Because of the certainty that these brutal acts were committed by Arab Muslims, the assumption of some folks is that we must take out vengeance on all Muslims and all Arabs. Sometimes scripture is even introduced into the mix: In Genesis 12.3 the Lord says to Abraham, “Those who bless you, I will bless; those who curse you, I will curse.” He is speaking not only about Abraham but his descendants—specifically, his descendants through the promised son, Isaac. And that means Israel. In some respect, there is thus national blessing to those who bless Israel and national cursing for those who oppose her. However, this does not mean that Israel has a blank check from God to do whatever it pleases! The history of the nation recorded in the Old Testament reveals that God’s blessing depended on obedience.

Further, it is a perversion of the scriptures to say that Arabs or Muslims should be attacked. This is not only a perversion of scripture; it is also a perversion of justice. And it makes us no better than the hijackers because they attacked innocent people without provocation. Mosques have been bombed, and at least one murder of a Muslim man has purportedly occurred this weekend in America. Even Netanyahu decried such an indiscriminate response, noting that millions of Muslims—the vast majority—are peace-loving people.

Permit me three illustrations. First, my car was worked on this week at a local dealership. When I went to pick it up on Friday, a man was walking in front of me to his car. Our two vehicles were parked next to each other. When he noticed me behind him, he jumped! He was obviously rattled by the possibility that I intended to do him bodily harm. When he turned around, I noticed that he had dark skin and looked to be of Arab descent. Then, I noticed his license plate: it was a vanity plate with an Arab word. I felt sorry for the man, because he was as innocent as you or I of these recent atrocities. That he would be so startled by my approach seemed to be due to some precedent. My guess was that earlier in the week he had been a victim of at least verbal abuse.

Second, two or three years ago I was privileged to help lead a Muslim lady to Jesus Christ. She’s from the Middle East. A year later, I baptized her. She is now at a Christian college, studying scripture. I shudder to think of the mindless atrocities that some gung-ho Americans could fling her way!

Third, we must learn our lessons from history: In World War II, nearly 120,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated hundreds of miles from their homes. Their liberties, their jobs, and their dignity were all stripped bare by a government that overreacted. Finally, nearly fifty years after these injustices, the American government decided to begin paying reparations.

My grandfather, a college professor in southern California, spoke out strongly against such prejudicial treatment of these Japanese Americans. He was scorned and condemned for his views, but he continued to speak. One of the first thoughts that came to my mind after the firestorm of Tuesday was that we may well repeat history. I was praying, and still am praying, that that does not happen. Yesterday (Saturday, 15 September), there appeared an article by Associated Press writer Jon Sarche entitled, “Internees Hope US Won’t Punish Arabs.” Apparently others are thinking about this as well. The problem is that not only were those terrorists who attacked NY and DC Arabs; they were radical Muslims too. Thus, thousands of Americans who are both Arabs and Muslims—and are thus more easily identifiable than the Japanese Americans sixty years ago—have become targets of irrational Americans. Not only should Christians not participate in such abuses; they should also seek to defend these Arab Muslims from others. The story of the Good Samaritan confirms this point: regardless of race or religion, the Christian’s attitude toward his fellowman must be one of compassion and love.

This attack is evidence of the judgment of God on this nation. The American people have turned their back on God and now we are paying the price.

Some prominent Christian leaders have actually uttered this point of view this past week. In so doing, they have become the caricature that the American press often paints of the evangelical community. There are several problems with this view. First, it presupposes that America is a Christian nation. Although many would like to think so, this country has never really been a Christian nation. Sometimes Christians assume this viewpoint, then try to bring the nation back to Christ through legislation. But if the premise is false, the remedy is wrong-headed. On a broader level, however, we must clearly see that the ensuing war will be a battle of good vs. evil. On the side of good will be Christians—as well as Jews, Muslims, and atheists. On the side of evil are radical Muslims, a very small minority who do not speak for the whole. Thus, although it is a religious war on their side, I’m not so sure we should make it such on ours.

Further, to assume that these terrorist acts are the judgment of God seems to lack a certain logic. I’m not arguing that God does not use unholy instruments to perform surgery on souls. Not at all. God has done this in the past, and he will do it again in the future. Rather, if this was the judgment of God, why were the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacked? There may well be more Christians in the military than almost any other ‘industry’ in America—perhaps even more than the clergy! And although we probably could not make such a pronouncement about the WTC, it nevertheless represents much that is good in this country. Indeed, it is a symbol of our prosperity—a prosperity which often spills over to the church. Frankly, if September 11 represented the judgment of God, one could think of better targets to underscore that point. (I’ll leave that to your imagination.) Or why did it occur on that date—the date of the Camp David Accord when, in 1978, Egypt and Israel found peace with one another? That some Christian leaders would view this in such terms is both narrow-minded and cold-hearted.

At the same time, I have been deeply encouraged by this nation’s response to the gospel this week. One report suggested that 9 out of 10 Americans have been praying because of this crisis! We are turning to God in record numbers. One of my students told of a friend, a pastor in New York City. This pastor has prayer meetings every Thursday night. On average, 30-50 people come to these meetings. This past Thursday, over 3000 people showed up!

There really are two issues at stake here. First, the deeds committed against this nation constitute an act of war on the United States. As Americans and as citizens of the world, we must speak out against such evil. All nations with any sense of decency and order should rise up against terrorism. Second, there is sin in this country, and it is growing. But it is not just ‘out there’—it’s in the church, too. Indeed, on many fronts statistically there seems to be little or no moral difference between believers and unbelievers. I would hope and pray that as we wage a just war against terrorism, Americans will find the real answers to their deepest questions. One issue is societal, the other is spiritual. Let’s not confuse the two. I think Chuck Swindoll said it best when he prayed this morning at Stonebriar Community Church, “Lord, in the process of bringing us to victory, I pray that you will purge our nation.”

Do nothing. Retaliation will only get them madder.

This is more the attitude of a coward than a person of principle. As such, it has no place among the Christian community. We dare not be paralyzed by fear. Not only this, but such an attitude is a Chamberlain-like response. We know where that got him with Germany.

It is also the attitude of the naïve—those who have no understanding of human nature. Make no mistake about it: Humanity displays its sinfulness as fully as it can. Only when it is restrained by government or conscience or the like is it reined in. As Paul said, “it is necessary to be in subjection [to government authorities], not only because of the wrath of the authorities but also because of your conscience” (Rom 13.5, NET). But if one’s conscience has become shipwrecked—as in the case of these terrorists—then the only thing left to keep their sin natures in check is external control. And that means governments and militia. If we do nothing, the full fury of their insanity will be unleashed.

Yesterday morning, when Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel’s former Prime Minister) was interviewed on FOX TV, he made the troubling comment: “Terrorism has to be eliminated or we will be facing nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist states very soon.” He went on to say that some of these terrorist-harboring countries are working at a feverish pace to become nuclear.

We must understand that the motive of these terrorists is nothing short of wiping the United States and Israel off the map. Doing nothing will only assist them in that goal.

Was God surprised by these tragic events? How can we reconcile the sovereignty of God and the goodness of God with the unspeakable horrors of this week?

I won’t spend much time on this topic, as it is a paper (or book!) in itself. But briefly, I do wish to make two points. One is theological, and the other is behavioral.

First, on a theological plane, there are two temptations that Christians can have when it comes to thinking about God. (1) We can emphasize his sovereignty to the neglect of his goodness. Or (2) we can emphasize his goodness to the neglect of his sovereignty. If God is sovereign but not good, then he is a tyrant. And the only reason we should worship him is because he’s the biggest kid on the block and will beat the stuffin’ out of us if we don’t! That’s not my God. But if God is good but not sovereign, then he is an impotent God who is sitting on his eternal throne, twittling his not-so-almighty thumbs, fretting over what’s happening on earth down below.

The Bible will not allow us either view of God. The reason is simply that the Bible affirms both attributes, and the Bible also affirms the simplicity of God. This means that we cannot compartmentalize his attributes. He is good in his sovereignty and sovereign in his goodness. If we cannot see either his sovereignty or his goodness in the events of this past week, it is because we are only looking at the physical and temporal horizon. But as one of my seminary professors, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., was fond of saying, “There is an ‘until.’ ” There is more to life than what we can grasp with our senses, or imagine with our minds. And we are finite creatures who simply cannot fathom God, nor can we give him counsel.

An excellent illustration of the proper attitude can be found in that great section of Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapters 9 through 11. It focuses on the sovereignty of God in relation to Israel. To the unobservant reader, these chapters can look cold-hearted. Paul concludes his thought by exalting his Lord as follows:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways! ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or has first given to God, that God needs to repay him?’ For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever! Amen.” (Rom 11.33-36, NET)

The context for this benediction on the sovereignty of God is Paul’s agony over his Jewish countrymen who remain unrepentant. He begins his ‘sermon on sovereignty’ with a prayer: “I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed—cut off from Christ—for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites” (Rom 9.2-4a, NET). In other words, Paul was deeply troubled over the spiritual state of his fellow Jews—so much so that he would have given up his own soul if it would have brought some of them to Christ. That is profound concern and profound pain. And through it all, Paul admits the greatness and goodness of God. He does not understand all things; he knows that no one can be God’s advisor! In the midst of his own torment, Paul acknowledges God’s sovereignty. I submit that the future that Paul’s unsaved Jewish friends were facing was far worse than mere physical death. Thus, if Paul can both be in agony over their potential state, and also affirm God’s sovereignty and goodness, then should we not be able to do the same? Paul could do this without having to understand—let alone explain—all the apparent discrepancies. We should follow his example.

Second, on a behavioral level, Paul also serves as a model. “Weep with those who weep,” he told the Corinthians. The last thing that friends and family members of victims need right is a Bible verse given at arm’s length! Frankly, they don’t need words at all. They need our love, our compassion, our strong arm that holds them up in this time of trouble. I have wept this past week—a lot. To think of the thousands of lives lost because of some mindless bastards on a twisted religious vendetta! I can appreciate the imprecatory psalms more now than I ever have before. I am angry, sad, and moved to action. To sit back in my easy chair and simply pontificate is not adequate.

One course of action that some of us may choose to take is to help with disaster aid. My church set up a special offering to go to the Red Cross today. We were delighted to contribute to this—without neglecting our weekly gift to the church. And we expect to give more.

Final Thoughts

As much as we must wage war against these monsters, I think it is naïve of some officials who say that we can ever eradicate terrorism entirely. The reason is simply that the world is full of sinners. We cannot establish heaven on earth, though we must do our level best to keep evil in check. But we must be wary of placing our greatest hopes in our government; it is not the government that will ultimately save us, nor are we ultimately responsible to the government. I long for the day when Christ will reign in his earthly kingdom. Then and only then will all evil be held in check.

Postscript

Finally, I would like to make a pragmatic suggestion—a way to help our nation beyond what was mentioned above. Not all of you can do this, but some can. Tomorrow morning Wall Street will be back in business. Many are worried about what will happen to the stock market. Last Tuesday, I contemplated selling off what little stock I have! On Wednesday, I had a change of heart (through some good counsel). Many advisors are pointing out that only if people panic and sell off their stock will this dastardly act of Tuesday last become a financial disaster as well. I, for one, do not want to be a part of that problem. So, instead of selling any stock tomorrow, I plan to buy some. I’ll even tell you which stocks I am going to buy: AMR and UAL—better known as American Airlines and United Airlines. I realize that they will most likely plummet. The airline industry is the most worried of any sector in this country right now. I would hope that other Americans would see that we’re in this thing together and do their part to act courageously—even if it costs them something. Some analysts have suggested that each American buy just one share of something tomorrow to show our loyalty and patriotism. Perhaps you will be able to do so.

¹ Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), a book of over 700 pages.

Many churches today have a pastor and several deacons.  This is based on a model of ecclesiology in which it is assumed that there was one elder in the ancient church.  But even those churches that have more than one elder (the pastor being one of them) usually regard the pastor as the de facto head of the church.  This is due to two basic reasons: (1) he is the one with biblical training, and (2) he is the one who speaks before the entire congregation every Sunday. 

It seems to me that this model (either the philosophical single-elder model or the pragmatic single-leader model) misses the mark of the New Testament teaching on this topic.  The early church had, I believe, multiple elders.  The pastor would have been counted among them, but was not over them.  Indeed, all would have taught, not just one.  If we can get back to this model, I think that churches will be stronger in many ways.  They will be less idiosyncratic, less dependent on one person,¹ more accountable.

The case for plurality of elders can be argued along four lines: biblical, historical, theological, and pragmatic.  At bottom, I would say that the reason the scriptures teach multiple eldership is at least twofold: (1) mutual accountability is necessary if leaders are to avoid falling into sin; and (2) a church takes on the personality of its leader/s: if there is just one leader, the church will inevitably take on that man's personality, including his quirks and faults.  But if more than one person leads the church, there is the greater chance that the church will be balanced.²

I. Biblical Arguments

A. For Multiple Elders

The argument from scripture is in fact so strong that most commentators today assume it.  But it is well-articulated in G. W. Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (New International Greek New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 175-77 (the section called "Excursus: Bishops/Presbyters and Deacons: 3:1-13").

The following points are relevant for our discussion:

(1) Presbyters (also translated "elders") and bishops (also translated "overseers") were apparently the same individuals.  That is to say, the two terms were synonymous. 

Note, for example, Titus 1:5 ("appoint elders"), followed by v. 7 ("for a bishop must be blameless").  The very fact that the sentence in v. 7 begins with a "for" shows a connection: bishops are elders.  Otherwise, why would Paul mention the qualifications of a group that were not whom Titus should appoint?  In Acts 20:17 Paul calls the "elders of the church" of Ephesus together for a final meeting.  Then, in v. 28 he addresses them as "overseers" (or bishops).  Thus, any passage that deals with bishop is equally applicable to elders.

(2) The leadership of the church from the earliest period always had elders, even if it did not have deacons.  Young churches only had elders; more mature churches had both elders and deacons. 

This can be seen by a comparison of Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Tim 3:1-13: the Christians in Crete (where Titus was ministering) were relatively new.  The qualifications for deacons is not mentioned because only the top level of leadership needed to be established in such a situation.  But in Ephesus the church was well established (where Timothy was ministering).  Consequently, Paul not only gives instruction to Timothy about both elders and deacons, but also says that the leaders should not be recent converts (cf. 1 Tim 3:6 [for elders] and perhaps implied in 3:10 for deacons).  But no instruction is given to Titus about new converts because that was the only pool from which he could draw.³  Thus, for young (and presumably small) churches, the leaders would do the work of both elders and deacons.⁴ 

In sum, a church must have elders, but not necessarily deacons (at least at first). 

(3) Elder and pastor are not the same thing in the NT. "Elder" refers to the office one holds by virtue of appointment or election; "pastor" is a spiritual gift that one is given by the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph 4:11; 1 Cor 12:7-11).  One can have the gift of pastor without being an elder; and one can hold the office of elder without having the gift of pastor.

(4) For elders, the one qualification that is other than moral is the ability to teach.  Note 1 Tim 3:2 ("able to teach" [διδάκτικος, didaktikos]).  Titus 1:9 expands on this: "he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it." 

There is much confusion about what this means. 

This does not mean that an elder must have the gift of teaching, for the NT is very clear that all believers should be able to teach.  Cf. Heb 5:12 (the definition of a spiritual meat-eater is one who is able to teach [5:11-14]; the author indicts his entire audience for not yet being able to do this); Col 3:16; Titus 2:3.⁵

"Able to teach" does not mean seminary-trained or one skilled in the biblical languages.  This is evident from the fact that Gentile Christians were among the first elders (cf. Titus 1:5-9).  These men would not have known Hebrew.

It is recognized that some elders would be gifted as teachers and would especially exercise this gift (1 Tim 5:17).  Thus, the implication is that not all would teach equally.  (Personally, I see in this text justification for some of the elders to be pastor-teachers.  Further, those especially gifted in this area would want to hone such a gift by learning the scriptures as diligently and rigorously as they could.  Hence, there is justification for having seminary-trained teachers.  But, at the same time, it is evident that not all elders had this gift.)

The basic thrust of this qualification is that elders would hold to pure doctrine in guiding the church.  In other words, they would be mature men who could sniff out heresy and steer the church in the direction it needs to go.  Certainly in some especially delicate matters these leaders would defer to others who had the gift.  But the elders needed to make the final decisions about the direction of the church.

Pragmatically, one of the ways in which such teaching could be accomplished would be for the elders to oversee different home Bible studies.  Nowadays "mini-churches" are very popular.  Such mini-churches are actually very biblical.  The early church met in homes during the week.  Each home would presumably have its own elder. Thus, at least in the context of a small gathering, the elders should be prepared to teach. 

Teaching also occurs in another, less visible context.  When the elders and pastor meet together, the elders should have the freedom to state their opinions freely.  To be sure, the pastor is usually better trained in the scriptures, but this in no way gives him the right to demand allegiance to his viewpoints.  He must demonstrate that his views are biblical and submit them to the leadership.  At times, his case will not convince.  (Each one of us is responsible to know the scriptures and to examine the evidence for our beliefs.)  Further, many if not most issues to be decided by an elder board allow for a great deal of flexibility.  Two positions could equally be in line with scripture.  At that point, the collective wisdom of the leadership needs to reign supreme.⁶ 

(5) The consistent pattern in the NT is that every church had several elders.

Note the following texts (where either elder or bishop is used):

Acts 11:30--elders at the church of Antioch

Acts 14:23--Paul and Barnabas appoint "elders in every church"

Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4--elders at the church in Jerusalem

Acts 20:17, 28--elders/bishops at the church of Ephesus (v. 17--"elders of the church")

Acts 21:18--elders at the church in Jerusalem

Phil 1:1--the church at Philippi has bishops and deacons

1 Tim 5:17--elders at the church of Ephesus

Titus 1:5--Titus is to appoint elders in every town⁷

Jas 5:14--"the elders of the church"

1 Pet 5:1-2--"the elders among you"⁸

In every one of these texts the plain implication is that each church had several elders.

Note also that other more generic terms are also used of church leaders.  The pattern once again is that there are several leaders for each church:

1 Thess 5:12, 13--the congregation is to respect its leaders⁹

Heb 13:7, 17--heed the leaders of the church, "for they are keeping watch over your souls" (v. 17)¹⁰

The evidence is overwhelming.  So strong is it that Knight, after carefully evaluating the evidence, can argue:

An analysis of the data seems, therefore, to indicate the existence of oversight by a plurality of church leaders throughout the NT church in virtually every known area and acknowledged or commended by virtually every NT writer who writes about church leadership.   . . . [For example,] Every church in which leadership is referred to in Asia Minor either under Paul and his associates or under Peter's ministry has a plurality of leadership . . .¹¹

B. For Single Elders

If the case is this strong, why then do some argue for a single elder?  The basic argument for this position is theological and historical, rather than biblical.  But biblically, there are five texts which seem to suggest a single elder.  We will look at these not in canonical order but from the weakest arguments to the strongest.

(1) Revelation 2-3--there is one "angel" over each church.  The word angel (ἄγγελος, anggelos) is sometimes translated "messenger" in scripture.  Hence, perhaps the single "angel" over each church is the single elder (pastor), rather than an angel.

The problem with this view is manifold: (1) ἄγγελος (anggelos) is used 67 times in Revelation.  If we exclude the references in chapters 2 and 3 for the sake of argument, we see a remarkable thing: every instance of ἄγγελος [anggelos] refers to an angel.  (Unless of course pastors can fly!  cf. Rev 14:6). (2) Even if Rev 2-3 were an exception, "messenger" is hardly an appropriate term for a pastor.  Pastors were, in NT times, restricted to a certain locale geographically.  But a messenger is one who moves about.  (3) The genre of the Revelation fits what is called "apocalyptic."  In apocalyptic literature there is a strong emphasis on angels.  Among other duties, they are responsible before heaven for groups of godly people.  Thus, when the Lord says, "to the angel of the church at _______, write" we have apocalyptic symbolism and imagery occurring.  Angels are evidently in view, not pastors.

(2) 2 John 1, 3 John 1--the "elder" writes to the elect lady and to Gaius.  Some argue that John describes himself in these two little letters as "the elder" because he is the lone elder at the church.  There are a few problems with this view, however. 

First, the author is writing to two different people at apparently two different churches.  Would he be their elder?  If so, then we have an anomalous situation unparalleled in the rest of the NT: a single elder for at least two churches.  If not, would he perhaps be the elder at the church of Ephesus writing to Christians at other churches?  That too is doubtful, because (a) why would he not mention which church he was elder over? and (b) if he were the elder at the church of Ephesus, what business does he have meddling in other churches' affairs?¹²

Second, suppose that John is actually writing to one and the same church in 2 John and 3 John.  If so, couldn't he be their elder?  Not only is there, at best, a very slim chance that only one church is being addressed,¹³ but such a hypothesis produces a very large problem for itself: this lone elder apparently is an absentee elder who gives no certain evidence that he will even visit the church, let alone teach there!  (Although this is clearly his desire, he refrains from absolute certitude.)  Notice 2 John 12: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete."  Likewise, 3 John 10 says "if I come [to the church]" and v. 14 says "I hope to see you." 

Third, the apparent meaning of "the elder" in these two little letters seems to be the equivalent of "the old man."  The term used, in fact, can only be given a technical nuance in contexts that seem to demand it.  Πρεσβύτερος (presbuteros) is a word which frequently meant simply "old man" (cf. Acts 2:17; 1 Tim 5:1).  This fits well with the probable authorship of these letters (namely, John the apostle).  By the time he had settled in Asia Minor as the last living apostle, it would be quite appropriate for him to take on a term of endearment and affection: "This letter is from the old man."

(3) 1 Tim 3:2 (cf. Titus 1:7)--"bishop" is singular, while "deacons" (1 Tim 3:8) is plural.  This would seem to argue that there was but one bishop/elder per church, while there would have been several deacons. 

Again, such an argument has very little substance.  First, it is unlikely that only one bishop is in view because otherwise it is difficult to explain 1 Tim 5:17 ("let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor") and Titus 1:5 "appoint elders in every town").¹⁴ 

Second, it is likely that the "bishop" in 1 Tim 3:2 is generic.  The article is used this way in Greek very frequently.  That is, the singular is used to specify a class as opposed to an individual.  J. W. Roberts, a Greek grammarian, pointed out along these lines: "A case in point where wrong use has been made of the generic article is in reference to 'bishop' in 1 Timothy 3:2.  This has often been used to prove the existence of the monarchal bishop at the time of the writing of the Pastorals.  A majority of the commentators, however, agree that the usage is generic."  Cf. also Matt 12:35; 15:11; 18:17; Luke 10:7; John 2:25.  The generic article is actually used thousands of times in the NT.

Third, further evidence that "bishop" is generic in 1 Tim 3:2 is found in the overall context.  (Keep in mind that the NT had no chapter or verse divisions originally.  These were inventions of later centuries.)  Notice the context in which behavior in the church occurs: 1 Tim 2:8-3:13.  In 2:8 Paul addresses "the men."  In 2:9-10 he addresses "the women."  Then, in 2:11-12 he says that "a woman should learn quietly . . . I do not permit a woman to teach . . . a man."  Paul is not here speaking of a particular woman (otherwise he would surely have mentioned her by name), but women as a class.  In 2:15 he says "but she shall be saved . . . if they continue."  Thus, there is a free exchange of the singular and the plural here.  Immediately after this Paul speaks of "the bishop."  Then, in 3:8 he addresses "the deacons."  The overall context is very clearly dealing with classes of individuals.  The only time it is not, in fact, is when Paul speaks of Adam and Eve (2:13-14), yet even here he quickly gets into the relevance for his readers in v. 15 ("she . . . they").

C. Summary

The biblical evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of multiple elders.  The few passages which might otherwise be interpreted certainly do not have to be so interpreted and, in fact, most likely should not be.  This fact illustrates a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation: do not follow an interpretation which is only possible; instead, base your convictions on what is probable.

The rest of our arguments are presented here very briefly since the basic one, the biblical argument, has been addressed at some length.

II. Historical Arguments

In Ignatius (an early Christian writer who died in c. AD 117), at the beginning of the second century, already a monarchical episcopate exists.  It is interesting that Roman Catholics especially appeal to this as a model for their practices (since they rely on the tradition found in patristic writers like Ignatius far more than on divine revelation).  Those who deny the Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles (i.e., 1-2 Timothy and Titus) also see the pastorals as reflecting a one-elder situation (=monarchical episcopate) because they regard the pastorals as having been written during the time of Ignatius.  But evangelicals should not consider arguments from either camp as weighty.  In particular, if we equate either what the early church fathers practiced or believed as totally in line with the New Testament, then we have some significant retooling to do in our churches today.  Some examples:

Didache (c. AD 100-150)--gives several regulations about baptism and fasting, much of which is pure legalism.  (For example, in one place he says, "Let us not fast as the Jews do, who fast on Mondays and Thursdays.  Instead, let us fast on Wednesdays and Fridays."  In his discussions of baptism, he argues that cold water is better than warm, etc.--all arguments that have nothing whatever to do with the biblical revelation). 

Most early church fathers (i.e., 2nd-3rd century AD) didn't have a clue about grace, eternal security, the gospel.  The church very quickly degenerated into basic legalism.  It was not until Augustine that the church recovered some of this.  But then it fell into the dark ages, waiting for a young monk from Germany to nail his protests on the door of the Wittenberg Church.  Dr. Ted Deibler (former chairman of Church History at Dallas Seminary) used to say, "the one thing we can be certain of learning from church history is that we learn nothing from church history."  He meant by this that we are on very dangerous ground if we assume uniformly correct theology from the church fathers.

Allegorical interpretation and eschatology: Origen and his school in particular promoted a view of scripture which was quite fanciful.

In sum, the argument for a single leader of each church is especially persuasive to Roman Catholics because it did occur throughout church history.  Yet, such traditions can never replace the Word of God.  In fact, with the birth of the Reformation came a renewed understanding of the priesthood of the believer which, in turn, moved away from the notion of a single leader at the top. 

III. Theological Arguments

The quirks of personality: a church becomes like its leader (a student becomes like his teacher [cf. Luke 6:40]).

The emphasis in scripture on doing the work of the ministry in company with other believers: e.g., Paul never went on a missionary journey by himself (Barnabas, Silvanus, Sosthenes, Timothy, Luke were especially his traveling companions).  Paul even included his companions' names in the greetings to various churches.  In fact, he regarded them unofficially as apostles (not holding the office, but certainly functioning in that capacity).  Jesus sent his disciples out two-by-two.  (This is not to say that individuals are paralyzed and can't do anything--cf. Philip ministering to the Ethiopian eunuch, Paul in prison ministering to Caesar's household, etc.  But the ideal is ministry by community.) 

This same principle is taught in John 13:35.  (Knowledge of Jesus comes through his disciples in a community effort, that is, in their love for one another.)

Accountability and our sin natures (see opening paragraph at the start of this position paper).  Each leader knows that he lacks complete balance, that there are things he continues to struggle with.  Further, even beyond the sin nature factor is the personality factor.  Some pastors are detail men; others are big picture men.  Some love music, others have gotten little from music (C. S. Lewis was one such man).  All of us together contribute to the way the body of Christ works.  But a church that follows in lock-step with the personality and foibles of one man will always be imbalanced.

IV. Pragmatic Arguments

Even if there were no decisive arguments for plurality of elders, the preponderance of evidence is decidely on the side of this view.  Further, in consultation with others (especially church historian, M. James Sawyer at Western Conservative Baptist Seminary), the following principle seems to be true: Churches that have a pastor as an authority above others (thus, in function, a monarchical episcopate) have a disproportionately high number of moral failures at the top level of leadership.  In other words, it is less likely for a pastor to fall into sin if he is primus inter parus ("first among equals" in the sense of his visibility and training, not spirituality) than if he is elevated above the rest of the church leadership.

Thus, the case of multiple elders in the local church is solidly based on biblical, historical, and pragmatic reasons.  By having several leaders, the church is more able to take on the personality of Christ rather than the idiosyncracies of any one man.

¹ One of the measures of how mature a church is is what happens to it when the pastor leaves.  If it continues to grow, there is an underlying network of mature leadership.  If it shrinks, this may well suggest that much of the size of the church originally was due to the magnetism of a single person.

²This is actually quite similar to the "checks and balances" in the U.S. Constitution.  This document was written with a heavy input from Christians who understood depravity.  They recognized, I think, that the best form of government was a benevolent dictatorship, and the worst was a malevolent dictatorship.  With dictators, there is no guarantee.  Hence, the second best form of government is one in which no single branch of government and no individual is given too much power.  This Constitution was written after the Articles of Confederation (inspired especially by Deists who believed in the inherent goodness of humanity)--which were very weak on checks and balances--failed.

³That these lists were a bit different on this point (and some others) indicates an extremely important point: Much of the instruction given about church order is ad hoc rather than of universal principle.  It is our duty to discern which is which.  For example, I have no strong opinion about how the leaders of a church are to be appointed, because the NT seems to be flexible in this regard (e.g., some churches did it by congregational vote, others had appointments from apostolic delegates).  The NT is flexible on areas that are not consequential.

⁴The normal understanding of the difference in function of the two groups is this: elders are primarily concerned with the spiritual welfare of the congregation, while deacons are primarily concerned with the physical welfare of the congregation.  Thus, elders would oversee the direction of the church, work with the pastor (or pastors) on the spiritual needs of the church (what they should be fed, etc.).

⁵The fundamental principle of discipleship is the passing on of truth in the context of love to faithful individuals, who in turn would do the same thing (2 Tim 2:2).  The ideal is for every member of the church to carry on this task.  It is obvious (from 2 Tim 2:2) that discipleship and a teaching ministry were not to be restricted to just pastors or those with the gift of teaching.

⁶ One of the first churches I was in that was run by a plurality of elders had a rather mature pastor.  He was one of the brightest and godliest men I've ever known, thoroughly saturated in the Word of God.  Yet, he did not even have a vote on the elder board.  The elders frequently asked his opinion.  But he also respected their leadership.  He told me once that having the elders run the show gave him a greater measure of freedom, for it allowed him more time to work on his messages.  He didn't have to wear several hats and therefore did not get burned out in the ministry.  Further, he noted that the elders had maturity of years over him and collective wisdom that he wanted to learn from.  The man had a Th.M. degree and a Th.D. degree from a leading seminary, yet he eagerly bowed to the leadership and wisdom of the elder board!  That was humility!  In fact, every year he submitted to a rigorous personal evaluation of his life by the elders.  They asked him the tough questions, such as faithfulness to his wife, what he read, saw, participated in, and what he did with his money and his spare time.  This was not a 'big brother is watching you' lynching; it was something this pastor volunteered for.  The church grew quickly and profoundly because of such accountability at the top levels.

⁷The early church had but one church in each city or town.  Hence, Paul's instruction to Titus is to appoint multiple elders in every church.

⁸That each church to which Peter is writing had multiple elders is likely from vv. 2-3--"Tend [ποιμάνετε, poimanete--a plural verb; thus, "you elders"] the flock [singular] of God that is your charge . . . by being examples [plural] to the flock."  Thus, multiple elders are linked to a single flock each time. 

⁹It is most likely that only elders are in view.  The reason for this is that, as we have argued above, young churches did not have deacons but did have elders.  Paul had spent only about three weeks with the Thessalonians.  But he appointed leaders before his departure.  Thus, it is likely that he appointed only elders.  In the least, there is not even a hint in this text that only one elder and several deacons were appointed.

¹⁰Since the duties of the leaders are described in this manner, it is obvious that multiple elders are in view (since deacons were not responsible primarily to keep watch over the souls).

¹¹Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 177.

¹² Some denominations have a bishop over several churches and an elder at an individual church.  But John is called an elder, not a bishop.  Thus, these denominations have a difficult time basing their view on scripture.

¹³In fact, many today see three churches addressed: 2 John has one in view; 3 John seems to have Gaius' church and Diotrephes' church in view.  I am presently undecided on this issue (that is, whether two or three churches are envisioned).  One of the fundamental arguments against 2 John and 3 John being addressed to the same church is that the situations are radically different: 2 John addresses the problem of heretics outside the church attempting to get in; 3 John addresses the sin of pride already within the church by an orthodox leader.  Thus, 2 John has to do with doctrine and 3 John is about ethics and holiness.  Hence, in the least two churches are in view in the Johannine letters, and perhaps three.  Is John the elder of all of them?

¹⁴Recall that "elder" = "bishop" and that each town had but one church.

Introduction

Shirley McLaine celebrated her birthday this past spring: she turned 62 and 162 and 262 . . . Many folks in our society today would think that belief in the resurrection is just as looney as belief in reincarnation. Hence, it would be beneficial to look at the historical evidences for the resurrection of Christ. We may well wish to do that in a future essay. In this essay, however, we want to turn our attention to the theological implications of Christ’s resurrection.

A number of Christians feel that their gospel presentations should include simply the fact of Christ’s death, but not his resurrection. Some go so far as to have a crucifix in their homes or around their necks with a corpse hanging on it. Certainly such a picture elicits remorse and pity. But does it offer hope? Does it suggest that sins are forgiven, or just that they are the cause of such a vile punishment, of the innocent dying in the place of the wicked?

I don’t mean by this that we should not focus on or think about Christ’s death. After all, even Paul said, “I preach Christ, and him crucified.” But he also preached Christ risen from the dead. If we neglect this part of the gospel, we offer a powerless gospel--one that cannot change lives.

We will begin this brief study with a quick look at the resurrection in the Old Testament, followed by the resurrection of Christ in early Christian preaching.

(1) The Resurrection in the Old Testament

The resurrection of the dead was not plainly revealed in the OT until very late in salvation history. It was not until the Jews were taken in captivity, in the sixth century BC, that this was clearly articulated. Daniel 12:1-2 is the principal text: it speaks of the resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous:

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. (RSV)

Why was it not clearly revealed till then? It was not revealed until there was a felt need for it. When the Jews had no present (because of the captivity) they had to look to the future. The revelation of the resurrection came at precisely the time when the people of God needed hope for the future.

What is significant about this is how masterful are God’s insights into human nature. In the NT era, one religious group in Palestine did not embrace the resurrection as a true doctrine: the Sadducees (cf. Mark 12:18)--that is why they were “sad, you see!” The Sadducees were in charge of the temple. They derived their income from the sacrifices. In a sense, they were the precursors to modern TV evangelists. They had it good! They were the rich aristocracy that ran the place.

Those who have it good in this life don’t often long for the next. The Sadducees illustrate this. The resurrection is a truth especially precious to those who are poor and those who are hopeless. It is precious to those who long for heaven enough that earth holds no sway over them.

Nowadays, the new elite are the intellectual elite. They, even more than the wealthy, are the ones who typically reject the supernatural. (Just note the majority of professors in the American universities today.)

But Christians--whether poor or rich, smart or otherwise, well-educated or not, should prize the resurrection as much as anything else. To the extent that the resurrection is not significant to you, to that extent you are not considering yourself a citizen of heaven. As Paul told the Colossians (3:1-2), “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.”

(2) The Resurrection of Christ in Early Christian Preaching

Some of us put so much emphasis on the death of Christ that we neglect his resurrection. But to do that is to make the gospel less offensive than it was intended. The gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing. Why? Both because it is a message about a dead Jew hanging on a Roman cross that purports to have some relevance to my life; and because that dead Jew allegedly came to life again. And precisely because of this, he can forgive my sins! Now that, my friends, is a foolish message . . . to those who are on their way to hell. And admittedly, it took plenty of persuasive powers for God to convince us otherwise.

The early church took the resurrection of Christ seriously. It was the cornerstone of their preaching. Look at the sermons in Acts:

Acts 1:22 (criterion for selection of an apostle)--”one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

Acts 2:23-24, the keynote in Peter’s first sermon on the day of Pentecost: “this Jesus, who was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having destroyed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.”

Acts 3:15 (Peter’s second sermon)--”you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.”

Note also the following: Acts 4:2 (“they were preaching in Jesus the resurrection from the dead”--that is, that because of him we too can be raised!); 4:10; 4:33; 13:30, 34; Acts 17:3; 17:18, 31; 23:6; 24:21; 26:23 .

Also, note 1 Thess 1:9-10 and 1 Cor 15: 3-5. The church embraced the resurrection as both true and central to the preaching of the gospel.

(3) What’s at Stake?

What’s at stake? Everything! (Rudolf Bultmann, the most influential NT scholar of this century: he wanted to salvage Christianity for the modern man, but by evacuating from the gospel any semblance of the supernatural. The cost was too great. The apostle Paul could not agree less with Bultmann: note 1 Cor 15:12-19). (As a young man, I had a pastor who argued that even if Christ were not raised from the dead, Christians were better off than others because we have embraced a great ethical system that kept our lives clean. Paul argued that we, of all people, should be pitied the most. For him, ethics meant nothing if Christ were still dead. To Paul, truth was the cornerstone of ethics, not a lie.)

I think it is safer to side with Paul than with Bultmann. But it may be helpful to think through the importance of the resurrection. What are the ramifications of the resurrection? Why does it matter?

Significance of the Resurrection of Christ

I’m just going to touch on a few points. No one can do an exhaustive treatment of this great theme. We will never be able to plumb the depths of what Christ’s death and resurrection mean for us, but in the least we can offer a few key points. This is a simple, straightforward message. There’s really nothing fancy about it. For the most part, I’ll just read the biblical text and trust the Holy Spirit to stir up your hearts. If you have not put your faith in Christ, now is certainly an appropriate time to do so.

(1) The Ultimate Apologetic: Validation of the Miracles of the Bible

George Eldon Ladd, in his A Theology of the New Testament (p. 354) states: “God did not make himself known through a system of teaching nor a theology nor a book, but through a series of events recorded in the Bible. The coming of Jesus of Nazareth was the climax of this series of redemptive events; and his resurrection is the event that validates all that came before.”

The Bible speaks of creation as virtually the finger-painting of God, while the resurrection of Christ required the strong arm of God! It is his mighty work! In other words, the resurrection of Christ implicitly contains an argument from the greater to the lesser. If we can embrace this miracle, what is to prevent us from embracing lesser ones?

(2) Proof that God is the God of the Living and is a Living God (cf. Matt 22:32; Luke 20:38; Rom 1:4; 6:9; 1 Cor 15:20-26, 54-57)

Several texts prove this point, but none so eloquently as 1 Cor 15:20-26:

(20) ¶ But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

(21) For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.

(22) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

(23) But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

(24) Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.

(25) For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

(26) The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (RSV)

As Ladd pointed out (p. 354): “If Christ is not risen from the dead, the long course of God’s redemptive acts to save his people ends in a dead-end street, in a tomb. If the resurrection of Christ is not reality, then we have no assurance that God is the living God, for death has the last word. Faith is futile because the object of that faith has not vindicated himself as the Lord of life. Christian faith is then incarcerated in the tomb along with the final and highest self-revelation of God in Christ--if Christ is indeed dead.”

But if Christ is raised from the dead, then God is sovereign over all things, even death.

(3) Fulfillment of Jesus’ Predictions and of Scripture (cf. Matt 17:9; Luke 24:46; John 2:22; 20:9; 1 Cor 15:4)

Again, several texts point in this direction. Note two in particular: John 2:22; 1 Cor 15:4:

John 2:22 “When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.” (RSV)

1Cor. 15:4 “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures” (RSV)

Thus, if Christ is not raised from the dead, he is a liar. And if he is a liar, then his death did not pay for our sins.

(4) An Essential Part of the Gospel (cf. John 11:25, 26; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 3:15; 4:2, 10, 33; 13:30, 34; 17:3; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:4; 2 Tim 2:8)

We have seen some of the passages in Acts. Note now two other texts: John 11:25 and Rom 10:9:

John 11:25 “Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live.” (RSV)

Rom. 10:9 because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (RSV)

(5) Implicit Demonstration of Christ’s Deity (John 2:19-22)

The resurrection of Christ is unique in two major ways:

All others who were raised from the dead returned to their graves (e.g., Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, Eutychus);

Christ’s is the only resurrection to take place without a human agent.

Also, note who participated in Christ’s resurrection: the Father (Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 1:21), Holy Spirit (Rom 8:11), and the Son (John 2:19-22).

Clearly, if Christ raised himself from the dead, he must be more than a man! His resurrection without human agency is an implicit affirmation of his deity. And "death" must mean something other than annihilation.

(6) Guarantee of Believers’ Resurrection (cf. Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:12-14, 20; Col 1:18; 1 Pet 1:3; Rev 1:5)

Again, note a few key texts: 1 Cor 15:12-14; Col 1:18 (“firstborn from the dead” does not mean chronologically first, but in terms of preeminence--cf. 1:15).

(7) Balanced Perspective on the Spiritual Status of the Human Body (Rom 8:23; 1 Cor 6:13-20; 15:32-34; 2 Tim 2:18)

The bodily resurrection of Christ speaks volumes about the spiritual status of the body: it is not inherently evil, with the mind being inherently good. Both were created good by God; both were corrupted in the fall of man. The ancient gnostics felt that only the mind was good. Some Christians have adopted this stance and have taken on an ascetic lifestyle, trying to deny the body its natural functions and pleasures. Others are hedonists: they believe the body is bad, but decide: “Why fight it?”

But if our bodies will be raised from the dead, as Christ’s was, then our bodies will be fully redeemed. And if they will be redeemed, then there is something salvagable about them. . . . Not only this, but they can be dedicated to God and used for his glory NOW! (Rom 12:1--”Present your bodies as a living sacrifice which is acceptable to God”). (But the fact that they need to be redeemed means that they are utterly sinful.)

Note 2 Tim 2:18, which condemns those who embrace other than a bodily, future resurrection of the saints. Note also Rom 8:22-23 (“We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” [RSV]).

(8) The Indwelling of the Spirit and Resurrection Power (John 14:17; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:4; 8:11-14; Eph 1:13-14, 20; Phil 3:10-16)

The Spirit was promised to those who put their trust in Christ. It is vital for us to understand that apart from the Spirit in our lives we would not believe. He seals us to God and grants us the power necessary for sanctification.

(9) Forgiveness of Sins (John 19:30; Acts 2:32-38; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 15:3-4, 17)

Note especially John 19:30. Jesus’ cry from the cross is “It is finished.” This the Greek word tetelestai. This word was used in commerce at the time. It was often written across a bill to indicate that the bill was paid in full. The resurrection is the receipt that God gave humanity that Jesus’ death did, indeed, pay the full price of our sins. (The world’s sins are not enough to keep Christ in the grave! His resurrection is proof that our sins are forgiven!)

Two points: First, forgiveness was costly (the cross), but because of the resurrection, there should not be lingering guilt for sin. If God slew his own son and kept him in the grave, every time we sinned the guilt would be too much! We’d say, “It’s because of sins like this that Jesus is no longer with us!”

But the resurrection means that no sin is so heinous that we cannot forgive ourselves. Some of you have done some pretty foul things in your time. The empty tomb means that they’re forgotten and forgiven!

Second, you have no right to withhold forgiveness from someone else. You need to forgive your spouse, your friend, your boss, your neighbor, and even your enemies. If God in Christ has forgiven all people, for me to withhold forgiveness says that I am more righteous than God! And it’s to say that Christ’s death was not adequate. Friends, that’s blasphemy. You’ve got to let it go! You’ve got to forgive that person his pocket change because God has forgiven you your millions!

To sum up: life, relationship, forgiveness, sanctification, the future, sanctity of the body. A whole philosophy, an entire world view, is wrapped up in the resurrection of Christ. Act as if your life depends on the resurrection of Christ--because it does!

He is risen! He is risen! That is the best news we can possibly tell a dying world!

January 2005, Part 2 of 2 (Click here for the first article)

In the first essay, I spoke of three approaches to culture that Christians take: opposition, assimilation, and engagement. I argued that engagement, in which discernment about the good and bad in society, was the only proper route for us. In this essay, I want to give a very concrete example of that.

Recently, a Dallas Seminary graduate, one of my former students, went to the annual conference of the Society of Biblical Literature/American Academy of Religion. These two societies have met together for years, though they will be going their separate ways in the not-too-distant future. But with them meeting in the same place, a person who is a member of one society has the opportunity to hear lectures in the other.

For those who don’t know about these societies, here’s a thumbnail sketch. The Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) is the world’s largest society of biblical scholars. It is over 120 years old. Every year, in November, the society meets somewhere in North America. The American Academy of Religion (AAR) is broader in its focus than SBL. Religions not related to the Bible, and topics that are, at best, remotely related to the Bible are discussed. Altogether, more than 10,000 people show up for these three-day conferences. Most members of SBL do not hold to any form of orthodoxy; this is of course much more true of AAR members. But evangelicals also attend. We are in a minority, but we are still there.

Now, to be sure, not all 10,000 people in attendance are in the same room at the same time! Rather, there are scores of meetings taking place simultaneously over the three-day period. And there are meetings that specialize in various disciplines and sub-disciplines. There is a group that focuses just on Matthew’s Gospel, another on Mark, another on Paul’s letters. There is a group that wrestles just with New Testament textual criticism, another that concerns itself with liberation theology, another with feminist theology, and so on.

Back to my student. Let’s call him Mark for convenience’ sake. Mark attended a meeting that addressed lesbian issues. Yes, lesbian. When he went into the room of 30 or so people, he soon discovered that he was one of the very few in there with a Y chromosome! Soon, he was surrounded by several curious people. They were most curious that men would show up for this conference. They were even more shocked when they saw his name badge and the institute he was from: Dallas Theological Seminary. But he didn’t tuck tail and run. He said he was interested in what they were talking about and wanted to learn. So, he stayed and learned.

He stayed for the whole conference in fact. All three days of it. At the end, one of the leaders of the lesbian group gave the final address. Let’s call her Joan. Joan told of her upbringing, and the message was heartwrenching. She was raised in a prominent religious teacher’s home. Her father was to her rather stern, stand-offish. In fact, he was often alone in his study with his children excluded outside. His life was an emotional desert. Joan said that she did not recall her father hugging her or showing her affection.

Later, Joan came out as a lesbian to many others, but not to her father. She came home and wanted to speak to her father about it. After repeated attempts to engage her father in conversation, she finally told her father that she had become a lesbian. He pondered this for a moment, then did not reply but left her alone.

The next day she found a lengthy written response. It was from her father. In it were all sorts of reasons, especially based on the Bible, telling her why lesbianism was a sin.

This approach by Joan’s father to her lesbianism was the quintessence of an evangelical-modernist approach to evangelism! It was reasoned, biblically-based, absolute, authoritative. And it was icy cold.

When Mark heard Joan’s testimony, he was deeply moved. He came up to her afterward, and said, “Your testimony has truly moved me. I am the father of a little girl, and I don’t want her to grow up feeling isolated from me.” After a brief pause, Mark went on. “I’ve never done this before, but I wanted to ask you something. Would it be OK with you if I hugged you?” Joan nodded.

When Mark hugged Joan, she melted. They both began to sob as she relived the pain of rejection, and Mark, too, was overwhelmed by it. For what seemed like forever, they hugged! She shared how she had longed to be hugged by someone who wanted nothing in return. Where truth had failed, love began to make a break-through.

Mark’s approach was essentially postmodern! He recognized that Joan didn’t need another sermon, didn’t need to have her nose rubbed in the text of Holy Writ. He recognized that she had never really been loved by any man, and by the Spirit’s prompting he became the instrument of God to address her need.

Since that conference, Joan has continued her ways. But she now corresponds with Mark on occasion. Mark does not hold back from declaring his views about lesbianism. But he also does not hold back the love for this woman.

When Mark told me this story, I was deeply moved. I felt as though a huge burden had been lifted off my shoulders, for here was a man who came through an evangelical seminary yet was bold enough to become all things to all people, even if his training didn’t adequately prepare him for that. I felt free to love in a way that I had not in years.

May God raise up more Marks for his glory! And may we all have compassion on the lost, “practicing the truth in love” (Eph 4.15 [NET]) as we share the good news of Jesus Christ in a postmodern world.