New Thoughts: (04/20/14-04/26/14)
I get the feeling I shall be taking another side journey from this passage, to consider more fully all that this elder role entails. As with the earlier pursuit on baptism, it is a matter that is long overdue at this point, and seeing as Peter has pulled together just about every idea and term related to the office in this passage, what better point from which to launch? But, first, I shall consider the passage more directly.
The first thing I find necessary is to excise Peter’s clause of identification. My purpose is twofold: First, it makes the real flow of his point difficult to perceive with that lengthy interjection in place. Second, there is something to observe about that aside in its own right. I’ll start with the second matter. “As your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed”. I am following the NASB with that. I have to say that the translation here does not necessarily follow as the obvious reading. “As”, or as the KJV offers, “who am”, is really just the definite article: I the fellow-elder.
That term, fellow-elder, translates sumpresbuteros, the prefix sun indicating a close fellowship. Peter is saying something stronger than, “Hey, I’m an elder, too!” It’s nearer an acknowledgement that we are co-laborers, that we share the same challenges and responsibilities, and that his care for our situation is amplified by that commonality. It puts me in mind of the point made in Hebrews, that we have a high priest who has experienced all our trials and temptations. He can better sympathize with our situation and better minister to our needs for having been through them Himself. Peter’s making a similar claim here; not in degree, obviously, but in basis. I’ve been there. I know what you deal with. Let me tell you what I’ve learned.
Notice that Peter also expresses his companionship. He speaks of suffering, but not his own. He points our attention back to Christ. He was a witness to the sufferings of Christ. Now, I have not doubts whatsoever that Peter has his own sufferings. In this life you will have tribulations. We know well enough what he would face in the future, but doubt not that he had already dealt with a lot. At very least we can consider the suffering he must have undergone in those first days between the death of Christ and His resurrection; the agony of soul knowing just how thoroughly he had failed his Master.
But, he doesn’t point to his own situation. He points us back to Christ. Remember? He suffered; and far worse than yourselves. He was flogged, crucified, dead and buried. He was rejected by one and all. He was God incarnate, and yet He was despised by the very people He came to save. We could add to His burdens the nature of those twelve He had called to be His disciples. They had not proven particularly astute. Surely, He found His patience tested by them on more than one occasion. But, He persevered. He won through. And in His victory lies the hope of glory that Peter expresses as also part of his experience.
Here, I think we can once more hear the expectation that this is a thing shared amongst the elders he is addressing. What cannot be said – which could be mistakenly inferred from the NASB rendering – is that they were fellow witnesses of the sufferings of Christ. That would be most improbable. These were churches planted well after the fact of His crucifixion, in lands far removed from His native Galilee. If they were witnesses of His sufferings in any regard, it would have to be in their own suffering for His name’s sake.
But, I rather think Peter is making a mild case for his own authority to advise: I am an elder like yourselves. I am also a first-hand witness to what Jesus suffered; the implication being I am also first-hand witness to what He taught and modeled. I am also a partaker of that glory to be revealed. I didn’t just witness these events, I was changed by them. What He taught, I learned. What He gave, I received. It is on this basis that I give this advice to you who have also received, also learned, also been entrusted with the care of His people.
Now, let me take the rest of verse 1 in conjunction with what follows. “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you: Shepherd the flock of God among you…” Here is the reason I have pulled this apart: That opening ‘therefore’, if I attempted to move Peter’s apologetic to the front, appears to point to his situation. If I leave the aside where it is, the ‘therefore’ seems almost to get lost. In fact, many of the translations choose to skip past the term. But, it seems too important a term to be bypassed like that. The term carries the force of, “It necessarily follows”. But, if it necessarily follows, it behooves us to discern what exactly it is which makes the following necessary? How far back is Peter pointing us?
Well, if we go back to 1Peter 4:1, we have another ‘therefore’, and that one seems to present its summation pretty immediately. “Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh,” persevere. From there, he moved on to the whole matter of suffering and righteousness and justice and mercy. You were like them, now you’re not. They don’t get it, so they persecute you. But, they will be judged, as you will be too. The end of all things is at hand, and though you suffer injustice now, it is just God’s judgment starting with the disciplining of His own. Their time will come, and it won’t be pleasant for them. If you are reviled for Christ, praise God, you are blessed! If you are suffering just penalty for sin, that’s a different matter. But, it was with great difficulty – the very suffering of Christ that Peter witnessed – that you are saved. They, if they are not among the elect, are hopeless indeed. So, continue in doing what is right, particularly when it’s hard.
That’s chapter 4 in brief. And, now we arrive at the second ‘therefore’. Given that: Given that Christ suffered on your behalf, given that you – many, if not all of you – are now suffering on His behalf: There is a particular need for the ministration of the elders. There are particular tasks that your filling of that office must needs pursue. The simplest summation of the task at hand is, “shepherd the flock of God”. Notice immediately: They are not your flock. It is not your church. It is His as they are His. He has entrusted you with this task of caring oversight. Notice that this is exactly the task Peter has undertaken with this letter: Caring oversight. Notice that by the very writing of this letter, he is setting out to do exactly what he now exhorts his fellow elders to do.
But, here is the primary matter for elders: Because the sheep are pressed by such trials, the need for shepherds is that much greater. Face it. If the pastures were all pleasantness and idyllic there would be no need for shepherds. There are going to be those sheep which are certain that as they are sheep of the Great Shepherd, they have no need for you lesser shepherds. Me and my Bible, that’s all I need. God and me, we’re like that. I really don’t need an interpreter, thank you very much.
But, they do need elders. They do need shepherds. Sheep are not particularly bright. They have very poor situational awareness. Couldn’t God just see to them Himself? Of course He could. Indeed, He does. And, being not only the Chief and Great Shepherd, but also God Most High, He has determined by His own good and perfect purposes that the means of His care for them would be men like you elders. But, don’t go getting a swelled head over that. It’s not that you’re so special. It’s that He’s so good. It’s not that you have arrived. It’s that He has opted to work in and through you. It’s not cause for pride, but for utmost humility.
We need only consider the criteria set forth for those who would serve in this office. “The overseer must be beyond reproach as God’s steward: not self-willed, quick-tempered, addicted to wine, pugnacious or fond of sordid gain” (Ti 1:7). I have to ask: Is there any who would dare to suppose they measure up to this? Could even Peter or Paul lay claim to full compliance? I rather doubt it. I do not doubt that they were no drunkards or street brawlers, and it is clear that they weren’t in this for the money. But, not quick-tempered, utterly free of self-will? I guess it’s not out of the question, but it seems unlikely. Paul, at least, shows evidence of having a bit of fire in him, and Peter’s impetuous nature would suggest that if he was free of these things by the time he wrote this letter, there had been great change indeed in him.
As Peter lays out his admonition for the elders, he speaks of their role in three distinct terms. There is the term elder itself, presbuteros. There is the idea of overseer, or episkopoi. And, of course, there is the role of the shepherd, poimanate. Each of these has its own contribution to the picture Peter is painting for us. Thayer gives us a first distinction of terms. Episkopoi, he says, focuses on the function: Oversight. Presbuteros focuses on the dignity of the office. If I were to build upon that, poimanate presents us with the spirit or character in which dignity fulfills function.
It seems to me that the passages like Titus 1:7, which list the prerequisites for office, are aimed at the matter of dignity. These characteristics, which might be summed up in self-control, define that dignity that comes with age and maturity. To be sure, age alone is no guarantee of dignity. But, there are passions that youth needs to overcome before dignity can be had. Some, it is true, conquer their passions sooner than others. Timothy is given to us as an example of this very thing. Others fulfill the adage, “There’s no fool like an old fool.” So, then, we are given these criteria by which to assess the progress of dignity. Is he still after his own agenda and his own interests? He’s not ready. Is he itching for a fight, too caught up in the ways of the world? Don’t expect him to be of service to the church, then. If he cannot control himself, how can he hope to guide others?
Other criteria get more directly at the task of oversight. How’s he managing his own household? He’s being called as a steward over God’s people, a position of great trust and responsibility. If he can’t manage his own affairs, how shall he manage this bunch?
Again, I am mindful of the near perfection these criteria suggest. It is not unlike the requirements set upon the priesthood of old. Physical defect was sufficient to disqualify one, at least from the office of high priest. As court intrigue infiltrated the pursuit of that office, this fact came into play. Lop off your competitor’s ear and there’s no longer any competition, is there? He’s disqualified. Of course, we understand that moral defects are far more to the point, and eventually the entire line from which the high priests were chosen were wholly and unequivocally disqualified in favor of the One Who was utterly without defect.
Indeed, we discover that the whole of Scripture points us repeatedly to the impossibility of our compliance under our own power. It points us inexorably to the need for a Savior, for a righteousness outside ourselves and beyond our capacity. Can it really be supposed, then, that the office of elder reinstates requirements no man can hope to fill? Certainly, the ideal is set out in those terms, and I think we can agree that the bar that is set is set very high. We must, as always, be careful in the extreme when it comes to any thought of lowering the bar. We fallen human beings are particularly adept at lowering our standards. God is not. We do well to remember this. But, at the same time, I do not see how any man of God could look over the requirements set upon the leadership of God’s people and suppose himself fit. I might set it thusly: Gospel ministry requires the Gospel. It cannot be done as an outgrowth of Law. The Law remains and we strive towards its requirements, but apart from the Gospel, the Law can only doom. That fact doesn’t change for leadership. We may be called to shepherd, but we remain simultaneously sheep.
So, then: We have the office of the elder. This is not some novelty introduced by the apostles, but a system in place since the days of Moses. I was reminded of this listening to the Message of the Month from Ligonier Ministries this month. Moses appointed seventy elders to aid in leading the nation of Israel, for the task was too great for one man. As a bit of an aside, when I look to the coming year, with our number of elders looking to drop from the eight we have currently to five and possibly four, I am struck with amazement to think that seventy elders sufficed for the nation that traversed the Wilderness of Sin. It’s a daunting task to care properly for even a few of those who are the flock of God. It’s a daunting task to care for the business of the flock atop all the other demands of life. But, it is a high calling.
I note this, as well, which Zhodiates made note of: The elders were (and are) men appointed and ordained to lead. We might find the ordained part a bit too strong for our tastes, but then it is not our tastes that matter. Appointed and ordained: The first, we see play out through the expressed will of the congregation. As they trust God to work through us by His Holy Spirit, so we trust God to work through them by the same Holy Spirit. This doubtless sounds a rather naïve system to the unbeliever, but it is the nature of church governance that God is in charge and we avail ourselves of the means He provides to discern His will.
The ordination may be harder to see. I am trying to recall whether there was anything that would count as such in being appointed last year. I suspect there was and I have simply forgotten it. If not, I dare say there ought to be some such solemnizing of the electoral results. Of course, this is not ordination on the same level as we would require of a pastor. And yet, I wonder if even there, it would stand us in better stead were we to do so.
Many times over the course of this last year I have wondered if my own inclusion as elder was perhaps a bit premature. I don’t say this on basis of spiritual maturity, although perhaps I should. But, I think in terms of my knowledge of the flock in this church, there is a distinct lack. There are certain of the spiritual disciplines that I could wish were more developed. Considering the task of leading and guarding the church, it would seem to me that something akin to the ordination paper presented by a pastoral candidate would be a wise thing to require of those who would serve as elder. I think in some ways we are too concerned with getting volunteers to properly assess the few volunteers we get. That, if it is our situation, is a matter for great concern.
What, after all, is the ordination paper apart from a working through and stating one’s own understanding of the faith? What is the ordination council other than an opportunity for the elders of the denomination to properly vet one who would have their approval in the act of ordination? Here is what you say you believe. But, let us probe a bit; make sure that you are not simply setting forth what you know we want to hear. Is this really what you believe? Are you thinking through the implications? Do your words describe your reality? There is only so much we can do with a brief interview. There is only so much we can perceive from the results of a test. For all that, there is only so much we can learn from even such a council as this. But, we owe it to our Chief Shepherd to pursue the task with all due diligence.
I wonder, if we looked upon the office of elder as a matter of not only appointment but also ordination, would we be rather more conservative as to whom we would accept? Would we be more thorough in examining the applicant for office? I suspect we would.
Men appointed and ordained to lead: But, that leadership is not in the form of putting the stamp of one’s personality on the church. The church, after all, is not about our agenda. If it is about our agenda, it is not a church, it is a cult of personality. The church is about the kingdom of Christ, and is a thing instituted by Christ our King for His purposes, to satisfy His agenda. We are but His agents, His representatives. We are, as Peter now clarifies, shepherds. But, be very clear about this: We are not shepherds of our own flock. We are shepherds of the flock of God. As such, we must be under-shepherds – hirelings.
We do well to remember the general societal sense of the worth of a hireling. Jesus did much to restore the valuation of the shepherd, but he didn’t deny the problem. Indeed, the Old Testament prophets had much to say about the unsatisfactory service rendered by God’s under-shepherds in their day. The New Testament conception of shepherding the Church is firmly built upon those images and understandings.
Think about the fact that by the time of Jesus the shepherd was esteemed about as much as a tax-collector or a publican. Their testimony was presumed falsified and inadmissible in the court of law. Any goods they might have for sale were presumed to be stolen. There was a general presumption of guilt that I’m not sure could even be countered by sufficient proof of innocence. And yet, the whole time, there is also that Scriptural thread of Messiah as Good Shepherd. But, if He is a Good Shepherd, surely He can choose for Himself a staff of under-shepherds in keeping with His own good style. Yes, He can. He sets His imprint upon the Church. It is His imprint that defines the Church. The shepherding elder, in the pursuits of his office, must be concerned with maintaining that imprint, neither effacing nor embellishing it.
But, this character of the shepherd, in a good light, explains much as regards how we are to serve as elders. We have hint of it in the scene of Peter’s reinstatement. “Do you love Me, Simon? Then shepherd My sheep. Feed My sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). But, what do we know of shepherding, let alone shepherding as it was practiced in that time and place? We have some pop-culture images to draw from, but that’s about it. We have some vague sense of fluffy love and care themes that we have picked up from the church, but that’s about it. We certainly don’t have any real experience of sheep or shepherds from which to draw.
We get the sense that making sure the flocks get fed and watered is a key factor. We have enough, between the imagery of the Psalms and the parables of Jesus, to gather that sheep bear watching. They are defenseless and careless creatures. Predators are many, and without the watchful strength and skill of the shepherd, the predators will win every time. What was David’s training for battle, after all? He was fending of lions and bears by himself. Why? To defend the sheep who could not defend themselves. We see, in the image of Jesus’ parable of the lost sheep, that sheep are inclined to wander off. He drew His images from the common experiences of life. He was not presenting some fabulous tale that defied belief. He was describing what everybody listening knew from experience. Stupid sheep goes wandering off, paying no heed whatsoever to surroundings. Next thing you know, it’s fallen over a cliff, or wandered right into the wolf’s den. Or, maybe it’s simply become so lost that it has no clue how to get back to the fold. Shepherd to the rescue!
So, then, we get that the shepherd must not only feed the sheep, but also guard them. We know, too, that the shepherd is called to lead the sheep to safe pasture. “He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside quiet waters” (Ps 23:2). Don’t read that as suggesting there is a forced rest there in the pasture. It’s that He leads well, such that when the time comes for rest, there are green, fresh pastures in which to take that rest. He is not lording it over. He is leading. Note how that plays into Peter’s thinking as he develops his point.
The shepherd also enfolds the sheep, which is to say he brings them into the fold and sees to it that they stay there for the night. He does so by becoming the door of the fold. “I am the door” (Jn 10:9). The sheep enter through Me, and if they go out, it is by My leave and direction. I call and they know My voice, so they follow (Jn 10:14).
That passage actually introduces what is to me the most critical aspect of this image for the role of elder: “I know My own and My own know Me.” It is this which leads me to think that we need to consider how long a would-be elder has been part of the church. I know it is a challenge for me. Do I know those sheep in my charge and am I known to them? I don’t mean can I put name and face together, or can they. That’s a necessary start, but this is a deeper knowing we are talking about. Do I know their situation? Do I know their progress in sanctification? Do I know how well they grasp the doctrines of faith and grace? Do they, for their part, have any real knowledge of who I am, of my own maturity or lack thereof? Do they have even the opportunity of knowing?
Now, I could argue that if the answer is no, then they had no business electing me to this position. But, then, I serve a sovereign God (as do they), and if He saw fit to set me here in spite of my relative newness to this congregation, who am I to suggest He got it wrong? I dare not! I am (I hope) humbled by His choice. I am actually rather stunned by His choice, and left scrambling to see what it is He would have me doing now that I’m here. I am constantly brought up against my own negligence, constantly reminded that I’ve got nothing in myself to offer. So, then, I must return to seeking out my Chief Shepherd, that He might train me more fully in the task of shepherding.
Before I move on to the matter of oversight, I want to spend a bit longer on this less familiar role. The most striking image we gain of the shepherd is that he was intimately familiar with his sheep. This is seen in that comment Jesus makes. “I know My own and they know Me.” We take it further, and recognize that He knows each of His sheep by name – and by character as well. How beneficial to us when we go astray! He knows us well enough to have a pretty good idea where we’ve run off. He knows us well enough to know what temptations are most likely to prove troublesome. He knows us well enough to rescue us before we do ourselves harm.
There is the model I am to emulate. As concerns those sheep over which He has seen fit to set me as overseer, I am to have that same familiarity. I am called to know them, not just their names but who they are, what they’re like. I am called to be known by them, to be in so constant a contact with them that they know my tone, my character, my style. It is not that I am to be Jesus to them. That is a mistaken notion too common to our time. No, it is that I am to represent Jesus faithfully and see to His interests as concerns His sheep.
That labor on His behalf may very well require stepping into dangerous situations. The shepherd’s task was a dangerous thing. He was out by himself facing the wilds. He faced the challenges of weather and of beast. He was charged with the defense of the sheep in his care, and potentially charged for the loss of any of said sheep. Now, that thought is something to promote sober consideration. To have charge of the sheep is to be responsible for loss. And, it’s not some earthly boss to whom we must answer. We cannot simply go to a new employer, or relocate to get away from a bad reputation. We cannot skip out on this debt. It is to God we will answer, and it is His loss we have incurred. Much is required of that one who is entrusted with much.
Think about it. We’ve already had the call to stewardship, to being the one who can be trusted to look after all the affairs of the household. Now we have the call to shepherd, to providing tender care and guidance to each and every member of the household. We are, then, doubly responsible for the welfare of God’s household, and doubly answerable to Him for the outcome. How great, then, ought be our care for the sheep of His fold! How strong our resolve should be when fighting for their spiritual security.
We are called to have a particular loyalty to the flock as well as loving sympathy for them. That is not to say we love them in a fashion that overlooks their sins, even though Peter has told us how love covers a multitude of sins (1Pe 4:8). Loving sympathy understands all too well the weakness that allowed sin to enter in. But, it cares too much to allow sin to remain. Loving sympathy corrects and admonishes, even as Peter is doing here. Loving sympathy does not seek to crush the spirits of that one who needs correction, but to encourage and advise. Here is the path. Let me help you to walk in it. That way lies death and deep sorrow. Let me show you how to avoid that end, show you a better way.
Here, too, there is danger, if of a different sort. We know from our own reactions to such efforts that the word of correction is rarely received with warm welcome. Scripture itself tells us that this will be the case. All discipline seems sorrowful at the time, not joyful. Yet, those trained by it know its yield of the peaceful fruit of righteousness (Heb 12:11). So, we shepherds must seek to strengthen the weak hand and the feeble knee, to make straight their paths and help them heal (Heb 12:12-13). If needs be, we must be willing to carry them for a season until strength returns.
And with all that clearly in sight, notice how Peter says we are to come to this labor: Voluntarily and with eagerness. God is not looking for hired hands. He’s had those before, and the record of their efforts is clear. They were in it for the money, not for the sheep. There is a reason the Great Shepherd had to come lay His life down for the sheep. It is because the hired hands of the past, the under-shepherds He employed, proved untrustworthy. They were too busy seeing to their own welfare to care for the welfare of those in their charge. Watch out! We are no better than they. We are fully capable of failing just as thoroughly.
Indeed, I am hearing sirens go off as I write these things. I look at this matter of being answerable to God for every loss, and I know I must seek more strongly for the salvation of my own daughter. It is well and good to entrust her into the Lord’s care, and by and large that’s really all one can do. But, it’s not all one can do. One can be a tool in the hand of God. One can pray the more fervently. One can seek every opportunity to set that choice of life or death before her. One can try even harder to prove an example of what a godly life looks like, and try even harder to make that godly life look as enticing as it truly is. Of course, without God, all of that labor will be not merely in vain, but downright draining and detrimental. But, dear shepherd, you have not been given leave to just let nature and nature’s God take its course. You have been called to shepherd. Now, do so.
Neither let pride creep in. It’s so easy. There’s that sense of prestige that arises, of being recognized at last. Pride sees the first hint of such things and wants to launch a campaign to make sure we notice ourselves. Look at me! I’ve arrived. I always wanted to be a pillar in the house of God, and here I am. He must think I’m really something. Well, yes. He does think I’m something, something that’s going to take a lot more work. He thinks I’m something that He might just manage to make do. He thinks I’m an under-shepherd, and as such, He’s going to have to keep an eye on me. You know how those under-shepherds can be.
And that matter of being too concerned with my own welfare to care for the sheep? Danger! I may not think I am at risk of allowing the sheep loss for my gain. I may not see the immediate imagery of ripping into them to feed myself. But, to the degree that I allow myself to neglect their welfare, to the degree that I am so wrapped up in my own problems and interests, that is exactly what’s happening. God did not call me to this elder office to better meet my own needs. He didn’t call me to this to meet my needs at all. The elder (shepherd, steward and overseer) holds an office that shares a certain something with the missionary. I go back to that book title, “You Have No Rights”. That is the state of the missionary. It is likewise the state of the elder. Arguably, it is the state of every Christian, but the point intensifies with increased responsibility. You have no right to expect your needs to be addressed. You have a call to address the needs of others. You have no right to expect respect and honor. You have a call to respect and honor the sheep as you respect and honor the Shepherd, caring for them as He would, as He does.
You have a mandate from God to be so aware of the people in your care that if they start to wander off you are already on the move to get ahead of them and turn them back. It’s not enough to go round up the one who departed. If we’re doing our jobs right, there ought to be no departures. Guide, guard and nourish. If the food is plentiful, the border strong and the enemy held at bay; then we shall not have to leave the 99 to chase down the one. If we have to chase down the one, it is primarily because we have been slack in our duties.
Now, don’t get me wrong. There are always going to be escapees. There are always going to be those in the flock who are more goat than sheep. The people we oversee are not uniform in their development. They are not even guaranteed to be truly saved. And we, with our imperfect capacity to discern, are called to know them well enough to recognize which are capable of self-directed development, and which are still needing to be brought into the fold. We are supposed to know their spiritual development. I think in some ways we have supplanted that with the need to know their life situation. What hardships are they facing, what illnesses do they battle? Is their marriage in trouble or are their kids rebelling? But, do you know that’s all secondary. That’s all temporal. The key factor is deeper: Where are they with God? Do they even know Him, and if they know Him, how are they progressing with Him? Is the fruit of the Spirit in evidence in their lives? Is it still in evidence when they’re outside the church? How’s their prayer life? What are they doing to increase their knowledge of Scripture? Do they have brothers or sisters to whom they are accountable? Do they need mentoring or, if they are more mature, are they mentoring others? Where are they at? How can we guide and nourish them if we don’t even know their condition?
God! I am so far from doing this job right. Indeed, I look at it and am once again reminded just how far the ability is from me. I cannot do this. Certainly in myself I have neither strength nor inclination. If, as it seems, You have called me to this office, I am wholly dependent on You to pursue it as I should. Holy Spirit, I need Your constant presence in me more than ever. I need You reminding me to pray. I need You turning my attention outward, towards those You have entrusted to my care. I need You to help me care, and to care enough to act, even when acting might threaten my comfort and ease. I could go on at length. You know that. But, You know also why You have granted me this task in Your service. Oh, Lord, let me be faithful to do as You would please. Grant that I might step out of myself so as to really get to know those in my charge. Show me how, Father, and quicken my heart to do.
Chief amongst the tasks of the elder is this matter of exercising oversight; being the episkopos. It is interesting that in the previous section of this letter, Peter listed a close cousin of this term amongst the legitimate causes for suffering: allotriepiskopos. The NASB translates the term as ‘troublesome meddler’ (1Pe 4:15), but there is clear reference to this role of overseer. The distinction lies in that the overseer who is overseeing one who is not in his charge has exceeded his authority. The sense we were given on that term is that there were those who sought to impose their Christian views on their pagan neighbors and were shocked to find their neighbors having a negative reaction. But, there is the positive role beneath the negative. There is to be this office of oversight in the church, and that office falls to the elders appointed and ordained by God for that purpose.
The term itself is a composite word, with the epi prefix indicating over, and then skopos. We can find the root of our English scope in that word. The Online Etymology Dictionary sets the meaning of skopos as the “aim, target, object of attention; watcher, one who watches.” Strong’s traces the term back a bit farther, to skeptomai, which gives us the root for skeptic. But, as I am reminded this morning, the idea of being a skeptic is not, as would generally be assumed, to be doubting as to the truth of a matter, but simply to investigate and research. The contrast, then, is with those who simply spout off without real knowledge of the matter.
Carrying all of that back into the role of the episcopate, it is well to bear in mind that the task is not one of suspicion and doubt. At the same time, it is not a call to simply take everything at face value. We cannot assume the faith of our charges or their growth. Neither are we called to assume that they are misleading us as to their development. We are to observe and examine so as to better look after those in our charge.
Now, for the matters over which we have this charge of care, we would find ourselves hard pressed to observe and examine apart from the sort of intimate fellowship implied by the shepherd’s role. How can you honestly hope to assess the spiritual maturity of somebody whose only interaction with you consists with an occasional handshake and nod of greeting on Sunday? It’s simply not possible. If that is the sum of your knowledge of the person then your assessment of them cannot be more than spouting off without knowledge. It must of necessity be the exact opposite of that skeptical investigation that oversight requires.
In that light, I marvel at the idea that the entire nation of Israel, as it traversed the desert for forty years, was managed by a mere seventy elders – seventy one if we include Moses. Their numbers were huge. The number of people each of those elders would need to know would have been in the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. There is not the least possibility of meaningful oversight and fellowship at that point. I have to believe that these seventy elders oversaw a hierarchy of deputies who in turn oversaw the people in smaller number. That would actually be somewhat of a natural structure for such a tribal, patriarchal society. Father oversaw family. Patriarch oversaw sons. Clan head oversaw patriarchs. Tribal elder oversaw clan heads. The seventy elders would no doubt have worked through these existing channels in pursuing their duties.
But, I think that as we consider the elder’s role in the church we must move beyond the Old Testament example of those Mosaic elders leading a nation. Their leadership was critical, but it was not personal. They were there to help resolve the biggest of issues, not to see to daily operations. We could, perhaps, equate them to the Senate, or maybe the House of Representatives; not in terms of dignity, I think, but in terms of duty and relationship to those served. These government organs are intended to serve as representing our interests. Yet, we would neither expect nor even desire that they be involved in the details of life. We want them considering the big issues, seeing to national and global affairs so that we can get on with our lives in peace and liberty. I have to suppose the elders of Israel were viewed in much the same light.
In the church, the elder’s role is more immediate. We may still be rejected from involving ourselves in the day-to-day details of the lives of our charges, but we are much nearer to that point. The shepherd surely involved himself in the daily lives of his sheep, and I think we can believe that the intent is that we would do likewise. That is not to say we are called to micromanage. The shepherd wasn’t down there examining every blade of grass a particular lamb might choose to eat. He was not laying out assigned sleeping locations for each animal. He examined the field to make sure the eating was good and non-threatening. He established the fold so that all of his animals could rest securely. But, he did not go into the details of how they ate, slept, and so on.
He was, however, very familiar with each and every one. He could doubtless give detailed assessments of the particular personalities and quirks of each of his sheep. He could tell you at a glance whether this particular sheep was one of his or not. He knew which of his sheep bore watching, which ones held influence over others, and so on. He knew which ones could be trusted to behave themselves for the most part. He also, if he had others working for him, knew their relative merits and maturity.
The key is familiarity. You cannot assess whom you do not know. You cannot know whom you do not interact with regularly and at length. This is our great challenge as elders. I know it is mine. Indeed, one could easily argue it is the great challenge of the church in our age. We are so busy, whether about things that matter or simply with the distractions of life, that we barely have time for God, let alone for fellowship. For many of us, the busyness comes from the church itself. We have so many commitments to be at this, that or the other function that the very idea of spending yet another evening with church family becomes almost unthinkable. It requires lots of planning, and consideration of what to do with kids and pets and what have you. And, more often than not, we’re just too exhausted to bother.
They wouldn’t be comfortable in our house. There’s nothing for the kids to be doing. We generally eat so simply on Sundays. It would hardly be suitable for company. The house is a mess. I wouldn’t want them seeing this. Or, worse: What will they think of us if they hear what our kids are listening to, or if they can’t keep their tongues in check? Maybe we could schedule for a time when the kids are out?
And even if we felt like we had an evening to give every week or so, there’s still the question of how open we could ever expect to be, how concerned with the deep things of God. The average social gathering, even amongst church folk, tends to remain pretty shallow in terms of conversational topics. We can discuss weather, jobs, kids, sports, what have you. But, it’s not all that usual, at least here in New England, for the talk to turn to matters of faith. I’ve been with folks down south where that seems a more common thing, but up here? We’ve been trained. Politics and religion: two topics best avoided in polite company. But, if we are going to fulfill the task set for us, I see no choice but to break through that training.
Let me take this thought a step further. If we are going to have a comfortable discussion of faith, particularly in terms of assessing progress, confessing weakness, admitting to the need for prayer on matters other than healing and saving others, we will need to have established trust. You might open up to me on a first or second visit, but I can assure you I would not reciprocate. I am a relatively private person. I am not going to reveal myself to you until I have sufficient cause to trust you with myself. I doubt I am the exception case in this regard. This level of trust, to my way of thinking, cannot be established by quarterly visits, or even monthly. I’m not certain it could even be done on a biweekly basis, except perhaps in one-on-one settings.
This weighs heavily on my mind. I know I have this list of folks in the church that I am supposed to be shepherding, and there are a few of them I would say I have some reasonable knowledge of. There’s not a one I would claim to know well, however fond I might be of them. The sheer number of them, though, all but precludes getting together frequently enough to establish the sort of familiarity that shepherding calls for. Therein lies my concern in this office, and to date, it’s been a concern that proves rather debilitating. It’s so overwhelming a task, and so alien, that I am inclined to leave it to the side. It can’t be done, therefore why try and start? Not a good place to be, given the assignment. It is a matter in which I shall certainly need even more of the help of my Lord and Savior.
[04/25/14] I think I am finally ready to move along to the second half of verse 2. Reading this in the NASB, I find the structure a bit confusing: “exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God”. Which is it that is according to God’s will, the exercise of oversight, or the voluntary nature of our work? Arguably, it amounts to the same thing. But, I find the idea of volunteering according to another’s will to approach the oxymoronic. If it is per another’s will, how is it voluntary? To be voluntary, is it not necessarily by my unconstrained will?
If, however, that matter of God’s will applies to the way in which we exercise oversight on His behalf in shepherding His sheep, it makes perfect sense. They are His sheep. Of course He has authority to determine how we shall shepherd them. Now, here’s an interesting thing: The phrase is actually just kata Theon – according to God. Will doesn’t enter into it, at least linguistically. But, the clause is given in the accusative. What does this tell us? Wheeler explains that the accusative case, “focuses the verbal action’s goal, direction or extent, thereby limiting the action to or by the Accusative substantive.” I was doing fine until that last word. However, it is sufficient to answer the question. The ‘verbal action’ of this sentence is the twofold act of shepherding and overseeing. Of the two, it would seem that the primary verb is shepherding, with overseeing provided in support.
Given this, we might do better to open the verse with, “Shepherd the flock of God among you God’s way.” The remainder of this and the following verse are then exposition on what God’s way looks like in practice. In that light it states what should be obvious. But, it is something that bears repeating. Shepherd God’s flock God’s way. You, sir elder, are not here to put your stamp on the church. You are not here to leave your mark. You are here to maintain the flock of God to His liking. You are yet answerable to Him. Bear that in mind as you go about your duties.
So, then: exercise oversight, but not as if it were some onerous burden. Do it voluntarily. Said differently: Do it because you want to. The NIV does a pretty good job at expressing this contrast. “Not because you must, but because you are willing.” This introduces a series of contrasts that Peter uses to demonstrate the right and the wrong way to shepherd: Not this, but that. It’s a very helpful mode of presentation. Don’t oversee as under compulsion to do so. If you don’t want to serve as overseer, then don’t take up the office!
Consider how one is likely to go about a task that one is obliged to do against one’s preferences. The job may get done, but it will not be done with the same diligence you would give to it if it were your desired mission. When that job involves motivating others, and particularly others who may have no more interest in the task than yourself, that mindset can lead to heavy-handed and even cruel leadership. You resent the fact that you have to do this, and the fact that they’re making it harder means they must be punished. It’s a short step into the role of Pharaoh when confronted with the brick makers. But, if you are doing this willingly, out of a desire to serve God? Then you are naturally going to be considering not only what it is God wants done, but how.
I have to say the next contrast Peter offers us gives me particular pause at this stage: “Not for sordid gain, but with eagerness.” Now, if I limit that matter of sordid gain to the obvious idea of fiduciary benefit, I’m home free on that issue. It’s not a paid position. It is, by nature, voluntary, as we would tend to define the idea. If it’s not for pay, it’s volunteer work, right? But, that’s not the point of contrast Peter gives us. Neither, I think, can we constrain sordid gain to money matters. There are other ways of gain more sordid. Serving to stoke one’s ego comes to mind. Serving for pride of position, for the title; that’s a major problem.
But, look at what is contrasted here: illicit (or invalid) gain versus eagerness. What an odd contrast! Is it impossible to pursue what is to my profit (rightly or wrongly) without eagerness? Isn’t it even probable that I would eagerly take that course? But, here’s a distinction that suits the comparison. If I am at this task of leadership for what I can get out of it, whether that be money, reputation, power, or whatever else might come to mind, then I am not serving the Chief Shepherd nor am I serving the sheep. I am serving myself and myself alone. Furthermore, if my eye is on my benefit, then any ounce of effort I must expend in pursuit of my duties is to be resented. I didn’t take up this office to have a second job! I figured it would be more like investing. You know, throw in something, wait, and get back a multiplied return. This? This is work!
But, if one is eager to serve? I am put in mind of something my daughter was telling me yesterday about her latest job. The first few weeks, for whatever reasons, she was effectively working for no pay. Now, to be sure, that pay was coming, just not during those first few weeks. But, to her youthful mind, that amounts to having worked for free. And lo! She didn’t mind. The job was so enjoyable to her – or to put it in Peter’s framework, she was so eager to do the job – that pay was just gravy.
There are aspects of my own employment about which I would say the same. But, this is something far greater than employment, not that employment is meaningless. This is, as we are reminded often and again, a high calling. It is not a task to be entered into lightly any more than it is an office to be admitted into lightly. It’s a serious matter for all involved, sheep and shepherd alike. Eagerness! I have to confess that when asked if I would be standing for another term as elder, eagerness could not have described my mindset. After a year in the role, I feel like I am just beginning to realize the weight of that commitment. There was, to be sure, that sense of humble awe at being called to serve that first year. There has also been a lot of dealing with feelings of total inadequacy in pursuit of it. But, there is also a growing realization that I have not been about what I ought to be doing as much as I ought to be. And, as always seems the case in God’s economy, it’s not even the doing that counts so much as it is the motivation and the attitude behind that doing.
I feel the need to remind myself of 1Corinthians 13 here. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing” (1Co 13:1-3). Might as well add, “If I stand as elder, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” And that love not solely for God, nor even for His people. It is love for the duty as well. It is love for the opportunity to be of service to His kingdom in this fashion, to serve as guard over His house, to seek as best as I may to ensure the continued faithfulness to His ways in the lives of His people and in the communal life of His church.
That’s a tall order! That’s an order that goes far and away beyond any innate capacity of mine. But, it’s also an order that cannot be obeyed with passivity. It must needs be pursued with eagerness. There is something that was said in Table Talk a week ago, as I was collecting my thoughts for this study, that bears on the subject. “We are bound to a new Master, and our obligation to Him is holiness” [from 4/18/14 article]. We are bound to a new Master. This was said in relation to sin’s hold on us, as the year’s studies have progressed into Romans 6. But, here’s the thing: We willingly bind ourselves to this new Master. It is like the Old Testament image of that household servant who, though free to depart at the time of jubilee, decides he would rather remain. He takes upon himself the mark of having willingly become a permanent member of household staff. We, too, bear the mark. We bear the mark of Christ, evidence that we are permanent staff in His household. As such, we have certain obligations. But, here’s the thing: We are here voluntarily! We are eager to serve, for service in His household is a joy to us. Sordid gain? What use have I for that? He sees to my every need, and treats me better than I could treat myself.
Now, let us move to verse 3. “Not as lording it over those in your charge, but proving examples to them.” I suppose it ought not surprise me, but the Douay-Rheims seems to have read their own system into Peter’s words. “Neither as lording it over the clergy, but being made a pattern of the flock from the heart.” And this is followed, in verse 4, by, “And when the prince of pastors shall appear.” What? Are we to suppose, then, that only the clergy are accounted sheep? How can one look at this and think the scope of Peter’s thoughts are in any way restricted to that subset of the church? Remember where we’ve come from in this letter. “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession” (1Pe 2:9). That’s not a message to the clergy. It’s a message to the whole church. It’s a declaration that the house of God is open to all now. It’s the proclamation that as our great High Priest is in the Holy of holies, we are given entrance into His presence as well. It’s not just the line of Aaron anymore, it’s the whole people of God. You are all chosen. You are all a royal priesthood for God’s own possession.
Yet, I will thank those translators for this much: “Made a pattern.” That verb, made, is indeed in the Middle voice. The NASB gives it as, ‘proving to be examples’, which is playing a bit loose with the text. Tupoi ginomenoi – being examples. We have a Middle Present Participle. The key at present is the Middle part. There is personal involvement. We cannot be examples if we are not active in doing so. But, at the same time, it may be said that this being an example is something done to us or, more properly, for us. It’s a cooperative effort. If we are being an example in the Active voice sense, we are back to setting our imprint on what is not ours. If we are being an example in the Passive voice sense, we are in a state of sloth, and hardly to be emulated. It takes both: self and God working together, me cooperating with Him. Anything apart from that is no example at all, certainly not one which can expect reward when He returns.
What I find misleading in so many of the translations (not just the NASB), is this idea of ‘proving yourselves’. You cannot prove yourself. You can no more do this yourself than you could obey the Law yourself. It’s absurd on the face of it. If you attempt this in your own strength, you will fall spectacularly, and very likely take many of those you claim to serve with you. That is no way to imitate. At the other end of the spectrum, the mindset captured in the popular phrase, “let go, let God”, is entirely insufficient. Nowhere in Scripture can we find this view promoted, and certainly not here; certainly not for those God has called to lead by example. What that perspective amounts to is fatalism. It is fated and therefore I’m just along for the ride. There’s nothing I can do so why do anything?
This is a complaint often levied against the Calvinist understanding of God and man. If God is so thoroughly sovereign and His Providence irresistible, what is man but an automaton devoid free will? In fairness, there are those who take these points to such an extreme as to justify the complaint. Again, though, that is not Calvinist theology, it is fatalism. The fates have decreed, I can but comply. That is not the Truth that Scripture puts forward. That is mythology as ancient as man. It’s a cheap excuse for doing nothing about your sin or about evangelizing, or about much of anything.
Scripture, in contrast, instructs us to work hard even knowing that it all depends on God. Scripture tells us that God has no love for the sluggard. To take but one example: “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the soul of the diligent is made fat” (Pr 13:4). Or carry it to the establishing of the Church. “If anyone will not work, neither let him eat” (2Th 3:10). One can argue that this is aimed primarily at the common day-to-day activity of life. But, turn elsewhere. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Php 2:12-13). There is a very concise exposition of the balance we maintain. The whole book of Nehemiah is replete with the example lived out. As the Harper Study Bible describes it in footnote: Working as though one had never prayed, praying as though one could do no work. There is the Christian life. There is the example Peter is talking about. Prove examples to the flock. How? By doing your best to progress in sanctification while simultaneously remaining wholly dependent on God for any progress. By confessing your failures to do so, repenting and committing to greater effort going forward.
We cannot lead towards righteousness and home if we are not heading that way ourselves. And I will say this: The path of progress never seemed so hard to me as it has been since taking on this office of elder. The temptations to slack off, to just relax and enjoy life, to save the Christianity stuff for its allotted times; these are much stronger, I think. Or maybe I’m just more aware of them, and of my propensity for giving in to them. But, then, Christian life in general is more battle zone than idyll. It is only to be expected that the battle is fiercer for those who lead the charge.
Before I turn to the note of promise on which Peter closes, I want to look at some of the other passages that address how the church is to be led. I will start by returning to the famous scene of Peter’s restoration: Again, He asked, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter answered, “Yes, Lord, You know I love You.” He said, “Shepherd My sheep” (Jn 21:16). Is it any wonder that Peter is particularly inclined to have this image in mind? Surely that moment was etched on his mind in full, unfading color. Note how this has informed his own exhortation. Shepherd God’s sheep. Not mine. Not Paul’s. God’s sheep. Note the reason. If you love Me, care for Mine. It is a command, and yet it is an act of love. Thus we have Peter’s voluntary eagerness to serve. It’s an act of love, not an onerous duty to be resented.
Peter may have been particularly attuned to this image, but Paul uses it as well. “Guard yourselves and the flock among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Ac 20:28). Considered in the life depicted by the shepherd image, sheep are a commodity. They are a commodity not in the modern sense of being so common as to be cheaply bought and hard to profit by, although there may be application for that as a description of us as well in the second clause. No, they are a commodity in that sheep are purchased and sold. If there were no profit to be had, there would be no thievery amongst the under-shepherds. If there were no value in the sheep, there would be no under-shepherds in the first place. To the owner of the sheep, the sheep are his means of provision. They are his living bank account. To threaten his sheep is to threaten his livelihood. To steal his sheep is to rob him of his savings.
Now, look at Paul’s words again. God purchases His sheep not with paltry cash, not even with gold coin. God purchases His sheep with His own blood. That’s what was happening when Jesus died on the cross. It was not the victory of those evil tenant farmers who sought to take the property as their own. It was God purchasing His sheep. I suppose, as long as we’re mixing the two images, we could say God was getting out of the vintner’s trade and going into livestock. The reality is that He continues to ply both trades. He is the Vine. How could He cease from producing vintage. But, He is the Good Shepherd, and He shall ever lead, feed and protect His sheep. After all, He paid so high a price – an eternal price for their purchase. And be assured He shall have His profit of those sheep. If the cost was so high, how firmly will He protect His investment? And, if He has set you in charge of that protection, how carefully do you suppose He shall be assessing your performance of your duties. But, keep things in balance! How certain do you suppose you should be that He will be seeing to it that you indeed perform your duties well? Those sheep are His chiefest possession. Don’t think for a minute that He would set them at risk just so you can feel like you’re something.
And again: Don’t think that that reality gives you permit for slack pursuit of duty. “Show yourself to be an example of good deeds, pure doctrine and dignity in all things” (Ti 2:7). Notice that this is not a menu of options from which to choose. It is a list of areas in all of which our example should be worthy. An example of good deeds: How shall we set it? Well, we certainly cannot do so by that, ‘let go, let God’ perspective. Besides, we have the notice that God actually arranged these opportunities beforehand that we might go forth and do them (Eph 2:10). Why do you suppose that is? Why doesn’t He just take care of the matter Himself? He’s certainly capable of doing so. Yes, friend, but you need the encouragement as to your own faith. He doesn’t need you to do them. You need you to do them.
These are like fitness plans for the Christian. If you can’t do these simple good deeds knowing that God has set you up for success, how are you going to do anything more challenging? How are you going to fare when it comes to spiritual battle if you can’t even bother to do what God has prepared in advance for fear of failure or rejection? And yet, you and I both know that this is often how our Christian faith looks in our day to day living. So long as we don’t actually have to do it, we know exactly what we should do. Give us a half hour or so after the fact, and we will be clear on exactly what we should have done or said. But, in the moment? Fear! Muddled thought processes, incapacitation. A sense of being entirely unprepared and unable. What has happened? We’ve completely forgotten that God is setting us up in this situation, and He is setting us up for success. So, we take our failure and set it out there like a shield. And then we walk home kicking ourselves for getting it so wrong yet again.
Is it any wonder, then, that we find that third admonition as well – another thing that echoes across the other Apostles. “We don’t lord it over your faith. We are coworkers with you for your joy. For you are standing firm in your faith” (2Co 1:24). If there was one lesson that Jesus drove home with utmost force, it was this: Don’t lord it over your brothers. If you would lead, serve. If you want to be accounted great in My kingdom, you’re going to act the slave to every other citizen of the kingdom that you encounter. It’s not a place where one vies for privilege. There is no privilege beyond that most awesome privilege you already enjoy in being admitted as a citizen of the realm. Citizen? You have been legally declared a child of the King, bride of Christ, son of God, co-heir to the kingdom. And you would chase privilege beyond this? But, you must be mindful that those over whom God has given you oversight (not ownership, oversight) are likewise His children, His bride, His co-heirs.
In short, dear shepherd, you are still every bit as much a sheep as those you lead. You are every bit as inclined towards headlong rushes into the deadly embrace of sin as they. You are every bit as much in need of shepherding as those you shepherd. Praise be to God that He sets us amongst those who can do that very thing for us as we do it for others. Praise be to God that He leaves no man in such a place of unchecked authority, for every man has the seeds of his own destruction within. Every man amongst us knows the tug of his fallen former self, knows his capacity to toss it all and go back to his sins were it not for the power of God residing in him. Let God turn His back on us for even a moment, and we should be lost. But, God doesn’t turn His back. God neither slumbers nor sleeps (Ps 121:4). The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry (Ps 34:15). Who, then, are the righteous? Those He has redeemed, bought by His own blood. It’s not our track record that draws His attention. It is His attention that assures our track record.
Now, let us turn to the note of promise. “When the Chief Shepherd appears…”. Notice that. It is when. There is no question of His appearing. That is a certainty. He went to prepare a place for His bride, and when bride and place are both fully prepared, He shall be coming back to bring her home. He purchased us sheep. He didn’t do that just to have us wander the fields and die. He shall appear.
And, then what comes? “You will receive the unfading crown of glory.” Now, let me just stop right there and say that this cannot be our motivation. If we’re in it for the reward, we’re in it for the money, and we’ve already been warned away from that. The reward isn’t the point. Life is the point.
And yet we have this image from competition, and it’s one that we know Paul uses as well. It’s a race. And, every competitor in the race exercises self-control in everything (1Co 9:25). Why do they do this? For a wreath made of perishable vines. Indeed, the very fact that those vines have been woven into a wreath says they are already well on their way to dying. But, this is enough. The competitor who wins will get to wear that crown for a season, know the accolades of the crowd. He’ll enjoy a few feasts and celebrations. Maybe, if he’s been particularly spectacular in his performance, the poets will preserve his memory. But, even that will fade. The poetry may remain, but the motivation for it will have been lost.
Think about one of the more negative examples, Dante’s ‘Inferno’. He sought to memorialize the crimes and sins of many of his contemporaries. The text is full of references to folks still extent at the time of writing. But, now? Even with extensive footnotes, their names are meaningless to us. Their lives are so distant in time and culture as to have no bearing on us. They convey no meaning. We get that they are being punished for specific sins, which Dante describes for us. But, how literally we ought to take things, or what reputation led to his use of them? Who knows? Not I.
It was not only in matters of sport that these crowns were given out, though. They were also given as marks of military prowess. Rome was big on honoring her military champions, and her military champions were, if anything, even bigger on receiving those honors. It was a huge thing to be given a Roman triumph. It was a major slight to be refused one. Emperors were overthrown for such things. But, what was it that marked the one being honored in this parade? It was a laurel wreath, a crown. Or, maybe, as is hinted at here, it was a crown woven of amaranth, a plant noted for its longevity and its capacity for being ‘revived’ by water long after it had been cut and woven.
But, no matter how often that plant might be caused to show some green, it remained dead. It will eventually fade away for the last time, and even crumble into dust. This is part of Paul’s comments to the Corinthians. These competitors we’ve been talking about, even these warriors who face death for the privilege, are doing it for what? For a perishable wreath! We, on the other hand, strive to the uttermost in pursuit of sanctification so as to receive an imperishable wreath (1Co 9:25).
We who serve as elders for a season do no differently. We strive to the uttermost in pursuit of our own sanctification. That were enough labor for any man! But, we have been called to do more. We have been called to strive with that same degree of effort for those we serve, and to do so eagerly! We are to take joy in caring for the sheep of God’s pastures. One thinks of David in his days as shepherd. It was hard duty, and dangerous. And yet, what do we discover David has been doing with his time? He’s been writing poetry and singing songs to God. He’s enjoying His King. He’s enjoying his duty. And, he is doing his duty to the uttermost of his abilities. When the call comes to step it up and do for Israel what he was doing for sheep, he goes to it with the same perspective, the same joy. That’s not to suggest David knew no sorrows. Far from it! Read his poetry. But, he knew whom he served, and who served as his King. I dare say he knew where he was going when it was over. And he died having fought the good fight. He died knowing that crown awaited, not that he had need of any crown. But, who doesn’t like being recognized for their accomplishments?
Here is another point wherein we need to discover the place of balance. We have become, in many cases, so distraught about matters of pride that we will neither acknowledge a job well done nor accept such acknowledgement. It’s one thing to give all the glory to God. It’s another thing entirely to reject His, ‘well done’, because of the messenger by whom He chose to deliver it. Yes, we want to be careful of pride and of feeding pride in others. But, this false humility, this refusal to acknowledge is unbecoming. God does not respond to us in this fashion. How can we suppose He intends for us to do so?
This crown, this unfading crown of glory, is but a mark of accomplishment. You persevered. You ran a good race. You finished well. And, as Paul said before, Peter echoes here: This one never fades. It’s not woven out of dead plants. I am inclined to take Peter’s image as being that this crown is woven out of glory itself. I perhaps stretch too far with that image, but so be it. The whole point of the symbol is that of immortality. So, maybe we do better to understand the crown as being the receipt in full of eternal life itself. We’re back to Eden finally. All is once more as it should be. We are once more as we should be. Sin and death and sorrow have been banished for all time, and there remains nothing but the joy of life – life worthy of the name.
One other thought that struck me in considering this crown we are to receive is how it contrasts with that crown which was woven for Jesus as He neared His own victory. Those soldiers indeed wove Him a crown, but it was woven of cruel thorns. It was a mockery of that wreath given to military victors. From Rome’s perspective, and in particular that of her soldiers on site, this was the sum of the story. Out in this backwater full of particularly noxious and rebellious subjects, here was yet another one raised up as a military hero, a king even! Right. We are Rome. We are the most highly trained, most accomplished army extent, and this guy was going to overthrow us? Here’s your crown, hero. Here’s your robe. Here’s your triumph. The whole process was effectively a corruption of that victorious parade into the eternal city. At least that was their intent.
The reality was that this really was a triumph, and the King really was making His parade into the Eternal City. “I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple” (Isa 6:1). What was Isaiah seeing? “When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men” (Eph 4:8). Again, there is this image drawn from the triumphs of Rome. His train filled the temple. The extent of His victory filled the heavens. “Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, and myriads upon myriads were standing before Him. The court sat, and the books were opened” (Dan 7:10). All of these images connect, and they connect on one point. The King is on His thrown, and His crown is upon His head. He is the Victorious Warrior. He is the Conquering Hero. He is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is very God of very God, and He shall reign forever. His crown shall never fade nor ever fall from His head.
There is your Chief Shepherd. There is the One who has full and final charge over your care and feeding, over your growth and over your guarding. “Do not fret because of evildoers” (Ps 37:1). “Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way” (Ps 37:7). “Do not fret, it leads only to evildoing” (Ps 37:8). Do not fret! Your Shepherd is your King and also the Judge over all men. He shall see every account set to rights. He shall reign forevermore. He shall establish perfect peace and perfect justice for all time. And, He has marked you out as His own.
I can think of no better way to close this than to echo the words of that pray given by the author of Hebrews. The God of peace who brought the great Shepherd of the sheep up from the dead through the blood of the eternal covenant, Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Heb 13:20:21). Indeed, Lord, Amen! So let it be done in us.
