We serve a God who has designed the church with very specific features and functions. In his divine wisdom, he has planned out the integral parts of the church for particular purposes. Yet, because he loves us, he has also established that design with our spiritual advantage and joy in mind. Therefore, whether we’ve been called to be elders who will give an account for those souls entrusted to our care, or we’ve simply been called to submit to the care of those who have, Scripture is abundantly clear that the sheep need shepherds.

Throughout Scripture, there are certain themes that show up again and again. One of those is the concept of shepherd. The job of a shepherd was to care for a flock of sheep. Shepherds were tasked with the responsibility of protecting the sheep from predators and guiding them to good pastures for eating and suitable streams for drinking. As we read the Bible, especially the Old Testament, we realize that many of the men God called to carry out his plans and purposes were shepherds by trade. Abraham was a shepherd. Isaac was a shepherd. Jacob was a shepherd. Moses was a shepherd. David was a shepherd, and of course, Jesus revealed himself to be the good shepherd (John 10:11). In fact, in the Psalms, even God is referred to as the shepherd of Israel (Ps 80:1), and the children of God are called the people of his pasture and the sheep of his hand (Ps 95:7).
This rich, biblical theme is important to understand as we consider the words of Peter in 1 Peter 5:1–5. There, the apostle writes to believers who have been scattered to different areas throughout the Roman Empire due to persecution, saying:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
Pastor John MacArthur, in his commentary on 1 Peter, provides us with valuable details regarding the context of Peter’s words in this letter. He says there:
As Peter penned this epistle, the dark clouds of the first great outbreak of official persecution, instigated by the insane Emperor Nero, were already gathering on the horizon. Seeking scapegoats to divert the public’s suspicion that he had started the great fire of July A.D. 64 that devastated Rome, Nero pinned the blame on the Christians, whom he already perceived as enemies of Rome, because they would worship none but Christ. As a result, they were encased in wax and burned at the stake to light his gardens, crucified, and thrown to wild beasts.1
So, what does all of this have to do with shepherds? Well, in light of the historical context, Peter’s purpose for writing this letter is really three-fold:

It’s to encourage these believers to remain steadfast in their faith in the face of the persecution they are experiencing.
It’s to remind them of the special privilege they have been given as children of God, although they do not currently see it or feel it.
And, finally, it’s to remind them as individual believers, and as churches, how they are called to live and function in the midst of everything they’re experiencing.

In a word, the people of God were suffering and being scattered, but God had not left them without shepherds. The Lord had given them elders to care for their souls, and it is these elders that Peter addresses in 1 Peter 5:1-5.
The Biblical Role of Elders
Looking again at verse 1 of our text, Peter writes:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:
Notice, first, that Peter writes with the presupposition that churches have elders. He’s not addressing a single elder, but rather, he is exhorting the elders among God’s people. So, let me ask you, does your church have a plurality of elders? Do you have a group of godly, qualified men who are prayerfully seeking to shepherd your congregation according to the Word of God, by the grace of God, for the glory of God? If the answer is no, the next question must be, why not?
In case anyone is tempted to think that this is an isolated assumption on the part of Peter, the reality is that a plurality of elders is the pattern for local churches in the Bible. For example, in Acts 14:23, we find Paul and Barnabas appointing a plurality of elders in every church they were ministering. Later, in Paul’s letter to Titus, he tells him that the reason he left him in Crete was that he “might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town.” (Titus 1:5).
Throughout the New Testament, there are three main titles that all refer to this same biblical office. Whether it’s elders, overseers, or shepherds, all three synonymous terms refer to a body of qualified men whom God has called to lead the church. In fact, Peter uses a form of all three terms in the first two verses of our text:
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed:shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight. (1 Pet 5:1–2).
So, Peter is addressing this exhortation to those who hold the biblical office of elder, perhaps even with the words of the resurrected Christ echoing in his mind: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). In doing so, he wants them to look both backwards and forwards. Looking back, Peter wants his fellow shepherds to consider the sufferings of Christ. In doing so, he wants them to realize that nothing they are currently experiencing can compare to the full weight of God’s wrath being satisfied by Christ for their sins. Looking ahead, he wants them to consider the future crown of glory that is reserved for those who endure to the end because of what Christ has done.
Read More
Related Posts:

There is also the problem that when allegations of abuse are made, those who see abuse as endemic in that community tend to automatically assume that the allegations are automatically true, and view even a reasonable defense of the accused as the community corruptly attempting to protect guilty members of “the tribe.”

At a time when the number of Conservative Evangelical Christian men committed to the church, orthodox doctrine, and their families, have never been lower; and when higher percentages of men NEVER attend church than attend once a week (35% vs. 31% according to Pew); I’m seeing an increasing stream of internet articles attacking them from other professing members of Reformed denominations—in which they are made out to be a huge pool of sexual predators, misogynists, spiritual abusers and basically the greatest threat to Christian women in America.
Most of these articles are being written by people who grew up in or around Conservative churches, and therefore these churches represented an outsized influence in the childhood and adult life of the authors. It’s important to remember that while these communities were effectively the world of the authors of these articles, the actual size of that world is tiny when compared to the overall population of the country.
For instance, only 22% of Americans attend church every week (and that’s self-reporting so there is inevitably the “halo effect” inflating the actual number) and Evangelicals represent a shrinking and aging portion of that community. So while White American Evangelical protestants make up 26% of the church-going community in the 65 and older demographic, that proportion shrinks to 8% in the 18-29 demographic; and if we quantify for Reformed Evangelicals the stats dip even lower. The authors have an outsized perception of the size of their community because their friend groups are made up of people who also grew up in it or (increasingly) have left it. However, if you go to a major US city or the community I grew up in (Northern NJ/NYC), you’ll find it is quite possible to live one’s entire life around thousands and thousands of people without ever actually meeting a Conservative, Evangelical Christian.
Additionally, if everyone the authors of these articles knew was a member of their small religious community, then if they encountered abuse, the abusers were usually members of this community and therefore they would forever associate that abuse with the community itself and on leaving it assume that the non-religious community was not subject to the same kind of abuses even though an objective perusal of the news would show that to be a demonstrably false impression.
The problem is that in the postmodern world one’s “lived experience” often becomes the arbiter of reality while actual statistics become a tool of the oppressor in silencing victims. Similar perceptions can be found among people who grew up in other small Conservative religious communities like the Amish or Orthodox Jewish communities and encountered some form of abuse.
There is also the problem that when allegations of abuse are made, those who see abuse as endemic in that community tend to automatically assume that the allegations are automatically true, and view even a reasonable defense of the accused as the community corruptly attempting to protect guilty members of “the tribe.” And even when the discipline process results in the conviction of the accused, it is often alleged that the process itself was too difficult and traumatizing for the accuser, even when the practical result was the destruction of the reputation and/or ministry of the accused.
This kind of attitude became evident when writers such as Aimee Byrd complained in articles like, “Who Is Valued In The OPC?” that the ordinary OPC church discipline process, when applied to Elders accused of spiritual abuse, would lead to women, “continuing to be harmed by the process.” Again and again, in articles like this one, there was an assumption that the court itself was misogynistic and that they should repent of their misogyny by taking the side (and even the worldview) of the woman accusing the male member, elder, or pastor of spiritual abuse and heavily curtail the right of accused to speak in their own defense. The fact that this would create a hopelessly jaundiced trial and make it virtually impossible to acquit the defendant, who would have to prove he was innocent under a worldview that presumes he is an abuser by nature, didn’t seem to matter much.
Now, while we shouldn’t take a stance that abuse in any community regardless of the size is not a problem, nor should we foolishly assume there is no abuse going on in the Reformed community (especially because we believe in the doctrine of Total Depravity), the idea that there is an outsized abuse problem among Reformed Evangelicals simply isn’t true, and the only major study available that quantified sexual abusers by religious affiliation done in 2006 indicated that the two largest groups were Catholics (28%) and Anglicans (27%), followed by NO religious affiliation (24%). Most sexual and physical abusers in the USA are not Reformed or even Evangelical, and Roman Catholics and Anglicans cannot be reasonably quantified as “Fundamentalist” either.
I grew up in a non-religious community and date rape and child abuse were certainly more prevalent there than they were in the Conservative Reformed community. The fact is anecdotal evidence and personal experience (even though they are one’s own “lived experience”) does not a trend make. In the same way, just because someone had an abusive marriage, or was raised in a spiritually abusive church, doesn’t mean ALL marriages and churches, or even MOST, are abusive. Neither is there a discernable line from Conservative theology to abuse. I’ve been counseling in the Conservative Reformed community for over 20 years, and yet I can tell you that most of the people I’ve counseled who suffered abuse, suffered it outside the Reformed community and often in theologically Liberal environments.
The idea that Conservatives are abusers may be popular among political and theological Liberals (and social Libertarians), but that’s largely a result of believing their own propaganda regarding people they view as evil. This is incredibly commonplace among leftist tribes today because of their overarching Oppressed/Oppressor dialectic. If you are a Feminist, every male is usually either an abuser, a potential abuser, or a friend or member of your family (and therefore excluded from the sample) and every woman is a victim of abuse who needs to be freed from an abusive, patriarchal culture. If you are a Communist, every business owner is a greedy, employee-abusing capitalist, and every worker is an oppressed, saintly martyr who must have his chains broken. The fact that most of the most verifiably abusive and sexually abusive communities on earth, such as the American porn and sex-trafficking communities; or the security forces of the Chinese Communist Party, are either non or anti-religious, and definitely inclined towards the left; or the slew of #Metoo allegations made against celebrities who identify as Liberal and Feminist, should be enough to cause one to at least question if leftists are indeed less likely to abuse than Conservatives.
But to even consider that would be to betray one’s tribe and to open the door to the possibility that all people are subject to a natural tendency towards depravity since birth and that the answer to the problem is not to be found by reordering society, smashing the patriarchy, eliminating privilege, redistributing wealth, or any of the Marxist answers to the problem of human sin.
From my perspective, the saddest part of all of this is that the only solution to the problem of human sin, the Biblical Gospel, is being identified as part of the root of the problem of abuse, and the more faithful one is to the Bible, the more likely one is to be perceived as an abuser. In fact, a bizarre redefinition of ‘Christian’ is occurring in which it is asserted that the more willing you are to reject Biblical solutions to the problem of abuse and embrace Feminist and Marxist solutions the more authentically compassionate and Christian you are. We are told that the same Jesus who answered the devil and His own human opponents from Scripture would reject people who got their answers from the same source and would instead compliment people who found their answers in a modern dialectical materialist philosophy derived from the writings of atheists.
Needless to say, I don’t think this is true, and I will conclude by issuing the same warning that Paul issued to people who were tempted to find their answers to the problems of life in the popular philosophies of their own day:
“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8)
Andrew Webb is a Minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church and is pastor of Providence ARP in Fayetteville, N.C.
Related Posts:

Observe carefully that Paul says nothing at all about the Lord removing his Church to Heaven. The apostle leaves her—and us—in the air. What, then, will take place after this happy reunion? Here, Paul does not say. However, what he does say suggests an interpretation far richer than that of the dispensationalists. Paul writes, “And as a result of these things, we shall always be with the Lord.” Note the finality—the ultimacy—of that phrase. When the Lord returns, we shall always be together: together with him and together with one other. Thus, Paul’s exact wording strongly suggests that he has in mind the ultimate goal of Salvation History: life together with Christ in the new heavens and the new earth. Admittedly, he makes no explicit mention of where the saints will be with the Lord. But that is simply because his present focus is elsewhere: the reunion of separated loved ones at the Parousia. We have already seen, however, that in his other eschatological writings Paul uniformly associates the Resurrection with the final renewal of all creation (Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 15:20-28, 50-57; Phil. 3:20-21).

The Apostle Paul’s two letters to the Thessalonian Christians contain some of the Bible’s richest veins of eschatological gold. Written from Corinth around AD 50-51, they reveal that the apostle’s early ministry to the European Gentiles was charged with a lively expectation of the Lord’s soon return (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:11-13; 2 Thess. 1-2; cf. Acts 17:16-21; 1 Cor. 15:1-58). However, they also reveal a problem: Paul’s Jewish opponents had forced him to flee the city quickly, with the result that some of his converts were left confused (or ignorant) about his teaching on the afterlife and the Consummation (Acts 17:1-9). These two letters give us his efforts to clear up the misunderstanding. Not surprisingly, they speak often and in great detail about the last things: the signs of Christ’s Parousia, the nature and purpose of the Parousia, the Resurrection, the Judgment, and the World to Come. Notably, they never speak of a future millennium (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 5:1-10; 2 Thess. 1:3-12; 2:1-12).
Let’s take a close look at two major (and very closely related) texts found in Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Of the three NT passages cited by dispensationalists in support of a pre-tribulation rapture, this is by far the most important (cf. John 14:1-3; 1 Cor. 15:51-52). Accordingly, I will first offer an amillennial exegesis of the text itself, and then carefully consider both the dispensational interpretation and the case made for it.
Our text begins in 1 Thessalonians 4:13, where Paul states his purpose for the remarks to follow. His goal is to give hope to Christians whose (believing) loved ones have recently “fallen asleep” (i.e., died in the Lord). He knows that some of the brethren are troubled about this. Perhaps they fear that their departed loved ones will not be included in Christ’s Kingdom when he comes again. Certainly they fear they will never see them again. Therefore, Paul takes up this subject once again, so that they will no longer grieve as unbelievers do, but instead enjoy a lively hope of being reunited with their Christian family and friends—soon.
In verse 14 he succinctly states the healing truth; in the verses that follow he carefully explains. It is this: “When Jesus comes again he will bring your departed loved one(s) with him and back to you.” Observe how Paul, in declaring this truth, builds on the Thessalonians’ pre-existing faith. They already believe that God has raised Jesus from the dead. But if they can believe that, surely they can also believe that he will raise their loved one(s). And, says Paul, that’s exactly what he will do: At the Parousia God will bring with Jesus the souls of all who have fallen asleep in him, so that they, just like their Lord, may rise from the dead and be reunited with the saints who are living on the earth at that time.
Importantly, Paul has already touched on this subject in 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13, where he prayed that God would establish their hearts “ . . . blameless in holiness in the presence of our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his holy ones.” Note the comprehensiveness of that final phrase. When Christ returns he will empty Heaven, bringing with him all the holy angels and the spirits of all the departed saints whom he has redemptively separated to himself. Thus will he set the stage for the Momentous Event: the Consummation of all things and the recreation of the world.
In verses 15-17 the apostle delves into the aspect of the Consummation that lies uppermost in the minds of his flock: the reunion of the departed saints with the living saints. In verse 15 he declares that the instruction he is about give is “the word of the Lord.” That is, it comes, at least in part, from the earthly teaching of Christ himself (Matt. 13:37-43; 24:29-31). Possibly, it also includes further revelation specially vouchsafed to the apostle (1 Cor. 15:51-52). In any case, the Thessalonians can trust what he has to say, for it is the very Word of God.
Next, he affirms that “ . . . we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep.” He means that the living saints will not receive their glorified bodies before those who have died in the Lord. There is, then, a definite chronological sequence in the glorification of the Church: First, Christ will join the souls of the departed saints to their new resurrected and glorified bodies; then—and only then—he will transform and glorify the bodies of the living saints. In days ahead, Paul will say much the same thing to the Corinthians: “For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we [who are alive and remain] will be changed” (1 Cor. 15:50-53).
Observe that all of this happens at “the Parousia of the Lord” (v. 15). There is only one of them. And according to every other Pauline text touching on this event, it has nothing to do with Christ secretly removing his Church to Heaven for seven years. Rather, it has everything to do with his raising (all) the dead, judging the world in righteousness, and bringing in the completed Kingdom of God.
In verses 16-17, which closely parallel Jesus’ own descriptions of the Consummation, Paul elaborates on what he has just said about the events surrounding the Parousia (Matt. 13:37-43; 24:29-31). He begins with this: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven.” This is Christ’s definitive descent to the earth, the descent that results in the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, where he will live forever with his beloved Bride. In this descent the Lord is not leaving Heaven behind; rather, he is bringing it with him. In this descent he and the holy angels are coming home once and for all (Rev. 21:1-4)!
The cosmic homecoming will be accompanied by three great sounds: A shout (or “cry of command”), the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God. I take it that the shout emanates from the lips of Christ himself. If this is indeed a shout, then it is a shout of (final) victory (Num. 23:21; Josh. 6:5; Ps. 47:5; Is. 42:13; Jer. 25:30; 1 Cor. 15:54). If, as seems more likely, it is a cry of command, it is the voice of Christ summoning the dead from their graves (John 5:25; 11:43) and/or sending the holy angels to their appointed tasks (Mark 13:27). Perhaps it is both.
Concerning the archangel, he is almost certainly Michael (Dan. 12:1; Jude v. 9) or Gabriel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:19, 26). In either case, this angel, by definition, is a ruler over all the rest. His presence on the scene therefore implies what the NT explicitly unveils elsewhere: the presence of all the holy angels (Matt. 25:31). When the archangel raises his voice, it will likely be for the purpose of sending all the angels to their work of judicial and redemptive ingathering (Matt. 13:41; 24:31; Rev. 14:18).
Finally, there is the trumpet of God. Its blast signals not only the final destruction of the evil world-system (Josh. 6:15-21; Rev. 18:2), but also the summoning of God’s people to their full inheritance: to the enjoyment of eternal life upon the glorious “holy mountain” that is the new heavens and the new earth (Ex. 19:16-17; Is. 11:9; Matt. 24:31; Rev. 14:1). This interpretation accords well with the teaching of 1 Cor. 15:52: The trumpet that raises the dead will be the last trumpet, the trumpet that signals the consummation of the purposes of God and the advent of the World to Come.
Considering the character of these two verses, it is marvelous indeed that anyone could find here a “secret” eschatological event devolving exclusively upon a small band of saints who alone can see and hear it. Quite to the contrary, the actual data cry out, over and again, that this is a hugely public event, precisely because it devolves, not simply upon the Church, but also upon the entire created universe. Just as every eye will see, so too every ear will hear: whether Christ’s shout, the archangel’s voice, or the final blast of the trumpet of God (Matt. 26:64; John 5:28; Phil. 2:9-11; Rev. 1:7).
In verse 16b Paul reiterates the basic message of verse 15: When the Lord returns, the dead in Christ will rise first. In verse 17 he explains what will happen afterwards, such that separated loved ones are reunited once and for all. To understand his thought here we must keep 1 Cor. 15:50-58 in mind. When we do, a clear picture emerges: Immediately following the Resurrection of the Dead, the living saints (i.e., “we who are alive and remain”) will be changed—glorified (1 Cor. 15:51-52). Then the entire company of the saints “. . . will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.” The Greek word for “caught up” (arpazo) denotes taking (or being taken) suddenly and with great force, whether urgently to obtain (Matt. 11:12), maliciously to abduct (Matt. 13:19; John 6:15; 10:12), or benevolently to help or rescue (Acts 8:39; 2 Cor. 12:2; Jude v. 23). Here it is used in the latter sense, since at his return the Lord Jesus—with great zeal and power to match—will swiftly gather his Bride to himself, even as he rescues her from her human enemies and the fiery judgment that will consume the earth below (2 Peter 3:8-13; Rev. 11:11-13).
How exactly will Christ catch up his Church? As we have seen, it will be at the hands of the holy angels (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:27; Rev. 14:14-16). Carrying the saints into (and perhaps through) the spiritual “clouds” by which God and Christ are visibly manifesting their divine presence, power, and glory, the angels will bring them to meet the Lord in the air (Luke 9:34; Acts 1:9). This detail is important, signaling that when Christ comes again he will draw very near to the earth, which, according to Scripture, is the center of the physical universe, the apple of God’s eye, and the future home of Christ and his Bride (Matt. 17:5; 24:30; Luke 9:34-35; 21:27; Rev. 21:1-4).
Observe carefully that Paul says nothing at all about the Lord removing his Church to Heaven. The apostle leaves her—and us—in the air. What, then, will take place after this happy reunion? Here, Paul does not say. However, what he does say suggests an interpretation far richer than that of the dispensationalists.
Read More
Related Posts: