John Mark Hicks

See, I am making all things new…Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children. (Revelation 21:5, 7)

Inheritance is a dominant plot line in God’s story. “Inherit” or “inheritance” appear almost five hundred times in the biblical text, and most often relates to “land inheritance.” Joshua, for example, uses the language fifty-nine times, primarily in reference to God’s “land grant” to Israel.

The correlation between land and inheritance, between territory and kingdom, runs throughout the plot of the biblical drama.  People need land, kingdoms need territory, and the inheritance of the people of God is a new heaven and a new earth.

Abrahamic Promise

When God blessed Abraham, he promised to bless all nations (Gen. 12:2-3). Included in that Abrahamic blessing is the land promise: “I will give this land to your offspring” (Gen. 12:7).

This promise is both overplayed as some identify the contemporary state of Israel with this land and undervalued as others see no fulfillment in Israel’s Messiah. The former think the state of Israel is its fulfillment (or at least its beginning) while the later believe the land promise no longer applies. There is a third way.

The land is Israel’s inheritance as the firstborn child of God among the nations (Ex. 32:13; Lev. 20:24; Num. 4:20; Deut. 4:21). God gave the “land for an inheritance to Israel” (Joshua 11:23). One need only to skim the Torah, especially Deuteronomy, to recognize the central role land plays as the inheritance Israel receives from Yahweh as God’s child (Deut. 4:21, 38; 15:4; 19:10; 20:16; 21:23; 24:4; 25:19; 26:1; Psalm 105:11; 136:21-22).

As part of the Abrahamic promise, the land is not conditioned by the Mosaic covenant (Gal. 3:6-9).  The “inheritance” is by faith rather than by the works of the Torah (Gal. 3:17-18). This means God’s intent to fulfill the promise to Abraham is not conditioned by Torah-obedience. Whether the nation of Israel at any particular time possesses the land is conditioned on Torah-obedience, but the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise is unqualified. It is as unconditional as the promise of the Messiah is.

God gives land, and God gives rest (Josh. 11:23). “Rest” is what God gives to Israel when they seek Yahweh (2 Chr. 14:1, 5-6; 20:30; 23:21), and rest means “no war” (2 Chr. 14:5). “Rest” reappears in the prophets as Israel’s hope. The righteous will rest, but the wicked will not (Isa. 14:7; 30:15; 32:17; 57:20). Ultimately, God’s people will rest in the land without fear (Jer. 30:10; 46:27). Both Isaiah and Micah see a time when the nations will learn war no more, the earth will be at peace, and no one will be afraid (Isa. 2:1-4; Micah 4:1-5). The earth, it seems, has not yet experienced such.

This language echoes God’s purpose in creation.  God’s land grant to Israel is analogous to God’s gift of the earth to Adam and Eve when “placed” (rested; Gen. 2:15) in the Garden to serve and protect it (their priestly task). Adam and Eve were priests in God’s temple, God’s home. This was God’s inheritance for humanity.

The land grant to Israel is also eschatological. The new heaven and new earth are what God creates as an inheritance for redeemed humanity. What Israel inherited in the book of Joshua typifies the inheritance God will give to humanity. A day is coming when not only Israel is the “heritage” of God, but also Egypt and Assyria are God’s people and heirs (Isa. 19:25). A day is coming when the meek will inherit the earth (Matt. 5:5).

Prophetic Expectations

Psalm 37 illustrates how the hope of inheriting the land, living in the land, and experiencing God’s goodness in the land is integral to Israel’s joy in the Lord. Disturbed by the prosperity of the wicked, the psalmist assures Israel that those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land. Six times the psalmist promises—and Israel liturgically rehearses—Israel will ultimately receive its promised inheritance. They will “inherit the land” (Ps. 37:22, 29). Jesus quotes Psalm 37:11 when he announces: “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5).

This enduring hope of “inheriting the earth,” a renewal of the creation, is pervasive in the prophetic literature. The prophetic message of hope envisioned a “new heaven and a new earth” (Isa. 65:17). God’s commitment to the land pervades the prophetic hope of Israel.

That same message of hope resonates with disciples of Jesus. While the present is filled with “times of refreshing” from the presence of the Holy Spirit, the future brings a “the time for restoring all things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:20-21).  Here are a few representative prophets where land renewal is prominent.

“I will plant them on their land, and they shall never again be plucked up out of the land that I have given them,” says the Lord your God. Amos 9:15

Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall be to the Lord for a memorial, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off. Isaiah 55:13

And the Lord will be king over all the earth; on that day the Lord will be one and his name one… And it shall be inhabited, for never again shall it be a doomed to destruction. Jerusalem shall abide in security. Zechariah 14:9, 11.

The most stirring text, which New Testament writers echo, is Isaiah 65:17-25.

“For behold, I am about to create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I am creating; for I am about to create Jerusalem as a joy, and its people as a delight. I will rejoice in Jerusalem and delight in my people, no more shall the sound of weeping be heard in it, or the cry of distress. No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old person who does not live out a lifetime, for the one who dies at a hundred years will be considered a youth, and the one who falls short of a hundred will be considered accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build houses and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring blessed by the Lord, and their descendants as well. Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, but the serpent—its food shall be dust! They shall not hurt or destroyon all my holy mountain,” says the Lord.

The elderly and children are supported rather than abandoned, everyone has appropriate shelter and housing, everyone is employed with meaningful work, everyone has adequate food and drink, children are blessed, creation will live in shalom with itself, and chaos—the serpent—will disappear in the dust. This is accomplished by the work of the Messiah (Isa. 11:1-9).

Heirs of the Promise

Galatians 3 argues the promise was made before the Torah and is, therefore, not conditioned by Torah-obedience. Israel will inherit the land as God promised Abraham, and God is faithful. Paul explicitly states, “it was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise” (Rom. 4:13).

This is a significant point. The Abrahamic promise belongs to the children of Israel. The land is part of the Abrahamic promise. The children of Israel will possess the land; it is their inheritance. It is an unconditioned promise.

But who is Israel? Who are the children of Abraham? Since the “promise comes by faith,” it is “guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law” (e.g., Torah-obeying ethnic Israel) “but also to those who have the faith of Abraham” (e.g., including the nations). In this sense Abraham is the “father of many nations;” he is the “father of us all” (Rom. 4:16-17). The Gentiles (nations) have been grafted into Israel through faith (Rom. 11:17). Those who belong to Messiah are the children of Abraham and thus “heirs” of the promise (Gal. 3:29). Renewed Israel includes Jews and Gentiles, and together they constitute the “Israel of God” as part of God’s “new creation” (Gal. 6:15-16).

But does this include the land? Yes, it does. Abraham was the “heir of the world” (cosmos), not just the land of Palestine (Rom. 4:13). The inheritance of the children of Abraham is heaven and earth.

We do not obtain this land by violence or by purchase. We receive it by faith in the Messiah and on the ground of the Messiah’s faithfulness. The “faith(fulness) of Jesus” secures the inheritance for Israel, and we participate in it through faith (Gal. 3:22). The Messiah is the heir of the all things, and we are co-heirs with the Messiah through faith (Rom. 8:17).

The creation is our inheritance. We wait, according to Romans 8:18-25, for the full adoption into the family of God when our bodies are redeemed (resurrection) and the creation is liberated (new heaven and new earth). That is our inheritance. John echoes the whole Abrahamic trajectory (Genesis 17:7-8) in Revelation: “Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children” (22:7, emphasis ours).

The Abrahamic promise was first given to ethnic Israel but, by faith and because of the Messiah, it includes the nations as well. Perhaps on the new heaven and new earth the redeemed of ethnic Israel will dwell in Palestine—in the land between the rivers of Egypt and Babylon—but the whole earth will belong to the people of God as they again reign on the earth with God. The kingdom of God will fill the earth!

This accounts for Paul’s pervasive “inheritance” language. He writes about inheriting “the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5). He praises God for the gifting us with the Spirit as a down payment of our inheritance, which will arrive when God has fully redeemed God’s treasured possession (Eph. 1:14). Through faith, Paul writes, we are “qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light” (Col. 1:12).

The fullness of the kingdom of God, which is yet future, is our inheritance. It is the final fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise through which God will make Israel a great nation, a great name, and bless all the nations. That promise, including the whole cosmos, belongs to all those who place their hope in God’s Messiah.

Consequently, the new heaven and new earth (creation renewed) is integral to the plot line of the story of God from creation through Abraham to new creation. The earth is the inheritance of God’s people, and one day the reign of God will fill it from the east to the west, from the north to the south. The whole earth, unlike its present condition, will become “Holy to the Lord” (Zech. 14:20).

Inheriting the (New) Earth

At a climactic moment in the drama of Revelation, “loud voices in heaven” announce (Rev. 11:15):

The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he will reign forever and ever.

This evokes gratitude and worship from those who surround the throne of God. They “give thanks” because the Lord God Almighty has “begun to reign.” This reign involves the judging of the dead, the rewarding of the saints, and—significantly for our purposes—“destroying those who destroy the earth” (Rev. 11:16-18, emphasis ours).

Here “earth” does not refer to people because the Apocalypse habitually refers to the “inhabitants of the earth” for such. This refers to creation. The creator of “heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev. 14:7) judges those who destroy the earth God created. This is one reason why creation itself worships the Father and the Son, as “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them” give “blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever” to the Lamb (Rev. 5:13).

When the “destroyers of earth” are judged, the saints are redeemed. When the earth is avenged, the creation rejoices. When the kingdom of God fills the earth, the redeemed “from every tribe and language and people and nation” will become ministering priests and “reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10).

God’s dramatic story reaches its goal in Revelation 21-22.  The climatic picture is wondrous (Rev 21:1-5a).

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I herd a loud voice from the throne saying,

“Behold, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.”

And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” 

“New heaven and new earth” echoes the creation story in Genesis 1-3.  The echo, however, is no mere restoration of creation. Rather, it is a transformation or transfiguration of the present, old creation into something new.

Though chaos remains in the old creation, chaos will disappear in the new. Darkness—part of the original chaos in Genesis 1:2—will no longer exist in the new creation since “the glory of God is its light” (Rev. 21:23; cf. 22:5). The waters of the deep, representing chaos, were part of the old creation, but in the new there will be no more sea (Rev. 21:1). “The sea is no more” assures chaos no longer exists.[1] The consequences of tragic human choices, described in Genesis 3, no longer exist in the new creation—death, mourning, and pain (Rev. 21:4). Indeed, the curse of Genesis 3 is removed (Rev. 22:3). Chaos no longer poses any threat to creation. The earth will never again suffer from human choices or chaotic forces.

Everything chaos and sin produce in the present, old world—death, mourning, pain—will disappear in the new one. The old world will pass away, everything will be made new, and the new world will emerge as a place where God dwells with humanity. What God has prepared for us in heaven (God’s dwelling place) will descend to the new earth under the new heavens in the new creation. God will again dwell with humanity just as God did in Eden.

But Eden is no longer one place on the earth. Rather, Eden fills the earth. The whole creation, unlike in Eden, is God’s sanctuary, the Holy of Holies. The new city is a perfect cube, just like the Holy of Holies in Israel’s temple.  But there is no temple on the new earth because the cosmos itself is the temple of God.

The city in Revelation 21-22 stands in contrast with the great city of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. While the latter is filled with greed and immorality, the former excludes all sinfulness. While the latter has dominated and ruled the earth as “the kingdom of this world” since humanity’s expulsion from Eden, the new Jerusalem will fulfill all the hopes of the prophets and the Abrahamic promise. In the new Jerusalem the nations are healed and blessed, provisions are abundant, and the tree and water of life are in the midst of the new earth forever.

Does God create ex nihilo, out of nothing, like God did in the original creation? Is the old creation annihilated and then a totally different world created? We don’t think so.

God’s promise is: “See, I am making all things new” (Rev. 21:5).  The text does not say God will make new things. Rather, God will make all things new. This is restoration, healing, and renewal.

Conclusion

This is a new beginning.  It is renewal.  It is new creation. It is analogous to new life after the Flood, or a new Exodus when Israel entered the promised land. The new earth is our inheritance, and God invites the redeemed “to inherit these things,” where God will be our God and we will be God’s children (Rev. 21:7). This is our inheritance.

Bullet points

• God unconditionally promised Abraham’s descendants they would inherit the whole cosmos.

• Christians are Abraham’s descendants and therefore heirs of that promise.

• The meek will inherit the earth when everything is made new in the new heaven and new earth.

Questions

1. Does the Abraham promise include the land such that Abraham is the “heir of the cosmos?” What does it mean for Christians to recognize they are “heirs” of the Abrahamic promise?

• Are the prophetic hopes of Israel all fulfilled in the present age, or is there a fuller experience of this hope in the age to come?

• What is new about the “new heaven and new earth,” and what does it mean for the “old” to “pass away”?

---

[1] Jonathan Moo, “The Sea That is No More: Revelation 21.1 and the Function of Sea Imagery in the Apocalypse of John,” Novum Testamentum 51 (2009): 148-67.

This article was first published as “Philip Slater Fall: Educator, Reformer, Pastor,” Tennessee Baptist History 18.1 (2016): 59-72. Click here for a PDF version.

On July 15, 1857, the Nashville Union and American announced Philip Slater Fall as the preacher for an evening service at the Third Presbyterian Church, which at that time the First Christian Church rented.[1] Interestingly, in 1821 the recently-founded Baptist congregation had built that building. Some thirty years prior, Fall led that congregation into the Reformation guided by Alexander Campbell. After an absence of twenty-six years (1831-1857), Fall returned to Nashville as the Pastor of the First Christian Church (1858). Later the congregation repurchased their original building. Fall found himself once again pastoring the same congregation in the same building where he began pastoring the “Baptist Church of Jesus Christ” in May 1826.

That same issue announced the return of R. B. C. Howell to the pastorate of the First Baptist Church in Nashville. Howell had earlier led the First Baptist Church to a period of stable growth from 1835-1850. Ironically, both Fall and Howell returned to Nashville within several months of each other, and both congregations welcomed the return of their most celebrated and beloved pastors.

P. S. Fall in Kentucky (1817-1826): Embracing Reform

Philip Slater Fall was born on September 7, 1798 near Brighton in Sussex, England. Colonel James Fall, a former military officer, moved the family to the United States, landing in New Jersey on May 10, 1817. They travelled down the Ohio River from Pittsburg to Louisville and renewed family relationships in Adair County, Kentucky, where Philip’s mother died.  The family settled in Logan County near Russellville on a four hundred acre farm Philip’s father had purchased before he died on Christmas Eve, 1817. Philip, at nineteen, was the oldest of ten, including an eight-month old infant, and he was tasked with caring for the orphaned family.

Though raised Episcopalian by his mother, Philip’s great grandfather, James Fall, was a British Baptist minister, and some suggest his father was Baptist.[2] Isaac Hodgen (1779-1826), an eminent and successful Baptist minister who had officiated the funeral of Fall’s mother,[3] pastored the Mt. Gilead Church and preached throughout country between Russellville and Hopkinsville, KY. Fall, baptized on October 25, 1818, became a member of the Mt. Gilead congregation. Soon he regularly offered a “word of exhortation” to the church.[4]

Given his classical education, he began teaching at the Forks Elkhorn Academy in Franklin County, KY, in the Fall of 1819.[5]  Shortly after his arrival the Church of the Folks of Elkhorn licensed him to preach on December 11, 1819. The next summer a presbytery of Baptist pastors examined his “call to the Ministry” and theology.[6] His views were “satisfactory,” though there was significant discussion about Fall’s dubious Calvinism.[7]

Accompanying Jeremiah Vardeman, a leading Kentucky Baptist minister who organized the Baptist church in Nashville, Fall preached for the Nashville Baptist church in July 1821 as well as in June 1822. Though invited to serve as their Pastor, he declined and remained in Franklin County as co-pastor with Jacob Creath, Sr. of the Frankfort Baptist Church from 1821-1822.[8] Throughout 1822 Fall preached monthly for the Louisville Baptist church. Accepting their invitation, he moved to Louisville as its pastor in January 1823 where he also taught in an academy. Here he began to pay attention to the rumblings of Alexander Campbell. 

Fall first heard about Campbell from William Vaughan shortly after Campbell’s debate with the Presbyterian Walker.[9] Vaughn praised Campbell’s performance as well as his biblical knowledge. He next heard about Campbell from Jeremiah Vardeman during his tour of Tennessee, but Fall did not read from him until 1823 when he read Campbell’s controversial “Sermon on the Law,” delivered to the Redstone Baptist Association in 1816. Next, he began reading Campbell’s new publication, begun July 4, 1823, entitled The Christian Baptist. Fall received his first copy from Moses Norvell, a member of the Baptist church in Nashville. Fall remembers his first reaction was “repugnance” though he was “prepossessed in favor of its editor.”[10]

Fall “became personally acquainted” with Campbell in November 1824 when the Reformer visited Louisville by which time he had read Campbell’s debates with Walker and McCalla. After hearing him several times and visiting with Campbell in his home, Fall became one of the first resident pastors among Kentucky Baptists to fully embrace Campbell’s reform movement.[11] Campbell remembers, for example, a time when “only brethren P. S. Fall, of Kentucky, and Adamson Bentley, of Ohio, cordially espoused the cause” in their respective states.[12]

At the same time Fall was appointed clerk for the Long Run Baptist Association in 1824. Fulfilling his function, he preached the opening sermon of the association on September 2, 1825 and authored a circular letter. This is regarded as the “first movement among the Baptists of Kentucky in the direction of the principles of the Reformation.”[13] The letter affirmed the Bible as “the only sufficient and perfect rule of our faith and practice.”[14] The circular was defeated by one vote.[15]

The Louisville Baptist Church aligned itself with Campbell’s reform movement that year. The church unanimously adopted the following statement on September 1, 1825, the day before the Long Run Association meeting began.[16]

We, the Church of Jesus Christ, meeting together in Louisville, do hereby declare and agree that we do renounce all human instruments of union, such as Creeds, Confessions of faith and formulas of doctrine and practice; and that we receive the New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as our only Creed, and the only rule of our faith and practice.[17]

P. S. Fall in Tennessee (1826-1831): Reforming a Church

On September 3, 1825—the date Fall spoke at Long Run—the Nashville Baptist church “unanimously agree[d] to call Bro. Philip S. Fall to act as [its] pastor.” This latest invitation started a momentous chain of events, which resulted in P. S. Fall, according to Wrather, becoming the “Father of the Christian Church in the South.”[18]

Selling the Logan County farm, Fall moved to Nashville in January 1826. He did not come simply as a pastor. Rather, the prestigious Nashville Female Academy, begun in 1816, invited him to teach. Rev. William Hume, the head of the academy, introduced Fall to the public as a “distinguished” teacher who possessed “energy, intelligence and experience.”[19] He was paid six hundred dollars per annum.[20]

Apparently, some in Nashville feared Fall’s relationship to Campbell’s reform movement. However, John C. Ewing, the clerk of the church, assured Fall in an August 28, 1825 letter:  “You need have no apprehensions on this ground, and you will find enough here to support you who are tied to no doctrines but those that are indubitably scriptural.”[21] While some thought Fall came under false pretenses, he insisted otherwise: “Letters now in my possession must satisfy every candid mind that whatever my convictions may have been they were well known before my removal to Nashville.”[22]

Fall became the pastor of the Baptist church in May, though he assumed the ministerial duties when he arrived in January.[23] He served without remuneration.[24] Over the next three months, Fall introduced—with majority support—significant changes.

• Weekly communion was adopted (May 1826).
• Candidates for baptism were received upon a simple confession of faith (June 1826).
• They renounced all creeds as rules of faith and practice, and affirmed the Bible alone as the sole authority (August 1826).

When Alexander Campbell visited Nashville in February/March 1827, he “preached frequently, to the great delight of the Church and the community.” This reception was due to the fact that the church was already “fully engaged in the reformatory movement.”[25] This exacerbated current tensions within the Concord Association from which the church withdrew on August 12, 1827. An earlier communication with the Association stated its intent to never unite with any body requiring subscription “to any human instrument of union, as the test of our obedience or practice.”[26]  On May 28, 1828, the church—at a Saturday conference—resolved:

That all forms, rules, decisions, and regulations, in relation to the government, practice, worship, and ordinances of the church (including the Constitution and Rules of Order) be considered null and void; that we take the New Testament as the rule of our faith, and practice; and will form such rules from it, for our worship, and government, as may consist with the spirit and meaning, and the peace, and good order of the church.[27] 

There is no mistaking the Nashville church’s reorientation and its explicit association with Campbell’s reform movement. Campbell published a letter (January 10, 1828) from the church where she confirms its “departure from Baptist customs.”[28] The congregation numbered one hundred and fifty. After his visit to Nashville in 1830, Campbell described the church, numbering two hundred and fifty, as “advanced in the reformation” because it practiced the apostolic ancient order in its weekly meetings.[29] In 1834, the church numbered five hundred.[30] By 1841, Campbell identified the congregations in Cincinnati, Louisville, and Nashville as “golden candlesticks” which “illuminate and sanctify the whole world.”[31] Two of these were led into the Reformation by Fall.

Though relations with the Female Academy were congenial, Fall started a new one with the help of his sisters. He opened a “private SEMINARY, for the instruction of Young Ladies” on January 7, 1828. Named the Female Institute, it operated out of his home and included “religious instruction.”[32] The school was a tremendous success, but between an “ever-enlarging school and a growing church at a center of influence” the load was too much.  His health declined.[33] He closed the school, resigned his pastorate, and removed to Kentucky.[34] Though the church was disappointed, the “Baptist Church of Jesus Christ in Nashville Tennessee” lavished him with praise and affection in a parting letter.[35] He left a three hundred member strong church in July 1831, and he remained “strongly attached” to the Nashville church, visiting frequently throughout the years.[36] In a letter to his wife, for example, he recounts his July 1833 visit when he baptized fifteen people.[37]

When the school closed, a letter to the editor from a “Lover of Science,” commented: “The loss of such an institution is to be deplored.”[38] However, his sisters—Kitty, Mary, and Charlotte—stayed in Nashville and established “Miss Fall’s Academy.” Charlotte, who later married Tolbert Fanning, became a leading educator in Middle Tennessee for the next fifty years.

P. S. Fall in Kentucky (1831-1858):  Church Planter and Educator

Fall moved to Popular Hill, outside of Frankfort, KY, to a “large home on [a] farm.”[39] Country living suited Philip, and his health improved. He “was a most enthusiastic and intelligent gardener” with a greenhouse “celebrated” for its “many scientific experiments in floriculture.”[40]

With improved health, Fall’s passions re-emerged. Initially, Fall planted and nurtured a congregation in Shelbyville, KY, which grew to sixty-six members in a few months.[41] At the request of five people in Frankfort, who were unaffiliated with any other religious body, he and his wife planted a new congregation on December 2, 1832, which became the Frankfort Christian Church. He was its only “regular preacher” for twenty five years, and he served it “without any compensation.”[42] The new congregation, however, drew fire from others, and the church struggled “against much opposition.”[43]

The Christian Church erected it own building in February 1842, and Fall gave the inaugural sermon, which Campbell published. He characterized Fall as “a well-cultivated and discriminating mind” who was “the oldest ‘reformer’ in Kentucky.” His educational and reforming work is “both known and highly appreciated throughout the Valley of the Mississippi.”[44]

How does the church lead the world to Christ? Fall’s answer: “BY ITS OWN UNITY.” This includes common thought and practices. This unity—same acts, truths, and spirit—is embodied through love for another. But such unity is worthless if the “members of the church do not love one another,” including loving across denominational boundaries. Consequently, church bodies must not “separate themselves” and “work themselves up to the highest possible degree of difference and animosity.” At the center of this conviction is the confession “God is love.” “If divisions, hatred, strife, emulation, injustice, falsehood, unmercifulness, instead of their opposites, distinguish the church, how can the church exhibit the [love] of God to mankind?”[45]

To this end Fall was deeply involved at regional, state, and national levels of the Christian Church, particularly promoting cooperation and education.  He was a founding trustee of the Kentucky Christian Education Society, established in 1854.[46] He was also one of the “foreign managers” of the American Christian Missionary Society at its founding in 1849.[47] Fall was a life-long supporter of society movements within the Christian Church, although David Lipscomb—based on personal conversations with Fall—insisted Fall never advocated for nor participated in societies after his return to Nashville in 1858.[48] In fact, the Nashville Christian Church did not support the society until 1881, several years after Fall returned to Kentucky. [49] He was also a trustee of both Bacon College and Bethany College, and he served as vice president of the Western Literary and College of Professional Teachers.[50]

Fall established the Female Eclectic Institute in 1832. A visitor to the school in 1846 described his home as “one of the most beautiful and romantic spots in the state.” Its educational system was “thorough, developing the powers of thinking, as well as those of acquiring knowledge.”  Indeed, by 1846, “owing to the great celebrity of this school, the Principal has to reject many applications for admission.”[51]

In 1842 Fall described the substance of the school.  Every morning began with song, prayer, and the oral reading of Scripture (several chapters and the Psalms). The following daily schedule reflects Fall’s motto:  “Study is the business and pleasure of all.”[52]

Day	Morning	Afternoon
Monday	Natural Philosophy, Arithmetic, and Writing	Drawing
Tuesday	English Grammar, Arithmetic, and Writing	Geography
Wednesday	History, Arithmetic and Writing	Reading
Thursday	French	Drawing
Friday	Astronomy, Arithmetic, and Writing	Reading
Saturday	Preparation for Monday	Preparation for Monday
Sunday	Worship and Rest	Worship and Rest

Once again, however, Fall’s incessant activity in both church and school affected his health. The educational enterprise grew more wearisome. Fall’s wife wrote to her daughter: “we will not have a school much longer. Your Father seems more wearied than I ever saw him. He would not mind having a few day pupils, but he does not expect to have boarders but very little longer.”[53] Providently, in 1857 the Nashville church invited him to return.

P. S. Fall in Tennessee (1858-1876):  Pastoring a Church

The Nashville Christian Church from 1831-1861

When Fall left the Nashville church in 1831 it numbered three hundred members, and within a few years it grew to six hundred. In the early 1850s a thousand would gather to listen to its preacher. However, in 1857 the church numbered only fifty-six members.  So, what happened? [54]

After Fall’s departure, the elders decided to care for the flock themselves but employed two “Evangelists” for Middle Tennessee. The evangelist “was not regarded as the ‘pastor’ of the congregation, but was subject to the brethren.”[55] Tolbert Fanning and Absalom Adams planted and nurtured new churches throughout the region, and the Nashville church grew to “about six hundred members.”[56]

Tolbert Fanning married Charlotte Fall, Philip’s sister, on December 25, 1836, and they started a female seminary in Franklin, TN in 1837. Later they moved to Elm Crag about five miles east of Nashville and renamed it “Electic Institute for Young Ladies.”[57] Fanning planted a new church in Elm Crag and later founded Franklin College (1846).

Without their evangelists and with the size of the congregation hovering around six hundred (including over two hundred and fifty African slaves), the church appointed Dr. W. H. Wharton its Pastor, and he served part-time from 1842-1847. His congregational duties and medial practice created significant pressures. Eventually, the charismatic, young preacher Jesse B. Ferguson caught their eye during his 1842 and 1844 revivals.

In 1846 Ferguson became the only full-time resident minister among the Christian Churches in Tennessee.[58] Wildly popular, he attracted large crowds. To accommodate them, the congregation sold the Spring Street building and erected a new one on Cherry Street, which seated twelve hundred people. However, controversy soon erupted. Ferguson sparked it with an article entitled “Spirits in Prison” (1 Peter 3:19) where he argued for a “second chance” after death.[59] Ultimately, Ferguson embraced Spiritualism, Universalism, and Unitarianism.

In November 1853 twenty-five members signed a formal protest. They objected to Ferguson’s theology, the lack of growth in membership (despite larger attendance), and his worldly leadership. Wharton resigned as associate Pastor, and fifty withdrew and began meeting at the old Spring Street building. After years of controversy, Ferguson resigned in June 1856. The ownership of the Cherry Street building was then contested. After the anti-Ferguson faction took possession of the Cherry Street building, it burned (“the general and confidential opinion [is] that it was set on fire”).[60] Consequently, the Nashville Christian Church returned to where it started—it rented and then purchased the Spring Street building. But now it was only fifty-six members (including fourteen African slaves).

Some believed the church should return to its pre-Ferguson days and encourage elders to nourish the flock.  Tolbert Fanning, who worshipped with the Franklin College congregation on his farm, offered this warning:  “Should the members determine to hire another pastor to come to Nashville to take charge of the worship of God for them, no better results can be anticipated than those already experienced.”[61]

Yet, the church decided their best opportunity for revival was the return of Philip Slater Fall. “While we know it to be wrong to trust to an arm of flesh,” they wrote Fall, “we believe that, as far as human means go, you are the one person who can save the church.”[62] Fall returned as Pastor of the Nashville Christian Church in January 1858, and the congregation was encouraged by a visit from Alexander Campbell that year.[63]

In the summer of 1861 Fall reported the church’s progress to the Christian Pioneer.  “I am happy to say that the cause of Christ is in a measure restored to its former status in the city.” With the immersion of sixty persons in the recent past membership now totals “as many as in the best days of the congregation,” two hundred and sixty-five “white members.”  The “colored members were organized into a separate church [1858]; and there are possibly more than two hundred of them together now; but some twenty prefer to remain with us.” Consequently, the Christian Church in Nashville was nearly as large as when Ferguson arrived in 1847. “The greater number of the old members have returned to their places,” Fall said, “and now value their privileges more highly than ever. Peace and love abound amongst us…The unpleasant past is forgotten; and the author of the evil is rarely ever mentioned.”[64]

The Civil War

Darkness soon descended upon all the churches of Nashville with the outbreak of the war and Tennessee’s July 1861 succession from the Union. The two leading Protestant Pastors of the city, R. B. C. Howell and P. S. Fall, were avid supporters of the Confederate cause. Both encouraged their members to join the Army of Tennessee.[65] In fact, Fall’s son, Albert, enlisted and was killed at Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862.

When Union forces occupied Nashville, church buildings were converted to hospitals, public schools were closed, and ministers were required to swear loyalty to the Union. Every minister in Nashville, who refused the oath, including Howell,[66] served time in the penitentiary except for Fall. He escaped by appealing to his British citizenship:  “If the oath I have taken (in order to become a voter) is not sufficient, I prefer to remain a British subject.”[67]

Fall served the city throughout the occupation. When public schools closed in occupied Nashville, Fall began one in his home, which continued until 1871.  He ministered to the sick, helped needy prisoners, and comforted the dying, significant because other ministers were languishing in prison.[68] After the battle of Stone’s River (December 1862), Brigadier General Smiley restored Fall’s building to the Pastor, and said: “I believe that Mr. Fall’s teaching in that church will do more than all the bayonets to subdue, regulate and control this community.”[69] Despite his rather benevolent treatment, Fall refused to support the Union war effort and, in particular, refused Andrew Johnson’s order to offer a thanksgiving prayer for the death of the Confederate General John Morgan. He retorted:  “I will ‘render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,’ but no man shall dictate to me what I say in my pulpit.”[70]

Christian Church in Nashville After the Civil War

The postwar years were difficult in Nashville as the destitute, widows, and orphans were numerous in Middle Tennessee and the South.  Fall joined David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning in raising funds for the poor throughout the Christian Church “brotherhood.”[71] Fall encouraged this national request for benevolence in the newly revived Gospel Advocate (1866), asserting, “Nothing we possess is our own.”[72] Ultimately, they raised $100,000 for the southern poor.

The relationship between David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning with P. S. Fall was cordial and brotherly. For a time, Fall was an associate editor of the Gospel Advocate with Lipscomb and Fanning.[73] Lipscomb enjoyed Fall’s preaching, and he sometimes published his sermons in the Gospel Advocate.[74] But differences between them existed, and they were pronounced at points.  Three points are particularly important.

1. Pastor System.  Fanning and Lipscomb advocated a “mutual edification” approach to Christian assemblies and believed the church was most effectively nurtured by a plurality of leaders.  Fall, however, thought this was dangerous. In a letter to his sister, Charlotte Fanning, he warned she whould “never be edified by the crudities of those who do not know how even to read the scriptures &, much less, to interpret them…And the notion…that everyone is ‘able to teach”…is too absurd for anyone of sense to hold.”[75] Fall thought an educated Pastor should lead the church.

• The War Question. Both David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning opposed participation in the Civil War. They were long-time advocates for peace and peacemaking, and they opposed any kind of violence.[76] Fall supported the Confederate cause in the war.

• Scripture and the Holy Spirit. During the 1850s controversy erupted between Tolbert Fanning and Robert Richardson. Fanning located the work of the Spirit in the written word of God while Richardson affirmed a sacramental work of the Spirit within the believer.[77] Fanning feared a renewal of Ferguson’s spiritualism. Fall sided with Richardson.[78] In a letter to Fall, dated July 30, 1857, Richardson wrote: “It gives me great satisfaction to know that this view I have given of faith is acceptable to one of such excellent judgment as yourself.”[79]

Despite these differences, they shared a common vision of the practice the Christian Faith as a New Testament church, including the exclusion of instrumental music from the worship of the body.[80]  Following the “pattern” of the New Testament, it is “perfectly practicable to reconstruct an apostolic congregation.”[81] This ecclesial unity was sufficient for the time, though a day would come when the theological trajectories of Fanning and Fall would result in two distinct bodies:  the Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ.

Throughout his ministry in Nashville Fall was fully engaged with the city, particularly in education and city development. At various times, he was President of the Agricultural Society,[82] President of the Chamber of Commerce,[83] President of the State Association of Teachers,[84] a member of the Public Education Board (sometimes President),[85] and an “examiner” for several schools (e.g., Columbia).[86]

Conclusion

Fall returned to Frankfort in 1877. His Frankfort friends supplied him with a modest home as a token of their loving appreciation.[87] Retiring from the pastorate, he continued to preach.  He regularly spoke, for example, for the Presbyterian Church in Frankfort as well as the First Christian Church.[88] In 1887, Fall returned to Nashville to preach the last sermon in the original Spring Street building before the congregation moved to Vine Street.[89] On his 92^nd birthday “his faculties were unimpaired,” and he “preached a powerful sermon in his old church [Frankfort], from the text, ‘And the books were opened.’ A most impressive occasion to all.”[90]  He died a few days later on December 3, 1890. His obituary remembered, “No man was ever more beloved by his Church, his friends, and the community generally than was Mr. Fall.”[91]

The legacy of Philip Slater Fall is an important one.

• As Reformer, he was one of the earliest and most ardent supporters of the Reformation inaugurated by Alexander Campbell.

• As Educator, he provided education for young people wherever he lived and advocated for public education even as he supported private institutions among the Christian Church.

• As Pastor, whether reforming congregations, planting others, or reviving the one in Nashville, he was regarded as an eminent preacher and compassionate presence by his peers.

---

[1] Nashville Union and American, July 15, 1857, 3.

[2] Pattie Burnley, “Philip Slater Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 7.21 (September 1999) 63.

[3] John H. Spencer, History of Kentucky Baptists (Cincinnati: J. R. Baumes, 1886), I:241.

[4] Philip S. Fall, “Reminiscences of Philip S. Fall,” MS in the Philip S. Fall Memorial Library, Christian Church, Frankfort, KY.

[5] “Reminiscences.”

[6]  James A. Cox, “Incidents in the Life of Philip Slater Fall” (B. D. Thesis, Lexington Theological Seminary, 1951), 26-27.

[7] “Reminiscences.”

[8] “Reminiscences.”

[9] Alexander Campbell and John Walker, A Debate on Baptism (Pittsburgh: Eichbaum and Johnson, 1822).

[10] “Reminiscences.”

[11] P. S. Fall, “Interesting Reminiscences,” Christian Standard 14 (3 May 1879) 138.

[12] Alexander Campbell, “History of the Reformation,” Millennial Harbinger 4.2 (February 1833) 94.

[13] Cox, 52.

[14] Alexander Campbell, “The Casting Vote, or the Creed triumphant over the Bible,” Christian Baptist 3.7 (February 1826) 138.

[15] Campbell, “The Baptist Recorder,” Christian Baptist 3.10 (May 1826), 207.

[16] Fall, “Interesting Reminiscences,” 138.

[17] Cox, 53.

[18] Eva Jean Wrather, “History of the Vine Street Christian Church,” unpublished MSS, Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Wrather 120 II/7 Vine Str. Chapter 1 Revised, p. 50, and also so named by Cox, 74.

[19] Republican Banner, January 7, 1826, 3.

[20] Fall, “Interesting Reminicences,” 138.

[21] As quoted by Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1870), II:142.

[22] “Reminicencies.”

[23] R. B. C. Howell, A Memorial of the First Baptist Church, Nashville, Tennessee (Nashville: Historical Commission, Southern Baptist Convention, 1942), 42.

[24] Cox, 74.

[25] Richardson, II:168.

[26] Alexander Campbell, “Deferred Articles,” Christian Baptist 4.10 (May 1827), 194.

[27] Howell, 62.

[28] Campbell, “Extract of a Letter to the Editor,” Christian Baptist 5.9 (April 1828), 154.

[29] Campbell, “The Church in Nashville,” Millennial Harbinger 2.3 (March 1831) 123.

[30] Campbell, “Summary of News,” Millennial Harbinger 5.7 (July 1834) 334.

[31] Campbell, “Excursions—No. I,” Millennial Harbinger 2^nd series, 5.5 (May 1841) 225.

[32] National Banner and Nashville Whig, December 8, 1827, 3.

[33] Wrather, 49.

[34] Elizabeth Fall Taylor, “Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 1 (May 1903), 55.

[35] Cox, 92.

[36] Pattie Burnley, “Philip Slater Fall,” Register of Kentucky State Historical Society 7.21 (September 1999) 67.

[37] Cox, 164.

[38] Nashville Banner (July 1831), 3.

[39] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[40] Burnley, 65.

[41] G. W. Nuckols, “Progress of Reform,” Millennial Harbinger 3.12 (December 1832) 608.

[42] L. F. Johnson, The History of Franklin County, Ky (Franklin, KY: Roberts Printing Co., 1912), 256.

[43] F. W. Emmons, “Progress of Reform: Extracts from Letters,” Millennial Harbinger 5.5 (May 1834) 233.

[44] Campbell, “A Discourse,” Millennial Harbinger, 2^nd series, 6.11 (November 1842) 515.

[45] Ibid., 515, 517-8.

[46] S. Arnes, “Independency’s Legitimate Offspring,” Millennial Harbinger 4^th series, 6.8 (August 1856) 443.

[47] “The Convention of Christian Churches,” Millennial Harbinger 3^rd series, 6.12 (December 1849) 691.

[48] Herman Norton, The Life of Philip Slater Fall (M. A. Thesis, Vanderbilt University, 1951) 70-72 and David Lipscomb, “Consistency,” Gospel Advocate29 (6 April 1887) 215.

[49] Wayne H. Bell, “A History of Vine Street Christian Church,” in Seven Early Churches in Nashville (Waynesboro, TN: Elder’s Bookstore Publisher, 1972), 85.

[50] Sarah Harwell, “Fall, Philip Slater (1798-1890),” The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 330.

[51] Extracted from the Protestant Unionist, “Educational Institutions,” Millennial Harbinger, 3^rd series, 3.9 (September 1846) 429-430,

[52] “Bishop P. S. Fall’s School Near Frankfort, Kentucky,” Millennial Harbinger, 2^nd series, 6.6 (June 1842) 284-85.

[53] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[54] Johnny Tucker, Like a Meteor Across the Horizon: the Jesse B. Ferguson Story (Fayetteville, TN: Tucker Publications, 1978), James R. Wilburn, The Hazard of the Die: Tolbert Fanning and the Restoration Movement (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co., 1969), and Robert E. Hooper, Crying in the Wilderness: The Life & Influence of David Lipscomb (Nashville: Lipscomb University, 2011) narrate the history of the Nashville church in the 1830s-1850s.

[55] Tolbert  Fanning, “The Church in Nashville,” Gospel Advocate 3 (March 1857) 71.

[56] Alexander Campbell, “Sketch of a Tour of 75 Days,” Millennial Harbinger 6.6 (June 1835) 280.

[57] Alexander Campbell, “Female Seminaries,” Millennial Harbinger 2^nd series 4.8(August 1840) 384.

[58] Bell, 87.

[59] Jesse B. Ferguson, “Spirits in Prison,” Christian Magazine 5 (April 1852) 115.

[60] Nashville Republican Banner, April 9, 1857, 3.

[61] Fanning, “Church in Nashville,” 74.

[62] “Philip Fall Sr.,” http://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Fall-145 (accessed January 12, 2015).

[63] Robert Richardson, Memoirs of Alexander Campbell (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1870), 2:638.

[64] Philip S. Fall, “Letter from Elder Philip Fall,” Millennial Harbinger 5^th series, 4.9 (September 1861) 530.  See also Fall Papers, ““Discourse on the Reconstruction of the Congregation, No. 1,” 1-5.

[65] Joe Early, Jr., “Tennessee Baptists and the Civil War,” Tennessee Baptist History 8 (Fall 2006) 12; Taylor, p. 56.

[66] Early, 12.

[67] Taylor, 56.

[68] Taylor, 56-57.

[69] Burnley, 68.

[70] Ibid.

[71] W. K. Pinkerton, “A Big Proposition,” Millennial Harbinger 37.12 (December 1866) 561. Cf. P. S. Fall, “Letter from a Committee Composed of Fall, V. M. Metcalfe, and David Lipscomb, Nashville, Tenn., Dec. 16, 1866, Concerning Relief for the South,” The Evangelist 7 (5 January 1867) 8.

[72] P. S. Fall, “The Responsibility of the Disciples of Christ as Stewards of God,” Gospel Advocate 6 (23 October 1866) 673-688, quote from p. 679.

[73] P. S. Fall, “To the Readers of the Advocate,” Gospel Advocate (3 January 1867) 2.

[74] For example, P. S. Fall, “’What Must I Do to be Saved?’ Acts xvi.30,” Gospel Advocate 18.21 (25 May 1874) 483-504.

[75] Philip S. Fall, “Letter to Charlotte Fall Fanning” (November 21, 1885), Disciples of Christ Historical Society, Fall Papers, II/16.

[76] Fanning published thirteen articles in the Gospel Advocate throughout 1861 as he attempted to dissuade his readers from participating in the war effort.

[77] This controversy is explained in C. Leonard Allen and Danny Gray Swick, Participating in God’s Life: Two Crossroads for Churches of Christ (Orange, CA: New Leaf Books, 2001).

[78] Norton, 84.

[79] Cox, 162.

[80] David Lipscomb, “An Explanation,” Gospel Advocate 53.16 (20 April 1911) 465. Fall’s congregation did not introduce the instrument until 1891 (Bell, 85).

[81] P. S. Fall, “How Old is your Church?,” Gospel Advocate (3 January 1867) 3.

[82] The Pulaski Citizen, December 20, 1867, 2

[83] Nashville Union and Dispatch, February 9, 1868, 3

[84] Daily Union and American, November 16, 1866, 3.

[85] Nashville Union and Dispatch, May 14, 1868, 3. 

[86] The Columbia Herald, August 22, 1873, 2.

[87] Taylor, 57.

[88] Burnley, 68.

[89] Wayne H. Bell, “A History of Vine Street Christian Church,” in Seven Early Churches in Nashville (Waynesboro, TN: Elder’s Bookstore Publisher, 1972), 85.

[90] Burnley, 68.

[91] Frankfort Roundabout, December 6, 1890, 4.

When the wicked prosper, what do the righteous do? When people oppress the poor and needy to enrich themselves, what does wisdom say to community of God when they gather to praise God?

“Depart from evil, trust God, and do good.” The way of the wicked leads to destruction, but the meek shall inherit the earth.

This was also the message of Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount.

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss the meaning and significance of Psalm 37.

A version of this was published in Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024), 152-158. Brad’s article “Churches of Christ: Once Catholic, Now Evangelical” was published in Restoration Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2024), 133-143.

Available in PDF here.

In his provocative and engaging essay, Brad East asserts that churches of Christ were “once catholic”—though insufficiently so—but are “now evangelical.” I think, given his descriptions of catholic and evangelical, churches of Christ have always been evangelical and still are catholic. The historical DNA of churches of Christ, according to East, is “catholic rather than evangelical.” In contrast, it seems to me, their DNA has always been and still is, at least in large measure, evangelical catholic.Of course, the terms “catholic” and “evangelical” are begging for definition. More on that momentarily.

But first, why is this claim important? East believes it has explanatory power. It explains, for example, why some have chosen to walk the Canterbury Trail. The liturgical and sacramental spirituality of Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican traditions resonates with their experiences in churches of Christ. The turn to evangelical among churches of Christ, East argues, meant their congregations left them and, consequently, they sought those catholic practices elsewhere.

As congregations increasingly absorbed evangelical spirituality and abandoned catholic commitments, according to East, churches of Christ lost their distinctiveness. Becoming evangelical, members of churches of Christ found evangelical spirituality elsewhere in better and more resourced spaces. If there is no difference between the spirituality of churches of Christ and evangelicals, why remain in churches of Christ?

Consequently, East postulates two significant reasons why churches of Christ are dying: (1) they are no longer catholic and thus have lost those committed to catholic principles and (2) they have become evangelical, and others do evangelical better. Moreover, the decline of churches of Christ is also connected with how American Evangelicalism (note the capital E) in the last four decades has morphed into a political and cultural agenda. To the extent that churches of Christ embrace that transformation it contributes to decline. To that last sentence, I say, Amen!

I trust this is a fair articulation of East’s thesis. To assess it we need to focus on those pesky definitions. I’ll get there, but let’s start with the end of his article. He lands in a rather healthy and hopeful place. He describes what “it means to be faithful as a once-catholic, now-evangelical church,” and that description, he rightly believes, “pertains to all churches, at all times, of every kind”—whether catholic, evangelical, or evangelical catholic.

Faithfulness is keeping in step with the Spirit: “following Christ,” obedient to Scripture, gathering with believers, loving each other, “bearing witness” to the gospel, worshiping God “in Spirit” and in Truth (who is Jesus; I capitalized “truth”), “proclaiming the gospel,” participating in the sacraments, “catechizing our children,” serving the poor and needy, listening to all saints past and present, and “resisting the siren songs of culture and politics.”

What East describes is potentially an ecumenical evangelical catholic congregation. It can be a non-sectarian discipled sacramental community. I’m good with that. Indeed, this is how East describes his own work as a theologian: “I want my work to be catholic, evangelical, and ecumenical.”[1] This is essentially, with the addition of a robust sense of mission and other distinctives not encompassed in catholic and evangelical theology, what Mark Powell, Greg McKinzie, and I proposed in Discipleship in Community.[2] Though a proposal for churches of Christ, its intent is catholic, evangelical, and ecumenical. We share East’s conviction that belonging to Christ’s church, “which is never in trouble,” is our hope. I deeply appreciate where East ends his essay. At the same time, the way he gets there is somewhat problematic.

Let us, finally, turn to definitions, particularly “catholic” and “evangelical.” I will not contest the characteristics East identifies (though I have some quibbles) but point out that both have always been (and still are) part of churches of Christ.

First, catholic. East claims it is “more fitting” to describe the DNA of churches of Christ (its origins and historic practice) as “catholic rather than evangelical.” I think that claims too much, but I do agree churches of Christ are “catholic” given his characterization. Essentially, “catholic” refers to a high ecclesiology in which the church is central to soteriology (first three points out of twelve), baptismal sacramentalism (three points), and the assembled liturgical community (two+ points, including weekly communion). [This is similar to Campbell’s three positive ordinances of Christianity: Baptism, Lord’s Day, and Lord’s Supper.[3]] Further it looks to the “early church” as a “paradigm of moral, spiritual and sacramental faithfulness.” As East asserts, “the church simply is Christianity as God instituted on earth.”

Does this describe historic churches of Christ? Yes! At the same time, it also describes Luther and Calvin (except for the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Arminian, and Wesleyan nature of point 9). Indeed, until we are more nuanced, this understanding of “catholic” applies to classic Protestant traditions as well as Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Anglican. For example, one of the most controversial statements in the list might be (especially for American Evangelicals), “Baptism, in short, is necessary for salvation” (point 5). Yet, classic Protestants agree. The Augsburg Confession of 1530, which both Luther and Calvin (specifically, Augsburg Confession Variata) affirmed, states: “Of Baptism they [the Reformers] teach that it is necessary to salvation.”[4] Almost forty years ago Richard Harrison, Jr., highlighted the confluence of Catholic and Reformed sacramental theology in the Stone-Campbell Movement in his article, “Early Disciples Sacramental Theology: Catholic, Reformed, and Free.”[5] The “free” refers to the anabaptist character of the Stone-Campbell Movement, which is missing in East’s article but important for the identity of churches of Christ.

While churches of Christ had their own, often unique, sets of “granular scholasticism” (I like that phrase), every tradition does. It is neither a function of catholicism nor evangelicalism per se; rather, it is the nature of human traditions.

So, agreed. Churches of Christ are catholic in their DNA. And, I add, also evangelical.

Let’s turn our attention to the second term, “evangelical.” At one level, as East notes, “evangelical” can modify Lutherans, Methodists, Anabaptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans and Roman Catholics. Agreed. Alexander Campbell, for example, identified an “evangelical” theological core that all Protestants (including himself) confess: Trinity (without using the word, of course), atoning sacrifice, reconciliation through faith, a life of obedience, and the nature of Christ’s kingdom and the new birth.[6]

But that is too broad a brush for what East intends by “evangelical.” He does not use the word in a specifically theological sense. Rather, it refers to “a certain subset of American Christianity.” In other words, though there are some theological commitments embedded in his description, it is primarily a sociological account of a North American, even White, subculture. 

Again, I will not dispute the sociological identifiers, though I lament the lack of attention to theological identity. For example, the identity of evangelical theology is primarily a witness to the gospel—God in Christ reconciling the world to God’s self by the Spirit. This is one reason “evangelical” may describe Roman Catholics as well as Anabaptists. Indeed, the “purpose” of the Campbell Movement was to “restore the gospel and its ordinances” and “establish Christian Union upon the basis of a simple evangelical Christianity.”[7] The phrase “evangelical Christianity” reflects both ecclesiological and soteriological commitments; it entails, at least for the early Stone-Campbell Movement, the meanings of both catholic and evangelical theology.

East identifies the sociological makers in a series of bullet points. These are: biblicism (specifically nuda Scriptura), “democratic impulse,” “frontier revivalism,” emphases on preaching, conversion narratives, living faith, traditional ethics, “hermeneutical literalism,” individualism, an “entrepreneurial spirit,” evangelism and missions, and “a relative lack of emphasis on structures of governance, sacramental administration, holy orders, and/or patristic-medieval tradition.” I do wonder what “sacramental administration” means. Is that another way of talking about sacerdotalism? I don’t know. And, of course, several particulars are open to diverse interpretations within limits (e.g., there are different forms of “frontier revivalism”).

If his thesis is that churches of Christ moved from a catholic to an evangelical identity, his description of evangelical involves no movement at all. Churches of Christ have always—from their beginning—had these general characteristics to one degree or another. In this sense, churches of Christ have always been evangelical, as East uses the term.

East acknowledges this, sort of. He says those “in the Bible Belt” have “always been evangelical adjacent.” Though I see no reason to restrict this to the Bible Belt, the key word is “adjacent.” I’m uncertain what this means. Is evangelical an addendum to catholic commitments within churches of Christ but not integral to their identity? Whatever “adjacent” means, it was so present (perhaps integral?) that the loss of “catholic distinctives” placed churches of Christ wholly within the “evangelical family;” so much so, no one inside or outside can tell the difference. Thus, East argues, churches of Christ, though once catholic, are now evangelical.

The catholic distinctives, East suggests, kept us “out of step with evangelicals,” especially “American [E]vangelicalism” (my capitalization). That is a legitimate point, though the evangelical characteristics listed are not necessarily hostile to catholic commitments (e.g., East explains what he means by biblicism in a footnote; it can mean other things as well). Further, I would add other distinctives that are not catholic but anabaptist. Nevertheless, East’s observation is one of the reasons I have focused on sacramental theology in my own writing. I have hoped to explain and deepen those catholic commitments.[8] To the extent that a congregation neglects or loses its sacramental imagination and practice regarding baptism or Lord’s supper, it is no longer—at least historically or traditionally—part of churches of Christ.

Yet, where are the congregations among churches of Christ that have lost their catholicity? The largest percentage of congregations are still moderately or historically conservative. Their commitment to East’s catholic twelve points is as strong as it was in the 1950s. Ask any number of the large “Church of Christ” groups on Facebook; they’ll tell you.

Most, it seems to me, have lost their sectarianism, and that is a good thing (though some have lamented that loss and are thus attracted to other traditions more sectarian in their catholicism). They are at least ecumenical to the degree that they no longer believe, to the extent that many once did, that churches of Christ are co-extensive with body of Christ on the earth. Losing this sectarianism meant we no longer fall prey to one of the negative aspects of catholic spirituality, that is, fencing the table to feed only their flock and exclude other believers (particularly Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).

Whatever the reasons for and the nature of decline among churches of Christ, it is not because churches of Christ are no longer catholic. They are still catholic even as they remain evangelical. I think the reasons for decline and potential death lie elsewhere and in many places.

East postulates that churches of Christ have not remained faithful to their original catholic DNA for at least two reasons. On the one hand, the evangelical subculture ultimately overwhelmed those catholic commitments, especially with the rise of American Evangelicalism in the late 20^th and early 21^st centuries. On the other hand, churches of Christ were insufficiently catholic from the beginning. What churches of Christ lacked was an “authoritative community” with “authoritative documents and authoritative leaders.” To put it another way, we lacked a set of creeds and a magisterium to interpret Scripture so we could remain catholic enough to avoid the populist call of Evangelicalism with its “entertainment evangelism and prosperity preaching.” Perhaps, it could be argued, catholic commitments remained as long as they did within an evangelical subculture because an unwritten creed operated within the Stone-Campbell tradition and influential preachers as well as magisterial-like editor-bishops managed the interpretation of Scripture for the community. Maybe. But that has broken down in the past sixty years, and it was never absolute. We have always also been a “wild democracy” with significant diversity (to use Ed Harrell’s language).[9] Nevertheless, without creed and magisterium, East suggests, the catholic distinctives disappeared in some places under the influence of Evangelicalism. At the same time, a magisterium, while maintaining orthodoxy (though also maintaining slavery, colonialism, and patriarchalism), can also suffocate the movement of the Spirit among congregations.

According to East, that insufficiency contained the seeds of an eventual implosion. To maintain a healthy, catholic identity churches of Christ have needed a more robust catholicism. Churches of Christ must expand their canon. East suggests nuda scriptura is insufficient (and it is); it needs a creedal faith (e.g., Rule of Faith and perhaps the first four ecumenical councils) and the “authority of bishops” to secure the church’s faith (is this the solution?). For East, to remain catholic one needs the creedal tradition of the first five centuries and a magisterium to interpret it. In his The Doctrine of Scripture, he argued that “the same level of authority . . . must characterize both the text interpreted and the interpretation itself.”[10] If East is correct, the American Restoration Movement was doomed from the start. It may have had a good run, but its insufficient catholicism killed it.

How do we respond to this identity crisis created, in part, by the influence of American Evangelicalism and contemporary culture in the last sixty years? We could double down on our catholic commitments and more deeply imbibe their resources and practices (e.g., a magisterium). But those so devoted have mostly left already. Or, we could fully embrace

Evangelicalism’s theology, the natural waters of its subculture (in which we have swum for two hundred years), and its new 21^st century features. But Evangelicals do evangelical better. In either case, churches of Christ die. This is what East thinks is happening.

Are churches of Christ dying? I don’t know. Maybe. I hope not. But whether they are or not, it is not because churches of Christ were once catholic but are now evangelical. To be sure, when we lose the catholic dimension, we are no longer an identifiable historical tradition known as the churches of Christ. However, churches of Christ by-and-large have not lost their catholic distinctives. No doubt, some congregations have. That is verifiable. But the vast majority, as far as I can tell, have not. My anecdotal experience is based on teaching sacramental theology and catholic ecclesiology in over twenty countries and forty states to numerous students (over a thousand studying ministry) for forty years in universities associated with churches of Christ. I don’t think churches of Christ have irredeemably morphed into a form of American Evangelicalism because the catholic commitments are still present. I’ve been writing about sacramental theology for twenty-five years to affirm and develop those commitments. Moreover, I doubt if the catholic-evangelical dynamic is the main reason some are leaving churches of Christ or Christianity in general in North America. It is much more complicated than that.

Perhaps, in contrast to the above two options, we might intentionally embrace our identity as evangelical catholics as we reimagine what that means for the current missiological situation. We can remain churches of Christ while we seek new paths of faithfulness in a new context (a 7^th option to add to East’s six). I have sought to cultivate this among churches of Christ over the years and recently in Discipleship in Community. I see this in many spaces.

Should churches of Christ remain a distinctive tradition? Can it? Is it worth the struggle? Does it contribute to the body of Christ as a whole? Do we offer healthy, unique gifts to the body of Christ? A healthy evangelical catholic theology provides balance between personal and communal, between Scripture and tradition, between conversion narratives and catechesis, between evangelism (revivalism) and liturgy, between Word and Table, between emotion and reason, and between freedom and ecclesial governance among other elements.

An evangelical catholic can be sectarian or ecumenical. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are sectarian (e.g., they fence the table). Churches of Christ, drawing on our historic call for unity, can serve the body of Christ as an ecumenical, evangelical, and catholic tradition (I would also add anabaptist and missional, if I get to define those terms).

I’m not willing to jump ship to another tradition. Perhaps I will go down with this ship and provide hospice care (which is a holy calling). But I find in churches of Christ a unique theological set that has possibilities for missional engagement in a Post-Christian Western culture. It may not make a big splash, but that is neither the point nor the goal. Rather, it can, and in many places does, provide a faithful and hopeful presence.

---

[1] Brad East, “Theology in Division,” First Things, available at https://www.firstthings.com/article/2023/04/theology-in-division.

[2] Mark Powell, John Mark Hicks, and Greg McKinzie, Discipleship in Community: A Theological Vision for the Future (Abilene: Abilene Christian University, 2020).

[3] See my “Stone-Campbell Sacramental Theology,” Restoration Quarterly 50, no 1 (2008) 35-48.

[4] The Augsburg Confession, Article 9, available at https://bookofconcord.org/augsburg-confession/.

[5] Richard L. Harrison, Jr., “Early Disciples Sacramental Theology: Catholic, Reformed, and Free,” Mid-Stream 24, no 3 (July 1985) 255-292.

[6] Alexander Campbell, “Education,” Millennial Harbinger 1, no. 6 (2^nd series; June 1837) 258

[7] Robert Richardson, The Principles and Objects of the Religious Reformation, Urged by A. Campbell and Others, Briefly Stated and Explained, 2^nd ed (Bethany, VA: A. Campbell, 1853) 6-7.

[8] John Mark Hicks, Enter the Water, Come to the Table (Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, 2014). 

[9] John Mark Hicks, “I Stayed for the Wild Democracy,” in Why We Stayed: Honesty and Hope in the Churches of Christ, ed. Benjamin J. Williams (Los Angeles: Keledei Publications, 2018) 103-120.

[10] Brad East, The Doctrine of Scripture (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2021) 255.

Paul quotes Psalm 143:2 twice (Romans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16). He stresses there is no one justified before God on their own righteousness.

Psalm 143 is traditionally known as the last of the seven penitential Psalms in the Psalter.

Video linked here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYXO00ERPLU

Bobby Valentine and John Mark Hicks discuss its meaning and significance, and they offer a slightly different perspective. The Psalm is not about repentance but an appeal to God’s faithful love and righteous goodness to create a heart dedicated to following God’s way. The Psalmist finds confidence, in the midst of distress, to trust in God’s covenant faithfulness.

AI summary:

Understanding Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, one of the seven penitential Psalms, and its context within the Book of Psalms. Bobby explained the literary structure of the Psalter, highlighting its journey from lament to praise and David’s role as a priest-king leading worship. They explored the themes of God’s righteousness, human flaws, and the need for divine guidance and teaching. John and Bobby agreed that the Psalm emphasizes dependence on God’s grace and mercy, rather than human righteousness, for spiritual growth and fulfillment of God’s mission.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

John and Bobby discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of faithfulness, righteousness, and divine rescue. They agreed that the psalm reflects a plea for God’s intervention rather than a penitential prayer, emphasizing the speaker’s need for God’s protection and deliverance from external threats. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the Exodus narrative and its broader application to the people of God facing persecution. They also explored how the psalm’s themes resonate with Paul’s teachings on divine faithfulness in Romans and Galatians.

Faithfulness and Covenant in Psalm 103

John and Bobby discussed the themes of divine faithfulness, human unworthiness, and the nature of the covenant in Psalm 103. They explored how the psalmist pleads for God’s mercy, not based on personal righteousness but on God’s steadfast love and past faithfulness. Bobby highlighted the contrast between the law and the covenant, emphasizing that justification comes through God’s faithfulness rather than human performance. They also connected the psalm’s themes to broader biblical narratives, including creation, the Exodus, and the Sabbath, underscoring the psalmist’s reliance on God’s past deeds for hope and courage.

Exploring Psalm 77’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 77, focusing on its themes of distress, waiting on God, and the need for divine intervention. They explored how the psalm reflects David’s experience during the Absalom rebellion, highlighting the internal struggle of being attacked by one’s own family. John noted the psalm’s structure, including the use of verbs like “meditate” and “think,” and its division by the word “Selah.” They emphasized the psalmist’s cry for God’s quick response and the sense of urgency in times of spiritual and physical distress.

Exploring Psalm 143’s Themes

Bobby and John discussed Psalm 143, focusing on its themes of spiritual struggle, the need for God’s guidance and strength, and the concept of God’s faithfulness and righteousness. They explored how the psalm reflects on the human condition, the role of the Spirit in creation and redemption, and the importance of God’s reputation and glory. Bobby highlighted the psalm’s connection to the broader biblical narrative, including the Exodus and the need for God’s intervention and renewal. They concluded by emphasizing the relevance of the psalm’s message for contemporary believers, who also seek God’s guidance, strength, and faithfulness in their lives.

Harding School of Theology (October 2025)

Syllabus PDF here.

An English version is available here.

El Padre elige, redime y salva en Cristo mediante el poder del Espíritu Santo. La unión con Cristo es la expresión general de la totalidad de nuestra salvación. Esta unión abarca todos los aspectos de nuestra salvación. La sabiduría de Dios —Jesucristo en quien Dios está reconciliando al mundo— es nuestra justicia, santidad y redención (1 Corintios 1:30).

Esta unión con Cristo es a la vez redentora-histórica y espiritual-mística. La obra de Cristo es por nosotros y con nosotros, tal como se identificó con nosotros a través de la encarnación, el ministerio, la muerte y la resurrección. Mediante la elección del Padre, nos unimos a Cristo en su muerte y resurrección, para que su muerte y resurrección sean las nuestras. Al mismo tiempo, nuestra unión con Cristo se efectúa a través del Espíritu de Dios, de modo que constituimos el cuerpo vivo de Cristo. Somos la encarnación de Jesús en el mundo, pues la presencia divina reside en nosotros a través del Espíritu que mora en nosotros. Participamos de la realidad del reino de Dios a través del Espíritu de Cristo, quien nos capacita para ser como Cristo. Unidos con Cristo redentora y pneumáticamente, encarnamos la presencia de Jesús en el mundo por el bien del mundo. Redimidos en Cristo, nos convertimos en la presencia de Cristo en el mundo.

El alcance de la salvación

La soteriología es individual, comunitaria y cósmica.

El cristianismo occidental y evangélico generalmente se ha centrado en los aspectos individuales de la salvación, es decir, «Dios me salvó y Cristo habría muerto por mí incluso si yo hubiera sido el único que lo necesitara». En consecuencia, la teología evangélica a menudo ha enfatizado la seguridad individual, la justificación por la fe y la santidad personal. Este énfasis generalmente se ha vinculado a «ir al cielo al morir», de modo que la salvación a veces se ha reducido al perdón de los pecados y a la entrada al cielo.

Ciertamente Dios salva a las personas individualmente. Dios me salva a mí. El Espíritu de Dios habita en cada uno de nuestros cuerpos, nos llama a la santidad personal, y la presencia personal del Espíritu nos empodera. Dios obra en y a través de las personas y se relaciona con nosotros como individuos. Existe una relación “personal” con Dios: existe comunión entre Dios y las personas. La soteriología no socava nuestra individualidad, aunque no aprueba nuestro individualismo.

Al mismo tiempo, Dios salva a un pueblo y lo reúne. Dios —la realidad relacional y comunitaria del Padre, el Hijo y el Espíritu— creó una comunidad (masculina y femenina), redime a una comunidad y glorificará a un pueblo. El Padre creó un pueblo llamado Israel y ahora lo renueva uniendo a judíos y gentiles en un solo pueblo de Dios. La soteriología incluye la eclesiología. La iglesia, finalmente glorificada en el reino, es el objeto de la obra salvífica de Dios.

Más aún, Dios no solo salva a las personas en comunidad (eclesiología), sino que también busca redimir a toda la creación. El telos de Dios es reordenar el cosmos bajo la autoridad de Jesús el Mesías (Efesios 1:10) y reconciliar todo en el cielo y en la tierra con Dios por medio de Cristo (Colosenses 1:20). Dios redimirá la creación misma, así como a un pueblo (Romanos 8:18-26).

En última instancia, la salvación no se trata de mí, ni de nosotros, ni de la creación. Es para alabanza y gloria de Dios Padre, quien elige a un pueblo en Cristo para convertirse en la presencia viva de Dios en la creación por el poder del Espíritu. Esta es la gloria de Dios: descansar con un pueblo redimido en una creación redimida.

Las dimensiones temporales de la salvación

La soteriología aplicada es pasado, presente y futuro en la vida de los creyentes. Los creyentes ya han sido salvos, están en proceso de ser salvos y aún lo serán. Así es exactamente como Pablo usa los términos “salvar” o “salvación” en sus cartas. La salvación es algo ya logrado (Romanos 8:24; Efesios 2:5, 8; Tito 3:5); es algo que sucedió en su propio pasado existencial. La salvación también es algo que aún debe experimentarse en el futuro (Romanos 5:9-10; 13:11; 1 Tesalonicenses 5:8-9; 2 Timoteo 2:10); seremos salvos en el futuro. La salvación también es un proceso que experimentamos actualmente; es fuego purificador y olor grato (2 Corintios 2:15); estamos en proceso de ser salvos.

Esta estructura soteriológica histórico-redentora se ilustra en Romanos 6:22:

Pero ahora que habéis sido libertados del pecado y hechos siervos de Dios, obtenéis el fruto que conduce a la santificación y su fin, la vida eterna.

En el pasado, Dios nos liberó del pecado y nos esclavizó a la justicia: hemos sido liberados (justificados) del pecado (Romanos 6:7). Sin embargo, esta realidad salvífica continúa en el presente a medida que avanzamos hacia la santidad (santificación), que es el fruto de haber sido liberados de la culpa y el poder del pecado. Además, nuestra meta (fin, telos) es la vida eterna (glorificación). Este único versículo —y podemos encontrar este énfasis en muchos otros pasajes de Pablo— resume la estructura soteriológica pasado-presente-futuro de la teología paulina. Quienes han sido justificados (liberados) buscan actualmente la santidad (santificación) con miras a la meta de la vida eterna (glorificación).

Los teólogos sistemáticos, especialmente los protestantes, generalmente han resumido las dimensiones pasadas, presentes y futuras de la salvación con los términos técnicos «justificación» (pasado), «santificación» (presente) y «glorificación» (futuro). Este lenguaje es útil siempre que el calificativo temporal siga siendo el punto clave. El lenguaje es problemático cuando un término se identifica estrictamente con un aspecto particular de la salvación (p. ej., cuando la justificación se convierte en la esencia de la soteriología) o cuando los textos bíblicos se ajustan al lenguaje teológico (p. ej., cuando la «justicia» se introduce a la fuerza en el significado técnico de la justificación en textos como Hechos 10:35).

De hecho, Pablo usa el término «justificado» o «justificación» para referirse a realidades soteriológicas pasadas, presentes y futuras. No limita la «justificación» a una declaración forense pasada, aunque a menudo se refiere a ella como un evento pasado en la vida del creyente (Romanos 3:24; 5:1, 9). Más bien, llama a los creyentes a «seguir la justicia» (Romanos 5:13, 16, 18, 19) en el presente como esclavos obedientes de Dios. Y, además, seremos justificados en el futuro (Romanos 2:6-10, 13) mientras vivimos incluso ahora en la «esperanza de la justicia» (Gálatas 5:5).

El lenguaje soteriológico de Pablo es rico en diversidad, ya que no está rígidamente ligado a una ubicación temporal. La santificación (la santidad) también es pasada (1 Corintios 6:11, a veces llamada santificación definitiva o posicional), presente (1 Tesalonicenses 4:3, a veces llamada santificación progresiva) y futura (1 Tesalonicenses 5:23, a veces llamada santificación completa). La glorificación es tanto presente (2 Corintios 3:18) como futura (Romanos 8:17). Y podríamos hacer lo mismo con otros términos como liberación, redención o espiritualidad. El punto es que la soteriología es integral: abarca pasado, presente y futuro. Limitar la salvación a un solo aspecto temporal es reduccionista.

La soteriología como definitiva y participativa

La unión con Cristo no se trata solo del perdón, sino del proceso de participar en la vida de Cristo. La soteriología, por tanto, es tanto declarativa como participativa. Dios salvó mediante un acto declarativo, pero también salva mediante nuestra participación en la vida a la que Dios nos llama. Somos declarados justos (absueltos) por un acto divino de justa imputación en lo que los teólogos han llamado históricamente «justificación» (o santificación definitiva), pero también buscamos y llegamos a ser justos mediante la participación en la santidad de Dios en lo que los teólogos han llamado históricamente «santificación» (o santificación progresiva o impartición de justicia).

Lo definitivo es un acto divino que recibimos por fe, pero participamos en la realidad de este acto al convertirnos en lo que hemos sido declarados en la obra justa de Dios. Lo definitivo es lo que algunos llaman indicativo: declara lo que Dios ha hecho y enfatiza su obra salvífica. Dios justifica, santifica y glorifica. Lo participativo es lo que algunos llaman imperativo: nos llama a vivir el indicativo en nuestra vida personal, comunitaria y en la creación. Significativamente, el indicativo fundamenta y fortalece el imperativo.

Esta relación entre el indicativo y el imperativo es común en Pablo. Ya que vivimos en el Espíritu, sigamos el paso del Espíritu (Gálatas 5:25). Ya que Dios ha mostrado misericordia hacia nosotros, dejémonos transformar por Dios en lugar de conformarnos al mundo (Romanos 12:1-2). Ocupémonos de nuestra salvación con temor y temblor, porque es Dios quien obra en nosotros (Filipenses 2:12-13).

Los creyentes no solo reciben la declaración de la justicia justificadora de Dios; también buscan la justicia para convertirse en la justicia de Dios (es decir, la personificación de la fidelidad de Dios en el mundo).

Los creyentes son tanto pasivos como activos en su salvación. Reciben pasivamente la declaración justificadora de Dios mediante una fe viva, como mendigos con la mano abierta, pero también buscan activamente la justicia (santidad, santificación) mediante una fe que obra por el amor (Gálatas 5:5-6), mientras que, al mismo tiempo, reciben pasivamente el empoderamiento (indicativo) del Espíritu que permite obras fieles de amor.

Aunque creo que Pablo mantiene este equilibrio de forma clara, muchos han enfatizado la definitividad paulina hasta prácticamente perder la participación. Si la teología occidental (especialmente la evangélica) se hubiera centrado en los Evangelios en lugar de Pablo, tal vez el énfasis recaería en la participación más que en la definitividad (como hace gran parte de la iglesia oriental en su concepto de teosis). El llamado al discipulado en el reino de Dios en los Evangelios enfatiza la participación: seguimos activamente a Jesús.

Pero no se trata de una cuestión de una u otra. Más bien, es una cuestión de ambas. La salvación es definitiva y participativa. Aceptamos la declaración de Dios por fe y participamos en su obra transformadora al buscar la justicia, practicar la vida del reino y seguir a Jesús. De esta manera, somos “justificados por la fe” (declarados “en la justicia” por la obra justa de Dios en Jesús) y “justificados por las obras” (hacedores de la ley, Romanos 2:13) —experimentamos la transformación mediante una vida recta y empoderada. Las obras (nuestra “santificación” y conformación a la imagen de Cristo, fortalecidas por el Espíritu de Dios) evidencian nuestra declaración (“justificación”), encarnan nuestra semejanza a Cristo y dan testimonio de la realidad del reino de Dios en el mundo. Por la fe somos “en la justicia” (justificados) y mediante las buenas obras (santificación) nos convertimos en lo que Dios nos ha declarado ser. Somos declarados “en la justicia” porque estamos unidos a Cristo. Unidos con Cristo, participamos de la vida de Cristo al hacernos partícipes de la naturaleza divina (teosis). El objetivo teológico de la santificación —nuestra «entera santificación» o glorificación— es la conformación a la imagen de Dios en Cristo. Llegaremos a ser plenamente —en cuerpo y alma— como Cristo en nuestra futura santificación (resurrección).

El fundamento trinitario de la salvación

La fe es el medio de justificación, santificación y glorificación, para usar los términos técnicos de la Teología Sistemática. En la justificación, la fe recibe la declaración extrínseca de Dios. En la santificación, la fe participa en la vida de Cristo mediante las obras; la fe obra por el amor (Gálatas 5:6). En la glorificación, la fe espera en el futuro venidero y los creyentes —aquellos que han perseverado en la fe— experimentarán la plenitud de la redención de Dios.

Pero tras el imperativo de creer (confiar) se encuentra el fundamento del indicativo divino. El Padre nos ha justificado, continúa santificándonos y nos glorificará. La fidelidad del Hijo fundamenta nuestra justificación, modela nuestra santificación y establece la humanidad glorificada. El Espíritu genera fe en nosotros, nos transforma y animará nuestros cuerpos en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva.

Somos salvos (justificación) por gracia (fundamento) mediante la fe (medio) para buenas obras (santificación). Este es el telos de Dios. Dios quiere redimir a un pueblo que vivirá como imágenes divinas (representantes) dentro de la creación por el bien del mundo y descansará en el shalom misericordioso y comunitario de Dios.

¿Así que?

La salvación, entonces, se trata del presente y del futuro. No se trata solo de vivir en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva, sino del rescate de los poderes de las tinieblas en el presente siglo malo. La salvación es apocalíptica, es decir, redime a un pueblo como parte de la nueva era mientras aún vive en la antigua. Es un nuevo orden dentro del antiguo orden: es el reino de Dios presente en el mundo.

Por lo tanto, la salvación no se trata solo de una decisión personal por Jesús (por ejemplo, la decisión de seguir a Jesús al entrar en el agua) y del perdón, sino también del discipulado y el aprendizaje en el ministerio de Jesús como participante del reino de Dios.

La obra salvadora de Dios no solo perdona, sino que transforma. No solo somos salvos del pecado, sino también para las buenas obras (santificación). La obra salvadora de Dios no solo nos prepara para el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva, sino que obra a través del pueblo del reino en el presente para la recuperación de toda la creación (tanto humana como cósmica) para el reino de Dios. Esta obra de Dios a través del pueblo de Dios no solo implica proclamar la buena nueva del reino, sino también practicarla al revertir la maldición.

La obra salvadora de Dios se manifiesta no solo en los creyentes que tienen la seguridad de su perdón, sino también en los creyentes que proclaman el evangelio y encarnan la buena nueva de Jesús mediante las buenas obras (por ejemplo, la justicia social, la sanación, la benevolencia, la ecología, etc.). La iglesia es la comunidad de Dios que proclama la buena nueva del reino y la practica.

An English version is available here.

El Espíritu Santo, como presencia personal de Dios, es el agente activo y la garantía de nuestra salvación.

El Espíritu de Dios está presente desde el principio (Gén. 1:2), a lo largo de todo el desarrollo orgánico de la narración y en el clímax: «El Espíritu y la Esposa dicen: «Ven»» (Ap. 22:17).

El Espíritu y la Trinidad

El Espíritu se caracteriza por atributos divinos: omnisciencia (1 Corintios 2:10), omnipotencia (Miqueas 3:8) y omnipresencia (Salmo 139:7-10). El Espíritu participa en las obras divinas: creación (Salmo 104:30), regeneración (Juan 3:5), resurrección (Romanos 8:11) y milagros (1 Corintios 12:4-11). Así como el Padre da vida (Romanos 8:11), también el Espíritu da vida (2 Corintios 3:6). El Espíritu se identifica específicamente en los dichos trinitarios del Nuevo Testamento (p. ej., Mateo 28:19; 2 Corintios 13:14; Efesios 4:4-6).

Ontología Relacional. El Espíritu es el Espíritu de Dios, el Espíritu de Dios. Pablo, por ejemplo, piensa en el Espíritu principalmente en términos de su relación con Dios Padre. Dios da el Espíritu (1 Tesalonicenses 4:8). Pero Pablo también llama al Espíritu el Espíritu de Cristo (Filipenses 1:19; Romanos 8:9). Estos genitivos expresan relación. Tanto el Padre como Cristo dan identidad al Espíritu: el Espíritu proviene del Padre y el Espíritu es la forma en que Cristo se hace presente en los corazones de los creyentes. Si bien el Espíritu de Dios es idéntico al Espíritu de Cristo (lo cual refleja la cristología elevada de Pablo), el Espíritu no se equipara con el Señor resucitado. El Espíritu y el Señor son distintos entre sí (p. ej., ambos interceden por nosotros en Romanos 8:26-27, 34). El Espíritu es personalmente distinto de Cristo, aunque sus funciones están vinculadas. El Espíritu es el medio por el cual Cristo vive en nosotros.

Algunos cuestionan la personalidad del Espíritu. No existe una metáfora para el Espíritu análoga a «Padre» e «Hijo» que proyecte personalidad. «Espíritu» suena impersonal. Pero el Espíritu (aunque pneuma es gramaticalmente neutro) se menciona en género personal (Juan 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14, «esa persona»). El Espíritu es «otro parakletos» (Juan 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). La ausencia de Jesús significa la presencia de otro, alguien distinto de él, que tiene la misma función. Por lo tanto, los discípulos no se quedarán solos como huérfanos. Más bien, el Espíritu es un representante personal del Padre y del Hijo.

Trinidad Económica. La trinidad económica es el rol de las tres personas en la historia redentora. Cada una tiene un rol distintivo: el Padre elige, el Hijo se encarna y el Espíritu mora en nosotros. Por ejemplo, en 1 Pedro 1:2, el Padre preconoce, el Hijo derrama sangre y el Espíritu santifica (cf. 2 Tesalonicenses 2:13-14). El Padre planifica y elige, el Hijo realiza la redención en la historia, y el Espíritu la aplica en los corazones de los creyentes.

El Espíritu llama a las personas a la fe y las convence de pecado. El Espíritu aplica la realidad de la salvación a las personas. El Espíritu obra en cada individuo para producir los efectos de la salvación en su vida («fruto del Espíritu», Gálatas 5), pero también en la comunidad en su conjunto. El Espíritu completa el objetivo de la glorificación mediante la resurrección. Como sugiere Gordon Fee, el Espíritu es la «experiencia soteriológica de Dios» (Empowering Presence, 843) o la presencia redentora de Dios.

Podemos resumir la labor económica de la Trinidad en dos frases. En primer lugar, todo lo que el Padre hace en el cumplimiento de la redención, el Padre lo hace a través del Hijo. (Efes 1:4-14). El Hijo encarnado realiza la obra del Padre en cumplimiento de la misión de Dios. En segundo lugar, todo lo que el Hijo hace en la aplicación de la redención, lo hace por medio del Espíritu. (Efes. 2:18-22). El Espíritu es el medio por el cual los creyentes experimentan y encuentran al Padre a través del Hijo.

Estructura histórico-redentora: Presencia divina

Acto Uno: Creación–Presencia en el Jardín. Tras seis días de creación, Dios descansó el séptimo día. Este descanso divino no es simple pasividad. Más bien, es una especie de “descanso en” o disfrute de la creación. Dios se deleita (“es muy bueno”) y habita (camina en el Jardín) con la humanidad en el buen cosmos. El descanso de Dios es el disfrute mutuo de Dios, la humanidad y el cosmos.

Acto Dos: Israel–Presencia en el Templo. Este es el lugar que Dios eligió para morar en las Escrituras Hebreas. Dios mora en el templo; sus pies descansan sobre el estrado del Arca de la Alianza. Esta es una presencia especial que se comunica con Israel en una relación. Israel experimentó esta presencia en el templo; allí entraron en el santuario terrenal (morada), que era un símbolo del santuario celestial. Esto es lo que veo en 2 Crónicas 6-7 y Levítico 26:11-12, por ejemplo; o se alude con frecuencia en los Salmos, como el 63 o el 132. Esta es una forma de presencia redentora cuando Dios se encuentra con Israel en el templo para brindarle gracia, misericordia y perdón.

Acto Tercero: Presencia Encarnacional (Logos en la carne). Esta es la presencia de Dios caminando sobre la tierra. Dios habitó con la humanidad en la carne, en lugar de en un templo. Esto es lo que veo en Mateo 1: «Dios con nosotros» (Emanuel), o en Juan 1: «El Verbo se hizo carne y habitó entre nosotros». Este es el momento culminante en el que Dios se hace humano. Es un momento escatológico que anticipa el futuro cuando Dios morará plenamente con la humanidad en una tierra renovada («cielos nuevos y tierra nueva»).

Acto Cuarto: Presencia Pneumatológica (El Espíritu Santo habita en los cristianos). El Espíritu mora en los cuerpos de cada cristiano y en el cuerpo de Cristo como comunidad. Esta es otra forma de presencia redentora: es la presencia santificadora de Dios que nos transforma mediante su presencia divina. Esta es la presencia del Espíritu en la tierra; nuestros cuerpos son un santuario divino y la comunidad eclesial es el santuario de Dios en la tierra. Mediante la presencia del Espíritu, tenemos comunión con el Padre y el Hijo en nuestro diario vivir. A través del Espíritu, Cristo mora en nuestros corazones por la fe y siempre está presente con nosotros. Esto es lo que veo en Mateo 28:20; 1 Corintios 3 y 6. Somos el templo de Dios por medio del Espíritu Santo, pues Dios ha venido a morar entre nosotros en cumplimiento de las antiguas promesas (2 Corintios 6:16, citando Levítico 26:11-12).

Quinto Acto: Presencia Escatológica (Dios mora con la Humanidad Redimida). Es cuando la nueva Jerusalén desciende a la nueva tierra. Dios, el Dios Trinitario, habita plenamente con la humanidad en la tierra. No hay templo ni santuario. Toda la tierra es la morada de Dios. Esto es lo que veo en Apocalipsis 21-22. La presencia del Dios Trinitario se restaura en la tierra, pero no es una simple restauración. Es una glorificación, pues lo mortal se ha transformado en inmortalidad (resurrección). El primer acto no se repite, sino que se consuma, y ​​comienza una nueva fase del mismo camino: un viaje hacia la profundidad y la riqueza de la comunión con Dios, con los demás y con la creación.

Ascensión, Pentecostés y el derramamiento del Espíritu

La promesa. En Lucas 3:15-18 se establece una distinción histórico-redentora entre la obra de Juan el Bautista (bautismo en agua) y la obra de Cristo (bautismo en el Espíritu). El bautismo de Juan fue para la remisión de los pecados, pero no implicó la plena realidad soteriológica, es decir, la presencia del Espíritu.

La promesa del Espíritu forma parte de la realidad del escatón. Es el «ya» de lo que «aún no» hemos recibido. Lo recibimos como anticipo parcial de la plena realidad escatológica. Participamos de esa realidad mediante un solo bautismo: el agua y el Espíritu se unen para mediarnos esa realidad. Es la experiencia colectiva del pueblo de Dios: somos un pueblo bautizado, en agua y en Espíritu.

El cumplimiento. Pentecostés forma parte del acontecimiento de Cristo: su ascensión y reinado (Hechos 2:1-39). Muerte, Resurrección, Ascensión, Exaltación y Derramamiento son un solo acontecimiento, un tapiz completo. Es el resucitado y crucificado quien ascendió a la diestra de Dios y derramó el Espíritu. La dádiva del Espíritu en Pentecostés es la primicia de la cosecha.

Este “derramamiento” es más amplio que el empoderamiento milagroso de los apóstoles (cf. Tito 3:5-6). El Espíritu es derramado y prometido a todos los que son sumergidos (Hechos 2:38). Así como a Jesús se le dio el Espíritu como fundamento de su ministerio, también a los creyentes se les da el Espíritu como empoderamiento para el ministerio. Jesús derramó el Espíritu sobre todos los creyentes como parte del cuerpo de Cristo. El bautismo en el Espíritu no se refiere solo a experiencias individuales del Espíritu, sino al derramamiento del Espíritu, una vez para siempre, en Pentecostés por la iglesia. Participamos de esta realidad cuando somos bautizados en Cristo (1 Corintios 12:13).

El principio. El Señor exaltado es el Espíritu vivificante (1 Corintios 15:45; 2 Corintios 3:17). Existe una identificación funcional entre Cristo y el Espíritu, quien aplica la obra consumada de Cristo. Cristo está presente a través del Espíritu en la vida de los creyentes. Resucitado y ascendido al cielo, se ha convertido, en efecto, en «el Espíritu» o «Espíritu vivificante».

«Espiritual» se refiere al Espíritu Santo (1 Corintios 2:10; 2 Corintios 3:3). En virtud de su exaltación, como el postrer Adán, el Jesús exaltado ha llegado a poseer de manera tan permanente y completa el Espíritu que ambos son equiparables en su actividad. Son uno en la obra escatológica de vivificar la iglesia. Esta obra del Espíritu (el Señor como Espíritu vivificante) se realiza actualmente mediante la renovación interior, pero finalmente nos glorificará mediante la resurrección (2 Corintios 4:14-5:10). Así, la presencia del Espíritu es la presencia de Cristo (cf. Juan 14:12-23). ​​La presencia del Espíritu es lo que nos hace «espirituales», es decir, guiados, orientados por el Espíritu y viviendo en él. La vida que vivimos es la vida de Cristo resucitado por medio del Espíritu.

La dádiva del Espíritu depende de la obra de Cristo (Juan 7:39). Es un acontecimiento histórico-redentor, algo que no se había hecho antes. Es un hito en la historia de la redención. Es la fuente de vida en el creyente. Nuestra vida es la vida del Espíritu, quien nos transmite el poder de la vida resucitada y exaltada de Cristo. (En la sección anterior, agradezco a mi antiguo profesor Richard Gaffin por sus ideas).

La función del espíritu

El Espíritu como presencia interior. El Espíritu es quien nos comunica con Dios. Dios mora entre nosotros por medio del Espíritu. La presencia del Espíritu Santo es testigo de nuestra redención, y la encontramos en la comunidad de Dios, donde Dios mora por medio del Espíritu. No estamos desprovistos de la presencia personal de Dios. Así como Dios estuvo personalmente presente en la encarnación por medio de Jesús, también Dios está personalmente presente en la iglesia por medio del Espíritu Santo que mora en nosotros. En consecuencia, somos el templo de Dios. El Santo mora en medio de nosotros como prenda de nuestra futura morada con Dios en el cielo nuevo y la tierra nueva.

El Espíritu como Poder Transformador. Hay tres niveles en los que podemos hablar de esta transformación: (1) Regeneración; (2) Santificación; y (3) Glorificación.

La regeneración es la obra del Espíritu que inaugura nuestra salvación. Es un renacimiento de nuestra naturaleza caída a partir del Espíritu de Dios. La naturaleza humana es creada de nuevo, una nueva creación (2 Corintios 5:7), y el poder espiritual se introduce en nuestras vidas. Este principio de vida enfrenta a la carne en una lucha de poder. La regeneración es la naturaleza humana renacida según el poder del Espíritu, en lugar de la naturaleza humana nacida en la carne (sarx).

La ​​santificación es la obra progresiva del Espíritu en la vida del creyente (1 Pedro 1:2; 1 Tesalonicenses 4:3-8; 2 Tesalonicenses 2:13). Es un proceso de renovación y metamorfosis. La persona interior se renueva diariamente (2 Corintios 4:15-16) y el Espíritu la fortalece (Efesios 3:17-18) a medida que nos acercamos cada vez más a la imagen de Cristo. Los frutos del Espíritu son movimientos hacia la imagen de Cristo en la santificación (Gálatas 5).

La glorificación completa nuestra salvación al resucitar por el poder del Espíritu (Romanos 8:11). La gloria final es la resurrección (redención) del cuerpo. Esta resurrección es cristológica, pues somos conformados a la imagen de Cristo, incluso en su cuerpo. Esta es la transformación final (Filipenses 3:21). Somos conformados a esa imagen por el poder del Espíritu. El Espíritu animará nuestros cuerpos resucitados (1 Corintios 15).

El espíritu como dador. El Espíritu distribuye los dones de Dios. A todos se les da una «manifestación del Espíritu para el bien común» (1 Corintios 12:7). Dios otorga dones «por medio del Espíritu» (1 Corintios 12:6). Estos dones abarcan desde la misericordia, la enseñanza, el liderazgo y la generosidad (Romanos 12:3-8) hasta la sabiduría, el conocimiento, las sanidades, los milagros, la profecía y el don de lenguas (1 Corintios 12:8-10). Ninguna de estas listas es exhaustiva, sino que ilustra la obra de Dios en la comunidad de fe por el bien del cuerpo y del mundo. El mismo Espíritu distribuye una diversidad de dones (1 Corintios 12:11).

¿Así que ?

El Espíritu de Dios es la presencia de Dios en toda la creación. Dios no ha abandonado el cosmos. El Espíritu que estuvo presente en la creación está presente en todos los rincones de la tierra incluso ahora. El Espíritu —la presencia en la que los seres humanos viven, se mueven y su ser— obra la gracia común en toda la creación y en la historia.

El Espíritu de Dios es también una presencia redentora entre el pueblo de Dios, a través de la cual comulgan con Dios y experimentan su realidad personal. El Espíritu es la conexión personal y existencial entre Dios y la humanidad. La morada personal del Espíritu es la experiencia de Dios en nuestros corazones, por la cual clamamos: «Abba, Padre». El Padre y el Hijo vienen a morar en nosotros mediante la presencia del Espíritu. El Espíritu Santo es el poder de nuestra transformación a la imagen de Cristo. El Espíritu está presente para empoderarnos, fortalecernos y santificarnos. El Espíritu produce el fruto del amor, la paz y la alegría en nuestras vidas. El Espíritu nos conforta en nuestro interior. El Espíritu nos capacita para el perdón y la liberación del resentimiento. El Espíritu es una presencia que nos permite transformarnos. El Espíritu Santo fortalece nuestro ministerio al capacitarnos para servir en nuestras comunidades de fe y en el mundo. El Espíritu nos capacita para el bien común: para las comunidades de fe, para la sociedad humana y para la creación. Buscamos estos dones mediante la oración, el discipulado y las relaciones de mentoría.

Just as Ephesians 1:3-14 is the opening doxology that casts a vision for the redemptive work of the Father through the Son in the Spirit, Ephesians 6:10-20 is the letter’s concluding invitation to participate in the ongoing work of God by struggling with the rulers, authorities, and powers in the heavenly places. Having laid the ground of our inclusion into the family of God in chapters 1-3, and inviting believers to imitate God as new creatures in Christ by the power of the Spirit in chapters 4-6, this final section of the letter is a bugle call to participate in the fight against evil. In the strength of the Lord, we engage the powers of evil as we clothe ourselves in God’s own armor of righteousness, salvation, truth, and the gospel of peace. Through the word of God and praying in the Spirit, we can not only stand against evil but also advance the cause of the kingdom of God.

Given the allusions to Isaiah 11:5, 52:7, and 59:17 in Ephesians 6:14-17, “this text portrays the church as a community of ‘divine-warriors’ who continue Christ’s mission by extending the new creation.” It functions, then, to summarize the whole letter. The armor is “more than a defence against the devil, but instead helps expand the new creation inaugurated by Christ’s death and resurrection.” (See Mark D. Owens, “Spiritual Warfare and the Church’s Mission According to Ephesians 6:10-17,” Tyndale Bulletin 67 (2016): 87-103.)

Allusions to Isaiah

Isaiah: New Exodus	Ephesians: New Creation
“Righteousness (δικαιοσύνῃ) shall be the belt (ἐζωσμένος) around his waist (τὴν ὀσφὺν), and faithfulness (ἀληθείᾳ) the belt around his loins” in 11:5.	“Stand, therefore, and fasten the belt (περιζωσάμενοι) of truth (ἀληθείᾳ) around your waist (τὴν ὀσφὺν) and put on the breastplate of righteousness (δικαιοσύνης)” in 6:14.
“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings (πόδες εὐαγγελιζομένου ἀκοὴν εἰρήνης, ὡς εὐαγγελιζόμενος ἀγαθά), who proclaim salvation (σωτηρίαν), who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” in 52:7.	“As shoes for your feet (πόδας) put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς εἰρήνης)” in 6:15.
“He put on righteousness as his breastplate (ἐνεδύσατο δικαιοσύνην ὡς θώρακα), and the helmet of salvation (περικεφαλαίαν σωτηρίου) on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak” in 59:17.	“Put on the breastplate of righteousness (ἐνδυσάμενοι τὸν θώρακα τῆς δικαιοσύνης)” in 6:14 and “Take the helmet of salvation (περικεφαλαίαν τοῦ σωτηρίου)” in 6:17.

Wisdom 5:17-20 – “The Lord will take his zeal as his whole armor (πανοπλίαν), and will arm all creation to repel his enemies; he will put on righteousness as a breastplate (ἐνδύσεται θώρακα δικαιοσύνην), and wear impartial justice as a helmet (κόρυθα); he will take holiness as an invincible shield (ἀσπίδα), and sharpen stern wrath for a sword (ῥομφαίαν) and creation will join with him to fight against his frenzied foes.”

Significance of Ephesians 6:10-20 Paul urges his readers to participate in the mission of God to defeat evil by sharing in God’s role as divine warrior (cf. Longman and Reid, God is a Warrior). They dress in God’s armor (thus, God’s truth, righteousness, salvation, gospel of peace, God’s word/sword). This participation is both offensive and defensive. The proclamation and embodiment of the gospel is not only a witness to new creation but a participation in new creation which struggles against cosmic powers and defeats evil in the strength of the Lord. Just as Joshua was encouraged to be strong and defeat the enemy to receive the inheritance (Joshua 1:6), so renewed Israel—as new humanity—participates in the defeat of God’s enemies through God’s strength and ultimately receives an inheritance.

Whereas Paul does not command the wives to “obey” their husbands in Ephesians 5:21-33, he does command children to “obey” their fathers (and honor their parents) and for enslaved people to “obey” their earthly masters. How, then, does the call to mutual submission in Ephesians 5:21 function in this insistence on obedience for children and enslaved people? And, further, is Paul endorsing slavery and accommodating the powers?

Ephesians 6:1-9 is a continuation of what it means to be filled with the Spirit as a community that praises God, giving thanks, and mutually submits to another. Just as the instructions to wives and husbands hang on the participles in Ephesians 5:19-21, so do the instructions in Ephesians 6:1-9 as this is the conclusion of the section that began in Ephesians 5:15.

When the community of God is filled with the Spirit, it is filled with praise and mutually submissive relationships. Paul applies this to children and fathers in Ephesians 6:1-4 and to the enslaved and their masters in Ephesians 6:5-9. What does that look in those relationships that in Greco-Roman culture were characterized by dominance and coercion?

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Paul’s instruction here is that he addresses both children and the enslaved. He assumes they are present in the community (they are listening to this read in their assembly), they have agency (decisions to make about how to act), and they are responsible to live in a way that imitates God (Ephesians 5:2) and serves the Lord Jesus. They are members of the community, and therefore they are to walk worthy of their calling (Ephesians 4:2), be kind to one another (Ephesians 4:32), forgive one another (Ephesians 4:32), and submit to one another (Ephesians 5:21).

That Paul addresses them at all is startling since this is not the case in standard Greco-Roman household instructions. Paul gives them dignity and honors them with these instructions whereas in the ancient world they were non-persons without rights or agency. Given this dignity, Paul expects them to live worthy of their calling as members of the body of Christ.

Whatever say about these relationships, they are followers of Jesus the Messiah and share a kinship with the rest of the body of Christ: “we are members of one another” (Ephesians 4:25). The familial relationship in Christ transcends the wife/husband, child/father, and enslaved/master relationships. They are sisters and brothers first, and then whatever relationship connects them. Consequently, there are responsibilities to each other that shape how we live with each other, and one of those is mutual submission. This is true even for enslaved persons. Paul, for example, expected Philemon to receive Onesimus “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16).

Children must obey their fathers and honor their parents, and fathers train their children rather than exasperate them. “Obey” was not used for the relationship between wives and husbands, and here it is appropriate because of the nature of the dependency between children and parents.

The enslaved must obey their earthly master as slaves of Christ, enthusiastically serving them in a way that recognizes they are serving the Lord Jesus when they obey their earthly masters. Masters are to do the “same things” for their charges, and do so without violence or threats as both have the same Master (Lord) in heaven. The mutuality of this relationship is seen in the mutual service both rendered to the Lord Jesus, and they both act without partiality toward the other.

Many modern believers are disturbed that Paul does not command the masters to free the enslaved persons in their charge. Paul does command the masters to treat their slaves with fairness, without coercion (threats), and to have the same attitudes (including service!) toward his charges as they were to have toward him (“do the same [things] to them”). This is a very different relationship than Greco-Roman enslavement practiced where masters had the right to abuse, coerce, and even kill their charges. Threats and punishments were how masters controlled their them. Enslaved people had no rights in the Greco-Roman world, though many were equipped with education, skills, and even could earn money to purchase their own freedom. Whereas Greco-Roman masters had no obligation to treat them fairly or as persons, Paul insists serving the Lord Jesus means something radically different.

But still, why did not Paul command believing masters liberate the enslaved people in their house? The Ephesian house churches lived in a social world where slavery was unquestioned, integral to the economy, and part of the social order of the empire. Followers of Jesus were in no position to challenge that social reality. They could not change the legal system; it was not a democracy or even a Republic. There was no legal recourse. Slaves made up about 10% of the population of the empire, and 30% of the people who lived in Rome itself.

Paul could not call for a wholesale movement to free enslaved people in the Ephesians house churches as this was illegal and would have involved severe sanctions and hindered the opportunities to proclaim the gospel. Freeing slaves in large numbers was regarded as a danger to the social order. For example, during the reign of Augustus, Lex Fufia Caninia was passed in 2 BCE that placed limits on the manumission of enslaved peoples: one could only free some slaves and not all of them. For example, if you had 10 slaves, you could only free 5, and if you had 30 slaves, you could only free 10. The empire discouraged freeing slaves, and no person could be freed under 30 without appropriate legal procedures.

Rather, Paul encourages the Ephesian house churches to change the social order within the community of faith. They can act toward each other in mutual submission rather than living in a social hierarchy within the house church itself. No longer would there be male or female, slave or free, or Jew or Gentile (as Galatians 3:28 says). Rather, they are sisters and brothers as part of the family of God the Father. They are a new creation in an old, sinful world, and their relationships within the community bear witness to the new reality created by God through the death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Messiah. Change begins at home—between wives and husbands, between children and parents, and between the enslaved and the masters.

Does this constitute an endorsement of slavery? I don’t think so. It is more a social realism as well as a missional strategy. Paul suggested that enslaved people seek freedom when they are able (1 Corinthians 7:21). The church cannot revolutionize the empire’s slavery practices in any immediate sense. It can change the dynamics within the community of faith so that there is justice and equity for all (cf. Colossians 4:1). Just like Christians cannot change the practices of oppressive authoritarian regimes but must live within that social order (think about Christians in Iran, for example), so Paul does not call for a social revolution that would hinder the proclamation of the gospel. Instead, he calls for a revolution within the community that will bring light into the darkness of the social world in which the church lives. A revolutionized community of faith might ultimately effect some social change as leaven leavens a whole lump. However, ultimately, the church failed to change the social order when it became a Christian empire, and this is a stain on the witness of the church through the centuries. Enslaved people were not liberated—not until worldwide movements by Christians in the 18^th and 19^th centuries led an abolitionist movement.

In effect, I think in Ephesians 6:5-9 Paul recognizes that the believing community of Jesus must live within the social order of its environment even as they subvert that order in their own practices within the community.