Monthly Archives: March 2012

Review of Justification by NT Wright

29 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Book Review

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

I am swamped with a few writing assignments right now. But will post my review of NT Wright’s Justification from my Amazon review. My review of this work is not a pure review of this book because I find it poorly argued and not his best writing (however, let me say, he is a great writer). His New Testament and the People of God is a better book for understanding Wright’s view of Pauline doctrine because there Wright spends most of his time proposing Paul’s historical context. If you understand his view of Second-Temple Judaism and Wright’s desire to harmonize his historical context with Paul then the book and it’s arguments will make more sense. Part III of NTPG will help anyone better understand Wright, his views, his presuppositions, and everything else he says in all his books.

Wright proposes a new view of justification. He makes exegetical arguments, but arguing at the exegetical level will not produce fruit. Most interactions with NT Wright will miss the mark because they attempt to take him on at the textual level. They try to exegete similar passages and show where his exegesis is wrong. Although I think his exegesis is off, I think the problem and debate should center around Wright’s presuppositions — mainly his methodology and historical context reconstruction. He sees the NT in a different historical context than “classic or reformed” Christianity.

Wright desires to set “Western scholarship” on the right path to understanding Paul’s historical context.

I intend to describe the authentic first-century Jewish worldview, so often obscured in subsequent Christian reflection, in order thereby to correct some normal ‘Christian’ understanding of Jesus, Paul, and early Christianity. Many ‘Christian’ readings of the gospels have screened out the political overtones of Jesus proclamation of the kingdom; a fresh examination of the Jewish background will put that straight. [1]

NT Wright seems to argue his view is most consistent with the OT, second-temple Judaism, and the NT writers (the presupposition here is 2nd Temple Judaism accurately conveys OT doctrine). He argues (throughout all his books on Paul and especially in “The New Testament and the People of God”) Paul must be understood in his Jewish context. This is the starting point here. Wright has spent much energy and killed many trees explaining his understanding of second-temple Judaism. His reconstruction provides the context for ALL Paul’s language. If you do not deal with his understanding of the context, it is hard to argue with his exegesis.

Here is where Wright is problematic. His view of Pauline theology is harmonized with second-temple Judaism. Wright sees consistency and gives second-temple Jews the final authority when explaining Jewish beliefs. This is okay if he were just analyzing second-temple Judaism. The problem is found in his reconciling Christianity and Judaism together. Wright never asks if second-temple Judaism rightfully interprets the OT? He doesn’t give Jesus a voice when Jesus is critical of the Jews and their theology. He doesn’t allow for Paul to disagree with Jewish doctrine. Therefore Paul could not have analyzed and claimed Jewish doctrine was wrong, because Wright doesn’t even consider the idea as plausible.

The problem with Wright, his view, his argument, and his conclusions (this is similar to the problem with EP Sanders) is he gives no authority to Scripture. Wright believes the Pharisees were good Jews and does not give the Bible a voice when analyzing Pharisaical doctrine or reconstructing history. Why? The Bible is too biased.

[The New Testamant has an] evident bias [against the Pharisees] . . . such a persepective . . . makes it very difficult to use the New Testament as basic materials in our reconstruction of the Pharisees [2]

So Wright’s reconstruction and harmonization exist without the authority of Scripture.

Instead he uses Historical Critical methods that includes redaction criticism. Redaction criticism allows him to ignore criticism from Jesus by claiming the church “changed” the words of Jesus to be anti-Jewish as a polemic against the Jews later in church history. This is the problem with Historical Critical methods. They are methods developed by unbelievers who desired to remove the authority from Scripture and therefore make it say what they wanted.

Therefore the problem with this book is at the methodological level. In summary, the only way Wright’s view stands is if Scripture is wrong.

[1] NT Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 149.

[2] NT Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, 184.

Part III : Evaluating the Rapture

26 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

,

It’s finally my turn to join the discussion. As one who has attempted to slow down their wavering “to and fro” over the placement of the rapture, I find the Pre-tribulational rapture a position wrought with theological and exegetical problems. However, I see it having fewer problems than any of the other tribulational positions. Nonetheless, all positions are not a “slam-dunk” position.

The book of Revelation tends to be an enigma for Bible interpreters, of which it does not need to be. The tendency for allegory increases when descriptions of extreme visions are laid before the reader. However, assuming the book to be within the “Prophetic” genre (Rev 1:3; 22:18–19), hermeneutical principles for an “apocalyptic” genre are no longer needed.

Despite other problems within Revelation, this post focuses on the book of Revelation and the Rapture. It will first demonstrate how the book of Revelation does not give specific passages for a Pre-tribulational rapture. However, what Revelation does accomplish in its description of the tribulation and second coming of Christ will prohibit a Post-tribulational rapture. But concluding thoughts will be that Revelation really can’t be a clear argument for rapture-like arguments.

Revelation and the Pre-Tribulational Rapture

The first problem with Revelation and the Pre-tribulational position is the description of the Church. The argument typically goes as follows: Chapters 1–3 contain much information and commands regarding the seven churches, even the word ekklesia is used numerous times within this section. However, ekklesia (church) does not appear again in the book until Rev 22.16. What this implies is the absence of the church during the 7-year tribulation. Jason already provided a great analysis of the logical fallacy in part 1 of this series. It falls underneath the fallacy of argument by silence. Just because there is an absence of the word “church” does not mean provide an argument for or against the presence of the Church in the tribulation.

The second problem is appealing to Rev 3:10 and attributing “kept from the hour” is the rapture. There are numerous problems in the ensuing arguments for appealing to Rev 3:10. (For the purpose of breveity, I’m assuming the reader will need to be somewhat aware of Rev 3:7–13).

The phrase “I will keep you from” has the idea of removal. The natural appeal is to John 17.15 where there is a similar construction in the Greek to signify “preservation after removal from a period” (Thomas, 285). This reads too much into the preposition. It doesn’t necessarily mean a removal from the sphere of affliction, rather it is a protection from the trial. Moreover, a Post-trib rendering of ek (from) as “I will keep you through the hour of trial” is completely untenable. It is a reading of theology into a single preposition that never carries the function of “through.”

The “hour of Trial” may well be the tribulation (it is defined to “try those who dwell on the earth”), but nearly all sides of the debate have made a hermeneutical fallacy. The relationship between verse 9 and 10 is a hoti, that gives reason or cause to what preceded. In this case it could look forward to the reason. But the logic of the verse goes like this: Because the Philadelphian church kept the word, they will be kept from the hour of trial. That is, the Philadelphian church is rewarded for their obedience. The obvious conclusion is of course they have escaped the hour of trial; the Philadelphian church is no longer in existence and the hour of trial has yet to come. Moreover, the initial audience of the promise has already passed away. The hermeneutical fallacy is this: “The promise made here pertains to Philadelphian Christians only and cannot be generalized to include Christians in the other churches of Asia, much less all Christians in all places and times” (Aune, 1:240). It is a fallacy to conclude that all Christians of all times will experience blessing for what was promised to a single church for their obedience. Though the entire description of Rev 3:8–13 is eschatological, the promise of “keeping” is to the Philadelphians for their obedience and not a reference of the Church’s rapture.

Revelation and the Post-Tribulational Rapture

The placement of the Post-tribulational rapture is rather easy within Revelation. It has to fall somewhere after Rev 19 but before Rev 20. However, the sequence of events in the final chapters of Revelation completely prohibits the Post-tribulational position. I don’t want to commit the same fallacy of arguing through silence and say the “great multitudes” in 19:1, 19:6 is a reference to all believers of all times, but a tracing of the sequence of events are as follows:

1. The multitudes in heaven rejoicing before God (19:1–5)

2. The Marriage Supper (19:6–10)

3. The Return of Christ on the White Horse (19:11–21)

4. The Millennium (20:1–6)

5. Battle of Gog and Magog after the Millenium (20:7–10)

6. The Great White Throne Judgment (20:11–15)

7. The New Heavens and the New Earth (21–22)

The arguments of a Post-tribulational view are the rapture of the Saints happens when Christ returns. In the sequence of events above, the marriage supper of the Lamb happens prior the return of the Christ. Therefore, in a Post-tribulational view, parts of the bride are not in attendance to this feast. Rev 19:7 states that the “Bride has made herself ready” and is therefore part of the “great multitudes.” Consequently, I would be hard-pressed to say that the entire Bride won’t be in attendance to this great feast!

However, what this analysis presupposes, of which I have yet to prove, is a sequential order of events from Revelation 19–22. I am not arguing for a sequential reading of the entire book of Revelation. Therefore, if I can prove chs. 19–22 are sequential but someone proves Revelation, as a whole, is not sequential, it fails to rebuttal my argument. Rev 19:1 begins with meta tauta “after this, I heard.” Therefore, there is a separation of events from 18–19 and John is beginning to tell what ensued after ch 18. However, from chs. 19–22, there is a literary repetition that I observe argues for sequence. What this does not mean is that the events must strictly follow suit, but what it does mean is that there may be overlap. Regardless, there is a logical order of events that are difficult to rearrange in order and I make the case that the literary elements argue against attempts to rearrange the order. From chs. 19–22 there are multiple kai’s “and” followed by a verb: kai ekousa “And I heard”(19:6); kai legei “and he said” (19:9); kai eidon “And I saw” (19:11; 19:17; 19:19; 20:1; 20:4; 20:11; 21:1; 21:22). Therefore, with a sequential order of chs. 19–22 the Bride of Christ enjoys the marriage supper of the Lamb prior to the return of Christ, thereby prohibiting a Post-tribulational rapture.

* * * * *

The book of Revelation does not have to be an enigma within biblical studies. The difficulty of the book is still not too high for the average reader to understand. Rev 1:3 promises blessing to those who reads aloud the book, keeps the commands within the book, and keeps what is written in it. Therefore, it is understandable. However, what is absent in Revelation, for nearly all sides of the argument, is the placement of the rapture.

part 1, part 2, part 4

4 Questions to prepare yourself for worship

25 Sunday Mar 2012

Posted by in Theology

≈ Leave a Comment

Tags

, , ,

Here are four questions you should be able to answer “yes” to at the end of the day. Use these four questions as a guide to help you stay focused on what this day is about for us who love Jesus! PS. Serving is worship too!!! (more on that later!)

  1. Do you love Jesus more at the end of today than you did this morning? Singing, preaching, fellowship, and everything we do is meant to point us to Christ and love Him more!
  2. Do you know how to better pray for those in your church? (you should have specifics,  not just generalities, for example, “I know Billy has an interview on Wednesday for a new job.” or “Mark and Lady Jane had a miscarriage.”)
  3. Finally, Do you know how to serve those in your church this week? (for example, Jane has surgery on Tuesday, what does her family need while mom is out for the week to recover? meals, child-care, encouragement from visitors?)
  4. Did you pick up trash? (you probably had a cup of coffee, maybe a donut / bagel, did you help out the person tasked to clean by picking up your own mess?) :)

Hopefully we can answer yes to these questions at the end of Sunday and worship our Savior throughout the week!

Part II: Evaluating the Rapture

22 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

,

The worst enemy of the pre-trib rapture position is hands-down, bad arguments sometimes employed by dispensationalists. Being a dispensationalist myself, of the progressive sort, I feel a certain freedom to speak badly about arguments made by other dispensationalists not as enlightened as me (i.e., classic and revised), so here goes (the arrogance is not real, but feigned for the sake of humor).

It is occasionally argued by dispensationalists that in John 14:1-3, Jesus teaches his disciples about the rapture (pre-trib of course). Whether πιστεύετε “believe” in verse one is indicative or imperative in one or both clauses need not detain us here. It is in verse two where the real action begins. In verse two Jesus comforts his disciples with the fact that he is going away to prepare a place for them in his Father’s household; in which, there are many dwelling places. In verse three Jesus relates that he will return and receive the disciples to himself, so that where he is, they may be also.

We are told by many interpreters that Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” is a reference to his ascension into heaven forty days or so after the resurrection. The actual “preparing” of the places is not always elaborated on, but it is safe to assume that the “dwelling places” are actual and the preparation real. The location of these dwelling places would seem to be heaven since that is where Jesus is going to in order to prepare them. If what has been said is a proper understanding thus far, then in verse three Jesus’ “coming again” to receive the disciples must be a return from heaven. At this point pre-tribbers differ from those of other eschatological persuasions.

Those who do not hold to a pre-trib rapture, but understand verses one and two in the same manner as described above, argue that verse three is describing the Second Coming that either begins the millennium, or the eternal state. The difficulty with these views is that if it is understood in verse one and two that Jesus is ascending to heaven in order to prepare dwelling places for the disciples then it would seem that his returning for the disciples implies that he will then take them to dwell in these dwelling places that he has prepared for them. However, if this is the Second Coming, then Jesus is not going to take anyone anywhere. He is going to stay on earth and either establish his millennial kingdom, or rule on a new earth for the rest of eternity. So, if Jesus’ “going to prepare a place” for the disciples in verse two is a reference to the ascension, then it is doubtful that his “coming” to receive the disciples in verse three is a reference to the Second Coming.

Those who hold to a pre-trib rapture sometimes argue that, rather than a reference to the Second Coming, verse three is a reference to the rapture. Before the tribulation, Jesus will return and take the disciples to heaven where he has prepared a place for them. From that point on they will be where Jesus is, and presumably accompany him on his return (Second Coming) at the end of the tribulation. If verse two does indeed refer to the ascension then the rapture understanding of verse three would seem to make more sense than a reference to the Second Coming.

However, both the Second Coming and rapture views of verse three share a common problem. It is doubtful that verse two refers to the ascension. The first indication that Jesus is not talking about the ascension in verse two is the dialogue in verse four and following. In verse four Jesus tells the disciples that they know the way to the place he is going. It may be useful to point out here that if Jesus is speaking of his ascension into heaven when he told the disciples that he was going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household, then the way to where he is going is up through the clouds into heaven.

The disciples, via Thomas, disclaim such knowledge. In fact, they don’t even know where he is going, so how in the world would they know the way he is taking to get there. Jesus then responds that he is the way…. For our purposes here, we will focus on that little bit of Jesus’ response. Jesus says in verse six that he is the way to where he is going to prepare a place for the disciples. Jesus is not the way that Jesus took when he ascended into heaven some forty days after the resurrection. There is a better explanation of these verses.

Jesus had just told the disciples that, as he had told the Jewish leaders, he was going away and where he was going they could not come (13:33). I take it for granted that given the context most will recognize that Jesus is talking about his death under the euphemism of going somewhere. It is in this context that Jesus communicates to his disciples that he is going away to prepare a place for them in the Father’s household. I would propose that what Jesus is saying in John 14:1­–6 is that by going away (i.e., dying on the cross) he will prepare a way for the disciples to dwell in the Father’s household. Jesus is not talking about going to clean up the New Jerusalem to get it ready for all the pre-tribulationally raptured folks. He is making a soteriological statement about how he is about to lay down his life so that his disciples might dwell with him and the Father forever.

Part I: Evaluating the Rapture

19 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Eschatology

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, ,

We teach a pretribulation rapture of the church. Alan Hultberg defines it as, “The rapture is a theological term that refers to the ‘catching up’ of the church to meet the Lord in the air in association with his return and with the resurrection of believers.” [1] Debate exists among dispensationalists pertaining to the timing of the event. Pretribulation rapture proponents assert those in the church will be taken off the earth before the seven years of tribulation as described in Revelation (or Daniel’s seventieth week). We believe there are good arguments for this view (mainly 1 Thess 4:16-17 and 1 Cor 15:50ff).

However, we also believe there are some bad arguments from dispensationalists who defend the pretribulation rapture. Two leading arguments from pretribs are built on an argument from silence and a misinterpretation of John 14. Our challenge to dispensationalists is to argue from the text theological positions and represent our views with solid arguments not based on logical fallacies and bad interpretations.

Rapture Series Overview

There are four or five parts in this blog series. The first post will evaluate the argument from silence pertaining to Revelation 6-19. The second post will analyze John 14. Part three will evaluate 1 Thessalonians. Part four evaluates 1 Corinthians 15. A fifth part may come to fruition evaluating Revelation 3:10 (although Shawn hasn’t confirmed it yet–hint hint Shawn :)

Argument from silence

This argument states John never mentions the church when describing Daniel’s seventieth week in Revelation 6-19. Because the church is not mentioned and the focus is on Israel, the church is therefore absent from the scene and the Pretribulation Rapture accounts for this evidence. One author notes,

It is remarkable and totally unexpected that John would shift from detailed instructions for the church to absolute silence about the church for the fourteen chapters describing Daniel’s seventieth week (Rev. 6-19) if, in fact, the church continued into the tribulation. [2]

In order for this statement to support the pretrib view, the author needs to know the mind of John, the author of Revelation. He continues,

If the church will experience the tribulation of Daniel’s seventieth week, then surely the most detailed study of the tribulation events would include an account of the church’s role. But it doesn’t![3]

The problem here is this is an argument from silence. Chapter 6-19 says nothing about the rapture. The mid or post-trib proponent could argue the text says nothing about the rapture because John does not care to deal with it. The post-trib proponent could insist nothing is mentioned because the rapture doesn’t occur until the end of the tribulation. Both mid and post-tribers could assert, John writes Revelation to prepare the church for the coming destruction. Of course someone could argue there is no rapture because John does not mention it!

Criag Blaising says,

The problem we have in answering the question is that, as in the Olivet Discourse, there is no EXPLICIT mention of the rapture in the book of Revelation. This silence per se favors none of the tribulational positions presented in this book. All one can conclude is that an explicit discussion of the topic of the rapture was not in keeping with the purposes of the book or the purpose of the Lord in revealing these visions “[4]

Too often we argue from narrative what the narrative does not intend to teach. It is a bad argument to claim something exists because the narrative does not mention it. This assumes we know the mind of the author and why he chose to mention and not mention details. In reality all we can assert about the text is what the author told us. We know the author intended to communicate what he wrote down and his words need to be the focal point of our discussion. When we come across arguments from silence, it reveals the proponents presuppositions more than what the text actually says.

The argument from silence really means the presupposition needs to be evaluated. In order to assert a pre, mid, or post-tribulation view, advocates need to assert a positive argument for his or her position. Therefore the pre-trib view is best asserted by examining texts that deal with the rapture.

Jason

[1] Alan Hultberg, “Introduction,” Three Views on The Rapture, pg 11.

[2] Richard Mayhue, “Why a Pretribulation Rapture?,” Christ Prophetic Plans, 89.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Craig Blaising, “A Case for the Pretribulation Rapture,” Three Views on the Rapture, 61-2.

Gifts AND Service

15 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Service

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Ephesians 4:7-11 affirms each believer receives a gift for the purpose of building the church. I do not believe every gift is mentioned in Ephesians 4 but do believe every believer is gifted for the purpose of helping the church mature. All believers have a gift. (We can discuss what gifts are still in effect later, but for now, let’s assume at some level each of us have a gift: teaching, serving, evangelism . . . ). We use our gifts because we love Jesus and for the church.

In my last post I defined a servant as someone who habitually serves and loves other people. All believers are called to be a part of the church through relationships with others. Others is defined by other people IN THE CHURCH, not just family. You cannot say you live out the “one another’s” only on your spouse! Your family needs to be others driven.

This naturally raises the question, what about a person’s gift? What about the guy who says the Lord gifted him in such a way to serve the church and it requires no personal interaction? What about Bill, or is it Bob–later we discover it’s Vernon who shows up every week and sits in the same spot? He comes in, sings, nods his head in agreement, and gives a lot of money to the church, but no one knows him. Is he serving the church?

The Lord uses people like “Vernon” and blesses the ministry financially. But I have a hard time saying either one is a servant. Your spiritual gift is not an excuse to avoid relationships! Being a part of the church is simple conceptually: have and maintain relationships! Doing it is difficult because it means being exposed. You become exposed to others like they become exposed to you. Then we see the dirty, human side of people. But this is where we need to be. We need to be in a position to love and serve others while fully being aware of their dirty sinful hearts. As we learn to love and serve, despite others sinfulness, we learn what it means to be Christlike.

Every day Jesus served and loved others with full awareness of their sinfulness. He loved a traitor, two men were ready to rain fire and judgment down and kill people (Sons of Thunder), and the prideful Peter. Then He died for us! He died for us who deserve our penalty (death) so that we don’t have the penalty. But our relationship isn’t over! He serves as our High Priest, daily, hourly, moment by moment lavishing us with grace, coming to our aid, and interceding on our behalf!

So we too must serve! We must learn to develop and sustain relationships with othes regardless of our giftedness. Could you imagine a pastor who knows no one in the church and his excuse, “I am only gifted to teach”? We think it crazy! This is a “both/and” issue. You are called to exercise your gift AND be involved in other people (beyond your spouse and kids) lives!

The concept is simple. Doing it can be hard at times and rewarding too. But we do it because we love Jesus!!

Jason

Shepherds’ Conference and Servants

05 Monday Mar 2012

Posted by in Service

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

This week 3000 pastors will attend the Shepherds’ Conference. For them, it will be a time of spiritual refreshment, encouragement, conviction, exhortation, and fellowship. Logistically this does not happen without a lot of man hours both leading up to and during the week.

Monday the campus will be transformed with 600+ ants working on different tasks.To the outsider (or from an aerial view) it will look like chaos. But like ants, each one has a task that fits into the grand scheme of things. The result is a well-oiled machine providing meals, snacks, a coffee bar (both espresso and pour-over bar), shoe-shine stations, internet cafe, phone charging station, concierge, bookstores (yes, multiple), educational seminars, and of course worship! Wednesday morning 4000 people will be on campus to either volunteer or participate in the conference.

From an attendee perspective it is overwhelming. But think about this from a pastoral perspective . . . 600 of your people have taken time off from work or their daily lives to serve these men whom they most likely do not know! That is encouraging!!!! One of the unspoken or unthought-about encouraging factors is the volunteers who serve the pastors because they love Jesus.

People serving people in the church faithfully encourages pastors (whether they be your sheep or someone else’s sheep). But does participating in a conference mean you serve the church? Do you have to be one of 600 volunteers to consider yourself involved?

On one hand the answer is yes. Volunteering for an event, hosted by your church, serves the local body. A person loves Jesus, is committed to this particular ministry, volunteers, trains, prepares, and serves others. But does that make someone a servant?  Not necessarily.

Consider, you can sign up, serve on Wednesday, go home, attend every Sunday, and not be involved in your church until next year on Shepherds’ Conference Wednesday. You can simply walk into church every Sunday, sit down, leave, go home and make this your weekly routine. Someone can ask you, “Do you go to church?” “Yes, every Sunday for 20 years. I even serve at our annual Shepherds’ Conference.”

But are you involved? Ask the NT authors what it means to be involved in the local church. They say nothing about filling out a volunteer sheet, just showing up on Sundays, or  having a title or specific task (like greeter, usher, snack coordinator, musician).

Instead, NT authors say things like,

  • “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal 6:2)
  • “But to each one of us a gift was given (grace is translated gift here) . . . for the work of service to the building up of the body of Christ . . .” (Eph 4:7, 12)
  • “Encourage one another day after day, as long as it is called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” (Heb 3:13)
  • “For God is not unjust so as to forget your work and the love which you have shown toward His name, in having ministered and in still ministering to the saints. And we desire each one of you (all) show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish (dull) but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:10-12)
  • “Let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.” (Heb 10:24-25)

All of these Scripture references command and encourage the believer to be actively involved in other believer’s lives. This means we need to know others and spend time with them. You can not have a friend if you never say hi to them, know where they live, or spend time with them.

God equips every believer for the purpose of working in the church to help mature other believers and thereby maturing the church. Believers are to know other believers well enough to be able to confront sinfulness, encourage, exhort, help, and serve others.

We should know others well enough to contemplate throughout the week who and how we can encourage, serve, and love others. This is not just a Sunday morning thought, but something we spend time praying and thinking about. The Bible emphasizes serving and loving others within your church. Every letter was written to a church to encourage those in the church how to live and love. The author of Hebrews connects serving the church with sanctification (6:9-12). Those who don’t serve and love others will become dull / sluggish. But those who do habitually serve and love others will grow in maturity.

The emphasis on serving is broad enough to include taking time off from work to serve at a conference, but specific enough to indicate both habitual practice and relationship oriented.  Therefore as a pastor I am thankful for those who sacrifice their time to serve at this conference. Yet I am also encouraged by those I know, who cannot take time off to serve, but show up and invest their lives in others within the local church. Their faithfulness and habitual love prove they are full-time servants!

Jason

Why “Shepherd the Sheep”?

01 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in Shepherding

≈ 2 Comments

With the pressing menial tasks passing over the pastor’s desk, there are two tasks that will never be fully accomplished with complete satisfaction. Administrative needs are not the ministry a pastor has been called to. Rather than going to the office to perform the mundane elements of operation, a pastor must go to “the study” to wrestle with deep truths of God’s Word for the sake of his soul and for his sheep (1 Tim 4:16).  Scripture provides two primary tasks for the pastor. They are the following: preach the Word and shepherd the flock of God.

As Peter writes to the multitudes scattered throughout Asia, he exhorts the elders to shepherd the sheep belonging to God (1 Pet 5:2). With the theme of suffering undergirding Peter’s writing, imagery of lush hills fill my thoughts. Plethora of tanned fur covers the horizon. Upon closer examination, mud covers the former plush white fur, rocks and shards of wood have pierced the splintered hooves, a somber look of sorrow overtakes the brow of the sheep. As they cast their gaze upon the faintly lit path, there stands the shepherd looming in the dusk of evening. Stooped over from the long journey as well, the shepherd calls out a loud call for the sheep. Residing over the final hill is a smooth, running stream. Crystal clear water flows down from the hill and faint sounds of “rest” can be heard. The shepherd cares for his vexed sheep through means of his oversight.

Nearing the final days of the life of Jesus, Peter is asked a series of questions by Jesus upon finishing their breakfast (John 21:15–19). Subsequent to his three-fold denial, no other feelings but shame and guilt would be flooding the mind of Peter. Jesus calls unto Peter, “αγαπας” (“do you love me”). Wrought with shame, Peter responds three times with, “You know φιλω (I love) you.” Each answer Peter responds with, Jesus immediately answers with “Feed my sheep” and “Shepherd my sheep.” Therefore signifying for Peter, there is a direct connection between Peter’s love for Jesus and Peter’s care for the sheep of God.


The proclaiming ministry of the Word of God is of primary importance for the shepherd (2 Tim 4:2). However, an impatient preacher of God’s Word may cause more damage than good. Therefore, the two-fold task of the Preacher is to serve as a proclaimer of God’s Word and a shepherd of God’s people. Peter describes what the shepherd’s task looks like in the oversight of people.

  1. Be compelled to shepherd in God’s manner (1 Pet 5:2b)
  2. Don’t shepherd to extort for financial gain (1 Pet 5:2c)
  3. Don’t shepherd through heavy-handed leadership (1 Pet 5:3a)
  4. Shepherd through serving as “example” to emulate (1 Pet 5:3b)
  5. Shepherd to gain reward (1 Pet 5:4)

With the plethora of blog’s and other varieties of social media flooding the Internet, there is great meaning behind forming this blog. We are group of three men who love God’s Word, love the local Church, and live to shepherd the flock of God. Moreover, there is a great desire for us to think deeply as pastors. Biblical theology, exegetical theology, systematic theology, Bible exposition, and a desire for philosophical logic greatly concern us as the pastor-theologian.

Rather than being another blog to trace the pulse of Evangelicalism, we desire to create a forum for us three pastor-theologians to continue developing in our theology and our ability to think deeply and logically but also to create a place for the local church to be encouraged in advocating Bible exposition and biblical theology.

Please enjoy as we do theology in community while maintaing a keen eye on the shepherding care of the local church.

Ken, Jason, and Shawn