Responding to Objections

As you might expect, my complementarian friends (and they are friends!) pushed back against my previous proposal with several objections. I’ve combined their responses and respond to them here.

(1) One argument was made that “bishop/elder/pastor” are merely three ways of referring to the one office of leadership in the local church. This conclusion, so it was asserted, is the fruit of biblical exegesis, not tradition or fear. But in point of fact, the Bible says no such thing. There is not a single text in Scripture (not even 1 Peter 5:1-2, to which many made an appeal) which says that “every pastor” is also a bishop or elder. It most assuredly does say that every bishop or elder is to serve as a pastor. But the reverse is simply not true. If my friends cannot point me to a text that says every pastor is an elder, I remain steadfast in my assertion that women can be pastors.

(2) I often heard it said, in response, that “pastor” is an office. But again, no biblical text has been cited to prove this. The word “pastor” is never used in the NT of an “office.” It is a spiritual gift (see Eph. 4:11; much like the prophet has the spiritual gift of prophecy, and the teacher has the spiritual gift of teaching, and the evangelist has the gift of evangelism, and the apostle has the gift of apostleship [see 1 Cor. 12:28-29]). Yes, those who hold the “office” of Elder are to fulfill their calling by pastoring God’s people. But nowhere does the NT say that a person who “pastors” God’s people (however we may end up defining the specific tasks in doing so) is necessarily also an Elder.

(3) Someone also cited Peter’s description of Jesus himself as “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25). So, yes, Jesus both shepherds God’s people and oversees them. But this in no way proves that in a local church a person with the gift of pastoring will always and invariably be an overseer. An overseer in a local church will always and invariably be responsible for pastoring or shepherding God’s people, but the reverse is being assumed, not demonstrated.

My friendly opponent contends that since Jesus shepherds the entire flock, anyone who is a shepherd in the local church has the same extensive authority and responsibility. But Jesus leads and teaches the entire church not because he’s a shepherd, but because he’s Jesus! As Jesus, Lord of all, he shepherds and leads all. But that doesn’t mean that a person in a local church cannot serve as a shepherd or have the spiritual gift of teaching unless he/she exercises authority over the entire congregation. Similarly, Elders shepherd (or pastor) the entire flock not because they have the gift of pastor, but because they are Elders!

(4) Others who responded to me cited Acts 20:28 where Paul urges all the elders in Ephesus to pastor or shepherd God’s people. They concluded from this text, along with Acts 20:17, that Luke also has all three word-groups appearing in this one chapter to refer to the one office. No! That is not what Luke does. He assuredly equates the elder with the bishop/overseer, and assuredly encourages all such elders/bishops/overseers to exercise their gifting as pastors to shepherd God’s flock. But this is not the same thing as saying that “pastor” is an office. Pastoring is a gifting that is to be exercised by those who hold the office of Elder. But nowhere does the NT assert that Elders/Bishops/Overseers are the only ones who can function as pastors.

(5) One friend pushed back against me by saying that to make “pastoring” a non-authoritative gift would strain the clear teaching of the function of a pastor in the New Testament” But what is that “clear teaching”? Where is it clearly taught that to serve as a pastor one is necessarily exercising senior governmental authority? Answer: nowhere! So please listen closely. Those who hold senior governmental authority in the church, that is to say, those who hold the office of Elder/Bishop/Overseer, must also be pastors. But to say it yet again (and yes, I know it is getting repetitive), the reverse is not true. Nowhere are we told that to serve as a “pastor” one must also be an Elder/Bishop/Overseer.

(6) This same individual contends that the pastor teaches, leads, protects, and cares for the entire flock. Again, I have to say, No. The elder/overseer/bishop teaches, leads, protects, and cares for the entire flock. But no NT text says this is what all pastors do.

Consider the analogy with teaching. All Elders must teach. But not all teachers are Elders. Someone can possess the spiritual gift of teaching and make use of it in a variety of contexts in the local church, but that does not mean that this person is therefore also an Elder.

I’m still waiting for someone to show me where all pastors must be Elders. In the absence of such a text, and given the fact that “pastor” is a spiritual gift, not an office, I see no reason why a woman cannot be given that title. As I said above, the way in which a woman can then exercise that spiritual gift without violating 1 Timothy 2:12 will be explained below. I can think of numerous ways, especially as I see some women at my church, who shepherd and care for people in our body but in no way do so in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12.

(7) Another said that my view is an argument from silence that goes like this: “The New Testament doesn’t say that women can’t be pastors, therefore they can.” The point of this pushback is that even though no text says a woman can’t be a pastor, there is good and necessary inference in the NT that provides us with more than enough information to know that a woman can’t be a pastor.

In other words, my friend argues that God has given us clear instruction about the function of a pastor and about whether a woman is permitted to exercise those functions. By good and necessary inference, so he claims, we have more than enough revelation from God’s word to know that God does not approve of women serving as pastors (whether or not one conceives of pastor as an office). According to this argument, in scripture, the primary role of the pastor is leading and teaching the entire flock. And it is these two activities that the Bible explicitly forbids to women (1 Tim. 2:12).

In response to the contention that my case is an “argument from silence” I would simply ask, if it is such an essential element in NT ecclesiology that women can’t be pastors, wouldn’t you think the NT authors would say so explicitly? The silence in this regard is deafening, and quite substantial. Let us also not forget that “the NT doesn’t say that all pastors must be men.” Yet those who take issue with my view insist that they are.

Let’s also apply this line of argumentation to other spiritual gifts. Is it not reasonable to conclude that since the NT doesn’t say that women can’t be evangelists, therefore they can? Or since the NT doesn’t say that women can’t exercise the spiritual gift of faith, therefore they can. And we could do the same with virtually all the spiritual gifts, since none of them is gender specific (with the possible exception of apostleship).

In other words, why should the NT be expected to tell us that women can be pastors, especially if it is a spiritual gift and is not inextricably identified with one gender to the exclusion of the other? So again, nowhere does the NT say that women can’t be exhorters or ones who show mercy or ones who have the gift of giving. We do not dismiss these possibilities because it is an argument from silence. We simply acknowledge that since there is nothing gender specific about faith or exhortation or evangelism or giving or showing mercy that any and all can potentially be the recipient of such gifts.

(8) The objector concedes that it is true that there is no line in scripture that exactly says, “A woman must not be a pastor” or “A woman may not have the gift of pastoring.” But he then goes on to assert that God has given us clear instruction about the function of a pastor and about whether a woman is permitted to exercise those functions.

No, in fact God has done no such thing. He has given us clear instruction about the function of an Elder or Bishop or Overseer (all of which are largely synonymous and interchangeable). All such individuals must be men, and all such men must be pastors. But no text says or suggests that all pastors must be men.

You shouldn’t be bothered by the fact that the NT doesn’t describe the functions of a pastor or provide us with specific qualifications for someone who might be so designated. The NT doesn’t do this for most spiritual gifts. We aren’t told the function of someone who has the gift of word of knowledge or the gift of giving or, for that matter, of any other spiritual gift. But this doesn’t hinder us in identifying when someone displays these charismata. I honestly don’t think it’s all that difficult to know what it means to say someone has the gift of pastor, any more than it is difficult to say that one has the gift of teaching or the gift of tongues or the gift of prophecy, etc.

(9) One individual, in an attempt to refute my position, repeatedly inserts the word “shepherd” in place of Elder to prove his point that the former always has authority over “all the flock” or the entirety of the church. He contends that “the shepherd/pastor metaphor has reference to the entire flock, not parts of it.” No, the office of Elder/Overseer has reference to the entire flock. They are to “pastor” or to “shepherd” the entire flock, but that does not necessarily mean that no one else, of either gender, can serve in a pastoral gifting to the benefit and blessing of a single individual or smaller groups within the body of Christ.

Consider a hypothetical situation at virtually any church. Most local churches have a young man who pastors the youth of their congregation. He is incredibly gifted as a pastor as he leads them, encourages them, prays for them, loves them, and tenderly cares for their spiritual welfare. But he is not an Elder (although one day he likely will become one). Should we not call him a “pastor”? Is he not the shepherd over our youth? No one in the church thinks of him as exerting authority over the entire flock simply because he is referred to as a “pastor”. The same is true of a worship pastor, as well as the pastor who leads discipleship and oversees small groups. They all fulfill the responsibilities entrusted to one who has the spiritual gift of pastor but is not yet an Elder. They both know that the extent of their authority and responsibility is limited.

(10) This same individual again asserts that “the Bible clearly reveals that the pastoral gift involves functions that are exclusive to the office of elder/overseer – namely, the functions of leading and authoritatively teaching the entire flock.” Of course, as you’ve come to expect from me, my response is that the Bible nowhere reveals anything of the sort.

I simply don’t understand how anyone can continue to make such an assertion in the absence of a biblical text that says this. Consider a church that is blessed with a lady who pastors those in her care, prays for them, encourages them, teaches them, rebukes them when needed, and always faithfully loves and guides them, yet she is not an Elder and does not, in the use of her spiritual gift, in any way violate the guidelines of 1 Timothy 2:12.

Do some pastors exercise authority over and teach the entire flock? Absolutely. Elders do. But other pastors may make use of their gifting in less comprehensive ways and without the governing authority that inheres in the office of Elder.

(11) It has also been said that my view is pastorally unwise. What the objector means is that there’s a widespread and longstanding assumption that pastors are office holders and that they do exercise authority/oversight over the whole church.

Of course, I agree with him about how “pastor” is understood in today's world. But this is part of my point that our use of the word “pastor” is more governed or shaped by traditions within the church, as in the way we use language, than it is by Scripture itself. My friends are certainly correct that we would face an uphill battle in re-educating our people, even children, in what it means to be a “pastor”. Perhaps it is a battle we could never win. But I'm still committed to doing everything I can to bring our language into conformity with Scripture rather than merely capitulating to how that language has been used.

I know one lady in particular who had been director of children's ministries for several years. She was extremely pastoral in that she encouraged, prayed for, challenged, instructed, taught, and guarded the people who served under her leadership. She knew she would never be an Elder, nor would any other female at a complementarian church. But I don't know how I can justify biblically not calling her or referring to her in accordance with the spiritual gift that we believe God has given her. Thus, she was given the title, Pastor of Children’s Ministries.

(12) The noun “Pastor”, so I’m told by those who take issue with my view, ordinarily connotes preaching and overseeing. The word “pastor” in the English-speaking world today is taken, by almost everyone who knows the word, to refer to a person with official leadership in the local church that ordinarily involves preaching and governing. Thus, “pastor” would be roughly the same as lead elders or overseers. That’s the ordinary meaning of the word in English. So, the question becomes, should a word with that ordinary meaning in English be used to refer to laypeople in the church, whether men or women, who do not have that kind of official leadership role of preaching and teaching and governing as elders and overseers? The answer given by this individual is, No.

I concede that this person is correct when he says that in the English-speaking world the word “pastor” ordinarily refers to a person with official leadership and governing authority. That is precisely why I wrote these articles, to argue that this shouldn’t be permitted, that it is inconsistent with the way the word is used in the NT. The objector’s point is not an argument against referring to women as pastors but a simple acknowledgment as to why it typically isn’t.

(13) This same individual pointed out that Greek has only one word for shepherd and pastor: poimēn. Aside from Ephesians 4:11, the English word “pastor” never occurs in the ESV. In fact, it doesn’t even appear there, as the ESV translates poimēn with the English word “shepherd.” He then argues that if I really want to recover NT language, a case could be made for calling people “shepherds” and not “pastors.” He concludes by saying that it’s highly misleading to claim that in applying the word pastor to laypeople, we are recovering New Testament usage. That’s highly misleading when the word pastor does not even occur in the ESV, and only once does it occur in other versions.

But I don’t see how this is an argument against the legitimacy of referring to some women as pastors. All that has been done is to point out the obvious, a fact that no one denies, namely, that the Greek word poimēn can be rendered either “shepherd” or “pastor” and that perhaps we should refer to local church leaders as “shepherds” rather than “pastors”. In other words, my friend has argued that the very word “pastor” itself is not the most accurate English term to translate poimēn, but that “shepherd” is more accurate. So? What does this prove? How is this an argument against applying the Greek word poimēn or the English word “shepherd” to women?

(14) Related to several points made earlier by those objecting to my argument, this person once again asserts that Elders and overseers shepherd the flock. He contends that when the apostles Peter and Paul describe church leaders as doing the work of a shepherd (with the verb poimainō, which has the same root as the noun poimēn), they were thought of not as laypeople, but as elders and overseers.

Respectfully, No, I would suggest that Peter and Paul do no such thing. They do not identify shepherding with the task of overseeing. Rather they identify overseeing as involving shepherding. Yes, all overseers are to shepherd or pastor people. But nowhere do Peter or Paul or any other NT author say that anyone who has the spiritual gift of pastoring necessarily serves as an overseer. It is one thing to say that all Elders “pastor” or “shepherd” God’s flock. It is another thing entirely to say that no one else does. All Elders are also called on to “teach” the flock, but no one would argue that teaching is the exclusive responsibility of Elders. So why is it argued that everyone who has the gift of pastoring must be an elder/overseer? Of course, one more thing that this individual has failed to do is address the argument I put forth that pastoring is a spiritual gift, not an authoritative office.

An appeal was also made to John 21:16, where Jesus says to the apostle Peter, “Shepherd my sheep.” So, not only is there no New Testament word that corresponds to pastor as distinct from shepherd, but the idea of shepherding in the New Testament was consistently associated with the leadership of elders and overseers.

Yes, it was “consistently associated with the leadership of elders and overseers” in that to be an elder one must also pastor or shepherd God’s flock. But what this person assumes and fails to demonstrate is that a person who has the spiritual gift of pastoring is always an elder. That is something the NT nowhere asserts.

Another thing Peter says is that all elders/overseers are to be “examples” to the flock. But does this mean that someone who isn’t an elder can’t serve as an “example” to God’s people? Of course not. All elders must be “one-woman” men, that is, faithful to their spouse. But non-elders also are called on to be faithful to their spouse. So my point is simple: the fact that the NT twice (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-2) exhorts elders to pastor/shepherd God’s flock does not mean that only elders pastor/shepherd God’s flock.

As I pointed out earlier, it is not at all difficult to understand how one may “pastor” or “shepherd” God’s people without holding an authoritative office. Here at my church we have more than a few women who encourage and warn and counsel and teach and exhort and pray for and lovingly rebuke other believers and provide profound and extremely wise and timely insight into situations that call for decisive action and yet they are not Elders.

They serve in areas of women’s ministry, inner healing and deliverance, lead evangelistic outreaches and often supply practical guidance to many who are facing challenging circumstances. And those are only a few of the ministry tasks into which they speak and provide leadership. And all this occurs as only called and qualified men continue to exercise authoritative governance as Elders/Overseers. As I have watched and greatly benefited from what these women do, I have no hesitation in contending that what they bring to the life of God’s people is a result of their having received the spiritual gift of pastoring.

(15) Continuing along the previous line of argumentation, this person says that the title pastor for a woman undermines the New Testament teaching on church leadership. Giving the title “pastor” to a woman is going to inevitably communicate, over time, especially to our young people growing up in the church and to people newer to the church, that the office of pastor, as almost everyone understands it in English, is properly filled by women.

My response is to say, not necessarily. It won’t undermine the NT teaching on leadership if we take the time to teach our people, especially our young people, that the NT explicitly restricts the office of elder/overseer to men. It won’t undermine the NT teaching on leadership if we labor to explain how the NT term poimēn is actually used, how that it isn’t said to be solely the responsibility of elders, that it is a spiritual gift and not an office.

In fact, it is precisely part of the responsibility of elders/overseers to take steps to ensure that our young people understand how biblical language is used, how not all elders possess every spiritual gift, how non-elders may often possess the same spiritual gifts that elders do, and that nowhere does the NT teach that only elders are gifted to pastor God’s people.

There are other NT words that need to be carefully explained to our people that otherwise might cause confusion, words like “predestination” and “election” and “fornication” and “homosexuality.” If we should discover that many of our young people are investing in these words meanings and implications that are inconsistent with Scripture, we must take steps to inform and instruct them otherwise. And that is precisely what I am advocating for in the use of the word “pastor” or “shepherd.”

I respectfully rest my case.

The evangelical world has been abuzz over whether or not it is biblical for a woman to be called a pastor. The issue is once again sparking considerable discussion on the internet and elsewhere. This is largely due to the plan of Dr. Al Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, to seek a final statement by the Convention that would prohibit any woman, in any ministry capacity, to be given the title of “pastor.” A few years ago, I wrote an article defending the notion that women may rightly be referred to as pastors. I revisit that issue in this article. As you might expect, many pushed back hard against my argument. In addition to the original post, I will respond to these objections in a subsequent article.

Let me go on record as saying that I am a Complementarian. I believe only qualified men may serve as Elders in the local church and that the responsibility to preach, teach, and apply the Scriptures to the gathered assembly of God’s people on a consistent basis is restricted to men (1 Tim. 2:11-14).

It’s important that we spend some time looking at how the NT actually makes use of the noun “pastor” or “shepherd” and the verb “to pastor.” You may be surprised by what you see.

The verb “to shepherd” or “to tend sheep” or “to rule” is poimainō. It is used 11x in the NT. It is used with reference to Jesus in Matthew 2:6; Revelation 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; and 19:15. It is found in Luke 17:7 and 1 Corinthians 9:7 in the general sense of someone who tends or shepherds sheep. Jesus exhorts Peter to “tend” or “shepherd” his sheep in John 21:16. In Jude 12 we read of false teachers who are described as “shepherds feeding themselves.”

The only texts where the verb to shepherd or to pastor is used of leaders in the local church are Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2. In the former Paul is addressing the Elders at Ephesus, and in the latter Peter is likewise giving instructions to Elders.

“Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [i.e., bishops or elders], to care for [poimainein; present, active, infinitive] the church of God, which he obtained with is own blood” (Acts 20:28).

“shepherd [poimanate; aorist active imperative] the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you” (1 Peter 5:2).

Clearly, these two texts where the verb is used indicate that an essential role or ministry of the Elders in a local church is to shepherd or to pastor the people of God. Thus, it stands to reason that all Elders must, in some sense, be pastors. But nothing in the way this verb is used should lead us to believe that all pastors must be Elders. No text asserts the latter.

The noun poimēn (“pastor” / “shepherd”) is found 18x in the NT. Jesus saw that the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). The word is used in a similar way in Matthew 25:32; 26:31; Mark 6:34; 14:27; John 10:2. In Luke 2:8 we read of the “shepherds” “keeping watch over their flock by night” (likewise in Luke 2:15, 18, 20).

Jesus refers to himself as “the good shepherd” (twice in John 10:11). The word is used in similar fashion in John 10:12, 14, 16. In Hebrews 13:20, Jesus is described as “the great shepherd of the sheep” and in 1 Peter 2:25 he is called “the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.”

There is only one text where the noun “shepherd” or “pastor” is used of leaders in the local church.

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds [poimenas; masculine, accusative, plural] and teachers” (Eph. 4:11).

In this latter text, Paul is identifying several representative gifts that Christ has given to the church. We know that prophets are those with the gift of prophecy and that evangelists are those with the gift of evangelism and that teachers are those with the gift of teaching. Whether or not apostleship is a spiritual gift or office (in some sense of the term) is a debatable question. It would seem, then, that we should conclude that pastors are those with the gift of pastoring.

Contrary to what many in the charismatic world believe, there is nothing in this text that would lead us to conclude that Paul is identifying five specific offices or governmental positions. One often hears of the so-called “five-fold ministry” in Ephesians 4:11. But everywhere else where Paul lists spiritual gifts (such as prophecy, teaching, evangelism, etc.) he simply mentions certain representative gifts. He could just as easily here in Ephesians 4:11 have mentioned mercy instead of teaching, or tongues instead of prophecy, or helps instead of evangelism. These five nouns refer to people who were blessed with a particular gift, not a position of authority in the local church. Of course, apostles are of a different order and did exercise authority over churches.

Some insist that the nouns “pastor” and “teacher” are one gift or refer to one person, and thus translate it “pastor-teacher.” The argument from the Greek text is that each of the first four nouns has the definite article (“the”) preceding it, but the definite article is absent from “teachers.” Some insist that when two singular nouns, connected by kai (“and”) have only one definite article, we are to understand them as closely related or in some sense overlapping in meaning (this is the so-called Granville-Sharp Rule). Other Greek scholars disagree, and point out that this rule does not apply when the nouns are plural, as they are here in Ephesians 4:11. There appears to be no consensus. Some also take the kai as explicative or appositional and translate it to mean, “that is,” hence “pastors, that is, teachers” (in this way identifying the two).

Dan Wallace, the premier evangelical Greek grammarian, believes that in a construction of this sort the first noun is a subset of the second. In other words, “all pastors are to be teachers, though not all teachers are to be pastors” (Greek Grammar, 284). That certainly makes sense, as it is difficult to see how a person can pastor or spiritually shepherd people if he/she cannot teach. But a teacher need not be someone who shepherds or pastors. But perhaps we’re drawing too fine of a distinction here between the two gifts. I suppose it is possible that someone might have the gift of pastoring and not be gifted to teach. Nothing in the NT precludes this possibility (unless Wallace’s suggestion above is unequivocal).

In any case, even if we take Paul as referring to only four gifts, “pastor-teacher” would still be a gift, not an office or position of governing authority. It is certainly the case that a “pastor” or “pastor-teacher” may also be appointed to the office of Elder or Overseer, but nothing requires us to believe that all “pastors” or all “pastor-teachers” are necessarily Elders.

Why, then, do most evangelical churches use the word “Pastor” to refer to an authoritative office, most often equated with that of an Elder? I identify two reasons.

First, tradition! We have become accustomed to speaking of pastor and Elder in this way and it is difficult for many to break from the habit of doing so. It would call for considerable humility in acknowledging that we were wrong and that we have not accurately interpreted the NT on this point. It would also require that denominations and local churches make changes in their long-standing and cherished doctrinal statements, something they are strongly disinclined to do.

Consider, as one example, the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) that serves as the doctrinal standard for the Southern Baptist Convention. In Article VI we read this:

“While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”

In point of fact, as we have seen, this statement is false. They should have said, “the office of Elder is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” But many (most?) SBC churches do not have a plurality of Elders. The Senior Pastor often is recognized as “the Elder” of the local church, with Deacons serving in a slightly lower authoritative role.

The point being that most evangelicals think of “pastor” as an office that carries governing authority and the responsibility to preach and teach and apply the Word of God to the conscience of God’s people on a regular (weekly?) basis. Whereas this may often be the case, in that one man who holds the office of Elder may also be designated as the Senior or Lead Pastor, nothing in the NT suggests, far less requires, that anyone who has the spiritual gift of pastoring will be an Elder or will serve as the primary expositor of Scripture.

There are several reasons why a person may well have the gift of pastoring but not serve as an Elder. It may be that the individual is too young. Although the NT nowhere gives us a specific age requirement for serving as an Elder, it may be that a person does not have sufficient experience in church leadership because of their comparatively young age. But that doesn’t mean they don’t or can’t have the spiritual gift of pastoring and be referred to as a “pastor”. There may well be other qualifications of an Elder (see 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1) that such a person does not yet possess. But this need not be a determining factor as to whether or not they should be referred to as a pastor.

Second, fear! I sense that another reason why many continue to affirm that “pastor” is an authoritative office and that all pastors are also Elders is the fear that to predicate this noun of a woman will launch us down a slippery slope into full-scale egalitarianism. Many complementarians are afraid of the answer to this question: “If a woman can be a pastor, why can’t she be an Elder?” The simple answer is two-fold. First, as we’ve already noted, “pastoring” is a spiritual gift that may be found in numerous individuals of both genders who do not yet (or never will), for a variety of reason, qualify as Elders. Second, I believe 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 restrict the office of Elder to qualified males.

Thus, I am persuaded that the NT makes room for recognizing women as pastors, or even pastor-teachers. Of course, yet another task is determining in what contexts, how often, and to whom a woman might exercise the spiritual gift of teaching. Mary Kassian has written on this at www.desiringgod.org in an article titled, “Where Can Women Teach? Eight Principles for Christian Churches” (October 26, 2019). But that need not detain us here.

My conclusion from the use of the relevant terminology in the NT is that a woman may well be given the spiritual gift of pastoring and thus bear that title, just as one with the gift of teaching may be called a teacher and one with the gift of prophecy may be called a prophet or one with the gift of evangelism may be called an evangelist, etc.

In sum, there is no indication in the NT that the spiritual gift of pastoring, unlike the office of Elder, is gender specific. The Holy Spirit may well grant this gift to both men and women. Therefore, I believe that one may continue to embrace a biblically based complementarianism while speaking of certain women as “pastors” in the local church.

In the next article I will respond to the objections that have been raised against this view.

Arminians insist that an individual is chosen for salvation because and only after he puts himself in Christ by an act of free will. God foreknows that we will fulfill the condition, as a result of which we are put “in Christ,” and on that basis he elects us. Other Arminians insist that it is not so much individuals who are elect, but Christ himself, or perhaps the Church. Thus, they insist that it is only because we are in Christ (by free will, of course), who is himself the one true elect person, that we as individuals may be said to be elect ourselves.

It must be admitted that the clause “in Christ” is ambiguous. By itself, it says neither that we are elect because we are in Christ nor that we are elect in order that we shall be in Christ. What are the options according to Calvinist interpreters?

• Contrary to what some Calvinists would say, it is unlikely that Paul means we were chosen “to be” in Christ, insofar as the latter part of the verse declares that we were chosen “to be” holy and blameless.

• Even less can it mean that we were chosen because we, before our election, put ourselves in Christ by free will. This is reading into the passage what is conspicuous by its absence. Besides, the ground of our election is said to be God’s good pleasure, not ours.

• Others suggest Paul means that Christ is the foundation of election, or perhaps the sphere of election. But what do those terms mean? What is their theological significance?

• Maybe Paul means that it is “in union with Christ” that we are chosen. I have no problem with that, but the question remains, how did we come to be “in union” with Christ: by free will or by free grace or by some other avenue? Did our union with Christ precede or follow our election? Was it the cause or the consequence of election? Or is our union with Christ simultaneous with our election, perhaps even synonymous with it? In other words, simply saying that God chose us “in union with Christ” does not tell us how or when that “union” came about, or whether it has anything to do with the basis for our being chosen.

• Perhaps “in Christ” simply means “through Christ,” or, to say it negatively, “not apart from Christ.” Charles Hodge opts for this view and explains it this way:

“It was in Christ as their head and representative [that] they were chosen to holiness and eternal life, and therefore in virtue of what he was to do in their behalf. There is a federal union with Christ which is antecedent to all actual union, and is the source of it. God gave a people to his Son in the covenant of redemption. Those included in that covenant, and because they are included in it – in other words, because they are in Christ as their head and representative – receive in time the gift of the Holy Spirit and all other benefits of redemption. . . It is, therefore, in Christ, i.e., as united to him in the covenant of redemption, that the people of God are elected to eternal life and to all the blessings therewith connected” (Commentary on Ephesians, 31).

In summary, when God elected a people from the fallen mass of humanity, he never intended to save them apart from his Son but only by means of what his Son, the Lord Jesus, would accomplish in his redemptive work. Jesus is therefore the means by which God’s electing purpose is put into effect as well as the goal of that election, inasmuch as it is God’s purpose through election to sum up all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10).

Paul says much the same thing in 2 Timothy 1:9. There we are told that God saved us and “called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.” Again, we read much the same in 1 Corinthians 1:4-5 – “I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and knowledge.” If we are given anything in grace it is by virtue of who Jesus is and what he has done and will do, not by virtue of who we are or what we have done or will do. Therefore, we are elect “in Christ,” not “in ourselves.” It is because of God’s love for his Son and his desire that his Son have a people through whom he might be glorified and honored that God chose us. Therefore, we are chosen “in Christ” in the sense that this Son to whom the Father has given us is he through whom this election to life is made ours in experience. His sinless life, atoning death, and glorious resurrection were the means through which God’s electing purpose was put into effect.

4. We have been blessed with God’s “glorious grace . . . in the Beloved” (i.e., in Christ) (Eph. 1:6b).

 5. “Redemption” from sin is found only “in him [Christ]” (Eph. 1:7).

 6. God’s purpose is to “unite all things in him” (Eph. 1:9-10).

 As Best says, “believers, foreordained and already possessing their deliverance, are now told about the secret of the ultimate destiny of the cosmos” (133). The mystery “which has been disclosed to believers in accordance with God’s purpose for history is his summing up of all things in Christ” (Lincoln, 32). The verb translated “summing up” or “unite” (ESV; anakephalaiōsasthai) means either “to renew, arrange under one head, reduce to one sum,” or “to reunify,” re-establish harmony where discord and chaos and division once existed (cf. Col. 1:19-20). The idea is that the discordant and disintegrating elements in the creative realm will be renewed and unified under the Lordship of Jesus. Everything will be brought into submission to his will and subservience to his glory.

Note the word “plan” (v. 10a; oikonomia). This refers either to (1) the act of administering; or (2) that which is administered, an arrangement or plan; or (2) special duty or assigned task within a household; i.e., a person’s stewardship. (1) is probably most accurate. That which is being administered by God is the fullness of the times. God will, in fact, orchestrate and administer the events and direction and course of history to bring about his ultimate purpose, but only “in Christ”. What he wants to happen will happen when it is the right time for it to happen, culminating in the achievement of God’s purpose. As F. F. Bruce put it, when the time is ripe for “the consummation of his purpose, in his providential overruling of the course of the world, that consummation will be realized” (262).

The “all things” which require summing up “in him” include:

• the inanimate creation (Rom. 8:18-23; 2 Peter 3:13); consider the hostility between the animal world and humanity; also the terrors of natural phenomena such as tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, etc.

• the elect (soteriological reconciliation)

• the unfallen angelic host (their ministry to us brings them into contact with the sin and evil of this world)

• the fallen demonic host and the unsaved, non-elect (Eph. 6:12; see esp. 1 Cor. 15:24-25).

So-called “reconciliation” or “reunification” or “uniting” of the fallen, unsaved world of sentient beings entails their non-salvific subjugation and conquest. Christ’s work was to create peace and harmony, to restore what was lost and corrupted by Adam. He does so in one of two ways: (1) by removal of hostility and corruption through redemptive and forgiving grace; and (2) by pacification through power (i.e., conquest).

Herman Bavinck:

“Round about us we observe so many facts which seem to be unreasonable, so much undeserved suffering [such as child abuse], so many unaccountable calamities, such an uneven and inexplicable distribution of destiny, and such an enormous contrast between the extremes of joy and sorrow, that anyone reflecting on these things is forced to choose between viewing this universe as if it were governed by the blind will of an unbenign deity, as is done by pessimism, or, upon the basis of Scripture and by faith, to rest in the absolute and sovereign, yet – however incomprehensible – wise and holy will of him who will one day cause the full light of heaven to dawn upon these mysteries of life” (quoted by Hendriksen, 87).

To be continued . . .

Such is the broad swath of spiritual truths that are ours in Christ Jesus. So now, we turn our attention to unpack in greater detail the testimony of Paul in Ephesians concerning our union with Christ.

1. Christians are simultaneously both “in” a particular city and “in” Christ Jesus. “To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 1:1)

“To speak of Paul’s sense of ‘geography’ is an attempt to describe the ‘place’ where he thought Christians live. In Paul’s mind, just as these Christians live literally in the region near Ephesus, they also live in Christ. The terrain, climate, values, and history in which people grow up and live help to define who they are. As really as this region near Ephesus defines who they are, Christ defines who believers really are. He is the ‘sphere of influence’ or ‘power field’ in which they live and from which they benefit and are transformed. That is, his Spirit, values, character, history, and purposes shape their lives. People can live in other spheres (cf. 2:1-3), but Christians live in Christ. Jesus Christ must never be depersonalized by such language, but we will not understand Paul unless we learn to think of life as lived in Christ” (Klyne Snodgrass, Ephesians, NIV Application Commentary, 40).

Thus, there are two levels of experience for the believer, two kingdoms of which he/she is a citizen, two perspectives from which we may view life. For us today, we are in/at whatever city is your home. In a real sense, that is where we are. But it cannot and must not ever exhaust what we are. We are more than citizens of an earthly city or state or country. Bishop Handley Moule wrote the following of the same statement in Colossians 1. I have taken the liberty of replacing “Colossae” with “Ephesus”:

“They moved about Ephesus ‘in Christ.’ They worked, served, kept the house, followed the business, met the neighbors, entered into their sorrows and joys, . . . suffered their abuse and insults when such things came – all ‘in Christ.’ They carried about with them a private atmosphere, which was not of Asia but of heaven. To them Christ was the inner home, the dear invisible but real resting place. . . And what a rich gain for poor Ephesus, that they, being in Him, were in it” (28).

This concept of being “in” Christ Jesus has immense practical implications. No matter where you are geographically and physically, what you are spiritually will never change. You may be at work, at play, overseas, under the weather, out of money, but you are always and unchangeably in Christ! You may be down in the dumps, over the hill, or beside yourself, but you are always and unchangeably in Christ! You may be at paradise or in prison, at the movies or in Texas, but you are always and unchangeably in Christ! Your geographical, earthly, physical location has no effect on your spiritual identity.

But the reverse is different. It is precisely because you are in Christ that wherever you live and work and play, you make an impact, you carry an influence, you make a difference. Your spiritual identity as one in Christ must control and characterize how you live, wherever you live. And remember: it is in Texas or Oklahoma or New York that you are in Christ. They are true simultaneously. You do not live in Christ only while you are at church or in class or in a home group, then to return to being simply in Dallas or OKC, when you leave that more “holy” atmosphere. Your “in-Christ-ness” is not simply a heavenly reality that obtains only somewhere up there. You are “in Christ” even when you are “in sin”!

2. We are recipients of every spiritual blessing only if we are “in Christ” (Eph. 1:3).

Numerous suggestions have been made about the meaning of being “in” Christ in this text.

 Some say it is a concept carried over from the mystery religions of Paul’s day and refers to sacramental initiation and absorption into divinity, resulting in some sort of mystic identity, ecstatic experience; etc.

 Many contend for what can only be called a literal or local sense: the risen Christ is something of an ethereal, omnipresent spirit; as air is in us and we in it, so Christ is “in” us and we “in” him, in a somewhat quasi-physical sense (cf. Acts 17:28 – “in him we live, and move, and have our being”).

 Often this phrase has an instrumental sense and might be translated “through” Christ or “by means of” Christ, or even “because of” Christ.

 It may be that “in Christ” is simply a metaphor of personal communion with Christ via the indwelling Holy Spirit; an undefinable, mystical oneness or spiritual fellowship with the Lord.

 On occasion the phrase is used adjectivally and is simply synonymous with the word “believer” or “Christian” (see 2 Cor. 12:2).

 In some texts the phrase qualifies or limits an action, as in Eph. 6:1 where children are commanded to obey their parents “in the Lord”.

 Many argue for a corporate or covenant identification with Christ. What is true of him is true of us. As we were once “in Adam” in that he represented us, and what he did, we were reckoned to have done, so now we are “in Christ”. He represents us. What was said of Christ can now be said of believers.

 Snodgrass combines several of the ideas in the above list and says that “Christ is the ‘place’ where believers reside, the source in which they find God’s salvation and blessings, and the framework in which they live and work. . . . [However], just as Christ’s personhood is not lost, neither is the believer’s individuality lost. This is not some eastern religious thought of absorption into the deity. Rather, Christ and the believer are bound into a unity in which Christ sets the parameters for life and makes available God’s provisions for life” (47-8).

To be continued . . .

• Ø Our union with Christ does not mean that we are invulnerable to the attack of Satan.
• Ø It does not mean that unbelievers cannot persecute and even kill us.
• Ø Union with Christ does not guarantee a life free from confusion, frustration, and pain.
• Ø Union with Christ does not mean we are guaranteed health and wealth.
• Ø Union with Christ does not lead to sinless perfection in this life.

However, because of our union with Christ we can rest assured that no attack of the enemy, no physical disease or spiritual failure, no sin that we commit, nor anything else in the wide range of human experience can separate us from the Lord in whom we live, and breathe, and have our being.

In addition:

• Ø It is not a merging of the Son of God with the children of God, such that before the union there were two and after there is only one.
• Ø It is not the absorption of the children of God into the Son of God.
• Ø It is not the loss of our individuality or distinctive identity as children of God.
• Ø It is not the loss of Christ’s distinctive identity as the Lord and Savior of believers.
• Ø Although we are “one” with Christ, we are still distinct created entities. In other words, there is no mixture of natures (ours with his).
• Ø Union with Christ is not deification, as if we in some sense cease to be human and become God. We remain finite creatures, and he remains infinite creator.
• Ø Although we become “like” Christ, we are not “Christ.”
• Ø Union with Christ does not necessarily entail a subjective, emotional reaction or feeling, though it may.
• Ø Union with Christ is mystical in nature, but not so as to blur the distinction between Creator and creature.
• Ø Union with Christ is not primarily “moral” in nature, as if it consists solely, or even primarily, in a transformation of our behavior to be “like” Christ.
• Ø Union with Christ does not entail a transformation in the character and personality of Christ, but does mean that we experience a progressive change from one stage of glory to another.
• Ø Although the moral and spiritual qualities of Christ are infused into us by virtue of our union with him, our moral failures and faults are not infused into him. However, the latter are “imputed” or “reckoned” to him on the cross.

Richard Gaffin summarizes well:

“This union is so central, so pivotal, that without it the saving work of Christ, the once-for-all redemption he has accomplished, ‘remains useless and of no value.’ Union is the all-or-nothing reality on which everything depends in the application of salvation. I must have Christ or I have nothing – that underlies and gives rise to everything else. Without union, the benefits that flow from it are otherwise nonexistent or irrelevant.

This union, further, is not partial union, as if one can share in some benefits without others. Unless I share in all of his benefits, I share in none of them. If I do not have the whole Christ, I have no Christ. Or, as Calvin puts it memorably elsewhere, Christ ‘cannot be divided into pieces.’” (“The Work of Christ Applied,” in Christian Dogmatics, edited by Michael Allen and Scott R. Swain, [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016], 284-85).

To be continued . . .

 Paul says it clearly:

“But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness” (Rom. 8:10).

“To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27).

“I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20a).

This raises the question of whether this mutual indwelling is only metaphorical or in some sense literal or spatial. It would appear that the sense in which we are “in” Christ is not the same as Christ being present “in” us. We are “in” Christ according to the will, purpose, and intent of the Father. He reckons or considers us as inseparable from his Son (we are identified with and incorporated in Christ). Our “union” or oneness with Christ, therefore, at least in terms of our experience, is not spatial. It is spiritual. By that I mean that, as far as the Father is concerned, whatever may be found in Christ or whatever he may have achieved for sinners like you and me, is ours.

But neither I nor any of you are spatially present “in” Jesus. Our union with him is an expression of the promise God has made to all who believe. We are all present on earth while he is present at the right hand of the Father. But he, on the other hand, is both spatially and spiritually “in” us. Wherever we go, whatever we do, we can know with certainty that the risen Christ abides within us. I do not mean that his resurrected and glorified body is “in” each of our bodies. But he is most assuredly spiritually present, much as he would be in the elements of the Eucharist (as the Reformed conceive it, as over against both the Zwinglian or symbolic understanding of the Eucharist and the Roman Catholic view).

Consider Paul’s prayer in Ephesians 3:14-21. He asks that we would be strengthened with power through the Holy Spirit “so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” (v. 17). His “dwelling” in us is quite real, perhaps even tangible. That is, there is every reason to believe that we have the capacity, through the Spirit, to “feel” and “sense” the indwelling Christ in our hearts. Even if we don’t, we may rest assured that the spiritually omnipresent Son of God abides within us. It is more than simply that truths about Christ live within us, or that he exerts a powerful influence within and through us. He himself lives within us! While his glorified body is in heaven, and will remain there until he returns at the end of the age, his “being” as God cannot be restricted or confined within that body.

This is similar to what came to be known as the Extra Calvinisticum. During the time of the Protestant Reformation the Lutherans had contended that the whole Logos was present in Jesus, thus demanding the communication of the divine attribute of omnipresence to the humanity (and hence the latter’s ubiquity). They needed to affirm this to justify their belief that the physical body of the risen Christ was present in/around/under/with the elements of the Eucharist.

Calvin and the reformed tradition held to a much stronger distinction between the infinite and finite (finitum non est capax infiniti) and thus concluded that the Logos, truly present in Jesus’ manhood, is nonetheless existent outside it (totus extra carnem as well as totus in carne), governing the world simultaneously from a different center of life and consciousness, so to speak, from that at which he dwelt incarnate in Jesus. Said Calvin: “Although the boundless essence of the Word was united with human nature into one person, we have no idea of any enclosing. The Son of God descended miraculously from heaven, yet without abandoning heaven; was pleased to be conceived miraculously in the Virgin’s womb, to live on the earth, and hang upon the cross, and yet always filled the world as from the beginning” (Institutes, II, 13ff.).

Does this union mean that I am everywhere Christ is? Yes, but only spiritually, in accord with the mind and will of God. On the other hand, it is true that Christ is everywhere I am. That is to say, Christ Jesus is truly in us both spiritually and spatially wherever we may be and whatever we may be doing.

To be continued . . .

I’ve read numerous accounts of people giving their opinion on what could possibly be his motivation for doing so. They may all be right. I pass no judgment on them. Some have insisted that he is stirred by greed. Bickle, so some say, needs the money that a return to public ministry would generate. Others argue that Bickle is a narcissist and simply can’t stand the idea of remaining hidden and uninvolved. His former brother-in-law, Bob Scott, has written a book titled, Some Said They Blundered, in which he suggests that behind virtually everything Bickle does is his fear of being ordinary. I suspect there is some measure of truth in this. Scott contends that Bickle feels compelled to be at the center of what God is doing in the earth and that his role is indispensable to the accomplishment of the end-time purposes of God.

Still others build upon Scott’s analysis and argue that Bickle suffers from some version of megalomania (defined as “a delusional mental illness that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur”). He is a man, so they say, with an insatiable ego that demands attention. I am not a psychologist and would never pretend that I can understand the inner heart intention of anyone, other than my own.

Perhaps, before going further, I should make it clear that I do not believe Bickle should ever be restored to public ministry. I have made this clear in numerous other blog posts and articles and interviews on countless podcasts. I do not say that from an elevated position of “he’s not as godly as I am.” I fully realize that there, but for the grace of God, go I. I have not committed sexual immorality or financial fraud that would warrant my removal from ministry, and I can only and always attribute that to the sustaining presence in my life of God’s marvelous grace. Can Bickle be restored to a relationship of intimacy and forgiveness with the Lord himself? Absolutely yes. Can he be restored to a relationship with other Christians and with whatever local church he attends? Absolutely, yes.

But in Bickle’s case, all trust has been shattered. He cannot be described as the “husband of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:2), by which I take Paul to mean that a leader cannot be flirtatious or emotionally or sexually involved with another woman. He is not, at least currently, “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2) and he is not “well thought of by outsiders” (1 Tim. 3:7). In light of his actions over the course of some 45 years, he does not give evidence of being “self-controlled” (1 Tim. 3:2). Paul adds to this in Titus 1:8 that a man who aspires to ministry leadership must also be “upright, holy, and disciplined.”

You may choose to believe this or not, but my heart breaks when I think of how my once good friend has failed in these areas of life and holiness. Once again, let me emphasize that if we were to see genuine, Spirit-prompted, humble repentance for his sinful deeds and expressions to his victims of heart-felt confession and the asking of forgiveness, Bickle’s restoration to the church and the Lord Jesus Christ, would be in order.

So, if he appears to be unqualified for public ministry in the local church, why does he now plan on his return? My knowledge of Bickle, whom I first met in 1991, and my study of the so-called “prophetic history” of his church in Kansas City and IHOPKC (about which you can read in detail in my book, The Rise and Fall of the Kansas City Prophets, Cascade Publishers), suggest to me a much simpler explanation.

It comes down to this. Mike Bickle believes in the prophetic history and his central role in it. By the “prophetic history” I have specifically (but not exclusively) in mind the words of Bob Jones. I can’t cite in this brief article the numerous “allegedly” prophetic words that Jones delivered (for this, see my book). But I do know that virtually all of them consist of his insistence that Bickle would be the focus of God’s supernatural activity and especially the supposed end-time revival that he believes is yet to come. And it wasn’t simply the prophecies themselves on which Bickle bases his belief about the future, but the variety of ways in which Bickle believes they were confirmed in dreams, visions, weather events, prophetic words, and other allegedly supernatural scenarios that came from individuals not necessarily connected to the church in Kansas City.

I may be entirely mistaken in my interpretation of what is motivating him. Perhaps close friends and family members are urging him to make a comeback. Maybe the more psychologically rooted explanations of Bob Scott are true, or perhaps all of these factors in combination have served to convince him that now is the time.

I do believe there is one additional factor that is not unrelated to what I’ve already said. Bickle believes that when he sins all that is required of him is heartfelt and sincere confession to God who instantly and graciously forgives him. He has given no indication that he is burdened by a responsibility to go to those whom he has harmed, confess and repent to them, and ask for their forgiveness. He also is persuaded that no sin he has committed can derail or undermine the purposes that God has for his life and ministry. There is no way he can dismiss or deny his past sexual misconduct. But he is equally persuaded that nothing he has done or said can thwart God’s prophesied plans for him in the final days before Christ returns. As far as he is concerned, the prophetic utterances of Augustine Alcala, Bob Jones, Paul Cain, and others are beyond question and remain the foundation for his life now and his expectations for the future.

You may also be wondering why people are still drawn to him and supportive of his restoration. The fact is, Mike Bickle is one of the more winsome and charismatic personalities that I have ever known. Within five minutes of meeting him, he will convince you that you are destined to be his best friend. That is not an overstatement. He is an articulate and passionate preacher, and in spite of the fact that he only has one year of college education under his belt, he is quite brilliant. Simply put, until you hear about his misconduct, he is very difficult to dislike.

Should we pray for Bickle’s genuine repentance? Yes. Should we urge him to meet with the women he abused? Yes. Should we plead with him to apologize to the thousands of young people who have walked away from Christ and the church because of his actions? Yes. Should we support and endorse his return to public ministry? No.

To put it bluntly, the saving work of Jesus Christ is of no benefit to us unless and until we are in union with him through the powerful work of the Holy Spirit. If this is true (and it is), why has there been so little said of our union with Christ, at least in comparison with our focus on other themes such as atonement, justification, regeneration, redemption, glorification, etc.? Given the number of times our union with Christ is mentioned in the NT, one would think it would be more of a central theme in our preaching and daily walk with the Savior. The phrase, en Christō, “in Christ”, occurs 83 times in the writings of Paul alone. The broader terminology of “union with Christ” (such as “in him,” “in whom,” etc.) occurs more than 200 times, again, in the writings of Paul alone.

Why, then, is our union with Christ not the central focus that it should be? Among the many reasons we could cite, perhaps the most influential is that evangelical Protestants are more at home in conceiving of salvation in purely legal or forensic terms. The latter is certainly important: justification by faith being the prime example. But even justification is inconceivable apart from our union with Jesus. Packer explains:

"God declares [believers] to be righteous, because he reckons them to be righteous; and he reckons righteousness to them, not because he accounts them to have kept the law personally (which would be a false judgment), but because he accounts them to be united to the one who kept it representatively (and that is a true judgment). For Paul union with Christ is not fancy but fact – the basic fact, indeed, in Christianity; and the doctrine of imputed righteousness is simply Paul’s exposition of the forensic aspect of it” (“Justification,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Baker], 596).

Related to this is the evangelical aversion to what is experiential, mystical, and subjective. Marcus Johnson explains:

“[T]he relative absence of a robust understanding of our participation in Christ may be explained by a particularly modern reticence to embrace mystery at the heart of our faith confession. This hesitation is evidence of Protestant theology’s dangerous liaison with rationalism. To many evangelical ears, ‘union with Christ’ terminology and imagery sound ‘mystical,’ and we prefer to cede mystical concepts and categories to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologies. . . [M]odern evangelicals often seem more prepared to embrace doctrines apparently amenable to logical, rational systematization than to embrace the mysteries of our faith in a state of wonder and confession” (One with Christ: An Evangelical Theology of Salvation, 27).

As we shall see, “God has joined himself to us through Jesus Christ in order to save us” (Marcus Johnson, Ibid., 37). This means that there never was a time when God did not regard us as united with his Son, nor will there ever be a time when that union ends. This leads to the stunning conclusion that whatever Jesus did for us as our representative, the Father counted it as something we ourselves have done. This is why Paul could declare that the guilt of our sins was reckoned to be his (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus, when Jesus Christ died, we died in him. We were “crucified with him” (Rom. 6:6; Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:14). It stands to reason, then, that having died with/in him we were also buried with him (Col. 2:12) in baptism and raised up “with him” and “seated . . . with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:6). It is nothing short of staggering that what Jesus experienced in saving us can be attributed no less to us because of the union between us and him that was decreed by the Father and brought into reality by the Spirit when he awakened faith in our hearts.

But it doesn’t stop with the initial moment of faith and conversion. Because of our union with Christ in his life, death, resurrection, and exaltation, we can respond to the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, as if “dead” (Rom. 7:6). We are truly “alive” to God and empowered to live a new and utterly marvelous life (Rom. 6:11). Paul sums it up well when he declares that we have become a “new creation” in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

Not only eternal life, but life in the present moment is possible only because we are “in” Christ Jesus (1 John 5:11; 2 Tim. 1:1). All that we need to live lives that honor and glorify God is “in Christ.” This includes faith and love (1 Tim. 1:14; 2 Tim. 1:13), grace (2 Tim. 2:1), salvation (2 Tim. 2:10), and “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). Paul sums it up well when he says that we “are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). Indeed, God has “blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph. 1:3). To be cut off from Christ is to be severed from any and all such blessings. The testimony of Scripture is clear that there is only one avenue, one means, one way in which a person can lay hold of the multitude of blessings that God in grace has chosen to give: it is by union with Jesus!

In many texts, the language of “in Christ” points more directly to the idea of source. We find all we need for life here and in the hereafter in who Christ is and what he does. But knowing what is the source of all such blessings is of no benefit to us unless we ourselves are united to/with Christ. Such blessings become ours because Christ is ours and we are his.

Grudem goes so far as to say that “every stage of the application of redemption is given to us because we are ‘in Christ’” (1034). We are “called” in Christ (1 Cor. 7:22), born again or regenerated (what Paul refers to as being “created in Christ Jesus,” Eph. 2:10), “justified” (Phil. 3:9), set free from the condemnation that we otherwise would deserve (“there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1), and ultimately “glorified with him” (Rom. 8:17) on the final day. This means that to be outside of Christ or not in union with him exposes an individual to every curse and punishment of the law. If every positive and glorious blessing is found only in Christ, every negative and grievous tragedy is for those outside of Christ. Paul summed it up well when he said, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come” (2 Cor. 5:17). Simply put, “union with Christ is an inclusive term for the whole of salvation; the various other doctrines are simply subparts” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3:948).

Says Grudem, “every action in our lives can be done ‘in Christ,’ if it is done in the power of his kingdom and in a way that brings honor to him” (1035). For example,

Ø Paul speaks the truth “in Christ” (Rom. 9:1)

Ø Reminds his readers of his ways “in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17)

Ø Hopes “in the Lord Jesus” (Phil. 2:19)

Ø Rejoices “in the Lord” (Phil. 4:10)

Ø Reminds children to obey their parents “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1)

Ø Tells wives to submit to their husbands “in the Lord” (Col. 3:18)

Ø Exhorts us all to be “strong in the Lord” (Eph. 6:10)

Ø Exhorts us to be “encouraged in the Lord” (Phil. 2:1)

Ø To agree with one another “in the Lord” (Phil. 4:2)

Ø To stand firm “in the Lord” (Phil. 4:1)

Ø To live a godly life “in the Lord” (2 Tim. 3:12)

Ø To “work hard” (Rom. 16:12), be “confident” (Phil. 1:14) and stand “approved” (Rom. 16:10).

To be continued . . .

The film is based on the relationship between Whitefield and Benjamin Franklin. But it is the zeal and commitment of Whitefield to the gospel of Jesus Christ that is at the heart of the movie. Virtually every sermon contained a passionate appeal to all present based on the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “You must be born again.” Here is a portion of one sermon that illustrates quite vividly the heart of Whitefield for lost souls.

“Come, ye dead, Christless, unconverted sinners, come and see the place where they laid the body of the deceased Lazarus; behold him laid out, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, locked up and stinking in a dark cave, with a great stone placed on the top of it. View him again and again; go nearer to him; be not afraid; smell him. Ah! How he stinketh. Stop there now, pause a while; and whilst thou art gazing upon the corpse of Lazarus, give me leave to tell thee with great plainness, but greater love, that this dead, bound entombed, stinking carcase, is but a faint representation of thy poor soul in its natural state: for, whether thou believest or not, thy spirit which thou bearest about with thee, sepulchered in flesh and blood, is as literally dead to God, and as truly dead in trespasses and sins, as the body of Lazarus was in the cave. Was he bound hand and foot with grave-clothes? So art thou bound hand and foot with thy corruptions: and as a stone was laid on the sepulchre, so is there a stone of unbelief upon thy stupid heart. Perhaps thou hast lain in this state, not only four days, but many years, stinking in God’s nostrils. And, what is still more effecting thou art as unable to raise thyself out of this loathsome, dead state, to a life of righteousness and true holiness, as ever Lazarus was to raise himself from the cave in which he lay so long. Thou mayest try the power of thy own boasted free-will, and the force and energy of moral persuasion and rational arguments (which, without all doubt, have their proper place in religion); but all thy efforts, exerted with never so much vigour, will prove quite fruitless and abortive, till that same Jesus, who said ‘Take away the stone’; and cried, ‘Lazarus, come forth’ also quicken you” (Quoted by John H. Gerstner in A Predestination Primer (Winona Lake, Ind.: Alpha, 1979), p. 20.

The second wave of the Holy Spirit’s work, known to history as The First Great Awakening, can generally be dated 1740-42. Historians have typically traced the revival’s beginning to Whitefield’s visit to America of George Whitefield. He was rightly called “The Grand Itinerant.” Whitefield arrived in the fall of 1740 and “set all New England aflame with a revival compared to which the Valley awakening of 1734-35 was but a brush fire” (C. C. Goen, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Jonathan Edwards, The Great Awakening [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 48).

After preaching to thousands all along the Atlantic coast, Whitefield arrived in Jonathan Edwards' Northampton in mid-October. After one Sunday morning sermon in Edwards' church, Whitefield wrote in his diary that “Good Mr. Edwards wept during the whole time of exercise. The people were equally affected; and, in the afternoon, the power increased yet more” (Ibid., 49). Sarah Edwards was equally impressed. In a letter to her brother, the Rev. James Pierrepont of New Haven, she said:

“It is wonderful to see what a spell he casts over an audience by proclaiming the simplest truths of the Bible. I have seen upward of a thousand people hang on his words with breathless silence, broken only by an occasional half-suppressed sob. He impresses the ignorant, and not less the educated and refined . . . our mechanics shut up their shops, and the day-labourers throw down their tools to go and hear him preach, and few return unaffected. . . . Many, very many persons in Northampton date the beginning of new thoughts, new desires, new purposes and a new life, from the day they heard him preach of Christ” (Cited in Arnold A. Dallimore, George Whitefield: God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century [Westchester: Crossway Books, 1990], 89-90).

Benjamin Franklin, although an unbeliever, regarded Whitefield to be his close friend, and said this of his oratorical gift:

“He had a loud and clear voice, and articulated his words so perfectly that he might be heard and understood at a great distance, especially as his auditories observed the most perfect silence. . . . By hearing him often, I came to distinguish easily between sermons newly composed and those which he had often preached in the course of his travels. His delivery of the latter was so improved by frequent repetition, that every accent, every emphasis, every modulation of the voice, was so perfectly well turned and well placed, that, without being interested in the subject, one could not help being pleased with the discourse” (Gaustad, 29).

Franklin is reported to have said that if he planned on attending one of Whitefield’s sermons he would first empty his pockets and leave all his money at home. He knew that once Whitefield began to speak, he would soon find himself handing over every dollar he possessed.

According to Goen, “by the time he passed from Connecticut into New York, his journal showed that he had spent 45 days, visited 40 towns, and delivered 97 sermons and exhortations” (49). Whitefield set sail for England on January 16, 1741, after 14 1/2 months of preaching in America. He returned for a brief visit in the fall of 1744.

In all, Whitefield made 13 transatlantic trips to preach in America.

Not everything in the film is historically accurate, but don’t let that deter you from watching it. I dare say that if you do not shed tears upon hearing the hymn, Awaken Us Today, you may want to check the state of your soul to be assured that you are truly born again.

Like his friend, Jonathan Edwards, who died just short of his 55^th birthday, Whitefield entered into glory just shy of his 56^th birthday. Such a short time on earth, but more than well spent by both.

March 31, 2026

Well, soon it will be Easter. That wonderful time of the year when we remember (and celebrate) the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

But, not all will be celebrating. There are many that find Easter to be a senseless holiday—apart from, perhaps, the joys of Sunday brunch or chocolate eggs. After all, it is argued, we all know that people don’t rise from the dead. And there are no reasons to think it happened in the case of Jesus of Nazareth.

In response to such skepticism, apologists have been making their best arguments for the resurrection. There’s the empty tomb. There’s the fact that women were the first eyewitnesses which was unlikely to be invented. And there’s the larger appearance to the 500 witnesses.

But, of course, each of these claims has been contested. As for the empty tomb, scholars have argued that standard Roman practice was to put crucified criminals in a common grave, not a private tomb. As for the women as the first witnesses, some have pointed out that women were the ones who typically prepared bodies for burial and so would naturally be the first to visit the tomb. As for the 500 witnesses, maybe those were just “bereavement visions.”

Now, to be clear, I don’t believe all of these rebuttals are cogent. And I think there are good rebuttals to the rebuttals. But, what these typical proofs lack is an overall context that makes them persuasive.

And that brings us to another fact that I think is harder to challenge. It is an often overlooked fact that provides the necessary context for the discussion. That fact is simply this: the earliest Christians came to believe, against all odds and against all expectations, that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead.

Notice the distinctive nature of this claim. The claim is not that Jesus rose from the dead (though, I think he did).  The claim is that the earliest followers of Jesus came to believe—and very strongly believe— that he did.  And that is a wholly other matter.

Why? Because it is a historical fact that is not disputed. And it is a historical fact that requires a substantive explanation.  Even Bart Ehrman agrees: “It is indisputable that some of the followers of Jesus came to think that he had been raised from the dead, and something had to have happened to make them think so” (How Jesus Became God, 182-83).

Now, some might postulate that it wouldn’t take much to convince Jesus’ followers that he had risen from the dead. After all, it might be argued, followers of would-be messiahs might be inclined to think their guy might just do something miraculous. Maybe they were expecting Jesus to rise, and they just saw what they wanted to see.

But here it might be helpful to know that Jesus was not the first would-be messiah to be killed by the Romans. In fact, even in the same era, there were two other potential messiahs: Simon bar-Giora (AD 66-70), and Simeon bar Kochba (AD 132-135). After they both were killed by the Romans, the same thing happened: their messianic movement came to an abrupt and tragic end.

In other words, the historical record shows that the death of would-be Messiahs is so counter-intuitive to the Messianic expectations of the day that movements can never recover from it.  In the minds of first-century Jews, the death of the would-be Messiah shows that he was definitely not the Messiah.

In fact, even Jesus’s own disciples seemed to understand this. When Jesus died, they didn’t think, “Well, maybe he’s the messiah after all.”  No, they were utterly defeated, hiding in shame.

But then, amazingly, something changed.  Even though Jesus was killed by the Romans, like all the other would-be Messiahs, his movement didn’t end. Indeed it grew. It exploded. And these same followers of Jesus began to boldly proclaim that he was Lord and Messiah.

And that requires a serious explanation. Consider the words of N.T. Wright: “We are forced to postulate something which will account for the fact that a group of first-century Jews, who had cherished messianic hopes and centered them on Jesus of Nazareth, claimed after his death that he really was the Messiah despite the crushing evidence to the contrary” (Resurrection, 562).

Wright’s point is key. We cannot just have any ol’ explanation for how the disciples came to believe Jesus was Messiah even though he had died. It can’t be just a possible explanation. It has to be an explanation that has the weight and power to overturn the entrenched expectations of the disciples—indeed, one might say the expectations of all of ancient Judaism.

What is powerful enough to accomplish this?  I am convinced that nothing short of the resurrection itself could overturn the disciples’ belief that Jesus had been defeated by the Romans—like all the other would-be Messiahs.

Of course, not all scholars agree. Some think there are other explanations that are sufficient. Ehrman argues that hallucinations—what he calls “bereavement visions”—are sufficient to explain the radical reversal in the earliest followers of Jesus.

I will let the reader decide whether this is a sufficient explanation. But, I for one, find it woefully inadequate.

At the end of the day we are faced with a remarkable confluence of events. We have an early Christian movement that radically reverses it’s view of Jesus—from defeated would-be Messiah to the true and only Messiah—and also believes that the tomb was empty and that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once.

It is no surprise, then, that they reached the only conclusion that a sane and reasonable person could reach. Jesus of Nazareth had died, and then, three days later, he came back to life.

And if he came back to life, then he is the “firstfruits” of what is to come some day in the future. Eventually, all those who trust in Jesus will follow suit and be given a new body that will live forever and never die.

And that is the hope of Easter.

[If I may be allowed to add one observation to what Michael has written, the fact that the followers of Jesus not only believed that he had been raised from the dead but were willing to endure slander, persecution, imprisonment, loss of possessions, and death itself demonstrates to me that they believed he was alive because they saw him and talked with him and witnessed his ascension into heaven.]