Notice that the error of the conservative Churches of Christ is not quite Judaic. It’s not that they’re trying to be like the Jews of the Old Testament. It’s pagan.
It’s not that the faith/works arguments made by Paul in Romans and Galatians don’t apply. They do — but not as precisely as the contrast with paganism. The Jews generally did not see God as damning them over any and all ritual error.
They certainly considered it extremely important to get the ritual right. But they weren’t afraid of losing their election as God’s children over each and every rite and ritual. They knew that God had elected the Jews to be his before they’d performed the first ceremony. The Temple ceremonies were in response to God’s choosing of Israel — a celebration of their election and marriage as a nation to God. It was not about hoping to maybe, if at all possible, qualify for God’s good pleasure.
On the other hand, they well understood that having a callous disregard for God’s instructions could cost them dearly. God had made that clear throughout their history. Nonetheless, a First Century Pharisee would see a 1960s Church of Christ as closer to the Romans than the Jews in terms of their understanding of the assembly.
Yes, there were sects of the Jews who took Sabbath obedience and other scruples to absurd extremes, but they saw the Sabbath as a mark of saved status, not a means of earning salvation. As N. T. Wright explains in Luke for Everyone,
[The Pharisees] held what we would call a strong political belief, backed up with religious sanctions: their rules were designed to make people keep the Jewish law as best they could, so that Israel would be made holy, and thus God would bring in the kingdom. The lawyers weren’t trying to set up complex systems as hoops for people to jump through to make sure they were saved; they were trying to codify as much of the Jewish law as they could, working out more and more complex possibilities of situations that might arise when on would need to know what was the right thing to do. Neither of these corresponds very closely to forms of Christian teaching, even degenerate forms, in the modern world.
Second, the Pharisees were a pressure group in what we would call the social and political sphere. They were far more like a group in society who take it upon themselves to urge people to obey particular codes: like those, for instance, who insist upon various “green” policies for the disposal of garbage. We may agree with the policies, but the point is that these aren’t simply “religious” duties in the old sense. And in particular, at least in the Western world where the press is relatively free, there are many whole newspapers, as well as individual journalists, who take it upon themselves to be the guardians of public morality. They will shriek in mock-horror at all kinds of offences, and take delight in pointing the finger at the rich and respectable. But at the same time many of the journalists who make a living by doing all this are by no means shining examples of moral virtue. In some cases they are the ones who load heavy burdens on people’s backs but don’t themselves lift a finger to move them.
It’s a subtle but important point. The Pharisees’ agenda wasn’t so much to be saved by obedience to their rules as to mark the truly holy and God-fearing by their own rules. After all, they knew that many of their rules weren’t strictly required by God at all. They were often imposing the rules for how to live as a priest on ordinary Jews in order to further separate themselves from the surrounding Romans and Greeks — and in hopes that this would hasten the coming of the Messiah.
But the pagans did rites and rituals as a quid pro quo — as a trade — in which they earned godly good will for strict adherence to difficult-to-follow rules. Indeed, much of the numen earned for obedience was due to the very difficulty of getting the rituals right.
And so, this inevitably brings us to the question of what is the correct understanding of the assembly, the organization of the church, and such like. If these aren’t arbitrary rules imposed by God in order to test our faith, our willingness to study diligently, and to strictly comply — thereby proving our faithfulness — what are they?
And here is where our view of God has to be radically adjusted. Let’s start by ruminating on the closely connected question: Why didn’t God take us straight to heaven when he saved us? (We’ll come back to the assembly, but we have to adjust quite several understandings on our way there.)
I mean, if the goal of Christianity is to get souls into heaven, then the obvious plan would be to convert someone, baptize him, and have his soul go straight to heaven, right out of the baptistry.
Of course, the obvious problem with this plan is that would leave no one behind to convert the rest. And so we often conclude that the purpose of the Christian life is to convert others, who will, in turn, convert others. Thus, Christianity is reduced to “save others so they’ll save others.” It’s all about going to heaven when we die, and the in-between part is merely so that we can spread the bad news of hellfire for the damned and the good news of salvation from hellfire for the saved.
Christianity thus becomes very hell-focused. We wouldn’t know how to even preach a gospel sermon without first preaching on hell. Hell becomes the central doctrine, because “salvation” is understood mainly as “not going to hell.” I mean, heaven sounds very nice and all, but the real motivation is not eternity in heaven, it’s fleeing hell.
And in the contemporary world, lessons on hell are so offensive and so hard to explain that we have trouble teaching the good news. The bad news is just so bad and so contrary to contemporary thought that we just can’t persuade anyone that a loving God would torture a 12-year old for all eternity for a single sin.
Seriously. I’m persuaded that the reason we in the Churches of Christ (and Baptists and most others) have lost our evangelistic zeal is that the doctrine of hell has become un-teachable. Sure, an old-school preacher can still muster a great hellfire-and-brimstone sermon, but the members won’t go across the street and talk to their neighbors about it.
Back when everyone already believed in hell, salvation was an easy sell. But now that salvation has been reduced to “Not hell” and hell has been reduced to “You can’t be serious?!” — well, evangelism is just not what it used to be.
And our hell-fire-damnation theology leads us to read the Bible as a book of rules about how to live to avoid hell-fire-damnation. It leads to a theology of fear because the gospel we teach begins in fear. And founding our theology on fear colors our view of the nature and character of God in very unhealthy ways. It makes it actually believable that God would damn someone over clapping.
Does this mean we need a new understanding of hell? Well, yes it does. But not for the sheerly pragmatic reason that no one is willing to believe in hell anymore. Rather, our struggles should push us back to the Bible to study the truth of the matter once again — because it’s just possible that we’ve been wrong.
Really? Well, consider this. Under the traditional understanding of hell, once a child attains the “age of accountability” — 12? — any single sin is enough to send that child to hell to suffer perpetual, conscious torment. That’s the teaching.
Therefore, when a child of middle-school age dies, who’s not been baptized, we are forced to worry whether that child will spend forever — literally forever — in conscious agony.
And so we push for an earlier baptism — leaving us to wonder whether a baptism at age 8 sticks at all — and so we’re still worried about the eternal fate of dead 12-year olds.
Most people deal with the awfulness of the problem by concluding that God is too good and loving to torture a 12-year old forever — which is quite right and wise. But that just means we don’t believe our own preaching — which hardly leads to evangelistic zeal.
Jay
Ray Vander Laan in his dust of the Rabbi defines a discipleship as the Talmidine or those who not only wanted to believe like the Rabbi but be like the Rabbi. There would not be many of us willing to be that devoted to Jesus as were the students of the Rabbis. Not many qualified.
Evangelism is a word not spoken in the Churches of Christ. We hide behind “Outreach”. I don’t have the answer to the problem. I have tried to start evangelism every place we have been to some success.
but lately it just brands you as a fanatic and a trouble maker especially when the Elders are not behind you. In several congregation it is normal that half of the elders do not attend the services regularly.
You as an Elder have the responsibility to strongly urge your fellow Elders to promote Evangelism. I am running out of time due to age. At the present time we evangelize the local nursing homes. We have taught many and have about five who come to church with us.
In Christ
Bob Harry
In addition to our understanding of hell we also would do well to rethink salvation. Salvation is not ultimately about individuals being saved or lost in a heaven or hell beyond this world. Salvation is ultimately about the will of God being done and the kingdom reign of God coming “on earth as it is in heaven.” The fullness of the Kingdom of God will come when Jesus returns and is seated upon his throne as he assures us will happen in Matthew 25:1. Revelation pictures heaven coming to earth as is proclaimed every time Händel’s Messiah is performed. In the meantime the church as the body of Christ in the world today gives a foretaste to the world of what the coming Kingdom will be like. Salvation is so much more than individual destinations following this life. “For God so loved the world…” John 3:16. The end result of salvation will be the final demonstration of God’s love for this world as it is brought into the Kingdom of God. Earth is not a casualty of human sin. Earth will be the ultimate demonstration of both the love and the power of our God and his Messiah.
Gary,
Why would you state that this world (Earth) will be brought into the Kingdom of God?
Exactly where will this world (Earth) be located when it is consumed and the elements completely burned up? Or better yet where will the Kingdom of God be during that event? Will Christians, Gods children still exist after that event? If they were on Earth will they be evacuated to another place? What value do you place on Jesus’ quote that his kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my servants would fight? Was he correct or confused?
Larry, please note 2 Peter 3:6. The antediluvian world perished or was destroyed by the flood. Yet here we are on the same earth which was renewed after the flood. 2 Peter 3:7 compares the coming conflagration of which you speak to the flood. So that consuming fire will cause this present world also to perish but that does not mean the end of this earth. Earth will be renewed again and be the home of the “coming world,” a phrase the Hebrews writer uses more than once. Thus we look forward, with Peter, to “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.”
Where will the Kingdom of God be? The Kingdom of God refers to the reign of God and not to the realm of God’s reign. So we find the reign of God wherever the will of God is being done. The Kingdom of God is present in the past, the present and the future. So we can say that the Kingdom of God has come, is even now coming and will come. That being said, it is important to remember that the fullness of God’s Kingdom reign will come only when Jesus returns and is finally seated on his throne, the throne of David that the angel Gabriel said he would sit upon before Jesus was born. Jesus tells us exactly when that will be. “When the son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne” (Matthew 25:1).
Larry, we know from Thessalonians that Jesus will bring with him at his return those saints who had previously died. While we don’t know every detail of Christ’s return and the order of events in the end of this world and the inauguration of the coming world, we can rest assured that the Lord is well able to take care of those who are his.
“Really? Well, consider this. Under the traditional understanding of hell, once a child attains the “age of accountability” — 12? — any single sin is enough to send that child to hell to suffer perpetual, conscious torment. That’s the teaching.”
Well first of all they missed the age of accountability by eight years. Provably by bible chapter and verse.
“So that consuming fire will cause this present world also to perish but that does not mean the end of this earth. Earth will be renewed again and be the home of the “coming world,” a phrase the Hebrews writer uses more than once.”
Gary I don’t see the same warning as you do in what Peter has to say. Please break it down for me.
I see where Peter said “earth” not world.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 [Seeing] then [that] all these things shall be dissolved, what manner [of persons] ought ye to be in [all] holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Laymond, it is entirely accurate to say that Dresden was destroyed by fire and the elements in it burned up in the awful firestorm that Allied incendiary bombs caused there in February, 1945. Yet Dresden is there today after being rebuilt or renewed following WW2. Peter tells us us in 2 Peter 3:13 that there will be a new earth following the destruction of the old so he obviously did not mean that the earth as a planet would cease to exist. The English word world in Scripture is used to translate a number of different words in the original biblical languages much like the English word love. Sometimes world and earth are synonomous in Scripture and sometimes they have distinctly different meanings. It makes interpretation difficult but not impossible.
The Book “Heaven” by Randy Alcorn addresses this earth being rebuilt by God after its burned up. He uses lots of scriptures to make his points. Never heard it presented like that and does make you think. Especially think of how we have skipped over or thought some scriptures meant something different.
Of course, this site of Jays makes many of us do the same reexamining of scriptures.
At least we are studying and not just following the crowd and that is always good.
To think we ( any of us) have it all just right is a sin in my opinion.
Laymond,
I offered my understanding of 2 Peter 3:10-13 some time ago in this series of posts —
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-introduction/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-the-new-jerusalem/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-on-reading-figurative-language/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-a-new-creation/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-spiritual-bodies/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-shining-like-stars/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-a-hypothesis/
/2010/01/surprised-by-hope-2-peter-310-13-re-translating-peter/
The last one is specifically about the translation in light of the several prophetic references made by Peter.
Laymond,
You’re quite right that OT defines the age of accountability as 20. I don’t know why we ignore the passages, except for the assumption that “age of accountability” = “old enough to be baptized.” In fact, the Jewish reckoning is very close to modern American legal standards for adulthood — generally from 18 to 21.
It’s seems plain enough that God spared the Israelites younger than 20 from his wrath, and because they “do not yet know good from bad.”
But this only moves the traditional version of hell problem to 8 years later. It remains true, if this is indeed the NT standard, that one sin after attaining age 20 (instead of 12), and you’re destined for perpetual conscious torment. Seems rather precipitous to go from a free ticket to heaven to a one-way ticket to hell at the attainment of a given age and the commission of but a single sin. But that is the traditional doctrine.
Larry,
The Kingdom is plainly present on this world right now. The Kingdom has come.
(Col 1:13-14 ESV) 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
(Rev 1:5b-6 ESV) To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
(Mat 26:29 ESV) 29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
But the scriptures also speak of the Kingdom as yet to come — in its fullness. The Kingdom will not be fully realized until Jesus returns and purges the earth of the unredeemed.
(1Co 15:50 ESV) 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
It’s one of those not-yet/already doctrines, just like the “new creation” — we are already new creations but we are not yet what we will be when Jesus returns.
(Joh 18:36 ESV) 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Notice the last sentence — Jesus is speaking of the origin of the Kingdom more than the location of the Kingdom. The Kingdom comes from heaven because Jesus is King and he comes from heaven.
To quote NT Wright —
http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/conversation.asp
God is bringing forth his Kingdom, with the intent that it be on earth as it is in heaven — which means it should be very different from a worldly kingdom, and so the goal is to join heaven with earth — so that truly the Kingdom will be ruled by God on earth as it is in heaven. This is Rev 21, straight out of the Lord’s Prayer.
elements -> stoicheion — 1) any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal
a) the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds
b) the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe
c) the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside
definition of elements as used in
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Gary I do believe your example of the distruction of a city, falls way short of what Peter describes in his writings.
There will be no foundation left on which to rebuild. I think that is plainly stated.
Gary, and Jay, someone here has said that the new earth was what John saw descending from heaven, have you bothered to examine it’s dimensions? it is shaped nothing like the present earth is shaped, the present earth, as we absolutely know, is shaped like a ball. the city John described was shaped like a box, why was John’ new earth shaped like a box? because he thought this earth was flat, or box like. are we supposed to live in this box, or on it? no we will live in God’s realm as all goods spirits do. I have heard it said many times here on this blog “you can’t put god in a box”
I mean, if the goal of Christianity is to get souls into heaven, then the obvious plan would be to convert someone, baptize him, and have his soul go straight to heaven, right out of the baptistry.
Apparently, I have not been holding them under long enough…
As Jay observes, this gospel we have developed of “what happens when you die” seems an entirely impoverished one. Such a message, to a reasonable person, begs for deathbed conversions, a task to accomplish sometime before one’s expiration– like purchasing a burial policy. The only thing which mitigates against this is the possibility of an unexpected demise, but reducing the essential message of the gospel of Jesus Christ to “you could get hit by a bus, you know” is just absurd. Warning that “People who get hit by buses go to hell” seems a long way from God’s intent in sending his Son.
The Gospel is supposed to be about life, not just navigating death.