I wrote this article back in 2007 and included it as an appendix in the second edition of Prepared to Answer. At that particular time, it seemed to be quite in vogue to object to countless issues in our movement of churches, claiming that those things violated one’s conscience. While we should certainly not violate our consciences, I believe appeals to conscience can be both misused and overused. And we must be careful how we make those appeals. At that time in our history, once people objected to something supposedly based upon their own conscience, they essentially shut down any discussion on the matter, and dismissed any further consideration. My goal in writing this was to help us all have a more biblical understanding of what constitutes a valid objection based upon one’s conscience.
I believe this issue to be quite relevant a decade later as we consider current issues among us. I believe that some people do misuse the conscience principle in discussing certain emotionally charged topics (for them anyway) and are far too quick to pull the “conscience card.” I simply want to offer my study of the subject to a broader audience in hopes that biblical interpretation would be enhanced and deepened, helping us to avoid the misapplication of Scripture in the area of the conscience.
Common Misconceptions
The study of conscience biblically is a very interesting study, due partly to how misunderstood the subject actually is by many. For example, it is common to hear the old (mistaken) adage, “The conscience is a safe guide.” It wasn’t a very safe guide for Paul, who said before the Sanhedrin that he had “fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). That resulted in a slap in the mouth at the command of the high priest, but it had resulted in something far worse prior to this – he had helped kill Christians while believing that it was a service to God (Acts 26:9). He later stated in 1 Corinthians 4:4, “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.” The conscience is a safe guide only to the extent it is properly trained by the word of God.
Through the years, I have encountered several misunderstandings of just how the conscience was designed to function by God. I remember studying the Bible with a person who was deeply immersed in the teachings of Watchman Nee, teachings that I would call “neo-gnosticism.” (See my article, “Watchman Nee’s Teaching on Soul and Spirit: a Form of Neo-Gnosticism” on this website.) Essentially, his teaching is based on making a very sharp distinction between soul and spirit, and building an entire system on this distinction, which is very confusing to anyone not familiar with his system and its terminology. But as it relates to the subject of conscience, he says that the conscience is based on the intuition component of the spirit, which ushers in a type of gnosticism by claiming to have something of a direct pipeline to God’s truths through hearing his voice in our inner self. Many religious people believe that God somehow speaks directly to their spirits, in a way that is better felt than told, and their consciences are often quite misled as a result.
Another misunderstanding, or in this case, blatant misuse, occurred with a ministry acquaintance of mine who often played the “conscience card” if his opinions weren’t carrying the day. If his ideas were accepted, he was happy; if they weren’t, he had a “conscience” problem with the directions chosen by the rest of the leadership group of which he was a part. This frequent appeal to conscience was nothing short of manipulation, and it likely isn’t a surprise for you to hear that he didn’t keep his job long.
An Historical (Almost Hysterical) Example
Another misunderstanding and misuse of conscience takes me back to my old days in the Mainline Church of Christ. In that setting, a number of older leaders often mistook an immature or untrained conscience for a sensitive conscience, which supposedly demonstrated a high level of spirituality. As an anecdotal teacher, I can’t help sharing an amusing incident in my life that illustrates this point all too well. Back in the late 1970s, I was preaching for a church deep in the heart of the Bible-Belt. Once I took a week’s vacation to go with my father and young son on a hunting trip, during which time I didn’t shave. Although beards were none too popular for ministers to have in those days, I decided to let mine grow for a while. The negative reactions by church members to my sporting a beard were nothing short of amazing. I suppose the hippie years were in the too recent past for them to see beards and rebellion as anything other than inseparably connected.
I remember one older member asking to meet with me, and he started the meeting with the question of whether anyone had ever told me that I was hard to get to know. I was trying to validate his evident feelings in any way I could, but unsure of just where he was coming from with such a question. About half an hour later, I figured it out. In essence, he said that he thought he knew me and that I was a great guy – but then I grew the beard, which showed that he didn’t know me at all! Wow, that was an enlightening conversation! But it did show how deeply some prejudices ran in that church at that period of history.
After a fairly short time, I shaved off the beard, but determined to address the issue of how I had supposedly “violated the consciences” of many members with my beard. It was obvious to me that the understanding of Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 8–10, along with Romans 14, was woefully lacking. About six months later, I preached a sermon entitled “The Sin of Beards and Bowties.” At the time, large butterfly bowties were still on sale in stores, but quite out of style anyway (except to one news announcer on a local TV channel). The night I preached the sermon, I wore one of the floppy things, and knew that a young ministry student with a beard would be sitting in his normal place in the second row in front of the pulpit. Thus, I had the props all set up for my sermon!
I began the sermon by talking about the importance of example and influence, and the sin of causing brothers to stumble (an oft-repeated claim in situations like mine). The “amens” started pretty early that night. I went on to show the biblical basis for not offending our brothers, by simply reading a number of verses in the chapters mentioned above. If you would like to read them, they are, in the order read, 1 Corinthians 8:1-2, 9, 12-13; 1 Corinthians 10:23-24, 32. Romans 14:13, 15, 19-21; 1 Corinthians 9:3-7, 11-15, 19-22; 1 Corinthians 10:31-33; and finishing with 1 Corinthians 11:1: “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.”
I ended the readings with this statement, “If my bowtie bothers you, I ought to take it off; if Ralph’s beard bothers you, he ought to cut it off! The chorus of “amens” rose to a new level, as quite a number of people were evidently rejoicing to see that I had finally seen the light! My next statement was that since it had been a very short lesson up to that point (about seven or eight minutes, as I recall), surely there must be other things on the subject to notice and study out in the context of the passages read. From there, I explained the passages used thus far in their context and in a way that caused the blood to drain from the faces of a number of folks in my audience. I stuck the sword of the Spirit in and twisted it! Just why I never was fired or asked to leave a ministry is a mystery!
As I began that confrontational explanation, since the last passage read was 1 Corinthians 11:1, I talked about the example of Christ in his earthly ministry. Certainly Jesus, like Paul, gave up many rights to influence people for good. Matthew 20:28 is a good passage on this point, as it states that “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Another good one is Matthew 12:20: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.”
However, some things Jesus did seem to point in another, somewhat contradictory, direction. For example, Jesus often healed on the Sabbath Day. Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 were very explicit – work six days and do no work on the Sabbath day. In fact, the Jews cut their teeth on the teaching that they shouldn’t do anything on the Sabbath that they didn’t absolutely have to do. It is not a mystery why some might see Jesus’ work on the Sabbath as at least questionable. Yet Jesus seemed to make a point of healing on the Sabbath. Sometimes Jesus disrupted those gathered in the temple or the synagogues for the purpose of worshiping God to the extent that bedlam ensued.
Don’t you think the people had at least some reasons for their feelings? There were six other days in which Jesus could have healed, but he insisted on Sabbath day healings! Even a more amazing situation was when the apostles picked grain on the Sabbath. Go back and read Exodus 16, which contains some very strong warnings about doing much of anything on the Sabbath. Also read Numbers 15:32-36, where it describes a man being stoned to death at the command of God simply for gathering wood on the Sabbath day! What would you have thought about the disciples gathering grain on the Sabbath day if you had grown up with these passages? They could have prepared food the day before – Israelites had been doing it for hundreds of years. Further, Jesus was criticized for the kinds of people he associated with, including prostitutes. (Likely, a minister in my ’70s setting would have caused some serious buzz through such associations, even if for spiritual purposes!) He was also accused of being a glutton and drunkard – but he didn’t quit eating or drinking. The fact that his behavior and practices drove some up the wall didn’t stop him from doing it. Why did he continue? We will answer that question a bit later in the article.
The Importance of Context
Studying passages in their context is a must, especially when sensitive subjects are involved or when addressing misunderstood texts. Look back at 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7-13, where the context gives a deeper insight to this subject of influence. First, notice in verse 9 that the wrong use of influence could cause someone to stumble. Verse 11 states that it could cause them to be destroyed. (Romans 14:15 uses similar terminology.) We must understand that there is a difference in causing someone to grumble, and in causing them to stumble. Second, 1 Corinthians 8:9-10 shows exactly how someone was caused to sin in this setting. Bottom line, they see your example and end up doing the same thing, but their conscience won’t allow them to do it without seriously damaging them. So, to make the application to beards and bowties, it would mean contextually that my example or Ralph’s example caused someone to wear a bowtie or grow a beard when their conscience wouldn’t allow it without producing guilt!
Third, note that the weak person is the one that is caused to stumble, not the strong person. My experiences growing up often showed the supposedly spiritually mature brothers raising issues about nearly everything, and thus they backed others off of a given choice so that they wouldn’t be caused to “stumble.” Frankly, those men were only grumblers and actually should have been the focus of church discipline, because in the words of Titus 3:10, they were divisive. Fourth, Romans 14 makes the other three points, but gives one additional point. It’s about the attitudes the strong should have toward the weak, and also about the attitudes the weak should have toward the strong. Read verses 1-10 to grasp Paul’s line of reasoning. Note that in verse 1, we are dealing with matters of opinion.
The strong brother should not discount the conscience of the weak brother. The weak brother, on the other hand, should not judge the strong brother who has the stronger conscience and the freedom that goes with it. Either way, Romans 14 gives a clear call for tolerance towards each other. It should be quite obvious that my hearers in the long ago had looked at these passages in a surface way in the past, and had often given some incomplete or even wrong applications of them. To summarize, (1) Paul was talking about causing someone to fall away; (2) the way that they were made to sin was by following your example when their conscience wouldn’t allow it; (3) the weak person is the one caused to stumble, not the strong one; and finally, (4) in matters of opinion, we must develop and exercise tolerance toward one another with different viewpoints.
But how do we harmonize what Paul taught here with the examples of Jesus already noted? Paul is dealing with young Christians, whereas Jesus was dealing with those who were supposedly mature. Paul was arguing for giving the immature time to grow, while Jesus was not willing to placate the ones who claimed to be mature – the keepers and defenders of the law of God! I have found that the young are typically not the ones upset about such things as beards and bowties – they haven’t had time yet to become traditionalized. It is most often the supposedly mature who appeal to conscience being violated.
In my lesson of long ago, I went on to discuss possible objections, which although strongly felt, were emotionally based instead of biblically based. I decided as a result of that study that I would try to imitate both Paul and Jesus. In a nutshell, I wanted to be very careful with those who were newer Christians and thus immature in their faith, but not be manipulated by older Christians who were not willing to change their minds and alter their consciences. Real maturity is willingness to entertain the possibility of being wrong – of having a conscience that needs further training. Digging in one’s heals in the kinds of issues that Paul would call matters of opinion is not a very mature practice. Hardening of the arteries is probably an inevitable part of aging; hardening of the attitudes should never be.
Consciences Can and Should Be Retrained
All in all, I would never advocate someone violating their conscience, even in an opinion area. I believe that is what Paul was warning against in the passages referenced. However, I will always try to help someone retrain their conscience in opinion areas. The reason I make this distinction and feel strongly about it is intensely personal. I was raised in a church of about thirty people, all of whom believed sincerely that taking communion from multiple cups, having more than one tray of bread passed, and dividing the assembly into Sunday School classes were all sinful practices. We were technically called a “one cup, no Sunday School” type of Church of Christ. Once, we debated for six months whether we could change from using grape juice in communion to using wine, in order to have one couple join us on Sundays who were driving to another city to worship with a “wine, one cup, no Sunday School church.” Although I was a preteen at the time, or maybe a young teen, I still remember vividly some of the heated conversations between my parents and other members of that little church. The memories are not good ones, but after a number of decades, sometimes they can seem at least a little humorous. During those conversations, the questions of violating consciences came up often, rest assured.
When I married at the ripe old age of twenty-two, my (then) Baptist wife wanted us to attend church together. We at first agreed to switch off attending each other’s type church, which we did for a few months. When it was time to attend the Church of Christ, I chose one of the more typical ones, with multiple cups and Sunday School, thinking that the little church of my childhood would be so different from what she was used to that it would seem too weird to her. After a few months, I just couldn’t go to the Baptist church anymore, knowing how far off they were on the subject of conversion. In one service with a guest preacher, he had everyone close their eyes, and then asked those who wanted to accept Jesus to simply raise their hands. He kept telling us that one and then others were now being saved as they raised their hands. Although I honestly wasn’t interested much in going to church anyway, I just couldn’t condone what I was observing in that church, and told Theresa that I wasn’t going to go with her anymore.
That could have been the end of it, and I could have used my Sundays for fishing – which was more to my liking anyway! But she said that she would just go with me to the Church of Christ (which was not particularly good news to me). But we started visiting various Mainline Churches of Christ at her insistence. It is a fact that the Baptist church teaching on salvation violated my conscience, based on passages about baptism and forgiveness of sins. And I believe that my conscience was correctly educated on that matter. It was not a matter of opinion.
However, like the folks being addressed in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, I had conscience issues about other matters that were not as clear biblically – notably the use of multiple cups and Sunday School (which Paul could have called “disputable matters.”) Fortunately for me, I became friends and fishing buddies with a preacher whom God used to change my life and my eternal destiny. I have written about him in the introductions of my books on Surrender and Romans. He introduced me to other scriptures about conscience and patiently helped me think through it all. He basically said that conscience shouldn’t be violated, but it could be re-educated, noting that those addressed in passages like 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and Romans 14 were younger Christians with weak consciences in areas related to their backgrounds. Those like Paul had stronger consciences, which meant in essence that they had better trained consciences. I’m sure one of the passages my friend used was 1 Corinthians 4:4, which we have already quoted.
While abiding within the boundaries of our conscience is important, the conscience is not always correct in its conclusions, however strongly the conclusions may be felt. With my friend’s help, I was able to retrain my conscience and accept a number of teachings that once violated my conscience. Those same principles he taught me served me well when I first encountered the discipling movement and then later became a part of it. I did not violate my conscience (although at times it got “stretched” a bit!), but I did seek to ask the hard questions and try to deal with them biblically, and then prayed that God would help my conscience change in ways that it really needed to – moving from what would be classified as “weak” to “strong” (or at least “stronger” as the process continued).
Current Trends
In recent settings (then 2007), I am hearing more about conscience than I have heard in a long, long time. Perhaps that is because some (most?) of us violated our consciences in our movement’s past. But we have had far too many pendulum swings in the last several years, and this may well be among them. I would hope that matters of conscience would become more and more confined to biblically clear matters, not simply to what Paul calls disputable matters. People need retraining of their consciences far more than the strengthening of them in opinion areas. In the Mainline church, we used to have an old saying: “In matters of faith, unity; in matters of opinion, liberty; and in all things, love.” The problem I found with some folks was that their definition of faith issues was really broad. They didn’t like to admit that very much of what they believed belonged in the opinion arena. The practical result was most often that they were able to hold others at bay who had different opinions. Otherwise, they reasoned, we would be asking them to violate their consciences.
I am not the judge of anyone’s conscience. As Paul said, God is the one who judges. I am just pleading for consideration of possible weaknesses in how we are viewing conscience and conscience issues. My plea grows largely out of some of my own experiences in trying to work with others, and from my experiences in needing to retrain my own conscience – a painful but highly rewarding experience, for which I am most grateful. Had I not been open to that, I believe my life would have gone in quite different directions than it has, and I’m so thankful that my preacher friend (now deceased) was patient and loving enough to help me get past some things that were at first very difficult to deal with due to my background. And I do believe in looking back that my conscience was simply improperly trained in some areas, and hence according to Paul’s definition, it was weak.
As we mature, I think our opinion areas should become less important to us. Learning to properly identify the differences between opinion and faith areas is pretty essential for unity and harmonious relationships. And as we do that, the strength of our emotions in opinion areas should lessen considerably. One thing that has helped me since I have been in our movement is to realize that when good brothers who know the Bible well have sincere differences, this fact alone makes it highly likely that these differences fall into opinion areas. And in opinion areas, I want to remain tolerant and open to being persuaded to go in other directions than I might opt for personally, in order to work together most effectively. That is a worthy goal, and clearly a biblical one.
A Caution to Leaders
Since leaders are in the forefront of making decisions that affect a lot of people, they are the ones who especially need these lessons, it seems to me. Back when Wyndham Shaw and I co-authored the book Golden Rule Leadership, I wrote the introduction. Near the end of the introduction, I included the following caution:
WARNING!
The greatest danger in reading this book is to assume that you really already understand the principles being discussed and are currently putting them into practice. This is especially true for our most experienced leaders. We do not see ourselves as we are; we do not see ourselves as others see us. Our strong tendency is to think more highly of ourselves as leaders than we ought to think (Romans 12:3).
Guess who got offended by my cautionary remarks? Not young Christians – they were saying “Amen.” But a number of older leaders were definitely offended. What does that say to us? It says to me that as we age in leadership and years of service, we can be guilty of exactly what I penned in the quote above. In our earlier days as a movement, I was often cautioned about how I stated things, lest I offend the leaders. Now I am again being given exactly the same cautions. Something is wrong with that, and I think badly wrong. I can “lay it out” strongly to the average members, but I have to be careful not to offend the older leaders? Wow! Must history repeat itself again? Leaders ought to be able to hear challenges more humbly than anyone.
Certainly Paul argued in 1 Corinthians 8-10 that we must be willing to give up our “rights,” and he used himself as a great example of such. But for whom was he anxious to give up his rights? The weak, immature ones in the fellowship who were struggling with their consciences over past pagan practices, and also for those not yet saved. Hence he was willing to become all things to influence the ones in those categories and to give up all things in order to do so. But he was not willing to compromise or change his approach in teaching to placate the ones who should have been more mature. His question in Galatians 4:16 was “Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?” Rest assured that he was not directing that question to young Christians.
Frankly, one of my bigger concerns for us as a movement is our tendency in the direction of some of the unsavory elements of the churches of which I used to be a part. I suggest that you look up every New Testament passage using the term conscience. The only places that I could find where it was warning against violating the consciences of others were in 1 Corinthians 8–10. Romans 14 contains the same concept without using the word itself. In light of the context of who Paul’s concern was about (immature Christians with weak consciences), and what the issues of controversy were (background pagan practices primarily), we need to be slow to play the “conscience card.”
My best judgment about how to view and use money is not shared by all disciples, and that can bother me. My best judgment about the kinds of movies or TV shows to watch or allow our children to watch is not shared by all, which also bothers me. My best judgment about alcohol consumption (especially where and with whom it is done) is not shared by all of my brothers. So once again I am bothered. But I don’t intend to let those differences of opinion cause me to violate my own conscience by joining in to practices with which I disagree, nor do I intend to become bothered enough to let it affect my love and fellowship with my brothers who have opinions and practices that vary from mine.
What others do in opinion areas is ultimately their choice, and it is not about my conscience. In other areas more related to leadership decisions and directions, I am pretty flexible. If a real biblical issue is involved, we are going to have to hash that one out before proceeding, but if it is a judgment matter, I will for the sake of unity throw in my lot with majority opinion. Those are practical and workable paths to follow in our personal families and in God’s family. Let’s just keep conscience appeals out of places where they don’t belong biblically. Generally, I like the old Restoration adage about faith and opinion, with this one change: “In matters of clear biblical doctrine, unity; in matters of judgment, freedom – but freedom exercised with a strong bent toward practical unity; and in all matters, love.”
I was exposed to the now popular futurist teaching as a young person and accepted it as being true for many years. I did not know an alternative was available, and being biblically ignorant, saw no reason to question what I was taught. However, I did not like the impact it had on the leaders who taught it. They often seemed to be caught up in it to the point that they lost perspective of the average person’s needs for practical help in trying to live a spiritual life in a pagan society. They were more intrigued by trying to figure out dates and events of the end times than about how the world could be evangelized for Christ. My present opinion is that people have become materialistic to the point that they cannot envision anything good apart from this earth, including heaven! Also, the futurist teaching appeals to the emotions because of its “mysterious” elements, and many people are looking for mystical fancy rather than biblical fact.
The modern “end-times” prophets obviously focus much on their interpretation of biblical prophecy in both Old and New Testaments. Some groups, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have set many dates for the return of Christ, and once these dates had passed, they spiritualized the “return” in some way in order to save face. The apocalyptic style of the Book of Revelation has especially been twisted it into some bizarre doctrines. For example, the JWs interpret the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 as being literally descriptive of an exact number of highly spiritual people who will go to heaven (which, by their own admission, does not include most of the Witnesses!). All of the end-times folks also take the “1000 year reign” mentioned in Revelation 20 as being literal, and assume much about that passage that is not even mentioned there – such as Christ being the one reigning. I will include more on numerology later on in the article.
The idea that Christ will reign on earth as a physical king is a widespread belief that crosses nearly all denominational lines. Not all groups believe exactly the same things about it, but the general outline they all accept. This system of interpretation, usually called “premillennialism,” was once rejected by many religious groups who have now come to accept it. The reasons for the current acceptance of the doctrine are not biblical ones, as we shall show. The doctrine of premillennialism, briefly stated, is the view that Christ will come back to earth at some future point and reign for a literal thousand years. A large segment who hold this view believe that, seven years before this return, the righteous will experience a rapture (catching up) from the earth while those left on earth will experience a great tribulation. The concept of such an earthly reign supposedly finds its foundation in Revelation 20:1-10. But in approaching this or other difficult passages, several fundamental rules of interpretation need to be kept in mind.
- Truth does not contradict itself. If two verses seem to do so, there is either a misunderstanding of one of the verses, or possibly both of them.
- Doctrine cannot be based on difficult passages without due consideration of less difficult passages on the same subject. To establish a theory on symbolic passages forces you to completely ignore literal passages which contradict it, and also forces you to apply figurative interpretation to obviously literal Scriptures.
- One does not have to know exactly what a difficult passage means in order to know what it does not mean. For example, a person could be unsure of the exact interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29, but at the same time, be absolutely sure that it does not teach proxy baptism for the physically dead. Too many plain passages render that explanation impossible. In a similar way, one could be somewhat uncertain of the precise meaning of some of the symbolism in Revelation, while rejecting the doctrine of premillennialism itself.
When I began to study the Bible in depth on premillennialism, I soon saw the vast inconsistencies in the teaching. I have read many writings on all sides of the issue, and have no doubt that my earlier indoctrination in premillennialism was not correct. Exciting it was, but accurate it was not! This view removes the book from its original setting of Christians being persecuted and killed in the early centuries of the church. What comfort would a “twenty-first century newspaper” type of prophecy bring to people being killed for their faith? Such an approach is filled with distortions of Scripture and fanciful interpretations cooked with a “dash” of Ezekiel, a “shake” of Daniel, “scoops” of Revelation and “pinches” from other New Testament books. In spite of its popularity, the view has little to commend it from a biblical perspective and many reasons to reject it.
Important Principles in Interpreting Revelation
To begin, God would not include a book in his word that could not be understood. To do so would be contrary to the very purpose of Scripture (Ephesians 3:2–5). Revelation, properly viewed, is an incredible book of impact. Because of its style and content, it is often called the “grand finale” of the Bible. Revelation’s literary structure, beautiful imagery, majestic visions, mysterious symbols and dramatic presentation of eternal truths make this book distinctive from all other books of the Bible.
“Revelation” is the English translation of the Greek word apokalupsis, meaning “to reveal or uncover that which has been hidden.” Revelation is classified as “apocalyptic” literature by scholars. Such literature was popular for about 200 years before Christ and for about 100 years after him. It has the following characteristics:
- It addresses those undergoing some form of persecution.
- It addresses the reader in the nuances and style of the language and time period in which it is written.
- It is dramatic and highly symbolic (expressed in visions and symbols).
- It is sometimes predictive, although the basic message is focused
The book of Revelation is similar to parts of Old Testament prophetic books such as Ezekiel and Daniel. In fact, much of Revelation cannot be understood without a basic knowledge of the Old Testament and its phraseology. But this relationship should not cause us to think that Revelation is the fulfillment of OT prophecy. Rather, it uses a similar style to describe the ultimate downfall of heathen nations and the exaltation of God’s kingdom. Similar symbols may be used in the OT books, but they are describing very different events – events separated by hundreds of years.
Apocalyptic language is used to create a dramatic effect. It appeals to the imagination more than the intellect. In times of persecution, those who are suffering need inspiration from hearing about God’s conclusive triumph over evil far more than academic pronouncements of doctrine. With this in mind, understanding symbolic language is much like understanding parables – get the main points and avoid over-analyzing the details. If more commentary writers and theologians followed this approach, sensationalistic interpretations would be greatly reduced, thus limiting the abounding confusion about Revelation.
No book in the Bible has resulted in more contradictory interpretations than the book of Revelation. It is likely that more false ideologies have arisen from a misunderstanding of this book than from any other portion of the Scriptures. In studying such a book, we would be better off to first consider what it does not teach rather than what it does teach! One rule must be remembered when studying any book in the Bible, namely that an easily understood passage must not be explained by a difficult or symbolic passage. We must let the “easy” passage interpret the “difficult” one. Therefore, Revelation should be studied in close harmony with the rest of the Scriptures.
The Use of Numbers in Revelation
I will use a section of my book, Prepared To Answer, that addressed the prophetic teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to clarify how numbers are to be viewed as symbolic and not literal. Most of the images in Revelation are also to be viewed as symbolic, since that is the very nature of the book. The explanation of numerology regarding the teachings of the JW’s will then help us understand Revelation 20 better.
To the Jewish mind, numerology was very important. Many numbers had well-defined meanings, and they conveyed spiritual lessons. For example, the number “1” carried the idea of unity. Think of the series of “ones” in Ephesians 4:4-6. The number “2” carried the idea of strengthening. Jesus sent out his early preachers two by two. Revelation 11:3 mentions God’s two witnesses. Then, the number “3” was the divine number (Father, Son and Spirit). Next, “4” was the cosmic or world number. In Revelation 7:1, you find four angels, four corners of the earth and the four winds of heaven.
Combine the divine number and the world number and you get “7,” the number of perfection. Thus, in Revelation 4:5, the seven spirits most likely refer to the Holy Spirit in his perfection. The number “6” was an evil, sinister number because it fell short of the perfect number. In America, many of our hotels do not designate a 13th floor. In that Jewish setting, they would not have had a designated sixth floor. The “666” of Revelation 13:18 carries with it the idea of evil and failure. The next significant number was “10,” which signified completeness (all fingers or all toes). You find this number often in the Revelation. A multiple of that number would be 1,000, denoting ultimate completeness. The 1,000 years in Revelation 20 show this kind of completeness, as a look at the references mentioned earlier will demonstrate.
The number of organized religion was “12,” calling to mind the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles. In Revelation 7, the twelve tribes are connected to John’s mention of the 144,000. If you take the organized religion number, multiply it by itself, and then multiply it by 1,000, the number of ultimate completeness, you come up with 144,000. Therefore, if you understood the way that numbers were used symbolically, you would expect this number to signify the ultimate number of a religious group. And we will see that this is precisely what is being done in Revelation 7. Finally, the other key number in Revelation is “3 1/2,” found as three-and-a-half years, forty-two months, 1,260 days, and from Daniel, a time, times and a half a time. This number, in whatever form, symbolized the period of persecution itself, an unstable time, but one with an end to it.
What about the 144,000?
With this explanation in mind, let’s look at the passages in Revelation 7:4-8 and 14:1-5. A careful consideration of how they are misapplied by the JW’s will help us see the fallacy of trying to make numbers (or other symbols) literal.
[4] Then I heard the number of those who were sealed: 144,000 from all the tribes of Israel.
[5] From the tribe of Judah 12,000 were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben 12,000, from the tribe of Gad 12,000,
[6] from the tribe of Asher 12,000, from the tribe of Naphtali 12,000, from the tribe of Manasseh 12,000,
[7] from the tribe of Simeon 12,000, from the tribe of Levi12,000, from the tribe of Issachar 12,000,
[8] from the tribe of Zebulun 12,000, from the tribe of Joseph 12,000, from the tribe of Benjamin 12,000 (Revelation 7:4-8).
[1] Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. [2] And I heard a sound from heaven like the roar of rushing waters and like a loud peal of thunder. The sound I heard was like that of harpists playing their harps. [3] And they sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders. No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. [4] These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. [5] No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless (Revelation 14:1-5).
In chapter 7, the 144,000 are used to represent the church during the time of persecution. Earlier in this chapter, all of them were “sealed,” showing God’s protection of them. See Ezekiel 9:4 for this usage. Since the persecutors were often Jews, or were aided by Jews, it should be obvious that the twelve tribes were not literally the twelve tribes of the Jews. The ones being sealed, or being guaranteed God’s protection, were the Christians, those who were now a part of the new Israel of God (Galatians 6:16). When you look closely at the listing of these tribes, it becomes even more obvious that the list has been “spiritualized.” For example, the fourth tribe (Judah) is mentioned first, because that was the tribe out of which Jesus came (Genesis 49:10).
Also, we find Levi in the list, although that tribe was not normally listed, because they did not inherit a land area in the OT. But, since all Christians are priests (1 Peter 2:5, 9), Levi here is to be identified with spiritual Israel, the church. Furthermore, Dan and Ephraim were excluded from the list, because Dan and Bethel (in Ephraim) were centers of calf worship under King Jeroboam. Therefore, they were excluded here. Finally, Joseph’s name is added, even though, in the OT, his sons were the tribes listed and not Joseph himself. But to the Bible reader, this name has only good connotations.
After the 144,000 are thus described in chapter 7, the next section (verses 9-17) goes on to talk about a great multitude that no one could count. This great multitude was composed of those who “have come out of the great tribulation” and are now before the throne of God (verses 14-15). Therefore, the 144,000 showed the church on earth during the persecution, and the symbolism taught that God knew every one of them and would protect them spiritually, even if they had to die physically. Therefore, the great multitude did not need to be counted, because they had passed from time to eternity. The lesson of the chapter was that God would be with them and ultimately get them to heaven.
In Revelation 14, we simply find a description of Christians, the 144,000 (all of the redeemed). They were not defiled with women (literally, virgins), showing spiritual purity (2 Corinthians 11:2) as opposed to spiritual adultery through idol worship (Jeremiah 3:6; James 4:4). They followed the Lamb by keeping his words (John 10:4-5). They were purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28). As such, they were the first-fruits to God. Just as the first of all physical harvests was to be set apart for God (Deuteronomy 26:1-11), Christians are likewise set apart for the service of God (James 1:18). No lie was found in their mouths, but lying was one of the chief characteristics of pagan Rome and emperor worshippers (see Revelation 21:8).
Now, once we understand biblically who the 144,000 actually are, what should we say about the Jehovah’s Witnesses interpretation? Simply this: if they insist on making the 144,000 a literal number, then you insist on making their description literal. When you do that, the 144,000 would have to all be Jewish (from the twelve tribes), and they would have to be male virgins (had not defiled themselves with women). No Witness would agree to those things, but if the passage is to be taken literally, these points would have to be accepted, because the wording itself is quite clear.
What About Revelation 20?
The actual examination of Revelation 20 reveals some important facts: first, the text does not mention a number of things that people assume are taught there. The second coming of Christ is not mentioned. Christ is not mentioned as being on earth. No mention is made of anyone reigning on earth. A bodily resurrection is not mentioned; and finally, no one living in modern times is mentioned in connection with this 1,000 year reign. The persecuted of the early church are the ones who sit on thrones and reign with Christ. How can a passage which mentions none of these things be said to teach all of them?
Second, this passage is full of figurative symbolic language. If we insist on making the 1,000 years literal, why are not the key to the abyss, the great chain, the beast, etc. also literal? Actually, the Book of Revelation employs apocalyptic language, as it portrays (by means of symbols) the victory of God’s persecuted people over the Roman Empire. This type of writing was well understood in its day, although it may well be unfamiliar and strange to people today. The book dramatizes the victory of good over evil to bring hope to the persecuted saints of the first century. If the book really taught what many people advocate, it would have been of scarce comfort to those in the early church who were dying for their faith!
Now to a brief explanation of the passage: the binding of Satan (verse 2) was to stop him from deceiving the nations (verse 3). The text does not suggest that he would be tied in such a way as to be totally inactive (1 Peter 5:8). The nations as a whole had been deceived into emperor worship (see chapter 13:11-18), but the binding of Satan would limit this blasphemy for a thousand years (symbolic of a long period – see Deuteronomy 7:9; Job 9:3; Psalm 50:10, 90:4).
In verses 4-6, the persecuted Christians in the early church are promised a victory. Their cause looked as if it had been defeated, but here God assures them that Christianity would be vindicated. Their cause would be raised from the dust of defeat into a resurrection of victory. The souls under the altar (6:9) are now elevated to thrones as their cry has been heard and answered. See Ezekiel 37:1-14 and Isaiah 26:13-19 for the idea of a resurrection of a cause in victory. Revelation 20:5 calls this the “first resurrection” to avoid confusion with the general bodily resurrection at the end of time (1 Corinthians 15).
“The rest of the dead” in the first part of verse 5 (which is a parenthetical statement) are the non-Christians, the persecutors. Their cause lies in defeat for a long time-period (1,000 years symbolizes this period), but it will briefly arise at some future date (verses 7-10). Fortunately, this renewed deception of the nations is short lived, as Christ brings his judgment upon the wicked (verses 9-15).
Although this explanation seems logical to me, I claim no infallibility in my interpretation. The passage is a difficult one, and dogmatism is not urged in such cases. However, in spite of how Revelation 20 is to be explained in its various details, it assuredly does not teach the doctrine of premillennialism.
The Reign of Christ
The premillennialists claim that Jesus will not begin his reign until the time of his return (second coming). He will then reign on a literal throne in a literal Jerusalem for a literal one thousand years. When this concept is examined in light of Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah and its New Testament fulfillment, the idea is shown to be false. Zechariah 6:12-13 is one of the key passages disproving the validity of premillennialism. For clarity, we will quote from the more literal New American Standard Bible (NASB):
Then say to him, “Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD.
Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.’”
The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus built his church, and that his church is God’s temple (Matthew 16:18; 1 Corinthians 3:11, 16; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:19-22). Now look back at the Zechariah passage in light of the church being the temple of God.
Christ would sit on his throne (Zechariah 6:13), and Acts 2:1, 32-35 says that he began occupying that throne on the Day of Pentecost when the church was established. He was to be a priest on his throne (Zechariah 6:13), and he is a priest now (Hebrews 4:14). This Branch was to rule on his throne while sitting (Zechariah 6:13), and he began sitting on this throne nearly two thousand years ago (Acts 2:32-35). Therefore, he is ruling on his throne now. Since he was said to be a priest on his throne, and he is a priest in heaven (Hebrews 4:14), his throne must be in heaven. In fact, he cannot be priest on earth, for Hebrews 8:4 says, “If he were on earth, he would not be a priest.” Therefore, his throne cannot be on earth.
Psalm 110:1, 4 also speaks of Christ ruling as a priest. In this case, his rule will last until his enemies are conquered. In 1 Corinthians 15:25-26 the Bible says, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” Therefore, Jesus is reigning now and will continue to do so until the resurrection of the dead, at which point he will cease to reign over the Messianic kingdom as heaven begins. This truth is exactly opposite to what the premillennial doctrine teaches. They say he will begin reigning at his return, and Paul says he will cease! It should be mentioned that as a part of Deity, he reigns over heaven and all of its subjects, which includes all of the redeemed from all ages.
It should be obvious that Jesus is reigning in his spiritual kingdom now. In his earthly ministry he claimed that the kingdom was near, with a fulfillment of prophecy in mind (Daniel 2:44; Mark 1:15; Hebrews 12:28). This kingdom would come in the lifetime of some of the apostles and it would come with power (Mark 9:1). Power came when the Spirit came at Pentecost (Acts 1:8; 2:1-4). Therefore, the kingdom of the prophesied New Covenant was established on the day of Pentecost (although it was present in its preparatory phase when the King himself was present during his earthly ministry). After this time, the kingdom is spoken of as a present reality (Colossians 1:13; 4:11; Revelation 1:6). Furthermore, the kingdom is inseparably connected with the church in Matthew 16:18-19. Any future view of the kingdom is of necessity referring to the heavenly state after the church has been delivered up to the Father by Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24).
The Place of the Nation of Israel
The common “end time” prophets typically place a good deal of emphasis on the role of the present nation of Israel. However, such an emphasis can easily be shown to be mistaken. One of the first questions needing an answer is this: Will there be a restoration of Israel in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? The answer is negative, for several reasons.
- Christ is already on David’s throne (Acts 2:30-33).
- The tent of David has been rebuilt (Acts 15:14-17). The saving of the Gentiles is in fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12, according to James, the Lord’s brother. The argument in Acts 15 is clearly that the tent was to be rebuilt before the Gentiles were to “seek the Lord.” Therefore, either the tent here is spiritual in nature (the church), or Gentiles are yet in their sins and the Great Commission is nullified!
- God’s promises to Israel concerning the land inheritance have all been fulfilled (Joshua 23:14). Notice that the boundaries God specified to Abraham in Genesis 15:18 were reached by the time 1 Kings 4:21 and 2 Chronicles 9:26 were written.
- God said, through Jeremiah, that Israel could not be made whole again (Jeremiah 19:11).
- Jesus promised that the kingdom would be taken away from the Jews (Matthew 21:33-43).
- The last state of the Jews would be worse than the first (Matthew 12:43-45).
- God’s special people are spiritual Jews (Christians) and not physical ones (Romans 2:28-29; 9:6; Galatians 3:26-29; Philippians 3:3). Philippians 3:2-3 could not state the point any more directly nor bluntly, as Paul contrasts the physical and spiritual “Jews”: “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh.”
But What About Romans 11:25-26?
Does it not clearly state, “And so all Israel will be saved?” The larger context of the passage begins back in Romans 11:11. After establishing the fact that most physical Jews had always rejected God, Paul moves on to show how God intended to use even their wrong choices (Romans 11:11-24). Israel’s wrong choices and subsequent rejection has ended up being a blessing to the Gentiles. They had Jesus crucified, making salvation available. They drove Christians out of Jerusalem, which resulted in the Gentiles being able to hear the gospel. They rejected the message in each city to which the early missionaries preached, after which they preached to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46). However, if the Jew’s rejection of the gospel ended up blessing the world, then how much more their acceptance would do for the world (Romans 11:15)!
Next, Paul expresses hope that the Gentile inclusion in God’s kingdom will provoke the Jews to envy, causing them to reconsider the message of Christ (Romans 11:13-14). This section concludes with a warning to the Gentiles not to be prideful and self-righteous. They had not been a part of the olive root (Judaism) in the first place; they had been merely grafted in by the grace of God. The Jews had been cut off because of their faithless rejection of Christ, but they can be grafted back in again if they turn to Jesus in faith. The means of how they might be motivated to respond in this way is discussed in the remainder of the chapter (Romans 11:25-36).
Israel’s hardening is stated to be only “in part” until the “full number” of Gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25). Since it is partial, it has the possibility of being reversed. The key to a reversal is the coming in of the “full number of Gentiles.” Paul likely was referring to the completion of his own ministry as the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7), resulting in more and more Gentiles in the church all over the world. In Romans 15:24, we find that his missionary plans were far from completion, for he planned to go all the way to Spain. Once this larger Gentile inclusion had occurred, all Israel could be saved in the sense being discussed in this context.
The word “so” in Romans 11:26 is from the Greek houtos, an adverb of manner, meaning “in this way.” “In this way” refers back to the envy-provoking process mentioned in Romans 11:13-14. (Paul refers to the same idea again in Romans 11:31). Therefore, when the Jews saw the growing number of Gentiles in the church of Jesus Christ, and the blessings from God that they were enjoying, those with good hearts would be envious enough to humble out and reconsider. In this way, they would be saved. The “all Israel” refers to those whose hearts would allow them to become humble and reconsider. It could not refer to every last Israelite coming to Christ at some future point – for a number of reasons.
For one thing, the “narrow road” will never be chosen by a majority from any nation, race, or population group (Matthew 7:13-14). This was true of the Jews even during their heyday, as the early part of Romans 11 establishes forcefully. Two, Paul had already expressed his hope that some would turn to Christ by being provoked to envy (Romans 11:14). Three, even if some future generation of Jews in the majority were to accept Christ, what comfort would that be to the scores of generations that had already died lost? Centuries have passed in which millions of Jews have rejected Christ and been lost as a result.
The key idea of “all Israel” being saved is that of hopeful potential, much like Jesus expressed: “I…will draw all men to myself” (John 12:32, emphasis added) and “By this all men will know that you are my disciples” (John 13:35, emphasis added). Note that the quote in Romans 11:26-27 refers to salvation in Christ, which became available at the cross and will continue to be available to anyone who will accept the gospel in faith. The only plan of salvation that God has and will have to the end of time is this plan, which must be accepted individually! (See Acts 4:8-12.) He still loves the rejecting Jews and desires to save them, for his promises made to the patriarchs still stand. But his salvation can be based on nothing less than the blood of Christ accepted by bowing our hearts and knees to his lordship.
The Second Coming of Christ
Our next consideration involves the second coming of Christ. When he comes, there will be only one bodily resurrection of the dead as good and bad are raised simultaneously to be judged (John 5:28-29). All nations will be gathered for this great day (Matthew 25:31-34). Note that this is a judgment of every person within all nations, not a judgment of entire nations as nations, as some premillennialists claim. (Compare the wording of 25:32 with Matthew 28:19 in this regard.)
As stated in the first chapter of this book, there simply cannot be two separate bodily resurrections. If the righteous are raised on the “last day” (John 6:40), and the unrighteous are judged on the “last day” (John 12:48), both must occur at the time. We must allow the last day to really be the last day! When the last trumpet sounds, the dead are raised and the living are changed – in the twinkling of an eye, no less (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). If the wicked are raised a thousand years later, they will not be awakened by the last trumpet, for it will have already sounded! When it does sound, the physical universe will be destroyed (2 Peter 3:10-12; Revelation 21:1). Note that the OT passages that speak of the earth remaining “forever” mean only that it is “age-lasting.” Ordinances such as circumcision and the Levitical priesthood with its sacrifices are also called “everlasting,” but they are simply age-lasting (which in that case was the Mosaic Age.) See in chapter 13 of my book, Prepared To Answer, the related discussion under the heading, “The Sabbath, a Perpetual Covenant?”
Even the “proof text” for the premillennialist view of the rapture falls far short of actually teaching it:
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, emphasis added)
What about the passage would make anyone look for a rapture of the righteous to heaven for seven years, followed by a return to earth for a thousand years? The explanation seems simple enough – we will go to be with the Lord forever, rather than him coming to be with us on the earth. The futurists want him to come and be with them on our little planet, but Jesus wants his children to be with him in his amazing heaven.
Does It Really Matter How We View the End-Times?
A final consideration might be a look at the real dangers of the premillennial view. Surely no one would argue that salvation is based on a perfect understanding of biblical prophecy! However, accepting the premillennial theories has some serious implications.
- Premillennial theory denies that Christ is reigning now, and therefore denies God’s eternal purpose in Christ (Ephesians 3:10-11).
- It contradicts every passage that speaks of this present period as the last days (Acts 2:15-17; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:1-2; 1 Peter 1:20).
- It makes Jesus false to his promises when he said that the kingdom was near (Mark 1:15).
- It alternates between Judaism and Christianity by reviving the OT sacrificial system during the thousand-year reign. However, that old covenant Jesus nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:15).
- It demotes Christ from the throne of his majesty to the earth, his footstool (Psalm 110:1).
- It denies that Amos 9:11–12 is fulfilled and thus denies salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 15:14-17).
- It is the same mistake that the first century Jews made by expecting an earthly kingdom that was political in nature.
Paul said in Philippians 1:23 that he wanted to go be with the Lord, but the premillennialists in essence say, “Lord, you come be with us; we like it here.” Jesus makes it plain in John 14:1-3 that eternal rewards have absolutely nothing to do with this earth:
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”`
Introduction
Let us begin by making it clear that doctrine is very important to God. The basic Greek term for doctrine is didaskalia, and is translated in the more modern versions simply as “teaching.” With either translation, the word most often refers to God’s teaching, to teaching or doctrine that is inspired by the Holy Spirit. For our purposes, several quotes from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) will make the point well that doctrine is indeed important to God and following it as written is necessary to pleasing him:
Matthew 15:9 – “But In Vain Do They Worship Me, Teaching As Doctrines The Precepts Of Men.”
Ephesians 4:14 – “As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming…”
1 Timothy 4:6 – “In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.”
1 Timothy 6:3-4a – “If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, 4 he is conceited and understands nothing…”
2 Timothy 4:3 – “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires…”
But What About Holding Differing Beliefs?
In spite of the Bible’s emphasis on holding to sound (healthy) doctrine or teaching, men have always had differences in interpretation. How should we view that phenomenon? The best answer is perhaps, “It all depends.”
It Depends on the Teaching Itself
The Bible itself makes it clear that we will have variations in areas of beliefs, convictions and conscience. Romans 14:1 speaks of “disputable matters” and mentions two such matters, the observance of certain days as special and avoiding certain foods out of convictions (likely based almost entirely on one’s pre-conversion background practices). Paul’s bottom line directives regarding these differences are that we shouldn’t condemn those who differ with us in such matters and we shouldn’t violate our own consciences in what we believe and decide to practice regarding them.
Moses made a remark in Deuteronomy 29:29 that has application to our present discussion. He wrote: “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.” In other words, God did not address some things at all, while he revealed other things that are important for us to know and to guide our relationship with him and others. In-between these two ends of the spectrum are things that are mentioned but not fully explained. Among these topics would be the exact nature of heaven and hell, for example. When topics are not fully clarified, differences in how we view them will obviously occur.
The church has always been striving to find the balance between which topics are essential to pleasing God, thus demanding unity in both belief and practice, and which are among those disputable matters or incompletely explained ones. On a personal and practical note, I have always thought that when good brothers who believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures disagree on a given topic, then that topic was thereby shown to be a matter of judgment or opinion.
Often these areas are simply matters of preference, such as the choice of music types in our church assemblies. Sometimes they are strongly held beliefs, and yet others do not hold the same beliefs. For example, we have among us those who are non-resistant in terms of the military (conscientious objectors or total pacifists), based on Jesus’ command to love our enemies, and others who see using force as an obligation to protect the innocent. It is a complex subject to be sure.
When it comes down to deciding what essential beliefs are, the ones necessary to salvation that thus demand absolute unity among disciples, certain teachings have historically found their way onto lists. With no attempt to be exhaustive, some things consistently on lists of orthodox beliefs would include the following: the virgin birth of Christ; his literal death, burial and bodily resurrection from the dead; the Deity of Christ; his substitutionary death for mankind; salvation by grace accepted by our faith response to that substitutionary death; the reality of a final Judgment and eternal salvation for the saved; and many more. Failure to accept such essential beliefs would result in a failure to please God and would bring one’s salvation into serious question.
Although these fundamentals have been accepted for centuries by most groups and individuals claiming to be Christian, we now live in an age where liberalism has disavowed many of them as being necessary to pleasing God. One of my high school friends was once among those who accepted the Bible as the inspired Word of God, and was very dedicated to those truths as a teenager. He later attended a liberal theological Seminary (one I would call a “cemetery,” a place where faith is buried). In talking to him as an ordained minister in the Methodist fellowship, he explained away not only the truths of the Bible, but the very existence of absolute spiritual truth. When I questioned him about the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead, his answer went something like this: “It really doesn’t matter if Jesus was raised literally from the dead; what matters is the resurrection spirit.” Although 1 Corinthians 15 flatly denies any such fanciful interpretation, to those like my friend who don’t accept the Bible as God’s inspired Word in the first place, they think nothing of rejecting its truths. That conversation produced one of the saddest memories stored in my memory banks.
It Depends on the Stage of the Believer
All believers must begin their journey of faith at the beginning. This means that they have to learn many spiritual truths one step at a time. It also means that they will be ignorant of vast amounts of truths while they are learning, and will in fact hold some beliefs in the earlier stages of their faith development that they will later reject as they continue to learn. That being true, hearing someone state a belief that is contrary to the Bible’s teaching is not overly concerning if they are simply growing, learning and open to being mistaken about some things in the process.
The real concern comes when they have spent much time studying a given subject, but have come to an erroneous conclusion about it and are no longer open to considering alternatives. The very definition of a disciple includes being a continual learner. All of us, even long term serious students of the Bible, will find ourselves altering our beliefs as we continue to learn and grow.
Some subjects, as we have already established, are within the realm of disputable matters. Other subjects are not discussed in detail in Scripture and any conclusion we reach is an opinion, which we should just accept and state as such. But dogmatism and close-mindedness, particularly when dealing with subjects that would be included on those fundamental, essential lists, is yet another matter. Those fall into the area of salvation issues. When we reach unorthodox conclusions in these areas and are unyielding in our conclusions, we have ceased to demonstrate the attitude of disciples and have entered dangerous territory indeed.
It Depends on What the Believer Does With Variant Beliefs
Even if our beliefs are questionable or unorthodox, what we do with them is a fundamental issue regarding church membership. In any church fellowship, some members will have beliefs that vary from those held by the majority of members and even by the leaders. If these beliefs are simply held privately, the issue is between them and God. On the other hand, if they attempt to spread these variant beliefs, then the possibility of divisiveness enters the picture and poses a threat to church unity. This would certainly be true if the beliefs were in the essential, orthodox category. But even if they weren’t, making any teaching an issue or “hobby” could affect the unity of the church. Romans 14 addresses that possibility quite clearly.
Years ago when I was a ministry staff member in Boston, a man who had been studying with some of our members asked to meet with me. He explained that although he had learned much in the studies and agreed with almost all of it regarding the plan of salvation, he had a different view of Revelation and the “end times” than he had heard me teach to the whole church. He asked if he could be baptized and be a member of our congregation if he didn’t agree with our generally accepted view of this subject. My answer was, “It all depends on what you do with your differing beliefs. Can you hold them in private, or will you feel compelled to share them with others in an attempt to convince them of your views?”
By the way, although I have written many articles and even a book on this subject, I do not view it as a salvation issue. But I was concerned about the possibility of him being divisive with his views, since for many, the “end times” teaching becomes an obsession. His answer was that he would not share his views in an attempt to persuade others, and I was fully satisfied with the answer. He was baptized into Christ and has been a very faithful and outstanding member of that congregation for decades. Plus he has been a very good friend of mine during almost all of those years, until this very day. I have no idea if he has changed his views of this subject during the intervening years or not, nor do I care.
On the other hand, I have seen church members make some peripheral issues matters of discussion and debate, thus producing disharmony and disunity. That is another matter entirely and must be dealt with directly. Turning any disputable matter into a “hobby” simply cannot be tolerated because of the disunity it produces. Keeping what might well be viewed as variant and generally unaccepted beliefs between us and God is our personal choice. He will judge us in this regard. Making those same beliefs issues that affect relationships within the church is where the problem comes in. Thus the question of what someone intends to do with their variant belief is the ultimate issue.
The Bottom Line
Doctrine is important to God, to us as individuals and to us collectively as a fellowship. In Paul’s letters to evangelists (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus), he speaks of “sound” doctrine. That term in Greek means simply “healthy.” Correct doctrine or teaching makes us healthy spiritually and false doctrine makes us unhealthy. Sound teaching is about helping us go to heaven, not helping us major in intellectual discussions and debates. Being truly disciples will keep us on track in our teaching and in our living. We are followers of Christ and we are learners, both of which qualities demand copious amounts of humility. Humble people stay on track as they learn about Christ and follow his example.
SECOND CHANCE GOSPEL – AFTER DEATH?
Will people get a second chance to be saved after they die? Certainly no one contemplates the idea of anyone being lost in eternity with anything but emotional pain. What could be worse than being separated from God and all that’s good for eternity? With these sobering thoughts in mind, it is a natural human tendency to want to have hope for those who die without accepting Christ. One way to try to conjure up such hope is to entertain the possibility that those who die without him will be given a second chance to accept him and be saved. In this article, we will examine the two main passages that have been used in an attempt to provide some biblical support for this comforting idea.
The two passages that are sometimes used in defense of the second chance gospel are at best complicated and debated. One of the most fundamental rules of biblical interpretation is that we must allow plain passages to shed light on difficult passages, thus directing our interpretations of them – and not vice-versa. A failure to follow this principle may allow alternate explanations for difficult Scriptures, but it will force explanations of plain Scriptures in directions that defy both common sense and context. The myriad interpretations of the Book of Revelation provide ample evidence of this interpretative fallacy.
But what about the two passages used by some to support the idea of another chance at salvation after death. Which two are they and what is their proper explanation? The two are these:
1 Corinthians 15:29
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?
1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,
The first of these is the proof-text used by the Mormon Church in their practice of what is called proxy baptism, the baptism of living persons on behalf of those who have died unsaved (in their opinion). Admittedly, this is an unusual passage and one that has prompted many different interpretations. It should be stated that most of these various explanations are aimed at rebutting Mormon teaching and practice. Further, most of these explanations have arisen because of a refusal on historical grounds to accept the verse at its simplest face value. The most natural way to explain the passage would be to say that someone in Paul’s day was doing about the same thing that Mormons do, namely practice proxy baptism. Many (most?) modern scholars reject this view because they have not found any historical evidence that the practice existed in the first century. But is that a valid reason for not adopting the most natural view of the passage? I think not.
I rather like this explanation given in the College Press Commentary:
Since Paul’s question is stated in the third person rather than the second person, there is no need to believe that he is referring to a practice that his readership is participating in. That is, he did not ask “why are you baptized?” but “why are people baptized?” In light of the fact that there are a higher than usual number of allusions to and quotations from patently pagan materials in this ad hominem section (15:29-34), there is no intrinsic reason to doubt that Paul could be referring to a pagan practice to support his argument. This reference to a pagan practice would also make sense since paganism is the matrix of this particular misunderstanding among some of the Corinthians… Even if this were a current practice among some of the Corinthian believers (since there are allusions already in 1 Corinthians to their profound misunderstandings about water baptism: 1:13-17; 10:1-5), Paul mentions this not to endorse it, but to use this practice as an ad hominem argument to highlight the inconsistency of their beliefs.
Having read at least a dozen suggested interpretations of the verse, this one seems the most natural and requires the least interpretative gymnastics with the actual wording of the text itself.
It should also be said that even if we are somewhat unsure of the precise interpretation, we can be quite sure of what it doesn’t mean. Sometimes if we cannot explain the meaning of a passage with absolute certainty, we feel hesitant to discount another interpretation. I am reminded of the old illustration of two men commenting about a certain woman approaching them. One man said to the other, “There comes your wife.” The second man said, “No, that is not my wife.” The first man raised the question, “Well, then who is she?” Second man, “I don’t know.” First man, “If you don’t know who she is, perhaps she is your wife after all.” Now of course that is perfect nonsense, but it does make a hermeneutical point. Obviously, we shouldn’t be reluctant to reject an interpretation that contradicts an abundance of clear biblical teaching to the contrary. Whatever 1 Corinthians 15:29 means, it cannot mean that a living person can be baptized for a dead person who died as an unbeliever. Jesus could hardly have made it any clearer than he did in passages like John 8:21: “I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come.”
Next, let’s examine the passage written by Peter. Two plausible explanations are most often put forth for this passage.
EXPLANATION ONE: Jesus was put to death in the body but then raised from the dead by the Holy Spirit. In fact, it was through the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Christ, I Peter 1:11) that Jesus once preached (in the person of Noah) to the wicked people before the flood. At the present time, however, these same disobedient people are in prison (hades, the bad side of it – fuller explanation below).
EXPLANATION TWO: Jesus was put to death in the body but made alive in his spirit (or soul). At the point of death, his soul went to Hades (the unseen realm of the dead, composed of a good part, Paradise — Luke 23:43, and a bad part, torments — Luke 16:22-31. Acts 2:31, translated literally, says that he was not left in Hades). While Jesus was in the Hadean spirit world, he made a proclamation of victory to that generation from Noah’s day who had been so flagrantly disobedient. (The word preached in verse 19 is from the Greek kerusso, meaning to herald or proclaim, and not from euaggelizomai, meaning to preach the gospel.) The lesson in this case was to show that God will always have the last word over even the worst persecutors (persecution was the context of the passage)!
While the first explanation does no damage to any biblical truths, it does not seem to adequately deal with the wording of 1 Peter 3 in a straightforward manner. On the other hand, the second explanation does deal with the exact wording in a more satisfying way (at least in my opinion). As with all such difficult passages, an explanation must be sought which both treats the immediate context fairly, and at the same time, does not contradict clear passages on the same subject in other parts of the Bible. If the passage is designed to show that God always has the final say with even the vilest persecutors, the second explanation does seem much more likely.
It should be obvious that using either 1 Corinthians 15:29 or 1 Peter 3 to justify post-death salvation is to fight an uphill battle from both a logical standpoint and a biblical one. Regarding the logical standpoint, do you really suppose that any lost person undergoing the kind of suffering described biblically would not grasp at any straw offered to escape that punishment? Regarding the biblical standpoint, many passages are simply too plain to question. Consider the following: “…man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment (Hebrews 9:27). This passage seems to indicate clearly that judgment comes immediately after death, at which time our eternal destination is set. Passages that depict the state of the dead would support that conclusion (see Luke 16:19-31). “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out–those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28-29). Sadly, the majority of the world is indeed on that broad road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14), a fact that should motivate us to get and stay right with God and to help others do the same.
Introductory Note: Back in 2010, some of the teachers in the International Churches of Christ were asked by the editors of a scholarly quarterly periodical published within the Mainline Churches of Christ to write articles for one issue of their publication. I was one of those writers for the December 2011 issue of Leaven, and the following is the article I contributed.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Introduction
Any writer who starts an article with this title must do so with a sense of fear and trembling. Simplistic answers will not do in the realm of hermeneutics. Yet, the two millennia of Christendom’s history have demonstrated that men will seek for, and expound upon simple answers. The varied approaches to biblical interpretation are enough to demonstrate that the answers are anything but simple. We are not talking about only the differences between liberal Protestant theology that made such a bold entrance into the theological world in the nineteenth century and in what we would all recognize as conservative theology. Those variations are to be expected. What might be unexpected and even unwelcomed are those variations among conservative Bible scholars and the religious groups they represent. Claiming to accept the Bible as the inspired, authoritative, and infallible Word of God does not guarantee a uniform understanding and application of it.
What causes such variations among Bible believers? The answers to that one are beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that our level of accurate biblical knowledge and our own spiritual background experiences are likely the most significant factors in determining how we view and use the Scripture. While we may view Scripture in lofty ways as God’s Word, inadequate or inaccurate training in the handling of it will lead to misusing it. Hence, one’s view of Scripture generally may be highly commendable and even idealistic, while one’s use of it may be quite flawed – with all good intentions. Thus is the challenge of hermeneutics, a challenge that has been faced by Bible believers from the beginning of the Christian era.
Much could be said about this subject from an historical perspective or from a general theological perspective. However, the stated purpose of the series of articles in this edition of Leaven is to introduce the reading audience to a lesser understood segment of the broader Restoration movement of churches. Therefore, I will address the rest of my remarks to this particular group of which I have been a member for about twenty-five years.
My own view and use of Scripture has been shaped by many varied influences. My early years were spent in a very narrow splinter group among the Churches of Christ, commonly referred to as the “one cup, no-Sunday-School” group. As a young married man, I became associated with the more mainstream Churches of Christ. While in this group, I attended the Preston Road School of Preaching, a very conservative training school, and later taught there for a number of years. During those years, I completed an M.A. degree in New Testament studies at Harding Graduate School of Religion.
Hermeneutical Principles
Since the campus ministry movement stage of our history was influenced most strongly by a graduate of Harding College, Chuck Lucas, it would be expected that biblical interpretation would follow certain lines. The basic fundamental view of Scripture as the only guide for faith and practice was indeed embraced by his young campus converts. Their hermeneutics were essentially the same as those in other Churches of Christ.
Dating back to the early American Restoration period, one of the cherished mottoes was stated in these words: “We speak where the Bible speaks, and are silent where the Bible is silent.” This emphasis on “doing Bible things in Bible ways” led to some amazing applications of what might be termed patternistic theology. Attempting to follow examples of the early church, hence their patterns, was far easier to espouse than to apply consistently.
Just after the turn of the twentieth century, the break in the Restoration Movement between what became known as the Christian Church and the Church of Christ movements allegedly had to do with this hermeneutic. Those in the latter group claimed that those in the former group had now reversed the revered motto. Hence it had supposedly become “We speak where the Bible is silent, and are silent where the Bible speaks.” This difference was said to account for the use of instrumental music in worship. Seemingly logical arguments can be made for either side of this old adage, which suggests that both ways of stating it have both pros and cons.
It is interesting to note that this hermeneutical challenge has been present since early Reformation days. According to the church historian, Bruce Shelley, Luther would allow whatever the Bible would not prohibit, whereas Zwingli rejected whatever the Bible did not prescribe.[1] This difference states in slightly different terminology the aforementioned Restoration mottoes. While simplistic mottoes may be appealing, no one can totally follow either of these to the ultimate degree. Attempting to limit ourselves to only what we can actually find an example of in the Bible would result in a 21st century quagmire. On the other hand, claiming the freedom to do anything the Bible did not specifically prohibit would lead to practices that would surely result in some type of bondage. Such challenges of biblical interpretation should lead us in the direction of striving for much humility toward self and extending much grace toward others.
In what became known as the International Churches of Christ , or what some term simply the International Churches (IC) , our earlier stricter hermeneutic, particularly as related to a “pattern” to be followed, gave way to a broader interpretation that was quite similar to the supposed reversal of that early Restoration slogan. In the 1990s, our churches began to use instrumental music in worship, and to generally have more relaxed views toward things like the moderate use of alcoholic beverages and a broader role of women in the church.
Additionally, in this movement there was much more focus on what were seen as “weightier matters” and less interest in some of the peripheral issues that seem to occupy an inordinate amount of time in Churches of Christ in the 1960s. All this involved a hermeneutical shift, one that left us with more in common with the Christian Churches than with the root system out of which we grew. While there are some variations in thinking among individual members about such matters, most of our members do not come from a Restoration background, and the majority of those who do have made the shift in thinking relatively easily. On matters like the use of instrumental music in worship, we would be equally comfortable in any part of the present Restoration groups, although our preferences would tend in the direction of a less stringent interpretative approach.
A Different Theology?
Those who are even vaguely aware of the Campus Ministry Movement history among Churches of Christ in the 1970s and 1980s are aware of the conflicts that occurred when campus ministry groups grew within existing Churches of Christ. Most of these conflicts resulted when young campus ministers were trained in an “in house” setting (primarily at the Crossroads Church) and sent out to serve as campus ministers in various Churches of Christ. In these settings, it was not the nature of their theology that caused frequent conflicts with the other leaders and members in those churches, it was the primarily the practical application of same.
Prior to their arrival, the accepted definition of what constituted a faithful member of the church was well understood, as was the terminology used to describe their commitment. The incoming campus ministry group had different standards defining their commitment and different terminology describing it. Their definition of commitment was not about attending all the services of the church, giving consistently and significantly financially, and avoiding the outward sins of the flesh. Those things were presupposed. Now the talk was about “sharing one’s faith,” “being fruitful in evangelism,” having daily “quiet times with God,” and getting with your “prayer partner to practice one another Christianity.”
The stark differences in defining what constituted a committed Christian led to significant upheavals in nearly all congregations who hired young campus ministers trained in churches like Crossroads. These differences were too great to overcome, and reactionary sins on both sides were all too prevalent. The seeds of yet another division in the Restoration Movement were too deeply sown to ultimately be avoided. But it is important to note that it was not the view of the Bible or theology as much as practical application that led to the parting of the ways in the 1980s.
Perhaps a story told me by a close friend in our family of churches illustrates the point. He was brought to Christ in Gainesville and trained there for the ministry. Later serving in another church near a large campus, he eventually was relieved of his duties by the elders during the time of nationwide controversy. As he was leaving, one of the elders told him this: “It is not that you preached anything all that different from what we already knew. It is just is just that after you preached, you expected us to do it.”
Helpful Views and Uses of Scripture
The comment made to my friend reflects one of the early oft-stated views of the Bible within the movement: The Bible is intended by God to be a standard for life, not simply an ideal for which to aim. Many of the young converts in the Campus Ministry Movement phase had been repulsed by what they saw as gross hypocrisy in the lives of professing Christians. In their view, outside “the right acts of worship” and the right doctrine of baptism, most church people viewed the Bible as only a lofty ideal to be admired rather than a standard that was expected to be seriously followed. For these zealous young disciples, no selective obedience was allowed – it was all or nothing, a total commitment of one’s life to the Lordship of Christ. He was either Lord of all in one’s life, or Lord not at all.
This emphasis (and a biblical one at that) led to what was pejoratively referred to as “Lordship baptism.” Young people from all religious backgrounds, including the Churches of Christ, were asked to seriously examine whether their original baptism was based on making Jesus their Lord, and if not, they were urged to be baptized again with a true biblical understanding of conversion.
At bottom, it was an issue of repentance. For many who had been brought up in Churches of Christ, repentance was defined primarily as ceasing to do wrong. Biblically, refusing to do wrong is only the stepping stone to doing what is right, and that part of repentance can be defined as making Jesus the Lord of your life. Making him Lord means that we, as a part of his spiritual Body, will do what he did in his physical body while on earth. We are now his representatives, called to imitate his heart and life and commissioned to carry out his mission on earth, particularly to seek and save the lost.
That commission, as stated in Matthew 28:18-20, has two parts. “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” The first part gave the command to go and make disciples initially, which culminated in baptism into Christ. The second part was to teach them to obey all things Jesus commanded, another way of saying to mature the converts into the image of Christ. Discipleship must have both a vertical aspect (total commitment to Christ) and its horizontal aspect (helping mature one another), commonly called “discipling.”
I have been asked many times why I became a part of the IC, and why I have stayed with them in spite of the systemic sins that have become painfully apparent, especially in this century. The answer is threefold: dedication of the large majority of our membership to evangelizing the world, teaching and practicing full biblical repentance, and discipling one another to become more and more like Christ. The latter presupposes a real openness with one’s personal life and a strong desire to keep changing and growing. A failure among some leaders in regard to the last two of these led to a crisis. But through that crisis I saw a return to the practice of them all. I have never encountered these three things in any other group in the measure I have found them in the IC fellowship. But having listed the helpful things, for which I am most thankful, the sinful things which have regrettably been a part of our movement culture must also be addressed – honestly and candidly.
Harmful Views and Uses of Scripture
What is said next is not an attempt to shift blame, although it could at first appear as such. However, the influence of one man on our movement for years was so significant that it has to be mentioned and explained. What those of us who had more biblical training did in either following his lead or allowing his influence to be widely exerted is our own fault, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. We either knew better or should have known better, but were blinded to some extent by the rather amazing results in converting large numbers of people and planting churches all over the world. I clearly speak of my own guilt in this matter, and I think I speak for many more who share much the same viewpoint and present convictions. The well-known leader to whom I refer is no longer a part of our family of churches, and ultimately it was the determination to return to a biblical model that led to the end of his influence. In the final analysis Scripture was allowed to rule the day.
In spite of the more in-depth biblical teaching of Chuck Lucas in the Campus Ministry Movement days, that leader just referred to took a different approach to the Bible and to ministry training. Chuck was a good student of the Bible and a preacher of expository sermons. Further, he not only led “on-the-job” ministry training, but also encouraged further academic training. This resulted in some of our present older leaders receiving biblical training at the graduate school level some decades back. However, the eventual leader of the movement had a very negative reaction to his attempts at further academic education at one of the Christian graduate schools. As a result, he began touting the “on-the-job” type ministry training as the only type needed and eschewing religious training in academic classroom settings. His argument was that he was training “just like Jesus trained.” Since no human trainer is Jesus, I would judge that he was half right and half wrong in his approach. Some ministry training is best accomplished through a direct mentoring relationship, an apprenticeship, but some training is best accomplished in the classroom.
Too many holes in our biblical knowledge and an often distorted hermeneutic more influenced by pragmatism were the results of turning a “both/and” need into a “one and only choice.” We are now digging out of that pit that we dug ourselves, through availing ourselves of a variety of different educational opportunities, some of which we are establishing in our own ranks by those having the needed academic credentials.
Combining this former incomplete philosophy of ministry training with a strong emphasis on practical ministry generally, it would be natural to expect teaching and preaching that was almost exclusively topical in nature, and those expectations would not be unmet. The impact of this is still felt in our churches.
Effective biblical teaching and preaching on a congregational level should contain a good balance between historical context and present application, stated by some simply as “God’s then” and “God’s now.” My experience in Churches of Christ in former years left me with the feeling that we were focused too much on God’s then without enough direct application of Scripture to our present life situations. My experience in the IC in later years has left me with the opposite feeling. Both are extremes and both yield incomplete or even damaging effects. Our present challenge in the IC is to help equip leaders and members alike with enough in-depth Bible knowledge to enable them to accurately handle Scriptures contextually.
Finally, it should be stated that all strengths can become weaknesses, if we are not careful. I mentioned previously that what drew me to the IC and has kept me here were the strong focuses on evangelism, discipling and repentance. Each of these has been applied well at times and applied sinfully at times, and I will mention some examples.
Regarding evangelism, motivational approaches too often degenerated into something akin to pressure tactics and a performance orientation in our relationship to God. Clearly, the ends do not justify the means, and faulty building resulted in the upheaval in our movement that came to a head in 2003. Regarding discipling, an increasingly authoritarian approach resulted in more of a military model than a Jesus model. A very good thing done in very wrong ways leads to bad results. Understanding repentance as not only a decision before baptism (Acts 2:38), but as a continual, all-embracing part of the Christian life is undoubted biblically correct. However, the challenge is to keep the emphasis on imitating our Master, an emphasis which produces the ongoing repentance – rather than focusing on the acts of repentance themselves. The latter focus results in a works mentality that cannot continue to yield good fruit and will not sustain us as joyful Christians for a lifetime.
Conclusion
I would say (with apologies to Dickens) that the history of the IC has indeed been the best of times and the worst of times. But the underlying commitment to the Lordship of Jesus and his Cause has enabled even the more influential leaders among us to truly repent of the wrong and to recommit themselves to the right. To me, that is both remarkable and commendable, and a strong indicator of many great things to come.
What is our present view and use of Scripture? About the same as it has been throughout our brief history – we see the Bible as the inspired, authoritative Word of God, to which we are committed to keep following as we rejoice in the victories God gives and humbly repent at the discipline he provides. Our desire is still to be a “restoration movement,” which means that we know that we have not arrived at a complete understanding of all biblical truths nor will we ever. Only God is at the end of that rainbow. We must stay open to seeing our blind spots and learning new things. On the other hand, we do believe that we have solid footing on a number of foundational issues regarding how we view and use the Scriptures. We are changing, we are growing again, and Jesus is still Lord!
________________
[1] Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1995), 250.
Excerpt From Romans – The Heart Set Free, by Gordon Ferguson
According to Romans 13:1-4, rulers protect society by punishing wrongdoers and rewarding those who do good (verses 3-4). Notice “bear the sword” in verse 4, which seems to be a reference to capital punishment. In many countries today, discussing this topic produces controversy. Certainly the controversy is understandable, especially in America where the rich often find a way to avoid capital punishment and those without substantial financial means are the ones most often executed. Add to this the fact that the minority races most often fit in that latter category, and the discussion becomes even more emotional.
Capital Punishment in the Old Testament
Regardless of what we feel about capital punishment, the Bible must determine our ultimate conclusions as disciples. We know for sure, at the outset, that God approved of many kinds of killing in the Old Testament, including capital punishment, under the legislation he inspired. For example a whole host of sins and crimes elicited the death penalty in the Mosaic Law.1 Several modes of carrying out the death penalty are mentioned in the Old Testament, including burning (Genesis 38:24; Leviticus 20:14, 21:9), stoning (Leviticus 20:2, 27; 24:14; Numbers 14:10; 15:33-36), hanging (Deuteronomy 21:22-23, Joshua 8:29) and death by the sword (Exodus 32:27-28; 1 Kings 2:25, 34, 46).
At times, the executions were carried out by the authorities, as would be expected, but at other times, by the witnesses of a crime (Deuteronomy 13:6-9, 17:7). At still other times, executions were performed by the people as a whole (Numbers 15:35-36, Deuteronomy 13:9). In no instance was capital punishment to be inflicted on the testimony of less than two witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15). Coming into the NT era, we read about the Roman forms of capital punishment, notably beheading (Matthew 14:10; Mark 6:16, 27-28) and crucifixion (Matthew 27:35-38, Mark 15:24-27, Luke 23:33). What are we to make of all of this? Only that God believes in capital punishment and commanded its practice on a fairly broad basis in the OT period.2
Capital Punishment in the New Testament
As we move to the teaching of the New Testament about capital punishment, we must dig a bit deeper. The heretic, Marcion, dug in the wrong direction, concluding that the God of the Old Testament (the Father) was harsh, while the God of the New Testament (Jesus) was full of grace. This solves no problems, for Jesus as the eternal Logos (the eternal Word in John 1:1) was with the Father from the beginning. Whatever the Father did in the Old Testament, Jesus did. Whatever Jesus does now, the Father does with him (John 10:30). “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (Hebrews 13:8), and so is the Father. God is God and cannot be otherwise. Therefore, Marcion’s “god” was not the God of Scripture.
To begin our consideration of the NT teaching on the subject, Romans 13:4 clearly indicates the legitimacy of capital punishment. It might be argued (though it is not my persuasion) that like polygamy in the Old Testament and slavery in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, God allowed a practice that he knew would eventually be largely phased out by his deeper principles to the contrary. But even now one cannot be dogmatic in opposition to any of these three practices, however unnatural and distasteful they may be to our modern thinking. Both polygamy and slavery have again become issues in some societies into which the gospel is being sent¾calling for wisdom, rather than rigid opinions, on the part of church leaders.
In his book, Questions and Answers, Douglas Jacoby makes the point that Romans 13 answers the question about the right of a state to enforce capital punishment, but when we ask should a disciple ever be in the role of taking the life of another person, we are asking a different question. In the next chapter of Romans Paul will show us that we sin whenever we go against our own conscience. Therefore, a disciple might conclude that the state has the right to carry out capital punishment but not be able to participate in its implementation.3
As a citizen of a country, we have some governmental rights that we cannot as disciples exercise. I assumedly have the legal right to view pornography, commit immorality and drink alcohol to excess. But as a disciple, my higher allegiance to God’s spiritual laws supersede what government allows. In other words, what the government does or allows is not the end of the matter for me personally as a disciple.
Acting As an Agent of the State
The more sensitive issue is the possibility of a Christian acting in this capacity as an agent of the state. In other words, can a disciple of Jesus destroy life as a member of the military or other branch of law enforcement? I see some differences between the two. Those with whom law enforcement officers deal are supposed criminals, while those in another country’s military force may be innocent pawns of their own government.
As this book goes to press, the military issue now looms very large in our minds following the heinous terrorist attacks against New York City and Washington D.C. on September 11, 2001. It did not take long for our nation’s utter shock and unbelief to become anger and the desire for vengeance. Many disciples, if they are honest, have struggled with the same attitudes. What answers does the Bible offer in this emotionally charged area?
In the Old Testament, wars were commonplace for the Israelite nation. However, we must remember that civil and religious laws were intertwined for them, since they were the nation of God (a theocracy). Also, they most often went into battle after being directed to do so by God. In the New Testament, there is a separation of church and state, which ushers in some different principles. While we are citizens of two kingdoms at once, our higher calling is to the kingdom of God. Certainly we are to be under the authority of our government, but only as long as it does not violate the authority of God (see Acts 4:18-20, 5:27-29). The Old Testament predicted this difference in passages like Isaiah 2:1-4, in which the prophet said that in the new kingdom, “They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore” (v4).
Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem that occurred in 70 ad and warned his disciples to flee, rather than to fight, when it happened (Luke 21:20-21).Jesus told Pilate that the kingdom he was bringing was not of this world, and had it been, then his servants would have fought (John 18:36). Read Matthew 5:38-48 and Romans 12:17-21 carefully. If we are persecuted for our spiritual convictions, clearly we cannot fight fire with fire. We are to love our spiritual enemies, not hate them. God hates those who love violence (Psalm 11:4-7). Vengeance belongs to God (Romans 12:19), and we need to trust him with it¾whether in this life or on Judgment Day. What the government does, it does. Governments are agents of God to deliver justice, but that does not automatically grant a disciple the right to participate in that process. My participation or lack thereof is another matter, since my highest allegiance is to God’s law.
The question of whether a Christian can engage in military service has been an issue with which I have wrestled since I was a teenager. At age eighteen, I had to register with the American Draft Board. Then I had to make a choice about my willingness to bear arms and possibly take another’s life. We have many brothers in different countries who are required to be in the military. We also have police officers and other similar agents of the state who are converted while serving in these capacities. What should their position be about these matters as new disciples?
My understanding is that the early church solved this dilemma by allowing those converted to remain in military or law enforcement roles until they could get out of them gracefully, but disciples did not accept such roles after conversion. At age eighteen, in an unusual move for people in that cultural setting, I registered for the draft as a conscientious objector, meaning that I would be willing to serve in the military in a capacity that did not require bearing arms. Although my religious commitment was severely limited in general at that point of my life, I did have convictions in this area. These convictions have remained the same in the fifty years since, although I do think the complexity of the subject makes it a personal matter of conscience. When my son was concerned about the possibility of the draft being resumed during the Gulf War, I shared my thoughts with him and then encouraged him to talk to some of my spiritually mature friends on both sides of the issue.
In light of the recent calamitous events in America, the subject is no longer an intellectual issue¾it is a very practical one. Even the fact that we have now planted churches in all major nations of the earth demands that we proceed with Biblical caution and not be carried away by emotions. I do not intend to shoot at someone on the other side who might be a brother in Christ, and I am thankful that the American government allows young men and women that choice. Other governments may not, and no matter what the country, we must struggle with our own consciences and convictions. As with all difficult subjects, I respect your right to come to a different conclusion than I have come to.
Even though I am settled in my conclusion, the most difficult aspect of it comes by recognizing that two principles can be in conflict, thus prompting a choice between them. For example, love for God supersedes love for family, and we may have to choose him over them (Matthew 10:34-37). Similarly, love for family supersedes love for enemies, and we may have to choose the former over the latter. What would you do if an intruder broke into your home and threatened the safety of your family? Use force, perhaps killing in the process? If you answered “possibly” or “probably,” you assumedly would answer the same way if that intruder was a member of an enemy military group. Then, some would argue, why would you not go abroad as a member of our military forces and protect your family before the enemy made it to your front doorstep?
Hopefully you can see that this topic is not easy for any of us. I am glad that God promised that we will not be tempted with anything beyond what we can bear and that he will provide the way to endure trials (1 Corinthians 10:13). Let’s study the subject, ask counsel of many advisors, make personal decisions about how we are going to deal with the subject and then extend grace to those who come out on the other side of the issue. A preacher supposedly said something to this effect over a century ago: “Remember that while we may disagree in the hundredths, we agree in the thousands.” Amen to that!
1 Murder (Genesis 9:5-6; Numbers 35:16-21, 30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6), adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:24), incest (Leviticus 20:11-12, 14), bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16), sodomy (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13), lack of virginity discovered on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:21-24), rape of an engaged virgin (Deuteronomy 22:25), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), immorality of a priest’s daughter (Leviticus 21:9), witchcraft (Exodus 22:18), offeringhumansacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5), striking or cursing father or mother (Exodus 21:15, 17; Leviticus 20:9), flagrant disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), blasphemy (Leviticus 24:11-16, 23), desecration of the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36), false prophesying (Deuteronomy 13:1-10), sacrificing to false gods (Exodus 22:20), refusing to abide by the decision of the court (Deuteronomy 17:12) and treason (1 Kings 2:12-46; Esther 2:21-23).
2 In an interestingly related vein, Douglas Jacoby, in his book Q & A: Answers to Bible Questions You have Asked (Billerica, Mass.: Discipleship Publications International, 2001, p. 162), spoke about the punishment of the wicked in eternity. In the essay entitled “Reexamining the Biblical Doctrine of Hell” under the section “Heaven and Hell¾Terminal Punishment,” he wrote this : “The terminal view is simply that after a period of torment (‘corporal punishment’) suited to the individual, God destroys him or her (‘capital punishment’).”3 Douglas admits that his terminal view has not been the traditional view in our movement and might not be the view held by the majority even now. However, if it is true (and I personally am persuaded that it is), capital punishment, even of an everlasting nature, would need to be seen as godly and righteous. In that sense, God’s own practice would have to influence what we think about what he ordained governmental authorities to practice.
3 Ibid, 132-133.
