AS YOU HAVE flipped the dial of your television or radio past the religious broadcasting stations, you’ve probably heard the word millennium. Even the most secular of our population have come to use the term to describe a time in the far-distant future when everything is going to be rosy. In spite of this, some of our most intelligent lay people have only a fuzzy notion of its meaning and of the concepts of the kingdom of God which are embodied in the idea of the millennium.
It would surprise some to learn that this highly popularized word doesn’t appear in the Bible. The idea comes from a vague reference to a thousand-year reign in the twentieth chapter of Revelation, one of the most symbolic chapters in the most symbolic book of the New Testament. From this very obscure text, elaborate doctrines about the kingdom of God and eschatology (a term meaning “the theology of last things”) have been conceived and widely propagated.
In order to understand the millennial theory and its various concepts, we must trudge through some rather arid territory. If you’ll persevere, we’ll explore them together.
The word millennium itself comes from the Latin prefix mille, meaning “a thousand,” and annum, meaning “year.” It has come to mean a literal reign of Christ on the earth for a thousand years. There are four basic views on this subject. They are identified by the following terms: amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism. Now don’t get excited. They’re not as tough as they appear at first glance. The prefixes signify the time that Christ arrives on the scene in relation to the millennium. The prefix a means “no”; therefore, amillennialists believe there will be no literal reign of Christ on the earth. Post, meaning “after,” indicates that Christ will come after a millennium, a thousand years of peace and prosperity; thus, the term postmillennialism. As you would suppose from the prefix pre, premillenialists believe that Christ will come before the millennium and literally reign on the earth during the millennial age. Dispensational premillennialism is more complicated. More of it later.
Amillennialism
The oldest of these four views is the amillennialist, although the term itself is rather recent. Those who subscribe to this doctrine (and it is the traditional view of the Church of God) believe that God is now reigning in the hearts and lives of believers. In other words, the rule of Christ is inward and spiritual—not literal and political. Some who are of this persuasion feel that amillennium is an unfortunate choice of terms, and that now-millennium, or nunc-millennium, would be a more apt description.1 [R. Bradley Jones, What, Where, and When Is the Millennium? (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 10.] Although adherents of amillennialism do not believe that Christ’s second coming will begin a millennial reign, they agree there are future aspects of the kingdom which will take place at the end of time. Generally speaking, the following events are expected according to the teaching of the Scriptures. At a predetermined moment in time, God will bring the world to an end. When this moment arrives, Jesus will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, after destroying every rule and authority and power. (See 1 Cor. 15:24.)
At Christ’s Second Coming, which is clearly predicted in Acts 1:9–11 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, there will be one general resurrection (Acts 24:15, John 5:28–29). After the resurrection will follow immediately the final judgment, when all people—both good and evil—will stand before the judgment seat of Christ to receive their reward or punishment (Acts 17:31, 1 Thess. 1:7–10, and Matt. 25:31–34). Following the final judgment, we will then immediately pass to our eternal abode, whether in heaven or hell. It is then that the earth will be destroyed and all of its works burned up (2 Pet. 3:7–12, Matt. 24:35). Briefly, this is the amillennial position, which I believe most honestly represents the teaching of the New Testament. While it is true this interpretation of Scripture does not answer all questions, it should be realized that Jesus did not answer all his disciples’ questions. But he gave them, and us, enough truth to adequately prepare for his coming.
Postmillennialism
Basically, postmillennialists believe that Christ will return after the millennium which will be brought about through the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit. The more recent forms of postmillennialism “can be described as, on the whole, humanistic and evolutionary in principle. It is represented in the optimistic and largely secular philosophies of recent years which regard the world as in a process of constant amelioration.”2 [E. F. Harrison, ed., Bakers Dictionary of Theology, “Millennium” by Ernest F. Kivan, p. 353.]
In other words, every day, in every way, we’re getting better and better, until finally we’ll arrive at a golden age of peace and prosperity; and then Christ will come. Two World Wars, the atomic bomb and other disillusioning developments have largely annihilated this optimistic dream.
Historic Premillennialism
In the interest of brevity, I will share R. Bradley Jones’ description of the historic premillennialist position:
Historic pre-millennialism advocates the following: Preceding the second coming of Christ the Antichrist will gather his followers for a great assault on the church of Christ, bringing about a period of tribulation. At the close of this tribulation period, Christ suddenly appears in the clouds of heaven. The dead in Christ rise first, the living elect are transfigured and the whole elect people of God then meet the Lord in the air. Christ then descends to the earth with his bride, the church, destroys the Antichrist and at the judgment separates the righteous from the unrighteous, condemning the latter to eternal punishment. Christ then sets up his millennial kingdom, binds Satan, and rules with a rod of iron. At the close of the millennium Satan is loosed and gathers the nations to war against the saints. But Satan’s forces are destroyed by fire from heaven. Then follows the resurrection of the wicked and the Great White Throne judgment. This in turn is followed by the new heaven and the new earth, and the setting up of the eternal kingdom of God.3 [R. Bradley Jones, What, Where, and When Is the Millenium? (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), p. 12. Used by permission.]
Dispensational Premillennialism
Dispensational premillennialism is a very complicated, convoluted theory which is difficult to distill into a compact definition. It contains many of the elements of historic premillennialism, but adds many others to which most traditional premillennialists would take violent exception. C. E. Brown explains that until the middle of the nineteenth century, premillennialism usually consisted of only a vague belief that Christ would set up an earthly kingdom and reign for a thousand years after his second coming.
Brown says that around 1838 J. N. Darby, a Plymouth Brethren minister, developed a complicated new theory that all prophecies concerning the kingdom of Christ were suspended toward the close of Jesus’ earthly ministry, and a makeshift provision, the church age, was instituted to last until the Second Coming. The theory further developed into a system which divided all history into seven dispensations.4 [Charles Ewing Brown, The Reign of Christ (Anderson, Ind.: Gospel Trumpet Co., 1950), p. 23.]
Advocates of this doctrine claim these seven divisions are clearly indicated in Scripture. In each dispensation God deals with his people in a different manner. To add to the confusion, scriptures are supposedly only applicable to those living in the dispensation for which they were given, and are not binding on those of other dispensations. For example, dispensationalists say, “The Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:1–7:29) is especially Jewish, and applicable to Israel in a future kingdom age, the millennium. The Sermon on the Mount, therefore, is law, not grace.”5 [Jesse W. Hodges, Christ’s Kingdom and Coming (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), p. 35.]
In 1878, W. E. Blackstone published Jesus Is Coming, a book which formulated the general teachings of the dispensationalists. Its teachings were incorporated into the Scofield Reference Bible which has been widely read and is largely responsible for the broad acceptance given to dispensational doctrine. Many accept Scofield’s footnotes as readily as Scripture. This is tragic!
Dispensationalists disregard the fact that Israel abrogated God’s covenants by disobedience and contend that every promise is still valid. Every Old Testament prophecy, not already fulfilled, will come to fruition in the millennium. These include the triumph of Israel over its enemies, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, the reinstitution of Old Testament sacrifices, and so forth. Christ will rule this newly established Jewish nation from the throne of David in Jerusalem. One of the more astonishing teachings is that during the millennium, the Jews will become zealous missionaries and win many converts to the cause of Christ.
All of this is to come about because, in their view, Christ’s true mission at his first advent was to establish a literal, political Jewish kingdom. Because the Jews rejected him, he failed; and it became necessary to postpone that kingdom until the millennium, when Christ will establish it by force.
For Discussion
1. What additional scriptures support the belief of the amillennialists that the kingdom of God is inward and spiritual?
2. How did Jesus respond to the Jews of his day who were looking for a literal kingdom? (See Luke 17 and Matt. 23.)
3. Discuss how the particular view of eschatology we hold affects the way we live today.
4. What questions concerning the Second Coming did Jesus leave unanswered? How should we deal with these unanswered questions?
5. Why do you believe dispensational premillennialism has experienced such growth in the last seventy-five years?
6. In light of the fact that so many evangelical scholars have pointed out discrepancies and inconsistencies in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible, how can we account for its continued popularity?
Chapter 6
Dispensationalism: Few Pros and Many Cons
AFTER discussing the various millennial views in the previous chapter, which don’t lend themselves to a very lighthearted writing style, I was reminded of a parent in Houston, Texas, who received the following message from the local high school principal: “Our school’s cross-graded, multi-ethnic, individualized learning program is designed to enhance the concept of an open-ended learning program with emphasis on a continuum of multi-ethnic, academically enriched learning using the identified intellectually gifted child as the agent or director of his own learning.
“Major emphasis is on cross-graded, multi-ethnic learning with the main objective being to learn respect for the uniqueness of the person.” The parent responded, “I have a college degree, speak two foreign languages and four Indian dialects, have been to a number of county fairs and three goat ropings, but I haven’t the faintest idea as to what … you are talking about. Do you?”1 [Indianapolis Times, January 31, 1977.]
While there is no desire to make this book a polemic against the teachings of the dispensational premillennialists, I do want us to know what we’re talking about. A glance at the table of contents will quickly verify that the major portion is devoted to the positive aspects of the kingdom of God, and that is by design.
However, it is difficult to consider the subject of the kingdom and completely ignore the dispensationalists. Dwight Wilson, in a current work entitled Armageddon Now!, conservatively estimates their number to be only eight million.2 [Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 12.] But sometimes, because some of them are so vocal and are such prolific writers, it seems as if they make up a large majority of those teaching and preaching the kingdom, especially on the subject of eschatology. You should be aware of some of the groups which subscribe to dispensational premillennialism. An incomplete listing would include the following: Seventh-Day Adventist, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Assembly of God and other Pentecostal groups, more than half of the Southern Baptists, and many independent Baptist groups.3 [Ibid, pp. 12–13; Jesse Wilson Hodges, Christ’s Kingdom and Coming (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1957), pp. 50–51.]
Objections to Dispensationalism
A. Scripture Interpretation. Theories and emphases of the dispensationalists contain some inherent dangers for Christendom. One very real problem is their method of Scripture interpretation which becomes so complicated and unwieldy, many are tempted to despair of ever being able to understand God’s word, thus leaving interpretation to the theological “experts.” C. E. Brown comments that a glance at Blackstone’s Jesus Is Coming, a classic in its field, is enough to confuse and mystify the untrained reader completely. Brown continues:
There he finds a perfect maze of technicalities, like the great tribulation, the Parousia, the rapture, the eons, the remnant, the revelation, eight covenants, seven dispensations, three comings of Christ, four judgment days, two endings of the world, several sets of last days, and three resurrection days. This elaborate system of interpretation could never occur to the ordinary believers through an unbiased reading of the Bible. This involved and technical mechanistic theology is comparable only to the great rabbinical lore and interpretation which grew up in the Jewish synagogue and academy like fungi over the dead body of the ancient Scriptures.4 [Charles Ewing Brown, The Reign of Christ (Anderson, Ind.: Gospel Trumpet Co., 1950), p. 158.]
Sounds a bit like the high school principal, doesn’t it? Adding to these complications, the reader must determine to which dispensation the particular scripture in question is directed. Interpretation becomes a ridiculous maze which could cause an unbeliever merely to be amused at the religious calisthenics involved, or to be disgusted, and thereby never consider the demands or promises of the gospel.
B. View of God and Christ. Another serious objection to dispensational ideas is that they present a distorted view of God and Christ. It is a distorted view of God because, according to their teaching, God gives unfair advantage to the Jews and to all who live during the millennium, which brings his justice into question. Certainly, if the devil is completely bound, and if God’s timetable is perfectly obvious, since the “rapture” and the “great tribulation” have already taken place, who would refuse salvation. This is not salvation by faith, but sight!
Not only is God’s justice called into question, but also his omniscience. The dispensational claim is that God intended to establish a Jewish national kingdom at Christ’s first advent. Since he was unable to complete this mission, it had to be postponed until his Second Coming. Accordingly, God’s foreknowledge is not only faulty, but his ability and effectiveness are also demeaned. An effete God indeed. Also, it is very difficult to reconcile these ideas with Christ’s claim: “I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4). And with the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost: “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23).
C. Salvation during a millennium. Any doctrine which even hints the possibility of a second chance at salvation during a supposed millennium is a dangerous one. Speaking of the Israelites, Blackstone remarks, “And so if our friends will not be entreated to accept Christ now, it is perhaps possible that they may do so under the visible judgments of God, during the Tribulation.”5 [W. E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1908), p. 119.] Addressing a Jewish Zionist meeting, he also said there were certain courses open to the Jew: “The first is to become a true Christian … not many Jews will do this. He continues, “Second, become a true Zionist, and thus hold fast to the ancient hope of the fathers and the assured deliverance of Israel through the coming of the Messiah and complete national restoration and permanent settlement in the land which God has given them.”6 [Brown, The Reign of Christ, p. 158.]
A modern dispensationalist Hal Lindsey, author of The Late Great Planet Earth, updates the offer by encouraging Jews who won’t do so now, to turn to Christ when the Rapture takes place.7 [Hal Lindsey, There’s a New World Coming (Santa Ana, Calif.: Vision House Publishers, 1973), p. 112. Used by permission.] Other reasons remain for opposing dispensational doctrines, but these suffice to illustrate the need for discussion. Now, let us test the strength of the theories.
The major portion of dispensational premillennialism rests on two basic premises: (1) The covenants of the Old Testament between God and Israel were unconditional and must still be fulfilled. (2) The Jewish people remain God’s chosen people who are to be the recipients of those promises which all come to fruition in a literal, political rule of Christ over a restored, victorious Jewish nation during the millennium. If these be false, the entire concept is false; and it is unnecessary to examine each iota of dispensational data. We will look directly to the Scriptures for our rebuttal of these tenets, considering only the very plain texts, not those of poetic and figurative language.
Conditional or Unconditional?
Samuel, the prophet of God, speaks to Israel’s first king, Saul, telling him he has acted foolishly because he has not obeyed the commandments of God. Samuel adds, “For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel for ever. But now your kingdom shall not continue … because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you” (1 Sam. 13:13–14, italics added). That kingdom was clearly conditional.
Look now to Psalms 132:11–12, where we read the words of King David himself. His testimony is that God swore these words to him as a sure oath from which God would not turn back: “One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies which I shall teach them, their sons also for ever shall sit upon your throne” (italics added). David rightfully understood that the perpetuity of his reign depended not upon an unconditional covenant with God, but upon the obedience of his successors. David got the message loud and clear—so much so that it was uppermost in his mind as he lay dying. Charging Solomon to be a strong king and to keep the statutes, commandments, ordinances, and testimonies of God, he reminded his son and heir of God’s admonition to David: “If your sons take heed to their way with all their soul, there shall not fail you a man on the throne of Israel” (1 Kings 2:4, italics added).
Is it possible to construe this as an unconditional promise of an everlasting kingdom? If so, we would have to consider it broken long ago, for no king has sat on David’s throne for well over two thousand years. Solomon didn’t miss the point either, for he repeated God’s conditional promise and admonition to David in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8:25). Shortly following that joyous occasion, God appeared to Solomon and further instructed him,
I have heard your prayer and your supplication, which you have made before me; I have consecrated this house which you have built, and put my name there for ever, my eyes and my heart will be there for all time. And as for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, then I will establish your royal throne over Israel for ever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘There shall not fail you a man upon the throne of Israel.’ But if you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and the house which I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples. And this house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, ‘Why has the Lord done thus to this land and to this house?’ Then they will say, ‘Because they forsook the Lord their God who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and laid hold on other gods, and worshiped them and served them; therefore the Lord has brought all this evil upon them.’ Sorry for such a long quotation, but these words from 1 Kings 9:3–9 so forcefully refute the idea of an unconditional promise of a perpetual Davidic kingdom, it seems worth the time and space.
The prophets, too, heard from God concerning his covenant people. Jeremiah faithfully reports, “And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will repent of the good which I had intended to do it” (Jer. 18:9–10). “Call his name Not my people, for you are not my people, and I am not your God,” is Hosea’s message to Israel (l:9). Amos thunders, “Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from the surface of the ground” (9:8).
“If we had to put Amos’ message in a word, might we not paraphrase it thus? The Kingdom of Israel is not the Kingdom of God! It can neither be that Kingdom nor inherit it. It cannot be the Kingdom of God, because it has flouted the laws of God and violated the covenant brotherhood.”8 [John Bright, The Kingdom of God (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1953), p. 67.]
No, the old covenant was abrogated and is no more, because Israel didn’t meet the conditions. But Jeremiah delivers God’s promise: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers … I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31:31–33). This was fulfilled in Christ and in his covenant with the New Israel, the Church.
God’s Chosen People
Now let us consider the question of the Jews’ being God’s chosen people. The New Testament writers have much to say on this subject, and their word is sufficient.
Romans 2:28–29
“For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.”
Romans 10:12
“For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: the same Lord is Lord of all.”
Galatians 3:7–9
“So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed.’ So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith.”
Galatians 3:28–29
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Philippians 3:3
“For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.”
Romans 4:13–17
“The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void … . That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants—not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all, as it is written, ‘I have made you the father of many nations.’”
In light of the foregoing scriptures, one would have to believe that Hal Lindsey ignores some significant facts when he says that God’s promises to the Jews will be fulfilled regardless of their disobedience.9 [Lindsey, New World, p. 115.]
No, Brother Lindsey, I don’t think so.
For Discussion
1. How would you respond to someone who advocates the dispensational point of view?
2. The author has suggested several ways in which dispensationalism presents a distorted view of God. Can you think of any others?
3. Discuss the conditional nature of the teaching of the kingdom and the implications of this for us today.
4. The author has given three reasons for opposing dispensational doctrines. Can you think of any others?
5. In light of the many scriptures declaring the equality of Jews and Gentiles with reference to salvation, how do you account for the continued insistence of dispensationalists that the Jews will receive preferential treatment?
Chapter 7
Metaphors of the Master
IF WE WANT to understand the kingdom, we must read and understand the parables. Jesus never completely defined the kingdom of God, but he gave amazing insights into its meaning in dozens of stories from life.
When the family discusses the pastor’s sermon at the dinner table on Sunday (And surely that is the usual topic at your house on the sabbath!), where do they usually begin? You’re right. With the illustrations. Probably the remembered item is not some spectacular exegesis of the text, but a simple story with which you identify. Sometimes it may be about the preacher’s wife or kids, or even the family dog. Our singing dog, Chico, starred in several sermons. But that anecdote helps you remember the whole point of the message.
We have just copied this effective technique from the Master Teacher. Jesus knew his stories, or parables, would be indelibly etched on the corridors of his disciples’ minds and would be easily recalled when they later wrote the Gospels.
Kingdom Parables
These beautiful, simple illustrations also opened the truths of the kingdom to the uneducated masses who followed Jesus. Later they could share them with family and friends who longed to know something of the Master. “All this Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed he said nothing to them without a parable” (Matt. 13:34).
In the parables, many interesting facets of the kingdom come to light. We learn that the kingdom of heaven is a pearl of great price, worth selling everything we own to obtain (Matt. 13:45–46). In the parable of the mustard seed, we are instructed that it began with unremarkable beginnings, but it shall end with unimaginable splendor (Matt. 13:31–32). Though its beginnings are as small and humble as a grain of mustard seed, the gospel of the kingdom will spread as persistently as does yeast which a woman hides in three measures of meal until it permeates the whole lump (Luke 13:21). Luke 9:62 tells us that those who put their hand on the plow and look back longingly to the old order of life are not fit to enter this kingdom.
These are only a few fleeting glances. The parables are packed with kingdom truths, and we can highlight only a few of them. In the following chapters we will discuss several more in depth.
However, if we’re to find in the parables the truth they were meant to convey, it’s necessary to understand the nature of a parable and the proper method of interpretation.
In passing, it’s interesting to note that Jesus did not choose to tell fables, stories in which impossible things happen such as animals speaking or assuming human characteristics. Instead, he chose to speak in parables, true stories, or true-to-life stories, that conveyed major truths concerning the kingdom. Some of them were probably drawn directly from recent local incidents the crowd would recognize and with which they would identify.
As we interpret Jesus’ parables, we must always remember that a parable usually has only one predominant theme which presents a single great truth. Parables are not to be treated as allegories in which each detail may symbolize something. Certainly, allegories do appear in Scripture. The Apostle Paul allegorized as he spoke of the Christian’s armor in Ephesians 6:10–18. The sword symbolizes the Holy Spirit; the shield, faith; the helmet, salvation, and so forth. This is the correct method of interpreting an allegory, but such interpretation completely distorts the meaning of a parable.
The author once heard a minister expound on the parable of the good Samaritan as though it were an allegory. He said the inn represented the church, the two pence stood for the Spirit and the Word, and each facet of the parable was given some figurative meaning until the whole sermon bordered on the ridiculous. By the time the preacher reached the conclusion of his message, at least one member of his congregation wondered if the simple donkey in the parable might symbolize the preacher! Surely, the brother had good intentions, but he was not using good exegesis of the text.
A parable, then, is a picture drawn from real life which has one basic point to make. However, although the parable has one major focus, other spiritual insights may be gained in addition to the primary lesson.
As we begin our study of the parables, we will compare two which have similar themes. Jesus often told more than one story to illustrate a particular point. He knew that repetition is an effective teaching method. These two parables do not happen to begin with the familiar “The kingdom of heaven is like … ” but they explain much about what God expects of citizens of the kingdom.
Parables Dealing With Forgiveness
A. The Prodigal Son. No parable is so loved as the one which the church has labeled the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11–32). Before proceeding please read this parable in its entirety, remembering to include the verses which deal with the elder brother. We should remember that both men have the same loving father and that each one in his own way broke the father’s heart—the first by foolish abandonment to his lower appetites; the second by his arrogant hostility toward both his wayward brother and his loving father. The long-suffering of the waiting father is certainly indicative of the long-suffering God has for each one of us. Each of us should be eternally grateful for God’s mercy and patience, for each in our own way has imposed upon God’s long-suffering and our sins have been an embarrassment to him.
A longtime friend was talking to a father whose son had been a constant source of embarrassment and the friend said, “If that boy were my son, I’d give up on him.” The grieving father looked his friend in the eye and said, “Yes, if he were your boy, I’d give up on him, too. But he’s my boy—and I can’t give up on him.”
In this parable God reveals a father much like this, a loving father who longed for his son’s return. The father’s long-suffering was rewarded, and the younger son found forgiveness for his sins by returning home, confessing his failures and seeking the father’s forgiveness. On the other hand, the elder son arrogantly believed that he had no need of confession or forgiveness and stubbornly held to his loveless attitude. In his own self-righteous way, the elder brother closed the door of fellowship to both his father and brother. To some, the sins of the elder brother may seem small compared to the flagrant vice-ridden adventures of the prodigal, but the conclusion of the matter is this: those who humbly confess their need will find reconciliation with the Father, while those who arrogantly maintain their self-righteousness will experience only alienation and spiritual death.
There are many good things we could say about this elder brother. We note that he was coming in from the field; therefore, we conclude that he was a worker and not a shirker. Further, he hadn’t yielded to the temptations of the far country. He had stayed at home and, as far as we know, no sexual immorality besmirched his character. All of this is to his credit. Yet Jesus does not commend him to us. He does not hold him up as our example and say, “Be like this wonderful fellow and you will inherit eternal life.” For while the elder son was thrifty, industrious, and dependable, he was also ungracious and an unattractive sourpuss. He caused his father to grieve just as surely as his brother who had strayed far from home. He was touchy, stingy, smug, loveless, suspicious, abrasive, sour, jealous, and self-righteous—but outside of that, he was a pretty good fellow. Sadly there are too many who claim to be a part of the church who are like him. Just as surely as did his younger brother, he too needs the forgiveness of his father.
B. The Pharisee and the Tax Collector. Another parable dealing with forgiveness and teaching a similar message as the parable of the prodigal son, is Christ’s story of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9–14). Again, we see a man—this time a Pharisee—who had done many admirable deeds, but he has ruined their beneficent effect by his cold, arrogant attitude. His sins are further compounded by his ungracious reference to the sins of others and his open contempt for “this tax collector.” Like the elder brother, the Pharisee is quite satisfied with himself and never once asks for God’s mercy or forgiveness. The tax collector, on the other hand, recognizes his need and acknowledges that he is unworthy of God’s grace. In humility, he will not even lift his eyes to heaven, but strikes his breast as a sign of grief, and cries, “God, be merciful to me a sinner!” His prayer is not long, but it is effective; for it deals with the very heart of his need. He is a sinner. He does desperately need mercy. When this is acknowledged, Jesus declares that he is justified or forgiven, rather than the Pharisee who, in many ways, was a better person than the tax collector. Yet the good works of the Pharisee are canceled out because of his negative, nasty attitude. The tax collector returns home justified, whereas the Pharisee merely returns home. Jesus says, “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14).
Do You Get the Message?
Both of these parables vividly illustrate the concept that God’s forgiveness is granted when a contrite sinner sincerely and humbly confesses sin. Those who feel that they have earned God’s grace through their works will never be justified. To the religious but spiritually arrogant chief priests and Pharisees, Jesus said “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you” (Matt. 21:31).
These parables on forgiveness should cause each of us to take inventory of our own lives. Do we feel eternally grateful for God’s forgiveness, or like the Pharisee, do we feel that we have earned it? Perhaps we of the Armenian-Wesleyan persuasion need this message a bit more than others. We have rightfully emphasized personal holiness and consistent Christian conduct, but we are tempted to sometimes rely too much on good works, rather than God’s grace for salvation. We must remember that salvation is not earned; it is bestowed. Christians because of their regenerated nature, their new life in Christ, do good works. However, good works will never make anyone a Christian. Citizenship in the kingdom requires humble repentance on our part and the granting of forgiveness through the gracious mercy of our King.
For Discussion
1. What other parables or sayings of Jesus reinforce the two parables in this chapter?
2. Write a brief contemporary parable to express the meaning of the kingdom in your life.
3. In what ways do most of us experience God’s long-suffering in our lives?
4. What place does forgiveness of others have in your understanding of the kingdom?
5. When was the last time you heard someone confess a need of forgiveness for an arrogant, self-righteous attitude? Do we hear these confessions so seldom because we are free from this sin or because we are too proud to confess it?
Chapter 8
The Responsibility of the Irresponsible
SOMEONE has said, “All church people come from the same mold … some are just moldier than others.” That statement is a generalization, however, which does not recognize that people differ greatly from one another—even church people. Jesus gave us a parable which bears this out. We call it the parable of the four soils, and it is one of the few instances in which Jesus gave careful and detailed explanation of his parable. He did not want us to miss the main point of the story. The parable is not primarily about the sower who scattered the seed, nor the good seed which is the gospel spread over the world. The main thrust of his parable is about the soils that either receive or reject the seed. Jesus was always a realist. He recognized that regardless of how good the sermon, or how factual the message, many of his listeners would reject his word. When there is a limited harvest of souls, most of us are prone to place the blame on the sower or the preacher. Jesus, however, pointed out that the fault is not always with the sower; often the fault is with the soil.
Never a man spoke like Jesus spoke, yet he was nailed to a cross. On several occasions he spoke to many thousands. He had no problem drawing a crowd. Yet following our Lord’s death, there were only 120 who were sufficiently consecrated to meet in an upper room and pray for the Holy Spirit. The fault was not in the proclamation, but in the response.
Certainly we who preach or witness will do our best to make our message simple, direct, and piercing. But let us remember that the responsibility must finally be left with the individual who receives the seed.
Parable of the Sower
Before we go further, please read Matthew 13: 1-9 and 18–23.
A. The Hardened Pathway. Jesus said, “A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them.” The hardened pathway represents the life that is hardened by secular pursuits. It is so solidified that the gospel seed cannot find a place to lodge. This soil represents the same elements as those who receive the word gladly, except this soil has been trampled down until it is as hard as pavement. George Buttrick aptly describes them: “Everything has gone over them, weddings, funerals, pleasures, trade; but nothing had stirred them to depths. Finally they were impervious.”1 [George Buttrick, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Harper and Bros., 1928), p. 44.]
The seed was good, but it was not received. Soon birds would come and consume the seeds—some twittering interest, some new pleasure, some new fad that would claim their attention and gobble up the truth before it had opportunity to sprout.
Tragically these persons often grow more hardened with the passing of years. Every footfall of life, every personal bitterness makes them more impervious to the gospel. Let us pity those who are represented by the hardened soil of the pathway, for there is little hope of their salvation.
B. Rocky Soil. The second group is referred to as rocky soil. Jesus said, “Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil, but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away” (vv. 5–6). This soil represents the superficial hearers, the shallow souls who quickly come to Jesus, but just as quickly leave him at the first sign of opposition. Jesus was constantly telling those who came to him to count the cost before becoming his disciples. We do Christ no favors by being a “hallelujah hearer”—the kind of person who tells the world, “Hallelujah, I am saved,” but who just as quickly turns from Christ at the first sign of opposition. Such a person goes up like a rocket and comes down like a rock.
In college I knew a man like this. I’ll call him George. George was studying for the ministry, and one of the first things you noticed about him was that he was always willing to give you a testimony at the drop of the hat. However, the second thing you noticed was that he was very critical of other Christians. If they were not as zealous as he, or if they differed in theology, he quickly cut them off. Still it appeared for a while that George was going to take the world by storm. Then suddenly his experience blew up. He quit going to church—he divorced his wife—and soon he was completely backslidden, never darkening the door of a church.
The kingdom cannot be built upon such immature, shallow, three-day wonders. It takes determination to be a Christian—the kind of determination exemplified by twelve-year-old Richard DuMont of Jacksonville, Florida. Young Richard was bitten by a striped snake. He grabbed the snake by the throat, dragged it into the house, pulled down the encyclopedia and looked under S. Sure enough, it matched the description of a poisonous coral snake, so Richard went to the hospital. The newspaper reported that Richard was in good condition at St. Vincents.
It took determination to hold onto that snake after being bitten, and it takes determination to hold onto our Christian experience in times of trial. C. Thorny Ground. There is a third kind of person represented by the thorny ground. Jesus said, “This is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful” (v. 22). Here is a life so filled with other interests that the gospel never gains a place of priority. Someone has said, “The second best is always the enemy of the very best.”
This is a warning to us. Our lives can be so full of other interests—even good interests—that our main interest, Christ and the kingdom, is gradually crowded out. There are but twenty-four hours in your day and in mine. If each of those hours is taken up with other things, there is no room for Christ in our lives.
There are many unfruitful church members who, quite frankly, have no time for Jesus. They are too busy to work for Christ. The areas of their greatest concern lie outside the kingdom. They prefer material to spiritual gain. They have many excuses for not working in the kingdom, but a good excuse will never take the place of good fruit.
D. Good Soil. The parable ends with great hope and promise. “Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He who has ears, let him hear” (vv. 8–9). As you and I witness and scatter the good seed, let us be encouraged by the fact that there are men and women everywhere who are genuinely sick of sin and ready to receive the gospel. It is wonderful to see the word of God take root in a human heart. What a joy to watch it grow and gradually take possession of a person’s desires, emotions, and actions. Little by little, the good seed bears fruit and men and women become more and more like Christ.
When Christ is firmly rooted in the heart, the work of the kingdom means more to us than anything else in the world. It means more than high position; it means more than great possessions; it means more than all the trinkets that money can buy.
About the year 1885, the great preacher Charles Spurgeon of London was approached by members of an American Lecture Bureau with an invitation to come to America and deliver fifty lectures. They offered to pay all of Mr. Spurgeon’s expenses and those of his wife and private secretary from the time that he left London until his return. In addition, Mr. Spurgeon was to receive $1,000 per lecture. This meant a profit of $50,000 for the tour, and those were the days when $50,000 was worth $50,000. However, without hesitation, Mr. Spurgeon declined the offer saying, “I can do better than that. I can stay here in London and try to save fifty souls for Christ.”
When the gospel came to Spurgeon it fell upon good ground and brought forth a hundredfold. You and I will probably never be as talented as he, but we can be just as faithful and Christ will not be pleased with less.
The Ways
To every man there openeth
A way, and ways, and a way,
And the high soul climbs the high way,
And the low soul gropes the low.
And in between, on the misty flats
The rest drift to and fro.
But to every man there openeth
A high way, and a low
And every man decideth
The way his soul shall go.2 [Selected Poems of John Oxenham (1948),
Copyright by T. Oxenham. Used by permission.]
-John Oxenham
For Discussion
1. What is our role in sharing the kingdom message with others? What is the role of the Holy Spirit?
2. In Jesus’ life, how did he deal with people who were represented by the different types of soil in the parable of the sower? For example, how did he respond to those whose hearts were hardened? To superficial hearers? To those who preferred material gain and pleasure to spiritual gain? To receptive hearers?
3. Have you had any experiences of sowing seed on the different types of soil? What were your feelings? How can we best handle the discouragement of sowing unproductive seed?
4. Should we, as sowers, try to distinguish the types of soil and limit our sowing to good soil? Why or why not?
5. The author states that responsibility must be left with the individual who receives the seed. What happens when the sower tries to take on the hearer’s responsibility? How can we keep the two in balance?
6. What are some possible causes for “hardened soil”? For “shallow soil”? How can we best help and serve these people?
7. Whom do you most identify with in this parable—the sower, the hardened pathway, the rocky soil, or the thorny ground? Is it possible for a person to be receptive in some areas, hardened in others, shallow in others? Explain.
Chapter 9
The Good Samaritan and Mrs. Michowski
YOU HAVE already heard it, but let me repeat it. We live in a badly broken world. Many moral and spiritual bones are out of joint. Personal honesty and integrity has been badly sprained. Fear, distrust, and greed have torn asunder once stable communities and left many feeling lost and alone. Even in the church, racial, ethnic, and religious differences have cut gaping wounds in the body. With the prophet Isaiah we might cry, “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds” (Isa. 1:5–6).
The Call to Wholeness
It is difficult to be a whole person in a torn society, but Christ has called us to wholeness. Not only are we called to personal wholeness ourselves, but we have been given the ministry of reconciliation to aid in the healing of our broken world and to bring health and wholeness to our neighbors.
Christ was always concerned about the total person—soul, body, and emotions. Since the soul will endure somewhere forever, he did give the highest priority to spiritual healing and wholeness. Nevertheless, Jesus was deeply concerned for the other needs of humanity. He knew our need for food, clothing, shelter, and fellowship. He healed the diseased bodies, fed the hungry multitudes, and fellowshiped with all kinds of people, even the lowest of sinners. Not only did Jesus do these things; he demanded that we, as the people of his kingdom, do them also. Again, we are reminded that “a servant is not greater than his master” (John 13:16).
Balanced Ministry
The church has become involved in a foolish debate over its proper mission. Is it to witness or meet the needs of society? Social gospel or evangelism? Jesus didn’t say either/or; he said both. (See Matt. 28:19 and 25:31–46.) Frankly, most of us are not doing well enough in either department to do much bragging. However, I heard of one courageous saint who seemed to have struck the proper balance in her ministry to the souls and bodies of the needy. Buckner Fanning shares the story.
In the Spring of 1969, I visited the Baptist Church in Warsaw, Poland, where it was my privilege to worship and bring the Sunday morning message. There I had pointed out to me Mrs. Kamila Michowski. She was asked to stand in the service that morning—ninety years of age. She had been ill for a good while, and this was her first Sunday back in church for a number of weeks. Thus she shared a word of testimony, apparently thanking the people for their prayers on her behalf.
The pastor, Mr. Pawlik … told me briefly about this woman. During the German occupation, in a horrible Jewish ghetto where 40,000 people had lived, Hitler pushed half a million Jews. Fifty thousand died within the first month—one of the black pages in human history. This woman, a Christian, jeopardizing her life, would take a Star of David armband, put it on, and go into the Jewish ghetto. Identifying herself with these people in their plight, in their critical hour of need. And she would go smuggling bread and Bibles, always the two—bread and Bibles. She would distribute a loaf of bread and the living bread. Over a hundred people were introduced to faith in Christ because of the bread and the Bibles—the witness, the identification with people in their hour of need—Mrs. Michowski.1 [Buckner Fanning, Christ in Your Shoes (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970), pp. 9–10. All rights reserved. Used by permission.]
The Good Samaritan
My friend, that is good religion. Mrs. Michowski saw a great need and began to minister. No theorizing or rationalizing; she just did what she could. Christ shared a parable about one such as this. We know it as the parable of the Good Samaritan.
You know it. We don’t have to retell the story. But let’s note a few details of that story found in Luke 10:25–37. Since we’re interested particularly in the realities of the kingdom, observe that, in this chapter “to receive eternal life” is equated with “to enter the kingdom of heaven.” You’ll also find these terms used interchangeably in Mark 10:23 and 30.
As a Jewish audience listened to the parable, they were probably way ahead of the story, anticipating that the good guy would be an Israelite—priest, Levite, and Israelite.2 [Leslie Weatherhead, In Quest of a Kingdom (London: Hodder and Stoughton, Ltd., 1943), p. 147.] That would have been good. The preachers would take the heat, and the people would get the glory. But Christ worded it thusly: priest, Levite, and Samaritan. Samaritan? He did the totally unexpected, and his audience was no doubt shocked and spellbound.
These two gentlemen, the priest and the Levite, may have been going to the temple in Jerusalem where they fulfilled their professional responsibilities. If they were, they faced a genuine dilemma. There was the distinct possibility that the poor man lying in the ditch was dead. By Jewish law, to touch a corpse made one ceremonially unclean. In that event, they could not serve in the temple without the rite of purification. Besides other inconveniences involved, the cost of the offering of purification, according to Numbers 19, was a heifer. Expensive and inconvenient! Excuse enough for most of us.
This is all in the realm of speculation, but a possibility nonetheless. In any case, the injured man was still alive. If the priest and Levite had been following the spirit of Old Testament law, they would have ministered to him. There was a great deal of compassion and mercy in the Mosaic law; men’s interpretations dehumanized it. For Mosaic law declared that an ox in a ditch could be lifted out, even on the Sabbath. Further, the Law required wealthy landowners to leave the corners of their fields unharvested so the poor and needy might have the food and experience the joy of harvesting it.
Forgetting compassion and the spirit of the Law, these two clergymen saved themselves the cost and inconvenience. They stepped to the side of the road, observed the situation, shook their heads, and quickly passed by on the other side.
Fortunately for the bleeding man, someone with less dignity, and more heart, came along. The hero of our Lord’s story was from Samaria, a nation despised by the Jews. Yet, it was this Samaritan who had compassion and gave first aid to the wounded man, pouring oil and wine into his wounds and bandaging them. He placed the injured brother on his own animal and took him to an inn where he watched over him through the night.
Already the Samaritan had been greatly inconvenienced and had lost sleep in ministering to this stranger. But he was to do even more. In the morning, he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. A denarias was worth one day’s wages. Using the minimum wages as our yardstick, the Samaritan left what might be our American equivalent of fifty dollars and said to the innkeeper, “Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.” Caring for the hurt and needy in our society has always been costly business. Our good Samaritan not only laid down two day’s wages, but declared that he would be responsible for any other payment needed in caring for the wounded stranger. This man was a fanatic; he practiced second-mile Christianity.
In verse 36, Jesus forced the lawyer to draw his own conclusions about which of the three acted as neighbor to the beaten and robbed man. Although the Jewish lawyer could not bring himself to use the despised word Samaritan, he did indicate that the one who proved to be neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers was the one who showed mercy to him.
Christian Life-style
It is interesting to note the imperative do in verse 37 is in the present tense, and suggests an ongoing pattern of life and conduct. Jesus is commending an ongoing pattern of compassion and conduct to all who would be members of his kingdom. “Go and practice habitually that kind of love.”3 [Ibid, p. 151.] Not just on the day following a rousing sermon on the good Samaritan.
In any person-oriented profession, there’s the danger of being like the priest and the Levite, caught up in the theoretical and forgetting the practical application. Education professors are sometimes accused of living in the “ivory towers of academia,” forgetting what it’s really like to be in front of a classroom filled with wiggling, giggling, sometimes uncooperative little darlings. Doctors must guard against seeing patients as only muscle, corpuscle, and chemical and remember these are humans with excruciating pains, both mental and physical.
So too in religion. Preachers and laity alike can become “professional Christians”—correct in every point of doctrine, faultless in our forms of worship, and oblivious to the spiritually hungry, lonely soul in the next pew. Perhaps even, heaven forbid, seeing that newcomer in our midst as only another notch in our gun as we watch the attendance climb.
Also, it is possible for worthwhile spiritual activities to become self-indulgent pastimes which divert us from Christian action. Even Bible study and prayer groups. Heresy! Believe me, I approve wholeheartedly of Bible study, of prayer, and of small groups. However, sometimes it becomes more pleasant to sit with coffee cup in hand and discuss scriptural interpretation than to put the theory into action. We must have time for study, introspection, and training, but how much?
Sometimes we remind me of the book salesman who approached a wise old farmer by declaring, “I have a book here that will teach you to be twice as good at farming as you now are.” The farmer eyed the stranger for a minute, then said, “I don’t need your book. I already know how to farm a lot better than I’m a-doin’ it.”
Christian, how well do you think we have fulfilled our kingdom responsibilities? Most of us know more than we do, and we talk a better game than we play.
When my daughter, Linda, was about six years old, we were sitting at the dinner table the day after Christmas. Linda said, “Daddy, you know what I wish we could do?” “No honey,” I answered. “What do you wish we could do?” “I wish we could take all my nice new toys that I got for Christmas and give them to some poor family.”
My first impulse was to say, “Honey, that’s a wonderful way to feel. That is so kind.” But I stifled the impulse and instead said, “Okay, Linda, let’s gather them up. I know a family that will be thrilled to get them.” She looked a bit surprised and protested, “But daddy, it’s too late to take them for Christmas. We’ll have to wait until next year.”
“No we won’t. This family will be glad to get them now.” So I went to her room, got her new stove and doll, and carried them out to the car, much to my wife’s astonishment. As I passed Linda in the kitchen, there were big tears standing on the rim of her eyes, but she didn’t say a word.
In a few minutes, I brought the stove and doll back into the house and got down where I could look into her eyes. “Honey, I just wanted to show you that it is not enough to say nice things with our mouths. We have to mean them in our hearts. Daddy constantly meets people who have a good mouth-religion. They tell me how they love the Lord and want to see his kingdom progress, and they won’t even tithe. They say they love the church, but they won’t accept any responsibility and we seldom see them on Sunday evening or on prayer meeting night. They seem to have the idea that saying good things makes them good, regardless of how they live. Linda, I don’t want you to get into that rut.” Get the point? Enough said.
For Discussion
1. Look at your congregation’s ministries. Is there a good balance between ministry to spiritual needs and ministry to physical and social needs?
2. What are some of the scriptures that support the view that Jesus ministered to the total person—that he viewed people as whole beings?
3. Are there indications in your church’s programming that it takes a wholistic approach to the needs of people in your community? If not, what can you do to begin to minister more wholistically?
4. What are some of the hindrances to our being “good Samaritans” today? Is there anything we can do to overcome these hindrances?
5. “Caring for the hurt and the needy in our society has always been a costly business.” What is the cost of fulfilling our kingdom responsibility to the needy? Is the cost any different today than it was in Jesus’ day?