Your Children Will Return – Part 5
September 1, 2008
Dear Friends,
Most people tend to look at the means of salvation in a transactional sense. Jesus died for us (a transaction). We get baptized (a transaction). We are forgiven (a transaction). We break bread (a transaction). We pray (a transaction). People offered sacrifices and were circumcised (a transaction).
While there are obviously transactional elements to salvation, if we focus on the transactions themselves, we obscure the true beauty of what is happening. The essence of what is going on is familial, not transactional. The family is and has always been the primary vehicle through which people are saved. All of these transactions outside of the context of the family lose so much of their meaning.
Salvation is the means by which a Father (God) sent a son (Jesus) to adopt mores sons (us) into his family (the ecclesia) so that He could enjoy communicating with us (prayer, meditation and Bible reading), eating with us (breaking of bread) and sharing time with us (eternity in the Kingdom). The Biblical imagery of this family relationship is far too much to insert here. However, suffice it to say for now, that each transactional component to salvation has familial overtones. For example, baptism is a rebirth into a new family. We are literally born again as “sons of God.” This is not an “oh, by the way” kind of idea, but the essence of the idea.
Families have always been the key to salvation. We focus on the priesthood (a hereditary position!), but God tells us where the rubber meets the road. How interesting that it is so intimately connected with the Greatest Commandment:
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. (Deut. 6:4-7)
The so-called “Golden Thread” of the Bible or the Promises is also familial. It the story of a seed (Christ) and his hereditary connection to the greats of old – Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David.
In the New Testament, Jesus explains to us that the ecclesia is a family.
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present time. (Luke 18:29-30)
Over and over in the Bible, family relations mean something. Benefits accrue to those who are part of the right family. God blesses children again and again because of who the parents are. God is merciful again and again to children for the sake of their parents.
Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father’s sake: but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant’s sake, and for Jerusalem’s sake which I have chosen. (1 Kings 11:12-13)
The point is that this idea of resurrecting children for the sake of their parents is not disconnected from the rest of the Bible story. The story of the Bible is the story of a family. It is the story of God loving his children so much that He was willing to go to extreme measures to insure they behaved, knew what they needed to know, had a great future mapped out and had all of the tools they would need to be successful. He is overwhelmingly compassionate to His children and their children also. Can we not see that God compassionately raising children of believers reinforces this point and is in keeping with the entirety of the story?
As we have said from the beginning, we do not wish to be dogmatic about this point. We certainly respect the views of others who may continue to disagree with us on this topic. We have made our case from the Scriptures even if we could only hit the highlights. Quite honestly, I would have disagreed with myself several years ago. However, it was not an emotional reaction to tragedy that changed my view or a questioning of God’s righteousness in the death of the children of believers, but an honest assessment of what I saw to be Bible teaching on the matter. In the end, the God of heaven will do right. If He resurrects these little ones, it will be the right decision. If He does not, that will be with equal measure the right decision. Of these last two points we can be sure.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them. (Isa 65:19,23 NIV)
Have a great week,
Comments»
You have no idea how thrilled and thankful I am to see these ideas espoused by a Christadelphian BROTHER associated with the WCF. After the accidental death of my teenage son, God opened my eyes to the same truth concerning our deceased or incapacitated unbaptized children. In an effort to share this hope with my brethren I wrote a book containing my scriptural findings entitled “The Children in Our Midst – the Father’s Place and Plan for Them in Christadelphia.” But it is one thing for a grieving sister to express these findings from the Word, but for a brother of repute and respect, that is altogether another thing! Those of us who have lost precious children or live with disabled ones have waited eagerly to see this important subject dealt with as you are doing in a public format. Thank you! I pray with all my heart that these articles will touch many hearts and minds, that my brethren may come to see and believe this truth also!
Thank you Kyle for this series of Thoughts. It will be a great help to those who have lost children. In your latest Thought you are keying into something very important. The truth that we are, right now, sons and daughters of God, is one of the truths which could revolutionize and revitalize the Christadelphian culture.
For a long time many Christadelphians have felt uncomfortable with the idea that we are sons and daughters of God now, as well as in the Kingdom Age. They would say that we are “brothers in Christ” rather than “brothers of Christ”, and that sonship is bestowed in the Kingdom Age. To think otherwise seems too close to the “once saved, always saved” doctrine that some churches seem to believe.
Some bible study on this topic will reveal a wondrous truth that those who are in Christ are right now sons and daughters of God and brothers and sisters of Christ. We are not now in some sort of “orphanage” trying to be good so that someone will want to adopt us.
Mr. T:
Thanks for your comments. I must give you some credit on this last installment as my thoughts were shaped by a conversation we had a while back on the transactional view of God. You always make me think, brother. Thanks for that.
I hope that this series will provide some comfort to those who have lost children. However, I think it is important to point out that I wasn’t driven to write this based on the fact that it would or would not provide comfort to anyone. It was driven by two factors. 1. It is what I was seeing in the Bible. I don’t want to provide a false comfort to anyone. 2. When I talked to others and sought counsel, the majority of brethren I talked to saw it too but were fearful to talk about it. I wanted to open the discussion up. I am a big believer that there are no Biblical “taboo” subjects. Let’s open it up, bat it around and see what we think. After all, it is the “Thought” for the Week, not the Blinding Flash of the Obvious of the Week. It’s the whole “iron sharpenth iron” thing.
God bless!
Kyle
Sis. Cindy:
Thanks for your comment. I am so sorry for your loss.
A good friend and sister in Christ forwarded me your book this past week. My intent was to read it before I finished this series. However, the more I got to thinking about it, I decided to read your book after I finished this series. My reasoning was that I didn’t want to be accused of having been biased when I wrote this. I can honestly say it was the conviction of the Scripture that drove me to my conclusions and not the fact that I wanted it to be so or was dealing from emotions. All I would encourage other people to do is to look at the evidence without prejudice and see what they think the Bible is saying. I can’t tell you how many people believe that our deceased children will be raised but are fearful of openly talking about it “for fear of the Jews.”
I will go back here and address Bro. Colin’s good questions of a few weeks back. The Scriptures do talk about us not being married in the Kingdom. Perhaps all of those relationships including parent/child will be “obsolete” in the Kingdom age. I don’t know for sure. The Bible does talk about children in the Kingdom age, however, so it seems to me that someone is going to have to be taking care of them. Who better than their natural parents? Also, we know that things we do in this life have an effect on things in the Kingdom age. That’s really all I am saying about the children of believers. The faith of the parent has a benefit to the child. They are holy or set apart by God and one of those benefits appears to be resurrection to a mortal existence in the Kingdom age.
I hope that by God’s grace and mercy, I will be able witness you reunited with your son in the Kingdom age, Sis. Cindy. May God comfort and bless you until that time when we all shout “blessed is he that comes in the Name of the Lord.”
Kyle
Knowing you claim to be a member of the Unamended Christadelphian body, and knowing the Unamended Christadelphian belief concerning Adamic Condemnation, AND knowing that the BUSF lists “That ‘heathens,’ idiots, pagans, and very young children will be saved” as a doctrine to be REJECTED, your lengthy exegesis concerning the resurrection of the children of believers is quite counterintuitive.
Do you believe that the children of the saints are born under Adamic Condemnation? If you do believe in Adamic Condemnation, then by what is this condemnation abrogated, that you might be justified in proclaiming ‘Your children WILL return”?
Bro. Adam:
Let’s take your comments a one at a time.
First, let’s be precise in our use of language. The BASF and the BUSF both deny that children will be saved. The operative word there is “saved.” A careful reading of what I have written will reveal that I am not saying that children will be saved. They will not be resurrected and judged worthy because of their parents. What I have said is that they will be raised to mortal existence to make a choice. This is a huge difference.
Second, you are using Adamic Condemnation in a manner that I am not sure many Christadelphians have used it before. You are suggesting that by the sentence placed upon Adam in the Garden no one outside of covenant can be or has been raised at any time and for any reason. This is not the understanding or use of the term by the vast majority of Unamended Christadelphians. By your reasoning, Jairus’ twelve year old daughter must be a false account. Yet, there it is in the Bible. I would suggest that even the most strident proponent of Adamic Condemnation would see the fallacy of the reasoning that God cannot raise someone to a mortal existence again or that it abrogates any Divine principle. Why would everyone see it? Because it has already happened! If it abrogates a Divine principle in the future, it abrogated it then.
Finally, you have taken an issue with my title of “your children willl return.” You may notice upon review that this is an actual Biblical quote from Jeremiah which I discussed in my fourth installment.
Yours by His grace,
Kyle
You will note that the previous post was precise in its quotation from the BUSF. You will also note that the “doctrine to be rejected” referred to was changed from its original wording by the BUSF. What Christadelphians believed in 1877 was “That ‘heathens,’ idiots, pagans, and very young children, will never see the light of resurrection, but pass away as though they had not been: the resurrection being restricted to those who are responsible to the divine law.”
I do not believe you are teaching that small children will be granted eternal life on account of their parent’s faith. I do believe you to be teaching such children will be saved out of death, which is why I quoted out of the BUSF. The above quote from the original statement of faith will clarify what we, as Christadelphians, originally believed.
I re-read my previous note to you, but I was unable to find where I said “no one outside of covenant can be or has been raised at any time and for any reason.” In fact, I could not even find where I remotely “suggested” such a thing. Were you reading my post of September 2, 2008? Since I never suggested this, I will forego responding to your second paragraph entirely.
I did not take exception to the title of your exegesis. What I said was that I found your exegesis to be counterintuitive in light of what Christadelphians believe on the matter. You said in your last installment that you would “certainly respect the views of others who may continue to disagree with us on this topic,” yet when I disagreed with you, you attempted to put words and ideas in my mouth that were never there. Once you built this straw man, you proceeded to tear him down, yet in all this, you never answered the two simple questions I asked: Do you believe that the children of the saints are born under Adamic Condemnation? If so, then by what is this condemnation abrogated, that you might be justified in proclaiming ‘Your children WILL return”?
I used the term “your children will return” because you seem to be offering it as evidence that children will be raised. Such an idea was not in Jeremiah’s mind when Yahweh said “Thy children shall come again to their own border.” To suggest this passage speaks of anything other than the restoration of Israel is to seriously wrest scripture and ignore context.
I understand the great trial it must be to lose a child as much as one who has not lost any children can. I mean no disrespect to those who have suffered in that way. I merely wish that such would be comforted with true comfort, not false. Shortly after Bro. Robert Roberts lost a child, a multitude of the letters of comfort written to him appeared in the Christadelphian magazine. None of them presented such comfort as is being offered here. Bro. Roberts soon thereafter lost another child to death. He wrote an article entitled “Comfort – False and True” in which he speaks fondly of the true comfort offered to him by the brethren and the scriptures.
Truly “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” The faithful “shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away” and “the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces.” We do not expect any who have suffered the loss of a child to understand how “sorrow and sighing” can flee away without the resurrection of their child, but we trust that it is in Yahweh’s power to remove such a sorrow without resurrection, just as he will for those who have lost their parents outside of the Truth.
Bro. Adam:
I have no interest whatsoever in debating with you the content of the 1877 Statement of Faith. It was obviously changed for a reason.
I also have no interest in being baited into a discussion with you on the subject of Adamic Condemnation. As you can glean from my last response, you will see that I see no connection between Adamic Condemnation and the resurrection to mortal existence of children. To my mind, that should have ended the discussion there if you simply wanted to know where I stand as it relates to the topic at hand.
If I have misrespresented your understanding on this topic in my last post, I sincerely apologize. However, if you truly believe that God/Christ can resurrect children to a mortal existence, why are we having this discussion anyway? Your quote of the 1877 SOF suggests your protests of misrepresentation and strawmen are disingenuous.
Finally, I am aware that Bro. Roberts lost a child. I am also aware of his views on the topic as well as the writings of other “pioneer” brethren. I hope you can appreciate my stance (even if you might not agree with it) that it is acceptable for brethren in Christ to read the Bible for themselves and reach conclusions that are different from such esteemed brethren.
As I said in the TFTW, I welcome your disagreement with me; however, so far all you have offered to me is buzz words, human traditions and old Statements of Faith. If this is to be the substance of our interchange, I consider the matter closed. We will have to content ourselves to disagree on the matter. There are still plenty of venues where such topics as old Statements of Faith are considered a good use of time and energy. If you want to continue down this path, I suggest one of those forums.
I am thankful that Yahweh’s wonderful Word can lead us toward an answer to such a hard question. The series Bro Kyle has presented, when taken as a whole, gives an overall picture of this specific subject – the children of the covenant, and whether they will be raised to a mortal existence to live a life where they choose their own faithfulness/faithlessness.
It seems to me the issue that Adam is worried about is false comfort. The issues that he’s talking about are quite true (and obvious) – namely, that those not ‘responsible’ to Yahweh will simply perish from this life ‘without the law.’ We’re actually studying this in our Sunday School right now, and have had some good discussions on how Yahweh must FEEL about this. Of course, the Bible isn’t silent on this, either, in telling us that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked (Ez 18), wants all to come to a knowledge of the truth (I Tim 2), is willing that all should come to repentance (II Pet 3), etc., etc.
So Yahweh obviously doesn’t want ANYONE to die without Him, much less the children of believers who, if they’re anything like my children (aged 3 to 8), have that childlike faith that Jesus spoke of, with no shadow of a doubt that Yahweh exists and has promised a Kingdom for this earth.
Will even this comfort the heart of a parent who has lost a child? I doubt it. So I don’t think the fear of ‘false comfort’ should even enter the equation. Real comfort to me is in this: that Yahweh is exactly who He describes to Moses in Exodus 33-34 – plenteous in mercy, and perfectly just. He will do what is right. And our faith may determine whether mountains are moved or whether we sink in the water we could just as easily have walked upon.
A sister who lost a child expressed it to me this way: I don’t think that my lost child has any right to live again, but I SURE want the opportunity to stand before the Judge and beg that he will!
I sure hope the context of Jeremiah 30-31 is pointing to a future day. The level of rejoicing that we’ve seen in Israel to date (and the corresponding reduction of sorrow) will pale in comparison with the pure joy (and complete absence of sorrow) that will be realized when the Righteous Ruler takes over!
Christadelphians everywhere are rejoicing at the signs around us – hopeful that they indicate Jesus’ return is very near, yet patiently awaiting as always, knowing that with each passing day, more are being added to the harvest. Our God is long-suffering, and as we’ve recently read in James, He is full of mercy and compassion – in other words, there is no room for anything else. If we see His judgments as unjust, then we miss His character altogether…again, Ex 33-34.
Much love to the believers everywhere, and prayers that we may stay focused on Yahweh’s glory until His son’s return!
Marriage in the kingdom is an interesting topic. Unfortunately we are left with many questions regarding the matter. However some things are clear. There will be the perfection of love among us in the kingdom. The small inkling of perfect love we may see in our marriage will be extended to all our brethren, thus amplifying our experience, not diminishing it. How obsurd to think that our love for another will diminish in the kingdom. It must be that it will be transformed to higher spiritual level (which always is the most fulfilling part of a relationship) so that the physical is no longer necessary. And that love extending to all in oneness. Christ’s realtionship with those he loved didn’t seem to change after his resurrection. He still knew and loved. It is clear that those testing Christ were concerned with the “ownership” side of marriage. This will be unneccessary in the kingdom, as well as the physical needs. It is hard for us to fathom because, for us in this physical body, we are intrinsically tied to the carnal and its needs. We cannot imagine what it is like to have perfect love fill all our needs so completely that we don’t have to rely on the assurances of our physical manifestations of love. I see only a great joy amplified in love, not a loss of a relationship… pure love which no longer requires the physical assurances to assure its existence.
Thanks so much for the articles Your Children Will Return. It is so amazing that we all read the Bible over and over and tend to see the same meanings, the same stories. At the worst times in our lives, like the loss of a child, we turn to the Bible in search of answers, it is then that our eyes are opened. I have realized the Bible says so much more. When we lost our son, so close to a time in his life that the decisions like baptism would be in his near future I also searched for comfort in scripture and found it. I feel what you have written was guided by God.