Let Them Hear

Revelation 2:7-17; 26-29

Main Idea: Those who overcome by faith in Jesus Christ will reign with Him in eternity.

     Let me ask you a question: If you were to experience a sudden loss of hearing, how would it impact your daily life?

     You might find yourself having to ask others to repeat themselves or to speak louder on the phone or in a conversation. In a restaurant, you might find it difficult to pick out what someone is saying amidst all the noise. Chances are, we won't fully appreciate the ability to hear until hearing becomes a problem.

     In Revelation, Jesus addressed letters, or messages, to His churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. In each letter, Jesus challenged believers to listen to what the Holy Spirit was saying.

     Hearers had to deal with background noise from the culture around them-and from problems within some congregations-that demanded careful listening to know what the Spirit was teaching.

     Christ-followers and churches today face challenges similar to those of the churches in Revelation 2-3. If we listen carefully to what the Spirit said to the churches in the first century, we will hear Him speaking to us today as well.

     Our approach to interpreting the Book of Revelation understands the seven churches to represent not only all types of churches, but also seven distinct stages of church history. That is, the letters show a progression of the Church's response to its mission in the world from the first century until the return of Christ. That being said, it's important for us to remember that Jesus initially instructed John to send the Revelation to seven actual congregations in the province of Asia.

     The province of Asia was awash in paganism at the end of the first century. The churches in provinces such as Asia faced the threat of persecution if they refused to acknowledge or participate in the state "religion." The letters in Revelation 2-3 also address specific concerns in each church's local context: concerns such as false teachers, conformity to the world, and spiritual complacency.

     The letters all follow a pattern: (1) a description of the Sender; (2) a compliment to the recipients and/or; (3) a criticism; (4) a command for action; and (5) a promise to all who overcome.

     For today, read Revelation 2:7-17. Ask yourself these questions: What are the roadblocks in my life that may need to be removed in order to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying to me and my church? What steps are needed in order to remove those roadblocks. Write down your responses.

What Happened to Jesus Between His Death and Resurrection?

The concept that Jesus went to hell after His death on the cross comes primarily from the Apostles’ Creed, which states, “He descended into hell.” There are also a few Scriptures which, depending on how they are translated, describe Jesus going to “hell.” In studying this issue, it is important to first understand what the Bible teaches about the realm of the dead.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word used to describe the realm of the dead is sheol. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits.” The New Testament Greek equivalent of sheol is hades, which also refers to “the place of the dead.” Other Scriptures in the New Testament indicate that sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Revelation 20:11–15 gives a clear distinction between hades and the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades, then, is a temporary place. Many people refer to both hades and the lake of fire as “hell,” and this causes confusion. Jesus did not go to a place of torment after His death, but some biblical scholars believe He did go to hades.

Sheol/hades was a realm with two divisions—a place of blessing and a place of judgment (Matthew 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27–31). The abodes of the saved and the lost are both generally called “hades” in the Bible. The abode of the saved is also called “Abraham’s bosom” (KJV) or “Abraham’s side” (NIV) in Luke 16:22 and “paradise” in Luke 23:43. The abode of the unsaved is called “hell” (KJV) or “Hades” (NIV) in Luke 16:23. The abodes of the saved and the lost are separated by a “great chasm” (Luke 16:26). When Jesus died, some interpret He went to the blessed side of sheol and, from there, took the believers with Him to heaven (Ephesians 4:8–10). The judgment side of sheol/hades has remained unchanged. All unbelieving dead go there awaiting their final judgment in the future. Did Jesus go to sheol/hades? One could make that argument, according to Ephesians 4:8–10 and 1 Peter 3:18–20.

Some of the confusion has arisen from such passages as Psalm 16:10–11 as translated in the King James Version: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. . . . Thou wilt show me the path of life.” “Hell” is not a correct translation in this verse. A correct reading would be “the grave” or “sheol.” Jesus said to the thief beside Him, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43); He did not say, “I will see you in hell.” Jesus’ body was in the tomb; His soul/spirit went to be with the blessed in sheol/hades if you hold to this interpretation. Unfortunately, in many versions of the Bible, translators are not consistent, or correct, in how they translate the Hebrew and Greek words for “sheol,” “hades,” and “hell.”

Some have the viewpoint that Jesus went to “hell” or the suffering side of sheol/hades in order to further be punished for our sins. This idea is completely unbiblical. It was the death of Jesus on the cross that sufficiently provided for our redemption. It was His shed blood that effected our own cleansing from sin (1 John 1:7–9). As He hung there on the cross, He took the sin burden of the whole human race upon Himself. He became sin for us: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This imputation of sin helps us understand Christ’s struggle in the garden of Gethsemane with the cup of sin which would be poured out upon Him on the cross.

The Bible does not specifically state what happened to Jesus immediately after He died on the cross.  Because of this, there is debate surrounding the answer to the question of where He went and what He did.  So, I will present differing views so you might know the scope of the answer and decide for yourself which position is preferable.

Perhaps the best-known scripture that appears to deal with this issue is found in 1 Pet. 3:18-20:

"For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water."

When Jesus was made alive in the spirit, it is not saying that His spirit died, and then it became alive again.  "Made alive in the spirit" is contrasted with "put to death in the flesh."  He first lived as mortal men but “. . . He began to live a spiritual 'resurrection' life, whereby He has the power to bring us to God." Furthermore, some Bibles (NIV, KJV, and NKJV) render the verse as "made alive by the Spirit" referring to the Holy Spirit's work with Christ. “By the Spirit” translates one word, pneumati, which could refer to the third Person of the Trinity as the agent of Christ’s resurrection.

One view where Jesus was and what He did before His resurrection is that He went to Hades (the place of the dead) and made proclamation to those who were in spiritual prison.   The word "proclamation" in Greek is kerusso.  It means to proclaim and is a different word than "euaggelizo" which means to preach the gospel.  Therefore, it is most probable that Jesus was not preaching the gospel to those in Hades/Spirit prison so they could be saved but was instead proclaiming the truth to them.  After all, the Bible says, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment," (Heb. 9:27).

But who were the ones in spiritual prison?  Some believe it is the people who were alive at the time of Noah's flood and who were killed in the flood.  Others believe it is all humanity who died before the time of the cross.  There seems to be support for the former position in 2 Pet. 2:4-5:

"For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly."

Needless to say, this passage also raises many questions and much debate can be found as to its precise meaning.  Nevertheless, as far as the other option goes, that Jesus simply presented the facts concerning His work on the cross to those in spiritual prison, we can look to Eph. 4:8-10 for possible support:

"When He ascended on high, He led captive a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.  9 Now this expression, 'He ascended,' what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things . . .”

Some theologians believe that during the three days between Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, He descended into Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:19-31),3 proclaimed to them the mystery of the gospel, and then led them into heaven to dwell with God.  The belief is that they were not permitted to enter into the presence of God in heaven until after the atonement.  Once that had happened, Jesus, who had died, descended to Abraham's bosom, proclaimed the gospel, and then led its residents into heaven.

Robert Mounce, in his commentary Living Hope, says that the 1 Peter 3:18-20 passage is "widely recognized as perhaps the most difficult to understand in all of the New Testament." Even if one holds that Jesus did descend into hell to offer salvation to those who had lived on earth before him, this special effort does not apply to those who lived and died later.

There is one thing of which we can be certain: Jesus' death was a literal event, not some temporary state of unconsciousness. Hence, in his resurrection, Christ did indeed conquer death—both in its spiritual and physical forms.

Bible-believing Christians can allow themselves to differ on the nature of Jesus' descent into hell. Some will be able to recite this part of the Apostles' Creed with conviction, while others may choose to remain silent.

In Christ's Service,

Dr. Bryan Cox

The Biblical Role of Deacon

The office of deacon has been universally accepted among Baptists, but their understanding of the nature and responsibilities of deacons has undergone a number of shifts over the years. In some ways, those shifts have paralleled shifts in the understanding of pastors or elders. While deacon is the universal term for this office, the word diakonos and related terms in the New Testament are much more often translated by terms like servant or minister.[1] The verb diakoneō is found thirty-six times in the New Testament, reflecting the same uses of the term as secular Greek: to wait on someone at a table, to care for someone’s basic needs, or to serve in a general sense.[2] The related noun diakonia is usually translated as service, and diakonos as servant.

Only in two texts is the meaning clearly that of deacon (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8-13). Most see Acts 6:2-4 as related to the origin of deacons. The major importance of knowing the broader background of diakonos is in understanding the role deacons were designed to play. There was no counterpart to deacons in Judaism, and with the scanty material in the New Testament, theologians have taken the normal meaning associated with diakonos as indicating the types of activities appropriate to deacons, namely caring for material needs and general serving.

The qualifications of deacons are found principally in 1 Timothy 3:8-13. There are important similarities and differences between the qualifications for deacons and those for elders, found in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 and Titus 1:5-9.

While all three passages portray a dignified man of good reputation, 1 Timothy 3 requires a degree of maturity for both elder and deacon, though the requirement is worded differently, with the warning that the elder must not be a new convert (v. 6), while the deacon must be tested first (v. 10). All three have the same qualification in terms of marriage (“husband of one wife”) and similar requirements in the area of parenthood, with 1 Timothy 3 using the same verb “manage” for both elder and deacon (see vv. 5, 12).

There are also noticeable differences. The list for qualifications for the deacon is considerably shorter and less detailed than that for the elder. The office of elder seems to have somewhat more stringent requirements. Also, there are certain functions associated with the elder that are not associated with the deacon. The elder must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2) or “encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). The deacon must know doctrine, but he is not charged with teaching it to the church. This is not to say that an individual deacon cannot be gifted in teaching; Stephen was one of the seven and yet may have been a gifted teacher. But the gift of teaching is not intrinsic to the office of deacon.

Also, the office of elder is explicitly linked with the function of oversight, both in the fact that elder is synonymous with overseer and in specific phrases identifying the elder as the one who must “take care of God’s church” (1 Tim. 3:5); he is the one who “is entrusted with God’s work” (Titus 1:7).

Finally, there is one requirement for deacons that has no counterpart for elders. It is found in the description in 1 Timothy 3:11 of the gynaikas (deacon’s wife). Some see it as referring to deacon’s wives (my interpretation) and is thus another qualification for deacons; that is, they must have wives of certain character. Others see the word as indicating a third office, that of deaconesses. However, that is an entirely separate discussion not pertinent to this question. I believe it refers to the character of a deacon’s wife.

One reason for considering the qualifications of deacons so carefully is that they provide a clue to the role and responsibility of deacons. I have already shared the associations around the word diakonos. The word is closely associated with humble service. That does make such service important, for even the offering of a cup of cold water in Christ’s name brings reward (Matt. 10:42). Christian leaders are called upon to exercise leadership in a humble spirit, but leadership itself is not activity normally associated with diakonos. Thus, it seems likely that deacons are not called to give leadership to the church in the same way as are elders. If the two offices were identical, why would two be needed? Diakonos indicates more of a support role than episkopos or presbyteros.

The example of Acts 6 fits the distinction between the ministry of leaders (elders/overseers/pastors) and the important but different ministry of other servants (deacons). The rationale for the selection of the seven is given in the apostles’ words, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables” (Acts 6:2). The distribution of food was important; it threatened to divide the early church. But the apostles could not do everything, and their calling was “the ministry of the word of God.”

The relationship of the ministries of elders and deacons has been seen in the same light. The elders are called to the ministry of the Word of God and to overall leadership of the church, while the deacons are called upon to deal with the material needs of the people, the care of the sick and poor, and the temporal affairs of the church in general. These were the functions assigned to the deacons, especially in the churches that emerged from the Reformation. John Calvin says simply, “The care of the poor was entrusted to the deacons.”[3] One of the very earliest Baptist confessions, the 1611 Short Confession of John Smyth, says that deacons “attend to the affairs of the poor and sick brethren,” and many other Baptist confessions echo similar ideas.

The example of Acts 6 can also be applied in a more general way. The pastors or elders of the church are given the job of teaching the Word of God, providing pastoral ministry to the members, and giving overall leadership to the church. That is a job too demanding for any one person, and it can be challenging even for a body of elders. The deacons are there to assist the pastors and relieve them of any duties that would prevent them from doing those things that most require their energy, time, and attention.

In early twentieth-century Baptist life, management of business and financial affairs identified the ministry of most Baptist deacons. A very popular book on deacons stated, “The business of the church and its finances constitutes the special and distinct assignment of the deacons.”[4] Perhaps this ministry also accounts for the fact that deacons must first be tested (v. 10), to prove their trustworthiness before handling funds. His skill in managing his household (v. 12) would also support the role of management of the temporal affairs of the church.

But most of the qualifications listed for deacons are similar to those of elders. This implies that deacons may share at least one of the functions of elders, that of setting an example of Christ-like character. Anyone identified as an officer of the church in some way represents the church publicly and is thus required to possess a degree of maturity. It also indicates that the office of deacon is not a small, unimportant ministry that anyone can render. Indeed, the ministry of a deacon can profoundly affect the lives of individuals and the health of the church, and thus it must be exercised in a Christ-like way.

However, these biblical clues have not been the only factors influencing Baptist perceptions of the role and responsibility of deacons. Howard Foshee says that in the late 1800s, “the business-world concept of ‘board of directors’ was, unfortunately, transferred to the church.”[5] With the board of director’s idea, the distinction between the overall leadership role of elders and the serving role of the deacons began to blur. In practice, many deacon boards practiced something close to elder rule. Beginning in the 1950s, there were several books calling deacons to involvement in ministry more than management.[6]

The best way to clarify the role and responsibility of deacons would be the establishment of a plural eldership (multi-staff church). That would force churches to think through the relationship of the two offices and would result in a renewal of the servant aspect of diaconal ministry, with leadership left to the elders. As to specifics, it seems advisable for churches to follow the pattern of Acts, in which the roles and responsibilities of deacons are left flexible, to enable them to address whatever is hindering the ability of their church’s elders to accomplish their ministry.

---

     [1]John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, Publications, 2005), 191.

     [2] K. Hess, “Serve, Deacon, Worship,” in Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 3:545.

     [3]John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 21:1061 (4.3.9).

     [4]P.E. Burroughs, Honoring the Deaconship (Nashville: Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1929), 69.

     [5]Howard Foshee, The Ministry of the Deacon (Nashville: Convention Press, 1968), 32-33.

     [6]Robert Naylor, The Baptist Deacon (Nashville: Baptist Press, 1955), was a very important book this regard, emphasizing the importance of deacon involvement in servant ministries like visitation of the sick. The emphasis continued in the 1968 book by Foshee, The Ministry of the Deacon, and the still more recent book by Robert Sheffield, The Ministry of Baptist Deacons, ed. Gary Hardin (Nashville: Convention Press, 1990).