Category Archives: Biblical Theology

On the Covenants and the Story of Redemption

2. Since humanity brought itself under the curse of the law by its fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace.  In this covenant he freely offers to sinners life and salvation through Jesus Christ. On their part he requires faith in him, that they may be saved, and promises to give his Holy Spirit to all who are ordained to eternal life, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman.  After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament. This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect.  Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.

~Second London Baptist Confession (1689), 7.2, 7.3

Series: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: January 17, 2024


On the Testimonium and the Word

TEXT

5. The testimony of the church of God may stir and persuade us to adopt a high and reverent respect for the Holy Scriptures. Moreover, the heavenliness of the contents, the power of the system of truth, the majesty of the style, the harmony of all the parts, the central focus on giving all glory to God, the full revelation of the only way of salvation, and many other incomparable qualities and complete perfections, all provide abundant evidence that the Scriptures are the Word of God. Even so, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority of the Scriptures comes from the internal work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

~Second London Baptist Confession (1689), 1.5

Series: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: September 27, 2023

For further study, see also:
On the Spirit and the Word
On Biblical Interpretation and the Holy Spirit


On the Authority of Scripture

TEXT

4. The authority of the Holy Scriptures obligates belief in them. This authority does not depend on the testimony of any person or church but on God the author alone, who is truth itself. Therefore, the Scriptures are to be received because they are the Word of God.

~Second London Baptist Confession (1689), 1.4

Series: The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: September 20, 2023


On the Theological Unity of Daniel’s Visions

The unfortunate reality today is that the bulk of biblical scholarship on the Book of Daniel is mired in the abyss of higher critical presuppositions, not the least of which is a thoroughgoing rejection of predictive biblical prophecy as such. Because of this the Book of Daniel is viewed as a composite work that was compiled in the middle second century BCE in the midst of the Maccabean Crisis. This view would seem to be supported by the linguistic and generic divisions that exist within the text. Linguistically, chapters 2 thru 7 are written in Aramaic while chapter 1 and chapters 8 thru 12 are written in Hebrew; similarly, though not an exact correspondence, chapters 1 thru 6 comprise the court tails while chapters 7 thru 12 consist of the visionary material. The conclusion then of most biblical scholarship on Daniel is that the eschatological expectations of Daniel are essentially a contradictory hodgepodge of ex eventu (after the fact) depictions of the actions of the Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Of course, to defend the book’s 6th century Danielic authorship would go beyond the limits of this medium, but in the space that follows I would like to briefly demonstrate the essential unity of Daniel’s visions. The clearest indication of this unity comes in the correspondence between Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and in Daniel’s vision in chapter 7. While these chapters come from seemingly disparate parts of the book, they both present a sequence of four kingdoms followed by the establishment of the Kingdom of God. Of course, critical scholarship widely identifies these kingdoms as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. This is mostly because they understand the actions of the fourth kingdom, and particularly the little horn, to be fulfilled in the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the Maccabean Crisis from 167-164 CE. I will come back to the identification of these kingdoms in a little bit, but suffice it to say here that it is difficult to see how Daniel’s expectation for the establishment Kingdom of God is fulfilled in this time period. The subsequent period of Hasmonean independence which followed was a far cry from the grandeur of Daniel’s expectations.

This is especially so when we turn our attention to Daniel chapter 9; in that chapter, Daniel is praying about the end of the exile, and he receives an answer from the angel Gabriel, which reads,

Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city—to bring the rebellion to an end, to put a stop to sin, to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

Daniel 9.24

It seems rather clear that these seventy weeks span the timeframe from Daniel’s day (“from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” in verse 25) to the time of final consummation, the time of “everlasting righteousness”. Because of this, we may presume then that the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 cover the same span of time as the visions of Daniel 2 and 7.

Now, the key to identifying the four kingdoms mentioned in Daniel’s sequence would seem to come in Daniel chapter 8. In that chapter, Daniel sees a vision of a ram with two horns, one longer than the other, and a goat whose large horn was broken off and replaced by four smaller horns. Again, the angel Gabriel gives the interpretation.

The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat represents the king of Greece, and the large horn between his eyes represents the first king. The four horns that took the place of the broken horn represent four kingdoms. They will rise from that nation, but without its power.

Daniel 8.20-22

This interpretation indicates that the second kingdom in Daniel’s sequence should be understood as the unified Kingdom of the Medes and Persians. It is described as a ram with two horns, one longer than the other (8.3) and as a bear which was raised up on one side (7.5). The third kingdom, then, should be understood as the Kingdom of Greece which is represented, of course, by Alexander the Great and the Diadochi, the four generals who followed him. They are variously described as a goat whose large horn was broken off and replaced by four smaller horns (8.8) and as a leopard with four wings and four heads (7.6).

This understanding is confirmed in Daniel chapter 11, where we read,

Three more kings will arise in Persia, and the fourth will be far richer than the others. By the power he gains through his riches, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. Then a warrior king will arise; he will rule a vast realm and do whatever he wants. But as soon as he is established, his kingdom will be broken up and divided to the four winds of heaven, but not to his descendants; it will not be the same kingdom that he ruled, because his kingdom will be uprooted and will go to others besides them.

Daniel 11.3-4

The rest of chapter 11, then, goes on to detail the various campaigns of the “King of the North” and the “King of the South”, which describes the various conflicts between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies during the Third and Second century BCE respectively. The point of all this is to say that Daniel’s sequence of four kingdoms is best understood to refer to the progression of empires from Babylon to Medo-Persia to Greece and finally to Rome*. Of course, it must be noted that while the Roman Empire corresponds to Daniel’s fourth kingdom, it doesn’t completely fulfill it. That fulfillment comes ultimately in the eschatological kingdom of the beast, which is described in Book of Revelation, but this is a topic for another time.

By way of conclusion, then, Daniel’s visions reveal a remarkable and multifaceted unity in their expectation despite their seeming disparities. Daniel chapters 2, 7, and 9 give the overarching flow from Daniel’s day to the establishment of God’s Kingdom, and chapters 8 and 11 zoom in on the specific actions of the second and especially the third kingdom. More importantly, this understanding lays the foundation for the typological connection that Daniel draws between the third and fourth kingdoms, specifically between the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the eschatological little horn of the fourth kingdom. In addition, it helps us see how Daniel’s eschatological paradigm serves as the foundation for the message and ministry of Jesus, especially the Olivet Discourse, and for the message of the New Testament, particularly the Book of Revelation.

Of course, the most important aspect of all of this is the certain promise of God’s victory over His enemies and the enemies of His people. Our hope rests not in earthly powers, nations, or empires, but in the Kingdom of God and in His promised Messiah. That Messiah came incarnate 2000 years ago. He lived a perfect life, and then, He died on the cross for sin and rose again. Forty days later, He ascended to be seated at the right hand of the Father, and He left us this promise, that in the same way he ascended, he will also one day descend in glory and power (Acts 1.11). This is our glorious hope, and so we pray, “Amen, Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22.20)

For further study, see:
Hamilton, James M. With the Clouds of Heaven: The Book of Daniel in Biblical Theology. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2014


On Optimism, Pessimism, and Hope

Navigating the eschatological frenzy can sometimes be quite daunting and intimidating. There are many questions, and to the dismay of many earnest students of the Bible, not many answers. Because of this, eschatological discussions among Christians often end up resulting in more confusion than clarity. This is especially true when those who affirm a particular position begin to misrepresent and/or caricature those who hold different conclusions than their own. We have seen this dynamic play out most recently in some social media forums, where some who hold the post-millennial position have begun to criticize the pre-millennial position as having a fundamentally pessimistic and defeatist outlook on the future, or even an essentially negative assessment of the power of the Gospel to save people and transform lives.

For those who are not aware, the post-millennial position holds that the millennial reign of Christ is the gradual result of the church’s mission. Through making disciples of all nations, the mission of the church will eventually result in a time when millennial conditions will characterize the whole earth. Christ is reigning at the right hand of the Father, and He reigns on earth through the ministry of His church. After an extended period of time of such conditions, Christ will return to judge the world, and the final state will begin. This, they suggest, is an essentially optimistic and hopeful assessment of the success of the Gospel, because it expects the gospel to be so effective in transforming lives, that it will organically result in a kind of utopian experience of the Kingdom of God on earth before Jesus comes again.

Consequently, they charge that the pre-millennial position expects conditions across the world to continue to deteriorate until Jesus comes again to establish His Kingdom on earth. Over time, sin will abound more and more, persecution of the righteous will become ever more intense, and things will progressively get worse until they reach their climax in the events of the Great Tribulation. Scripturally, this point of view might be based on verses like Second Timothy 3.1-5, which reads in part, “But know this: Hard times will come in the last days.” (See also Matthew 24.4-14) However, the question must be asked whether this is an accurate representation of the pre-millennial view. As someone who holds to the position in question, I would suggest that this portrayal of the pre-millennial view is partial at best and a dishonest caricature at worst. So, in the space that follows, I would like to offer two considerations that might help to bring clarity to this discussion.

First, every eschatological position must affirm that sin will remain present and active in the world until Jesus comes again to defeat it once and for all. The devil continues to prowl around like a lion seeking whom he might devour (1 Peter 5.8); spiritual warfare continues to be an ever present reality in the lives of followers of Jesus (Ephesians 6.10-18). The created order continues to groan under the burden of the curse even as it waits for the day of redemption (Romans 8.18-25). This is not some kind of pessimistic defeatism; no, this is simply theological realism. This is the tension that is the already and not yet. Yes, the death of Jesus on the cross made full and complete atonement for sin, and He cried out from the cross, “It is finished.” Those who trust in Him can be forgiven; in Christ, we have been saved from the punishment of sin. But we are not yet saved from the presence of sin, and we won’t be until Jesus comes again in glory and victory. But, a day is coming, a glorious day, when sin and death, pain and sorrow, brokenness and loss will be done away with once and for all (1 Corinthians 15.51-57, Revelation 21.3-4); a day is coming when the enemy will be finally and completely defeated and thrown into the lake of fire for eternity to torment the people of God no longer. (Revelation 20.7-10). And what a day that will be!

Secondly, we must affirm that Christians should be neither overly pessimistic nor naively optimistic; these emotions have zero connection to the idea of Christian hope. Christians should be a people of unshakable hope, but our hope is not some vague well wish that things might eventually get better. No, Christian hope is the firm conviction that what God has promised He will most certainly do. He has promised that He will come again to receive us to himself, that where He is we may be also; He has promised that He will come again to right every wrong, to heal every pain, to put a final and eternal end to sin and death. And it is because of this promise that we can face the difficulties and the ugliness of the world with honesty and compassion and perseverance. As the Apostle Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians, chapter 4, verses 8-10, “We are afflicted in every way but not crushed; we are perplexed but not in despair; we are persecuted but not abandoned; we are struck down but not destroyed.” He goes on to explain in verse 14 of that text, “For we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you.” This is Christian hope; it is neither a defeated pessimism nor a naïve optimism. Rather, it is a resolute conviction of future glory in the face of difficulty and hardship. It understand the reality of sin; it does not turn away from the ugliness and brokenness of this world. Instead, it holds onto the promise and power of the Gospel that Christ is our only hope, our only rescue, from the penalty, the power, and one day even the presence of sin.

Eschatology is the doctrine of hope; it is the biblical vision of the victory that we have in Christ. It should not be a source of conflict or consternation among Bible believing Christians. Of course, there are interpretive details over which we may continue to disagree, and “iron sharpens iron,
and one person sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27.17) And there are other interpretations out there that must be recognized and dismissed as the rank heresy that they are. This is why we must redouble and retriple our commitment to the tutelage of the Word of God. It is the Bible that defines the contours of our eschatological expectation, not our emotional perception of its outlook on the future, whether we consider that be optimistic or pessimistic. Christians should be people of firm and committed hope, because we know that Christ has promised to return bodily. As He said, “Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work.” (Revelation 22.12) He is our hope, and this is something all Christians can agree on.

For further study, see also:
On Three Views on the Millennium
On Christian Hope: Heaven or Resurrection
On the Problem of Eschatological Imminence
On Three Views for Interpreting the Olivet Discourse
On Eschatology and the Gospel
On the Ground of Christian Hope
On Grief and Hope


On Pastoral Ministry and Job Titles

Language really is a funny thing, because so often how words are used determines what they mean regardless of their actual definition. Or to put it another way, meaning is dictated by connotation more than by actual denotation. This is especially so when it comes to current discussions in the Southern Baptist Convention about who can and cannot serve as pastor. Over the past several decades, the titles and types of pastors on church staffs all across this country have proliferated exponentially. We now have Senior Pastors, Lead Pastors, Teaching Pastors, Executive Pastors, Assistant Pastors, Associate Pastors, Youth Pastors, Children’s Pastors, Worship Pastors, Discipleship Pastors, Missions Pastors, Small Group Pastors, Assimilation Pastors, and on and on the list could go ad infinitum. Just a quick perusal of any ministry job board shows that we have practically become enamored with pastoral titles.

Of course, there is a certain wisdom to this structure. No one pastor is omnicompetent in every area of ministry, and as survey after survey has proven, expecting a single or solo pastor to be such quickly leads to burnout among other things. So, dividing pastoral duties among a group of leaders allows the pastoral staff to share the load of ministry responsibilities. This is in keeping with the vision of the body that is painted in 1 Corinthians 12.12-31. In that passage, we read “For just as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ.” The point is that dividing ministry responsibilities according to age groups (youth, children, seniors) or according to ministry focus (missions, discipleship, pastoral care) is an efficient way for a pastoral staff to share the many and varied tasks of church ministry. This division of labor maximizes the personality strengths, training, and experience of each individual pastor by allowing them to prioritize and focus on the ministry tasks for which they are best equipped.

The difficulty, however, is that the Bible never mentions associate or assistant pastors of any kind. In fact, the word “pastor”, which is the most commonly used title for ministry leaders today, is not even the primary designation used to refer to church leadership roles in the New Testament. In those sacred pages, we read more often of bishops (overseers) and elders, but we must affirm that these three terms, i.e. pastor, bishop, and elder, are meant to be viewed as synonymous terms, all of which refer to the ministerial leaders of the local church. Of course, this claim is not without its critics. Those who claim that women can serve as pastors are quick to claim that the role and function of pastor/teacher is separate and distinct from the role of bishop/elder. And so, the logic goes, women can serve in the role of pastor/teacher (e.g. as children’s pastor, women’s pastor, missions pastor, etc.) under the supervisory authority of the senior or lead pastor and/or elders.

Unfortunately, a thorough examination of the scriptural evidence would go beyond the limits of this space, but a quick examination of one particular passage will serve to demonstrate the thesis that the role of pastor, bishop (overseer), and elder are in fact the same role. In 1 Peter, chapter 5, verses 2, the Apostle Peter gives the following exhortation to the elders (c.f. 5.1) of the churches that he is writing to, shepherd (or pastor, same word) the flock of God among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion but voluntarily, according to the will of God”. Peter goes on to show that elders exercise these responsibilities under the authority of Jesus Christ, the Chief Shepherd (or “Senior Pastor”, c.f. 5.4), who is the “shepherd (or pastor) and guardian (or bishop) of your souls” (2.25). This is not the only text that relates these ideas, but it is reasonably clear from this text that the responsibility for oversight and pastoring belongs primarily to those who serve as elders. If this analysis is sound, then the qualifications and restrictions that pertain to one must equally pertain to the others.

This is why we must reevaluate our use of pastor as a title for ministry leadership, particularly as it relates to the role of women leaders in the church. The application of the title “pastor” to women leaders who serve, for example, in the area of children or missions is careless at best and a complete disregard of the prescriptions of Scripture at worst. Further, we must affirm that changing the title from “pastor” to “director” while leaving the ministry responsibilities the same is merely wordplay. The New Testament is never interested in titles solely for the sake of titles; the biblical titles for leadership always refer first and foremost to the functions of leadership. And it is the function of bishop, elder, and pastor that is restricted to qualified men according to the Scriptures. Here again, this does not mean that women cannot participate in the ministry of the church, but it does mean that women should not serve in the role or function of pastor.

At the very least, this means that we desperately need to reevaluate our (over)usage of the title pastor. As the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message states, “[The church’s] scriptural officers are pastors and deacons. While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” There are two and only two offices of leadership in the church, i.e. pastors and deacons, and the office and function of pastors is limited to qualified men. This is the design of God given in His inspired, authoritative, and sufficient Word, and it cannot be dismissed simply because we find it to be distasteful or out of step with modern cultural concerns. We must obey the Scriptures; we cannot play fast and loose with words, change their meanings, or fit them to our own preferred usage. Words have power and meaning, and we must use them in ways that are scripturally faithful.

This article is also published at SBCvoices, here.


On the Spiritual Gift of Pastoral Ministry

It seems like there has been a lot of discussion recently, especially within the Southern Baptist community, regarding pastoral ministry and the role of women. This is largely due to the actions taken by Rick Warren and Saddleback Church. In May 2021, the southern California megachurch made denominational headlines when it ordained three women as pastors. Since then, it has also recognized Stacie Wood, wife of current pastor Andy Wood who succeeded Warren in 2022, as a Teaching Pastor. Because of these actions, the Credentials Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention determined that Saddleback Church is no longer “in friendly cooperation” with and therefore is no longer a part of the SBC. Saddleback intends to appeal this decision at this year’s national convention.

In this post, I am not concerned with the question of Saddleback or its future relationship with the SBC. Rather, I am interested in some of the biblical arguments that have been proffered throughout this discussion in the attempt to justify the pastoral service of women in the church. One pastor in particular, Dwight McKissic of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, regularly advances the argument that pastoral ministry is a spiritual gift that can be exercised apart from the function and office of pastor. In his defense, he affirms that the role of lead or senior pastor is reserved for men according to the Scriptures, but he suggests that, under the pastor’s authority, the gift of pastor may be exercised by anyone so gifted regardless of gender.

This argument is primarily based on Ephesians 4.11, which says, “And he himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.” The verb “gave” points back to verse 8 (quoting Psalm 68.18), which reads, “When he ascended on high, he took the captives captive; he gave gifts to people.” The language of “gifts” and “giving” suggests to some that this passage should be read alongside the paradigmatic “spiritual gift” passages, e.g. 1 Corinthians 12, Romans 12, and it is this coalescence of passages that leads to the conclusion that pastoral ministry is a spiritual gift that can be exercised apart from the office and function of pastor. I believe there are several problems with this interpretation, and in the space that follows, I would like to highlight three of them.

First, this view rests on a grave misunderstanding of “spiritual gifts”. In English, the word “gift” can be used to refer to an ability or a talent; it is customary to speak of someone who is extremely skilled in a particular ability as someone who is “gifted.” This is the fundamental assumption of so-called “spiritual-gift inventories”, namely that a person’s “spiritual gifts” are in keeping with or even identical to their natural abilities and personality strengths. If this is the case, then anyone who has a strong personal charisma or is particularly skilled in public speaking could be viewed as having the “spiritual gift” of pastor/teacher. The problem is that none of the qualifications for pastoral ministry in the NT are based on a person’s ability or skill; almost all of them are grounded in the qualities of a person’s character. In his book What are the Spiritual Gifts?: Rethinking the Conventional View, Ken Berding suggests that this connotation of gifts as abilities has significantly skewed our understanding of what Paul actually means by “spiritual gifts”. Rather, he argues that spiritual gifts should be understood as ministry roles or areas of service. In this sense, pastors are a gift to the church; they are called by God to serve a particular role or function in the life of the body.

This brings me to the second concern I have with this view, namely that it misunderstands the role and function of pastors in the life of the body. In Ephesians 4.12, we read that these gifts, i.e. apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor/teachers, are given “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ.” In other words, the roles that are given in verse 11 are given for the edification of the body in verse 12, meaning that they are not exercised among the body at large. They are leadership roles given by Christ to care for and serve His body, “until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of God’s Son, growing into maturity with a stature measured by Christ’s fullness” (4.13). This understanding would seem to be confirmed by Ephesians 2.20, which says that the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.” This would mean that pastoral ministry is a leadership role in the church, and therefore it is not a gift to be exercised among the various members of the body regardless of gender.

A final concern that I would like to highlight in this regard has to do with the misunderstanding of the phrase “some pastors and teachers”. Is this phrase referring to one group, i.e. pastor/teachers, or is it actually two groups that are in view, i.e. some pastors and some teachers? Exegetically speaking, the two nouns are governed by one article, and this is the same article that identifies the other three groups. So, literally translated, the verse in question reads, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers(Eph 4.11 ESV). The most natural reading would indicate that there are four groups of leaders in view here, and that the last group, i.e. “pastors and teachers,” should be understood as one group with a compound role of shepherding and teaching. Of course, this is not the only way to understand this line (e.g. see the footnote in the NET Bible for an alternative view), but the fact remains that all pastors are teachers, even if not all teachers are pastors. The close proximity of the terms here along with the use of the article would seem to imply that it is pastor/teachers who have been gifted by Christ to His church, and therefore, pastoring cannot be viewed as a gift that is exercised apart from the role and function of pastor.

If this is the case, then the question of who may fill such a function in the church must be answered in light of the qualifications that are given for pastoral service. In particular, this would mean that the famous (or perhaps infamous) prohibition found in 1 Timothy, chapter 2, verse 12 must be taken into consideration; in that verse, we read, “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet.” This is not to say that women cannot teach in the church, but it is to say that Ephesians 4.11 cannot be used to define such a role. Pastoral ministry is a leadership role in the church that is limited to qualified men per the Scriptures, and we simply cannot set those limitations aside based on our modern understanding of giftedness or ability. Certainly, the service of women in the church is vital and necessary for the health and growth of the church (c.f. Titus 2), but we must submit ourselves to the prescriptions of Holy Scripture, which limit the role and function of pastor to qualified men.

This article is also posted at SBCvoices, here.


On Christian Hope: Heaven or Resurrection

It is commonplace in American Christianity to hear people talk about going to heaven when they die. For most people, this is the promise of the Gospel, that if you believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin and live a morally good and ethical life for the most part, then you will get to go to heaven when you die. This is usually conceptualized as a kind of purely spiritual (nonmaterial, nonphysical) existence of some kind (think halos, harps, and clouds). However, this is a far cry from the biblical picture of eternal life. First, eternal life is not simply a limitless quantity of life that we experience when we die, though it certainly includes this; rather is a certain quality of life, i.e. the life of the messianic age, that we begin to experience even now in part on this side of glory. But, more importantly, the Christian vision for life after death is for a resurrected embodied life. This is a crucial aspect of the biblical understanding of salvation, but it is so often neglected, ignored, or outright denied. And so, since this is the week in which we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord Jesus, I would like to use the space that follows to explore the biblical foundation of the biblical hope for resurrection.

First, we must affirm that human beings were created as composite wholes, that is with a body and a soul. Some theologians would argue for a tripartite division, i.e. body, soul, and spirit, but the point remains the same, namely that the body is essential for what it means to be human. In Genesis, chapter 2, verse 7, we read, “Then the Lord God formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.” In other words, when the “spirit of life” (the Hebrew word for “breath” can also be translated as “spirit”) entered into the body made of dust, the first man became a living being. Both components were necessary to complete the first man; therefore, to exist as spirit only would be an incomplete, non-human existence. This is why the incarnation was necessary; as the author of Hebrews argues in chapter 10, verse 5 (quoting Psalm 40.6 LXX), “Therefore, as he was coming into the world, he said: You did not desire sacrifice and offering, but you prepared a body for me.” In order to redeem humanity, it was necessary that the Son of God should become fully human, body and soul, and if He was anything less than fully human, then the redemption He secured would be incomplete. Or to put it another way, that which He did not assume, He cannot redeem. And the only way that the body can be redeemed from death is through resurrection.

Of course, this leads right into the second biblical foundation of our resurrection, namely that Jesus Christ was resurrected bodily from the dead. A cursory reading of the Gospel accounts of our Lord’s passion leads to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus died bodily, He was raised bodily, He ascended bodily, and He will return bodily. He was no mere apparition or ghost; He was not some kind of spirit only being that appeared at random. In the Gospel of Luke, we read that Jesus ate with the disciples after His resurrection, both on the road to Emmaus and in the upper room, and in the Gospel of John, we read that He invited Thomas to touch the holes in His hands and in His side. So, while His resurrected body was different in many ways, there was still a corporeal continuity to His bodily existence both before and after His resurrection. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, the Apostle Paul argues that the physical bodily resurrection of Jesus is the lynchpin of the Gospel. “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.” (1 Corinthians 15.17) In other words, the bodily resurrection of Jesus was necessary for our salvation to be complete. It was not only necessary for Him to die physically for our sin, but it was also necessary for Him to be raised physically to new life. The bodily resurrection makes His work of redemption complete, and because He has been raised, He is able to offer resurrection life to those who trust in Him.

Consequently, this is the third biblical foundation for the Christian hope of resurrection, namely that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the ground and promise for the bodily resurrection of those who have trusted in Him. Because He has been raised bodily, we who have trusted in Him will also be raised bodily. This is the inescapable logic of our union with Christ. As the Apostle Paul argues in the Letter to the Romans, chapter 6, verse 5, “For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of his resurrection.” Or again, in 1 Corinthians, chapter 15, verse 20, “But as it is, Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.” The fact that He is the “first fruit” necessarily implies that there will be more fruit to come, and it is clear that the fruit Paul is envisioning in this context is the bodily resurrection of those who have been united with Jesus by faith. So, the promise of the Gospel, the Christian hope, is not merely going to heaven when we die; it is nothing less than resurrection from the dead. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, in the same way, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” (1 Thessalonians 4.14)

So, while the idea of going to heaven when we die sounds nice and comforting, the truth of the matter is that those who ignore or deny the future resurrection of the body really have no hope at all. All they really have is a vague notion of something resembling hope, which is really no better than an empty wish. It has no substance, no grounding in biblical realities at all. Disembodied existence as spirit only is not true life, at least not life the way that God intended it for humanity. God alone is spirit, and we are His creatures. The desire to shed the flesh and exist as pure spirit is a desire that comes from pagan philosophy and not from the Bible. The true biblical Christian hope is far better. It is nothing less than the fullness of embodied life that God always intended for humanity. It is eternal life, resurrected life, in the presence of God forever. In other words, the promise of the Gospel is not so much that we will get to go up to heaven when we die, but that heaven will come down to us when Jesus comes again to establish His kingdom on earth once and for all. This is the blessed hope, the Christian hope.

See also:
Chase, Mitchell L. Resurrection Hope and the Death of Death. Short Studies in Biblical Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2022.
Wright, N.T. Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York, NY: HarperOne, 2008.


On the Problem of Eschatological Imminence

I love Christmas music, both the secular and sacred. When I hear it on the radio, in retail stores, or even in church, it just brings back all the wonderful memories of this time of year from my childhood. So, as the song goes, it’s the holiday season, so hoop-de-do and dickory dock. That means that Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s are right around the corner, and most of us are preoccupied with decorations and presents, parties and planning, and all of the other details that fill our minds during this time of year. But for Christians, this time of year is an invitation to reflect afresh on the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Traditionally, the season of Advent consists of the four Sundays that lead up to the celebration of Christmas, and it is a time when we are invited to look back on the first coming of Jesus at the incarnation even while we look forward to the second coming of Jesus. For more on this, see my post here.

However, most discussions of our Lord’s second coming always ends up with the same plaguing question, “So, when is he coming? When will it be?” This is a question that has plagued the people of God since the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and even before. We can read in the Psalms and prophets of the Old Testament where the people of God cried out in agony wondering, “Lord, how long will the wicked—how long will the wicked celebrate?” (Psalms 94.3), or “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?” (Psalm 82.2), or even “How long, Lord, must I call for help and you do not listen or cry out to you about violence and you do not save?” (Habakkuk 1.2). This has been the longing of the people of God throughout history, that He would act finally and climatically to put an end to sin, vindicate His people, and establish His perfect reign on earth.

A quick review of the New Testament and what it says about the second coming of Jesus would seem to indicate that these prayers have been answered. In those hallowed pages, we read promises like, “In the same way, when you see all these things, recognize that he is near—at the door.” (Matthew 24.33), and “Look, I am coming soon, and my reward is with me to repay each person according to his work.” (Revelation 22.12), and  “The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet.” (Romans 16.20). Words like soon, near, at hand, quickly seem to indicate that the consummation the people of God had waited for so long was imminent and about to be realized, perhaps even within the first century. The reality, of course, is that those words were written some 2000 years ago, and we are still waiting for the return of Jesus in glory and power. This, then, is the problem. What are we to make of the New Testament’s promises of imminence, in light of the fact that we are still waiting for His coming some two millennia later?

There are really three options for answering this problem; however, one of them is out of bounds for those who hold orthodox convictions about the person of Christ and the nature of the Bible. Essentially, this option simply concludes that Jesus and His followers were wrong in their expectation. In other words, Jesus had promised and they believed that He would return in power and glory in the first century, i.e. within their lifetimes, and they were just wrong. But this solution charges both Jesus and the authors of Holy Scripture with error, which is something orthodoxy simply cannot abide. We confess that the Scriptures are wholly inerrant, that the authors of both the Old and New Testaments were kept from error by the Holy Spirit who inspired them. Their words are the very words of God himself; therefore, if they lied, he lied, but he cannot lie. Moreover, we confess that Jesus was God the Son incarnate, the very embodiment of truth. He lived a sinless life in complete obedience to God’s Law; therefore, He cannot and did not lie in anything He said. So, we cannot conclude that Jesus or the Apostles were in error in any way.

Another solution to the apparent problem of eschatological imminence is to reinterpret what Jesus and the New Testament authors meant by His coming. In other words, they did not understand His coming to mean the visible bodily return of Jesus to the earth in power and glory to judge the wicked and vindicate the righteous at the end of time. Rather, when they referred to His coming, they were simply referring to His coming in judgment on the people of Israel who rejected and murdered him, a judgment that was fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. This view is usually referred to as preterism, and there is certainly more to it than the definition given here. But its central tenet is that all of the New Testament’s predictions and descriptions of our Lord’s second coming are fulfilled in the first century. The strength of this view is that it seeks to maintain the relevance of the New Testament’s promises of imminence for the biblical audience, and rightly so. However, the conclusion that His coming refers to something other than a visible bodily coming is anticlimactic and unconvincing to say the least. As the church has confessed for nearly two millennia, so also must we affirm that, “He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.” (Nicene Creed)

The final solution, and the one that is most commonly accepted, is to reconsider what the Bible means by its promises of imminence. In other words, temporal qualifiers like near, soon, quickly, and at hand may not necessitate immediate fulfillment in the lifetime of Jesus and His first followers. This is even more likely when we remember that typological fulfillment is a typical characteristic of God’s comings throughout biblical history. Moreover, this is exactly how the question is answered within the New Testament itself. In Second Peter chapter 3, Peter addresses this very objection, “Where is his ‘coming’ that he promised?” (2 Peter 3.4). He gives a couple of different answers to this objection, the examination of which is beyond the scope of this post. However, in verse 8, he writes, “Dear friends, don’t overlook this one fact: With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.” In this verse, Peter is saying that eschatological imminence must be considered from the eternal perspective and not from a temporal one; the meaning of words like soon, near, quickly, and at hand must be measured from the perspective of the one who gave the promise to begin with. Of course, some might object that this verse should not be used as a kind of trump card that dismisses the biblical promises of imminence, and they would be right. However, whatever is meant by eschatological imminence, our understanding of those promises must be consistent with the principles outlined in Second Peter chapter 3, because there are no contradictions in the Bible.

In light of this discussion then, we may conclude that the Bible’s promises of eschatological imminence are just as relevant to the people of God today as they were when they were first given. His coming is near; it is at hand. He is coming soon; he is coming quickly. This means that the people of God must live in a constant state of ready expectation and eager anticipation, because this is our blessed hope, “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2.13). And while we wait, may we find ourselves consistently faithful, until we hear those wonderful and precious words, “Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master.” As our Lord himself said, “Blessed is that servant whom the master finds doing his job when he comes.” (Luke 12.43)


On the Future of Israel

TEXT

25 I don’t want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you will not be conceited: A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

The Deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
27 And this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.

28 Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of the patriarchs, 29 since God’s gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable. 30 As you once disobeyed God but now have received mercy through their disobedience, 31 so they too have now disobeyed, resulting in mercy to you, so that they also may now receive mercy. 32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may have mercy on all.

~Romans 11.25-32

Text: Romans 9-11, et al.
Series: Eschatology: A Study of the End Times
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: October 12, 2022


Slow To Write

"let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."

lovegavehope

Just another WordPress.com site

Jared Cornutt

Pastor | Speaker | Writer

Denny Burk

A commentary on theology, politics, and culture

G3 Ministries

Events + Resources for the Local Church

Biblical Reasoning

Biblical and Systematic Theology According to the Scriptures

RetroChristianity

Reclaiming the Forgotten Faith

SBC Voices

Southern Baptist News & Opinion

Lucid Theology

Thoughts on words, books, theology, and life.

Baptist21

A pastor-led voice for Baptists in the 21st century

Center For Baptist Renewal

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Pastor's Well - Pastor Well

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

Articles - AlbertMohler.com

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers

The Gospel Coalition

The Personal and Professional Blog of Phillip Powers