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 Praying Through Psalm 8

TEXT

For the choir director: on the Gittith. A psalm of David.

Lord, our Lord,
how magnificent is your name throughout the earth!
You have covered the heavens with your majesty.
From the mouths of infants and nursing babies,
you have established a stronghold
on account of your adversaries
in order to silence the enemy and the avenger.

When I observe your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you set in place,
what is a human being that you remember him,
a son of man that you look after him?
You made him little less than God
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
all the sheep and oxen,
as well as the animals in the wild,
the birds of the sky,
and the fish of the sea
that pass through the currents of the seas.

Lord, our Lord,
how magnificent is your name throughout the earth!

~Psalm 8

Series: Praying through the Psalms
Text: Psalm 8.1-9
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: May 17, 2023


On Hosea, Matthew, and Authorial Intent

In my previous post, I argued that our hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible must be grounded in the conviction that what God intended to say in the Scriptures is accurately and faithfully conveyed in what the human authors actually wrote, and for most of the Bible, this seems to be rather clear. The question, however, arises when we come to texts in the New Testament that seem to interpret the Old Testament against the grain of the author’s intent. If we believe that “scripture interprets scripture” (see my post, here), then it would makes sense to suggest that we should follow the interpretive principles of the Apostles, and if they were not bound by a strict conception of authorial intent, then perhaps we should jettison this hermeneutical ground in our interpretive efforts as well. This then is the point that must be proven, namely that the New Testament authors did in fact disregard the human author’s intent when they interpreted the Old Testament. Of course, to examine every place where the New Testament author’s quote from or allude to the Old Testament would require far more space than is available here, and this work has already been done by many fine scholars in the field. I recommend Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament, edited by G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. But in lieu of that, I would like to explore one text as a test case for the thesis that the New Testament authors ignored the principle of authorial intent in their use of the Old Testament, that being Matthew’s use of Hosea 11.1 in chapter 2, verse 15 of his Gospel.

After they were gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Get up! Take the child and his mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you. For Herod is about to search for the child to kill him.” So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night, and escaped to Egypt. He stayed there until Herod’s death, so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: Out of Egypt I called my Son.

~Matthew 2.13-15

The book of the prophet Hosea is a story of love and betrayal; set against the backdrop of Hosea’s own marriage to the adulteress Gomer, throughout the book, God repeatedly rebukes the northern Kingdom of Israel for scorning His grace, rejecting His love, forgetting His covenant, and playing the whore with the false gods of Baal. And so, in chapter 11, and verse 1, we read, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” In these verses, God is looking back on the Exodus experience of His people as the initial overture of His love for Israel; as He goes on to say in verse 4 of that chapter, “I led them with human cords, with ropes of love. To them I was like one who eases the yoke from their jaws; I bent down to give them food.” It is clear that these verses are operating on the paternal imagery of parenthood. In the same way that parents nurture their newborn children, so also God nurtured His “son” Israel by bringing them out of Egyptian slavery, providing for them in the wilderness, and leading them into a land flowing with milk and honey. Even in spite of their repeated betrayal, God goes on to say in verse 8, “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I surrender you, Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? I have had a change of heart; my compassion is stirred!” This chapter is a beautiful picture of the tenderness and mercy of God toward His rebellious son, and even though, the people of Israel will suffer His discipline, it holds out the hope that God has not ceased loving His people.

Now, in chapter 2 of the first canonical Gospel, Matthew connects the flight of the Holy family to Egypt to the words of Hosea 11.1, “so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled: Out of Egypt I have called my Son (quoting Hosea 11.1b). But if the prophet Hosea wasn’t making a direct messianic prediction in the text in question, as we saw above, then how can the Egyptian flight of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus properly be considered a fulfillment? The answer is that this is a fulfillment by way of typology not prediction. Part of Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus is to show that He is the long awaited “prophet like Moses” (c.f. Deut 18.15-19), and he demonstrates this by highlighting the ways that Jesus recapitulates the story of Moses. A few examples should suffice. When Moses was born, Pharaoh killed all the Hebrew boys; when Jesus was born, Herod killed all the Jewish boys. According to 1 Corinthians 10.1-2, Moses had a baptism experience in the Red Sea, and Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River. Moses and the Israelites spent forty years in the wilderness; Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness. Moses went up on Mount Sinai to receive the Law; Jesus went up on a mountain to give the law (Sermon on the Mount). There are five books of Moses (Pentateuch); there are five discourses of Jesus’ sermons in the Gospel of Matthew. And “out of Egypt, I called my Son.” Based on this evidence, it is reasonably clear that the fulfillment that Matthew sees in the text of Hosea 11.1 is typological. Even as Israel was God’s typological “son”, Jesus is the true and better messianic Son of God.

In the final analysis, rather than violating the principle of authorial intent in his use of Hosea 11.1, the typological connection drawn by Matthew actually affirms the authorial intent of Hosea. And still, the question remains, “what of God’s intent in Hosea 11.1? When He inspired Hosea to write “out of Egypt, I called my son,” did he know that Matthew would take it in a different direction?” Of course, it is a theological truism to say that God knew the theological connections that Matthew would draw when He inspired Hosea to write, and so it is not wrong to say God “intended” more than Hosea understood at the time. However, this doesn’t mean that His intent stands in contradiction to or competition with the intent of Hosea. We must assume that God’s intent in Hosea 11 was to spark His people to repentance by reminding them of the great depths of His love that was demonstrated in the events of the Exodus, especially because the words of Hosea 11 are reported by the prophet as the very words spoken by God. (This is the Lord’s declaration, Hosea 11.11) Whatever “fuller sense” that we may understand from Hosea’s words, it must be grounded in the inspired intent of the human author, and this is exemplified in Matthew’s use of the text to explain the flight to Egypt.

But there is something that Matthew’s use of the Old Testament can teach us about our own interpretive efforts, namely that our hermeneutic for understanding of the Old Testament must reckon with the person and work of Christ. As Jesus himself affirms, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24.44) In other words, we have not done our full interpretive work in the Old Testament if we fail to consider how the text points to or is fulfilled in Jesus. If our understanding of the Old Testament would be accepted in a Jewish synagogue, then we haven’t understood the text Christianly. However, this does not mean that we can disregard the principle of authorial intent; we must still labor within the boundaries of literary and historical context before we can consider the broader canonical and theological implications. At the very least, our understanding of the human author’s intent must function as the true and necessary foundation upon which we stand as we seek the illumination of the Spirit in understanding the theological and applicational implications of the text for our lives in Christ. This is a thoroughly Christian understanding of how to interpret the Bible.


On Inspiration and Authorial Intent

Despite the claims of postmodern literary critics, it is reasonably certain that the meaning of any given document or literary work is grounded in and governed by its author. To put it another way, the meaning of the text is limited by the message that the writer of that text intended to communicate. This principle has been the foundation of biblical interpretation for most of the modern period, and rightly so. The Word of God comes to us through human authors who were writing to historical audiences, so we must work within the boundaries of literary and historical context in order to understand it. The problem, however, is that an overemphasis on authorial intent could relegate our interpretive efforts to nothing more than an exercise in historical investigation. But, the Word of God is more than a historical artifact; it is living and active, and its truths are just as relevant today as they were when they were first written. Over the last twenty years or so, more and more emphasis has been given to the intent of the divine author in an attempt to arrive at a more robustly theological interpretation.

However, this too has led to certain hermeneutical problems, particularly when the supposed divine intent in a given text is set in competition with or in contradiction to the human intent. This appears to be the underlying assumption of a question that was posed on Twitter a few days ago (pictured above). A pastor on Twitter recently asked, “Did the human authors have perfect/sinless intentions while writing Scripture?” Of course, Twitter polls are probably not the best resource for scholarly research, but the results are nevertheless concerning. Some 73% of respondents answered the question in the negative, meaning that almost three quarters of those who answered the poll believe that the human authors of the Bible had sinful intentions when they wrote the words of Holy Scripture. While the relationship between the human and the divine in the writing of Holy Scripture may be complex, we must conclude that this answer is out of bounds for those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God. How can sinful words be received as the Word of a sinless and righteous God? This is a contradiction in terms. As we read in Second Peter, chapter 1, verse 21, “instead men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Based on this text, we must affirm that there is no divine intent apart from the words of the human author. In other words, our interpretive efforts must deal directly with the words of Holy Scripture; we must labor to understand the genre, the syntax, the vocabulary, the grammatical relationships, and the literary flow of thought of the documents themselves. This is the fundamental work of biblical interpretation. There is no such thing as meaning that is separate from the text; there is no mystical or hidden Word that may be sought apart from the words on the page. Whatever the timeless supernatural theological implications of the text may be, these truths must be grounded in and derived from the actual words of Holy Scripture. In theology, this doctrine is known as verbal plenary inspiration, meaning that the quality of inspiration extends to very words that comprise the text and not just the ideas that stand behind those words. In the act of inspiration, God so worked in through and with the human authors of Holy Scripture, such that their words are His very words, thus they are without error in every way.

If their words are His words, then we may conclude that their intent is His intent as well. The difficulty, however, lies in the reality that the God of the Bible is infinite in His understanding, that He sees more and knows more than the human authors could possibly comprehend when they were writing. So, there is a sense in which the divine intent is so much more than what the human authors could understand; some have referred to this as the sensus plenior, or the fuller sense of the text. In their book Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard identify the problem with this idea, namely that “we have no objective criteria to posit the existence of a sensus, or to determine where it might exist, or how one might proceed to unravel its significance. In other words, if the human author of a text did not intend and was unaware of a deeper level of meaning, how can we be confident today that we can detect it?” To put it another way, if we understand textual meaning as something that is grounded in authorial intent, then we must assume a certain amount of similitude, if not even near identity, between the intent of both the Divine and the human author. Otherwise, we would never be able to understand what God is saying to us in any real or meaningful way.

In the final analysis, we must conclude that there is no competition or contradiction between the intent of the human the divine authors of Holy Scripture. While it is possible that the Spirit intended more than human authors, He certainly did not intend less than what they intended to communicate to their audiences through the words that they wrote. In other words, authorial intent in the Bible must be viewed as finely woven tapestry in which the human and divine is so interlaced and knitted together, such that any attempts to divide or separate them would in effect destroy its beauty and grandeur. As interpreters, we must hold these facets of the text in harmony and proceed with conviction the Bible is the very Word of God. B.B. Warfield puts it this way in his book The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, “The Scriptures, in other words, are conceived by the writers of the New Testament as through and through God’s book, in every part expressive of His mind, given through men after a fashion which does no violence to their nature as men, and constitutes the book also men’s book as well as God’s, in every part expressive of the mind of its human authors.”

For further study, see:
Warfield, B.B. “The Divine and the Human in the Bible.” Pages 542-548 in Selected Shorter Writings, 2 Vols.


On Christ Our Blessing

TEXT

Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ. For he chose us in him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in love before him. He predestined us to be adopted as sons through Jesus Christ for himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he lavished on us in the Beloved One.

~Ephesians 1.3-6

Title: On the Blessings of Election and Predestination in Christ
Text: Ephesians 1.3-6
Series: The Letter to the Ephesians
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: May 8, 2023


On How Christ Makes all the Difference

TEXT

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by God’s will:
To the faithful saints in Christ Jesus at Ephesus.
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

~Ephesians 1.1-2

Title: On a Historical, Literary, and Theological Overview of Ephesians
Text: Ephesians 1.1-2
Series: The Letter to the Ephesians
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: April 30, 2023


On Praying through Psalm 3

TEXT

A psalm of David when he fled from his son Absalom.

Lord, how my foes increase!
There are many who attack me.
Many say about me,
“There is no help for him in God.” Selah

But you, Lord, are a shield around me,
my glory, and the one who lifts up my head.
I cry aloud to the Lord,
and he answers me from his holy mountain. Selah

I lie down and sleep;
I wake again because the Lord sustains me.
I will not be afraid of thousands of people
who have taken their stand against me on every side.

Rise up, Lord!
Save me, my God!
You strike all my enemies on the cheek;
you break the teeth of the wicked.
Salvation belongs to the Lord;
may your blessing be on your people. Selah

~Psalm 3

Series: Praying through the Psalms
Text: Psalm 3.1-8
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: April 12, 2023


On Celebrity Preachers and Plagiarism

There is a reason that previous generations referred to the pulpit as “the sacred desk;” it is, no doubt, the same reason that the prophets of the Old Testament sometimes referred to “the burden of the Lord”. The responsibility of proclaiming the Word of God to the people of God is a serious and oftentimes heavy calling, and those who have been entrusted with this task should carry out their service with the utmost theological fidelity and personal integrity. In recent years, this concern has become even more evident in light of the growing awareness of the problem of plagiarism. This problem soared to the forefront of denominational concerns a couple of years ago when Ed Litton, then president of the SBC, was found to have plagiarized sermons of the previous president, J.D. Greear. Now, with the proliferation of AI programs like chatGPT that can not only check for plagiarism anywhere on the internet but also write full original sermons on their own, the need for sincere and authentic work in the pulpit is even more pressing.

So, when I came across an article from 2021 entitled “6 Undeniable Reasons Its Nearly Impossible to Plagiarize a Sermon”, I was obviously perplexed, to say the least. At the time of writing, the author was a regional consultant for the Kentucky Baptist Convention, but now he serves on staff at a megachurch in the DFW metroplex area where his son is the pastor. His purpose for writing this article seems to be to defend pastors from erroneous or perhaps even malicious accusations of plagiarism; the article begins, “Recently there have been pastors dismissed based on the ignorance of a few influential, judgmental, overzealous, Internet-exploring individuals.” Of course, he eventually acknowledges that the wholesale presentation of another individual’s sermon word for word is plagiarism, but he argues throughout the piece that borrowing a theological or textual observation here or an effective illustration or application there is not only not plagiarism, but is both wise and good. He concludes, “I want to say to preachers: if my bullet fits your gun then shoot it. I’m guessing you’d say the same to me and I’m nearly certain that almost every pastor in the world would give the same wise counsel to every other pastor.”

Now, I take no issue with the overall thesis of this article; certainly, every preacher of God’s Word is formed and informed by the voices that they consult in the study process, and of course, that will inevitably show up in the pulpit. Moreover, the accusation of plagiarism should never be made lightly, nor should it ever be weaponized. However, it is the underlying reasoning for sermonic borrowing that is assumed in this piece that I find problematic, namely that if I want to be an effective preacher, then I should borrow from other more effective (read celebrity) preachers. In other words, there is an unstated assumption that success in the preaching enterprise is measured by the number of people sitting in the pews or listening online, and that those who have achieved this success are worthy of emulation. In the Evangelical subculture, we have regularly platformed and praised those whose personality and charisma in preaching is able to draw the biggest crowds, and this has lead to an epidemic of comparison whose only cure seems to be achieved by copying both the style and the content of those who epitomize it. But the problem is that this way of evaluating preaching is more cultural than it is biblical. We are not called to preaching methods and styles that tickle the ears and fill the seats; we are called to preaching that transforms lives, both the life of the preacher and the life of those who hear him.

The biblical standard for sermon evaluation is not charisma but fidelity. If we are faithful to the text, clear in our delivery of its truth, and consistent in pointing people to Jesus, then we have accomplished the task. We are called to faithfully expound upon the Word of God, to proclaim its message, and to bring its truths to bear upon the lives of those with whom we have been entrusted. The only way that this can be accomplished is by being absorbed in, with, and by the text, by letting the text form and mold us through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. When and only when the heart of the preacher has been truly convicted by the scripture’s truth will he then be able to preach it effectively and with power. Effective preaching is not achieved through the polish of personal charisma, rhetorical flourish, or grandiloquence. It comes only through the personal conviction of a heart and mind that has been gripped by the power of the Word of God. After we have done our historical work in the text, our literary and linguistic work, our theological work, we must do our “closet work”. Then and only then will we be prepared and equipped to do our homiletical work. This, and this alone, is what makes the preaching of the Word of God effective and powerful, and the truth of the matter is that this is the only part of sermon preparation that simply cannot be plagiarized.

The problem of plagiarism will continue to be a problem in the church as long as we continue to worship and glorify the personas and personalities that draw the biggest followings, whether in person or online. However, the reality is that the most effective preaching comes from someone who knows their congregation intimately, someone who knows how to exegete people as well as they exegete the Scriptures. Celebrity pastors and online personalities do not know the people that sit in our pews; therefore, they will never be able to shepherd our churches effectively. The most effective pastors/preachers are those who know the Scriptures, know themselves, and know their congregations, because this allows them to bring the truths of God’s Word to bear on the specific questions, the real problems, that their people are facing in their day to day lives. While plagiarism may seem to offer the hope of effective and powerful preaching, ultimately, it is an empty promise that will never be able to deliver. There is simply no substitute, no shortcuts, for the transformation that comes by the Spirit through the disciplines of the Word.

This blog is also posted at SBCvoices, here.

For further study, see:
Edwards, J. Kent. Deep Preaching: Creating Sermons that Go Beyond the Superficial. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009.


On Praying Through Psalm 2

TEXT

Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand,
and the rulers conspire together
against the Lord and his Anointed One:
“Let’s tear off their chains
and throw their ropes off of us.”

The one enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord ridicules them.
Then he speaks to them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath:
“I have installed my king
on Zion, my holy mountain.”

I will declare the Lord’s decree.
He said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.
Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance
and the ends of the earth your possession.
You will break them with an iron scepter;
you will shatter them like pottery.”

10 So now, kings, be wise;
receive instruction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with reverential awe
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Pay homage to the Son or he will be angry
and you will perish in your rebellion,
for his anger may ignite at any moment.
All who take refuge in him are happy.

~Psalm 2

Series: Praying through the Psalms
Text: Psalm 2.1-12
Church: South Caraway Baptist Church, Jonesboro, AR
Date: April 5, 2023


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.


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