Second Chance Gospel — After Death?

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.

View of and Use of the Scriptures

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.

The Government’s Biblical Right of Capital Punishment

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.

Did Paul Sin in Acts 21?

Paul’s Actions in Acts 21

Paul was not only the designated apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8; Romans 11:13), he was a staunch defender of Christianity against attempts to force it into a Jewish mold. A cursory reading of Galatians is enough to see his strong resistance to those Judaizing teachers who would bind aspects of Judaism on Gentiles, or bind it on Jews as a matter of necessity in pleasing God. Clearly he was the most influential voice in the early church against all efforts to blend the religion of the Old Testament with New Testament Christianity. Therefore, after reading about all of his teachings and his battles in this regard, we are somewhat shocked to read about his behavior in the following passage:

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18 The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19 Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

20 When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21 They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22 What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23 so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24 Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25 As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

26 The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Men of Israel, help us! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple area and defiled this holy place.” 29 (They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple area.)

30 The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, news reached the commander of the Roman troops that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. (Acts 21:17-32)

After reading this passage, it is natural to ask the question posed in the title: “Did Paul sin in Acts 21?” The answer to the question is neither simple nor brief. However, it will lead us into some deeper truths that are highly important in understanding the early church and one of the primary challenges it faced.

What Was Paul Thinking?

Reading this section of Scripture without understanding the underlying issues can leave us perplexed and confused. This many years after the cross, with its subsequent termination of the old covenant and inauguration of the new, how could James and Paul be parties to such a blatant observance of Mosaic Judaism? After all, these men were two of the top leaders in the movement. Articles and books have been written by biblical scholars accusing or excusing Paul’s decision here in Acts 21. Did he give in to the influence of James (who was perhaps too close to the forest to see the trees), and just make a serious mistake in judgment with even more serious consequences? Many have alleged this very thing. And then another question looms large. If what he did was permissible, even advisable, what does that say about people continuing to observe many aspects of their former religion today? Some see the possibility of a broader application of the “disputable matters” in Romans 14, extending to non-Judaistic religious practices which would correspond to denominational practices in Christendom or practices in other religions. However, the thrust of Romans makes such applications questionable, for Paul is therein consistently correcting the understanding of the basis of salvation held by those with Jewish backgrounds. But these are good questions to wrestle with, don’t you think?

Let’s examine the denominational issue first, for it seems simpler. Biblical Judaism (not tradition-bound Judaism as we find it during the ministry of Jesus) had been originated by God. Denominationalism was neither introduced nor approved by him, and certainly other world religions were not. The two really don’t compare. Much in the OT is still quite applicable in principle today, excepting the ceremonial laws. Therefore, knowing which biblical principles were to remain in effect required, both then and now, good judgment and discrimination. Even the ceremonial type practices could be viewed as nationalistic and cultural rather than a requirement for pleasing God. Consider Timothy’s circumcision by Paul in that light (Acts 16:1-3), in contrast to Paul’s refusal to circumcise Titus, a non-Jew (Galatians 2:3-5). Therefore, with God’s tacit approval, much of the Law continued to be followed in one way or another during what I believe was a transition period.

Ultimately, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD ended this transition period. Hebrews 8:13 states: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” In other words, the old covenant was obsolete and no longer binding after Acts 2 and the establishment of the church. However, this had not become obvious to non-Christian Jews, but should have become obvious even to them in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed, forever ending Biblical Judaism with its temple, priesthood and animal sacrifices. Thus, it disappeared. But until that time, the God-given Law could be honored by those with Jewish backgrounds, as long as they met two requirements: they could not bind their Judaism on Gentiles; and they could not trust Judaic practices for salvation. Denominationalism is a perversion of Christianity, and as such, does not compare to the first century transitionary period of Judaism.

Now to the other key question: did Paul go too far in trying to please his Jewish brothers in Christ and make a serious error in judgment? The text says nothing to indicate that God was displeased with what he did, unless the ultimate result of going into the temple – false accusation and arrest – is taken to mean that. Certainly his concession did not accomplish its desired end, but this cannot be viewed as proof that he made a mistake or sinned. The principle of 1 Corinthians 9:19-22, that of becoming all things to all men, was to achieve only the saving of “some.” My opinion is that Paul did not sin in what he did, but went as far as possible to satisfy his critics. The failure was with them, not him.

We face similar challenges today. We try to do all that we can to answer logically and sensitively those who criticize us. When we are guilty of making mistakes and committing sins, we must repent and learn from those mistakes. But we refuse to compromise biblical issues, although we are willing to make concessions if we think such will yield favorable results in the overall mission. How well does it work to make concessions in the interest of relating to others? Usually not very well, but we still try to obey the principles of 1 Corinthians 9:19–22 and Romans 12:17-18, which reads: “Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” The real issue is not whether what we do will be approved by men, but whether it will be approved by God. However, we still want to do all we can to be viewed by non-Christians as those deeply desiring to do the right thing. 2 Corinthians 8:21 puts the principle in the apropos words: “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men.”

The early church was soundly criticized and condemned for their determination to follow Jesus. Did they make mistakes which could be rightly criticized? Probably so, since they were human. Certainly we have made our mistakes and committed our sins, but we have continued to repent of them and learn from them. The condemnation of our first century brothers and sisters by the large majority of the society in which they lived was not due to their well-intentioned mistakes. It was because of their convictions and lifestyle which condemned the sins of their fellow man. When young disciples today hear the charges of persecutors, with the old “where there is smoke, there must be fire” adage loudly alleged, they are tempted to doubt the movement and its leaders. “Maybe we really are doing something wrong,” they may think. Just remember that the founder of your religion was God in the flesh, without sin, and yet charged as a blasphemer of God and murdered as a criminal. We can make all of the concessions possible without compromising principles, and the result will often be the same as Paul experienced: emotion-filled outrage and shameless slander. When the modern-day movement of which you are a part is falsely charged, stand tall for Christ. You are in good company with the saints of old.