I briefly covered this in my article, The mysterious case of the disappearing gospel. But the topic is so important that I return to it here.

St. Paul defines the Gospel very clearly and concisely in his first letter to the Corinthians:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain.

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

1 Cor. 15:1–8, NKJV

The Gospel, then, is the fact that Christ died for sinners, was buried, and rose from the dead.

Notice that Paul says ‘I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you’.

The Gospel is Good News to be declared. Good news to be preached.

And it is good news to be received. Good news in which we stand. Good news by which we are saved – if we cling fast, as Paul says, to ‘that word which I preached to you’.

There’s that word ‘preached’, again. The Gospel is a message to be delivered.

Paul frequently uses shorthand for this Gospel:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Cor. 1:21–24, NKJV

Paul here sums up the Gospel message that he preached (and are you noticing a pattern?) in just two words: ‘Christ crucified’.

Of course, this short phrase needs further explanation.

But within those two words is contained the entirety of the glorious truth of the Gospel: the Father graciously regenerating underserving sinners by His Holy Spirit through Jesus Christ our Saviour:

For we ourselves were also once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another. But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Titus 3:3–7, NKJV

Read again the 1 Cor. 1:21–24 passage:

For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

How are people saved?

What’s interesting here is that Paul does not say that people are won to Christ by being befriended and having their felt needs met by the Church.

There’s nothing wrong with Christians showing love in such practical ways, of course. In fact, this is a good thing! But this is not the means that God uses to save people.

No, Paul tells us plainly: ‘it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’.

And which message is it that saves? Which message is it that is a stumbling block and foolishness? Which message is it that is ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ to those who are being called?

It is the message of ‘Christ crucified’.

‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’ comes through the preaching of this message.

If you would love your neighbour, bring him ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’. Tell him of how, without Christ, he is under God’s wrath and will receive the eternal punishment that he has earned by his rebellion and sin. Tell him of the Christ crucified for sinners such as he. Tell him of the Christ who was buried, and who rose again on the third day. Call him to repentance. And give him the offer of forgiveness of sins in Christ to all those who put their trust in Him.

This is what it means to love your neighbour as yourself. This is what it means to proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

Then [Jesus] said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’

Luke 24:46-48, NKJV

Please, use words that your neighbour will understand. Patiently explain anything that he doesn’t grasp. But preach Christ crucified. Proclaim to him repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ. Nothing else can save him.

The only means that God has ordained to save the lost is this proclamation, this message of ‘Christ and Him crucified’ (1 Cor. 2:2). If you would show love your neighbour, there is no greater good that you can do for him than to bring him this Good News.

Paul returns to this theme of the preached Gospel over and over. How could he not, as one who had received such boundless grace and love in Christ? How could the love of God poured out in his heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5) not overflow in the proclamation of the Gospel that saved him?

But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

For the Scripture says, ‘Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. For ‘whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved.’

Rom. 10:8–13

I weep for the lost. They need to hear the Gospel message, ‘the word of faith which we preach’. And to hear it, they need a preacher. And preachers must be sent:

‘How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!’

Rom. 10:14–15

Not all will receive the message of peace between a holy, righteous God and fallen sinners, for ‘Christ crucified’ is a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are perishing:

But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, ‘Lord, who has believed our report?’ (Rom. 10:16, NKJV)

Nevertheless, our speech and our preaching are not to be with ‘with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power’ (1 Cor. 2:4). O Lord, may our lips resound with the Gospel, ‘Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God’!

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17, NKJV)

This Gospel that the lost need is the very same Gospel that I need to hear. That you need to hear.

Every day.

For I sin daily. And were it not for the regular reminder of Christ crucified for my sins, I should despair.

But the Gospel message brings hope. It builds faith, for ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ’.

And the true faith in Christ that comes through hearing the Gospel word of Christ shall surely bring forth its fruit.

Pastors, if you would have your flock bear fruit, feed them with the Gospel every week.

If you would fulfil the commission with which Christ has entrusted you, take every opportunity to proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ.

The sheep you oversee need the reminder of this message every week. And you too need to hear this message. For the preached Gospel is Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Cor. 1:17–18, NKJV

O God, have mercy upon the lost and upon all your Church. Raise up and send many preachers, that the dying and all the hungry may hear clearly the bold proclamation of repentance and the remission of sins in Christ. And if in your grace it should please You to use such a weak and lowly vessel, ‘Here am I. Send me.’ Amen.

Remember, Leadership Network is the organization that helped infect the church with the twin blights of Seeker Drivenism and Emergence Christianity. Leadership Network has marketing clout, and knows how to use it. Monvee could be huge.

One of the problems with the Church Growth Movement’s seeker-driven approach to mass-producing disciples is that it has largely failed to consider how to make disciples who are growing into spiritual maturity in Christ. When the most mature members of your own congregation tell you that they are ‘not being fed’, there’s a problem. And when the mainstream media writes that ‘megachurches like Saddleback are market-driven, with transcendence not on the menu’, and worse, describes you as the ‘butt end of Christianity’ using the words ‘bland, cheerful, dull’, the scary prospect of irrelevance beckons. And with irrelevance comes that worst nightmare of the Church Growth CEO pastor – stagnant or shrinking congregations.

Monvee is the solution to this problem of stalled Christian lives lacking in transcendence. Market research has uncovered a missed opportunity, and Monvee is the new product that has been created to fill this void.

Monvee claims to be ‘The Future of Spiritual Formation’. This is in itself bad news, because ‘spiritual formation’ is code-talk for Roman Catholic Monastic Mysticism. (Be sure to read my good friend Christine Pack explaining how the practices of spiritual formation have their origin in occultic mysticism, then listen to her powerful testimony.) Not content with the damage that it has already done to the church, Leadership Network now apparently wishes to undo the Reformation.

The rather prosaic reality is that Monvee is a website that claims to diagnose your spiritual needs so that it can create a personal growth plan for you to follow. (Monvee also looks like it will be able to provide pastors with the ability to track the progress of those in their congregations who are using it.) In other words, Monvee is simply a software application that is running on a webserver somewhere. But perhaps that doesn’t sound as important as ‘The Future of Spiritual Formation’.

Take a look at this short promotional video for Monvee:

John Ortberg opens by saying:

If you make the inside of the tree right, then the fruit will be good. If you change somebody’s habitual patterns of thinking and feeling, then inevitably the kind of stuff that they do will be the right kind of stuff. But that means I have to step back and ask the question, ‘How is it that those habitual patterns of thinking and feeling get changed?’

Ok, that’s an interesting opening. So, I am now expecting a Biblical follow-on. Perhaps something like the following:

Of course, there’s nothing we can do to change those patterns. We have to be buried with Christ by baptism into death so that, just as He was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life in Him. (cf. Rom. 6:4)

We can do nothing! Christ has done everything!

Let us therefore live lives of daily repentance, trusting in Christ’s finished work alone for the forgiveness of our sins, and in His righteousness put to our account. Let us feed gladly upon Christ in the Word that He has given us, speaking the truth in love to one another, that we might be nourished in the faith and grow up in every way into Christ. (cf. Pet. 2:2; Eph. 4)

But no, instead we have this from Bob Buford, chairman of the Leadership Network board:

A worship service isn’t the only treatment. A Bible class isn’t the only treatment. And, uh, a small group doesn’t fit everyone, either. There, uh, what we need is a diagnostic device to find out what the customer needs at different stages in their, their development in the life of faith. And what it looks like we have now is that device.

Notice anything missing? (I’m going to ignore the consideration of worship services and Bible classes as treatment – that’s way too easy a target to bother tackling.)

We need a diagnostic device? Huh? (And no, he’s clearly not talking about the Law of God showing us our sin.)

Where is Christ? Where is the Gospel? Where is the work of the Holy Spirit?

It is truly said that ‘The Gospel assumed is the Gospel denied’. But here with Monvee we have, at the very least, an implicit denial of not merely the Gospel, but also of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. This, then, seems to be a Christianity that has no need for the work of the Christ or the Holy Spirit. This is a Christianity that has no need for a Triune God.

Thanks to Leadership Network and Monvee, we can dispense with the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit in applying to us Christ and His righteousness. What we are given instead is a set of techniques and resources, a customized ‘growth plan’ for each individual.

I wonder how the church managed for two millennia without this crucial innovation?

In the light of what Bob Buford and others say in the video, take another look at John Ortberg’s opening words:

If you make the inside of the tree right, then the fruit will be good. If you change somebody’s habitual patterns of thinking and feeling, then inevitably the kind of stuff that they do will be the right kind of stuff. But that means I have to step back and ask the question, ‘How is it that those habitual patterns of thinking and feeling get changed?’

Is not the underlying assumption here, borne out by the rest of the video, that we each have within us the ability to change our ‘habitual patterns of thinking and feeling’? What we need, then, is to discover and apply the right kind of techniques to bring about this change, thus making ‘the inside of the tree right’. We need a growth plan, a programme. We need Monvee.

Take a look at this complete transcript of the video, and tell me whether I have misunderstood the message that it conveys:

JO = John Ortberg, author ‘Faith and Doubt’
BB = Bob Buford, Buford Foundation & Leadership Network
TW = Tom Wilson, CEO Leadership Network
JW = Jud White, Central Christian Church
MF = Mike Foster, xxxchurch.com founder
MB = Mike Breaux, author ‘Identity Theft’

JO: If you make the inside of the tree right, then the fruit will be good.

JO: If you change somebody’s habitual patterns of thinking and feeling, then inevitably the kind of stuff that they do will be the right kind of stuff.

JO: But that means I have to step back and ask the question, ‘How is it that those habitual patterns of thinking and feeling get changed?’

BB: A worship service isn’t the only treatment. A Bible class isn’t the only treatment. And, uh, a small group doesn’t fit everyone, either. There, uh, what we need is a diagnostic device to find out what the customer needs at different stages in their, their development in the life of faith. And what it looks like we have now is that device.

TW: I think that this Monvee’s going to be an innovation that’s gonna take the Church, uh, in the next century in, on into a whole new level.

JW: To me, it’s a, a remarkable idea that we can customize a growth plan for each individual that would want it. That would be open to pursing and going after it.

MF: And, the idea that I could take a really quick assessment, a really easy assessment, that Monvee’s going to understand how I think, and how I feel, and how I like to learn, and then create a plan for me. That’s exciting, and that’s what I want as a person. Uh, because, again, the desire is there. It’s just I gotta figure out the pathway. And a pathway that works for me.

MB: And I think as, as people start to find that it’s ok to walk with God in the way that He has wired you up, that you don’t have to do this as much as this. Uh, I think it’s going to be revolutionary for people.

JO: It offers the possibility of getting beyond what most churches do, which is, we try to mass-produce disciples of Jesus. And disciples of Jesus cannot be mass-produced, they have to be hand-crafted.

Monvee is built upon the assumption that it is possible to train and discipline a tree to think and feel in a particular way, and that this process will then make the tree right inside so that it produces good fruit.

There’s a term for this belief that we have the innate capability to become righteous, that we can obtain right moral standing before God by applying the appropriate disciplines to our lives through our own efforts.

That term is Pelagianism.

Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy by the Church at the Council of Ephesus in 431. Pelagianism denies original sin, the Biblical doctrine that we are dead in our sins and completely incapable of becoming righteous by our own endeavours. Pelagianism denies that, in our state of utter helplessness, we need Christ and His righteousness applied to us through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

Based on this promotional video, I rather think that I detect the putrefying stench of Pelagianism emanating from the rotting foundations of Monvee.

Let me be clear. I am not here asserting that John Ortberg, or anyone from Leadership Network, actually holds Pelagian doctrine. But they certainly might like to re-examine the innovations that they are introducing to the church in the light of the historic, orthodox Christian faith that is set forth in the Scriptures. And they might wish to think rather more carefully about what they say and how they say it. Right now, they are not sounding as if they are orthodox.

Finally, I do agree with John Ortberg’s closing comment, that ‘disciples of Jesus cannot be mass produced, they have to be hand-crafted’.

But that statement leaves me slightly puzzled.

Monvee offers a growth plan that is churned out automatically by a piece of software based upon your responses to a standardized set of questions. How is that anything other than an attempt to mass-produce disciples? What, exactly, is hand-crafted about this approach?

No, the Church doesn’t need Monvee.

Rather, we need to abandon the failing seeker-driven megachurch model. We need a return to an age of sound doctrine, where each elder assumes personal responsibility for each sheep under his care.

Consider Richard Baxter, the Puritan pastor:

Concerning his time in Kidderminster, Baxter would write that ‘there was about one family in a street that worshipped God and called on his name’ upon his arrival; whereas ‘when I came away there was not past one family in the side of a street that did not do so.’ Baxter promoted a vigorous and personal pastoral ministry among his flock. He regularly visited them in their homes and personally catechized whole households until he was ejected from the Church of England in 1662 because of the Act of Uniformity. Though he would continue his preaching ministry, he would never again have pastoral charge over a congregation.

— Richard Baxter and the Multi-Site Movement, www.9marks.org

Richard Baxter took a genuine ‘hand-crafted’ approach to making disciples. He believed that pastors should give personal attention to each individual in their flock.

Monvee might have ‘hand-crafted’ pretentions, but its boast is nothing more than the deceptive claim of an over-active marketer’s imagination.

I think, therefore, that I shall decline this particular innovation. I am instead going to stay with historic, orthodox Christianity. It has served the church well for nearly 2,000 years, and I am confident that I too can do no better than to trust alone in Christ and Him crucified. And I have the treasure of his pure and holy Word to feed me. Sola scriptura! Sola fide! Sola gratia! Solus Christus! Soli Deo gloria!

‘It drives Pharisees nuts to watch God keep blessing ministries they ridicule & despise.God’s sovereignty is often humorous.’

What’s the Pharisee card? Good question.

In my quest to become Todd Wilken’s number one fan, please allow me to direct you to his incisive article:

• Playing the Pharisee Card

Now, Rick Warren’s proof of the rightness of his position (and that his opponents are wrong) seems to be based on his claim of God’s ‘blessing’. And, as CEO of Saddleback and self-proclaimed disciple of management guru Peter Drucker, he knows how to apply best 21st century management practice to his business. So, it is important for Mr. Warren to be able to quantify this blessing.

How is God’s blessing measured? Well one easy way, in Mr. Warren’s book, is by seeing how much your church grows. A numerically growing church is a blessed church. Saddleback has grown vastly over the last three decades. So, God must be blessing it. And He must approve of their theology and practice. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The only problem with this, and it is just a teensy-weeny one, is that not all growth is good growth.

Measured on the basis of numerical success, Baal-worship was doing pretty well in ancient Israel. (If you are unfamiliar with the story, now would be a good time to read 1 Kings 18.)

All but a remnant of 7,000 people had bowed the knee to Baal. Thus, the 450 prophets of Baal whom Elijah confronted must have been pretty confident of God’s favour. After all, 450–1, that’s pretty good evidence of whose side God is on, right?

At least, it must have seemed that way.

Until Elijah routed the prophets of Baal and had them all executed at Brook Kishon.

It turned out that Elijah was the one who had been listening to (and trusting in) God, after all. He was the real Prophet. The prophets of Baal? They were self-deceived impostors, false prophets with no legitimate place in God’s kingdom.

Which brings us to the question, how does Rick Warren know that God is blessing him and those ministries fashioned after his own?

This might be an appropriate point to remind ourselves of what Christ wrote to the Church of Sardis:

And to the angel of the church in Sardis write, ‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: “I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.”

“You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.”

“He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’

—Revelation 3:1–6, NKJV

A name for being alive doesn’t cut it. Your works must be perfect before God.

Not sure that you can manage perfect works?

Good.

You can’t.

But what matters is what Jesus Christ has done for us. And He has lived a perfect life for us, died for us.

But this Gospel message, what Christ has done for us, isn’t what Mr. Warren has been emphasizing. He instead proclaims the need for a New Reformation, this time of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’. (Since this is itself a creed, there is, shall we say, a certain tinge of irony here.)

Rick Warren thus preaches a message of what we must do for Christ. This back-to-front gospel is from the world of Alice Through the Looking Glass.

But, let us consider seriously for one moment this creed of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’. What kind of deeds might God be interested in?

After he fed the five thousand, some of the people came to Jesus and asked exactly this question:

Then they said to Him, ‘What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?’

Jesus answered and said to them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.’

Therefore they said to Him, ‘What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, “He gave them bread from heaven to eat.”’

Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’

Then they said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always.’

And Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.’

‘This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.’

—John 6:28–40, NKJV

Jesus’ message sounds remarkably like ‘Creeds, not Deeds’. What you believe about Him is everything. What you do? Well, not so much. (Which isn’t to say that what we do isn’t important. But the good works that we do are a fruit of the gospel, not the gospel itself. Never confuse the two.)

Are you believing and trusting in Christ? Yes? Then you ‘have everlasting life’, and He will raise you up ‘at the last day’.

The work that God would have you do is to believe in His Son. To trust in Him for the forgiveness of your sins. To trust in His perfect, righteous life put to your account. His death in your place for your sins. You give God glory by believing in His glorious Son.

The problem with Mr. Warren’s doctrine of ‘Deeds, not Creeds’ is thus obvious: it directly contradicts what Jesus taught.

This is why many Online Discernment Ministries (ODMs) and have for years been questioning Mr. Warren’s doctrine and practice. And perhaps, just perhaps, they might now be getting a little under his skin.

One of the two tweets Mr. Warren made immediately prior to playing the Pharisee card was:

“Father,thank u for hiding the truth from those who think themselves so wise&clever,&revealing it to the CHILDLIKE”Mt11:25

Doesn’t he sound somewhat defensive? I pray that the Holy Spirit troubles his conscience. May the Lord have mercy upon him and grant him repentance and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of all his sin, including his false gospel.

Finally, here is the other tweet that he made before playing the Pharisee card:

It takes ALL kinds of churches to reach all kinds of people. If Jesus is honored & lives transformed, I like how you do it!

It is encouraging that Mr. Warren appreciates the value of all kinds of churches.

Except, of course, those that call him out on his unsound doctrine and practice. No, they’re simply full of Pharisees. Aren’t they?

Afterword

For over two years, I have refrained from naming names and making negative posts on this blog. This article marks a shift from that policy.

Why the change?

Because Rick Warren and his Leadership Network partners are responsible for immense damage to the Body of Christ.

And now, rather than respond to his critics with a Biblical defence of his position, he has resorted to the playground tactic of name-calling. The gospel is too important for this to go unchallenged. People’s eternal destinies are at stake.

Mr. Warren, enough is enough. If you are unable or unwilling to present an exegetically sound Biblical defence for your doctrine and practice, may the Lord rebuke you and grant you repentance.

1. That I seemed to be ‘casting judgment on the speaker and the sermon rather than looking for the Lord to help you pick out those things from Him which are helpful for your sanctification and growth in Grace’.
2. That there are some texts that do not lend themselves to a forthright preaching of Christ. The commandment not to commit adultery, for example. And that, therefore, the steps for diagnosing a sermon that I propagated cannot be justly applied to the preaching of such texts.
3. That a lecture by Dr. Peter Masters (of the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London) perhaps did not seem to fit the criteria I recited in my article, and that therefore my yardstick might be invalid.

I found myself writing enough in response to these points to warrant a separate blog post.

What is a sermon for, anyway?

If you haven’t already, please take a look at the detailed article from Todd Wilken (host of the Issues, Etc. radio programme) on this issue. This is a much fuller explanation of why and how sermons should be assessed:

• A Listener’s Guide to the Pulpit

I think that might address many of my friend’s concerns and questions. To quote a small extract from there (although it’s really much better to read the whole thing!):

The difference between a good sermon and a bad sermon is whether or not it rightly divides Law and Gospel. A good sermon must show sinners their sin, and show sinners their Saviour. Again Luther writes:

‘This difference between the Law and the Gospel is the height of knowledge in Christendom. Every person and all persons who assume or glory in the name of Christian should know and be able to state this difference. If this ability is lacking, one cannot tell a Christian from a heathen or a Jew; of such supreme importance is this differentiation. This is why St. Paul so strongly insists on a clean–cut and proper differentiating of these two doctrines.’

So these two, Law and Gospel, must always go together in every sermon. They must be carefully divided in every sermon. The Law must show us our sin, and the Gospel must silence the Law’s accusations against us with the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

This extract directly address the question of what a sermon is for. I agree with Todd Wilken and Martin Luther here, that a sermon’s purpose is first and foremost to show us our sin, and proclaim Christ for the forgiveness of our sin and as our righteousness. This is, after all, what the whole counsel of Scripture does for us through the two doctrines of Law and Gospel that are taught throughout. The Law shows us our sin, because we do not, cannot keep it. The Gospel offers us Christ, who has both died in our place to bear the punishment for our sin, and also lived a perfect life of righteousness that is put to our account by grace through faith in Him.

Something to bear in mind is that Christ Himself testifies that all the Scriptures speak of Him (I’m quoting with context, but pay attention especially to the parts I have shown in bold, and the occurrences of the word ‘all’):

Now behold, two of them were traveling that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was seven miles from Jerusalem. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. So it was, while they conversed and reasoned, that Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him.

And He said to them, ‘What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk and are sad?’

Then the one whose name was Cleopas answered and said to Him, ‘Are You the only stranger in Jerusalem, and have You not known the things which happened there in these days?’

And He said to them, ‘What things?’

So they said to Him, ‘The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a Prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and crucified Him. But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. Indeed, besides all this, today is the third day since these things happened. Yes, and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.’

Then He said to them, ‘O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?

And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

—Luke 24:13–27, NKJV

Then He said to them, ‘These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.’ And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, ‘Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’

—Luke 24:44–47, NKJV

But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

—John 5:38–50, NKJV

Thus, for example, a sermon can hardly be said to be a Christian sermon at all if it exhorts us to live a moral life, but fails to preach Christ crucified for the forgiveness of sins. The opposite error is to preach only the Gospel, with no Law. But, such a sermon also fails to preach Christ properly, because Christ’s perfect life and death for us only make sense when we understand from the Law that we are by nature children of God’s wrath and therefore in need of a Saviour who can reconcile us with God.

One of the things I loved about Matthew Else, the late elder of the congregation that I attend, was the way that, whatever the topic of the sermon, whatever the passage under consideration, He always pointed us to Christ and His finished work on the cross. Christ, who has lived the perfect life that we cannot. Christ, who takes away our sin. Spurgeon, likewise, used the Law to show us our sinful state and need of a Saviour, careful to bring us the Gospel, showing us Christ as our perfect Saviour. Both men knew the essence of a good sermon. And were they not simply good students of Paul’s example, when he wrote to the Corinthian church (the church, mind, not unbelievers!) that ‘I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.’ (1 Cor. 2:2, NKJV) Even for an established church, Paul understood that everything they needed to be taught centred upon Christ and Him crucified.

Christians and unbelievers alike thus need to hear this Law and Gospel message regularly. The same Holy Spirit might work conviction of sin by the proclamation of Law in one hearer, but faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sin by the proclamation of the Gospel in another. Both through the same sermon! The consequence of preaching is therefore a matter for God, but the preacher is entrusted by Christ with the task of proclaiming both repentance (Law) and the forgiveness of sins in Christ (Gospel) – see Luke 24 again, or any sermon recorded in the New Testament. This is even the very same message that both John the Baptist preached (Mark 1:4).

Who am I to judge?

Now, with that purpose for sermons in mind, is it right for us to evaluate (that is, judge!) the sermons that we hear? Recall that the Bereans were commended for testing everything that even Paul (the Apostle!) said to them:

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11, KJV)

Thus, it is a noble and commendable thing for us to compare everything we are taught in the name of Christ with the word of Christ, which is the Scripture. Note that this is not passing judgement by our own subjective criteria, but the exercise of discernment using the objective standard of the written word of God.

If we fail to judge in this way, how would we know whether we are being taught sound doctrine? (And make no mistake, the failure to preach Christ crucified is an egregious error of doctrine.) And if we fail to exercise discernment like this, we might all too easily find ourselves in a situation where repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ is not regularly taught by the elders of our church. Those elders would be in dereliction of their duties, starving their flock of the food that Christ has entrusted them to administer. I would go so far as to say that a church where Law and Gospel is not faithfully proclaimed week by week is barely worthy to be called a Christian church at all. Certainly, she is not fulfilling her commission from Christ, and Rev. 2–3 shows us how seriously He treats such matters.

Now, let me make it plain to those who don’t know me that I hold no office in the church. I have been given no special commission to judge anyone. But I do have the duties that all believers have to be on guard against error, to make sure that I am fully part of a church fellowship that properly proclaims repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Christ, one which rightly administers Baptism and the Lord’s Supper (cf. Acts 2:42, etc.). And I have the duty of a loving husband towards my wife (Eph. 5:22–33), making sure that she too is receiving the spiritual nourishment that she needs. That she is being built-up in the faith by hearing sound teaching, and participating regularly in the Lord’s Supper for (as the 1689 London Baptist Confession tells us):

the perpetual remembrance, and shewing forth the sacrifice of [Christ] in his death, confirmation of the faith of believers in all the benefits thereof, their spiritual nourishment, and growth in him, their further engagement in, and to all duties which they owe to him; and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him, and with each other.

And, of course, if I had children, I should also have duties toward them (Eph. 6:4) that would require me to ensure that they were fed a regular diet of sound doctrine. Finally, I also have a general responsibility towards other believers with whom I fellowship (cf. 1 John 5:16), whether or not they are part of my local congregation.

I take all these responsibilities seriously. So it is my Scripture-given duty to be a careful listener and discerner, yes, and even a judge (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29), of all the teaching that I hear.

These are therefore real and serious matters, as we see so clearly from the current, sorry state of the wider Christian church. Oh that more would ask these discerning questions of the sermons they hear! Even better would be if every preacher asked himself when preparing his sermons whether he is rightly dividing Law and Gospel, using the Law lawfully (to show us our sin) and making Christ the central focus, the One in whom we find forgiveness of sins!

All those who preach (and I include myself most of all, as one who has preached in times past) should bear in mind the admonition from James: ‘My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgement.’ (James 3:1, NKJV) This is why Paul urges Timothy to ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). It is a serious thing to have the responsibility of feeding Christ’s flock, and discharging that duty requires great diligence.

And what if we should find ourselves sometimes at a loss for someone qualified to teach? For myself, I should rather hear the pure word of God through the Scriptures being read competently aloud (with a sense for the meaning) for half an hour, than to listen for the same period to someone who makes a confusion between Law and Gospel because he does not understand how rightly to divide the word of truth. The former would be more profitable for the flock, and also far less disagreeable for the preacher on the day of judgement.

Thus, I plead guilty to judging the content of sermons. Every time I hear a sermon, I consciously ask myself whether it has pointed me to Christ, directing me to trust in Him for the forgiveness of my sins, and in His perfect life put to my account.

And when I hear a sermon that does proclaim Christ, I rejoice. I am uplifted and encouraged. My faith is strengthened by the faithful preaching of the gospel. I am stirred up to good works as a fruit of the gospel, having been reminded of the ultimate Good Work that has been done for me by Christ on the cross. As one who has been shown so much love, I now long to make that same love known as widely as I can.

And if I hear a sermon that does not direct me to Christ? Well, then I make up the lack by reminding myself of the gospel, that even though I fail to do what God commands me, that nonetheless He looks with favour upon me for the sake of His Son. I remind myself that, as Luther also taught, God does not need my good works, and they certainly do not earn favour with Him, but nonetheless my neighbour does need them. And so, even though I am conscious of my own sinfulness, because of the love shown to me in Christ I throw myself afresh on Him, trusting in Him alone, the author and the finisher of my faith, for the forgiveness of my sin. Asking that He should strengthen me and cause me to live a life in accordance with His perfect will.

What about the law passages?

Now, to answer my friend’s specific question. What if the topic of a sermon were the verse, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ (Ex. 20:14)?

Well, the text itself is Law – something that we should, or, in this case, should not, do. But any proper treatment of this text will immediately show us that we are all guilty of breaking this commandment for, as Jesus says, ‘whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt. 5:28, NKJV). This is using the law lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8), to convict us of sin.

I dare say a competent preacher would also bring out the positive duties of husbands and wives (1 Peter 3; Eph. 5; Col. 3) that are latent in this commandment: that wives should submit to their husbands in everything. That husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. And again, we would immediately see that every husband and every wife fails to keep these requirements of God’s law.

And, having condemned and called to repentance just about everyone who is listening as a breaker, not merely of God’s Law in general, but this specific commandment, it would be natural for us then to look at exactly how ‘Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her’ (Eph. 5:25). We would then be reminded that Christ came for those such as us, unworthy sinners. That he laid down His life to die a terrible death in our place, a death that we deserved. And that He rose from the dead on the third day, so that we can have confidence that His sacrifice was acceptable to the Father for the remission of our sins. That Christ lived a life of perfect righteousness, which is put to our account. And so, even though we are lawbreakers, we nonetheless have favour with the Father through the faith in His dear Son that has been given to us.

In summary, then, the preacher would use the Law lawfully to show us our sin (the 2nd use of the law) and call us to repentance, and then direct us to Christ for the forgiveness of that sin and the silencing of the law’s accusations against us. On the way, we would no doubt learn from God’s law how He desires husbands and wives to relate to one another. This is the 3rd use of the law – to show us what a righteous life in Christ looks like. But the main focus, the goal at which the entire sermon is aiming, would be Christ crucified for sinners. Sinners like us.

And what of some person of repute whose preaching seems not to meet these criteria?

With regard to Dr. Masters. I have great respect for him by way of reputation, but the particular example my friend references is the only time I have actually heard him myself. My memory is fading, but given that the topic concerned the emotions which flow from the attributes of the triune God, I should be very surprised if Christ crucified had not been proclaimed. Anyway, given my hazy memory, I don’t want to address that specifically, except to observe that this was less a sermon than a lecture, and there is a useful distinction to be made between the two. This is the difference between homiletics (preaching primarily for spiritual edification) and doctrinal instruction (teaching information concerning sound doctrine).

But even with the latter, if all the Scriptures testify of Christ, if Paul resolved to know nothing among the Corinthian church other than Christ and Him crucified, should not Christ always be the ultimate focus and goal of all our teaching? Thus it is only what the Scriptures teach us to proclaim that should be our concern, not whether someone whom we respect does something in a particular way. A human example is useful only to the extent that it accords with the revealed will of God in Scripture.

Conclusion

The point of the three-step sermon diagnostic, then, is not to prescribe some picky ‘count how many times Christ is mentioned’ rule so that we can be mean and nasty to the preacher whom we consider to fall short.

No, the point of the diagnostic is to make plain to ordinary Christians, those who listen to sermons, that a Christian sermon must be about Christ. And, more than that, it must be about what Christ has done for us through His perfect life, death and resurrection. Anything less than that is a betrayal of Christ’s sheep.

Some still do.

The rest of us might want to give the idea some serious thought, for our times are not so very different from those in which Luther found himself:

The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach. Nevertheless, all maintain that they are Christians, have been baptized and receive the holy Sacraments. Yet they cannot recite either the Lord’s Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten Commandments; they live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs; and yet, now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all liberty like experts.
— from Luther’s Preface to the Small Catechism

Luther continues, delivering an acerbic rebuke to those church leaders who have allowed this situation to occur:

O you bishops! What will you ever answer to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office? May all misfortune flee you! [I do not wish at this place to invoke evil on your heads.] You command the Sacrament in one form and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same time you do not care in the least whether the people know the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God. Woe, woe, unto you forever!

Does Luther’s admonishment not have a striking relevance for much of the church today?

He proceeds, with practical measures to remedy the situation:

Therefore I entreat you all for God’s sake, my dear sirs and brethren, who are pastors or preachers, to devote yourselves heartily to your office, to have pity on the people who are entrusted to you, and to help us inculcate the Catechism upon the people, and especially upon the young. And let those of you who cannot do better take these tables and forms and impress them, word for word, on the people, as follows:

In the first place, let the preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts and forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which he adheres, and which he inculcates all the time, year after year. For young and simple people must be taught by uniform, settled texts and forms, otherwise they easily become confused when the teacher today teaches them thus, and in a year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus all effort and labour is lost.

Also our blessed fathers understood this well; for they all used the same form of the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should teach the young and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a syllable, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in another.

Hence, choose whatever form you please, and adhere to it forever. But when you preach in the presence of learned and intelligent men, you may exhibit your skill, and may present these parts in as varied and intricate ways and give them as masterly turns as you are able. But with the young people stick to one fixed, permanent form and manner, and teach them, first of all, these parts, namely, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so that they, too, can repeat it in the same manner after you and commit it to memory.

I especially love what Luther says in his Small Catechism concerning the Ten Commandments. He explains each one, ‘As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.’ So, over the next few days, I’m going to post what Luther says about each commandment.

What if…there exists a truth
which is absolute?

What if…it is true that
there is a God?

What if…this God made
the heavens and the earth?

What if…He made humankind
in His own image?

What if…the first man and woman
rebelled against God?

What if…they died spiritually and became
by nature
children of God’s wrath?

What if…you are their descendent?

What if…you too
are a rebel
against God?

What if…you,
a child of spiritually dead parents,
are dead in your sins?

What if…God still loved the world?
So much that He sent
His Son,
Jesus?

What if…Jesus calls everyone
to turn away
from their rebellion
and toward God?

What if…Jesus bore
the punishment
for your hatred of God
by dying
on a Roman execution cross?

What if…He proved that
He is God
by raising Himself from the dead?

What if…He is coming back
to judge the living and the dead?

What if…He offers you forgiveness,
and freedom
from your sin?
And His righteousness
put to your account?

What if…instead of slavery to sin,
you could have a life of service
to the One who gave His life for you?

What if…God caused all of these things
to be written in a book?
So that you could know them?

What if…this is absolute truth:

Christ Jesus.
Crucified for sinners.
Raised from the dead.
According to the Scriptures.

What then?

³¹When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. ³³And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

³⁴Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: ³⁵for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; ³⁶I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

³⁷Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? ³⁸When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? ³⁹Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

⁴⁰And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

⁴¹Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: ⁴²for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

⁴⁴Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’

⁴⁵Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

⁴⁶And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

Matt. 25:31–46, NKJV

Who are the sheep and the goats? Verse 37 tells us that the sheep on the Kings right hand are ‘the righteous’; v. 41 indicates that those on His left hand are the ‘cursed’. In the conclusion (v. 46), we see that the cursed ‘go away to everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life’.

Clearly, everything is at stake. Everlasting punishment, or eternal life? Which is it to be for you?

Put another way, are you righteous? What does it mean be ‘righteous’, anyway?

Excursus – what does it mean to be righteous?

How we answer that question is critical to the proper understanding of this passage. Get the answer wrong and, when this judgement day comes, as it surely will, you’ll find yourself consigned to everlasting punishment in the fires of hell.

The Greek word that is translated ‘righteous’ in v. 46 is dikaioi. This adjective means ‘being in accordance with high standards of rectitude, upright, just, fair’ (BDAG). In this context, it refers to being righteous before God, specifically before Christ on His throne of judgement. To be ‘righteous’ therefore means to be in accord with God’s standards of rectitude. Now, those standards are revealed to us in God’s law, all the commandments that have been given to us in Scripture. Jesus sums up the two greatest of these like this:

‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ ³⁸This is the first and great commandment.

³⁹And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

⁴⁰On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Matt. 22:37–40, NKJV

The Pharisees thought they were pretty good at keeping God’s commands. They were professional law keepers. They continually studied the law and did their best to do everything it said. They even went further, making up their own rules and regulations to keep themselves from accidentally breaking a commandment. But, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says this about them:

…unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt. 5:20, NKJV)

So, to get into heaven, you need to be better than the Pharisees. You have to be more righteous than even these professional law keepers.

That’s a pretty tough, requirement, right?

And just in case you might be thinking that if you try really hard, you might just make it, Jesus went on to say:

Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matt. 5:48, NKJV)

So, it’s simple. If you want to enter heaven, be perfect. Keep all of God’s commands.

Perfectly.

Throughout your entire life.

You must honour your father and mother, not murder, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness, not covet anything your neighbour has. If you ever once break any of these commands, you’ve blown it. (And those are just the commands under the ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ heading.)

Have you ever shouted at your parents? Hated your brother for no reason? Lusted after someone you find attractive? Stolen a paperclip from work? Told a lie? Gossiped? Wanted someone else’s house, car, etc.?

Sorry, no heaven for you.

At least, not if you want to get there this way – by your own righteousness, by your own keeping of God’s law, by your own efforts and good works.

Given up on this approach yet? Good. You’re meant to. The whole purpose of God’s law is to bring you to that point. To the realization that you need a Saviour to rescue you from the fierce punishment of God that is coming your way. Someone who will save you despite what you are, not because of what you do. Apart from Christ, you are not righteous. This is exactly what Paul tells us when he quotes Ps. 53:1:

¹¹‘There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.

¹²They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.

¹³Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceit;
The poison of asps is under their lips
¹⁴Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

¹⁵Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶Destruction and misery are in their ways;
¹⁷And the way of peace they have not known.
¹⁸There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Rom. 3:11–18, NKJV

That’s you. That’s me. At least, that’s us if we are outside of Christ.

So, what is the point of God’s law then, if it is impossible for us to get into heaven by keeping it to the standard that He requires?

Paul continues and tells us that, rather than being there to make us righteous, the law exists to make us realize that we are guilty before God:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. (Rom. 3:19, NKJV)

Just in case the message hasn’t sunk in, Paul then tells us plainly that:

Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NKJV)

The word translated as ‘justified’ here is dikaiothesetai. That’s a bit of a mouthful, but it is a form of the verb dikaioo (‘to justify’). This looks rather like our adjective dikaioi (‘righteous’) from Matt. 25:46, doesn’t it? In fact, the words are closely related and deal with exactly the same idea. We can legitimately translate the word ‘justified’ as ‘declared righteous’, just as the NIV does:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NIV)

Now the meaning is clear! Paul is telling us exactly the same thing as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount. It is impossible to get into heaven by keeping God’s commandments in an effort to become righteous. We are incapable of keeping them, and God’s standard is perfect obedience.

To be righteous by keeping the law, we would have to keep all of it perfectly, all the time. As James the Apostle says:

For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10, NKJV)

If we fail even in the most tiny detail, then we are just as guilty as someone who has broken all God’s commands. Seems unfair? Tough (Rom. 9:19). Get over it. God made you, and He made the rules. He is perfectly holy, and perfectly righteous. He hates anything less (cf. Ps. 5:5).

This was the problem with the Pharisees. They thought that the outward things they did somehow made them right with God. But Jesus wasn’t impressed. He said to them:

²⁷Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. ²⁸Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness. (Matt. 23:27-28, NKJV)

No matter what they did, even with all of their rules and regulations, the Pharisees were unable to change what they were inside. Even though they looked righteous to other people, their hearts were full of rebellion against God’s law.

But how could Jesus call the Pharisees lawless, when they tried so hard to obey all God’s laws? Simply because they had missed the main point of God’s law, which is to show all people everywhere that they are not righteous and are thus in need a of a Saviour. The Pharisees’ attempt to keep God’s law and thereby earn His favour was itself an affront to the purpose for which the law was given. Paul puts it like this:

³⁰What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; ³¹but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

³²Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. ³³As it is written:

‘Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence,
And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.’

(Rom. 9:30–33, NKJV)

Note how Paul contrasts faith and ‘works of the law’ in v. 32. When it comes to obtaining righteousness, the two are complete opposites. Faith is a simple trust in what God has done for us. Works are our own attempt to achieve for ourselves what only God can do.

Trying to earn God’s favour is therefore itself a faithless act of idolatry and rebellion. Instead of accepting God’s pronouncement on our sinful condition – and His remedy for it – it is to assert that God is wrong and to raise up an idol of our own opinions and capabilities. How foolish and futile! The very act of trying to earn righteousness ‘by the works of the law’ is thus a denial that we are utterly wicked and sinful and therefore in need of a Saviour who will rescue us from the wrath of a holy and righteous God. Worse still, it is a rejection of the only Saviour that God has provided, and of that Saviour’s finished work on the cross on our behalf. No wonder that Paul says that Israel, ‘pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness’ (v. 31).

If we can’t become righteous by keeping the law, if there’s nothing we can do to earn God’s favour, if even the very attempt to make ourselves righteous is offensive to God, then what hope can we possibly have?

In the previous quotation, Paul talks about the ‘righteousness of faith’, and of a ‘stumbling stone and rock of offence’. Paul talks more about this truly wonderful solution to our problem earlier in his letter to the Romans:

²¹But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²²even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

For there is no difference; ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

²⁷Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

²⁸Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Rom. 3:21–29, NKJV

The righteousness we should be seeking is not our own, but the ‘righteousness of God’ (v.21). Again, that’s exactly what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:

But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. (Matt. 6:33, NKJV)

We can have no righteousness of our own, so we are to seek His righteousness. Where do we find it? In the perfect life and death of Jesus Christ. How do we find it? Through a simple, childlike trust in Him. Or, as Paul puts it, ‘through faith in Jesus Christ’ (Rom. 3:22).

Those who trust in Christ in this way are ‘justified [declared righteous] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’ (v. 24). For them, the shedding of Christ’s blood on the cross is a ‘propitiation’ – something that appeases God’s wrath toward us. For them, that shed blood cleanses from sin (1 John 1:7), purifies consciences (Heb. 9:14) and sanctifies (Heb. 13:12).

Christ’s sacrifice demonstrates God’s ‘righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier [one who declares righteous] of the one who has faith in Jesus’ (v. 27). When he declares us righteous, God puts the perfect righteousness of His own Son to our account, and treats us as if we had lived the perfect life that Jesus did. We are therefore given favour by God, as a free gift purchased for us by the blood of Christ, even though we did absolutely nothing to earn it.

So, Paul concludes, ‘a man is justified [declared righteous] by faith apart from the deeds of the law’ (v. 28).

Notice that last phrase: ‘apart from the deeds of the law’. The things that we do contribute precisely nothing to our being declared righteous. Justification comes by faith, not by works.

We cannot therefore earn righteousness by anything that we do. Our only hope is to be declared righteous by God on account of His Son having died for our sin to appease God’s wrath toward us. How do we obtain this? We are simply to be trusting in Christ’s death on the cross for us and in His resurrection from the dead. Those who trust in Christ in this way truly fulfil Christ’s statement that ‘you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect’ (Matt. 5:48), because the righteousness of Christ Himself is put to their account.

Back to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31–46

We have come to understand that we can never, ever, earn righteousness by anything that we do, but only trust in the righteousness of Christ put to our account. Only with that understanding are we now able to understand properly what Jesus teaches about the judgement of the sheep and the goats.

As our good Confessional Lutheran friends keep reminding us, the separation that Jesus makes is based on the identity of those gathered before Him: are they sheep, or are they goats? The sheep are put on right hand of the King, and the goats on the left.

Be sure to note that the separation is not based upon works. It isn’t based on what the sheep or goats do. We know this because the separation occurs in v. 32, before there is any discussion of works whatsoever. In any case, we have already seen that no one becomes righteous because of what they do. The works are therefore recounted as evidence of identity, thus showing the justice of the separation and subsequent judgement. The judge observes that the sheep were doing sheepy things, and that the goats were not.

It is remarkable that the sheep are unaware of how Christ sees what they had done in Him (cf. John 15:4–5). This ignorance is natural for the sheep who, by definition, are not trusting in their own works, but in the righteousness of Christ put to their account.

The goats are entirely unaware that they hadn’t been doing good works. This is natural for goats who, by definition, are trusting in their own righteousness.

This is exactly what Jesus is getting at in the Sermon on the Mount when He talks there of this same day of judgement:

²¹Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

²²Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

²³And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Matt. 7:21–23, NKJV

The goats really thought that they were doing what God wanted. They were prophesying, casting out demons, and doing many wonders in the name of Christ. And yet, Christ never knew them. They were not His sheep.

The lessons of the the ‘sheep and the goats’ passage are now clear:

1. There is a day of judgement coming when everyone from all the nations shall be judged by Christ on the basis of whether they are a sheep or a goat. That is, each person shall be judged based upon whether or not they are trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins – those who have been declared righteous and had Christ’s righteousness put to their account as if it were their very own.
2. The consequences of this judgement are deadly serious: eternal life for those who trust in Christ; everlasting punishment for everyone else. Hell is real. But so is eternal life. Make sure you know your eternal destiny.
3. True sheep will be doing good works. Sheep do sheepy things (baa!) by nature. That is, as James says, faith inevitably produces good works (James 2:17). All that sheep require to produce good works is proper care and feeding through the word of God.
4. Although your good works can’t earn favour with God, your neighbour really does need them. Is he hungry, thirsty, naked, sick or in prison? Serve him! And notice that the good works spoken of here were done ‘to the least of these My brethren’. And who are Christ’s brothers and sisters? Your fellow Christians. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t serve non-Christians with our good works – we certainly should. But let us especially serve our bothers and sisters in the Lord (cf. Gal. 6:10).
5. True sheep will largely be unaware of the good works that they are naturally doing. This is, I suggest, both because they are doing these things unconsciously, by instinct, and also because they at the same time are so painfully aware of their own sinful condition before God. If you as a Christian do not think you are doing any good works, but are simply aware of your own sin, that’s not necessarily indicative of a substantial problem. Confess any sins of which you are aware, and believe in the forgiveness that you have received in Christ through the promise of God (1 John 1:9)! And be aware that good works include everything that God has commanded us and prepared for us to do, not least the every day things: husbands loving their wives self-sacrificially, wives being submissive to husbands, fathers bringing up their children in the training and admonition of the Lord, children being obedient to parents, employees working diligently for their employers, serving your neighbour through your work, and so on.

It is therefore a gross error to misapply the passage by using it to berate sheep (or even goats!) in an attempt to make them do good works by which they might earn God’s favour and be saved. To do so is in direct opposition to the Law and Gospel message proclaimed throughout all the Scriptures. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Not by works.

Preaching the law alone in this way is, in any case, futile. Doing so can never result in good works, because we don’t, and can’t, keep it. Preaching only the law produces either Pharisees (those who mistakenly think that they are managing to pull it off), or utter despair (those that know that they can’t). Remember that Paul says:

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom. 3:20, NIV)

Preaching the Law and the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead, however, produces faith. And that faith then inevitably produces good works.

If you want someone to do good works, preach the whole counsel of God to him, Law and Gospel. Then leave it to the Holy Spirit do what He has promised: ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God’ (Rom. 10:17). True faith that comes this way will surely bear its fruit.

The proper application of the passage is therefore to repent and trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of your sins, and to trust in His life of perfect obedience put to your account.

Is it worthwhile for us to spend significant amounts of time studying the Bible, the newest parts of which were written over 1,900 years ago?

Yes! In every way.

Why do I believe this?

1. Having examined the internal and external evidence, using the same criteria that scholars use to establish whether any classical text is trustworthy, I find that the New Testament contains multiple independent reliable testimonies to the life, death and resurrection of a man called Jesus. Testimony from both eyewitnesses and those who knew them.
2. Having found that testimony to be reliable concerning a miraculous event, namely the resurrection of Christ, it seems logical that I should pay attention to what else these witnesses claim about Christ and what He taught.
3. Jesus claimed to be the one true God in human flesh, come into the world to save sinners like me and you through his self-sacrificial death on the cross. He thereby took in His body the punishment that is due to us and thus appeased the wrath of a holy and righteous God toward us.
4. Jesus proved his claim to be God by raising himself from the dead, as attested by eyewitnesses.
5. If Jesus is truly God, the creator of the universe, I should certainly listen to and believe what He says.
6. Jesus quoted and believed the Old Testament scriptures, stating that they were the very word of God. Indeed, therefore, His own word.
7. Furthermore, He promised His disciples that He would send the ‘Spirit of truth’ who would guide them into all the truth. Thus, it is logical that I take seriously the writings of the Apostles and those who knew them.
8. All other religions would have us do something, experience something, or learn something to put us right with God, attain enlightenment, or whatever.
9. The Bible alone teaches that all humankind is desperately wicked by nature and in a state of rebellion against God and His law. It alone tells us that we are dead in our sins – children of God’s wrath – unable to do anything to reconcile ourselves with a righteous and holy God.
10. I find that the Bible’s claims concerning my nature ring true. I am unable to keep God’s law – even if I wanted to, which, though I am a Christian, I far too often do not. As someone not merely weak because of sin, but who was spiritually utterly dead in my sins, I realized that I was therefore unable to do anything myself to earn God’s favour.
11. I therefore need the Saviour Jesus Christ presented in Scripture. A Saviour who will take away my sin and thus rescue me from God’s wrath. A Saviour who reconciles me with the Father through His own life and death of perfect obedience. A Saviour who will save me even though I have nothing to contribute to my salvation apart from my sin. And as someone who still sins every day in thought, word and deed, I continue to need that Saviour’s work of grace and forgiveness.
12. Thus, I find myself believing what the Bible says concerning my sin and my need for salvation, and also what it says regarding the only one, Jesus, who came into the world to save sinners like me. I believe and trust in Christ’s work on the cross to wipe away my sin, and in His righteousness put to my account. This message ‘is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’. That I believe these things is in itself a miracle, and entirely the working and unmerited gift of God in my life.
13. Scripture tells us that God’s law is given for our benefit. It is therefore directly to my benefit to study it and to seek to apply it appropriately to every area of my life. Furthermore, like the Apostle Paul, I find that ‘I delight in the law of God according to the inward man’. I want to obey God’s commands to me, and hate the fact that I continually fall short in so doing. I can only put this down to the new nature that God says He puts within all those who truly believe in Christ for the forgiveness of their sin.
14. Jesus said that ‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me’. The more that I study Scripture, the more convinced I become that it is truly the word of Christ speaking to His flock. I discover such insight and riches there that it is always profitable for me to study it deeply. Many times, I have found areas that seemed beyond reach, apparent contradictions that appeared impossible to reconcile, or things that I thought were too hard to understand. Yet, after much labour, these very points have often become the fertile ground in which a deeper and better understanding of God’s word springs-up. Will I ever understand everything? No. But the journey is most certainly enriching and rewarding.

Now, to answer Bill’s question directly.

I labour over what Paul said nearly 2,000 years ago because I believe in the one about whom Paul speaks, namely Jesus Christ. I believe that this same Jesus by His Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write what He did. This makes Paul’s New Testament writings the true word of God, given to the whole Church for its benefit and protection. I delight in all God’s word, and wish to understand it as well as I am able with the enabling of the Holy Spirit. I wish to strive to put into practice what it teaches.

To hold in my hands the very word of the creator God of the universe, to be able to read it and seek to understand it, that is my joy and privilege. In it, I find the words of Christ, words of eternal life. Why would I not want to use my time studying it diligently?

My message to Bill then, and indeed to all of us, is this: Repent of your sin of unbelief. Trust in Christ alone for the forgiveness of all your sins!

Given that opening question and the title of this article, you might be expecting me now to try and convince you that they should.

Nope, that’s not it.

I am going to make the argument that elders should have children. But not because I want to persuade you of this. No, rather because I hope my argument is wrong and I want you to show me why. I can’t see the flaw, but perhaps you can. And if so, please leave a comment and tell me what it is. I’d be very grateful, as I am rather uncomfortable with an interpretation that has been in the minority throughout much of church history. Think of this as a personal doctrinal loose-end that I’d like to tie up.

Why do I raise this now?

The topic came up in the comments on an article posted at www.extremetheology.com. A youngster called Joel (he’s 22) made the comment that he thought he met the Biblical qualifications for elders, except for not having a ‘wife and kids’. That brought a sharp rebuttal from Chris, the original author of the piece being discussed. Now, Chris is one of the genuine good-guys, and I respect his opinions greatly as a seasoned contender for the faith, even if I don’t always agree with absolutely everything he says. Chris questioned Joel’s ability to handle Scripture properly, on the grounds that the Biblical qualifications for eldership did not include marriage per se or, by implication, children.

‘Not so fast’, I thought. I then posted a somewhat lengthy comment, setting forth my own current tentative reading of Scripture on this matter. (I’m pleased to say that harmony has subsequently been restored between Chris and Joel.) It is that comment, somewhat reworked, that forms the basis for the remainder of this post.

I believe both in the reliability and authority of Scripture as the true word of God. I’m hoping you do too. So, whether or not elders have children is a question that should be settled based on what the Bible says. And nothing else. Not on our church constitutions. Not on our church traditions or confessions. And certainly not on our own opinions. This is what we in the Reformation traditions mean when we say that we believe in sola scriptura (‘by Scripture alone’). Scripture alone determines our doctrine, and that Scriptural doctrine should determine our practice. How do we properly interpret Scripture? We pay close attention to the text, its grammar, and its grammatical and historical context.

The topic under discussion at extremetheology.com was the qualifications required of small-group leaders within the church. Chris had quoted some relevant texts from the ESV Bible. I reproduce two of these here.

1 Tim. 3:1–7 (ESV):
¹The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ²Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? ⁶He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5–9 (ESV):
…appoint elders in every town as I directed you— ⁶if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. ⁷For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, ⁸but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. ⁹He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

It seemed to me that Joel had been trying hard to be faithful and sensitive to the text in a way that I think is commendable. Was he not merely stating what a plain reading of the ESV English translation quoted about says – that ‘an overseer must be…the husband of one wife’ (1 Tim. 3:2)? And the same idea is repeated in the ESV translation of Titus 1:6.

Now, I suspect that Chris, who has studied Biblical languages, was very aware of the Greek text of these phrases, mias gunaikos andra (lit. ‘one-woman man’), and probably has read at least as many commentaries and scholarly articles on this topic as I have. He was probably therefore understanding this as I do, which is that the intended emphasis here is almost certainly upon the mias (‘one’), rather than on the gunaikos (‘woman’). That is, the intent of this phrase is not primarily that the elder has to be married, but rather that he should have an inherent character of sexual fidelity (i.e. that he should be ‘a one-woman kind of man’).

Thus, Chris’s interpretation of this requirement as being that an elder should be ‘sexually under control’ is probably not a bad dynamic equivalent to the intent of the Greek. Myself, I’d have translated the Greek phrase simply as ‘one-woman man’, which I think would have conveyed the likely meaning rather better than the more interpretive translation of ‘the husband of one wife’ that is used by the ESV and several other translations. But then I like formal equivalence as a translation principle, even at the expense of slightly less readability. Of course, I’m but a novice with NT Greek, so what do I know? <grin>

Thus, with regard to the marriage qualification, I agree with Chris. At least, I would do if mias gunaikos andra were the only phrase under consideration. But it is not. There is also the question of the phrases translated in the ESV as ‘keeping his children submissive’ (1 Tim. 3:4) and ‘his children are believers’ (Titus 1:6).

Take the equivalent phrases in the NKJV, with some additional context (my italics):

‘an elder must be…one who rules his own house well, having children in submission’ (1 Tim. 3:4)

‘if anyone is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children…’ (Titus 1:6)

In the English, each passage is a list of independent qualification clauses, every one of which must be met by the subject of the sentence (i.e. ‘an elder’).

What does the Greek say? Well, tekna echonta en hupotage (‘having children in obedience’) for 1 Tim. 3:4, and tekna echon pista (‘having believing children’) for Titus 1:6. I’d say therefore that the NKJV is spot-on in its translation, and the ESV has chosen to convey the same idea but with different grammar. Both are therefore reliable in this case (although I prefer the more formally equivalent NKJV).

So, whether we are reading the English or the Greek, what is the qualification conveyed by a simple literal reading of the actual text of these phrases? It is that an elder is to have children, and that those children are to be submissively faithful. Now it might be that this is not the final interpretation, but we would have to do rather more work to get there. The immediate simple plain-text meaning is straightforward enough and, perhaps, should not be lightly dismissed.

Now, I have read far and wide on this issue, and it is true that most (but certainly not all) commentators and scholars say that Paul means that if an elder has children, they are to be faithful. However, that is not what the text actually says (or am I mistaken?), and I have yet to find a treatment of the grammar and context of these passages that demonstrates from the text that it is legitimate for us to interpolate an ‘if he has children’ clause into our understanding of the passages. What one nearly always finds in the commentaries is something that is effectively along the lines of ‘Paul says this, but he really means that’, with just a dismissive wave of the hand rather than any attempt at justifying such a conclusion. I don’t like that approach to Bible interpretation. The Holy Spirit could very easily have inspired Paul to write ‘and if an elder has children, they are to be faithful’, but He did not choose to do so. Why was that? It certainly wasn’t because Paul expected all Christian men to get married and to have children, and so was only dealing with the common situation (cf. 1 Cor. 7:8).

Furthermore, it is interesting, I think, that Paul considers the case of ‘an elder’ (singular) in 1 Tim. 3:2-7, but deals with ‘deacons’ (plural) in 1 Tim. 3:8-12. He says that ‘Deacons’, as a class, must ‘be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well’ (v. 12, NKJV). [Note: The ESV mangles things a bit in 1 Tim. 3:12 by adding an ‘each’, which obscures the point I am about to make. And don’t get me started on the NIV’s rendering of this verse. Go with the NKJV or the Greek.] Thus, there is certainly room within the strict plain meaning of the text for a particular deacon to be childless. This is because the statement ‘Deacons must be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well’ holds true of ‘Deacons’ as a group, even if a particular deacon happens not to have children. But, the deacons as a whole must meet the requirements Paul lists. So, if a deacon happens to have a child, that child must be ruled well. In contrast, Paul says with regard to elders that ‘if anyone [singular] is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children…’ and ‘an elder [singular] must be…one who rules his own house well, having children in submission’. The inference is that, unlike with deacons, each and every elder must meet the stated conditions.

Given that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to use plural language with respect to deacons (treating them as a class) that would easily accommodate an individual deacon being childless, shouldn’t we ask ourselves why the Holy Spirit did not inspire similar syntax for the case of an elder? Why the difference, for what are essentially parallel lists of qualities? And if this grammatical detail is truly insignificant, what do we make of the fact that Paul chooses in Titus 1:5 to introduce his topic with the plural ‘elders’ (presbuterous), but then, quite pointedly, switches to the singular with ‘if anyone’ (ei tis) in Titus 1:6 immediately before making his list of qualities?

Now, it is important that we look at context. I certainly would agree that the general thrust of these passages is to deal with the overall character and qualities that an elder must possess. Thus, it is, I think, legitimate to argue that these lists are not so much an exhaustive check-list of qualifications, but rather an indication of the kinds of characteristics that an elder must possess. But we must be very careful not to use such arguments to dismiss the actual, specific, plain meaning of the text. That’s exactly the kind of thing that those who deny the authority of Scripture like to do.

So, considering the context and overall dynamic of the passages, what do we make of the apparent requirement for children? After some thought, might this not in fact be a very wise precaution for the protection of the church? After all, we know from experience that children, especially younger ones, tend to pick up and imitate the worst character traits of their parents. The children see their parents every day, behind closed doors. They reflect in public the true private character of the would-be elder, regardless of how fine a persona he might wear in public. If the children are turning out to be faithful and obedient, that public witness alone tells you much about the character of their parents in private. Furthermore, is it not excellent training for an elder to have to learn to manage and discipline his children, and to arbitrate sensitively between their competing needs and requests for attention? Elders are to be ‘examples to the flock’ (1 Peter 3:5). What better proof of their fitness for this office than the demonstration that they have been godly examples to their own children? Elders are to be, as 1 Tim. 3:2 tells us, didaktikon – skillful in teaching. What better sign of this capability than the evidence that they have brought up their own children in the ‘training and admonition of the Lord’ (Eph. 6:4)?

I suppose some might object that Paul was unmarried. But Paul held the office of Apostle in the Church, not Elder of a local congregation. Is there any example in the entire New Testament of an Elder who is expressly stated to be unmarried or without children? I haven’t found one, but if there is, I shall concede the entire point immediately. (I am aware that some try to prove that Paul was an elder by connecting 1 Tim. 4:14 and 2 Tim. 1:6, but that is a rather desperate attempt and logically does not in any case prove the intended point.) Another objection might be that Paul commends singleness, because it enables one to devote one’s attention more fully upon the Lord (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 32-35). Yet Paul includes women in his recommendation of singleness there, and so it is most doubtful that he has eldership specifically in mind (cf. 1 Tim. 2:12). Paul knows full well that there are many ways that we can serve our Christian brothers and sisters other than by being an elder. (The Lutheran view of what constitutes a good work is distinctly helpful in demonstrating this.)

One final objection might be that there are many fine overseers/elders/pastors/shepherds who are unmarried or without children. That is undeniable. But the fact that God in His boundless grace might use us despite our sinful conduct should not surprise us at all, for we are all sinners who sin daily, saved by grace through the death of our dear Lord on the cross. His righteous life is put to our account and it is that which has already given us God’s favour – we do not earn it by our own perfect living out of His commands. We should not therefore determine doctrine based upon our experience, but rather upon the written word of God.

In his response to my comment, Chris offered this quotation from the commentator Lenske (actually, I think it might be ‘Lenski’). This gives some helpful historical background, which lends credibility to the interpretation of the ‘husband of but one wife’ that both Chris and I hold:

Four personal qualities are then mentioned: “one wife’s husband—temperate—sober-minded—orderly.” The emphasis is on one wife’s husband, and the sense is that he have nothing to do with any other woman. He must be a man who cannot be taken hold of on the score of sexual promiscuity or laxity. It is plain that Paul does not say that none but married men may enter the ministry, that every pastor must be married. Since the days of Origen the question has been raised as to whether a widowed pastor is here forbidden to remarry. The fact that Origen stoutly affirms this is not strange when we remember that he castrated himself; his exegesis is dominated by his peculiar asceticism. Others conclude that remarriage is here forbidden because they think that “one husband’s wife” which occurs in 5:9 refers to a widow who had never had more than one husband. But the two passages are identical in wording, their sense is entirely the same so that we are able to get nothing out of the one that is not already contained in the other. We need not review the protracted discussion of this item, the non-exegetical arguments, the church legislation, etc.

Paul had a reason for beginning with “one wife’s husband.” In those days mature men were chosen for the eldership, who, as a rule, were married and had families; there were no seminary graduates who were awaiting calls. The bulk of the membership from which the elders had to be chosen had come from paganism. What this means as to sexual vices is written large in the New Testament and in the moral records of the day. Even the early apostolic conference in Jerusalem warns against “fornication” and uses this wide term to cover all the prevalent pagan sexual excesses (Acts 15:29). The epistles fairly din the word into their readers’ ears. There was the regular institution of the hierodouloi, pagan temple prostitutes; the common custom of having hetaerae (“companions,” see Liddell and Scott ἑταῖρος), girls from non-citizen families who were used by unmarried and by-married men; and thus, besides these standard practices, all the rest of the vileness that formed the soil from which these grew. Converts to the gospel did not at once step into perfect sexual purity. Hence this proviso regarding the “overseers”: to begin with, a man who is not strictly faithful to his one wife is debarred.

I most definitely agree with Lenske that Paul does not mean to imply in any way that a remarried widower (or even a widower who has not remarried) would be disqualified from eldership.

Observe however that, in this quotation, Lenske does not address the ‘having children’ requirement at all. It’s possible that Chris simply didn’t include that, so this might not be Lenske’s omission. Nevertheless, Lenske’s summary of the list of qualifications as ‘one wife’s husband—temperate—sober-minded—orderly’ suggests that he might be meaning to include all of the family-related qualifications under his discussion of ‘one wife’s husband’. If so, in the absence of a treatment of the ‘having children’ clauses, Lenske’s claim that ‘Paul does not say that none but married men may enter the ministry’ would be a typical example of my earlier complaint regarding commentators who make assertions without attempting to justifying their conclusions adequately from all the relevant text.

Now, it remains the case that to think that an elder should have children is a minority view (Lenske, I suspect, would not agree with the proposition). And I would be reticent to impose it upon others. I should like it to be in error. Yet it is not without historical precedent in the church. And this whole question is most certainly an interesting exercise in paying close attention to the text of Scripture! The subtlety of grammar matters, and Bible translations that do not seek to preserve the finer points as much as is possible are apt to mislead.

So, have I gone wrong anywhere in my treatment of the texts? It is certainly possible, likely even! Leave a comment and tell me what you think.

Put another way, if God really desires all men to be saved, why does He only choose some of them actually to be saved, while eternally condemning others?

In his article, Are There Two Wills in God? John Piper addresses this apparent problem head-on. He gives a cogent and coherent Bible-based explanation of how divine election and God’s desire for all to be saved are two harmonious and consistent truths.