Man’s Royal Status as God’s Image and God’s Son

Posted by deangonzales on August 23, 2010
2 Comments

As a symbol of their authority, ancient Near Eastern kings would sometimes erect a personal statue in the geographical spheres of their jurisdiction (Dan. 3:1ff.).¹ Even the king himself was viewed as the image and vice-regent of the territorial deity. The following examples range from the sixteenth through the thirteenth century B.C. Pharaoh Ahmose I (1550-1525 B.C.), for instance, is depicted as “a prince like Re, the child of Oeb, his heir, the image of Re, whom he created, the avenger (or the representative), for whom he has set himself on earth.”² The Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (1479-1457 B.C.) is styled, “The superb image of Amon; the image of Amon on earth; the image of Amon-Re to eternity, his living monument on earth.”³ Several texts refer to Amenhotep II (1427-1400 B.C.) as an “image” of the gods.⁴ Later, Amon-Re is represented as saying to Amenophis III (1390-1352 B.C.): “You are by beloved son, who came forth from my members, my image, whom I have put on earth, I have given to you to rule the earth in peace.”⁵ The earliest known parallel in Mesopotamia is found in the Tukuklti-Ninurta Epic, which depicts the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta (1244-1208 b.c.) as “the eternal image of Enlil.”⁶ Reading the Genesis account of man as God’s “image” and God’s “son” (1:26-27; 5:1-3) in light of ancient Near East kingship ideology, with which Moses and his original readers were well-familiar, suggests that man not only resembles God constitutively and relationally but also functionally, in the capacity of a vice-regent with dominion over the creation.⁷ Hans Wolff agrees and writes,

Man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty to rule are not autonomous; they are copies.⁸

Does this mean that Moses simply borrowed ideas from his pagan neighbors and incorporated them into his doctrine of humanity? By no means! Rather, many pagan institutions, ideologies, and myths derive in part from truth imprinted on the conscience of every man and/or from revelation imparted in primeval history. This in-created truth and primal revelation is distorted over time and incorporated into false worldviews. Accordingly, God’s revelation of man’s royal status as his “image-son” in Genesis serves a polemic that “sets the record straight,” ascribing royal status not merely to kings and emperors but to every human being.⁹

But does the Scriptural data support this understanding of man’s identity and function? I believe it does. Consider, first, the syntax or sentence structure of Genesis 1:26. Some English versions may give the impression that God’s creating man as His image and God’s assigning man the task of ruling are two separate, unrelated things: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image … and let them have dominion … over all the earth” (ESV; see also KJV, NAS, NIV, NLT, CSB). But the Hebrew construction suggests a consequential relationship.¹⁰ The verse could be better translated, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule …” (NET). Thus, ruling is a function of God’s image, which is further underscored in verse 28.¹¹ One should also consider the teaching of Psalm 8:3-8:

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field, the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas (emphasis added).

Obviously, David sees an intimate connection between man’s identity and his God-given function as ruler over creation. Therefore, in light of the biblical data, we should not exclude the function of ruling from a definition of God’s image.¹² Indeed, man’s functional role as God’s vice-regent is likely the primary facet of man’s identity highlighted in the Genesis creation account. In this important respect the Biblical view of creation and mankind differs from the other cosmogonies of the ancient Near East. According to the creation accounts of Egypt and Mesopotamia, the creation of man is an afterthought. Humans are normally viewed as the slaves or “the cattle” of the gods.¹³ The Scriptures, however, present all mankind as God’s royal son and co-regent over creation. No wonder the Psalmist is moved to grateful praise: “Lord, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!” (Ps. 8:9).

How does man accomplish this function of dominion? What does it entail? It does not just mean that man is the boss over animals. According to Genesis 1:28 it involves “filling” the earth by means of procreation, and it entails “subduing” the earth by means of vocation. The word translated “subdue” signifies to bring under one’s control and into one’s service. This is what Adam did by tending the Garden of Eden. This is what Abel did by shepherding sheep. This would include mining, metallurgy, medicine, art, music, literature, science, and other technological advancements. By these pursuits men bring the resources of creation under their control and into their service. This has sometimes been called man’s “cultural mandate.”

According to Genesis 2:5-25, God assigns mankind two distinct roles for carrying out this mandate. Although the man and the woman possess equal worth and dignity as the image of God, yet God created them distinct in order to function in distinct roles—the man is to function in the role of a leader, and the woman is to function in the role of a helper. There are several features of the Genesis creation account that support this distinction of roles between the man and the woman. First, God created the man and the woman in a different manner and for a different though complementary purpose. God took the man from the ground in order to cultivate the ground (vv. 5-17). On the other hand, God took the woman from the man in order to help the man (vv. 20-23). The woman is to be man’s “helper comparable [‘corresponding’] to him” (v. 20). Second, the man and woman were not created simultaneously. God created the man first and gave him instructions concerning the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Then God created the woman and brought her to the man. This historical order of man’s creation preceding the woman’s creation forms the basis of Paul’s teaching in 1 Timothy 2:11-13: “Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Thus, according to Paul, the man’s role in relation to the woman is to be a leader-teacher, and the woman’s role in relation to man is to be a fol lower-learner. Third, the man not only names the animals, demonstrating his authority over them, but he also names the woman, demonstrating his authority over her.¹⁴ And he gives her two names, each reflecting her distinctive role. He names her “woman” because she was taken from “man”¹⁵ in order to serve him (v. 23).¹⁶ Then, after the fall, he names her “Eve” (hwh), which means “giver of life,”¹⁷ because she would be the mother of all living (3:20). This certainly seems to underscore her role as a mother and probably also highlights her role as the channel through whom a Deliverer from the curse would arise.¹⁸ So on the one hand, men and women are of equal value and worth since they are both created as the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27; 5:2). On the other hand, men and woman as the image of God have distinct roles through which they each resemble a complementary role of God himself. Man is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a head. Woman is to resemble God primarily in the capacity of a helper. The Hebrew term translated “helper” (‘tsr) in Genesis 2:18, 20, refers to someone who assists another in a particular need. Interestingly, the term is used most often of God in the OT (e.g.s., Pss. 10:14; 30:10; 54:4). Thus, the role of a “helper” is not a demeaning or inferior kind of role. It is a God-magnifying role! But just how does woman as a subordinate to man resemble God and bring Him glory? I believe Philippians 2:5-8 provides an answer:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It’s true that this passage calls all Christians, men and women, to mutual deference (2:1-5). Nevertheless, it is the woman’s special role and privilege to highlight the disposition of Christ in this particular facet of the Godhead. If this is true, then feminism is not the mark of social improvement, but rather another indication of human depravity. And so-called “evangelical” feminism has no place in the Christian church (1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

I think it would be wrong, however, if we only viewed the creation mandate as a cultural mandate. The mandate that God gave to mankind was also religious or cultic in nature. Mankind was to serve as God’s royal priesthood, advancing the divine kingdom beyond the boundaries of Eden and transforming the entire earth into a cosmic sanctuary for his holy Suzerain-Creator. In fact, it can be argued that the Great Commission that God gave to Christ (Isa. 42:1-4), the Second Adam, and which Christ fulfills with His church (Matt. 28:18-20), the Second Eve, is an extension of that original mandate that God bestowed upon the First Adam and First Eve.¹⁹ And when that imperial commission is fulfilled, we, as God’s royal images and sons, shall rule and reign with Christ forever (1 Cor 4:8; 6:3; Rev 5:10; 20:6: 22:5).²⁰

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. David Clines, “The Image of God in Man, Tyndale Bulletin 19 (1968): 83; Edward Mason Curtis, “Man as the Image of God in Genesis in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Parallels” (Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1984), 117-20; J. Richard Middleton, The Liberating Image: The Imago Dei in Genesis 1 (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2005), 104-08; Hans Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 160. [↩]
2. Cited by Clines, 85. [↩]
3. Cited by Curtis, 226. [↩]
4. Ibid., 227. [↩]
5. Cited by Clines, 85. [↩]
6. Cited by Middleton, 112. For more examples, see Clines, 83-85; Middleton, 108-22; Curtis, 143-245. [↩]
7. See Clines, 95-99; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1:146-47; Wolff, 160-61. [↩]
8. Wolff, 160-61. Walter Brueggemann remarks in a similar vein, “It is now generally agreed that the image of God reflected human persons is after the manner of a king who establishes statutes of himself to assert his sovereign rule where the king himself cannot be present.” Genesis, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, ed. James Luther Mays (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982), 32. [↩]
9. This is precisely how Gregory Beale understands the parallels between the temple in ancient Near Eastern religion and the temple in biblical theology: “We should not think that Israel’s temple was like those of here pagan neighbors because she merely copied the religious traditions around her. Rather, the likeness of the Israelite temple to pagan temples should be viewed, at least, from two perspectives. First, the similarity is intended at times to be a protest statement that, while the pagan nations think that they have cornered the market on divine revelation from their gods who dwell in temples, their gods are, in fact, false and their temples purely idolatrous institutions–the den of demons (Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37; 1 Cor 10:19-20). From another perspective, it is appropriate to ask whether anything in ancient pagan religion and its institutions resembled the truth about the true God and his designs for humanity. Certainly, pagan nations had not received any special revelation to draw them into saving relation to the true God, Nevertheless, just as the image of God is not erased but distorted in unbelieving humanity, it is plausible to suggest that some of the affinities in ancient pagan beliefs and religious institutions to that of Israel’s may be due to the fact that they are garbled, shadowy representations about the being of the biblical God and of his design for his dwelling place.” The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism: Responding to New Challenges to Biblical Authority (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008), 175. [↩]
10. Here the waw plus the jussive is translated best as a purpose clause. See Job 21:19; GKC § 165. [↩]
11. Even the 18th century commentator John Gill, who had no knowledge of ANE kingship ideology, saw a clear connection between man’s identity as God’s “image” and his royal status and function: “[God's image] consisted … in his dominion, power, and authority over the creatures, in which he was as God’s viceregent, and resembled him.” An Exposition of the Old Testament (London: William Hill Collingridge, 1852), 8-9. [↩]
12. Clines remarks, “No definition of the image is complete which does not refer to this function of rulership” (97). [↩]
13. As noted above, the concept of the image of a deity constituted part of the ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. Two early Egyptian texts, however, serve as exceptions to the general rule and apply the concept of “image” to all humanity. An except from the Instruction for Merikare (circa 2100 B.C.) reads, “Well directed are men, the cattle of the god. He made heaven and earth according to their desire, and he repelled the water-monster. He made the breath of life (for) their nostrils. They who have issued from his body are his images [snnw]. He arises in heaven according to their desire. He made for them plants, animals, fowl, and fish to feed them.” (lines 131-33). A later text, Instruction of Ani, which dates to the middle of the 2nd millennium b.c., reads, “Men are in the image of the god <in> their custom of hearing a man in regard to his reply. It is not the wise alone who is in his image [snnw], while the multitude are every kind of cattle.” Cited in Middleton, 99-100. For the most part, however, the texts of the ancient Near East reserve the concept of image of deity for figures of royalty. For a helpful assessment of the parallels and contrasts, see John Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in its Cultural Context (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 19-44. [↩]
14. In the same way, parents demonstrate their authority over their children when the parents name their children. [↩]
15. The English terms reflect the Hebrew word play between ‘isshah and ‘ish. [↩]
16. Matthew Henry appropriately notes, “That the woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.” A Commentary on the Whole Bible (Reprint, Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 1:20. [↩]
17. The Hebrew name Eve (hwh) occurs only here and in 4:1. The LXX translates the name here as “Life” (zoe), but in 4:1 transliterates it (Euan), which the apostle Paul follows (2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:13). In light of the reason given for Adam’s assigning her this name and in light of the apparently etymological relationship to hyh it seems likely that the name derives from the Hebrew noun for “life.” The fact that the Hebrew hwh has a median waw rather than a median yod may suggest that it derives from a more primitive form of the word. In support of this possibility, it may be noted that the Ugaritic verb “to live” contains the medial consonant yod in the Qal form but the medial consonant waw in the Piel. This fact suggests a factitive meaning for Eve, such as “giver of life,” or the intensive idea of “propagator of life.” [↩]
18. Despite the curse, the woman will bear children. Moreover, she will mother an offspring who will realign himself with the interests of Yahweh’s kingdom and eventually over come the works of the Serpent (Gen. 3:15). It is likely that Adam discerned these redemptive implications in Yahweh’s punishment of the woman and responded by assigning her a new name (3:20). Waltke refers to Adam’s naming his wife “Eve” as “the beginning of hope” (95). [↩]
19. This is the basic thesis of Gregory Beale: “[Adam and Eve] were to reflect God’s kingship by being his vice-regents on earth…. It is plausible to suggest that they were to extend the geographical boundaries of the garden until Eden covered the whole earth…. They were to extend the smaller livable area of the garden by transforming the outer chaotic region into a habitable territory…. God’s ultimate goal in creation was to magnify his glory throughout the earth by means of his faithful image-bearers inhabiting the world in obedience to the divine mandate” (81-82). Beale traces out the many biblical links between the Garden of Eden, the OT Tabernacle/Temple, the NT Church, and the New Heavens and New Earth. He argues persuasively that the Great Commission should be viewed as extension of the creation mandate of Gen. 1 and 2. What the first Adam failed to do, the Last Adam will successfully accomplish, and the holy Garden will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. See The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT, ed. D. A. Carson (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 2004), John Fesko follows Beale’s reading of redemptive history and suggests the NT church’s identity as the “Second Eve.” Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis 1-3 with the Christ of Eschatology (Ross-Shire, U.K.: Mentor, 2007), 145-82. [↩]
20. This is an excerpt from my article “Man: God’s Visible Replica & Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review (2009). [↩]

“Why Sunday Sermons Are Necessary But Not Sufficient”: from The Trellis and the Vine

Posted by deangonzales on June 19, 2010
2 Comments

Colin Marshall and Tony Payne have authored a book that endeavors to provide a biblically balanced strategy for church ministry. Their aim is to move pastors and laypeople away from mindsets that are rooted merely in human tradition (whether old or new) and toward a mindset that is closer to the model exemplified in the NT. In chapter eight of their book, The Trellis and the Vine, the authors contrast the model of “the pastor as trainer,” which they see as closer to the biblical pattern, with two common models found in churches today, namely, “the pastor as service-providing clergyman” and “the pastor as CEO.” While noting a number of strengths in these two models, they also point out weakness. Since the ecclesiastical tradition I’m most familiar with tends toward “the pastor as service-providing clergyman” model, I’ll offer an excerpt of their critique of this paradigm. Keep in mind that the authors acknowledge some strengths of this model,¹ and they alert the reader that what they’re critiquing is somewhat of a stereotype.² So one should wear the shoe only insofar as it fits.

Perhaps the most striking disadvantage of this way of thinking about ministry is that it feeds upon and encourages the culture of ‘consumerism’ that is already rife in our culture. It perfectly fits the spirit of our age whereby we pay trained professionals to do everything for us rather than do it ourselves–whether cleaning our car, ironing our shirts, or walking our dog. The tendency is for Christian life and fellowship to be reduced to an hour and a quarter on Sunday morning, with little or no relationship, and very little actual ministry taking place by the congregation themselves. In this sort of church culture, it becomes very easy for the congregation to think of church almost entirely in terms of ‘what I get out of it’, and thus to slip easily into criticism and complaint when things aren’t to their liking.

Even the good practice of pastoral counseling can become focused on ‘me’ being cared for by the pastor–such that if the assistant minister visits instead, this is not seen as adequate: “The pastor only sent him because he couldn’t be bothered coming himself”.

None of this is simply to blame the ‘consumer’! For all its historic strengths, the professional pastor-as-clergyman approach speaks loud and clear to church members that they are there to receive rather than to give. As a model, it tends to produce spiritual consumers rather than active disciples of Christ, and very easily gets stuck in maintenance mode. Outreach or evangelism, both for individual congregation members and the church as a whole, is down the list.

In many respects, this first way of thinking about pastoral ministry reflects culture and norms of a different world–the world of the 16th- and 17th century Christianized nations, in which the whole community was in church, and in which the pastor was one of the few with sufficient education to teach.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. In particular, they remark, “It rightly puts regular preaching of the word at the centre of the ministry; it gathers the whole congregation as a family on Sunday for prayer, praise, and preaching; the occasional services provide opportunities for outreach; the pastor cares for his people in times of crisis” (94). Later, they stress the importance of formal preaching and teaching in the context of corporate worship: “Sermons are needed, yes, but they are not all that is needed. Let’s be absolutely clear: the preaching of powerful, faithful, compelling biblical expositions is absolutely vital and necessary to the life and growth of our congregations. Weak and inadequate preaching weakens our churches. As the saying goes, ‘sermonettes produce Christianettes.’ Conversely, clear, strong, powerful public preaching is the bedrock and foundation upon which all other ministry in the congregation is built. The sermon is the rallying call. It is where the whole congregation can together feed on God’s word and be challenged, comforted and edified. The public preaching ministry is like a framework that sets the standard and agenda for all the other word ministries that take place. We do not want to see less emphasis on preaching or less effort go into preaching! On the contrary, we long for more godly, gifted Bible teachers who will set congregations on fire with the power of the preached word. To say that sermons (in the sense of Bible expositions in our Sunday gatherings) are necessary but not sufficient is simply to stand on the theological truth that it is the word of the gospel that is sufficient, rather than any one form of its delivery. We might say that the speaking of the word of the gospel under the power of the Spirit is entirely sufficient–it’s just that on its own, the 25-minute sermonic form of it is not (102-03). [↩]
2. “Now of course these common approaches are stereotypes, and cannot reflect the multi-faceted reality of ministry in all its variety. All the same, we trust you can recognize the structures and tendencies reflected in the descriptions, and make adjustments for your own situation accordingly” (93). [↩]

God’s Baby – The Divine Origin of True Churches

Posted by John Reuther on May 5, 2010
1 Comment

 God made us, and when a baby is born into our lives we stand in awe of God’s creative power and skill. But do we ever stop to think about the birth and origin of a true church of Jesus Christ in this world? Let’s look at how Paul describes the birth of the Thessalonian church in his first letter to that church.

Divine Birth

When Paul and Silas went on the 2^nd missionary journey, they were prayerfully laboring to bring churches to birth. They preached to that end and trusted the power of God to do the work. Like the second birth of a Christian (Jn. 3:6), true churches are “born from above,” and are not the creation of man. God gave Paul, Silas, and Timothy an important part in this divine creation, but the origination was from Him alone. When we remember that God created the world, mankind, and believers in Christ, let’s remember that He creates churches too.

Just as our salvation is the work of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so is the planting of a church. More than this, the persevering of a church so planted is also His work. Notice Paul’s language in the letter as he writes that the new church in Thessalonica was in the Father (1:1, 3), in the Lord Jesus (1:1, 2), and with the Spirit (1:6). It happened in the will of the Father. It was the immediate effect of the work of the Son who was crucified, risen, and ascended to heaven. And the completion of the new church creation came about by the power of the Holy Spirit.

What a different view we will have of our church when we understand these things. How much more we will value its entire life span as we rejoice in its perseverance through the providence of God. A church is true by virtue of its divine creation.

Divine Choice

The second factor in the existence of the church is God’s choice of the people. How many times in our lives have we needed to choose our next church. But God in fact chooses the church. Paul wrote “….knowing, brethren beloved by God, his choice of you…” (1 Th. 1:4). God chose the people whom He saved and added to that church. Their conversion and the calling into existence of the body were coincident, at the same time. And after Paul writes of God’s choice in verse 4, he states that the Gospel which the missionaries preached “did not come to you in word only, but in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction….” (1 Th. 1:5). They spoke the word, the Spirit brought the word to life in them.

When Paul and Silas came to Thessalonica they immediately went to the synagogue and reasoned with them from the Scriptures (Acts 17:1-2). They gave evidence that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead (17:3).  “Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas” (17:4). Here were the first converts among God’s elect in that city. Paul taught them again that it was the word of God “which performs its work in you who believe” (1 Th. 2:13). They did not choose God, they did not choose the church in that city, God chose them. We see evidence all around us of “churches” that are the mere creation of man, but not this one. And in all generations it is the will of God working in the word of God, made effectual by the Holy Spirit, that reveals the sovereign choice and election of God in a true church. All else is counterfeit.

Human Instruments

God brings churches to birth because He is the Creator, but He uses chosen instruments as He did in Thessalonica. Paul was very conscious of the human agency of the missionary team in the divine planting of this church. The first mention of human agency is found in 1 Th. 1:5 where Paul says “for our Gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction…” Whose gospel was it that Paul and Silas were preaching? Paul says it was their Gospel. In this claim of ownership Paul is saying two things. First, that they were the human agents in preaching the gospel. Second, that those who had come to make trouble in the Thessalonian Church had a false message. After the missionaries had been “run out of town” (Acts 17:10),  men with evil intentions came to discredit the gospel that Paul preached by attacking the messengers. But Paul said “you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake.” God uses men of His choosing as human instruments to do what only He can do. Paul reminds them that in the preaching of this Gospel, they heard and saw the very power of God, the anointing of the Holy Spirit, and the granting of the gift of assurance to the hearers. The Thessalonians were not to discount the human agency of Paul, Silas, and Timothy in the divine creation of their church. Neither ought Christians in any generation discount or minimize the work of God in choosing and sending missionary and pastoral agents to them to bring them to faith and their church to life.

Healthy Baby

God accomplished His will to bring to birth a new church in the great city of Thessalonica, and the result was “a healthy baby,” a healthy church. Warren Wiersbe described chapter 1 as “a church is born” and chapter 2 as “helping the baby grow up.” That’s it.

When a baby is born into the world the doctors look to see whether the vital signs are strong and the baby is breathing normally. Paul mentions their vital signs in 1:3. The Thessalonian Church was born into the world with vibrant spiritual health. Paul commends them for their work of faith, their labor of love, and their steadfastness of hope in the Lord Jesus Christ and in the presence of God. It is as if Paul is setting forth the standard of a healthy baby church: Faith directed toward God in Jesus Christ; Love flowing from Him through us to others and manifested in good deeds; and that future-looking Hope, the visionary grasp of what awaits us in Christ that makes spiritual work a labor of love and not a burden. This health is the result of true conversion: “you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven, who rescues us from the wrath to come” (1 Th. 1:9-10).

Another concern which we have when a baby is born is the bonding of that infant with his or her mother and father. Paul speaks of this with reference to the church in Thessalonica. In 1 Th. 1:6 Paul writes of the bond of love and communion which was created between them and the Lord. “You became imitators of us and of the Lord.”

All the family and friends want to see the new baby. And so it was with the Thessalonian Church. Paul says “so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and in Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has gone forth…” (1 Th.1:7-8). 

Healthy baby – healthy church, because God brought this church to birth through faithful men whose desire was to do the will of God in obedience to the Great Commission. They were not men who resorted to gimmicks or deception in order to draw people to themselves. “For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts. For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed. God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others… but we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Th. 2:3-8).

Now what does all of this mean for us today? Let’s be much in prayer that God will bring true churches to birth. Let us pray for the work of church planting in our generation and for faithful, fervent men like Paul who will go forth to preach and gather converts for churches. As the Gospel is preached and sinners hear of the salvation that is found only in Jesus Christ, may they be formed into true churches like the Thessalonian church. Let’s be deeply concerned and prayerful about the Gospel vitality of our own church and seek, by His powerful grace, to foster it in our own lives. And let’s always return to the Scriptural standard and pattern of what the churches of Christ were designed to look like. A careful analysis of these Thessalonian letters will greatly aid us in that pursuit.

A true church is God’s baby. If you have ever had a little baby yourself, you know exactly what this means, and you can easily figure out how it will help us all to regard the church, both in its divine and human aspects, standing in awe at God’s work of creation, and holding esteem for those whom God used to do the work (1 Th. 5:12-13). May we also repudiate all man-centeredness in the planting, planning, and populating of churches.

Pastor John Reuther, Covenant Baptist Church, Lumberton, NJ – Reformed Baptist Seminary