Showing posts with label kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kingdom. Show all posts

Friday, March 27, 2015

Kings, Priests, and Promises

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lᴏʀᴅ, when I will fulfill the promise I made to the house of Israel and the house of Judah.  In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch to spring up for David, and he shall execute justice and righteousness in the land.  In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely.  And this is the name by which it will be called: “The Lᴏʀᴅ is our righteousness.”

For thus says the Lᴏʀᴅ: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.

The word of the Lᴏʀᴅ came to Jeremiah: Thus says the Lᴏʀᴅ: If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers.  As the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the offspring of David my servant, and the Levitical priests who minister to me.  (Je 33:14-22)


At the time of the prophet Jeremiah, Babylon was besieging Jerusalem. Both as comfort in the face of fear and uncertainty, as well as promising a future, God reaffirms to His people the offices of king and priest.  He had made a covenant with David (2 Sa 7:12-16) guaranteeing that his throne would endure forever as confirmation of Jacob’s prophetic blessing.
The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
    nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
    and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.  (Ge 49:10)
Those promises, made centuries apart, were still effective, though not yet realized.  Now, at the brink of national destruction, the people would be questioning whether or not the covenants were still valid.  An invading army would soon breach the walls and carry off the people to a strange land.  Where was the future?  In this scenario, the Lord reaffirms His word.  The promises of rule and priesthood are as certain as the covenant of day and night (Ge 8:22), possibly inferring that the offices were more certain than natural order.

The affirmation through Jeremiah of the Davidic rule is remarkable for at least three reasons:

Given to both Israel and Judah – Israel had been taken into Assyrian captivity approximately 125 years prior, yet here the covenant was restated with both halves in full share of what would come.  What was cut off will be restored.

Righteous Branch – A righteous one will reign, even one more righteous than “the man after God's own heart.”  David was a sinner, though accounted righteous for his faith.  The coming King will be greater in every way because of His intrinsic righteousness.  No sin will be found in Him.

A name – How many cities and nations do you know that can rightfully accept the name “The Lᴏʀᴅ our righteous”?  At that time, the Lord will dwell among His people, and He shall be their God.  The Righteous One will be among a righteous people that He pronounced clean and holy by virtue of Christ’s shed blood.

For these promises to come to pass, it seems that God Himself would need to undertake the mission.  But that’s the point.  The coming messiah, who will establish David’s throne forever, will be God in flesh.  He is the only one worthy and able to fulfill the task.

What about the priesthood?  Looking at the passage, we have an odd remix of the Mosaic code that deserves some investigation.

No atonement sacrifices – No Sin or Guilt offerings are mentioned, as well as the lack of the Day of Atonement.  The reason for these omissions should be self-evident: the time of restoration will be when sin and guilt are removed.  Jesus, doing what animal bloodshed could not do, has become the last atoning sacrifice by taking on Himself all sin and paying the price of redemption in full on our behalf.  Nothing is left to accomplish.

Lack of high priest – The high priest was required to perform specific duties, especially on the Day of Atonement, but he is missing.  Jesus became our high priest after the order of Melchizedek.  He continues forever in this role in the beauty of holiness, bearing us before the Father on His heart and shoulders, ever representing man to God and God to man.

Continual sacrifices – Burnt offerings, grain offerings, and miscellaneous sacrifices take place.  How is this possible?  If Jesus is the final sacrifice, how can any remain?  The answer seems to be in accepting these as typological rather than literal.  The offerings and sacrifices mentioned were sweet savor and other freewill offerings.  Rather than slain animals, they are our worship and obedience as the Lord Jesus rules over us.  This will be the overflow of gratitude, similar to that worship pictured in the book of Revelation, for whatever comes from the Father, having humble acceptance and full assurance that it is both good and perfect.

Continuing Levitical priesthood – There is a priesthood that remains.  As our Lord Jesus became a high priest after another, better order, so we are a holy, royal priesthood according to that order, replacing what could not be fulfilled by the Levitical priesthood.  The new priesthood is unending as we continually are ministering before God, having received Him as our inheritance.

As mentioned, there was a temptation by those in Jerusalem and Judah to lose hope and turn their backs on these certainties—basically giving up on God.  Any who did were rejected by the Lord.  These are precious promises.  Similarly, the writer of Hebrews also warns to not turn back from promises made certain by the Lord of glory and expressed in clear testimony.  God is faithful.  Let us run with endurance.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.  (He 12:1-2)

Thursday, November 1, 2012

Not Inheriting the Kingdom of God

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.  I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.  (Gal 5:19-21)

I listened to a message recently that equated inheritance in the kingdom of God with the fullness of Christian reward with the net effect that believers who practice such things will lose out and be saved "though as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15).*  While this thesis bolsters the doctrine of Eternal Security, it forces an unwarranted interpretation on the plain text.  In this section Paul is admonishing and exhorting the Galatian believers to "walk according to the Spirit."  For effect he intersperses warnings to not "bite and devour" or indulge in other sinful practices, which is a characteristic of those who will not inherit the kingdom (i.e., unbelievers).

The clarification can be found by examining the words used.  Paul writes that the fleshly characteristics are found among those who do them.  The Greek (πράσσοντες) can be translated this way, but
is the verb for habitual practice…, not ποιω for occasional doing.  The habit of these sins is proof that one is not in the Kingdom of God and will not inherit it.†
As a result there appears to be no possibility to confuse these practitioners of fleshly works with true believers, who are manifest by the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) having crucified the flesh (Gal 5:24).  The early church had this understanding as well:
  • Irenaeus, Against Heresies, VI.3 – Wherefore also it comes to pass, that the “most perfect” among them addict themselves without fear to all those kinds of forbidden deeds of which the Scriptures assure us that “they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”
  • Tertullian, Against Marcion, V.10 – Therefore, when exhorting them to cherish the hope of heaven, he says: “As we have borne the image of the earthy, so let us also bear the image of the heavenly,”—language which relates not to any condition of resurrection life, but to the rule of the present time.  He says, Let us bear, as a precept; not We shall bear, in the sense of a promise—wishing us to walk even as he himself was walking, and to put off the likeness of the earthly, that is, of the old man, in the works of the flesh.  For what are this next words?  “Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.”  He means the works of the flesh and blood, which, in his Epistle to the Galatians, deprive men of the kingdom of God.
  • Nemesianus of Thubunae, Seventh Council of Carthage – Therefore, whatsoever things all heretics and schismatics do are carnal, as the apostle says: “For the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornications, uncleannesses, incest, idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, contentions, jealousy, anger, divisions, heresies, and the like to these; concerning which have told you before, as I also foretell you now, that whoever do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  And thus the apostle condemns, with all the wicked, those also who cause division, that is, schismatics and heretics.
  • John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5 – Answer me now, you who accuse your own flesh and suppose that this is said of it as of an enemy and adversary.  Let it be allowed that adultery and fornication proceed, as you assert, from the flesh; yet hatred, variance, emulations, strife, heresies, and witchcraft, these arise merely from a depraved moral choice.  And so it is with the others also, for how can they belong to the flesh?  You observe that he is not here speaking of the flesh, but of earthly thoughts, which trail upon the ground.  Wherefore also he alarms them by saying, that “they which practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”  If these things belonged to nature and not to a bad moral choice, his expression, “they practice,” is inappropriate, it should be, “they suffer.”  And why should they be cast out of the kingdom, for rewards and punishments relate not to what proceeds from nature but from choice?‡
What of Corinth?
Those who know their Bibles typically raise questions about the church in Corinth, since many of the above fleshly works were active in that church, causing no end of pain and work for Paul as he attempted to correct the errors.  Were those who engaged in them unbelievers?  Possibly, but the error in Corinth was a reckless misuse of spiritual things in the name of freedom, while the Galatians were being enticed to overly regulate or control that freedom.  Both groups were assuming their course demonstrated spiritual maturity, but both led away from the truth.  The problems in Corinth were specific in nature and could be addressed by pointed correction.  In Galatia, the foundation of their salvation was being undermined, so that Paul needed to make the broad comparison between flesh and Spirit.

In the end, Paul is not accusing the Galatians of practicing the works of flesh, though they may be certainly present in some occasional form, but building a case to broadly illustrate how they were trying to use the flesh to fulfill the work of the Spirit, denying Christ's sufficiency and placing ultimate completion of salvation on what I can accomplish—a hopeless endeavor.



*  I know of this interpretation having read The Reign of the Servant Kings by Joseph Dillow, Schoettle Publishing Company, Miami Springs, FL 33266.

† A. W. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament.

‡ A little background may be helpful.  Chrysostom is arguing against those who were teaching a dualism of of man's flesh and spirit.  He concludes that this is improper and whatever one claims for the origin of the sins in life, the practice of those prevents us from the kingdom.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Who Builds the Kingdom of Heaven?

The following is from the book What is the Mission of the Church? by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert (133-34) describing the language we use concerning the Kingdom of God.  I was surprised by the difference between how we describe our action in the kingdom compared to scriptural language.  Let's just say that we give ourselves far too much credit for the work.  Within the quote is another coming from George Ladd’s book The Presence of the Future (Eerdmans, 1996).

When you look at the Gospels and examine the verbs associated with the kingdom, you discover something surprising.  Much of our language about the kingdom is a bit off.  We often speak of "building the kingdom," "ushering in the kingdom," "establishing the kingdom," or "helping the kingdom grow."  But is this really the way the New Testament talks about the kingdom?  George Eldon Ladd, the man who put the kingdom back on the map for evangelicals, didn’t think so.
The Kingdom can draw near to men (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; etc.); it can come (Matt. 6:10; Luke 17:20; etc.), arrive (Matt. 12:28), appear (Luke 19:11), be active (Matt. 11:12), God can give the Kingdom to men (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32), but men do not give the Kingdom to one another.  Further, God can take the Kingdom away from men (Matt. 21:43), but men do not take it away from one another, although they can prevent others from entering it.  Men can enter the Kingdom (Matt. 5:20; 7:21; Mark 9:47; 10:23; etc.) but they are never said to erect it or to build it.  Men can receive the Kingdom (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), inherit it (Matt. 25:34), and possess it (Matt. 5:4), but they are never said to establish it.  Men can reject the Kingdom, i.e., refuse to receive it (Luke 10:11) or enter it (Matt. 23:13), but they cannot destroy it. they can look for it (Luke 23:51), pray for its coming (Matt. 6:10), and seek it (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31), but they cannot bring it.  Men may be in the Kingdom (Matt. 5:19; 8:11; Luke 13:29; etc.), but we are not told that the Kingdom grows.  Men can do things for the sake of the Kingdom (Matt. 19:12; Luke 18:29), but they are not said to act upon the Kingdom itself.  Men can preach the Kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9), but only god can give it to men (Luke 12:32).
We’ve quoted this section in our works.  But when we’ve used it in the past, we’ve been uncomfortable with the line "we are not told that the kingdom grows."  It seemed to us that the parable of the sleepy farmer (Mark 4:26-29) and the parable of the mustard seed (4:30-32) clearly teach that the kingdom grows.  But as we’ve studied the passages more carefully, we think you can make a good case that Jesus is not teaching about the growth of the kingdom as much as he is demonstrating that the kingdom of small beginnings will, at the close of the age, be the kingdom of cosmic significance.  The kingdom may look unimpressive now, with nothing but a twelve-man band of fumbling disciples, but one day all will see its glorious end.

To borrow a cliché, the kingdom is what it is.  It does not expand.  It does not increase.  It does not grow.  But the kingdom can break in more and more.  This of it like the sun.  When the clouds part on a cloudy day we don’t say, "The sun has grown."  We say, "The sun has broken through."  Our view of the sun has changed or obstacles to the sun have been removed, but we have not changed the sun.  The sun does not depend on us.  We do not bring the sun or act upon it. The sun can appear.  Its warmth can be felt or stifled.  But the sun does not grow.  (Science guys, don’t get all technical, you know what we mean.)  This seems a good analogy for the kingdom.

God certainly uses means and employs us in his work.  But we are not makers or bringers of the kingdom.  The kingdom can be received by more and more people but this does not entail growth of the kingdom.  We herald the kingdom and live according to its rules.  But we do not build it or cause it to grow because it already is and already has come.  As Ladd put it:
The Kingdom is the outworking of the divine will; it is the act of God himself.  It is related to human beings and can work in and through them; but it never becomes subject to them . . . The ground of the demand that they receive the Kingdom rests in the fact that in Jesus the Kingdom has come into history.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Church or Kingdom?

Paul McCain at Cyberbrethren has a good, short piece on a faulty distinction being made between working for the Church and working for the Kingdom of God.

My guess is that those who promote the latter see the church today as being in ruins similar to John Nelson Darby in Ireland and Alexander Campbell in the U.S. about 150-175 years ago. Basically, the  message was that the institutional church had abandoned its proper place and something needed to be salvaged from the vestiges: allow what was called "church" to self-destruct while true Christians were to come out and continue the work of the Lord. And therein is the faulty thinking.

The church is an organic unit whether or not we like its condition. What is sickly or self-destructive affects the whole and needs to be dealt with. Semper Reformanda is not a uniquely confessional slogan but one that each local church, denomination, etc. needs to realize for itself.

The work of the Kingdom is accomplished by the church. Why do we think it can be trashed for something new?