Is your righteousness greater than that of an “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer”?
Normally, I don’t post Kingdom Exclusion material on the front page of Agabus.com, but here’s an interesting exchange between me and one of my readers –
Writes Connie:
Christ’s Kingdom will be only for those found faithful. Why should an unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer be given the honor of ruling and reigning with our Holy Savior over the world for 1000 years. Only those found faithful will he allow to rule with him.
Here is my response:
First, tell me why you should reign with Christ for 1,000 years. Is your righteousness greater than that of a “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer”?
I am reminded of the Pharisee and the tax collector. One felt completely unworthy of the kingdom, and rightly so, for otherwise his confession was meaningless; the other felt completely worthy, and wrongly, for his own righteousness did not equal that of God’s. I am also reminded on the sinful woman who anointed Jesus’s feet before his crucifixion.
Why is it that some imagine their own righteousness to be so great? I tremble at the thought.
This sensibility seems to be common among those who maintain there are two classes of Christians: carnal and faithful. Rather than there being types, is it not that we are all be transformed by Christ through the Holy Spirit to perfect righteousness? What of ourselves is so remarkable? Unfortunately, Connie has not responded to my query.
Similar Posts:
- Hidden sins, revealed holiness
- Freedom in Christ
- Plain talk about the Revelation
- How much of Jesus is enough?
- Notes on Galatians in view of Kingdom Exclusion
© 2008, Mark Adams. All rights reserved. For inquiries press here.
Part of me is interested in what Connie’s response will be. The other part of me says, “who cares?”
Since I am both sick and irritated, all I have to say is this: KE doctrine is self-righteous hogwash.
*sigh*
I’ve been contemplating 2 Timothy 2:11-13 the last several days. (I even put these verses to song – I’ll play it for you whenever we get together.)
“If we have died with him, we will also live with him; if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself.”
These verses aren’t meant to deny KE, but they offer hope: even when I am faithless, he will remain faithful to me because he cannot deny himself. Is it that Christ cannot deny himself because of the promise made that he won’t lose any that the Father has given him? Or is it that since he is in us (via the Spirit), he cannot put himself out of heaven if we mess up? I believe that it is both of those reasons, and much more.
My Christ will not cast me out if I died with him, if I endured with him, if I confess him…and even when I lose faith, God forbid. He cannot deny himself, and that is my hope in Christ.
Michael W
28 Nov 08 at 11:44 pm
This post obviously relates to Kingdom Exclusion, but there is a broader question: can one person claim to have a greater righteousness than another? If so, how does one quantify ones righteousness? If no, then what does such a statement reveal about the one who makes it?
Mark Adams
29 Nov 08 at 12:13 pm
No, no one can claim to have more righteousness than another. Whenever the Biblical authors speak of attaining righteousness, it’s an all-or-nothing experience: either a person is righteous or not. There is no such thing as being partly righteous.
That being the case, if a person *does* claim to be more righteous than another person, then there must be at lease two things askew: (1) their understanding of what righteousness is flat-out wrong, and (2) they are judging a person’s “righteousness” by their works.
Righteousness is never defined by a person’s works, but by a humble and penitent heart. A person’s works are a result of what’s in the heart of a person, but works can be deceiving. The foundation for righteousness cannot be found in what is seen by human eyes, but must be found in something that can be seen only by God.
Michael W
29 Nov 08 at 1:55 pm
Wow, I just realized how bad the grammar was in my second paragraph….
Here it is again, but more legible:
“That being the case, if a person *does* claim to be more righteous than another person, then there must be at lease two things askew: (1) their understanding of righteousness, and (2) their way of determining how a person is righteous.”
Michael W
29 Nov 08 at 1:58 pm
Overcomers are not people who view themselves as inherently righteous or more righteous than the next bloke. Overcomers are people that have in essence given up all hope on securing their own righteousness.
Overcomers set aside all hope of living righteously on their own strength by their “giving up” on their own self-righteous flesh/soul and thus turn by faith to a daily cross of obedience by acknowledging that only by Christ in them, by absolute denial of self and cooperating humbly with the sanctifying Spirit of God will they ever see the sanctification God wants.
Overcomers have finally taken a total reality check between themselves and Jesus. They die daily, crucifying their soulish strivings, and submit to God’s will through a real type of trial & suffering of obedience. IT IS WORK TO DIE! To learn how their Savior learned to submit ALL to the the Father is not a walk in the park. But setting one’s face to the unseen city, the coming kingdom and the joy of the Lord’s rule — ah, now that truly brings a certain fellowship with Jesus — that the weekly church pew session or sunday school quarterly-driven class meeting rarely offers. You want life? You want to taste the reality of the Spirit’s closeness? Then walk the walk of the Overcomer Jesus and die to yourself.
There’s no bragging here, no self-righteousnes being polished, no room to EVER say, “Yo look at my righteousnesses now dudes.” What righteouness is seen will be CHRIST’s! His resurrection life keeps the overcomer going day by day, whether suffering in a communist prison cell like Watchman Nee or doing the olde 9 to 5 suffering mistreatment daily under an ungodly supervisor at work.
The Lord God of Israel sees it all and one day we will stand before the Bema Seat of Christ and he will judge each of us for the works of this righteous dieing to self. Some will suffer loss and taste of the Lord’s loving disciplinary exclusion. We reap what we sow. Others, the overcomers will stand, reflecting the righteous obedience of many sufferings they chose to accept in this life. Christ will already know them in a special fellowship He too suffered right up to Calvary itself. These overcomers that died to live will inherit the kingdom, now full of servants made now to serve the nations, to serve their God as Christ served the Father. The last are now the first. The meek inherit the earth. The ruling and reigning is not an overcomer’s goal. It is to see their Lord face to face and see Him smile and hear Him say, “Well down . . .” That is the joy of the overcomer! It’s a love thing really, a Bride thing, a Marriage thing. We are saved not to wallow in grace but to become bondservants TODAY and HEAR and KEEP and DO the will of the Lord — daily. This is the overcoming faith, that so great a faith.
Christ matured in us by obedience is the ONLY righteousness that will stand. All the religious stuff we busy ourselves with after we are saved just may count for one big fat zero — think about it. The Hebrews surely kept doing the religious gig in the wilderness but did it get them into Canaan? No. Their unbelief and religion did not help them inherit what was theirs. They refused to face death and believe God — so most of them wandered their religious lives right into the dust of the desert. Only Joshua, Caleb and the young generation entered into the rest, the promised land that their stubbornly fearful and religiously jaded parents were excluded from.
This is still happening today. Read Hebrews without a paradigm in place and you will see overcoming and kingdom exclusion. It is the best explanation of this confusing book.
Ciao! Bedtime . . .
GenericChristianMystic
4 Dec 08 at 10:11 pm
I will suggest that God wants us to be absolutely perfect.
Mark Adams
8 Dec 08 at 9:06 pm
In regards to absolute, positional righteousness, it is all or nothing. Either we have the righteousness of Christ or we don’t, by simply believing the gospel. But there is another righteousness in regards to our walk in which it can be said that some are more righteous than others.
In this sense, some commandments are greater than others.
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And some sins are greater than others:
1Jo 5:16 If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
There are many examples of this in the scriptures.
This is an elementary concept in the bible. You would do well to stop spouting off about kingdom exclusion until you brush up a little on Bible Doctrine 101.
Is my righteousness in terms of my walk better than that of an unrepentant backslidden drunk and adulterer? I would leave it to those who know me to answer that question for you. But some folks certainly are, in one sense, more righteous than others. Turning the point back on the questioner to try to make him look proud just demonstrates the fact that you can not deal with the plain scriptures.
Mike
5 Jan 09 at 4:57 pm
Mike, you wrote, “Is my righteousness in terms of my walk better than that of an unrepentant backslidden drunk and adulterer? I would leave it to those who know me to answer that question for you.” I would suggest that that is better left to God.
As regards “Bible Doctrine 101,” I stand by my prior claim that God wants us absolutely perfect (cf. James 1:4; Matt. 5:48). That there is “another righteousness” that is acceptable to God is not supported in the scriptures you cited.
Mark Adams
5 Jan 09 at 8:27 pm
John thought it was worthy to note the opinion of other brothers in regards to a brother’s practical righteousness:
3Jo 1:12 ¶ Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.
The twelve thought the report of men was appropriate also:
Ac 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
There are other examples from the scriptures, but hopefully you get the idea that although it sounds pious to say let God himself be the only discerner of one’s practical righteousness, the bible teaches otherwise.
But the main issues is this:
If God wants us absolutely perfect (which he does) then we must be absolutely sinless. God sees us positionally as sinless when we are in Christ. We need this perfection to be acceptable with God, in an absolute sense. But practically, in our walk, none of us are without sin. God will still accept us, even if this practical righteousness is not sinless. One proof is in the verse I quoted:
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Here is someone who is breaking the least of God’s commandments. Obviously, they do not have an absolutely perfect righteousness. Yet they are still accepted by God as proven by the fact that they are in his kingdom. They got in the kingdom based on the fact that their righteousness was good enough for the reward of the kingdom.
How do you think they got into the kingdom, by Christ’s righteousness alone? If they got into the kingdom by Christ’s righteousness alone, why do they have a lesser place in the kingdom based on their own sin, seeing that Christ already paid for all of their sins?
How do you explain the fact that there are believers in the kingdom of Heaven that were not absolutely righteous, if absolute righteousness is what God requires as a condition for entrance to the kingdom?
Mike
6 Jan 09 at 11:57 am
First, Mike, answer the question: Is your righteousness greater than “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer”? If you are troubled by the question (and perhaps you should be), why?
Second, neither the passage in 3 John nor Acts describes degrees of righteousness. The people mentioned in those passages are simply being commended as Christians (no where does it say they are more righteous than the others — it just doesn’t say it, so the point can’t be argued).
Third, your interpretation of Matthew 5 misses the point of Christ’s declaration — he is not talking to Christians in that passage, but the Jews. That “they got in the kingdom based on the fact that their righteousness was good enough for the reward of the kingdom” distorts the meaning of the passage. No one got anywhere based on their righteousness. In fact, the whole of the Sermon on the Mount paints quite a different picture: Be perfect as your Father is perfect. Christ’s explicit teaching eliminates the possibility that there is a righteousness which is just “good enough.” He states plainly that they must be perfect, not as man is perfect, but as God is perfect!
Lastly, what do you mean when you write, “They got in the kingdom based on the fact that their righteousness was good enough for the reward of the kingdom”? What is “good enough”? This is a most unique interpretation of the scriptures.
Mark Adams
6 Jan 09 at 1:42 pm
In the matter of being an unrepentant drunken adulterer, I stand blameless. I have no conviction from the Holy Ghost, my conscience or my fellow man that testifies otherwise. As far as comparing my own practical righteousness to that of another (the imaginary drunk we have been talking about), I don’t think that is wise to compare myself to anyone when I am in the middle of running the race.
3 John and Acts surely are not talking about men being commended for simply being Christians. It says that the men had a “good report” or “honest report” respectively. Are you suggesting that all men have a good report? Why didn’t it just say in Acts 6 to simply select out 7 Christians?
So, in 1Ti 3:7, can the bishop have a bad report, as long as he is a Christian, and still be qualified to hold the office of a bishop?
Or can the widow , in 1Ti 5:10, in order to receive support just be a Christian, or does she need to have good works?
The folks with a good report, have a greater practical righteousness then the men that do not have a good report. This is obvious from the meaning of the word “righteousness”.
Or do you think that just because the word “righteousness” is not used in those passages, that it means the passages have nothing to do with righteousness?
The passage in Matthew does use the word righteousness. And the sermon it isn’t just to the “Jews” (lost and saved) but specifically to believers. (Notice his “disciples” came to him, they are the “salt of the earth” etc.) If you think this doesn’t apply to Christian believers, you better give a solid reason why it does not (lest you be boasting yourself against the branches).
Since these were believers that were addressed, they already had God’s perfect positional righteousness. He tells us to be perfect – this is his solemn command and our goal, but nowhere does it indicate that if we fail to achieve this will we miss the kingdom. In fact, back to the passage at hand, he specifically says that some folks who break the least of the commandments will still be in the kingdom. These folks were not perfectly obedient in their walk, or they would have not broken any of the commandments. But God still accepts them.
You ask “what is good enough?” It is plain from this scripture that if the worst thing you did was breaking the least of the commands, and teaching others to do so, is would be a good enough practical righteousness to enter the kingdom of heaven. This presupposes, of course, that the person in question is a believer and thus has the perfect, positional righteousness of Christ, otherwise, they would have no basis on which to enter the kingdom at all.
It is also apparent from the next verse that their practical righteousness had better be greater than that of the hypocritical pharisees, or they would not even enter the kingdom.
Mt 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I think I answered all of your questions. I will now repeat the one’s I still have not gotten an answer for: (slightly expanded for clarity)
In Matthew 5:19, how do you think they got into the kingdom, was it by Christ’s righteousness alone? If they got into the kingdom by Christ’s righteousness alone, why do they have a lesser place in the kingdom based on their own sin of breaking the least of the commandments, seeing that Christ already paid for all of their sins?
How do you explain the fact that there are believers in the kingdom of Heaven that were not absolutely righteous, if absolute righteousness is what God requires as a condition for entrance to the kingdom?
Mike
6 Jan 09 at 2:50 pm
Mike,
It seems from these two sentences, you believe that entrance into the Kingdom of God is a both/and of positional and practical righteousness. What of those who have no practical righteousness, such as the thief on the cross? Christ promised him entrance into Paradise based on his faith, not any actual works.
(Unless you claim faith is the only “work” acceptable by God before a person is saved – John 6:29. This bunny-trail opens another can of worms, b/c the question arises whether this “work of faith” is a germ planted by God in his elect or is self-generated by man [by either Prevenient Grace or ex nihilo in man's conscience]. As a Reformed Christian, my position is the former.)
I agree with Mark, as he has said else where, that our works are important – indeed required because of our faith – but they are not essential in our standing before God and entrance into heaven.
I give you that our works can be an (not *the*) indicator of faith and even a determiner of certain rewards (whatever that means) in Heaven…but they are not essential in our standing before God and our entrance into the Kingdom.
To respond in brief to the questions you posed, I would say this: you’re mixing two different concepts.
Concept #1 – rewards, or lack thereof – in Heaven based on our work as children of God. Sanctification may come into view here, as well as “practical righteousness,” as you’re calling it.
Concept #2 – initial entrance into Heaven, which is based solely on Christ’s righteousness. Christ wasn’t lying when he said that our righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees in order to enter the Kingdom. Even the Pharisee’s weren’t righteous enough to enter the Kingdom of God on their own (Christ said our righteousness had to exceed the Pharisees’, not match them). Only Christ exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, and so those who are found in Him will enter the Kingdom based on His righteousness, not our own.
Michael W
6 Jan 09 at 4:20 pm
Mike, you wrote, “As far as comparing my own practical righteousness to that of another (the imaginary drunk we have been talking about), I don’t think that is wise to compare myself to anyone when I am in the middle of running the race.”
Then, the question is meaningless. If it is not “wise” to compare oneself with another, the question has no meaning.
So apply your analysis to the passages you cite. That one is particularly honorable or that one has a good report should not suggest that righteousness should be measured. Once you measure it, you are forced to accept that some lesser form of righteousness is acceptable to God. As you point out, we all sin, so this point applies to all people, even the seven men chosen in Acts, even Demetrius.
That we all sin suggests none of us can accomplish righteousness on our own. That is why we rely on Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. 10:3).
The moment you suggest there is “another” righteousness, you put up a false standard. Remember, you said that all of us sin, therefore none of us is absolutely righteous. That is why I say we must rely on Christ, setting aside (as you have wisely done) the silly suggestion that we compare our righteousness to another’s.
Mark Adams
6 Jan 09 at 4:25 pm
I’m not fond of double posting, but I feel this point should be treated seperately:
Mike, you argue that the Sermon on the Mount is addressed to believers: “Since these were believers that were addressed, they already had God’s perfect positional righteousness.”
Please define the following terms:
1. “believers” — what did they believe in?
2. “God’s perfect positional righteousness” — principally the term “positional”
Mark Adams
6 Jan 09 at 4:35 pm
Mark,
I said it is not wise to compare myself to another WHILE I was running the race. Your original reader (Connie) was making the (hypothetical) comparison after the race was run.
Additionally, I am not suggesting righteousness should not be measured. I am suggesting that to compare MY righteousness to that of a specific person while I am running the race is not wise. Righteousness is measured, both by the Lord in Matthew, and by believers when they are told to select men of HONEST report. If I were in a position to decide whether a widow were to get the support of the church, I certainly would obey the bible and judge whether her practical righteousness were such that the support would be provided.
Furthermore, I have never suggested that we can accomplish righteousness on our own. One must have Christ (by believing on Christ). But after one has Christ in a positional sense, he still has to “put on” Christ in regards to his walk. This is not possible unless one is a believer. But not all believers avail themselves of this opportunity.
I’ll be happy to define my terms, etc. But I am still waiting for some kind of answer in regards to a cogent explanation of Matthew 5:19-20, specifically how and why some folks were getting lower positions in the kingdom for the breaking of commandments if they already had Jesus to perfectly pay for all of their sins.
P.S. Michael, I am not ignoring your post; I just have run out of time for now.
Mike
6 Jan 09 at 7:47 pm
Mike,
So, after the race is run, you will make this comparison? Please provide a scripture reference demonstrating that at the conclusion of the race you will be allowed to compare yourself to another person, and for what purpose.
You have missed entirely the point I was making in the blog entry above (I should have pointed this out earlier). When Connie asked, “Why should an unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer be given the honor of ruling and reigning with our Holy Savior over the world for 1000 years,” all I wanted to know was if her righteousness was greater than that “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer.” That’s a legitimate inquiry. I would like to know what sort of person she is. Is her righteousness greater than the one she has already determined will not reign with Christ? (You might not be making this judgment, but she has; therefore, she should answer.)
It pains me to repeat this next point, but repeat it I will. That the apostles were instructed to seek honest men to distribute to the needy, and that Paul commended Demetrius, does not imply that degrees of righteousness are what is considered. That somehow those texts prove that somehow degrees of righteousness will be considered at the judgment is extraordinary and a leap in logic.
I’ve been in ministry many years (two decades) and I’ve met a lot of good and honorable people — but I’ve never met one who claimed his or her righteousness was greater than any one else’s. I respect the integrity of their faith: they acknowledge their imperfections, their sins before God, they admit that their sins grieve God, and they praise God for his forgiveness. If a brother or sister in ministry falls, I am commanded to “bring him back.” I do not, from this injunction, presume that my righteousness is greater than the one who has fallen. My only righteousness is Christ’s.
As regards Matt. 5:19-20, it says nothing about some being given a “lesser place in the kingdom based on their own sin.” You’ve read that into the text. If anything, the text references those who will enter the kingdom and those who will not: “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus never says people will be given a place in the kingdom based on their sin. The text simply does say what you want it to say.
Also, so that we are clear on what we are talking about, “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God” do not refer exclusively to the thousand-year rule of Christ. In fact, Rev. 20 never identifies the millennial kingdom as the “kingdom of God.” If you are interpreting the “kingdom” passages as referring exclusively to the thousand-year rule of Christ, why? Where is the kingdom of God defined as a thousand-year period? Just where?
Mark Adams
6 Jan 09 at 10:06 pm
I am going to try to take a step back and focus on one simple issue, as it is apparent that you are understanding few, if any, of the points I am making.
Look at the plain words of these verses:
Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Now I am going to number my conclusions I am drawing from these verses. Please point out to me, by number, which of my conclusions I am “reading into the text”.
1) There is a man breaking (and teaching others to do so) one of the least of the commandments
So there are three classes of men in the verses: least, greatest, and the one’s that don’t enter the kingdom of heaven.
2) This man shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven
3) Therefore we have a man breaking little commandments who is in the kingdom of heaven and called the least.
4) There is a man doing (and teaching) a least commandment.
5) This man shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven
6) Therefore we have a man keeping little commands who is also in the kingdom of heaven and is called great.
6) There is a warning that unless a man’s righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
7) These men that fulfill the conditions of #6 above will not be in the kingdom of heaven.
9) Since we have a man in #3 called “least”, and he broke the “least” commandments and we have a man in #6 who kept the “least” commandments being called “great”, then my conclusion is that the reason one man is “least” and the other is “great” in the kingdom of heaven is based on whether or not the “least’ commandment was kept.
9) So whether these two men who entered into the kingdom have a greater or lesser position is based on their keeping of the “least” commandments.
10) It is a sin to break any commandment, even the “least”
11) So the man called the least in the KOH, was in that position (instead of being great) due to his sin of breaking the least commandment.
Please demonstrate clearly how any of this is reading into the text. Please reference by the numbers given above.
Previously, you said:
“Jesus never says people will be given a place in the kingdom based on their sin. The text simply does say what you want it to say.”
These two sentences are mere assertions without proof. No matter how many times you repeat them, you will still not have proved anything.
Mike
9 Jan 09 at 4:11 pm
The face above is supposed to be a parenthesis and the number 8.
Mike
9 Jan 09 at 4:12 pm
Michael W,
You said this:
“It seems from these two sentences, you believe that entrance into the Kingdom of God is a both/and of positional and practical righteousness. What of those who have no practical righteousness, such as the thief on the cross? Christ promised him entrance into Paradise based on his faith, not any actual works.”
The thief was saved in eternity by grace through faith alone. But he will enter the kingdom based on his works. What were his works? He rebuked the other thief, and boldly and publicly proclaimed that Jesus Christ was his Lord, even though he was dying a painful death.
Lu 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
The thief on the cross did all that he could do for the Lord, and thus will be rewarded for it.
If the thief had no practical righteousness, he would not enter the kingdom of God (but he would still ultimately be saved in eternity)
Michael W said:
“Concept #2 – initial entrance into Heaven, which is based solely on Christ’s righteousness. Christ wasn’t lying when he said that our righteousness had to exceed that of the Pharisees in order to enter the Kingdom. Even the Pharisee’s weren’t righteous enough to enter the Kingdom of God on their own (Christ said our righteousness had to exceed the Pharisees’, not match them). Only Christ exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, and so those who are found in Him will enter the Kingdom based on His righteousness, not our own.”
I agree that for a man to be eternally saved, it is based on Christ’s righteousness alone. But I don’t think the kingdom of heaven here is referring to one’s eternal salvation, but rather one’s entrance into the the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. V20 means that one must exceed the pharisee’s practical righteousness (not positional, although you need that as well) to even enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, keep the little commandments = great in the kingdom, break the little commandments = least in the kingdom, break big commandments (like these Pharisees, see Luke 11:42) = miss the kingdom entirely.
Christ was not the only one who exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were, practically speaking, wicked hypocrites.
This all presupposes you have the positional righteousness that comes from Christ alone. Without that, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven, nor will you have eternal salvation.
Mike
9 Jan 09 at 4:33 pm
Mike, you wrote:
“1) There is a man breaking (and teaching others to do so) one of the least of the commandments 2) This man shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven 3) Therefore we have a man breaking little commandments who is in the kingdom of heaven and called the least.”
No, it doesn’t say that. It says he will be called least in the kingdom. That doesn’t mean he will be in the kingdom; simply that he will be known as the least. As the “kingdom of God” is the power and glory of God, existent in Christ’s day, it is not the thousand-year period. (Also, Rev. 20 never identifies the millennial kingdom as the “kingdom of God.”)
Ealier I said, “Jesus never says people will be given a place in the kingdom based on their sin. The text simply does say what you want it to say.” And you replied that “two sentences are mere assertions without proof.” Well, if Jesus said that people will be given a place in the kingdom based on their sin, simply provide the scripture references.
Mark Adams
9 Jan 09 at 4:43 pm
This assertion is grotesque: “If the thief had no practical righteousness, he would not enter the kingdom of God (but he would still ultimately be saved in eternity).”
Righteousness, my friend, is righteousness. You needn’t qualify it. If God reckons a man as righteous, you are not permitted to qualify, restrict or expand it. Once God reckons a man as righteousness, that man has imputed righteousness.
Mark Adams
9 Jan 09 at 4:50 pm
This is my first time to look at this website. I am surprised by the quick movement of the pen without allowing the Word of God to do the speaking.
I would like a response to a few verses of Scripture.
1. Our righteousness is not involved in the rebirth. However if it has nothing to do with authority or entrance into the JOY of the Lord (Not speaking of eternity but rather the Kingdom) then what does our Lord mean when He gave us Revelation 19:8?
Rev. 19:7-8 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
According to Scripture:
Did she make herself ready or did the Lamb?
Is her linen the righteousness of God or of the saints?
I must also throw out II Timothy 2: 12.
Your comments there would be of interest also.
Thank you
Jason
16 Jan 09 at 9:08 am
Jason,
I don’t want to lose sight of the original idea. Implicit in Connie’s question is comparison. Frankly, I don’t believe such comparisons are legitimate or productive. By asking why an “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer” should be allowed to reign with Christ, she establishes a standard. If she is capable of explaining who will not be in the kingdom, she should be able to say who will be able to enter the kingdom and reign with Christ. But she cannot. She cannot even tell me whether her own righteousness is greater than that of an “unrepented backsliden drunk and adulterer.”
But to your statement and questions…
First, I question the meaning of this sentence: “Our righteousness is not involved in the rebirth.” Our rebirth is the reckoning of righteousness (Rom. 4:5). Now, if by “our righteousness” you propose there is something subsequent to imputed righteousness, please provide a reference in scripture to that idea. Why perfect righteousness should be succeeded by something less than perfect, I cannot comprehend.
Second, Rev. 19:7-8 speaks of imputed righteousness, not something we’ve earned. Consider the language of the passage, “and to her was granted.” That the passage does not speak of earned righteousness should be instructive.
Third, the passage in Timothy speaks of “eternal glory,” not the millennial kingdom. In fact, Paul never speaks of the millennial kingdom, nor does John the Revelator call the thousand-year rule of Christ the “kingdom of God.”
In your response, be aware that the term “eternal” has been debated before. I am understand that some people interpret that term differently, to mean “age-lasting” or “age-during”. I believe those are false interpretations. But I welcome further debate on the topic.
You wrote that you were surprised by the “quick movement of the pen without allowing the Word of God to do the speaking.” I recommend you read my other posts, challenging kingdom exclusionists to find ONE reference to the temporary exclusion of Christians in the millennial kingdom. Thusfar, no one has — one even admitted there isn’t one. By all means, allow the Word of God to speak.
Mark Adams
16 Jan 09 at 10:27 am