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.
Through my many years of preaching, I have often asked and answered this question: “What is life really all about?” The answer, of course, is relationships – not surprisingly the very focus of the Bible. God’s Word makes this focus clear as relationships in four key areas are addressed over and over and over: relationship with God, with our physical family, with our spiritual family and with those who need to become a part of our spiritual family. Relationship building and protecting is the essence of Christianity.
If that is the most important thing in all of life, you know that Satan is going to work hard to destroy relationships. That, in fact, is his number one focus in trying to deceive us into destroying relationships in each of these four key areas. This article will hopefully help us to better understand just how Satan goes about his work in trying to destroy human relationships in our physical families and especially in our spiritual family.
To begin with, God’s desire for us to have relationships in his kingdom that are far different from those in the world is spoken about all through the Bible. One of the passages that says it most strikingly is in John 17:20-23:
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
If unity is what God loves, then that is what Satan hates and will do all that he can to work against. Further, since he is the Great Deceiver, he will try to do his work in ways that we don’t recognize, which is one reason why this article is simply entitled “Protecting Relationships.” Ephesians 4:22-32 is full of practical admonitions about our speech with each other, as God strives to protect us from Satan’s deception. Notice especially what Paul wrote in verses 29-30: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Thus, how we communicate to and about one another is the key to protecting relationships. If we could put these two verses into constant practice, life would be far richer and far less stressful (and far more righteous).
Humans Will Hurt One Another With Words
It is a sad but undeniable fact that we are going to hurt each other with our words, and it if often those we love most (or should love most!). Sometimes, we hurt one another in a completely unintentional way. No doubt that’s why James 3:2 says “If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man.” But sometimes what we say is intentional, and we know that we are talking in ways that we wouldn’t want made public. This type of speech is called gossip and slander in the Bible. Here are a few key verses about this type of sinful speech:
Proverbs 18:8: The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts.
Proverbs 12:18-19: Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment.
Proverbs 15:4: The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life, but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit.
Proverbs 26:22-25: The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to a man’s inmost parts. Like a coating of glaze over earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart. A malicious man disguises himself with his lips, but in his heart he harbors deceit. Though his speech is charming, do not believe him, for seven abominations fill his heart.
Proverbs 26:28: A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.
Psalm 55:21: “His speech is smooth as butter, yet war is in his heart; his words are more soothing than oil, yet they are drawn swords.”
1 Timothy 5:19: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”
We Usually Are Not Unaware of Our Own Gossip and Slander
Although we often attempt to disguise our sins through rationalization, our awareness is fairly obvious by how we introduce such speech. Let me give you some examples.
“You know, I just have some things on my heart that I need to share with someone, and you are one of my best friends…”
“I need a safe place and a safe person to share some things with that are really troubling me – can you be that safe person and keep what I tell you confidential?”
“I don’t feel like I have anyone who really understands what I am feeling, and I’m so happy to have you as a confidential friend who can listen and keep a confidence.”
Hearing such introductions, we naturally feel concern and want to help, and we feel flattered that we are that chosen friend with whom another person can unburden their hearts. But the problem with what then takes place is that the talker is sinning and we as a listener are sinning! And we find ways to justify their sin and our own. “Well, he just got emotional and needed to work through it.” So, does being emotional make it not sinful?
Try this one on for size: “I just got emotional and shot that guy, but it was because I was emotional so it wasn’t wrong!” Another statement is actually fairly commonly heard: “I just said that terrible thing about him because I was angry!” Not so – you said that because it was in your heart, for in Luke 6:45, Jesus said, “Out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.” We don’t say things just because we are emotional – we say them because they are in our hearts – and our emotions remove our inhibitions!
The most dangerous form of unhealthy talk of which I am aware is also understandably the most subtle – I call it objective negativity. I have a separate article under that title, and I strongly suggest that you read it after reading this one. It describes a form of communication that is not only highly subtle; it is also highly damaging and likely the most dangerous approach of all. Unfortunately, in my decades of working with churches and disciples, I have seen the damage done by it in an up-close and personal way far too often. Satan must be diabolically laughing when we fall prey to such sinful speech. I mentioned James 3:2 earlier, but look at it in its broader context:
James 3:2-10
We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check. 3When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. 5Likewise the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7All kinds of animals, birds, reptiles and creatures of the sea are being tamed and have been tamed by man, 8but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness. 10Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.
What Are God’s Solutions For the Sins of Unhealthy Talk?
First, avoid it yourself. Before sharing details about another person’s life in a potentially sensitive area without their knowledge, ask yourself the following questions:
- Why am I considering sharing these things?
- Will my sharing benefit the one I are sharing about?
- Will it benefit the one with whom you are sharing?
- Does the Golden Rule fit the situation?
Remember what Paul said in Ephesians 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” Refuse to participate in the sinful speech of another, by being a willing listener. Here are some responses you can have that are righteous:
“Wait a minute – I am not comfortable with hearing negative talk about someone who is not here and able to give their side of the story.”
“You do remember what Proverbs 18:17says, right?” “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.”
A good question to ask someone when they start down the path of talking negatively about another person is this one: “Have you shared this with the person themselves?” Using this line of inquiry, you have to be very thorough, for they may answer, “Yes I have told them this” when they really haven’t or perhaps that have hinted around at it but not really stated clearly the details that they are starting to tell you.
Then say, “Well, if you have told them this, I will want to talk with them about it later to make sure I hear their side of the story, based on Proverbs 18:17.” Truthfully, even if they have told the other person, why are they telling you? Saying, “Well, I’m not saying anything to you that I haven’t said to them” doesn’t make it right to repeat something negative to you. It is still a violation of the Golden Rule!
If they say, “No, I haven’t told them because they wouldn’t handle it well, so I need to share it with you as a confidential person to just unburden my heart,” then you have to intervene and stop the gossip. Say, “You do have to go and share this with the other person, based on the commands of Jesus. If you need me to go with you, I will go, but you have to do what Jesus says.” I then ask, “Will you go? Next, When will you go? And if they say they will go, I follow up with them later to make sure that they did.
If they say that they won’t go, I say, “If you haven’t obeyed Jesus and gone to them within a week, I am going to go and share with them what you have said, to make sure you two get together and work this out.” Now why would I do all that I just described? (Because that sounds drastic to some of you, and very different from the way you have often done it and seen it done – right?). Listen carefully to Jesus’ solution to all of our relationship problems:
Matthew 18:15-17: “If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
Matthew 5:23-24: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
All of this may sound challenging to us, because we are by nature people pleasers and conflict avoiders, but it is the only option we have if we intend to be disciples of Jesus Christ. I have spent much time trying to help church leadership groups deal directly with “the elephant in the living room” (various sorts of relationship issues). I am intent on helping all disciples to do this with all of their brothers and sisters, whether in leadership roles or not, because we are the family of God. As God’s children, we have to strive for complete unity – a unity that can be destroyed by the wrong kind of speech, but built by the right kinds of speech and healed by the right kinds of resolution and reconciliation.
Therefore, watch both your speech and your listening, and don’t sin against others of God’s children. We must become good listeners and pick up on the speech of others when it begins to go in a sinful direction. Refuse to listen to it when it moves in that direction and love them enough to insist that they get resolved with those about whom they try to talk negatively. We have to protect our souls and the souls of others, and protecting relationships in the ways we have described is a major part of how we protect souls. Granted, it is not easy, but it is the way of God and we really have no options in the matter – we must obey him!
(The primary material in this article was taken from my book, Dynamic Leadership, Appendix 7, and later expanded.)
We Live in a Negative World!
The subject of negativity is a broad one, and although we are going to focus on a certain highly dangerous type of negativity, some general observations will prove helpful. In case you haven’t recognized it, we live in a negative world. Bad news sells and good news doesn’t. At least that seems to be the message of our modern media organizations. Further, many of us grew up in negative families. I know I did. My parents would not have been characterized as positive thinkers and talkers by any stretch of the imagination.
Then, besides the effects the environment has on our perspectives and subsequent conversation directions, we have our own inner struggles with which to deal. We all develop some forms of insecurities as we grow up, and a common way to compensate for our bruised egos and warped self-images is to tear others down in an attempt to feel less inadequate about ourselves. This brand of negative speaking about others is far more common than the so-called “common cold” (and it makes us a lot sicker!). Those who are consistently critical of others are first of all critical of themselves. They may act otherwise, but rest assured that it is only an “act.”
When I was in high school eons ago, we spoke of certain classmates having a “superiority complex.” There is no such thing. That prideful and smug presentation of oneself was a charade, a cloak used to cover what we called an “inferiority complex.” That last term is relatively accurate, although outmoded in this era. Now we just say that a person who feels badly about themselves is insecure or has a poor self-image. If we are familiar with Schema Therapy, we would perhaps say that they have a defective schema. In other words, they feel defective as persons.
Get Your “Buts” in the Right Place!
Anyone not really comfortable in their own skin has the problem thus described, and one dead giveaway is that they are defensive and handle almost any form of correction (however well-intentioned and well presented) poorly. They already feel badly about themselves, and don’t seem to realize that input from others can help them change – which would result in them feeling better about themselves. Another evidence of this malady is seen in how they view and talk about others. They do tear others down in order to feel better about themselves, but it never works. Sin cannot make you feel better inside your heart of hearts.
Those in the church who have not yet conquered this problem have certain patterns to their negative speech. One pattern is just to talk negatively about others behind their backs, thus committing what the Bible defines as gossip and slander. Another pattern is saying both good and bad things about others, but doing it in a certain order, thus creating a certain emphasis. Compare these two sentences in how they affect your feelings about someone we will call “Betty” for purposes of illustration:
“Betty is a great wife and mother, but she doesn’t seem to get very involved in serving others.”
“I don’t always know what Betty may be doing to serve people generally, but I do know that she is absolutely a great wife and mother.”
The point of the illustration is to show that whatever is said after the little conjunction “but” is what we go away with – it is what we tend to remember. In the first example, we are left with the thought that Betty doesn’t serve those who aren’t in her family very well and in the second example we are left with the warm feeling that this woman really loves her husband and children, and shows it by her actions. Note a couple of things in the first example. The speaker is making an assumption (shown by the word seems) and leaves us with what appears to be a conclusion. If you want to have troubled relationships on all levels, assume what you don’t really know to be factual and state it as a conclusion!
Don’t Be Fooled by One of Satan’s Favorite Tools!
Both of these speech patterns described are negative and hurtful to relationships, but they are not nearly as dangerous as the one about which this article is mainly addressing—objective negativity. The most dangerous form I have ever found of unhealthy talk is also understandably the most subtle. This form is one of Satan’s favorite tools for destroying relationships on both an individual and group basis. I have seen several of his human agents use this tool in an almost unbelievably effective way (in being destructive). But rather than simply describing how they used it, we have the perfect biblical example in the child of a king (and a very good king at that). Turn to 2 Samuel 15:1-6 as we read about Absalom.
“In the course of time, Absalom provided himself with a chariot and horses and with fifty men to run ahead of him. He would get up early and stand by the side of the road leading to the city gate. Whenever anyone came with a complaint to be placed before the king for a decision, Absalom would call out to him, ‘What town are you from?” He would answer, “Your servant is from one of the tribes of Israel.’ Then Absalom would say to him, ‘Look, your claims are valid and proper, but there is no representative of the king to hear you.’ And Absalom would add, ‘If only I were appointed judge in the land! Then everyone who has a complaint or case could come to me and I would see that he gets justice.’
Also, whenever anyone approached him to bow down before him, Absalom would reach out his hand, take hold of him and kiss him. Absalom behaved in this way toward all the Israelites who came to the king asking for justice, and so he stole the hearts of the men of Israel.”
Absalom’s work described here very nearly led to the killing of his father and to his usurping of David’s throne. He stole the hearts of the men of Israel, Scripture says. He didn’t merely win their hearts by serving them; he stole their hearts by tainting their thinking toward the king whom they had loved and followed for years. How sad! How powerful is Satan’s tool of objective negativity! Negativity we understand to some degree, but how does the term objective fit in to its use? Now that is a hugely important question, make no mistake about it.
We have all come away from certain conversations saying something to this effect: “Wow, that guy is really something; he’s about the most negative person I have ever heard in my life!” Someone skilled in the use of objective negativity never evokes that reaction, but what they do to a person’s heart is something akin to what a hidden cancer does to a person’s body. It is an undetected destroyer, doing its deadly work mostly in secret until drastic results emerge. The presentation of such soul-damaging information is cloaked by the sense of objectivity created, and the more spiritual it sounds, the better the cloak. With that in mind, we shouldn’t be surprised that those looked upon as spiritually mature, or better yet, as spiritual leaders, are the most effective in using this approach.
In actuality, those skilled in this deceptive work are basically “seed planters.” They plant tiny seeds that grow quietly inside hearts until a plant or a tree is produced. Isn’t that exactly what Absalom did? He kept planting seeds as he validated the concerns of people and showed them affection, and those seeds were aimed at undermining trust in his father and building trust in himself. He was one sharp dude, one smart cookie. He knew exactly what he was doing for the four years he did it. Gossips tend to be impatient and have to say it now; the Absaloms of the world are patient and content just to plant and water, waiting for the tree of doubt, discontent and rebellion to grow.
Absalom Types Are Usually Leaders (Often Former Leaders) Themselves
My intent is not to make anyone mistrust spiritually mature people or spiritual leaders—far from it. I think most would say that I would fall into both of those categories. But like Paul, I want to help you not fall prey to those whose skills are found in this form of negativity that we are discussing. In 2 Corinthians 2:11, Paul said that he didn’t want his readers to be unaware of Satan’s schemes. Thus, his teaching was aimed at exposing Satan’s schemes (and he has many). Paul could not have described a person skilled in the deadly scheme of objective negativity any better than in this passage from the same book. “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).”
The claim that most Absalom types are leaders is demonstrated in the earliest stages of the Old Testament. Numbers 16 contains one of the most chilling accounts in the history of Israel, an event that dates back near the origin of the Israelite nation. We are generally familiar with the names of Korah, Dathan and Abiram because God opened the earth to swallow them and their families for their rebellion against Moses and Aaron (verses 25-33). However, this chapter in Numbers opened with the account of these men inciting the rebellion of 250 other well-known leaders within Israel (verses 1-3). They were not content with being counted among the leaders; they wanted to be among the very top leaders, which led to instigating a rebellion against them. God dealt suddenly and decisively with them, just as he had with those who sowed the seeds of their rebellion. Verse 35 says that “Fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men.” Sadly, Absalomic undermining of top leaders by influential people trickles down to infiltrate the average person, sometimes almost imperceptivity. In this case, the whole Israelite community challenged the leadership of Moses and Aaron, resulting in a God-given plague that killed 14,700 of them (verses 41-49). What a sobering and terrifying account of what the work of a few leaders controlled by an Absalomic spirit can cause.
Perhaps you are thinking that all of these examples, including Absalom, come from the Old Testament period. What about the New Testament? Do we find the same phenomenon there? The logical answer is that wherever you find humans, you are going to find this insidious practice. However, as has been noted repeatedly, it is a subtle sin which is not noticed quickly or easily. Read on for the biblical answer to the question.
A Classic “Absalom” in the New Testament
What person in the NT do you think was the classic Absalom type? Pause a minute and think about who you believe it could be (waiting, waiting, waiting…). If you guessed Judas, you made the same choice I did. What do we know for sure about him? One, he was obviously a person of high talent or he wouldn’t have been chosen by Jesus to be an apostle. Two, he was an incredible expert at hiding his true nature from others, for even just prior to his betrayal of Jesus, the other apostles could not guess which of them was going to be the betrayer. Three, and this is the point that directly connects with the concept being developed in this article, he influenced the other apostles in negative directions.
This ability to subtlety lead others into bad paths is perhaps best shown in comparing three Gospel accounts of one event near the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry. It took place at a dinner being held at the home of a man named Simon. Notice the progression and what it reveals about this aspect of Judas’ nature. Let’s begin with the more general account in Mark 14:3-6 (NASB):
While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. 4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? 5 “For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
From this account, you wouldn’t know who was objecting to the woman’s use of her costly perfume. You just know that a group was discussing it among themselves. Matthew’s account gives us more details about the identity of the group:
Now when Jesus was in Bethany, at the home of Simon the leper, 7 a woman came to Him with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume, and she poured it on His head as He reclined at the table. 8 But the disciples were indignant when they saw this, and said, “Why this waste? 9 “For this perfume might have been sold for a high price and the money given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you bother the woman? For she has done a good deed to Me. (Matthew 26:6-10)
Now we know that it was the apostles discussing the issue, and it seems that they are becoming more outspoken as the discussion continued. John’s account in John 12:1-8 fills in some striking details:
Jesus, therefore, six days before the Passover, came to Bethany where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they made Him a supper there, and Martha was serving; but Lazarus was one of those reclining at the table with Him. 3 Mary then took a pound of very costly perfume of pure nard, and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped His feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, *said, 5 “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” 6 Now he said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it. 7 Therefore Jesus said, “Let her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of My burial. 8 “For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me.”
What are the additional details John provides us in his account? One, Simon must have had a reasonably close relationship with Lazarus, Mary and Martha, since they were present at the dinner and Martha doing her usual thing of serving. Two, the woman with the perfume was none other than Mary, one of the three siblings. Three, it was Judas who almost certainly initiated the complaint that then spread to the other apostles. That is the point most relevant to our discussion. Closely associated to it is the fact that Judas was a frequent thief and the other apostles never suspected anything. His true nature was not perceived by his closest associates. His complaints about the “waste” of expensive perfume sounded quite objective and reasonable to them – even spiritual (helping the poor).
Hence, they joined into the discussion, prodded into it by his initial comments – which most likely were shared rather privately with them in the earliest stages. Good-hearted people like Peter blurted out what they really thought, not fearing either the vulnerability or the correction that often followed their comments. Individuals like Judas were very careful about what they said and to whom they said it. Knowing human nature makes the assumption likely that this discussion began with Judas planting the negative seeds, which the others picked up on and expressed more openly. Like Absalom in the OT, Judas gives us a perfect example of someone skilled in the use of objective negativity.
What about Judas’ motives? Did he always have evil intent of which he was quite aware? In this case, the answer would be yes, based on the wording of the text. In the case of his betrayal of Jesus, some believe that his intent was to force Jesus to become the kind of Messiah that most Jews were looking for by having to use his power to save his own life. If a true hypothesis, it could explain why he committed suicide rather quickly after that plan didn’t bring the desired result. If this were a reasonably accurate assumption, it would mean that Judas wasn’t always aware of his inmost motivations or of the true impact of what he was doing. It was to him second nature, having become so ingrained in his sinful nature through a long series of deceitful choices.
I am not sure if those most effective in the use of objective negativity are always aware of what they are doing. They certainly know how to cloak their true nature from others, and it may be that they are fooling themselves as well. In my own experience, those who resort to spreading negativity in this manner are perhaps self-deceived as they deceive others, because helping them see themselves and the effects they are having has usually been a fruitless endeavor. I’ve seen temporary change that appeared to reflect repentance, but the fact that it has nearly always been temporary perhaps indicates that they are self-deceived. As with all other sins, the long-range changes are the ones that indicate true repentance. I add this thought to help us not be naïve and overly optimistic when dealing with those who commit such damaging sins. I’m not suggesting that we be cynical or faithless, but I am strongly suggesting that this sin indicates some deeply imbedded heart issues that we must be very careful in dealing with. May God grant us wisdom and discernment as we are trying to protect the flock as a whole while also trying to help those individuals who may be hurting it, intentionally or unintentionally.
What is the Solution – the Antidote?
The solution begins with recognition of the types of speech patterns underlying the Absalomic approach. Well, what do such people sound like in everyday life? Here are some samples from a very long list of possibilities:
“I really love our elders, but some people have shared a few things with me that sometimes make me wonder…” But you do have to appreciate their sacrifice of time and energy.
“I think we have a great staff, but I did hear one or two things in confidence that have made me a little nervous. I guess we will just have to trust the Lord that he will work out whatever needs to be worked out.”
“I appreciate the fact that our leaders are following a carefully planned process of looking for additional staff members, but I really hope that they will keep ____________ in mind and not just make decisions out of personal preferences. I am glad, though, that they seem to be focused on finding someone soon.”
“I am certain that our small group leader has a real heart to serve, but I do wonder if he has the time to be serving in that role right now with all that he has on his plate. But don’t you just love their two little girls—they are the cutest things!”
“The couple we have leading our small group really loves people, and that is such a valuable and appreciated quality. I have heard some disciples question whether they had the gift set to be able to do it. But getting people to lead is no easy matter, so I suppose that we should just appreciate their willingness to serve in this way.”
“Betty is one of my best friends and I feel like I can tell her anything, but I am praying that she can keep a confidence. We all need a safe place to share our struggles.”
“I really love this church, and have a lot invested in it for these nine years that I have been a member. I hope our direction for the future is clearer to others than it is to me. I guess I just need to pray more.”
My examples of actual conversations mention leaders quite a bit, as I’m sure you would expect by the time you have read this far. Satan knows that he can destroy churches if he can erode trust in leaders. But let me make one thing perfectly clear: I’m not defending bad leaders in any way. Wyndham Shaw and I wrote a little book a decade ago entitled Golden Rule Leadership should demonstrate that point clearly. Although what we wrote is now “old hat” and generally accepted in our movement today, it was strongly resisted by a number of leaders in high places when it was first published. My most recent book on leadership, Dynamic Leadership, deals much more directly and strongly with ineffective, unbiblical and sinful leadership. Having said that, Satan has always, and will always, do his best to destroy trust in all leadership—not simply that which you and I might agree is poor leadership. Destroy the mom or dad in any family, and you’ll see the family severely damaged.
Maybe you are thinking that those who practice the fine art of objective negativity sound almost the same as those who have their “buts” in the wrong place. Well, they are similar in some ways, but different in key areas. Both use the word “but” as a key part of their processes. However, the Absalomic approach sounds much more spiritual. It not only begins with positive statements; it also ends with them. The effect is much more subtle. When you hear a person like this, especially if you trust them and or look up to them, you leave the conversation feeling mostly good. You can recount the positive, spiritually sounding things they said. On the other hand, the more spiritually in tune you are, the more you leave feeling unsettled, perhaps ever so slightly. Seeds have been carefully planted, and if you do not come to realize that something is amiss, those seeds may well grow. I have seen people thus influenced who eventually left the church that I never imagined would possibly leave.
The further solution to dealing with this malady is to pay attention to your own heart. If something seems slightly out of kilter after a conversation, tending to pull you in a negative direction, go back to the person with whom you talked and start asking questions.
“When you said that some have questioned the leadership gift of __________, who are those some?”
“You expressed some doubt about your good friend Betty being able to keep a confidence. Have you told her that?”
“That statement you made about the direction of the church—what exactly are you questioning here? I think you and I need to go talk to some of the leaders of the church together, because I want to make sure that your doubts are dealt with and not spread to others—including me.”
Bottom line, we need to be very careful about what we listen to that has a negative bent to it about anyone or any group that is not present for the discussion. The Lord knows that we must learn to talk to others about sensitive issues and concerns—but we need to do it with them, face-to-face and not behind their backs. People sometimes ask me if I am feeling something toward them that isn’t positive, and the answer is pretty simple. “If I am, you will be among the first to know it, because we will be talking in an up-close and personal way.” If someone seems to perhaps have funny feelings toward me, I ask them about it. If they do, I want them to encourage them to come to me, but I am quite willing to go to them as well. Matthew 5 and Matthew 18 say that we should meet each other going and coming if relationships are not in a good place.
Disciples are learners. That’s a basic meaning of the term itself. Let’s learn to recognize sinful speech, whether it is coming out of our own mouth or the mouth of another. And by all means, let’s learn to get beyond our conflict avoidance tendencies and resolve relationships that are strained or we think may be unsettled in some way. If we have good marriages, we have done it hundreds of times because we don’t want to be under the same roof with another person with whom we are not at peace. For the Lord’s sake, let’s refuse to live under his same big sky with our brothers and sisters without cultivating and maintaining that same peace. It is the will of our Father, who loves us all as his dear children. Amen and Amen!
Distinct from other groups in the Restoration Movement, mainline Churches of Christ have been known for years for their stand against the use of instruments in accompaniment to spiritual songs. Historically, this position has not been held as a matter of preference or judgment. It has been a stated doctrinal position, and most of the leaders for nearly a century who stated it made it a test of fellowship −a matter of heaven and hell! However, this century-old position is fading fast in this group of churches, but it is not yielding easily. There can be no question that the younger generations in the Mainline Church of Christ are rejecting the prohibitions of using instrumental music in worship. Many in the older generation claim that the younger ones are becoming liberal and are little concerned with the authority of Scripture. Although some among their younger generation likely are becoming less concerned with biblical authority, the reasons for change are not that simplistic.
For example, when I changed my position on this issue, I had not become less concerned with the place of biblical authority and I was definitely not a member of the younger generation. Yet, I became unconvinced by the doctrinal arguments made against the use of instrumental music in worship, although I had made them myself for many years when a part of that group. It is not a matter of indifference when declaring such issues to be matters of absolute faith rather than personal opinions and preferences. Understanding the religion of the Pharisees should help us grasp the sobering fact that binding what God did not bind is just a great a sin as loosing what God did not loose. Legalism and liberalism are both very dangerous ends of the spectrum of using the Bible in wrong ways. Christian freedom extends into many practical areas of the spiritual life, and music in worship is one such area in my studied opinion and subsequent conviction.
Having said that, it is only right to share why my past views of the subject changed. Providing some background of the interpretive viewpoints of the non-instrumental folks is the logical starting place. The key argument against the use of instruments has been the argument on the basis of “silence” in the NT. Only the word “sing” is found there, and no reference is made to “playing.” Therefore, say those using this interpretation, instrumental music is strictly forbidden, and to use it is to go beyond the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 4:6).
Another way to describe the reasoning behind forbidding instrumental music involves the alleged principle that a general command or example allows the choice of any specific, while a specific command or example rules out other specifics. One of the oldest and most simple illustrations is one drawn from God’s command to Noah about building the ark prior to the great flood. According to Genesis 6:14, God commanded that the ark be built from gopher wood (cypress in the NIV). Thus, to use any other type of wood in the construction instead of, or in addition to, this type would be going beyond what God said and thus would constitute disobedience. Had he said simply to build the ark from wood, any type or types of wood could have been chosen by Noah, but once a specific was given, that ruled out anything but the type specified.
So goes the argument regarding music in worship. Had God simply said to “make music,” any type of music could be chosen, but since God specified singing (vocal music), this rules out other types of music instead of, or along with, vocal music. If the argument is valid, the use of instrumental music is divinely forbidden. But is this simplistic argument the end of the matter? Does the Bible shed more light on the subject, light that would allow more latitude in the worship of God? Important questions, those.
Although we are not under the Mosaic covenant, the OT setting can teach us some valuable lessons. Read the following passages to get a feel for the approved use of the instruments in that period of time:
David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals (1 Chronicles 15:16).
When David was old and full of years, he made his son Solomon king over Israel. He also gathered together all the leaders of Israel, as well as the priests and Levites. The Levites thirty years old or more were counted, and the total number of men was thirty-eight thousand. David said, ‘Of these, twenty-four thousand are to supervise the work of the temple of the LORD and six thousand are to be officials and judges. Four thousand are to be gatekeepers and four thousand are to praise the LORD with the musical instruments I have provided for that purpose’” (1 Chronicles 23:1-5).
At the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, the Levites were sought out from where they lived and were brought to Jerusalem to celebrate joyfully the dedication with songs of thanksgiving and with the music of cymbals, harps and lyres (Nehemiah 12:27).
The most notable thing to realize from these settings is that the use of instruments was not a part of the Law of Moses (the original Law given at Mount Sinai). They were actually introduced by David, as the non-instrumentalists correctly affirm. Yet, 2 Chronicles 29:25 states that God commanded their use! “He stationed the Levites in the temple of the LORD with cymbals, harps and lyres in the way prescribed by David and Gad the king’s seer and Nathan the prophet; this was commanded by the LORD through his prophets.” To say the least, God allowed the OT people a fair amount of latitude in deciding how to worship (even under a system which tended much more in the direction of a legal exactness).
As previously stated, the traditional Church of Christ interpretation asserts that the mention of “sing” rules out “play.” But in the OT setting, this distinction is not proved but rather contradicted. The use of the word “sing” did not preclude the use of instruments. 1 Samuel 21:11 says, “But the servants of Achish said to him, ‘Isn’t this David, the king of the land? Isn’t he the one they sing about in their dances: Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’?” Note that only “sing” is mentioned in this context. However, in 1 Samuel 18:6-7, a parallel passage, we read: “When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines and lutes. As they danced, they sang: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands’.”
Another very important consideration concerns the original church described in Acts, which was totally Jewish for a number of years. From the establishment of the church in Acts 2 until Ephesians 5:19 (with its specific command to “sing”), over 20 years had passed. How did those Jews, who were quite accustomed to worshipping with an instrument, know that “sing” ruled out the use of instruments? Other Jewish practices continued for quite some time, with at least God’s tacit approval. For example, Paul took a vow and shaved his head as a part of that vow (Acts 18:18). At James’s insistence, Paul entered the temple with four brothers who had taken vows and were observing the rites of purification (Acts 21:20-24). For a fairly lengthy period (at least up to AD 70 at the destruction of the temple), Jewish Christians practiced many aspects of Judaism as a matter of custom. Are we to conclude that these early disciples with Jewish backgrounds could, for at least this period of time, observe these Jewish ordinances as a matter of custom, and yet be guilty of sin if they continued to use instrumental music in worship? To me, that seems like a huge hermeneutical leap.
What are the key principles of hermeneutics (interpretation) which can help to determine the truth on this subject? Although the OT was much more a code of specific commands than is the NT, even then men added some far reaching practices which were never disapproved of by God. The entire synagogue system was introduced by men during the captivity period. Yet, Jesus went into the synagogue every Sabbath as was his custom (Luke 4:16). The Feast of Purim was added during the time of Esther, and became a regular feast of the Jews. Yet, neither of these practices was mentioned in the Law itself.
In most discussions of the subject of instrumental music, pro or con, much is made of the exact words in the NT words for singing. Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16 are the focal point of such discussions. They read as follows: “Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:19). “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God” (Colossians 3:16).
The Greek word for sing, “Psalmos” (from “Psallo”), is the word which is often discussed most in this connection. The evolution of the meaning of this word is a matter on importance. In ancient Greek, the word meant “to pluck” or something similar. It did not originally imply plucking a stringed instrument, but with the passage of time and the development of the Greek language, it did come to imply the use of a musical instrument. As the language further evolved, the idea of plucking an instrument was no longer inherent in the word itself. In modern Greek, “psallo” means “to sing” and carries no idea of playing an instrument.
The question at hand is just where this evolution of the term was at the time when the NT was written (during the Koine Greek period). Actually, different writers come out on both sides of the coin in their study of authorities on this matter. In reading the writings of these men, and the sources which they quote as their authorities, I am not convinced either way. I do not believe that the Greek either demands an instrument or excludes it. The focus in the NT passages is that we are to sing thankfully and sincerely from the heart. Whether we do this type of singing with instrumental accompaniment or without it seems not to be the focus of God. If he intended to make the use of instrumental music an incidental issue, as I think he did, how could he have done it any better than the way he had the NT actually worded?
The whole issue likely is a very simple one. Singing is the vital aspect of worship that God wanted us to employ and enjoy, but instrumental music is a matter of expediency — it is a choice. If God had commanded the use of instrumental music, worship would have been much less flexible as far as the physical setting was concerned. Jesus said that the place of worship was to be unimportant in the church (John 4:21-24). In other words, worshipping in the outdoors or in a cave during a time of persecution would be a simple, convenient matter. If instrumental music had been bound, then the place of assembling would have been more important and more difficult to arrange.
God evidently did not have the NT writers mention the use of instruments in worship in order to make sure that we did not bind their use. To say that the lack of mention forbids their use is another thing entirely. It would seem that the use of instruments is simply a matter of expediency or choice. God is far more concerned about our hearts in worship than about the physical trappings one way or another. As one who worshipped without the use of instruments for the first 45 years of his life, and who has worshipped with the use of instruments since that time, I can say without hesitation that my heart has been affected spiritually in a positive way more with than without instrumental music. My personal experience cannot be used to displace the authority of Scripture, to be sure, but the truth of God tends to become rather self-evident with the passage of time. Biblically and practically, I would put instrumental music in worship in the realm of Christian freedom and preferences. In time, it will be left there by virtually everyone in the mainstream membership of restoration churches, just as many other similar issues of opinion have been.
(This material was taken from my exposition of Acts, entitled “World Changers,” Appendix 1)
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
(Matthew 6:10, King James Version)
This brief verse has been used as the basis of songs, poems and quotations for centuries. It provides the most basic and ideal definition of the term “kingdom of God” to be found in Scripture – a place where God’s will is done. It pictures that desire disciples have to see all inhabitants of earth submit to the King of kings and the Lord of lords, in the same way that all of heaven submits to him. Who could imagine a better portrayal of life on planet earth than that one? However, looking at all sides of what the Bible says about the kingdom and trying to harmonize it leaves one’s head spinning. It almost defies a description in which all loose ends are tied up tightly. But is that unexpected? Can any human look at everything said about God and describe him in simple terms without similar loose ends hanging out everywhere? Obviously, no. Then we should not be surprised to find the same challenges when trying to describe his ruling realm.
As was stated in the exposition of Acts 1:3-6 in my book, World Changers, the kingdom is a very broad and complex subject. I sometimes find it easier to explain what it is not than what it is. I appreciate other author’s efforts to deal with the subject, but I never finish reading any article or book on the kingdom without questions and without a sense of unsettledness, a feeling that something still isn’t quite clear about the topic. Likely that says much more about the subject itself than about men’s efforts to delve into it. I am quite sure that anyone reading my comments about it will finish with similar feelings. But it is a glorious subject, one of great significance in Old Testament prophecy and one that prompted many comments in the New Testament, from Matthew to Revelation. With all of that in mind, please begin reading with the thought in mind that you are going to receive some introductory knowledge that will hopefully prompt in you the desire to dig deeper, and that the subject deserves to have you start (or continue) digging soon.
The Universal Kingdom
If we were to accept the Matthew 6:10 definition of the kingdom as a realm in which God’s will is done, we would soon encounter the complexity of which we spoke earlier. For example, consider these broad, sweeping comments regarding the reign of God:
1 Chronicles 29:11-12: “Yours, O LORD, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the majesty and the splendor, for everything in heaven and earth is yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honor come from you; you are the ruler of all things. In your hands are strength and power to exalt and give strength to all.”
Psalm 29:10: “The LORD sits enthroned over the flood; the LORD is enthroned as King forever.”
Psalm 103:19: “The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.”
Isaiah 10:13-14: “For he says: ‘By the strength of my hand I have done this, and by my wisdom, because I have understanding. I removed the boundaries of nations, I plundered their treasures; like a mighty one I subdued their kings. As one reaches into a nest, so my hand reached for the wealth of the nations; as men gather abandoned eggs, so I gathered all the countries; not one flapped a wing, or opened its mouth to chirp.'”
Isaiah 37:16: “O LORD Almighty, God of Israel, enthroned between the cherubim, you alone are God over all the kingdoms of the earth. You have made heaven and earth.
Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.”
Lamentations 3:37-38: “Who can speak and have it happen if the Lord has not decreed it? [38] Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?”
Daniel 2:21: “He changes times and seasons; he sets up kings and deposes them. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the discerning.”
Daniel 4:17: “The decision is announced by messengers, the holy ones declare the verdict, so that the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men.”
So, what are all of these passages saying? That God reigns over all of creation, animate and inanimate, and nothing happens without his knowledge of it, and in one sense, his approval of it. He indeed is King of kings, and not a sparrow falls to the ground without it fitting into the will of God in one way or another. Because of his absolute sovereignty, he can call Nebuchadnezzar his “servant” (Jeremiah 43:10) and use one wicked nation after another to punish his own people or one another. All of these sinful, rebellious kings were instruments of God to accomplish his purposes, for he is King over all and the whole universe is thus his kingdom!
In this broadest sense of the kingdom, are those in it doing his will? Yes and no. The pigs, lizards, and the like are doing pretty well. They are doing what they were created to do, and without any comprehension of it whatsoever, they are doing his will for them – fulfilling their purpose. Similarly, human beings in general, including those in rebellion, are involuntarily doing his will in some ways. But as we begin this consideration, we have to keep Paul’s words in mind when he wrote: “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out” (Romans 11:33). God has always had spiritual goals in mind as he led history toward Golgotha, and while choices have always been left up to man, especially spiritual choices, he still had his way in working all things together for his purposes. As Galatians 4:4 puts it, when the time was fully ripe for his coming, he sent his Son into the world. As McGuiggan described it, “Within the scope of God’s rule are two classes of men, those in his favor (and in subjection to him) and those who don’t have his favor (and who are in subjection to him). (The Reign of God, page 20)
A Kingdom Within a Kingdom
This statement brings us to a consideration of men who are in the favor of God. Everyone from Adam onward who were (or became) people of faith, were a part of a kingdom within a kingdom. They voluntary submitted to their God as their King, which made them a part of two kingdoms at once. The spiritual part of the kingdom has gone through various phases, and can easily be overlooked or misunderstood. Before the Law of Moses was given at the inauguration of the Judaistic kingdom, those who were faithful to God were in his spiritual kingdom – whether it was officially called a kingdom or not. If he was the king, they were his subjects. If his will was being done by them, they were in his kingdom of the redeemed. This kingdom before the cross was nonetheless based on the sacrifice made on the cross, for Jesus was the Lamb slain from the creation of the world – Revelation 13:8. The citizens of that early kingdom understood none of this, but they didn’t have to. God did. They just had to be faithful to the light God had given them.
Then historically, the kingdom of the Jews was established at Sinai. God’s will was for all of those descendants of Abraham to be a spiritual kingdom under his kingship. He made this clear through Moses in Exodus 19:5-6: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” However, although this lofty goal for Israel represented God’s ideal will, it didn’t play out in an ideal fashion. In fact, by the end of the Wilderness Wandering period, Deuteronomy was written to correct legalistic views of observing the Law that had developed in just a forty year period, which explains why so much in this amazing Book was addressing the heart. But Deuteronomy did not halt the slide into legalism (and worse). From its inception, the nation of Israel became a nation within a nation, a kingdom within a kingdom. The whole nation was used as God’s instrument to prepare for the coming of the Messiah and to produce him. Sadly, only a remnant (the spiritual kingdom within the physical kingdom) was faithful to him.
Paul certainly made this principle clear with his comments in Romans 9-11. For example, in Romans 9:6 he wrote, “For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” In those same chapters, he made it abundantly clear that it had always been the case that only a remnant was faithful and a part of the true Israel. The reason the majority were not right with God during the first century can be traced back to their mistaken view of what being an Israelite meant, and did not mean, spiritually.
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the ‘stumbling stone” (Romans 9:30-32).
Thus, the Jews (particularly the religious ones) believed that they were right with God by virtue of being the physical descendants of Abraham. John the Baptist addressed this mistaken view by saying in Matthew 3:9, “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.”
This explains why there had to be a kingdom within a kingdom, a spiritual kingdom and a physical kingdom existing concurrently. The nation may have become a nation at Sinai, and although God used them for his ultimate purposes, they were often a nation in rebellion. Praise God for the encouragement we get from knowing that there was a remnant even in the worst of times, Ruth being a shining example of that – even though a foreign proselyte. Even in the largely apostate Northern Kingdom during the time of the divided kingdom, Elijah was told by God that the remnant numbered 7,000 (1 Kings 19:18).
The most important phase of the Israelite kingdom began when David was made king, for God promised him that someone from his lineage would remain on the throne forever. Saul’s family lost the throne due to his sin, but David’s family would never abdicate the throne to another family. Of course, the ultimate Davidic king who would reign forever and ever was none other than Jesus the Messiah.
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6-7).
As mentioned in our earlier comments under Acts 1:6, the apostles’ question about restoring the kingdom to Israel was not a dumb or naive question. The kingdom of the Messiah was a restored kingdom, especially relevant historically because from the time of the Babylonian captivity until Jesus was crowned, there was not a king on David’s throne (meaning from his lineage). Read back over the comments in the Acts 1 exposition if this is unclear to you. The kingdom of Christ was given first to the Jews as a fulfillment of many OT prophecies, and it was a number of years before Gentiles began flooding into his kingdom. Of course, the OT foretold the inclusion of the Gentiles, but the Jews evidently understood this to mean that they would come in through the funnel of Judaism. That misinterpretation led to the Jew/Gentile controversy in the early church that nearly split it.
The Ultimate Kingdom of David
This phase of the kingdom became a reality in conjunction with the Messiah. In this phase of the kingdom, the “kingdom within a kingdom” scenario was destined to become a thing of the past. Although God used the physical kingdom of Judaism for his ultimate purposes to bless mankind, this kingdom essentially failed as a spiritual kingdom, for several reasons. This failure is described by Jesus in Matthew 21:43 thusly: “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.” In this case, he is saying that the special purpose of the physical kingdom was ending and being given to those who would comprise the Messianic spiritual kingdom. The whole approach to God was undergoing a radical change – a change that few of the Jews understood. The author of Hebrews gives us insight into that change in Hebrews 8:11, as he describes the difference between the old covenant of Moses and the new covenant of Christ. “No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.”
In the old covenant, a person was born into the covenant and had to be taught about God (which was a part of the failure mentioned previously). In the new covenant, every person has to be first taught and then born (reborn spiritually). That marked a monumental change and insured that none could enter the covenant of Christ without knowing what they were doing and choosing to do it. Hence, the introduction of the new covenant of the risen Christ marked the end of having a kingdom within a kingdom in the same sense as during the Mosaic covenant.
The term kingdom is used over 100 times in the four Gospel accounts, and about a third that often in the remainder of the NT. Jesus’ uses of this term were quite varied. Many times, especially in parables, he spoke of kingdom growth (mustard seed, leaven) or the judgment of his kingdom (tares among the good seed, fish in the net) or kingdom value (pearl of great price, treasure in the field). Passages like Matthew 13:38 seem to use the term in the universal sense that we spoke of near the beginning of this article, for the field was referred to as the whole world in this passage.
The Inauguration of the Messianic Kingdom
Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the Messianic kingdom comes in trying to ascertain when it actually was instituted. Keep in mind as we move to this consideration that I believe that the church and the kingdom are not exact equivalents. I said that in the Acts 1 exposition, but I will need to say it again here to avoid any possible confusion.
Traditionally, leaders in our movement have equated the church and the kingdom, and have thus taught that the kingdom (church) was established in Acts 2 – as Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 converged on the Day of Pentecost. I can see what seems to be fairly compelling reasoning for teaching it in this manner. On the other hand, I see passages in the Gospels that seem to clearly say that the kingdom was in existence during the ministry of King Jesus. This complexity is not easily solved, at least in my mind.
The main passages that are used for pointing to the kingdom being in existence during Jesus’ ministry are easy to find and list. (All are from the NIV unless noted.)
Matthew 4:17: From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Matthew 5:3: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:10: “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
Matthew 12:28: “But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
Matthew 19:14: “Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’”
Matthew 21:31: “Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.”
Matthew 23:13: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”
Luke 10:9: “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, ‘The kingdom of God is near you.’”
Luke 12:32: “Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom.”
Luke 17:20-21: “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!‘ or, ‘There it is!‘ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (NASB).
In looking at these passages, it cannot be doubted that the kingdom of Jesus was present in his ministry. After all, in Matthew 9:6 Jesus said that he had authority on earth to forgive sins, and if one’s sins were forgiven, they were a part of his kingdom. However, the greater question to me is in what sense his kingdom was present. Other passages seem to point to a sense in which the kingdom was not yet present, and I don’t refer to the kingdom in heaven after the resurrection. Look at these passages also from the Gospel accounts.
Matthew 3:1-2: “In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the Desert of Judea and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.'”
Matthew 11:11: “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
Matthew 16:18-19 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 20:21: “‘What is it you want?’ he asked. She said, ‘Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.'”
Mark 14:25: “I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God.”
Mark 15:43: “Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body.”
Luke 19:11: “While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.”
Both John and Jesus said that the kingdom of God was near. Given what is said about John in Matthew 11, it doesn’t seem possible that he was saying that the kingdom of God was then present when he said that it was near. The apparent interchangeable use of church and kingdom in the same context of Matthew 16, combined with the fact that the apostles didn’t begin to use their binding and loosing authority mentioned there until after Pentecost gives pause as well. In Matthew 20, the request of James’ and John’s mother seemed to indicate that she saw the kingdom as yet future. Correctly or incorrectly, I’ve long thought that Jesus joining us in communion (Mark 14:25) happens in the church in a spiritual sense. Joseph of Arimathea evidently wasn’t aware of the kingdom being present. Luke 19:11 seems to have been spoken to clarify that the kingdom of God was not going to appear immediately. Of course, it could be argued that this passage was referring to the heavenly stage of the kingdom.
But then we come back to Acts 1. Jesus had opened the minds of the apostles in order to teach and prepare them for all that was soon to occur. The teaching took place over a forty day period. They still were asking about when the kingdom was coming, regardless of what you choose to do about the word “restore.” These men who were closest to Jesus all during his ministry and personally were instructed by him in this forty day crash course about the kingdom topic didn’t see it as being in existence yet – even after his resurrection from the dead. Something much bigger was to come regarding the kingdom.
Therefore, while it seems apparent that the kingdom of God was present in the person of Jesus during his earthly ministry, those who saw and heard him did not seem to grasp much of what that meant, including the apostles. To assume that it was as much in evidence before Pentecost as afterwards strains my sense of knowledge and my sense of logic. As another writer stated it, could there really have been a crown without a cross? I know that the fairly popular “now, not yet” formula sees two phases of the kingdom as being an earthly phase instituted during the ministry of Jesus and a heavenly phase when time is no more. At this point of my own study, I would propose a “now, not yet, not yet” formula from the vantage point of Acts 1. The now was largely the preparatory phase of Jesus’ ministry, in which much groundwork was laid for the future and much teaching was addressed toward the Jewish mindset. The first not yet phase was ushered in at Pentecost when the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was first publicly proclaimed after it became a reality. It was still a not yet phase during the ministry of Christ. And of course the final not yet phase would refer to the kingdom after it is delivered up to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).
One final consideration leads me to the conclusions stated above – namely, the connection between the Messiah’s kingdom and his covenant. Ezekiel 37:15-28 is without doubt a Messianic passage, predicting the new David (Jesus) reigning over his kingdom forever, ruling it with an everlasting covenant of peace. The reign of Jesus as King occurs in conjunction with his new covenant. Therefore, the question must be asked, when was the new covenant instituted? That cannot be other than in Acts 2.
Hebrews 9:15-17: “For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance–now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living.”
The new covenant is compared to a will, which only goes into effect after the maker of the will dies. The period from the death of Christ to the Day of Pentecost, when I believe the new covenant went into effect, was something like a probationary period before a will becomes totally legal. That is at least the case with manmade wills.
To my way of thinking, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom that took place during the earthly ministry of Jesus had to be primarily preparatory preaching. The very foundation of the kingdom gospel message is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 was not heart and soul of the message, it was yet an incomplete gospel. Of course, Jesus taught about his death and resurrection during his earthly ministry, but who really understood it? The apostles certainly didn’t, and they were of all people the best candidates to understand it. Instead, even immediately after the resurrection they were fearfully hiding behind closed doors – until the Spirit came on Pentecost. From that time forward, they were boldness personified, preaching and living the gospel of the resurrected, ascended King and spreading his new covenant everywhere. Passages like Isaiah 2, Daniel 2 and Joel 2 come together in Acts 2 in a way that they do not come together elsewhere – including during the earthly ministry of Jesus.
What Are the Real Issues Here?
I don’t think the real underlying issue is when the Messianic phase of the kingdom was instituted. 2000 years have passed. In my Appendix about Apollos and whether he was re-baptized or not, I make it clear that it really doesn’t matter at all now, one way or the other. You can read that Appendix if you like, but my opinion is that those baptized before the cross and who remained faithful were not re-baptized. That would have included the apostles and others. But what difference does it make to us two centuries later? The same circumstances don’t (can’t) exist now, so it is a moot question. The same principle could be applied to the institution of the kingdom. Whether that occurred during the ministry of Jesus or on the Day of Pentecost, the kingdom of the Messiah has been around for a long time and the real issue for us is to discover exactly what being a part of that kingdom now should mean to us and how it must show up in our thinking and doing. If we are indeed kingdom people, we must live like it! That’s the real issue.
It seems to me that the renewed emphasis on the kingdom in the Gospels comes at least partially from the desire to avoid the malady of equating the kingdom with the church, especially in combination with the strong tendency to have an institutionalized view of the church. I understand that malady, and malady is a good word to describe it. Most who claim to follow Christ have indeed developed a very institutional view of the church, and tend to preach the gospel of the church rather than the gospel of Christ. However, we have two problems to address and hopefully solve – wrong views of both the kingdom and of the church.
If I am correct in my assumption regarding one motivation behind the renewed kingdom emphasis, we have somewhat of a parallel in the motivation behind using the term disciple rather than Christian. The word Christian is only used three times in the NT, and not defined well at all. Perhaps for that reason, the word has come to be used in so many ways that violate Scripture that those in our movement have opted to use the term disciple. It is used many times and is defined from many angles. In perhaps a similar way, using the term kingdom gets us back into the Scripture with fresh eyes and helps reduce the focus on the term church, which is so misunderstood and misapplied in our day.
However, a real difference exists in these two word choices (kingdom and disciple, in lieu of church and Christian). It is true that Christian is little used and defined in the NT. Conversely, it is not true that church is little used and defined in the NT. From Acts through Revelation, kingdom is used 35 times, whereas church is used 75 times. Most of the times the word church is used, it refers to a local assembly of believers. Perhaps that makes the term easier to institutionalize. However, some of the passages about the church are as lofty as could be imagined, and in these cases, using the word kingdom interchangeably would seem appropriate. Read the following verses and see what you think.
Acts 20:28: “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
Ephesians 1:18-23: “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.”
Ephesians 3:14-21: “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge–that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.”
Hebrews 12:22-29: “But you have come to Mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living God. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the judge of all men, to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, ‘Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.’ The words ‘once more’ indicate the removing of what can be shaken–that is, created things–so that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.”
Again, I think I understand the reluctance some have of in any way equating the kingdom with the church. But both terms need to be clarified, sanctified and perhaps fumigated. I am totally supportive of all efforts to help us see what Jesus envisioned his kingdom to be (regardless of the date of its institution), for we have lost our radical edge as a movement. At one time, using the term disciple called us to that radical edge, but it too has become an institutionalized term for many of us. To those in that category, it means little more than being a part of an ICOC related church. Therefore, if using the term kingdom can direct us back into studying the kingdom life, which is biblically a very radical, cross-cultural life, I say “Amen and Amen!” I just want to make sure I get to that point by employing a correct hermeneutic in the process.
I deeply desire to help us see the kingdom of God in its eternal significance, reaching back into eternity before the world was created and reaching forward into the eternity of which I long to be a part. I also want to help us see the church as the blood-bought Body of Christ, consisting of all the saved on earth, who are at the same time a part of the kingdom – called to be his spiritual representatives to do what Christ did while in his earthly sojourn. While the church is not equal to the kingdom, it is certainly a part of God’s kingdom. In the church, we are subjects of the King and we subject our lives to the rule and reign of God. It may not all be simple and easy to understand, hence the need to keep digging, but our study should lead us to a deeper understanding of the kingdom and its ever increasing glory as we await that day when “Thy Kingdom Come” is fulfilled in the grandest way possible, for all eternity.
