jzeeb.com

The Reward of Ruling With Christ

2026-03-03T00:00:00+00:00

One area of theology that I feel is not taught about very often in church is the topic of heavenly rewards. As a result, I have seen even mature Christians show some confusion about some aspects of these amazing rewards that we can look forward to one day receiving from God.

I feel that this confusion and/or lack of teaching on this topic can set Christians up for two possible errors:

We may feel worried when we think about heaven and fear that we will be disappointed with how few heavenly rewards we will receive.
We may feel discouraged when we compare our lives, spiritual gifts, and ministries with other Christians who we imagine may receive more or better heavenly rewards than we will.

Neither of these errors will inspire and encourage us to do what we can now to maximize our use of the gifts God has given us.

I have mentioned heavenly rewards in a number of my blog posts, but it would likely be time-consuming for someone to go through them and pull out all the relevant sections to put together all of the information into one spot. Even then, I may have missed covering some aspects of heavenly rewards if this information wasn't related to the arguments I was making in those posts.

Therefore, I feel it is worth doing a few in-depth posts on this topic in order to clear up any possible misunderstandings Christians may have about heavenly rewards, and which can consolidate my thoughts on all aspects of this topic.

In my first post of this series, I covered all the things that every Christian can look forward to receiving in heaven simply because we believed in Jesus as our Savior at some point, regardless of how else we behaved in this life.

However, there are some additional rewards that the Bible reveals God will give to Christians which do depend on our actions in this life.

In my second post of the series, I covered 3 different eternal crowns that Christians can qualify for, and shared some advice about how Christians can spiritually discipline ourselves so that we do not become disqualified for these crowns.

In this final post, I'll cover the heavenly rewards that God promises to give Christians for our good works and charitable giving, and suggest that these rewards will translate into positions of eternal ruling authority with Christ.

I hope these posts will encourage Christians that even though we are eternally saved the very first moment we put our faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14), there are still very good reasons to hold onto our faith and to do our best to serve God in this life.

Rewards for Good Works

One aspect of Christians' future in heaven which may make us nervous is the idea that even though we are eternally saved by putting our faith in Christ alone, the things we have done in our lives will still be judged by God:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10, NIV)

I think some Christians worry about this verse because they may think God is going to punish them for the bad things they did in this life. This is absolutely, 100%, NOT TRUE. And there's no need for any Christian to spend time in purgatory, either.

There is NO condemnation or wrath for anyone who has trusted in Jesus as his or her Savior (Romans 8:1, 5:9). Jesus' death on the cross paid for all our sins (1 John 1:7, Hebrews 10:10-14), and as a result, believers are credited with Christ's perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21, Isaiah 61:10).

God no longer even remembers our sins (Hebrews 10:17). God has metaphorically thrown them into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), and has effectively taken our sins away from us as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12), i.e., infinitely far, since it's always possible to go farther east or farther west.

We also know that this judgment of Christians' lives is not for eternal salvation. The Bible is extremely clear that the very first moment we believed in Jesus as our Savior who promises us eternal life, we were sealed with the Holy Spirit who is the guarantee of our eternal salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14). In some sense, we are already seated in heaven with Christ (Ephesians 2:4-7) — it's that certain!

Thus, Christians can know for sure right now that we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). We don't have to wait for God to make a decision about this sometime in the future.

So then what does Paul mean when he says that Christians' lives and deeds will be judged?

In 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, Paul encourages us to imagine ourselves as being a construction worker or architect who is constructing a building.

The solid and unshakeable foundation of our Christian lives is our faith in Christ as our Savior (1 Corinthians 3:11). This faith is rewarded with eternal life, as well as many other amazing heavenly rewards for all Christians.

On top of this foundation, however, we can imagine ourselves constructing a structure made of different sorts of materials. These materials represent our good works, or our bad and/or worthless works.

When God judges these works, the works that were bad or worthless will burn up just like how wood, hay, and straw burn up completely in a fire, leaving only ashes. In contrast, our good works will survive the fire, just like how gold, precious metals, and gems are unhurt by fire (1 Corinthians 3:12-13).

So once we come face-to-face with Jesus after we are resurrected and/or changed from mortal to immortal and taken to heaven at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18), each of us will have our lives evaluated by God to judge how well we lived for him (1 Peter 4:17).

Once this judgment is over, our good works can be pictured as being a metaphorical pile of gold, silver, and precious gems. This is likely what Jesus was referring to when he said that we can store up treasures in heaven:

Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)

We may think that only really spectacular good works could possibly deserve God's reward. Yet actually, Jesus said that even a good work as small as giving someone a cup of cold water because we are Jesus' disciples will be rewarded (Matthew 10:42). Hebrews 6:10 reaffirms that nothing we've ever done to serve God will be overlooked, no matter how small it seemed at the time.

The same is true for other spiritual good works such as fasting and praying, as long as we do not do these things only in order to impress others (Matthew 6:5-6, 6:16-17).

Jesus will also take into consideration the motivations that were behind each action, and our consciences (1 Corinthians 4:5, Romans 2:15-16). Paul says that even the most extreme 'spiritual' things we could do (e.g., dying for our faith or giving up everything we have) mean nothing if they were not done out of love for God or others (1 Corinthians 13:1-3).

Yet I like what Lee Brainerd suggests when he notes that we can have mixed motives behind why we do things. So an action might partly be done out of love for God or others, and partly for some other reason. However, just as the bad or useless works we did in our lives will be burned up, Brainerd believes the same will be true for the bad motives we had, leaving only the good motives behind any work we did. Thus, a good work will still be rewardable as long as there was even a partially-loving motive behind it.1

So I think most Christians will be able to look forward to having a lot more metaphorical heavenly treasure than we might expect.

Rewards for Charitable Giving

Another way to store up these heavenly treasures is related to how we use our money. Jesus said,

Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. (Luke 12:33)

However, earning heavenly rewards by giving to the poor will only occur if we do not show off about it to others (Matthew 6:1-4).

Jesus told the rich young man to give his wealth to the poor and to come follow him, and promised the man that he would have treasure in heaven as a result (Matthew 19:21-22, Luke 18:22-24).

So actually, Jesus was inviting the rich young man to literally give up his past life and come be a disciple, which would have been a great privilege (Mark 10:21).

Many of Jesus' core disciples had given up their careers and ways of earning money in order to follow Jesus around on his mission of being an itinerant preacher (Matthew 4:18-22, 8:19-20, Luke 5:11, 5:27-28, 18:28). As a reward, Jesus said his twelve closest disciples would be rewarded with positions of ruling authority over Israel in Jesus' kingdom (Matthew 19:27-28).

Jesus also said that anyone who left family members or their homes in order to follow him would be rewarded by gaining hundreds of other loved ones who would welcome them into their homes as if they were their own family (Matthew 19:29). This promise became true for the first apostles who were welcomed into homes all around the Roman Empire as they traveled to spread the gospel and start new churches (Mark 10:29-30). It is also still true for many missionaries around the world who stay with the people God leads them to minister to.

I believe this promise will also be true in heaven, where every Christian would surely be honored to have any of these twelve disciples come visit us in our homes. We would also surely love to welcome in anyone who has ever contributed to our spiritual growth, whether past Christians whose writings we read, or our fellow Christians who encourage us today.

Admittedly, some Christians have felt convicted to take Jesus' words to the rich young man and apply them to themselves, literally. One famous example was the ancient Egyptian hermit Saint Anthony.2

However, we must remember that the needs of Jesus and his disciples were provided for by their wealthy followers (Luke 8:3), as well as by locals who invited them to stay in their homes and gave them food as they traveled around preaching and healing (e.g., Luke 9:3-6, 19:5-6). The same was true for Anthony, who basically became a reluctant spiritual leader for other hermits and local people of the region. Thus, his needs were provided for by the rest of the community, and so were those of his dependent sister, whom Anthony moved into an early convent/monastic community for women.

Therefore, I don't think it is wise to take Jesus' words to this particular rich man as if it is an instruction for every Christian. Today, if the average Christian gives up everything we have, we would just end up becoming a burden on someone else, whether our family, our friends, our church, or society as a whole, and that's not a good thing.

Providing for our families is something that God expects us to do, and this involves having possessions and money and managing these things wisely (1 Timothy 5:8). Working to earn money and save for our retirement so that we're not a burden on others (1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12) and so that we can be charitable toward others is also recommended (Ephesians 4:28).

Paul took pride in supporting himself by being a tentmaker rather than needing churches to financially support him, in case his acceptance of money for his missionary work would turn people off from hearing the gospel message (1 Thessalonians 2:9, 1 Corinthians 9:11-18, 2 Thessalonians 3:7-9, Acts 18:2-3). However, Paul did sometimes accept financial support for parts of his ministry (2 Corinthians 11:8-9).

So we cannot say that Jesus wants all Christians to give up everything we have in order to give it all to the poor. Jesus said that poverty is an issue that will never be solved until his Millennial Kingdom (Mark 14:7, Isaiah 65:21-22, Micah 4:4).

Yet at the same time I do believe that giving to charities that help the poor is one way to earn heavenly rewards, along with being generous to provide for our church leaders and pay our churches' bills, and also support Christian ministries and missionaries that spread the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:13-14).

Although in the Old Testament it was required for the Israelites to give ten percent of their income to support their work of the priests in the Temple (Numbers 18:21-24), there is no such mandatory requirement for Christians today. Still, many Christians do find ten percent of their income to be reasonable to give to support their local church and/or other Christian charities.

And personally, I would recommend that Christians should primarily support reputable Christian charities, especially those charities that spread the gospel as part of their work. Although there are many secular charities that do lots of good work, there are also many wealthy secular people who support those charities. Yet sharing the gospel is done only by Christian missionaries, evangelists, churches, and other evangelical Christian charities, and so I think Christians should prioritize giving to these types of Christian causes.

When giving to these worthy causes we should remember an important principle that Jesus revealed regarding heavenly rewards: the amount of money we give to these causes is considered in God's sight as being relative to how much we have. So a person who has less money but who chooses to make personal financial sacrifices in order to be able to give a little to charity has actually given more than a very wealthy person who can give away large amounts of money without even noticing it (Mark 12:41-44).

Thus, the absolute amount that we give to charity isn't what matters, but our attitude, since God says he loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7). It's also true that "whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully" (2 Corinthians 9:6).

There is also the somewhat-strange verse which says:

The one who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and the one who receives a righteous person because he is a righteous person will receive a righteous person's reward. (Matthew 10:41)

Remember that at that time, welcoming a traveling preacher or prophet into your home was a major way of supporting that person's ministry (2 Kings 4:9-11).

So in today's context, I believe we can interpret this verse to say that anyone who financially supports another Christian's ministry will be rewarded the same way as if we were the actual person doing that ministry. This idea is quite mind-blowing, and can definitely encourage Christians to be generous when supporting other Christian ministries or missionaries.

In this way, every Christian has an equal opportunity to store up heavenly treasures by wisely using our money for God's kingdom, regardless of how much money we actually have.

Heavenly Treasures Translate To Positions of Ruling Authority

So in both of the previous sections we have discussed how our good works and charitable giving will be rewarded. Both of these sections have used the analogies of this reward being like heavenly treasure.

However, if you read my post about rewards all Christians will receive in heaven, you might recall the verses which say that all Christians will be heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17). And if God is the creator of the entire universe, then it seems we will also inherit everything in the New Heaven and New Earth:

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32)

What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)

You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psalm 16:11)

If this is true, then I don't think these additional heavenly treasures that we can store up in this life will be used to buy things that we will enjoy in heaven. These treasures won't go into some heavenly investment account that generates a certain amount of interest per month that we can spend on whatever we want.

And that's because there would be no point. There is nothing we would ever need or want to buy in heaven!

God will give us every physical or material thing we could ever want, simply because we are his children, and because he loves giving good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:11). We won't need these heavenly treasures to buy or furnish our perfect homes in heaven, or upgrade our already-perfect immortal bodies.

Furthermore, I've heard a joke that goes like this: A rich man dies and takes his most treasured possession to heaven with him: a gold bar. When he arrives in heaven, an angel asks him "So, why did you bring this chunk of pavement with you?" After all, the New Jerusalem is described as having streets that are paved with gold (Revelation 21:21), and foundations made of precious gems (Revelation 21:19-20).

So in the New Heaven and New Earth, gold and jewels will be construction materials — not things that are used to purchase goods or services. It will be like how today no one would walk into a store and try to buy something with an old brick, because a brick has very little value due to how common it is.

So then what will these heavenly treasures be good for? I believe the answer is found in the Parable of the Minas and the Parable of the Talents.

The Parable of the Minas and the Parable of the Talents

In Luke 19:12-27, Jesus told a story about a man who has ten servants. The man is preparing to go away on a journey to be crowned as king. In the meantime, the man gives each servant one mina, where a mina was an amount of money worth about three month's wages. The man tells his servants to engage in business until he returns. When their master returns, his servants report to him and return their earnings to him.

One servant managed to multiply his money ten times. Another multiplied his money only five times. As a reward, the man gives each servant a corresponding number of cities to rule over in their master's new kingdom: ten cities for the servant who earned ten times the money, and five cities for the servant who earned five times the money. Presumably, we can say the same ratio was applied for all the rest of the servants, also.

So in this parable, we see that the money earned by the servants translates into positions of service/rulership in their master's kingdom. Therefore, the same will be true for our heavenly treasure, since, again, there is nothing we will need money to buy in heaven, and a pile of literal gold and gems won't be anything special there, either.

However, positions of service/rulership are one way that Christians could be rewarded differently by God in heaven, depending on how well we served him in this life with everything that God had graciously given us: our time, money, physical possessions, skills and abilities, and the opportunities to do good works that God arranged ahead of time for us to do (Ephesians 2:10).

And yes, I do say these will be positions of service/rulership, because we must remember that in God's kingdom, rulership is not about bossing others around or making others serve us. It's actually the opposite: the greatest person in the kingdom of heaven will be everyone's servant (Mark 9:35, 10:42-44, Matthew 20:25-27, 23:11, Luke 22:25-27).

Jesus was the greatest servant due to how he laid down his life for everyone's sins (Mark 10:45, Matthew 20:28). As a result, Jesus is rewarded by becoming the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 19:16) whose name is above every other power and name in the entire universe, and who is given authority over all things (Philippians 2:5-11, Ephesians 1:20-22).

Correspondingly, the Parable of the Minas reveals that Jesus will reward Christians with sub-positions of rulership/service in Jesus' government, which will vary according to how well we served God with everything we did or had in this life.

This idea makes sense. Those Christians who loved to serve God in this life and who therefore served him the best will be rewarded with more opportunities to do what they loved most and what they spent large amounts of effort or time or resources doing: serving God. Whereas Christians who didn't love to serve God or who didn't put as much effort or time or resources into doing this will be rewarded with lesser positions of service/rulership that will not require as much time or effort to do in heaven.

And in case any Christians are worried that they have had to spend most of their time in this life not serving God, but working to earn a living, then these Christians can be encouraged with the knowledge that serving their employer will be counted the same as serving God, if this work was done with the same level of care and the same attitude as if they were serving God (Ephesians 6:5-8).

Another principle for how God will judge Christians' lives for positions of service/rulership is revealed in the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30).

This parable is nearly identical to the Parable of the Minas, except for how the servants are given different amounts of money. One servant is given five talents (where a talent was about twenty years' worth of wages), and another servant is given only two talents.

Yet each servant manages to double their money, and so their master is equally pleased with each servant. It didn't matter that one servant started with five and another started with two.

When these parables are combined, they teach us about how God will judge Christians for positions of rulership in his kingdom. It doesn't matter exactly what we had, but only how well we used everything that we were given by God:

An example of this might be a world famous evangelist who maximizes the opportunities God gives to him and a washer woman who spends her life scrubbing floors and pinching pennies and sending off everything she can to the mission fields. The woman may maximize her opportunities in exactly the same measure and degree as the world famous evangelist maximizes his. We should never feel particularly inferior to other people because the Lord hasn’t given us the gift that we so much admire in some other servants of His. If we are faithful with the gifts we’ve been given in terms of our own abilities, then our reward will be the same as someone who has traveled the world and maximized his.3

This is very encouraging. I suspect that most Christians will definitely have earned at least some heavenly rewards, and possibly far more than we might have ever expected. This means that most Christians will likely be rewarded with at least some sort of position of service/ruling authority with Jesus.

What Will Ruling With Christ Mean?

But what will it mean to rule with Christ, and why should Christians care about being rewarded in this way?

The Bible shows it was always God's plan for humanity to rule the world and all the animals in it (Genesis 1:26-28). Randy Alcorn in his book Heaven (2004) explains that

God's intention for humans was that we would occupy the whole Earth and reign over it. This dominion would produce God-exalting societies in which we would exercise the creativity, imagination, intellect, and skills befitting beings created in God's image, thereby manifesting his attributes. To be made in God's image involves a communicative mandate: that through our creative industry as God's subcreators, we should together make the invisible God visible, thus glorifying him in the sight of all creation. 4

However, Alcorn also says

Many people have told me they're uncomfortable with the idea that mankind will rule the earth, govern cities, and reign forever. It sounds presumptuous and self-important. I would agree — if it was our idea to reign over the universe, it would indeed be presumptuous. But it was not our idea, it was God's.5

So let's not worry that discussing the topic of ruling with Christ is somehow arrogant or prideful. It's not, and it's actually an amazing topic that gives us a lot to look forward to in heaven. We won't just be sitting on clouds doing nothing forever, but will be creating culture and building societies, and doing so all for God's glory.

But if we're going to rule with Christ, then the next most natural question is:

Whom will we rule? Other people. Angels. If God wishes, he may create new beings for us to rule. Who will rule over us? Other people.6

Of course, not all positions of responsibility over others involve people. Adam and Eve governed animals before there were any other people. Some of us may be granted the privilege of caring for animals.... Perhaps some will care for forests. Ruling will likely involve the management of all of God's creation, not just people.7

However, I have heard some non-Christians claim that they don't want to go to heaven if some people are going to have more heavenly rewards than others, or if some people will be in higher positions of ruling authority than others. Supposedly, to these critics, it wouldn't be 'heaven' if everyone isn't totally equal.

The idea of some people having different levels of authority in heaven might sound very unappealing, even to some Christians. If so, it's probably because they're thinking about all the ways that this sort of authority has been abused in this world. As Alcorn explains,

Others may perceive that the New Earth will need no government or that differing levels of authority (e.g., some ruling over ten cities while others rule over five or one or none) are inherently corrupt or unfair. But the need for government didn't come about as a result of sin. God governed the universe before Satan fell. Likewise, he created mankind as his image-bearers, with the capacity for ruling, and before Adam and Eve sinned, God specifically commanded them to rule the earth. Ruling isn't a bad thing, it's a good thing. God has called us to it and has equipped us for it — to rule the earth, rule it well, and find pleasure in ruling it. Because we're sinners, power tends to corrupt us. But on the New Earth there will be no sin. Therefore, all ruling will be just and benevolent, devoid of abuse, corruption, or lust for power. 8

Similarly, the early church theologian Augustine also argued that in heaven, there will be varying degrees of honor awarded to Christians based on our merit, however, no one will envy one another or want someone else's position of service/rulership.9

Furthermore, I agree with Alcorn that we can be assured that no Christian will ever look down on one another in this system of government:

There will be a social hierarchy of government, but there's no indication of a relational hierarchy. In other words, the apostle Paul will be in a position of greater leadership than most of us, but that doesn't mean he'll be inaccessible. There will be no pride, envy, boasting, or anything sin-related.10

So no one will be upset that Jesus' twelve closest historic disciples will be rewarded by ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel, as Jesus promised they would (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30). No one will be upset if King David also has some special role ruling over the land of Israel, as is hinted in various verses (Jeremiah 30:9, Hosea 3:5, Ezekiel 34:23-24, 37:24-25).

However, Alcorn notes that he also frequently runs into another sort of objection to the idea of Christians ruling with Christ:

When I write and speak on this subject, people often respond, "But I don't want to rule. That's not my idea of Heaven." Well, it's God's idea of Heaven... It may sound spiritual to say we don't care to rule, but because God's the one who wants us to rule, the spiritual response is to be interested in his plans and purposes.11

Ruling involves responsibility — perhaps that's why some people don't look forward to it. Some people live in anticipation of retirement, when responsibilities will be removed. Why would they want to take on an eternal task of governing? But what they think they want now and what they'll really want as resurrected beings — with strong bodies and minds in a society untouched by sin — may be quite different.12

Imagine responsibility, service, and leadership that's pure joy. The responsibility that God will entrust to us as a reward can only be good for us, and we'll find delight in it. To rule on the New Earth will be to enable, equip and guide, offering wisdom and encouragement to those under our authority. We've so often seen leadership twisted that we've lost a biblical view of what ruling, or exercising dominion, really means.13

Service is a reward, not a punishment. This idea is foreign to people who dislike their work and only put up with it until retirement. We think that faithful work should be rewarded by a vacation for the rest of our lives. But God offers us something very different: more work, more responsibilities, increased opportunities, along with greater abilities, resources, wisdom, and empowerment. We will have sharp minds, strong bodies, clear purpose, and unabated joy. The more we serve Christ now, the greater our capacity will be to serve him in heaven.14

However, there will still be time for relaxation:

Reigning over cities will certainly not be "having nothing to do." I believe that those who rule cities on the New Earth will have leisure (Rest) and will fully enjoy it, but they will have plenty to do.15

So I hope this short overview of what it may be like to rule with Jesus in his Millennial Kingdom as well as in the New Heaven and New Earth has inspired anyone who was skeptical of the idea to be excited and look forward to this amazing eternal reward.

But if this is a reward, then is there any risk that some Christians might miss out on it? I'll discuss this in the next section.

Will Any Christians Experience Loss in Heaven?

In my previous post, I discussed how Christians can miss out on qualifying for three different eternal crowns, or even lose these crowns, if we disqualify ourselves or let someone else metaphorically take our crowns away.

Similarly, there does seem to be a risk that some Christians might experience 'loss' at the Judgment Seat of Christ, regarding our good works.

Let's return to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. Here, it shows that there is a possibility that there might be some Christians who earn no heavenly rewards at all, because everything they did in their lives was effectively wood, hay, and straw — things that were worthless, as far as God is concerned. Yet these Christians obviously still get eternal life (1 Corinthians 3:15), and also all the heavenly rewards that every Christian will receive.

So in some sense, these sorts of Christians would "suffer loss", as the verse says — not because anything will be taken away from them, but because their opportunity to earn these rewards was lost/wasted. Remember, Jesus said that even the person who does the tiniest good work "will by no means lose his reward" (Mark 9:41).

Therefore, our bad works will NOT somehow cancel out or negate our good works, and we will never lose any reward that God promises to give us for these good works. The bad works will be totally burned up, gone, and will never be remembered again (Isaiah 65:17, 43:25, Hebrews 10:17).

The idea of Christians missing out on the opportunity to serve God is also taught by the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Minas.

There, we see the example of the servant who is given only one talent, which, we must remember, was still a very large amount of money. But instead of the servant choosing to wisely use and invest his money like the other servants did, he simply buries this incredible wealth in the ground. When the master returns, the servant hands this unused talent/mina back to his master (Matthew 25:24-25, Luke 19:20-21).

The master becomes angry with this servant for not even thinking to put the money in the bank, to earn the most minimal interest on it. As a result, the servant's talent/mina is taken away from him and is given to the servant who did the best (Matthew 25:26-29, Luke 19:23-28).

This means that for Christians who did do good works in this life, we may receive even greater abilities and opportunities to serve God eternally as a result of other Christians failing to qualify for these positions of service/ruling authority.

On top of this, the now-talent-less servant is thrown into the "outer darkness" where "there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 25:30). So what does this mean?

The Outer Darkness Is Not Hell

Although many Bible interpreters say that Matthew 25:30 is a reference to hell, it actually cannot be.

We must note that the now-talent-less servant is still his master's servant, even though he was a failure.16 In the Parable of the Minas, the outer darkness is not mentioned, but we do see that the now-mina-less servant is NOT executed like his master the king's enemies are (Luke 19:27).

As an annihilationist, I believe the best understanding of hell is as, effectively, a sort of eternal 'execution'. So in Luke's Parable of the Minas, we should note that the servant is not executed, which means he is not thrown into the Lake of Fire that was created for Satan and the demons (Matthew 25:41) and that will be used to destroy everyone who is unsaved after the final judgment (Revelation 20:13-15).

And as I mentioned in my previous post, the expression "weeping and gnashing of teeth" should not be thought of as the activity of people who are being tortured in hell, since this behavior was simply a typical middle-eastern way of expressing intense grief.17

For some Christians to have wasted their entire lives and the opportunity to do good works that could have been rewarded with a position of eternal service/ruling authority would certainly be something worth weeping over. Yet this grief will be temporary, since the Bible says that in the New Heaven and New Earth God will wipe away all tears (Revelation 20:4).18

So again, as in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, the Parable of the Talents and the Parable of the Minas teach that there may be some Christians who never did any good works at all in their entire lives. Their 'punishment' for this failure will be to miss out on being rewarded with positions of service/ruling authority, for which these Christians will be temporarily sad, but they will still be eternally saved.

So then the only question left is what actually is this 'outer darkness' that the talent-less servant is thrown into?

I think the answer comes from the Parable of the Wedding Feast.

The Outer Darkness and the Parable of the Wedding Feast

There are several different things going on in the Parable of the Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14.

First, the king sends out his servants to invite several local nobles to come to his son's wedding feast, but the nobles all make excuses for why they can't attend, and some of them even abuse the king's servants. As a result, the king tells his servants to go out to invite anyone they find on the roads or in the countryside to his feast.

This part of the parable is a prophecy referring to how Jesus and the disciples first went to the Jews to share the good news (Matthew 10:5-6, 15:24), but once the Jewish religious authorities rejected Jesus and his disciples (Matthew 27:20-23, Acts 7:52-53, 7:54-60), the Jews have become partly 'hardened' toward the gospel (Romans 11:25-32). Since then, the gospel has spread mostly among the gentiles (i.e., non-Jews) due to the ministry of Paul and many others (Acts 13:46-47, Romans 11:11-16). This part of the parable is also in Luke 14:16-24.

So anyway, because the nobles rejected the invitation, all these other random people get invited to the king's feast, and they do show up. But then the king sees one man in his banquet hall who is not properly dressed for this wedding, and confronts him:

But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, "Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?" And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." For many are called, but few are chosen. (Matthew 22:11-14)

Now, there are two ways we could interpret this part of the parable, which is only found in the Gospel of Matthew.

First, if we wanted to say that the 'outer darkness' in this parable is hell, then the man without the wedding garment would have to be someone who was not saved, i.e. he was not wearing Christ's righteousness which is permanently given to all Christians the moment we first believe in Jesus as our Savior (e.g., Isaiah 61:10, Ephesians 1:13-14, Revelation 7:13-14, 3:4-5, 3:18).

However, if the man is an unbeliever, then it is rather strange for Jesus to say that the man apparently did respond to the king's invitation to attend the wedding feast, and actually showed up. It seems to me that if the man was an unbeliever, he shouldn't have even responded to the king's invitation, just like the other nobles who rejected it and who didn't show up to the feast.

So an alternate interpretation would be to say that the man's wedding garment (or lack thereof) represents a true Christian's good works.

But if so, then we cannot say that the 'outer darkness' in this parable represents hell, because that would be teaching treadmill theology, which is what I call the legalistic idea that Christians must do good works in order to be eternally saved.

As seen earlier in this post, the parable cannot be teaching that true Christians can lose their salvation for not doing enough good works, because 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and the Parable of the Minas show that although some Christians may miss out on earning heavenly rewards, these Christian themselves will still be eternally saved.

However, there is an interesting verse in the Book of Revelation that I believe supports the interpretation that the wedding garment represents individual Christians' good works. If the Church, made up of all true Christians, is pictured as being Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:25-32), then in heaven, the Church's 'wedding dress' can be thought of as being made up of all Christians' good works:

Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure — for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Revelation 19:7-9)

If this idea is applied to each individual Christian, then the Parable of the Wedding Feast may indicate that if a Christian does not have any good works, it would basically be as shameful and disrespectful as not showing up properly dressed for a king's wedding.

The king would be rightly justified in throwing this disrespectful guest outside of his beautiful, brightly-lit banquet hall, into the 'outer darkness', so that the guest does not get to enjoy the feast. Then the guest would feel regret as he looks through the banquet hall's windows from the outside and sees everyone else having a great time celebrating, and would weep and gnash his teeth as he realizes what he missed out on.19

Now, again, we know that the feast cannot be representing heaven or eternal life. But being booted out of a king's wedding celebration could certainly represent missing out on the fun that other Christians who did do good works will eternally enjoy as they rule with Christ.

If this is the proper interpretation, which I believe is the only one that fits with everything else we know about eternal salvation according to the rest of the Bible, then it also fits very well with my interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids in Matthew 25:1-13.

There, I argue that the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids is addressing what happens to the saints who live during the seven-year Tribulation who do not care for their fellow persecuted believers. This category of saints does not appear at the Sheep and Goats Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 which will occur after Jesus' second coming, before he sets up his thousand-year Millennial Kingdom on Earth. Thus, it appears that this category of Tribulation saints will die sometime before this judgment.

Yet unlike the martyred Tribulation saints who will be resurrected after Jesus' second coming, these saints will not be resurrected at this time, and so they will not get to enjoy the privilege of ruling with Christ during the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4). Thus, because of their lack of good works, these Tribulation saints who did not do good works will be 'locked out' of the wedding feast thrown by the bridegroom (and his bride — the raptured/resurrected Church who returned with Christ as part of his heavenly armies in Revelation 19:14 and Jude 14-15).

These Tribulation saints will only be resurrected after the Millennial Kingdom is over, probably when everyone else is also resurrected before the final judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

So it's only fair to say the same sort of consequence would be given to Christians today who live before the Rapture, but who never did any good works. They will be denied the privilege of ruling with Christ.

As mentioned earlier, however, I suspect that the number of Christians who will have done absolutely no good works or given nothing to charity, ever, is probably very small. If even the tiniest good work of giving someone a cup of water will be rewarded (Matthew 10:42), then it would seem to be very hard to actually not do any good works.

Sure, there might be a few Christians out there, perhaps those who, like the thief on the cross, have mostly lived a selfish or sinful life of wickedness, but somehow believe in Jesus just as they are about to die (Luke 23:39-43). Perhaps it is these sorts of Christians who might end up with very little heavenly reward, but I think they would just be happy to even be in heaven, in that case.

How To Not End Up As The Talent-Less Servant in the Outer Darkness

Now, some Christians might worry that in comparison to other famous, influential, or highly-gifted Christians, they themselves have hardly anything to offer God. It is these Christians who may be the most tempted to not even bother trying to serve God, perhaps out of fear that it won't make any difference, or that there's nothing useful they can do for God, or that they might just mess something up if they do try to serve God.20

But as the Parable of the Talents and Parable of the Minas teach, every Christian should aim to do something for God, rather than 'bury' our opportunities for doing good works, or we may miss out on being rewarded with a position of eternal service/rulership with Christ.

However, there are also a few other ways that the Bible warns Christians may be prevented from maximizing the use of our opportunities for God.

In the Parable of the Four Soils in Matthew 13:3-9, 13:18-23, and Luke 8:5-15, a farmer scatters seeds on four different types of soil.

Only the first type of soil — the hardened path — represents an unbeliever, because the seed does not grow at all and is snatched away by birds before it can sprout (Luke 8:12). In all the other three types of soil, the seed takes root and sprouts, so these types of soil represent believers who are eternally saved the very first minute they believe (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Yet only the plant that grows in the last type of soil successfully produces fruit. Even then, the productivity of this plant can vary from thirty to sixty to a hundredfold (Matthew 13:23), perhaps echoing the servants who earn different amounts of money based on how they invest it in the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:12-26).

Therefore, the Parable of the Four Soils is not about how to be eternally saved. This is a parable about things to watch out for that can negatively impact a Christian's 'fruitfulness' for God.21

Those two major things that can reduce our 'fruitfulness' are shown in the next two categories of soil.

Some of the farmer's seeds land in soil that has thorns growing in it which eventually choke out the plant from becoming fruitful. Jesus said these thorns represent "the cares and riches and pleasures of life" (Luke 8:14).

So this teaches that if Christians become too wrapped up in their own concerns and pleasure, it can keep them from doing good works for God. In this way, their faith, although real, becomes 'dead' (i.e. useless) in terms of producing good works in this life that can both earn eternal rewards and help others who are suffering (James 2:15-17).

In the rocky soil, the seed sprouts and grows quickly, but when this Christian experiences persecution or suffering for their faith, they fall away (Luke 8:13). As I said in my previous post, Christians can truly fall away from their faith, but if they do, they will not qualify for the Crown of Life. And as shown in this parable, if a Christian has walked away from an active relationship with God, that obviously makes it impossible to serve God productively.

After all, we must stay connected to Christ in order to be fruitful for him, just like how grape branches must stay connected to their larger vine in order to produce grapes (John 15:4-5). If Christians sever themselves from the vine, their branches will dry up and be unable to produce fruit, and so these branches become only worthy of being burned up (John 15:6).

This warning is similar to how the worthless works of Christians will be burned up and not earn any reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ, as we examined earlier (1 Corinthians 3:15).

As I noted in my previous post, there is a verse that suggests that true Christians who apostasize (e.g. give up their faith in Christ and never return to it in this life) will also miss out on the privilege of ruling with Christ:

The saying is sure: 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 will also deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful — for he cannot deny himself. (2 Timothy 2:11-13, NRSVA)

So let's unpack this verse again, just to solidify this teaching in our minds:

All Christians have already died with Christ (Colossians 3:3, Romans 6:3-4) in that our old selves are now gone, and our inner spirits have been made new and are no longer bound to sin or the Old Testament law (2 Corinthians 5:17, Romans 6:6-7, 7:1-6). This spiritual rebirth guarantees that we will one day live forever with Christ (Romans 6:5, 6:8).

And Jesus says that whoever comes to him he will never cast out (John 6:37). Jesus cannot lie, and therefore, he "cannot deny himself" (i.e. go against his own promise). Therefore, even if we lose our faith, we will still be eternally saved, because Jesus is faithful to us, even if we are not faithful to him.

So the only part of 2 Timothy 2:11-13 that seems to be conditional for true Christians is verse 12: "if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us."

Thus, this verse must be referring not to eternal life, but to the privilege of ruling with Christ, which this verse does seem to say depends on Christians persevering in our faith until the end of our earthly lives.22

In the Book of Revelation, Jesus says,

The one who overcomes, and the one who keeps My deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are shattered, as I also have received authority from My Father. (Revelation 2:26-27, NASB)

"Overcoming" in the above verse is the same as having faith in Jesus, as explained elsewhere by John (the same author as the Book of Revelation):

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:4-5)

So again, when these verses are combined, it seems clear that ruling with Jesus does depend on Christians persevering in our faith (i.e. not falling away into apostasy) until the end of our earthly lives, as well as doing at least some good works during that time.23

A Possible Objection: The Entire Bride of Christ Should Rule With Christ?

One question that the reader may be thinking of at this point is this:

If all true Christians make up the body of Christ, because we can all be compared to different sorts of body parts that all function together in harmony (1 Corinthians 12:12–13, 12:27, Romans 12:4–5), and Christ will be eternally ruling as the King of Kings (Revelation 19:16) and spiritual 'head' of the body (Ephesians 4:15–16), then it does seem strange to say that only some parts of Christ's body will rule with him, while others will not.

Likewise, if all true Christians also collectively make up the Bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:25–33, Revelation 19:7,) who is spiritually 'married' to Christ, then it seems strange to say that Jesus will rule as King of Kings, but only some parts of his Bride will help rule alongside him.

So it could be simply the case that the above two metaphors, while they do accurately reveal certain spiritual truths, cannot answer every question or fully explain every detail of the complex relationship between Jesus and his saints. If we press the metaphors too far, they may break. This happens for all metaphors, or they would no longer be a metaphor, but an exact description.

Of course, there are situations where a king has all the ruling authority, and the queen is only an important public figure who lives in the royal court but who doesn't have any real power (e.g. Queen Esther). So technically, kings and queens can "reign" (i.e., sit on a throne, act as a figurehead, attend ceremonies, receive honor, etc.) and not actually have any decision-making power that would let them "rule" (e.g., exercise authority or control over the kingdom's affairs).24

So there could possibly be some distinction between Christians "ruling" with Christ (i.e. having those lesser positions of service/rulership under Christ as King of Kings), and "reigning" with Christ.

In this case, we could say that all Christians will "reign" with Christ in terms of having some sort of special royal honor/status in heaven, but only Christians who held onto their faith for their entire lives and who did at least some good works will "rule" with Christ in terms of being the ones to make real decisions that can affect things in the Millennial Kingdom and/or the New Heaven and New Earth.

However, as far as I can tell, the Bible never makes this clear distinction. Based on my examination of 2 Timothy 2:12 in a variety of translations, it seems the English terms "rule" and "reign" are used as synonyms.

William Mounce notes that the Greek verb basileuo can mean both to "to rule" and "to reign". He doesn't specify any distinctions based on context that could give hints about when to use "rule" or when to use "reign" in translating the New Testament verses about Christians ruling/reigning with Christ (e.g. Revelation 5:10, 20:4, 22:5).25

But just to be on the safe side, if Christians today are concerned with maximizing our heavenly rewards, then we should be careful to not fall away from faith during our lives.

In this way, not only will we be able to do the greatest number of good works for Christ, but we will also not be disqualified for any crowns that we may be earning. We will also be guaranteed that our heavenly 'treasure' we store up will definitely be converted into some sort of position of service/ruling authority in Christ's eternal kingdom that will bring us additional eternal happiness and honor.

Conclusion

So this brings me to the end of my three-post series on heavenly rewards in which I've covered the three major aspects of eternal rewards.

There are rewards that all Christians can look forward to, including:

eternal life
a glorious immortal body
a perfect home custom made for us by God in the New Jerusalem.
an inheritance from God that will include the entire universe

There are three different eternal crowns that every Christian has an opportunity to qualify for:

the Crown of Righteousness for continually loving and longing for Jesus to return.
the Crown of Glory for faithfully caring for fellow Christians' spiritual development.
the Crown of Life for enduring persecution without giving up our faith.

And in this last post, we've covered how God promises that he will reward Christians' good deeds and charitable giving with eternal positions of service/rulership under Jesus Christ, depending on how well we served God in this life now. Because eternity is infinitely longer than this life, I also think that Christians should primarily live for eternity, rather than for things that are temporary (2 Corinthians 4:18).

In summary, there truly is a lot for Christians to look forward to in our eternal future.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58, NIV)

Footnotes:

1. Lee Brainerd, "Rapture Nugget — Glorious Reward", Soothkeep at YouTube, June 8 2025.
2. "Anthony the Great", Wikipedia.org, accessed February 28, 2026.
3. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 74. An online version of this chapter is posted as Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, "The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)", Grace Evangelical Society, June 1, 2017.
4. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 226.
5. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 221-222.
6. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 219.
7. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 221.
8. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 222.
9. "But who can conceive, not to say describe, what degrees of honor and glory shall be awarded to the various degrees of merit? Yet it cannot be doubted that there shall be degrees. And in that blessed city there shall be this great blessing, that no inferior shall envy any superior, as now the archangels are not envied by the angels, because no one will wish to be what he has not received, though bound in strictest concord with him who has received; as in the body the finger does not seek to be the eye, though both members are harmoniously included in the complete structure of the body. And thus, along with his gift, greater or less, each shall receive this further gift of contentment to desire no more than he has." Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 30, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
10. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 220.
11. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 219.
12. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 220.
13. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 220.
14. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 234.
15. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 234.
16. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 75. An online version of this chapter is posted as Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, "The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)", Grace Evangelical Society, June 1, 2017.
17. "In such passages, the real problem is that we westerners have a tendency to be more restrained in our expressions of grief.... but in the Middle East it is not unusual for a person who has lost a young child, a beloved wife, or somebody near to him to weep, wail, and gnash his teeth. Frequently in the Bible we read of people who weep, wail, rend their clothes, wallow in ashes and put dirt in their hair. These are Middle Eastern ways of showing intense grief. This is how Matt 24:51 should be understood. There is nothing about this description of grief that must always be interpreted in connection with hell. I don't think anybody in Jesus' day would have automatically connected this description with eternal torment." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 59.
18. "So since this passage is about a real servant of Christ who has lost the promotion and the rewards that could have been his by being faithful, he experiences intense grief. Some Christians experience a muted form of this grief now when they look back at wasted years and opportunities, but when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, we will no longer have our sin nature and the grief will be intensely acute. We will be perfect and will be able to see with painful clarity what we have lost. Grief is an appropriate response to that. This does not mean that such servants will weep and gnash their teeth forever, for we know that God will wipe away all tears from every eye (Revelation 21:4)." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 59.
19. "In Matthew 22... the outer darkness is fully fleshed out in terms of a wedding supper which was customarily held at night. An individual arrives at the wedding supper without the proper garment. He's tied up hands and feet and cast into the darkness outside, which means he's put out of the brightly lighted banqueting hall and put out on the grounds. The parable does not say there are some torturers out there who inflict unending torture on this poor guy that's tied up hands and feet. All of this is parabolic. Nobody believes that even the lost are going to be tied up hands and feet. What this means is that the man's activities are restricted and he is excluded from the brightly lighted banqueting hall where there's joy and festivity." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 76. An online version of this chapter is posted as Zane Hodges and Robert Wilkin, The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30)", Grace Evangelical Society, June 1, 2017.
20. Zane Hodges suspects that "in the Christian church there are people who realize, correctly, that they don't have a whole lot of talent. They don't have a whole lot of giftedness. They should realize they have something because the Scriptures assure us that all Christians have a spiritual gift. But it is easier for the man with the small gift to say 'What can I do? I could never be a world famous evangelist. I couldn't pastor a church. I can't even teach a Sunday school class. I just won't do anything. I've got so little talent that if I tried to use it, I'd probably squander it and mess things up like I do with a lot of other things in my life. And so I just won't do anything. This way, at least I won't harm anything'." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 80.
21. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 105-110.
22. Robert N. Wilkin, "2 Timothy" in The Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 1000-1001.
23. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 60-61.
24. "Reign" and "Rule", Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, accessed February 27, 2026.
25. "Rule" and "Reign" in William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 570-571 and 604-605.

How To Qualify For Eternal Crowns

2026-02-25T00:00:00+00:00

I feel that this confusion and/or lack of teaching on this topic can set Christians up for two possible errors:

We may feel worried when we think about heaven and fear that we will be disappointed with how few heavenly rewards we will receive.
We may feel discouraged when we compare our lives, spiritual gifts, and ministries with other Christians who we imagine may receive more or better heavenly rewards than we will.

Neither of these errors will inspire and encourage us to do what we can now to maximize our use of the gifts God has given us.

In my previous post, I covered all the things that every Christian can look forward to receiving in heaven simply because we believe in Jesus as our Savior.

However, there are some additional rewards that the Bible reveals God will give to Christians which do depend on our actions in this life.

In this post and my next post, we will examine what these rewards are and discuss how Christians can qualify for them. I hope these posts will encourage Christians that even though we are eternally saved the very first moment we put our faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14), there are still very good reasons to hold onto our faith and to do our best to serve God in this life.

In this post, I'll cover the three eternal crowns that the Bible says God will give to Christians provided that we meet certain criteria, and I'll offer some advice on how we can ensure we do not become disqualified for these crowns.

In the next and final post on this topic, I'll cover the rewards God promises to give us for our good works, and how these rewards will most likely translate into positions of ruling authority with Christ.

Three Objections To The Teaching of Heavenly Rewards

Before getting into this topic, I want to address what I feel are three frequent objections to the topic of heavenly rewards. These are:

Christians shouldn't care about receiving heavenly rewards.
Doing good works out of a desire to receive heavenly rewards is selfish.
The concept of heavenly rewards that depend on our behavior might cause Christians to brag about our own efforts and achievements.

I will respond to each of these objections in the next three sub-sections. If these questions don't concern you, feel free to click this link to skip down to the next section where I begin to discuss the eternal crowns that the Bible teaches Christians can receive.

Objection 1: Christians Shouldn't Care About Heavenly Rewards

Sometimes, I've seen it argued that it is somehow 'unspiritual' for Christians to want to receive heavenly rewards.

As an example, I know of a Christian song which includes the line "And when I'm doing well, help me to never seek a crown, for my reward is giving glory to You."

While this claim sounds pious and humble, I think this view actually dishonors God. Heavenly rewards are God's idea, after all, since no one can force God to give out heavenly rewards if God didn't want to.

So if God wants to give out heavenly rewards, then that's God's decision, and Christians shouldn't object to it. It would actually show more humility for us to accept what God has told us in the Bible about how he wants to generously reward his people in heaven, than to complain and say that heavenly rewards are unfair or somehow 'unspiritual'.

Furthermore, Jesus himself encourages us to seek heavenly rewards:

Paul says something similar:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. (1 Corinthians 9:24-25, NIV)

When we realize that these crowns and other rewards that we'll get to enjoy for all eternity depend on the things we do in our incomparably-short lives right now, it can provide strong motivation for Christians to do the best we can for God at all times. As C.S. Lewis argues:

If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves, who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the Slave Trade, all left their mark on Earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this. Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth 'thrown in': aim at Earth and you will get neither.1

In the past, Christians have not been ashamed to admit that heavenly rewards have motivated them to serve God more passionately. For example, Jonathan Edwards wrote that one of his goals was:

To endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence ... I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.2

Present-day Free Grace theologian Robert Wilkin also shares that the doctrine of heavenly rewards increased his motivation to serve God well:

I came to see that the doctrine of eternal rewards is intimately connected with love for Jesus. If I love Him, then I want His approval. I want to hear Him say, "Well done, good servant" (Luke 19:17).3

So living our lives now with a focus on heaven and with a desire to receive additional heavenly rewards in order to inspire us to do our best for God is thoroughly biblical. It's also highly recommended by other Christians of the past and present.

Thus, there's no reason why any Christian should feel bad for doing good works or for serving God with the hope of receiving heavenly rewards in the back of our minds.

Objection 2: Wanting to Earn Heavenly Rewards Is Selfish

A second objection may come from the claim that it is selfish for Christians to serve God out of a desire to qualify for additional heavenly rewards. Critics of the teaching of heavenly rewards often insist we should only do good works out of a desire to love God and love others.

Now, it is true that our good works should be done out of love for God and love for others, since even the greatest things we could do will be unworthy of God's commendation and reward if there is no love involved at all as part of our motivation:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

Doing good works simply out of a motive to be seen or admired by others also will not be rewarded in heaven (Matthew 6:1-2, 6:5, 6:16).

Yet the fact that God tells us about heavenly rewards and encourages us to seek them shows that desiring these rewards is not selfish.

It also tells us that seeking to qualify for heavenly rewards is compatible with doing good works out of love for God and others. If it were somehow sinful or selfish for Christians to desire heavenly rewards, then God wouldn't have told us about them.

But since God has told us about these rewards, then presumably, he wants us to do the things that will qualify us to receive these rewards. And if that's what God wants, then we should want it, too.

Objection 3: Heavenly Rewards Mean That Christians Could Boast

A third objection to the teaching of heavenly rewards may come from the worry that in heaven, Christians will be able to brag about their heavenly rewards to others. Or perhaps, we might fear that the idea of 'earning' heavenly rewards means we could whine to God that we 'deserve' more rewards, as if they are a sort of salary or pay.

However, in heaven, neither of these attitudes will be a problem.

In reality, every person's good works ultimately come from God. Because all people are sinners, all the good things we do are only possible because God enabled us to do them through the Holy Spirit acting as common grace in our hearts, and because God put us in the right place at the right time to do these good works (Ephesians 2:10).

So ultimately, whatever good anyone does must be attributed fully to God, who is the source of all good (3 John 1:11, John 3:21, 1 John 4:7, James 1:17, Mark 10:18).4 Thus, Paul said that the good things he did was only because of Christ in him (Galatians 2:20), and the same goes for all Christians (Philippians 2:12-13).5

Because of this fact, there will be nothing for any Christian to brag about to anyone regarding any heavenly rewards that we may qualify for. And we certainly won't be in a position or mindset to demand anything more from God than what God graciously chooses to give us as heavenly rewards.

Thus, I like the famous quote from the early church theologian Augustine who basically says that in the end, "God crowns his own gifts".6

This is why the Bible says that in heaven we will periodically worship God by casting our crowns before his throne, as a way of acknowledging that everything good we've ever done was only due to God's grace and power working through us (Revelation 4:9-11, Romans 11:34-36).

Still, we will get to eternally enjoy these heavenly rewards that God will graciously give us because of how we freely chose to obey him by following through on the good works that God himself prepared and enabled us to do.

With these initial objections out of the way, we can now move on without feeling any guilt or anxiety about this topic. In the rest of this post I will discuss three different eternal crowns that the Bible mentions, and examine how Christians can qualify to receive them.

What Are Eternal Crowns?

One category of heavenly rewards that the Bible reveals Christians can qualify for are eternal crowns.

Typically, in Western culture today, a crown is thought of as being an expensive fashion accessory worn by kings, queens, and other nobility to show their royal status.

However, the word for 'crown' that's used in the Bible verses we will examine is the Greek word stephanos. Historically,

In the Greco-Roman world, a crown (often a woven wreath) was given as a sign of honor to people of high status. One such group of admired people was the victors of athletic games... Besides athletes, notable public servants and high-ranking officials were also given crowns as a sign of honor.7

So these crowns aren't necessarily associated with ruling authority, even though rulers would likely have been people of high honor and may have worn crowns.

However, we can definitely say that these eternal crowns that are mentioned in the following verses can be seen as a special sort of prize or symbol of honor that will be given to particular Christians, sort of like how athletic medals are today given to high-achieving athletes.

Thinking of these crowns as being similar to athletic medals is appropriate, since Paul uses the metaphor of running a race to describe the Christian life:

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath [stephanos], but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified. (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

Yet unlike the athletic medals given out at sports events, I do not believe that there are limited supplies of these crowns, and so Christians are not competing with one another.

In fact, as I will argue below, I believe that it is possible for every Christian to qualify for each of these eternal crowns. Just because one person receives a crown doesn't prevent anyone else from also receiving the same type of crown.

But in 1 Corinthians 9:27, why does Paul say he disciplines his body in order to not be disqualified for these eternal crowns?

I think it's because there are a variety of temptations for Christians to not do the things that would qualify us to receive these crowns.

These temptations primarily come from how our bodies and brains are usually geared toward pursuing things that feel good to us and avoiding things that cause us discomfort, stress, or pain. (That is, provided that there isn't something unusual going on in our bodies/brains regarding past trauma or mental illness that might skew our behavior in various unhealthy ways).

So to qualify for each of the following three crowns, there will be some sort of suffering that Christians must be willing to endure in the process.

And as Paul also says, just like how there are some rules athletes must follow in order to avoid being disqualified from the competition, so there are also some things Christians must avoid doing in order to not be disqualified for these crowns.

Let us now examine of these three types of eternal crowns, explore the specific form(s) of suffering Christians must endure to qualify for these crowns, and discuss some possible ways that Christians may become disqualified for these crowns.

The Crown of Righteousness

Paul wrote,

Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)

Some Bible translations say "all who long for his appearing", which is basically the same idea. If we love the idea of Jesus returning, then we should also long for him to return. And if we long for Jesus to return, then presumably, it's because we love the idea of being with him more than we love everything else that's going on in our lives, as good as these things can be.

Thus, qualifying for the Crown of Righteousness is straightforward: Christians just need to live with an attitude that continually looks forward to and loves the idea of Jesus' next appearance in this world.

This event will occur at the Rapture. This is when Jesus will leave his current place at the right hand of God the Father in heaven (Hebrews 12:2) and will appear in the clouds above Earth to resurrect all deceased Christians and transform all living Christians from mortal to immortal. Jesus will then take us to be with him in heaven in his Father's house (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-54, John 14:1-3).

For Christians who haven't been taught about the Rapture, or who don't believe it, or for the people who are left behind at the Rapture and have to endure the seven-year Tribulation as described in the book of Revelation, I believe they could also qualify for this crown by looking forward to Jesus' second coming.

As a side-note, Jesus' second coming is a separate event from the Rapture, since the second coming of Christ is when Jesus will appear in the clouds with his armies of angels and raptured Christians at the end of the seven-year Tribulation (Revelation 19:11-14, Jude 14-15), in order for Jesus to destroy the Antichrist, the False Prophet, and their armies at the Battle of Armageddon (Revelation 19:19-20).

And as another side-note, even if some Christians don't currently believe in the pre-Tribulation Rapture, they will still be included in it, because salvation is by faith in Christ alone — both for eternal life, and for inclusion in the Rapture, as I argue in my post here.

I believe that one way that Christians who love/long for Jesus' return demonstrate this attitude is to watch for the signs of the end times in the world around us, and to get excited when we see these things all lining up that indicate that Jesus could be returning very soon.

And Christians who do see the signs of the end times in the news should also use these signs as motivation to keep sharing the gospel and warning others about the Rapture, so that our unsaved loved ones hopefully won't fall for the alien/UFO deception once the Rapture does happen.

However, Christians who truly love the idea of Jesus' return will also likely experience particular forms of suffering.

The Suffering Necessary to Qualify for the Crown of Righteousness

To qualify for the Crown of Righteousness, Christians must overcome the temptation to settle into a comfortable life of simply working our jobs, going to church, seeking promotions, raising our families, pursuing our goals, hobbies, and pleasures, and looking forward to retirement, as society tells us to do.

In contrast, reminding ourselves that Jesus could return at any time at the Rapture can be an uncomfortable way to live because it changes our priorities. Instead of only seeking our own success or pleasure, we prioritize sharing the gospel with people who we care about and who we do not want to be left behind to suffer in the Tribulation. We also aim to make each day count for God, since it could be the last one we have in this world.

It can certainly be tough to live with a constant expectation and hope that today might be the day when Jesus comes back to take all true Christians to heaven in the Rapture. Watching for the signs of the end times can also be depressing or frustrating for sensitive Christians due to the constant stream of negative events we hear about in the news, and the speculation about even more negative events to come in the future.

Even longing for Jesus to return as we are troubled by all the evil and suffering we see happening in this sinful world around us can take an emotional toll on us (2 Peter 2:7-8). Like the psalmists, we might often find ourselves crying out "How long, oh Lord!" (Psalm 90:13, 94:3, 35:17-18).

Christians who are qualifying for this crown must also overcome the temptation to hide our hope of Jesus returning in case it might cause controversy or open ourselves up to being mocked by others for believing what the Bible says about the Rapture. We might be tempted to be quiet about our hope of Jesus' soon return in order to preserve our reputations in others' eyes, perhaps to increase our chances of getting promotions at work, or to fit in with a certain crowd.

Thus, we can say that opening ourselves up to potentially experiencing some of the above forms of suffering is an inherent part of qualifying for the Crown of Righteousness.

How To Not Lose the Crown of Righteousness

However, Christians can be at risk of losing the Crown of Righteousness not only due to the temptations to focus on enjoying our current lives and to not risk the disapproval of our family or friends. It also appears that we can actually let this crown be taken away by others!

After Jesus promised the church of Philadelphia that he would keep all true Christians out of the coming time of trial/Tribulation that would affect the whole world, Jesus immediately added the warning to not let anyone take away their crowns (Revelation 3:10-11).

Again, obviously, these crowns are not a reference to eternal life, which is guaranteed to Christians the moment we believe in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13-14). Thus, it is most likely a reference to the Crown of Righteousness, because as discussed above, this is the crown that is associated with hoping and longing for Jesus to rescue us from this world via the Rapture.

I think there are two main categories of people who may be able to take away Christians' Crowns of Righteousness:

Christians who set high-watch dates for the Rapture without specifying that these dates are always only guesses, no matter how promising the arguments for these dates appears to be.
Mockers and scoffers who deny the idea that Jesus will return at the Rapture anytime soon, and make fun of or insult Christians who do hope that Jesus could return any day.

Both of the above categories of people can cause Christians to lose our Crown of Righteousness by causing discouragement (either indirectly or directly) that tempts us to give up on constantly hoping and longing for Jesus to return.

I will discuss both of these categories of people below in more detail, in order to provide encouragement and advice about how to react to these types of people so that we do not lose the Crown of Righteousness. However, if you would rather just skip to the next type of eternal crown, you can click this link here.

Rapture Date-Setters

As I've written about more in my post on why Christians should keep looking for the Rapture, it can be discouraging when a high-watch period for the Rapture passes by without Jesus returning.

As a result, some Christians can find it easier to avoid listening to end-times watchers who set high-watch dates for the Rapture, and instead simply watch the news with the expectation that Jesus could return at anytime, even today. This can be one way to avoid losing our hope if these high-watch dates come and go without the Rapture happening.

This past September 23-24, 2025 was an especially high-watch time for quite a few compelling reasons. Unfortunately, because the Rapture didn't happen then, a number of Christians who had previously been very excited about the Rapture do seem to have now lost their enthusiasm and hope for Jesus' imminent return.

If these Christians permanently give up on watching and longing for Jesus' return as a result of this recent disappointment, they may very well be disqualified for the Crown of Righteousness.

Personally, I do encourage Christians to pay attention to high-watch dates for the Rapture if a good case can be made for these dates. I believe it is honoring to God to consider these dates and the arguments for them, and to hope that the Rapture may indeed occur during one of these high-watch dates.

Yet responsible Rapture date-setters must always caution that these dates are never a guarantee and are always only a guess. Thus, date-setters should always warn Christians against doing irresponsible things like quitting their jobs, racking up credit-card debt, giving away all their possessions, skipping medical appointments, and so forth, just in case the Rapture doesn't happen during the next upcoming high-watch date.

However, another issue with high-watch dates is that they can potentially tempt Christians to mistakenly presume that Jesus will definitely not return anytime before the high-watch date. This attitude may be one way that Rapture date-setters risk causing some Christians to lose their Crown of Righteousness.8

For example, some end-times watchers have a favorite Old Testament feast that they look forward to every year because they say it has the best symbolism for the Rapture. When it passes, these Christians feel that they can safely stop watching for Jesus' return and go on with their normal lives until the same feast comes around next year.

To avoid falling into this error, we must remember that Jesus warned that because no one absolutely knows the day or hour of his return (Matthew 24:36), if we are not continually watching for him, he will return at a time we do not expect (Matthew 24:42-44, 1 Thessalonians 5:1-6).

However, Christians must be careful because these verses are also frequently used by the second category of people who unknowingly try to take away Christians' Crowns of Righteousness: Rapture mockers and scoffers.

Rapture Mockers and Scoffers

Although people who scoff at the idea of Jesus returning soon have existed since the early church, all of the attention the Rapture received on social media this past September 23-24 brought out a lot of people who publicly tried to discourage or make fun of Christians who were excited about the possibility of Jesus returning during that timeframe.

These skeptics were perfect examples of Peter's warning in 2 Peter 3:3-7 that in the last days many scoffers would come who would doubt or deny the idea that Jesus could return at any time. Unfortunately, even Christians can fall into this category, but if they do, then they will likely not receive the Crown of Righteousness, and they may experience other negative consequences when they do see Jesus face-to-face.

We can see the consequences of being a Rapture scoffer in the parables of the faithful and wicked servants in Luke 12:42-48 and Matthew 24:45-51. In these parables there are two types of servants who are waiting for their master to return to his estate:

The faithful servants who are prepared and waiting for their master to return at any time, and are behaving accordingly.
The wicked servants who say their master will not be returning anytime soon, and so they get drunk and beat the faithful servants.

When their master returns, he blesses the faithful servants by giving them greater authority over all the master's possessions and other servants (Matthew 24:45-47, Luke 12:42-44). This promotion likely corresponds to the ruling privileges these Christians will receive for their faithful service and good works, which will be discussed in my next post.

But for the wicked servant,

The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:50-51)

Luke's version of this parable adds the detail that,

And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. (Luke 12:47-48)

These verses can be very concerning because of how the consequences for the wicked servants are often interpreted as them being condemned to hell.

However, this interpretation is not correct, because all true Christians are eternally saved the moment we first believed in Jesus as our Savior (Ephesians 1:13-14). These wicked servants are still their master's servants, not random strangers who don't belong on their master's estate.

So I really like Zane Hodges' and Robert Wilkin's discussion of this parable. They explain that the description of the unfaithful servants being "cut in two"/"cut in pieces" and being "put with the hypocrites" in a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" does not mean that some Christians will be condemned to hell.

Instead, Hodges and Wilkin note that Hebrews 4:12 says that God's word is as sharp as a sword that can pierce deeply into the heart and soul. Therefore, they argue that these unfaithful servants will receive Jesus' criticism or rebuke which will feel as harsh as being "cut in two" or "cut in pieces".9 I would say the same interpretation likely applies to Luke's warning about the wicked servants receiving a "beating" which is more or less severe depending on that servant's level of knowledge of their master's expectations.

Then the references to the wicked servants being grouped together with the hypocrites in a place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth also needs to be interpreted in ways such that it does not teach that a true Christian could ever be thrown into hell.

So let's just stop and think this through for a second:

A hypocrite is a person who claims to be something, but who doesn't act accordingly. These wicked servants claimed to be servants, but they didn't act like it based on how they mistreated their fellow servants and were not behaving in ways that good servants were because the good servants truly expected their master to return at any time.10

As a result, these wicked and hypocritical servants will lose out on the rewards that are given by their master to the faithful servants. Because of this loss, the wicked servants weep and gnash their teeth, which in first-century middle-eastern culture was an expression of intense grief.11

For Christians to miss out on the Crown of Righteousness and instead receive Jesus' criticism would certainly lead to some level of grief and shame when they see Jesus face-to-face at the Rapture (Mark 8:38, Luke 9:26). This sense of shame would be especially intense for Christians who had been arrogantly insisting to others that there is no Rapture, or that the Rapture wouldn't happen in their own lifetimes.

However, this grief/shame will be temporary:

So since this passage is about a real servant of Christ who has lost the promotion and the rewards that could have been his by being faithful, he experiences intense grief. Some Christians experience a muted form of this grief now when they look back at wasted years and opportunities, but when we stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, we will no longer have our sin nature and the grief will be intensely acute. We will be perfect and will be able to see with painful clarity what we have lost. Grief is an appropriate response to that. This does not mean that such servants will weep and gnash their teeth forever, for we know that God will wipe away all tears from every eye (Revelation 21:4).12

It can be tough to hold onto our faith and hope in the Rapture even when mockers and scoffers tell us that Jesus won't be coming back for hundreds or thousands of years, especially if some people in our closest circles of family and friends have this sort of attitude. However, the parable of the faithful and wicked servants is good motivation to not give in to this attitude:

If someone says, "I don't think He's going to be here this year, so I'll get around to serving Him next year," or, "I'll do what I have been thinking of doing next year because I don't think the chances are good that He'll be here this year," this person has fallen into the same trap into which this unfaithful servant fell. His whole demise began with thinking that his Master delayed His coming. Beware of any form of theology which teaches that Christ has already come, will not come, or is delaying His coming.13

The promise of an eternal crown simply for continuing to love and long for Jesus' return is excellent motivation to not give up on our blessed hope of the Rapture (Titus 2:13), and to help other Christians also hold onto their crowns by reminding them of this hope (1 Thessalonians 4:18, 5:11).

The Crown of Glory

The Crown of Glory will be given to pastors and church leaders who faithfully look out for the people in their care:

So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. (1 Peter 5:1-4)

Pastors who only do the job for the sake of money or status will not receive this crown, because they didn't truly care about the well-being of their congregations (John 10:11-13).

This Crown of Glory is probably the crown Paul mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 2:19–20 and Philippians 4:1, since both of these passages say that the Christians Paul had taught and looked out for in these early churches were Paul's crown, joy, and glory.

However, I don't think the Crown of Glory is only for official pastors, church leaders, or missionaries. I don't think that God cares about whether we have an official position in a church, but cares most about our hearts and our behavior. I also think that God is far more gracious than we often expect.

Therefore, I highly suspect that any Christian who spiritually nurtures, encourages, teaches, mentors, defends and/or protects fellow Christians will also receive this crown, because these are the sorts of things that good pastors/shepherds do (e.g. Titus 1:7–9, Acts 20:28–30, Matthew 13:51–52).

As a result, I believe that parents who spiritually shepherd their children well can look forward to receiving this crown. So can Sunday School teachers, Bible study leaders, church elders and deacons, or even simply any Christian who feels called to support the spiritual growth of another Christian in his or her circle of family or friends.

We might not do these activities in the same sorts of ways our entire lives, since exactly what is called for would vary from person to person and situation to situation.

Even pastors can sometimes feel called to move on to some other sort of occupation after a longer or shorter period of time in ministry. Paul was writing letters and doing ministry right up until when he was eventually executed by Rome, however, I don't see any evidence that a pastor or regular Christian must do this sort of work until death, or even for a certain period of time, in order for it to count toward earning the Crown of Glory.

Therefore, I would argue that instead of this crown being a reward for achieving a particular position of leadership in the organized church for some undefined period of time, the Crown of Glory is a reward from God given on the basis of Christians having a continual concern and love for others who we are in relationships with. If we do what we can to care for the spiritual growth of people in our circles of influence when opportunities to do so come along, then God will be pleased.

The Suffering Necessary to Qualify for the Crown of Glory

However, it is hard work to diligently care for other Christians' spiritual wellbeing.

It's a well-known fact that pastors frequently experience burnout due to the demands of their work, even if they feel spiritually called to the task.

Pastors are often pulled in many directions by their parishioners who tell them conflicting advice about how they believe the pastor should act, what the pastor should say, or what the church should do or not do. No matter what decision pastors make, someone is often unhappy or critical of them. Big decisions can even cause large numbers of people in their churches to leave.

And that's in addition to pastors having to deal with the everyday interactions with people in their churches or ministries who can be clingy, needy, codependent, rude, egotistical, arrogant, pushy, judgmental, and on and on.

For Christians who aren't officially ordained, we are lucky we don't necessarily have to deal with these sorts of challenges. However, there are other more subtle difficulties that we face if we feel called to care for and support fellow Christians.

For example, it might be tempting to sleep in or stay at home rather than going to church where we can meet with, encourage, and pray for fellow Christians. Getting up early and going to church only to grit our teeth during worship music that doesn't meet our taste and then sit through a boring sermon can sometimes make us wonder why we even bother. And after a long day at work, going out to a Bible study, or even logging into a virtual one might seem like it requires more energy than we have.

Sometimes, it's easy to put off making a phone call or sending and email or text message to someone we feel God prompting us to check in on. Fitting in the time to visit with someone such as an elderly shut-in or someone we feel called to mentor can be tough when there are many other things in our lives going on and we would rather have the free time to relax.

When a fellow Christian falls on hard times and needs extra emotional support, prayer, advice, encouragement, or more practical physical forms of care, it can be easy to conveniently 'disappear' or be 'too busy' rather than step up and do what we can.

As a result, it can be tempting to presume that other Christians will take on all the effort of spiritually nurturing our children or families, such as the pastors, deacons, elders, Bible study leaders, or Sunday school teachers.

Truly caring for others also leads to a certain level of stress and emotional turmoil that can increase our blood pressure or ruin our sleep if things aren't going well for them. On a spiritual level, our concern for our loved ones' eternal salvation can be especially agonizing, especially if they are hostile to hearing the gospel.

Thus, in order to prevent strain in relationships, it might be tempting to not offer correction or guidance when we see something in someone's spiritual life that might concern us. The same is true on a larger scale, where raising concerns about things we see going on in our churches can lead to discord with church leaders that result in broken relationships, and possibly, the need to part ways with a formerly-welcoming community.

These are just some of the challenges and forms of suffering that Christians who are called to spiritually care for others must endure in order to qualify for the Crown of Glory.

How to Not Lose the Crown of Glory

So, as discussed, one obvious way of 'losing' this crown would be to simply never bother doing what is necessary to qualify for it in the first place.

Alternatively, as with the Crown of Righteousness, being found by Jesus as an unfaithful servant would likely disqualify someone for this crown.

Jesus called on Peter to "feed my sheep" (John 21:17), and this is what faithful pastors should also do.

However, if we become servants who, instead of being faithful, end up mistreating other Christians in various ways (Matthew 24:48-51, Luke 12:45-48) then Jesus will not be pleased and will not reward us with the Crown of Glory that he would give to faithful servants who have been tasked with "feeding" (i.e., caring for) their fellow servants (Matthew 24:45-47, Luke 12:42-44).

Preaching a false gospel could also disqualify someone for the Crown of Glory (Philippians 2:16, 2 Timothy 3:8). Putting Christians under a yoke of slavery by telling them they have to follow the Old Testament law would be one way of preaching a false gospel (Galatians 5:1-9, 2:4-5, 2:11-21).

These sorts of false 'shepherds' who preach a false gospel would be like thieves or robbers who do not come into the sheep pen through the only door (i.e., Jesus Christ), but who try to climb in over the fence (John 10:1, 10:7-13).

This is why Paul, to make sure he had been preaching the gospel correctly, went to Jerusalem to talk to James, Peter, and John, "in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain" (Galatians 2:1-2).

Or, to use another athletic metaphor, Christians who preach a false gospel or who manipulate and mistreat their fellow Christians for their own gain would be like when a football player trains very hard but gets confused once he grabs the ball and runs as fast as he can into his own end-zone to score a touchdown against his own team. Such a player certainly wouldn't receive much commendation or reward from his coach when he steps off the field.

So if we want to not be disqualified for the Crown of Glory, it is important to make sure that we are teaching the correct gospel message of eternal salvation by faith in Christ alone, and to not add additional conditions or legalistic requirements that put burdens on fellow Christians.

The Crown of Life

The Crown of Life is promised to any Christian who endures persecution because of his or her faith, even up to the worst-case scenario of martyrdom:

Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.(Revelation 2:10)

We know this Crown of Life is not simply referring to eternal life, because as I wrote in my previous post on heavenly rewards, eternal life is guaranteed to all Christians the moment we first believed in Jesus as our Savior (Ephesians 1:13-14).

However, this crown is not limited only to Christians who happen to live in a time or place where they are tortured or killed for their faith. Elsewhere, the Bible says the Crown of Life will be given to any Christian who holds on to his or her faith despite facing trials:

Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him. (James 1:12, NIV)

Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)

And the above verses don't specify how minor these trials or persecutions need to be before they count towards earning this crown.

In fact, the Bible says that persecution comes to everyone who aims to live a godly/righteous life (2 Timothy 3:12, Matthew 5:10). Every trial we face is a test for our faith, which, if we don't give up, will be rewarded with praise and honor (1 Peter 1:6–7).

So as long as we don't renounce our faith in Christ, whether it costs us only a little loss of reputation among our coworkers or friends, or costs us our lives, we can look forward to one day receiving the Crown of Life.

And for the Crown of Life, experiencing persecution is inherently unpleasant because it brings some level of pain, whether emotional, physical, financial, relational, etc. Thus, there is no need for a separate section on this topic, because enduring suffering for our faith is the main criteria necessary to qualify for the Crown of Life.

How to Not Lose the Crown of Life

Presumably, if this crown is given for faithfully enduring persecution or martyrdom, the way to lose this crown would be to give in to this persecution and deny Jesus.

Jesus said,

So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32-33)

Again, this verse cannot be referring to being denied eternal life, because eternal life is guaranteed the moment a Christian first beliefs in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13-14). Therefore, Matthew 10:32-33 must refer to something else that Jesus will deny these Christians who denied him. Denying them the Crown of Life would be an appropriate outcome.

This interpretation is reinforced by how Paul said:

Let's unpack this verse in more detail, since it's not often looked at in church.

So the only part of 2 Timothy 2:11-13 that seems to be conditional for true Christians is the line "if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he will also deny us."

Thus, this part of the verse must be referring not to eternal life, but to the privilege of reigning and/or ruling with Christ, which this verse does seem to say depends on Christians persevering in our faith until the end of our earthly lives.

However, I don't think this criteria means that Christians permanently lose the Crown of Life the very first time they deny they are a Christian.

Let's imagine a child on the playground who nervously hides his cross necklace under his T-shirt in order to avoid being bullied. Would this action mean that this child could never re-qualify for this crown later in life after he has gained more confidence? For example, what if he later becomes a missionary to some country where Christianity is illegal, and he is caught and thrown in jail, tortured, or executed for his faith? I don't think God would be so petty as to deny this Christian the Crown of Life.

Even if the nervous child doesn't end up doing something so dramatic, but, one year later he does get up the courage to openly be a Christian at school, despite the snickers and occasional derogatory comments. I think he would re-qualify for this crown.

After all, Peter initially boasted that he would be willing to die alongside Jesus (Matthew 26:35). Yet on the night Jesus was arrested and taken away to be crucified, Peter famously denied Jesus three times (Matthew 26:69-75). After his resurrection, Jesus made sure to lovingly restore Peter by prompting Peter to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times, to cancel out the three denials (John 21:15-17).

Years later Peter was also crucified for his faith in Christ, like Jesus warned him he would (John 21:18-19). So I think Peter would definitely qualify for this crown, despite having famously denied Jesus at one point in his life.

Therefore, I think the only way for Christians to be disqualified for this crown would be for them to commit apostasy, i.e., to give up their faith for the rest of their earthly lives. They may, for example, convert to another religion in order to save their lives, and stay in that religion until they die. Or because of some trauma or disappointment they experience, they may become bitter and walk away from an active relationship with Jesus that may never be restored until they see Jesus face-to-face after death or the Rapture.

However, if such apostates do later return to their faith in Christ before they die, then, because as 2 Timothy 3:12 and Matthew 5:10 say, all Christians will face some sort of persecution, then I think these formerly-unfaithful Christians could re-qualify for this crown.

Qualifying for Eternal Crowns Requires Self-Discipline

Because of how it has been shown that Christians will experience some sort of suffering as a result of our determination to keep persevering or "running the race" to qualify for the above three crowns, Christians must have strong willpower and self-control in order to not give up or become disqualified.

But how do we gain this willpower and self-control?

Paul instructed his protegé Timothy:

Train yourself for godliness; for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. (1 Timothy 4:7-8)

This is where practicing some spiritual disciplines might be helpful as a way to train our self-control and willpower.

When we think of spiritual disciplines, we might think of medieval monks or other historical Christian ascetics who sometimes took the practice of asceticism to extremes. Some ascetics even intentionally inflicted suffering on themselves in various (and sometimes gruesome) ways, sometimes out of the mistaken belief that suffering itself earned merit with God or was required for their sins to be forgiven.14

But in reality, the English word ascetic comes from an ancient Greek verb which means "to practice, to exercise; to toil, work or labor; or to provide, furnish, or adorn. The noun form of the word refers to practice, exercise, study, custom, regimen, diet, or training".15

Thus,

The ascetic is one who enters the training appropriate for his or her development into an accomplished athlete of body, mind, or spirit. If one wishes to speak or run or carve or fight or sing well, one must prepare the relevant parts of mind and body by exercising them. One must "take pains," must exert oneself, in the appropriate ways.16

For example, if people want to be as good at a sport as their favorite athlete, then they should realize it's not just about trying to act the same way during a game, but living the same lifestyle that requires long hours of training and practice.17

So likewise, as Christians, we know we are saved only by our faith and God's grace, and not by our actions or good works. However, the ability to successfully live as Christians is not guaranteed. As Dallas Willard says:

But grace does not mean that sufficient strength and insight will be automatically 'infused' into our being in the moment of need. Abundant evidence for this claim is available precisely in the experience of any Christian. A baseball player who expects to excel in the game without adequate exercise of his body is no more ridiculous than the Christian who hopes to be able to act in the manner of Christ when put to the test without the appropriate exercise in godly living.18

This is why Christians need to develop personal discipline:

The mark of disciplined persons is that they are able to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done.19

The entire question of discipline, therefore, is how to apply the acts of will at our disposal in such a way that the proper course of action, which cannot always be realized by direct and untrained effort, will nevertheless be carried out when needed.20

As an extreme example, if Jesus hadn't had the self-control and mental strength to endure forty days of fasting and solitude in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11), then how would he have been ready when it came time for him to face the even-more-intense suffering of being deserted by all of his disciples when he was arrested (Matthew 26:56), never mind willingly endure the physical pain of being whipped, beaten, and crucified?

If we don't have the mental resilience and discipline to do difficult things despite the suffering we might face as a result, then it will lead to negative consequences in our daily lives. Even being able to wake up and go to school or work when we would rather not is a form of suffering we must overcome in order to have a chance at being self-sufficient and successful in this world.

Likewise, without mental resilience, willpower, and discipline, it will also be hard to do our best as Christians when we face temptation, persecution, mocking, emotional/physical stress, or other forms of suffering that come as a result of our faith and our desire to please God and serve him well.

Therefore, Dallas Willard recommends that Christians make use of various spiritual practices — both those that Jesus and his disciples used, as well as other less-traditional possibilities which we can experiment with.21 He notes that,

In shaping our own list of spiritual disciplines, we should keep in mind that very few disciplines can be regarded as absolutely indispensable for a healthy spiritual life and work, though some are obviously more important than others. Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring. And if, later, other activities are really more what we need, our progress won't be seriously hindered, and we'll probably be led into them.22

The list of 'major' spiritual disciplines discussed by Willard in his book The Spirit of the Disciplines (1988) that he says have had "a wide and profitable use among disciples of Christ"23 include:

solitude (i.e., spending time alone to focus on God)
silence (i.e., not speaking to anyone for a period of time)
fasting (i.e., temporarily avoiding eating food or certain types of food)
frugality (i.e., reducing unnecessary financial spending)
chastity (i.e., avoiding sexual activity, but only for a limited time, if married (1 Corinthians 7:5))
secrecy (i.e., serving God, giving to charity, or practicing these disciplines without making it known to others (Matthew 6:4, 6:6, 6:17-18))
sacrifice (e.g., giving something or abstaining from something for the sake of helping others, even when it negatively affects our legitimate needs)
study (e.g., reading the Bible and perhaps reading some theology)
worship (i.e., thinking about God's greatness and giving him glory/praise)
celebration (i.e., feasting with others, singing, dancing, enjoying ourselves)
service (i.e., helping others, especially with tasks that we dislike or feel are 'below us')
prayer (i.e., talking to God)
fellowship (e.g., gathering together with Christians at church/Bible study (Hebrews 10:24-25, Matthew 18:20))
confession (i.e., sharing or admitting our weaknesses, struggles, temptations, and sins with other trusted Christians (James 5:16))
submission (i.e., following advice from a pastor, spiritual mentor, or more mature Christian)

However, the point isn't to practice these disciplines in order to manipulate God into blessing us, because then this just becomes superstition or legalism. It also isn't just about denying ourselves everything good, as if suffering for its own sake pleases God.

As noted earlier, practicing spiritual disciplines is a way of developing the increased self-control and willpower that will allow us to do other difficult things whenever we want to or need to.

Thus, "we can even lay it down as a rule of thumb that if it is easy for us to engage in a certain discipline, we probably don't need to practice it."24 It is like a baseball player who, if he wants to improve, practices what he is not good at, rather than the things he is good at.25

Therefore, which disciplines are useful for one person may not be right for another person.26

Fasting is one example of a spiritual discipline that can be a valuable exercise, not because God literally cares about what's in our stomachs, but because

Fasting teaches temperance or self-control and therefore teaches moderation and restraint with regard to all our fundamental drives. Since food has the pervasive place it does in our lives, the effects of fasting will be diffused throughout our personality.27

Although fasting from food is definitely a practice that requires willpower, it might be easier for many Christians to begin with something easier, such as by giving up something else we enjoy for a certain period of time, as a way of practicing the same sort of discipline. This approach could also work for Christians who can't fast from food due to certain medical conditions.

The spiritual practices of silence and solitude are similar to fasting. These disciplines can challenge people who find it uncomfortable to be by themselves, or who find it hard to not speak when they want to. But James said that the ability to control our tongue shows that we can control ourselves in every other way, too (James 3:2-5).

This current church season of Lent (the forty days before Easter) is often a time when Christians of many denominations choose to fast in one way or another. These days, I've even heard about the idea of 'fasting' from social media or from excessive cellphone usage.

One year, as a personal test of willpower, I gave up playing computer games for Lent. As a result, I actually became a lot more productive. Since then, I haven't played computer games hardly at all, and have used my free time to work on other things like this blog or my other creative hobbies.

Frugality (financial restraint) and chastity (sexual restraint) are similar practices to fasting, but in different areas of life, Yet if these disciplines are mastered, not only do they increase our discipline, but they can lead to various blessings in this world.

For example, the frugal discipline of living within our means often leads to the blessing of not being enslaved by debt. The discipline of chastity leads to the ability to not give in to sexual lust and thereby avoid all the problems that having sex outside of marriage can lead to, and can also prevent the slavery of being addicted to pornography.

So disciplining our bodies by doing things that are sometimes unpleasant builds in us the character and willpower we need to qualify for all of the above eternal crowns, which all require Christians to endure some sort of suffering in one way or another. As an additional bonus, this same discipline will be beneficial in many other areas of our lives.

Train With Balance

Yet I need to add a disclaimer that wise Christians should balance spiritual discipline with self-care, and know which one we need at what time, based on our mental or emotional state.

Remember that athletes cannot train constantly or they will become weak and injure themselves. Thus, coaches teach athletes when and how to train, how long to train for, when to rest, how to rest, what to eat, and what not to eat, all in order to maximize the athlete's ability to perform at their best. Wise coaches also know to not throw a novice athlete into a training regimen meant for an Olympic athlete, but to start slow and easy and gradually work up.

Therefore, alongside practicing some spiritual disciplines from time to time, it is also important for Christians to take care of ourselves and do enjoyable things, because self-care is a form of spiritual warfare.

So as Paul rightly noted, all of these principles from athletes training for athletic competitions can be applied to Christians' spiritual lives, and these principles can be useful to keep in mind when Christians aim to grow in our spiritual maturity and self-discipline.

And as my former pastor Bryan Guinness helpfully points out, Olympic athletes typically have a team of coaches, trainers, fellow athletes, friends, and family who all support them in one way or another. So likewise, Christians should recognize that running our spiritual race is easier when we surround ourselves with a supportive team (Hebrews 10:24-25).28

If we do desire a 'coach' to help us make progress in our spiritual training, then seeking out a Christian mentor could be helpful, whether a trusted pastor, spiritual director, or simply a wise and mature Christian friend.

Conclusion

In this post I have shown that in addition to all the heavenly rewards every Christian can look forward to enjoying, there are other eternal rewards that Christians can qualify for, and that we should desire to qualify for. Pursuing these rewards is not selfish or materialistic, but is recommended by Jesus, Paul, and other Christians.

In particular, there are three eternal crowns that every Christian can potentially qualify for, regardless of our personal position or situation:

The Crown of Righteousness for continually loving and longing for Jesus to return.
The Crown of Glory for faithfully caring for fellow Christians' spiritual development.
The Crown of Life for enduring persecution without giving up our faith.

Therefore, I believe there will be many, many more Christians who will receive these special crowns than we might initially expect. We ourselves might even be earning crowns that we never expected to receive, without even knowing it!

These crowns will be like athletic medals that Christians will eternally be honored to receive, even though we will periodically cast these crowns before God in worship since our ability to do the things that led to us qualifying for these crowns came from God in the first place.

Yet if we do desire to qualify for these crowns, then practicing some spiritual disciplines can be one way of building the willpower that will enable us to endure the suffering that each crown requires in one way or another.

In my next post, I will cover the final category of heavenly rewards that Christians can receive: the privilege of ruling with Christ to a greater or lesser extent, based on how well we served God with everything that God gave us in this life.

Footnotes:

1. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Pubs., 2004), 21, citing C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Collier Books, 1960), 118.
2. Jonathan Edwards, Letters and Personal Writings, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online Vol. 16, ed. George S. Claghorn (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 754, resolution #22.
3. Robert Wilkin, Bruce Wilkinson Speaks on Eternal Rewards, Grace Evangelical Society, March 31, 2017.
4. I agree with Arminius who wrote, "I ascribe to grace THE COMMENCEMENT, THE CONTINUANCE, AND THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL GOOD,—and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate,can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace—from this statement it wil clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will." Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 143-144. Thus, Olson says "Clearly then Arminius did believe people are totally dependent on grace for any and every good they have or do" (144).
5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011) 2.5.15 p.335, 2.5.2 p.318-319.
6. The full quote is "The Lord, he says, will award me a crown, being a just judge. So he owes me what he will award; so the just judge will award; having inspected the work, after all, he can’t deny the reward … But with the reward you do nothing; with the work, you don’t act alone. The crown simply comes to you from him; the work on the other hand comes from you, but only with him helping … To Paul fighting the good fight, completing the course, keeping the faith, he paid back good things. But for what good things? For ones he himself had given. Or wasn’t it by his gift that you were able to fight the good fight? … The only things of yours that we know were prepared for you by yourself are evil. So when God crowns your merits, he is not crowning anything but his own gifts." Augustine, "Sermons", trans. Edmund Hill, in The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century ed. John E. Rotelle, part 3, vols. 1–11 (Brooklyn, NY: New City Press, 1990), s.333.2,5, as quoted by Kevin Offner, "Augustine on Heaven and Rewards", C.S. Lewis Institute, June 2, 2017.
7. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 148-149.
8. Arden Kierce, "Don’t Let Scoffers and Date-Setters Steal Your Crown," RaptureReady.com, July 6, 2024.
9. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 58.
10. "Because the servant was unfaithful, his portion is appointed with the hypocrites. He was not being hypocritical about the Gospel or about thinking that his Lord was going to come. Even when he talks about the Lord's delaying his coming, he's not saying 'I don't believe in Him anymore' or 'I don't believe He's coming.' He believes that He's coming, but he thinks it's not for a while. So, instead of fulfilling his role as a servant, he pleases himself. He begins to eat and drink with the drunkards, and he begins to beat his fellow servants. His behavior, even though he is in the role and position of a servant of the Lord, is contradictory and therefore hypocritical." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 58.
11. "In such passages, the real problem is that we westerners have a tendency to be more restrained in our expressions of grief.... but in the Middle East it is not unusual for a person who has lost a young child, a beloved wife, or somebody near to him to weep, wail, and gnash his teeth. Frequently in the Bible we read of people who weep, wail, rend their clothes, wallow in ashes and put dirt in their hair. These are Middle Eastern ways of showing intense grief. This is how Matt 24:51 should be understood. There is nothing about this description of grief that must always be interpreted in connection with hell. I don't think anybody in Jesus' day would have automatically connected this description with eternal torment." Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 59.
12. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 59.
13. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation by Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 62.
14. "Monasticism — nothing in the history of the Western world has done more harm to the present-day prospects of a sensible and necessary asceticism than the emergence of monasticism as a form of Christian life. It should go without saying that much of the motivation that gave rise to monasticism was praiseworthy, that many great Christians have served within the monastic orders, and many good things were accomplished by these great men [and women].... It is equally true, however, that within those orders spiritual discipline came over the years to be identified with confused, pointless, and even destructive excesses. These excesses were supported upon attitudes of body hatred and the belief that forgiveness or merit can be gained by sufferings, whether self-inflicted or imposed by a religious superior — all of which are now universally and rightly condemned." Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 135, quote from 139.
15. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 148.
16. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 149.
17. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 3-4.
18. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 4-5.
19. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 151.
20. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 151-152.
21. "As we have indicated, there are many other activities that could, for the right person and upon the right occasion, be counted as spiritual disciplines in the strict sense stated of our previous chapter. The walk with Christ certainly is one that leaves room for and even calls for individual creativity and an experimental attitude in such matters. Yet the range of extension of the disciplines is largely determined by our own established tendencies to sin that must be resisted, as well as by the possible avenues of loving service to God and humankind that offer themselves to such creatures as we are." Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 190.
22. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 158.
23. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 158.
24. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 138.
25. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 138.
26. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988),157.
27. Dallas Willard, The Spirit of the Disciplines (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1988), 167.
28. Bryan Guinness, "The Olympian & the Christian – 4 Things in Common", Upward Calling, February 10, 2026.

Heavenly Rewards For Every Christian

2026-02-10T00:00:00+00:00

One area of theology that I feel is not taught about very often in church is the topic of heavenly rewards. As a result, I've seen even mature Christians show some confusion about some aspects of these amazing rewards that we can look forward to one day receiving from God.

I feel that this confusion and/or lack of teaching on this topic can set Christians up for two possible errors:

We may feel worried when we think about heaven and fear that we will be disappointed with how few heavenly rewards we will receive.
We may feel discouraged when we compare our lives, spiritual gifts, and ministries with those of other Christians who we imagine may receive more or better heavenly rewards than we will.

Neither of these errors will inspire and encourage us to do what we can now to maximize our use of the gifts God has given us. It also will not make us feel hopeful when we think about going to heaven, or excite us to think about Jesus coming back to take all true Christians to heaven at the Rapture.

Additionally, I have heard some non-Christians claim that they don't want to go to heaven if some people are going to have more heavenly rewards than others, or if some people will be in higher positions of ruling authority than others. Supposedly, to these critics, it wouldn't be 'heaven' if everyone isn't totally equal.

I have mentioned heavenly rewards in a number of my blog posts because it's a topic I love to think about and write about. However, it would likely be time-consuming for someone to go through and find the relevant sections of my posts to put all the pieces together on this topic. Even then, I may have missed covering some aspects of heavenly rewards if this information wasn't related to the arguments I was making in those posts.

Therefore, I feel it is worth doing an in-depth study on this topic in order to clear up any misunderstandings Christians may have about heavenly rewards, and which can consolidate my thoughts on all aspects of this amazing topic.

But to keep the length reasonable, I will split this study into three different blog posts.

In this first post, I will examine the heavenly 'rewards' that every single Christian can look forward to receiving, regardless of our behavior in this life now. As a quick introduction, these are:

eternal life
immortal glorified bodies
customized homes in the New Jerusalem
a divine inheritance

Thus, we may question whether these are truly 'rewards', given that there is nothing anyone must do in order to earn them — that is, besides believing the good news that eternal life is a free gift given to all who trust in Jesus as their Savior (e.g., Romans 6:23).

However, I feel that covering this topic is important because it shows that the bulk of what Christians typically think of as heavenly rewards will actually be given equally to every single true Christian.

Then in my next two posts, I'll look at the heavenly rewards that God will give Christians that do depend on our actions in this life.

I hope that by the end of this post, you will be encouraged by everything that Christians can look forward to once we are in heaven. I also hope this can reassure Christians that no one will be disappointed by how amazing our eternal lives will be, regardless of how many good works we did or how well we served God in our lives now.

Eternal Life

Unfortunately, some Christians mistakenly claim that true believers in Christ can somehow lose our eternal salvation unless we continually strive to keep our faith strong and/or do good works.

For example, John Wesley taught that if Christians don't persevere in good works, then our faith will eventually fade and we will lose our salvation.1

However, this idea is simply not true, as shown by a single Bible verse:

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

So the very first instant that anyone believes the good news that Jesus died for their sins so that they can have eternal life for free, that person is immediately and permanently sealed with the Holy Spirit, which guarantees that they now have eternal life that can never be lost.

This sealing of all true Christians continues to the day of our bodily redemption, which will occur at the Rapture for all Christians who have ever lived from the day of Pentecost until that day that Jesus appears in the clouds to take us to his Father's house (Ephesians 4:30, Luke 21:28, Romans 8:23, Philippians 1:6, 1 Corinthians 15:50-53, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, John 14:1-3).

Jesus said he would never cast out or lose anyone who puts their faith in him:

All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. (John 6:37-40, NIV)

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one. (John 10:27-30)

So it is impossible for anyone who has ever truly believed in Jesus to lose their salvation, regardless of what happens to them or what they do in this life. That includes falling away from faith, committing terrible sins, and anything else we might think of. I've written more about this topic in my posts here and here.

Of course, there are very good reasons why Christians should hold onto our faith, do good works, and try to avoid sinning. Some of these reasons will be discussed in my next post. However, doing these things is not required in order to earn or maintain our eternal salvation.

If we had to do anything to earn or maintain our salvation, it would no longer be a gift, but a wage that God owes us for our work (Romans 4:4). But the Bible is clear that eternal salvation is a free gift, so that no one can brag about saving ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 6:23, 3:23-25).

Thus, eternal life is not a reward that Christians must either earn or keep from losing through anything we do. But in a sense, we can think of eternal life as a reward that God freely gives to everyone who has faith in Jesus.

And if this is true for eternal life, then it is also true for the Rapture, as I've argued in my post where I explain why all true Christians will be raptured, not just those who were 'good enough' when this amazing event happens.

Immortal Glorified Bodies

So if every true Christian is guaranteed to experience eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth, then we will also all receive immortal bodies in which we will live forever.

In this section I will examine everything the Bible says about our future bodies, and also look at what some other Christian theologians have speculated about these bodies. I will argue that the quality of Christians' resurrected bodies does not depend on our level of holiness or our obedience or performance in this life.

Thus, there is no reason for Christians to worry that our immortal, resurrected, glorified bodies will not be as good as we might hope they will be.

Because this section is somewhat long due to the amount of detail I go into, if you're not interested in this discussion, feel free to click this link to skip down to the next section about Christians' eternal homes in heaven.

Jesus as the Prototype of Christians' Resurrected Bodies

So what will Christians' resurrected bodies be like? There's not a ton of detail in the Bible, but there are some hints.

The Bible does clearly say that our bodies will have the same nature as Jesus' resurrected body did (Philippians 3:20-21, 1 Corinthians 15:49, 1 John 3:2), and likely, the same capabilities.

For example, Jesus was able to instantly appear wherever he wanted, even inside a locked room (John 20:19, 20:26). Yet he wasn't a disembodied spirit, because he could be touched with hands and could eat food (Luke 24:36-43).

In order to avoid any confusion, it's important to clarify that just because our resurrected bodies will have a similar nature to Jesus' body, it doesn't mean we will all look exactly like Jesus.2 The Bible shows that our bodies will still have differences between them, so we won't all look identical.

For example, when describing these new immortal bodies, Paul says that we can imagine our current bodies as being like a sort of seed that after it dies (or is raptured), sprouts into different kinds of wonderful plants:

But someone may ask, "How will the dead be raised? What kind of bodies will they have?" ... When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unless it dies first. And what you put in the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. A different plant grows from each kind of seed. (1 Corinthians 15:35-38, NLT)

Or we could compare the diversity of our glorified bodies to the variety of all the stars and planets which are all unique and beautiful in their own ways (1 Corinthians 15:40-41).

But each person's immortal glorified body will share at least some similar positive traits:

That's how it will be when our bodies are raised to life. These bodies will die, but the bodies that are raised will live forever. These ugly and weak bodies will become beautiful and strong. As surely as there are physical bodies, there are spiritual bodies. And our physical bodies will be changed into spiritual bodies. (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, CEV)

What is a Spiritual Body?

Okay, but exactly what is a 'spiritual' body?

Sometimes people use Mark 12:25 to claim that resurrected people will become angels:

For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Mark 12:25)

But in context, all that Jesus is teaching here is that resurrected people will not marry one another. It doesn't mean that we become pure spirits, like angels are (Hebrews 1:13-14), even though angels are shown in the Bible as sometimes appearing like humans and as also being able to interact with physical reality (e.g., Genesis 19:15-16, Matthew 28:2, Acts 5:19).

Indeed, in my blog post about what it means for humans to be made in the image of God, I explain that humans are actually superior to angels, because having physical bodies means that we can be indwelt with the Holy Spirit in a way that angels cannot. This means that redeemed humans who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-11) are actually partakers of God's own divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

So even though 1 Corinthians 15:44 mentions "spiritual" bodies, we know this cannot mean a state of disembodied existence, since there is no such thing as a non-physical body. As Randy Alcorn explains in his book Heaven (2004):

A non-physical resurrection is like a sunless sunrise. There's no such thing. Resurrection means that we will have bodies. If we didn't have bodies, we wouldn't be resurrected! 3

Thus, Alcorn goes on to say,

When Paul uses the term "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44), he is not talking about a body made of spirit, or an incorporeal body — there is no such thing. 'Body' means corporeal: flesh and bones. The word 'spiritual' here is an adjective describing 'body', not negating its meaning.... When Paul says that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," he's referring to our flesh and blood as they are now: cursed and under sin. Our present bodies are fallen and destructible, but our future bodies — though still bodies in the fullest sense— will be untouched by sin and indestructible They will be like Christ's resurrection body— both physical and indestructible.4

Alcorn believes the reason why so many Christians today think that heaven and our future bodies must be non-physical is due to the influence of Platonic thought. Platonism is a variety of ancient Greek philosophy which claimed that physical things are somehow bad, corrupt, or unworthy of divinity. But this idea is never found in the Bible.5

Indeed, Paul compares our current bodies to being like a temporary, flimsy, weak tent we live in, while our future immortal bodies will be as strong and permanent as a building. In this analogy, Paul says we don't actually desire to be "unclothed" (i.e., become a disembodied spirit), but we long to be "further clothed" with an even better, immortal, glorified body (2 Corinthians 5:1-5).

So then what is the difference between a physical body and a spiritual body?

One possibility is that it means that right now, our bodies are limited by physical reality. We're subject to things like gravity, physics, biology, aging, and more which put limits on what we can do. A spiritual body, in comparison, such as Jesus' resurrected body, does not seem to have these same limits, as shown by how he could appear inside locked rooms and ascend to heaven.6

It would certainly be fun to be able to swim without needing to breathe, fly whenever we want, run without getting tired (e.g., Isaiah 40:31), or explore outer space without needing a spacesuit. These might be some of the amazing things that our spiritual bodies will be able to do.

Will We Look Like Ourselves?

However, some Christians may worry that these new bodies may not be as good as we might hope. In particular, due to the influence of cultural beauty standards, we may even hope that our eternal bodies will be dramatically different from our bodies now.

I remember seeing a movie in which the main character played by Robin Williams meets his deceased daughter in the afterlife. Yet to his surprise, his daughter now appears to be ethnically asian, rather than white. His daughter says she was so influenced by how her dad had once complimented the beauty of an asian flight attendant that she always wanted to be asian.

Similarly, the movie later reveals that a black man who the main character had been interacting with was in reality the man's deceased son. Presumably, the implication is that his new body revealed his true self in a way that his former body did not.7

But I think we really wouldn't be ourselves if such fundamental bodily traits were altered so dramatically. I am only who I am because of who my parents were, because of who their parents were, and on and on back to Adam and Eve. I believe I wouldn't really be myself in heaven if my glorified body suddenly became so different that it no longer looked at least somewhat like myself with respect to these basic sorts of details, such as being approximately the same height, build, ethnicity, gender, and so forth.

For example, Job was confident that when he would be resurrected, he would be recognizable as himself, rather than someone else (Job 19:25-27). Elijah and Moses were also somehow recognizable by the disciples when they made post-death or post-translation appearances on Earth (Matthew 17:3-4).

As Anthony Hoekema points out,

There must be continuity [between our current bodies and our future resurrected bodies] for otherwise there would be little point in speaking about a resurrection at all. The calling into existence of a completely new set of people totally different from the present inhabitants of the earth would not be a resurrection.8

So if we can expect there to be continuity between our current bodies and our future bodies, then presumably, there will be just as much diversity in heaven as there is among people on Earth now. Thus, I like what Randy Alcorn suggests when he says,

God will decide what our perfect bodies look like, but we certainly shouldn't assume they'll all look alike. Different heights and weights seem as likely as different skin colors. Racial identities will continue (Revelation 5:9, 7:9), and this involves a genetic carryover from the old body to the new. I'm speculating, but it seems likely that people whose bodies were tall will have tall resurrection bodies; those who were short will likely be short. The naturally thin will be thin, and the naturally thick will be thick. But all of these sizes will be healthy and appealing, untouched by the Curse [of nature due to Adam and Eve's first sin] or disease or restrictions, and we'll each be perfectly happy with the form God designed for us.9

However, due to living in this fallen world, some people have suffered from various medical or genetic conditions that have significantly affected their bodily size, shape, or other traits such as skin color (e.g., vitiligo or albinism). In these cases I'm confident that these people, if they are eternally saved, will experience greater changes in order to restore their bodies to what they should ideally have been without these conditions.10

And it's not only these people who will experience bodily changes. In reality, every person's DNA has been somewhat degraded. This degradation is a result of tiny copying errors which occur during the imperfect biological process of combining parents' DNA to create a child in this currently-fallen world.

These copying errors are then passed down to this child's future children, in addition to any new copying errors these children's DNA would gain, and on and on. Thus, each future generation's DNA is slightly more degraded than the previous generation's was.

This is why it was no problem for Cain to marry one of his sisters (Genesis 4:17), or for Abraham to marry Sarah his half-sister (Genesis 20:11-12). But by the time of Moses, God put in restrictions regarding who is allowed to marry one another (Leviticus 18:6-17).

Today, with the help of science, we can say that part of God's reasoning behind instructing close relatives to not marry one another was so that inherited genetic copying errors would not accumulate in the same places of their children's DNA as quickly, because this would lead to their children having the sorts of medical problems that happen today when people become genetically inbred.11

But presumably, to create our glorified bodies, God could go back through each person's ancestral lineage and 'undo' all these copying errors to create perfected DNA for each person that still respects our heritage.12

So what could we expect our perfected bodies to be like?

In his book The City of God, the early church theologian Augustine shared his thoughts about Christians' future resurrected and glorified bodies.13 Some of Augustine's ideas are clearly speculative, and it must be noted that Augustine doesn't have any more information than we have in the Bible to work with. He was also influenced by his ancient Roman culture and philosophy, just as we are all influenced by our modern culture.

However, Augustine does have a few inspiring quotes and encouraging ideas that I agree with. Regarding our glorified bodies, Augustine suggests:

Every man shall receive his own size which he had in youth, though he died an old man, or which he would have had, supposing he died before his prime.14

Augustine believed our prime age is around thirty — the same age Jesus was when he was crucified.

Personally, I don't think we need to pin down a precise age, but we can say that each person will be totally perfect, with no signs of physical degradation due to aging. Likewise, no one will be stuck as being an eternal child or teenager, because these bodies have not yet grown into their full stature as defined by the potential of their DNA.15

But then, would it mean that people who died as children will suddenly be resurrected as full-grown adults?

Although it's never mentioned in the Bible, Randy Alcorn proposes an interesting answer to this question when he speculates that children may be resurrected with bodies that will look about the same age they were when they died. Then these children will be allowed to grow up in their glorified bodies as they naturally would have in their mortal bodies, as a way for them to not miss out on the childhood and teenage years they never experienced. Eternally-saved parents may then also be able to help raise the children they lost in this life,16

If true, then I would suspect that resurrected adults who never had the opportunity to be parents in this life might also be able to have some of their dreams fulfilled by serving as parents and mentors to resurrected children whose parents did not make it to heaven. And if you're curious, I've written more about the question of the salvation of infants and children in my post about whether people can believe in Jesus after death.

So overall, there are a number of theologians who make a good case for the idea that our resurrected bodies will be, at the very least, the genetically-perfected versions of our current bodies.

However, some Christians who have struggled to accept and/or love their current bodies might find this claim underwhelming, if not slightly discouraging. But hold on, and keep reading, and I think these feelings will disappear.

But Will We Like Our Resurrected Bodies?

Given what was said in the previous section about the diversity of bodily shapes and sizes we can likely expect to see in heaven, I think some Christians might still be nervous about the idea of potentially being one of the 'thicker' or 'larger' body types, if this is our current build.

The same feeling might occur for anyone who dislikes some aspect of their current body, and dreads the idea of still having this feature in their resurrected body. These concerns are likely a reflection of our current culture's beauty standards.

For example, Western culture is often obsessed with being thin, sometimes combined with artificially-enhanced curves for women that no woman who is normally that thin would likely have. And for men, there is pressure to have very little body fat, to be like the chiseled models and bodybuilders who may take all sorts of supplements and adhere to ridiculous workout regimens to maximize their muscles' size and definition.

Yet a look into history reveals that in different places and different times there have been a wide variety of various shapes and sizes of people that were thought of as being beautiful or handsome by different cultures, even though these are different from today's very narrow and almost-impossible ideas of what the perfect man or woman should look like.17

I think that in heaven we'll be able to appreciate many more types of beauty without being limited by the images we see in today's media or the expectations of current human cultures.

The same goes for the types of clothing we will likely wear in eternity. Even though clothing came about as a result of Adam and Eve feeling shame after they first sinned (Genesis 3:7, 3:21), the Bible does speak about people in heaven wearing clothes (Revelation 3:4, 6:11). Thus, as Alcorn notes, "It appears we'll wear clothes — not because there will be shame or temptation, but perhaps because they will enhance our appearance and comfort".18

In my opinion, fashion is an important part of culture, and it's also a great way for people to express themselves and have fun dressing up for different sorts of occasions. So I don't see why we would have to all dress the same forever in heaven. And in fact, not every style of fashion is suited for every body type, so a variety of bodies would seem to naturally lead to a variety of different styles of clothing, such that everyone could wear the style(s) that suit their bodies and personalities the best.

However, as a result of this discussion about the possible diversity and variety of bodies in heaven, Christians might still worry we might not totally like our resurrected bodies if our bodies won't necessarily conform to the 'perfect' body type we currently imagine we would like to have for all eternity. So here, I would like to share a few more quotes that I hope can encourage us about what we can look forward to our bodies being like in heaven.

Returning to the early church theologian Augustine, he suggests that:

Overgrown and emaciated persons need not fear that they shall be in heaven of such a figure as they would not be even in this world if they could help it. For all bodily beauty consists in the proportion of the parts, together with a certain agreeableness of color. Where there is no proportion, the eye is offended, either because there is something awanting, or too small, or too large.19

So basically, Augustine believed that everyone's glorified bodies will be their own perfect size and shape, even though this may vary from one person to another. No one will be considered as being ugly, either in their own opinion, or in the opinion of others, because that would decrease everyone's eternal happiness.

Although men will still be men, and women will be women, Augustine says no one will lust over each other's bodies, but we will praise and glorify God for the beauty he gives everyone. Like Adam and Eve before they sinned, no one will feel shame for any part of their bodies.20

And in case we might worry that our eternal bodies won't be as good as we hope they will, Alcorn notes that,

The most beautiful person you've ever seen is under the Curse, a shadow of the beauty that once characterized humanity. If we saw Adam and Eve as they were in Eden, they would likely take our breath away. If they would have seen us as we are now, they likely would have been filled with shock and pity.21

I find this quote is helpful to remember whenever I look in the mirror and feel dissatisfied with myself due to comparing myself to various celebrities I admire.

If even the people who I think are so beautiful today are affected by the curse of nature caused by Adam and Eve's sin (Romans 8:19-23), as well as the ongoing degradation of humanity's DNA that we discussed earlier, then surely, every single Christian's glorified body will automatically be far better than any body we've ever seen in this fallen world.

What About People With Disabilities?

In the past, I think this question wouldn't have even been asked. It was obvious to the early church author Augustine that resurrected, glorified people will not suffer from any disabilities or physical handicaps, whether mental or physical:

No infirmity shall remain in the mind nor in the body itself.22

It is strange to me that this position should now be controversial. During my PhD I became aware of some modern advocates of what is called disability theology. These authors typically claim that what our society today often calls 'disabilities' and other conditions that affect the development of the human body which cause individuals to be differently-abled should not be thought of as flaws that need to be fixed or healed, but are instead simply alternative ways of being human.23

The implication of these disability theologians seems to be that some people will still be deaf, blind, or paralyzed in heaven, because it is simply how God intended them to be.24

I have even heard of one Christian author who supposedly claimed that he did not want his son who has Down Syndrome to be healed from this condition in heaven, out of fear that it would change his son's personality (presumably, for the worse). I think such a fear is misplaced, since it should be obvious that no one in heaven will be less loving, less kind, less sweet, or less charming than they are now, even though these traits may be expressed differently depending on the individual's age and level of mental development.

And in contrast to these advocates of disability theology, there certainly are some disabled Christians who have written about how much they look forward to having non-disabled bodies in heaven, such as the quadriplegic Joni Eareckson Tada.25

Personally, I'm convinced that when Jesus healed people from all sorts of physical problems such as lameness, blindness, and more (e.g., Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 11:4-5), it was a demonstration that disabilities are not in alignment with God's good will for people. The Bible also says that in Jesus' earthly Millennial Kingdom anyone who had disabilities will be healed (Isaiah 35:5-6, 29:18). So how much more would this be true in the New Heaven and New Earth?

I believe the same would be true for any sort of physical or mental issues that cause people to suffer in any way, no matter how small, or that would keep people from enjoying any part of God's created world. This would therefore include any condition that would otherwise prevent someone from doing anything that God has generally created the human body to do (i.e., walk, run, talk, see, hear, sing, taste, eat, etc.). So no one on the New Earth will have food allergies or dietary sensitivities, no one will need glasses or hearing aids, no one will have diabetes, no one will have missing limbs or birth defects, and so forth.26

Ultimately, we will have to let God make the decision about how he intended his created people to be, rather than claim that God must do what we expect. Thus, I hope that differently-abled Christians wouldn't become so identified with their body's current condition that they could not humbly accept that God has the authority to remake their glorified bodies in whatever way God chooses.

However, there is another approach to disabilities in heaven which might take things too far in the opposite direction.

At one point in his book Heaven, Randy Alcorn seems to imply that people who were disabled, simply due to the fact that they temporarily suffered physical impairment in this life, may be rewarded by being given greater bodily abilities in their resurrected bodies than those of us who were not disabled.

When thinking of his friend David who currently has cerebral palsy, Alcorn writes, "I see him running through fields on the New Earth. I look forward to running beside David... and probably behind him".27

I would prefer to say that Christians who were disabled in this life may have greater appreciation for their resurrected bodies than a Christian who has never suffered in this way.28 Yet I highly doubt that God would 'punish' non-disabled Christians by giving us lesser abilities in our glorified bodies than Christians who were disabled.

The Bible never teaches that someone will be automatically better off than others in heaven simply because they suffered more than others in this life. That is, unless it relates to being persecuted for sharing the gospel, because Jesus promised that this sort of suffering will be rewarded in heaven (Matthew 5:11-13, Luke 6:22-24).

Augustine speculated that perhaps Christians who were tortured, maimed, or martyred for Jesus' sake will have these wounds still visible but somehow 'glorified' in their resurrected bodies as eternal marks of 'honor' for what they suffered,29 but again, this is his speculation.

The resurrected body of Jesus did have some sort of visible and touchable remnants of his wounds from his crucifixion on his side, hands, and feet (Luke 24:39, John 20:27). However, Jesus' wounds remaining in some form on his resurrected body could be a special exception, since it was his sacrificial death which bought eternal salvation for everyone (Hebrews 10:10-14), whereas other Christians' wounds received as a result of torture or martyrdom do not buy or earn anyone's eternal salvation.

Freedom From All Illness and Injuries

However, it won't be only our improved appearances and restored abilities that will thrill us, but also the fact that our resurrected bodies will never again experience aging or suffer from illness or injuries.

Because just like for people who had disabilities, Jesus also healed people suffering from various medical conditions and illnesses (Matthew 8:1-4, 8:5-13, 8:14-17, Luke 17:11-19, Mark 5:25-34), and Jesus even instantly healed bodily injuries (Luke 22:50-51). Thus, we can say that these things also do not represent God's good will for his people.

As strange as it is, there is a reference to the Tree of Life in the New Jerusalem as having leaves that are for the "healing of the nations" (Revelation 22:2). Perhaps this means these leaves will be used during Jesus' Millennial Kingdom as a way of providing medical care to the still-mortal people of the world, who would still be at risk of suffering from illnesses.

I once had a dream in which I imagined I was in heaven. I don't recall the details of my surroundings, but the main thing about that dream that has stuck with me was the overwhelming sense of relief and peace I felt due to the realization I had that from that moment onward, nothing bad would ever happen to me ever again.

There were no illnesses or injuries I'd ever have to fear, no worries about aging, no worries about starving to death, or indeed, dying or suffering from anything. Even my tiniest problems such as acne, bad hair days, sore muscles, stubbed toes, or dry skin were all in the past.

As someone who is at times a slight hypochondriac, that single fact all by itself, regardless of any of the rest of the heavenly rewards discussed in this article, would be enough to make me extremely happy for all eternity. If you have a moment, I would challenge you to attempt to imagine this reality, so that you might also get a tiny sense of how amazing it will be to have an immortal, glorified body.

The Difference Between Resurrection and Glorification

Everything that has been said so far about our future resurrected bodies is, I think, still partly limited by our current understanding of what human bodies are like right now. However, our glorified bodies may be not just the perfected versions of our current human bodies, as amazing as that would be, but our future glorified bodies may include additional supernatural upgrades beyond anything we could currently imagine.

After Jesus' resurrection, he was apparently still recognizable by his disciples if he wanted to be (Luke 24:13-16, 24:30-31), not just by his appearance, but also his voice (John 20:15-16). Presumably, the resurrected (but not yet glorified) Jesus also still looked and sounded like a typical human man, so that no one was alarmed by seeing him hang out with his disciples for the next forty days before his ascension to heaven (Acts 1:3).

During his earthly ministry, we are told that Jesus wasn't particularly attractive (Isaiah 53:2). But for a brief moment, three of Jesus' disciples apparently got a special glimpse of Jesus' heavenly glory when Jesus was transfigured in front of them. It says his face changed and his clothes became bright white (Luke 9:29).

Building on this, in the Book of Revelation, John's vision of the glorified Jesus was dramatically different from Jesus' resurrected appearance. Jesus is described by John as having pure white hair, eyes like fire, skin like bronze, and a voice that sounded like many rushing waters (Revelation 1:14-15). That's definitely a significant and truly-supernatural upgrade, I'd say.

So since we're told that our future immortal bodies will be like Jesus' body as we saw earlier in this post, then we will also surely be overjoyed with our glorified bodies that will likely be just as amazing as Jesus' body as shown in the Book of Revelation.

If this is correct, then I think there's a possibility that we may be able to switch back and forth between these ultra-glorious 'supernatural' bodies and a more normal-but-perfected version of our bodies that we had in this life, depending on the situation.

For example, I imagine that glorified Christians may be able to switch back to the normal-but-perfected versions of ourselves when we are helping Jesus rule the world during his Millennial Kingdom. This ability would make it easier for us to interact with the still-mortal people who will repopulate the world after the Tribulation. That way, resurrected and glorified Christians would not totally blow these still-mortal people away with our supernatural glory.

After all, even the Israelites couldn't handle how Moses' face shone with some sort of supernatural light or brightness after Moses had been in God's presence on Mount Sinai, and so Moses wore a veil over his face (Exodus 34:29-35).

But this is just my speculation. Clearly, God will work it out somehow to make sure that interactions between his resurrected/raptured and glorified saints and the still-mortal regular humans will not be a problem during the Millennial Kingdom.

So to end this section, we can conclude that the perfection of our glorified bodies is not a 'reward' for Christians, since our happiness with our eternal bodies and the beauty of our future bodies does not depend in any way on our performance in this life. Every Christian's glorified body will be exactly the way God wants it to be, and it will be totally healthy, unique, and far better than we can imagine right now.

But just as we will all receive amazing new bodies, we will also all receive incredible physical homes to live in, as will be discussed in the next section.

Eternal Homes in the New Jerusalem

One of the most notable features of the New Heaven and New Earth in the Book of Revelation is the glorious city called the New Jerusalem. It's described as being absolutely massive, presumably, big enough for everyone who will ever be eternally saved to live in.

When you take the dimensions of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:16 and lay it out on a map as a square with sides about 1380 miles (2221 kilometers) or so, the base of the city would cover over half of the continental United States, or most of Europe up to Russia's border. And that's not including the city's height, which is the same as its width.

This city will be designed and built by God himself (Hebrews 11:10, 11:16), and will be made out of materials that will never degrade and are infinitely precious (Revelation 21:18-21).

Jesus promised us that

In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.(John 14:2-3)

In the King James Version, the Greek word for "rooms" in the above verse is translated as "mansions". Some theologians like to emphasize that this word doesn't literally mean "mansion" and say we should think more about it as a "dwelling place" or simply a "room" within the larger "Father's house" of the New Jerusalem.30

Now, surely, even a room within the New Jerusalem would be far better than any home we could hope to have in this world.

Right now, every home we've ever lived in is temporary, and so we don't feel permanently safe or secure. Even having a permanent home that no one could ever take away from us and that could never be destroyed or ruined by natural disasters would be a major source of peace and joy, regardless of the size of this home.

But I think that those who downplay the term "mansion" and insist on translating John 14:2-3 as simply literal "rooms" within the Father's "house" limit the New Jerusalem to being basically just a single large building with hotel-like suites for each Christian. This arrangement might suit some Christians, but I doubt it would satisfy everyone equally.

It would also seem to limit God's creativity and generosity to claim that he can only give a single room or two to each Christian, when even in this life, people typically enjoy homes that have different rooms for multiple purposes, or a variety of rooms each with different views and types of decor.

So I like how Lee Brainerd points out that a proper understanding of what these heavenly dwelling places will be like shouldn't be based only on the specific meaning of these Greek or English words. Instead, we must consider God's character and promises regarding how gracious God will be to Christians in heaven (1 Peter 1:13), and how glorious the Bible describes the city of the New Jerusalem as being (Revelation 21:18-21, 22:1-5). Thus, Brainerd argues there is no exegetical reason to interpret John 14:1-3 as referring to only some sort of shared heavenly dorms or micro-apartments.31

I don't even see why our heavenly homes would have to be limited to just one home per Christian, when God could easily give each Christian multiple homes in different regions of the New Heaven, New Earth, and/or the New Jerusalem depending on what God knows we would each like. So in addition to our primary heavenly home, why shouldn't Christians hope to also receive from God a vacation beach house, a ski cottage, a secluded lakeside retreat, a treehouse in the forest, a country estate, a city condominium or penthouse, or something we haven't even imagined yet? Maybe even all of the above!

Therefore, I don't think we need to put such strict limits on what John 14:2-3 says. God as the creator of everything does not experience any level of scarcity or any reason why he couldn't give every person the mansion of their dreams, especially if it brings his people joy and glorifies God's amazing creative abilities.32 The New Jerusalem will definitely be large enough that nobody's home will have to be small, if they don't want it to be.33

Furthermore, Brainerd reminds us that there is nothing we can imagine that is greater than what God, as the creator of the entire universe, could create for us (Ephesians 3:20, 1 Corinthians 2:9). God knows exactly what architectural and interior design elements would thrill each of us, and so our heavenly homes will be totally perfect, such that there will be nothing about them we would ever want to change.34

Unfortunately, I've heard some Christians say something like "Oh, when I get to heaven, I'll probably just have a shack to live in. Or maybe a doghouse." Presumably, they are just trying to be humble. However, I think this phrase actually dishonors God by implying that we won't be totally thrilled with the amazing homes that Jesus has been spending nearly the past two-thousand years building for us.

Such a thought might also reflect the faulty assumption that the size or quality of Christians' eternal homes in the New Jerusalem is going to depend on how 'good' of Christians we were in this life. But I don't think this assumption is correct. It wouldn't fit with God's character or with God's unlimited creativity for God to have any slums on the outskirts of the New Jerusalem for the 'worst' Christians, while the 'best' Christians receive entire golden skyscrapers all for themselves in the center of the city.

Now, there are likely some people who would truly love to have a tiny home in heaven, such as a little rustic cottage surrounded by nature. In that case, I do not believe that God would force these people to live in a huge golden palace in the middle of the city if it wouldn't suit their personality or preferences.

At the same time, some people who have been stuck living only in small homes in this world might dream of having a large mansion with enough rooms for all the activities they imagine they would wish to do if they had the time and resources to do them.

But even then, I've watched enough tours of luxury homes on YouTube to realize that there are only so many sitting areas and eating areas that a home needs. Homes really do reach an upper limit in terms of their size before it becomes ridiculous and impractical.

I've heard some architects say that the reason why luxury homes just keep on getting larger and larger is because they now incorporate many amenities that in previous decades were unnecessary because people in the past were more willing to go out and use the public versions of these amenities. For example, we can think of swimming pools, movie theaters, libraries, tanning salons, bars, gyms, spas, dance clubs, game rooms, arcades, bowling alleys, basketball or tennis courts, and so forth.

Now, it is true that having one's own smaller version of these things in our own homes would be convenient, in some ways. Having private versions of these amenities would let us use them whenever we want with no travel time, no lines, no need to dress up, no need to share them with others, no need to book reservations, no waiting for the server to come to our table, no disappointment due to sitting in a less-than-ideal seat at the movie theater, and so forth.

I can definitely imagine the freedom and peace that I would feel from having every amenity I could ever want to use in my own home, rather than having to go out in public and interact with people if I'm not in the mood for it — especially with people who are annoying, rude, untrustworthy, sketchy, or potentially dangerous.

However, in heaven, no one will fit any of these descriptions. As Jonathan Edwards argues, heaven will be a world of love,35 and every person there will love perfectly. We will all act according to the perfect fruit of the Spirit, like Jesus himself did (Romans 8:29, 1 John 3:2, Galatians 5:22-23, Philippians 1:6). This will resolve every social issue and interpersonal difficulty that could make interacting with others unpleasant.

Thus, in heaven I think it would likely be more enjoyable to actually go out and interact with others, rather than for each person to hide away from the world in giant isolated mansions where everyone swims alone in their own pool, reads alone in their own library, or bowls by themselves in their own bowling alley.

Presumably, God will design the New Jerusalem to perfectly accommodate everyone who will be there, so that there will be no overcrowding or need for lines or reservations that would prevent us from doing whatever we want to do at the exact time we want to do it. And our homes could still have private versions of these public amenities if God knows it would bring us joy to use them or to invite others over to enjoy them together.36

But this is all just to say that because God knows each of us perfectly, he can design a perfect home for each of us that will be the exact right size, shape, and style for each of us so that we will be eternally thrilled to live in them. Our homes will be in the perfect neighborhoods, with all the nearby amenities we could want, with the perfect neighbors who will be not too close but not too far away, either. So in some sense, the entire New Jerusalem will be our home, as will our neighborhoods, and our individual dwelling places.37

And so as for our glorified bodies, there isn't any reason why God would not give every Christian this same blessing, even though the details of our homes will vary according to our personalities and desires.38

A Divine Inheritance

Finally, every Christian will receive a divine inheritance from God:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God's power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

Now in these verses it's not totally clear what this inheritance will be, but if we put together some more verses, it starts to become clearer.

First, we could say that God owns everything in the universe because God created it all (Genesis 1:1). Since Christians become God's adopted children and heirs (Romans 8:23, Galatians 4:4-7), then in the New Heaven and New Earth we will also, by extension, own everything (e.g., Luke 15:31).

We are also told that the entire universe was made by Jesus, through Jesus, and for Jesus (Colossians 1:16, John 1:1-3, 1:9-11). Jesus is also the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2). Yet Christians are promised that we will also be heirs of God and co-heirs along with Christ:

The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs — heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:16-17)

This verse might make it appear that we have to suffer due to our faith in Christ in order for us to become a co-heir of Christ or to be glorified with Christ. But obviously, as discussed above, all Christians will receive glorified bodies, and all Christians are adopted children of God.

And every Christian suffers in some way or another, even if it is just the suffering of living in this sinful world (2 Peter 2:7-8) or the inward groaning due to the suffering of living in these imperfect bodies (Romans 8:23).

Even people who only make the choice to finally believe in Jesus on their deathbeds end up suffering in their last few minutes, and their deaths can be a testimony to others about the truth of the gospel. So their suffering is still for Christ's glory, even in this situation.

I highly doubt there is any Christian who never suffered at all due to his or her faith. I've written more about this topic in my posts on how suffering is useful for Christians and why God doesn't make Christians' lives perfect right now.

The Bible says that everyone who overcomes will inherit all things (Revelation 21:7, KJV), and we know that everyone who has faith in Jesus as his or her Savior is an overcomer (1 John 5:4-5). So we shouldn't say that only some Christians "overcome" while others don't, or say that some Christians only "enter" the kingdom while other 'better' Christians "inherit" the kingdom.39

Thus, when some Bible verses talk about inheriting eternal life (Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25) or inheriting God's kingdom (Matthew 5:5, Matthew 25:34), it is likely referring to how eternal life will be about more than simply living forever. Our eternal lives will be infinitely amazing because we will able to eternally enjoy all the wonderful things that God will create for us:

What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him. (1 Corinthians 2:9)

You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (Psalm 16:11)

As a result, we won't need to worry ever again about anyone depriving us of anything or shutting us out from anything, because the whole universe will be ours to explore and interact with.40 There could never be a greater inheritance that anyone could receive than this.

Randy Alcorn notes that Christ's kingdom will eternally increase (Isaiah 9:7). Alcorn interprets this verse as meaning that in the New Heaven and New Earth, we won't just be limited to this one planet, but God's kingdom will expand to billions of new planets and galaxies that we will also get to explore and rule over.41

In the New Heaven and New Earth, everything that we want or need will be available to us or provided for us, or God could create something specifically for us, if it doesn't already exist:

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32)

God is a good parent who loves to give good things to his children (Matthew 7:11). Human parents today, due to various constraints, sometimes have to often tell their children 'no' when the child asks for something good, such as a new toy or another scoop of ice cream. In this life, God does not allow Christians to have everything we've ever wanted, and God has good reasons for this as I explore in my post about why God doesn't make our lives perfect right now.

But in heaven, there will be no reason for God to deny us anything that would make us truly happy. The only exceptions will be the additional heavenly rewards that God will give out to Christians as a consequence of how well we served him in this life, which I will examine in my next post.

So this is just to say that again, there is an amazing inheritance for every Christian to look forward to in heaven, and this inheritance does not depend on anything we do in this life, other than believe in Jesus as our Savior. Thus, anyone who tries to scare Christians by saying that we will be eternally unhappy or disappointed if we don't do enough for God in our lives now is simply wrong.

Conclusion

So in this post we've examined the most important 'rewards' that every single Christian will get to look forward to in heaven, simply as a result of believing in Jesus:

eternal life
a glorious immortal body
a perfect home custom made for us by God in the New Jerusalem.
an inheritance from God that will include the entire universe

Therefore, anything else that God may give as a heavenly reward to Christians that does depends on our good works and service to God in this life will not affect any of these above things.

But Isn't This Unfair?

But if I'm saying that every Christian will receive these 'rewards' in heaven regardless of how long or how well they served God in this life, it might appear to be unfair. The person who only believes in Jesus moments before he or she dies will receive the same eternal blessings as someone who has been a Christian their entire lives, has worked hard and sacrificed in various ways to serve God, and has perhaps even suffered persecution for his or her faith.

Yet Jesus told a story about an owner of a field who hires workers to work in his field. Some workers are hired at the start of the day, some at midday, and some only an hour before the workday would be over. At the end of the day, the owner pays all the workers a day's wage, regardless of how long they actually worked (Matthew 20:1-16).

The workers who worked the longest grumble about this, but the parable ends with the owner basically saying to them, "Why should you care if I choose to be generous with my own money?" (Matthew 20:13-16).

I think this story addresses any 'unfairness' Christians might currently feel about the above situation.

However, there are still even more heavenly rewards which the Bible reveals do depend on our obedience to God in this life, in a few different ways. These other rewards will be more like 'bonus points' to add on top of an already-incredible future that is waiting for us, all thanks to God's grace and the price Jesus paid on the cross for our sins to save us from eternal death.

These rewards will be examined in my next two posts.

Footnotes:

1. John Wesley was clearly confused on the gospel when he said that although we're saved only by faith, good works are still necessary for salvation because if we neglect to do good works, then "we cannot reasonably expect to be justified at all. Therefore both repentance and fruits meet for repentance are in some sense necessary to justification". John Wesley, "The Scripture Way of Salvation", in The Works of John Wesley Vol. 2, ed. Albert Outler (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982-1984), 162.
2. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Chapters 15, 16, and 17.
3. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 112.
4. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 123.
5. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 51-53,475-482.
6. Lee Brainerd, "The Glorious Resurrection Body", Soothkeep at YouTube, May 9, 2023.
7. This was the movie "What Dreams May Come" (1998). I would caution readers that this movie's theology is thoroughly unbiblical, so no Christian should interpret it as being an accurate depiction of heaven or hell. The movie also does not correctly teach who goes to heaven or hell, which in reality is based only on one's personal faith in Jesus Christ, or lack thereof.
8. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 251, as quoted by Randy Alcorn in Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 115.
9. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 289-290.
10. I don't know how God will restore the very small number of people in this world who are born intersex due to biological or genetic abnormalities, so that will be up to God. We can trust that these people will be perfectly happy with however God creates their glorified bodies.
11. See more on this topic in Chapter 8 of The Creation Answers Book 8th ed. (Creation Book Publishers), by Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland.
12. Lee Brainerd, "The Perfect Me", Soothkeep at YouTube, July 14, 2024.
13. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
14. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 15, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
15. This is also suggested by Randy Alcorn, who quotes Hank Hanegraaf as saying "Our DNA is programmed in such a way that, at a particular point, we reach optimal development from a functional perspective. For the most part, it appears that we reach this stage somewhere in our twenties and thirties.... If the blueprints for our glorified bodies are in the DNA, then it would stand to reason that our bodies will be resurrected at the optimal stage of development determined by our DNA." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 297-298, citing Hank Hanegraaf, Resurrection (Nashville: Word, 2000), 133-134. Alcorn also cites Thomas Aquinas as another major past theologian who thought people would be resurrected around the age of 33, which is the age that many scholars believe Jesus was when he was crucified (Alcorn, Heaven, 297).
16.Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 298, 356.
17. Randy Alcorn writes: "I heard someone say that in Heaven we'll all have sculpted bodies, without any fat. This comment reflects a yearning for our bodies to be healthy, fit, and beautiful. I expect our bodies wil be good-looking, but not with a weight-lifting, artificial-implant, skin-tuck, tanning-booth sort of beauty. The sculpted physique our culture admires would be regarded as freakish in other places and times. Some cultures consider what we call slimness as unhealthy and what we consider plumpness as a sign of vitality and prosperity. The same genetic tendencies that make some people unattractive by one culture's standards make them attractive in another. Our new bodies, I expect, will have a natural beauty that won't need cosmetics or touch-ups. As for fat, because God created fat as part of our bodies, we'll surely have some, but in healthy proportion." Randy Alcorn, Heaven, 289.
18. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 296. He suggests there will be a variety of styles of clothing including everything from historical robes to modern T-shirts, jeans, and flip-flops, as well as a variety of colors, to match the wide ranges of clothing that people have enjoyed wearing during our earthly lives: "Because resurrected people retain their individuality and nationality ... and because many ethnic groups wear colorful clothing, we should expect this on the New Earth" (Alcorn, Heaven, 296-297).
19. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, chapter 19, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
20. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 17, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Randy Alcorn agrees: "We'll never be genderless because human bodies aren't genderless. The point of the resurrection is that we will have real human bodies essentially linked to our original ones. Gender is a God-created aspect of humanity." He goes on to say that people who cite Galatians 3:28 to claim that resurrected people in heaven will be genderless are misunderstanding that verse. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 295. I agree that this verse doesn't refer to our resurrected bodies but is emphasizing the equality of all people within the Church, whether they are Jewish or non-Jewish, or male or female, and so there is no room for discrimination against any Christian within the Church.
21. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 289.
22. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 16, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
23. This statement is based on discussions with my fellow doctoral student and friend who was himself 'differently-abled'.
24. For example, the evangelical theologian Amos Yong, in his book Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability (Baylor University Press, 2007), writes "the redemption of those with Down Syndrome … would consist not in some magical fix of the twenty-first chromosome but in the recognition of their central roles both in the communion of saints and in the divine scheme of things", as quoted by Elizabeth Lynch in her review "Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability", at TheologyForum.wordpress.com, February 21, 2008.
25. And Joni is not the only one: "Joni tells of speaking to a class of mentally handicapped Christians. They thought it was great when she said she was going to get a new body. But then she added, 'And you're going to get new minds.' The class broke out in cheers and applause. They knew just what they wanted — new minds". Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 294-295, citing Joni Earackson Tada, Heaven: Your Real Home (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 53.
26. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 294-295.
27. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 294.
28. Otherwise, the same principle could apply for any situation regarding heaven: would Christians who suffered by living in slums automatically be rewarded with larger homes than other Christians who were blessed to live in regular-sized homes in this life? Would Christians who society deemed to be less physically attractive be automatically rewarded with more physical beauty in their resurrected bodies than other Christians who were more attractive in this life? Or Christian who were less intelligent be rewarded with greater intelligence? Would Christians who were obese in this life be thinner than others in heaven? Such an argument could go on and on, but if it were so, at least when it comes to our glorified bodies, then I don't see how there would be the genetic 'carryover' that Alcorn also seems to endorse which would ensure we will still be 'ourselves' in heaven, but minus any genetic flaws and problems due to living in this fallen world.
29. Augustine, The City of God, Book XXII, Chapter 19, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Marcus Dods (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887). Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.
30. For example, Alcorn argues "Unfortunately, that rendering [as 'mansions'] is misleading if it makes us envision having massive lodgings on separate estates. The intended meaning seems to be that we'll have separate dwelling places on a single estate or even separate rooms within the same house." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 333.
31. Lee Brainerd, "Rapture Nugget — Many Mansions", Soothkeep at YouTube, August 15, 2022.
32.For an encouraging discussion about how amazing our eternal homes will be, see the YouTube video by Lee Brainerd, "Rapture Nugget — Your Rapture Mansion", Soothkeep at YouTube, November 24, 2023.
33. "We don't need to worry that Heaven will be crowded. The ground level of the city will be nearly two million square miles. This is forty times bigger than England and fifteen thousand times bigger than London. It's ten times as big as France or Germany and far larger than India. But remember, that's just the ground level. Given the dimensions of a 1,400-mile cube, if the city consisted of different levels (we don't know this) and if each story were a generous twelve feet high, the city could have over 600,000 stories. If they were on different levels, billions of people could occupy the New Jerusalem, with many square miles per person. If these numbers are figurative, not literal (and that is certainly possible). surely they are still meant to convey that the home of God's people will be extremely large and roomy." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 250.
34. Lee Brainerd, "Rapture Nugget — I Go To Prepare A Place For You", Soothkeep at YouTube, April 14, 2023.
35. Jonathan Edwards, "Heaven Is A World of Love", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 366-397.
36. Randy Alcorn says, in reference to Luke 16:4-9, "Do I believe Jesus is suggesting we'll actually share lodging, meals, and fellowship with friends in God's Kingdom? Yes. I'm aware that some readers will think this far-fetched. But that's only because when we think of Heaven, we don't think of resurrected people living on a resurrected Earth, living in dwelling places, and eating and fellowshiping together. But isn't that exactly what Scripture teaches us?" Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 335.
37. Randy Alcorn notes how he thinks of 'home' in many different ways, and seems to imply it will be the same in Heaven, where in some way, the entire new Heaven and New Earth will be our home, the New Jerusalem will be our home, our neighborhood within the New Jerusalem will be our home, and our specific dwelling within that neighborhood will also be our home: "When I've flown home from overseas and landed in New York, I feel I've come 'home,' meaning I'm in my home country. Then when I land in Oregon, I'm more home. When I come to my hometown, everything looks familiar. Finally, when I arrive at my house, I'm really home. But even there I have a special room or two. Scripture's various terms — New Earth, country, city, place, and rooms — involve such shades of meaning to the word home." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 334.
38. "Heaven isn't likely to have lots of identical residences. God loves diversity, and he tailor-makes his children and his provisions for them. When we see the particular place he's prepared for us — not just for mankind in general but for us in particular — we'll rejoice to see our ideal home." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 334. Alcorn quotes C.S. Lewis, who says "Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it — made for it stitch by stich as a glove is made for a hand." Alcorn, Heaven, 282, citing C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: Macmillan, 1962), 147.
39. Lee Brainerd, "Inheritance In The Heavens", Soothkeep on YouTube, October 22, 2024. For example, Ken Yates at the Grace Evangelical Society claims that all Christians 'enter' eternal life/God's kingdom, but only some Christians who have overcome all of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:10 will 'inherit' eternal life/the kingdom. Ken Yates, "Make Inheriting Your Goal (1 Corinthians 6:10)", Grace Evangelical Society, July 25, 2018. Instead, if we take this verse in its context, Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians to not take their personal disputes to unbelievers because the unbelievers who act in these sinful ways are not going to inherit God's kingdom. Christians should attempt to act better than unbelievers do because of our knowledge of the gospel and the incredible status we will have as heirs of God in the New Heaven and New Earth, and we are qualified to judge things in this world because in the future we will even judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3). See Onorato Diamante, 1 Corinthians 6:9 is NOT Teaching What A LOT of People Think! Allow Me To Explain..., on YouTube, December 16, 2023. We could interpret Ephesians 5:5 and Galatians 5:21 similarly.
40. Lee Brainerd, "Inheritance In The Heavens", Soothkeep on YouTube, October 22, 2024. Now, a critic might claim that if nothing will be denied to Christians in heaven, then we will be able to wander straight into each other's homes and do whatever we want there, or take whatever we want from others. But this behavior would demonstrate an attitude that is not formed by perfect love for others. As noted earlier, in heaven we will each have our own homes and perhaps even our own land, and this ownership means these things will be under our personal control. However, we won't need to worry that anyone would trespass when we don't want them there, because disrespecting another person's private space or property would be unloving, and no one will be unloving in heaven.
41. "It may be that Christ's government will always increase because he will continually create new worlds to govern (and, perhaps, new creatures to inhabit those new worlds.) Or perhaps it will always increase because the new universe, though still finite, may be so vast that what Christ creates in a moment will never be exhaustively known by finite beings. From what we know of our current universe, with billions of galaxies containing millions of billions of stars and untold planets, this is certainly possible.... If Christ expands his rule by creating new worlds, whom will he send to govern them on his behalf? His redeemed people. Some may rule over towns, some cities, some planets, some solar systems or galaxies." Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 232.

How God Can Control Evil

2026-01-02T00:00:00+00:00

To believe that God is perfectly good despite the sin, evil, and suffering that exists in this world is a challenge that every Christian must wrestle with to at least some extent. This is called the problem of theodicy.

I believe that it's only if God is fully good that we can feel safe putting all of our trust in God for our eternal future, as well as in God's guidance and provision for us in our earthly lives. It's also only if God is fully good that he would be worthy of receiving all of our praise and love.

Therefore, any idea which undermines God's goodness needs to be dealt with, in order for Christians (or at least, for me) to have a better relationship with God. This is why I study theodicy and other difficult theological topics.

One of the worst theological ideas which undermines God's goodness is the claim that God actually wants to predestine most of humanity to eternal torment in hell. This is the issue I addressed in my PhD dissertation, where I studied Jonathan Edwards' arguments for predestination and identified a number of flaws with them.

In contrast to predestination, I've written several blog posts that build a case for my theory of Christian inclusivism which says that everyone will truly have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel at some point. I also argue that hell is best understood as eternal destruction, not eternal torment.

But another troubling idea that sometimes comes up in our reading of the Bible, or that has been put forward by both past theologians and modern Bible interpreters, is the idea that God is actually the ultimate cause behind at least some types of evil and suffering in this world.

For example, we might wonder about whether the instances in the Bible where God prophesies about evil things means that God had some role in orchestrating or causing these negative things to happen.

So in this post, I want to explain how I believe there are ways of looking at God's relationship to evil that do give God enough control over evil that he could prophesy about specific evil actions done by others, yet without God being the ultimate cause of these evil actions. This should help reassure us that God really is fully good and worthy of being trusted, even when we personally see and experience suffering in this world.

Does God Ever Cause Evil?

We all experience suffering in one way or another since our lives in this world will never be perfect. Because of this, I believe that correctly understanding God's relationship to these negative events that cause us to suffer is important to help us fully love and trust God.

Thus, it can be troubling when some Bible verses appear to support the idea that God does sometimes outright cause evil and suffering to occur. For example:

"Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" (Amos 3:6, KJV).
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7, KJV).
"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?" (Lamentations 3:38, KJV)

However, you may be relieved to hear that these old translations of these verses are not the best.1 Instead, more recent Bible translations substitute "disaster" or "calamity" for "evil":

"Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?" (Amos 3:6, ESV).
"I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things" (Isaiah 45:7, ESV).
"Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that both calamities and good things come?" (Lamentations 3:38, NIV)

These translations are more consistent with the idea that God never causes or does evil, although it is true that God sometimes brings judgment on groups of sinful people for their evil ways (e.g., the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-29)). But remember that whenever God ends people's lives in various ways, this is not an instance of God doing evil but is God carrying out his righteous justice.

We know that God never does evil because if he did, it would contradict other very important verses about God's goodness and righteousness, such as when we're told:

"God is light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5).
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change" (James 1:17).
"For the word of the Lord is upright, and all his work is done in faithfulness. He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord" (Psalm 33:4-5).
"Declare that the Lord is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him" (Psalm 92:15).
"For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations" (Psalm 100:5).
"For the Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds; the upright shall behold his face" (Psalm 11:7).
God is "of purer eyes than to see evil and cannot look at wrong" (Habakkuk 1:13).
At some points, God says the things evil people do are so bad that God could never have imagined commanding anyone to act in such ways (Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5).

So God definitely never sins or does evil. Yet at the same time, we must say that God has ultimate control over the evil that happens in this world. Otherwise, Satan, demons, or sinful humans would have more power than God, and that is not a comforting thought.2

So I believe that God does restrain and prevent many instances of evil that we do not know about because they did not happen. However, because free will is important to God in order for our love of God to be genuine, God does not prevent all evil from happening. Free will is the same reason why God cannot force anyone to be eternally saved.

What I haven't yet addressed in these previous posts, though, is the question of how God can prophesy that evil will definitely happen, despite God not being the ultimate cause of it, and despite God giving people and demons genuine free will.

There is also the related question of how God can restrain evil so that no more evil happens than he allows, and in situations where evil is necessary in order to fulfill Bible prophecy, that evil happens exactly as God requires it to, and right on schedule.

The Issue of How God Can Prophesy About Evil

When reading the Bible, Christians may wonder about:

How Jesus could prophecy that Peter would deny him exactly three times before sunrise (John 13:38, 18:27).
How Jesus knew that Judas would betray him (Matthew 26:20-25, John 13:18) as prophesied in Psalm 41:9.
How Jesus was crucified at the exact right time the day before Passover, in order to fulfill the symbolism of this ancient Jewish feast.3
How God could prophesy that Assyrian and Babylonian armies would invade and destroy Israel and Jerusalem and send the people into exile (e.g. Isaiah 10:5-11, 39:5-8).
How God could prophesy that evil thoughts will enter Gog's mind to inspire him to attack Israel in the end times (Ezekiel 38:10-12).
How God could prophesy that terrible things will happen to the people of Jerusalem during the battle of Armageddon (Zechariah 14:2).

We do not want to say that God actively caused these people to sin, because that would make God ultimately to blame for their sin.4

After all, God doesn't even tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13), which would certainly rule out God from ever being the ultimate cause behind someone's sin. So if God never causes anyone to sin, then how can we explain these prophecies?

First, we need to deal with the typical views held by many Christians that God can prophesy about things that will happen in the future because God either has perfect foreknowledge of the future due to God being all-knowing (omniscient) and/or because God exists outside of time.

If you don't care about this philosophical discussion, go ahead and click this link to skip down to where I explain why God's foreknowledge causes problems for God's goodness.

Philosophical Problems With Divine Foreknowledge

A very common approach to explaining these Bible prophecies is to say that God has perfect foreknowledge of the future because this knowledge is included in the definition of what it means to say that God is omniscient ('all-knowing'). If this is true, then God simply knows from all eternity past how sinful people will act in the future, despite God not causing them to act as they do, and the question is solved. Thus, this can be called the simple foreknowledge view.

However, it turns out that God having this sort of foreknowledge wouldn't actually give God any sort of control over the world. Even before God created the world, God would know everything about the exact future of the world that he will create, but he would be totally unable to change anything about it.5

It would be like how, in fictional time-travel stories that actually do time travel correctly, nothing about the past, present, or future can actually be changed, because the time-traveler's actions in the past have already occurred.6

For example, let's imagine that a scientist invents a time machine so that he can go back into the past in order to change something about his present situation. But, to the scientist's dismay, he discovers that he can't actually change anything about his present situation, because his present situation is the way it is precisely because the scientist had already traveled into the past to try to make changes to his present situation. (Yeah, it's complicated, but it makes sense if you stop to think about it).

So likewise, if God wanted to change anything about the future of the world he already perfectly foreknows he certainly will create, he couldn't, because that change would invalidate God's own foreknowledge, which is impossible if God perfectly foreknows the future.

Even more problems appear if we claim that God is "outside of time" or "timeless", as a way of explaining God's foreknowledge.

Is God Timeless or Outside of Time?

If God is timeless, then God would basically know and experience all of history at once.7 That would mean that God could never experience anything new, and if God foreknew everything that everyone would ever say or do, then God could not have truly responsive relationships with his created people.8

It would also lead to the same philosophical problem for God's providence that was mentioned in the previous section where God could not change anything about the history of the world that in this case God already knows and is experiencing.

A more serious issue with God being timeless is that it would mean that from God's eternal perspective, God would eternally experience the agony of Jesus dying on the cross.

This is a deduction from the doctrine of the Trinity which teaches that God the Son, the second Person of the divine Trinity, who became incarnate as the human Jesus Christ is just as divine and eternal as God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, since they are three divine Persons who exist as one being/essence. But Jesus said just before he died that "It is finished" (John 19:30), presumably, for both himself and God the Father, since they are one (John 10:30), along with the Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of God/Christ (Romans 8:9).

A similar problem is that if God were timeless, he would also eternally experience his sadness and anger at every sin that has ever occurred. In fact, from God's timeless perspective, all these sins would actually continue to happen, forever. How then could God enjoy his sinless New Heaven and New Earth and have the final victory over sin and death (1 Corinthians 15:25, Revelation 20:14), if God is still eternally experiencing this fallen, sin-filled world?

The fact that God the Son became incarnate as the human Jesus at a specific point in history also seems to require for there to have been some period of time before the incarnation when God the Son had not yet assumed a human body/nature, contrasted with the time after the incarnation, when God the Son now does eternally have a human body/nature in addition to his divine nature.9

It would be a logical contradiction to say that God the Son could eternally experience both being incarnate and not being incarnate simultaneously. Thus, even God must be able to experience some sort of change in relation to his external situation, even though God's character remains constant and unchanging.

Therefore, it is better to say that once God created time, God also experiences time, so that past events like the incarnation and crucifixion are truly in God's past, as well as in ours.10 This means that the simple foreknowledge view of Bible prophecy seems to be eliminated as a biblical and philosophical possibility.

What About Middle Knowledge?

The next-best alternative to simple foreknowledge is the concept of middle knowledge. Middle knowledge is the idea that God knows for sure how anyone would freely act in every possible situation. In this case, it seems that God could providentially arrange everyone's lives in such a way that their free decisions achieve God's desired outcome for history without God having to override anyone's free will.11

Yet middle knowledge also leads to a problem for the concept of human free will, since it appears that no one could choose to act differently than how God's middle knowledge foreknows they definitely will act in that specific situation. So for genuine free will to exist, it is argued that God could know how likely it is that someone might act in a particular way, but God couldn't know exactly how anyone would definitely act in any situation.12

There are also issues with middle knowledge when it comes to predestination.

Foreknowledge Causes Problems For God's Goodness

In addition to these philosophical issues, there is also a problem for God's goodness in both the simple foreknowledge and middle knowledge views. The issue is that in both cases, God would be fully responsible for placing people in situations where God absolutely knew they would act in sinful/evil ways.13 For example,

If God foreknew that Adolf Hitler would send six million Jews to their death, why did he go ahead and create a man like that? If I unleash a mad dog I am certain will bite you, am I not responsible for my dog’s behavior? If so, how is God not responsible for the behavior of evil people he “unleashes” on the world — if, in fact, he is absolutely certain of what they will do once “unleashed”? 14

For all of these reasons, philosophically, I'm drawn to the theory of open theism, which is the view that God does not have perfect foreknowledge of anyone's genuinely-free choices. Thus, because these choices are not perfectly foreknown by anyone, including God, we can be assured that they are truly being made freely.15

And as I've explored previously in several blog posts, our free will is important to God not for its own sake but because it preserves God's goodness, and also because it is required for our love of God to be genuine so that we are not forced to love God. Without free will which gives us the option of saying "no" to God, our love for God would be totally meaningless to him.

Yet despite God lacking foreknowledge of the outcome of all freely-made choices, open theists say that God still has complete knowledge of all things that do not involve free will. God's omniscience of these things, when combined with God having many divine contingency plans to handle all possibilities of how everyone could possibly freely choose to act, could enable God to accurately predict and prophesy about many things. I discuss this idea in more detail in my post about open theism and Bible prophecy.

Challenges To God's Goodness From Bible Prophecy

Unfortunately, none of the open theists I've read have good answers to the question of how God can prophesy about the times when God predicts that people will act in evil ways if God does not have foreknowledge of the future.

For example, we cannot say that God caused Judas to betray Jesus, or made Peter deny Christ in order to fulfill prophecy,16 or we would be taking away Judas’s and Peter’s personal responsibility for their behavior, and God would be to blame for this sin/evil.

And while God could have known that Judas was considering betraying Jesus, open theists cannot say that God definitely knew that Judas would actually go through with it. If Judas had freely chosen not to betray Jesus, then God would have needed some other way for Jesus to be delivered to the Sanhedrin in time to be crucified before Passover.17

Even if God knew that at that particular moment in time, Peter had the sort of character which made him likely to deny Jesus if he were pressured,18 it seems it would have required God to coordinate all the circumstances that Peter was in that night in order to make sure that Peter was asked by the right people at the right times to make it all happen.

However, after further reflection on this problem, I think I have two analogies that can help us understand how, even under an open theist paradigm where people have genuine free will and where God does not foreknow the outcome of any genuinely-free choices, and where God never actively causes evil, we can explain how God could prophesy about these sorts of evil and/or sinful actions.

Before this, though, I want to deal with one common approach to how Christians frequently say that God controls evil, which I think is somewhat challenging to accept if we believe that God is fully good and never does evil.

Does Satan Need God's Permission To Do Evil?

I think one of the mistakes Christians can make when talking about God controlling evil is that they assume that Satan must request permission from God before Satan can do any particular instance of evil. However, this assumption does appear to have a Biblical basis.

In the Book of Job, Satan is depicted as coming to God and complaining that God has blessed the man named Job so much that Job only loves God because of all these blessings (Job 1:6-9). Satan whines that God has put a spiritual protective 'hedge' around Job, Job's family, and Job's possessions, so that Satan can't attack them (Job 1:10). Then Satan asks for God's permission to test Job's faith by taking away these blessings. God gives him permission, with the only condition being that God won't let Satan take away Job's health (Job 1:11-12).

Satan's goal, however, is actually carried out by other people (the Sabeans and Chaldeans) who attack Job's herds of animals and kill his servants. This is in addition to what we would say are natural disasters that kill Job's children and other herds and servants (Job 1:13-19). Later on, Satan is allowed to afflict Job's health, but not kill him (Job 2:4-6).

Job ultimately does attribute all of these things to God (Job 1:20-21). When Job's wife tells him he should curse God and die, Job says "Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?" (Job 2:10).19 But Job never accuses God of doing anything wrong (Job 1:22, 2:10).

To me, the strange part about the introduction to the Book of Job is that it seems it could be read to imply that despite Satan being evil and completely opposed to God, Satan still obeys God regarding these particular limits on Satan's activities (i.e, he can't affect Job's health, and can't kill him).

Additionally, if Satan needed God's outright verbal permission for every instance of evil that Satan and demons wanted to commit, then spiritual warfare would basically turn into God putting on a puppet show, with God as the puppeteer who controls both the 'good' puppet and the 'evil' one too. This would still be the case even if the puppeteer set it up so that the evil puppet is controlled by someone else who must still get the puppeteer's permission before it makes any move.

Such a scheme would seem to make God far more closely responsible for the evil that occurs than Christians might like to admit, so I don't think it's the best way to think about this issue.

For example, in the Netflix show Black Mirror, there was an episode called the "USS Callister", which I think gives a good illustration of how some Christians depict God's total control over everyone, including Satan.20 In this episode, a disgruntled programmer has the technology to make simulated clones of his coworkers and import them into his favorite computer game, which is very similar to the original Star Trek TV show.

With his unlimited power over the simulation, the programmer appoints himself as the starship's captain. He then bullies his simulated coworkers into serving as his subordinate crewmembers who obey every command he gives because, if they don't, the programmer tortures them in terrible ways. The purpose of this simulation seems to be to make the programmer feel powerful and successful by living in his ideal fantasy world where everything happens exactly as he desires. He always wins, his subordinates always praise how great he is, and the women always act as if they find him attractive.

Even the 'villain' who the programmer ends up being victorious over is just another simulated coworker who is forced to play his role. After being defeated, the 'villain' says to the programmer with his last breath, "I've been a good villain for you, haven't I?". The programmer reassures him that yes, he has done a good job being a villain.

So we don't want to say that God is doing something similar. We don't want to say that God needs Satan to obediently play the 'villain' in specific ways that God allows him to, in order for God to pretend to defeat Satan and then feel good about himself and be praised by others for God's hollow 'victory'.

Open Theist Approaches to The Book of Job

Some open theists do address the Book of Job in regard to the problem of theodicy. For example, Gregory Boyd argues that it possible to interpret the Book of Job in a way that does not affirm that God directly controls Satan.

Since the Book of Job is written in the form of a poem, Boyd claims that the first few verses are simply setting up the narrative context of Job’s trials. Thus, Boyd says it's an interpretive error to try use these verses to answer questions such as "Does Satan always have to get specific permission every time he does something?" or "Is every affliction the result of a heavenly challenge to God’s authority?" Instead, Boyd reads the Book of Job similarly to how he reads Jesus’ parables, where what matters is the central point, not peripheral details.21

According to Boyd, the central point of the Book of Job is not that God controls Satan, but that as humans, we can't see all the complexity of everything that's going on behind the scenes which God alone knows about and has to deal with, including the naturally 'chaotic' elements of a fallen world, human free will, and spiritual warfare.22

At the end of the Book of Job, God gives many examples of such complexity and chaos, which corrects Job's mistaken assumptions about God (Job 38:1-40:2, 40:6-41:34). Job admits that he has spoken about things he has no real idea about (Job 40:4-5, 42:2-6). Thus, we shouldn't assume that everything Job says about God before this point is true.23 Instead, "Job passes his test not because his theology is correct but because he does not reject God even when his theology tells him he should".24

In general, I do like Boyd's approach to the Book of Job. However, I don't want to say that the biblical introduction to the Book of Job is inaccurate or is simply the literary setup for the rest of the book. I believe that all Scripture is true and inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), who is God and so never lies (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). That means we need to deal carefully with these verses, rather than dismiss them.

But I think there are ways of looking at Satan's activities that could help us understand how God can be fully in control of evil without God being the cause of this evil, and without Satan having to agree to obey God's limits on Satan's evil activities as if Satan is only another one of God's servants, even though God does, in a sense, still give Satan 'permission' to act as Satan does.

So the challenge is correctly laid out by John Calvin, who asks regarding Job's afflictions, "How may we attribute this same work to God, to Satan, and to man as author, without either excusing Satan as [being] associated with God, or making God the author of evil?" 25

Part of Calvin's solution is to argue that the motives of each individual involved in Job's afflictions (i.e., God, Satan, and human sinners) are different, and so are the means by which they act:26

Regarding their motives:

God's good purpose is to test Job's faithfulness and vindicate him against Satan's accusation.
Satan's evil goal is to make Job turn against God.
The sinful Chaldeans want to take someone else's property for themselves.

In terms of how they act:

God gives permission to Satan to temporarily afflict Job.
Satan tempts the Chaldeans to sin.
The Chaldeans choose to sin and carry out the crime.

So far, I think this is relatively correct. In this case, we can see that God is not the cause of evil, but God does allow it, and the evil is fully attributed both to Satan and sinful humans.

Unfortunately, Calvin agrees with Augustine's claim that people don't really have free will. Instead of having free will, Calvin says that sinful humans' wills are either controlled by God or by Satan, depending on God's choice to 'abandon' certain people to Satan's control.27

However, most non-Calvinists would agree with the idea that humans must be the ultimate authors of our own actions in order for us to be held morally accountable for our actions, whether good or bad.28 The same would be true for Satan and demons.

But this again raises the question of how God can control evil so that no more evil happens in the world than God wishes to allow, despite sinful people, Satan, and demons all having genuine free will.

Two Analogies Of How God Might Control Evil

Here, I want to propose two analogies for how we might picture God controlling evil, yet without God being the cause of it, in such a way that God can still have precise control over exactly how much evil happens, and when.

Analogy 1: God Controls The Brakes on Evil's Car

In this analogy, let's work with the example of the crucifixion.

When I was learning to drive, my instructor used a car that had been modified to include an additional brake pedal on the front passenger's side of the vehicle. In this way, the driving instructor could force the car to stop at any time, regardless of what the student driver was doing.

So let's picture Satan and sinful human nature as sitting in the student driver's seat, and God the Father sitting in the driving instructor's seat, with access to an additional brake pedal.

Then let's say that Satan sees Jesus crossing the street up ahead, and so Satan intends to run him down. Therefore, Satan presses the gas pedal to the floor.

Yet God can push his brake pedal and bring the car to a total standstill whenever God wants. God can also press on the brake pedal to a greater or lesser extent, which allows the vehicle to move forward at whatever speed God desires, even though God is not the one in control of the gas pedal.

So, if God needs evil to occur to fulfill any particular Bible prophecy, God could simply decide to not restrain the evil that God knows Satan and sinful humans want to do. However, God is not to blame for the evil that happens, because all the evil that occurs is properly attributed to the misused free will of his sinful, rebellious creatures who did it, even though God could theoretically stop it.

I believe we see this happening during Jesus' life. Satan was always aiming to kill Jesus right from the time when Jesus was a baby.

To do this, Satan likely tempted King Herod to send soldiers to kill all the toddlers in Bethlehem (Matthew 2:16). Herod gave in to this temptation, perhaps out of Herod's own pride and fear of being replaced (Matthew 2:1-4). But God "put the brakes" on this attempt to kill Jesus by sending Mary's husband Joseph a dream to warn him about this attack, and, using the gold and other expensive gifts the wise men had given them, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were able to escape into Egypt and live there until Herod was dead, and it was safe for them to return to Israel (Matthew 2:13-15). And who knows what else Satan might have tried to do to in the meantime to kill Jesus that wasn't recorded in the Bible.

But Satan didn't give up. Later, during Jesus' ministry, there were times when Jesus was at risk of being killed by angry groups of people who didn't agree with his teachings (Luke 4:28-30, John 5:18, 7:1, 8:59, 10:31-39, Mark 14:1-2). But we can say that God's divine providence again stopped these attempts from succeeding until it was time for the crucifixion.

That's why when it was finally time for Jesus to be crucified, all Jesus had to do was to not resist being arrested by Israel's religious leaders. Jesus said that it was the time for darkness/evil to have power (Luke 22:52-53), and Jesus allowed it because he could have called down angels to defend him (Matthew 26:53), but he didn't. Presumably, Jesus could also have come down off the cross whenever he wanted (Matthew 27:40, Luke 23:37), but he chose not to, because it was all part of God's plan for Jesus to die for the sins of the world (John 12:27, 10:17-18, 3:14-18).

The Bible also tells us that Jesus knew that Judas was going to betray him from early on in his ministry, and even called Judas a 'devil' (John 6:70-71). At the Last Supper, Jesus gave Judas permission to go and betray him (Matthew 26:24-25, John 13:26-30).

But how did Jesus know that Judas would definitely go through with it?

We do know that Judas seemed to love money more than he loved Jesus, based on how Judas objected to Jesus being anointed with expensive perfume as a foreshadowing of Jesus' upcoming death and burial. We could speculate that Judas wanted the perfume to be sold so that he could then help himself to part of the proceeds, since Judas occasionally stole money for himself from the disciples' joint moneybag (John 12:4-6).

Matthew suggests that it was just after this incident with the perfume that Judas went to the religious leaders to see if they would be willing to pay Judas to betray Jesus (Matthew 26:14-16). So maybe this perfume incident, combined with Judas' pre-existing character flaws and some intense temptation from Satan (John 13:2) could have provided Judas with the motive to betray Jesus.

Then, once Jesus gave the word and allowed it, the Bible says that Satan entered Judas when he went off to inform the religious leaders about where Jesus was (John 13:27). We could question whether this was literal demonic possession, or something more metaphorical. Jesus did at one point call Peter "Satan" for expressing opposition to Jesus' prophecy of his upcoming death (Matthew 16:23), but it doesn't mean that Peter was literally possessed by Satan when he made that statement.

Given that Judas did seem to be repentant after he realized what he'd done, tried to return the money the religious leaders gave him, and felt so bad that he decided to commit suicide (Matthew 27:3-5), I don't want to say that Judas was pure evil. But Judas clearly did have character flaws that made him a good candidate for Satan to exploit, and God/Jesus seems to have allowed Satan to tempt and/or empower Judas to do what at least part of Judas wanted to do.

Similarly, Jesus could prophesy that Peter would deny him three times (Luke 22:33-34), because Jesus already knew that Satan wanted to test Peter and the other disciples' faithfulness (Luke 22:31). The Bible says that Jesus often knew other people's thoughts or hearts (Luke 5:22, Matthew 9:4, John 2:24-25). So just like Jesus knew Judas' heart, we can say that Jesus also knew that Peter was not as courageous as Peter wanted to appear (Luke 22:33).

So the fact that God only allowed Peter to be tested and to fail three times before the rooster crowed would have been an instance of God graciously restraining all the other attacks that Satan probably had ready to use against Peter to try to make him abandon his faith in Jesus. God also seems to have been able to use Peter's denials for good, to humble Peter and deal with his pride, knowing that Jesus could later forgive Peter and restore him in the sight of the disciples (Luke 22:32, John 21:15-19).

The same principle seems to apply to the events of the end times. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, it says that something or someone called "the restrainer" is keeping the Antichrist from being revealed until the proper time. Thus, even as we see all the signs of the end times occurring around us, God can allow developments in international politics to progress at a faster or slower rate so that the Tribulation begins exactly on schedule.

So this car analogy basically just illustrates that as long as God always has ways to restrict/restrain evildoers' activities, God can decide when and where any particular instance of evil is allowed to happen by letting up on the "brakes" that otherwise would prevent evil from occurring.

However, we may then ask about how God actually "puts the brakes" on evil without having to revert to the idea that Satan has to get God's permission every time Satan wants to do evil.

To start answering this question, let's briefly look at Jonathan Edwards' answer to the question of where evil comes from, despite God being fully good.

Jonathan Edwards' Approach to Theodicy

Jonathan Edwards, despite being a follower of Calvin, actually has an analogy that's somewhat similar to what I will be proposing for my second analogy.

On the topic of God's relationship to evil, Edwards says,

Thus it is certain and demonstrable, from the holy Scriptures, as well as the nature of things, and the principles of Arminians, that God permits sin; and at the same time, so orders things, in his providence, that it certainly and infallibly will come to pass, in consequence of his permission.29

The example Edwards uses is of the sun. He says the sun is the proper and direct cause of light and warmth, yet when it sets, it indirectly but necessarily leads to coldness and darkness coming over the earth, despite these attributes not being those of the sun itself.30

So likewise, Edwards sees God as being the proper cause of holiness and goodness, but when God chooses to withdraw his good influence, it inherently leads to sin and evil arising. But God is not to blame for this evil, since it did not come from him, but only from the lack of God's good influence.31

In an earlier work, Edwards made use of the same analogy:

When the sun withdraws, beasts of prey go forth to destroy, and that is the time for caterpillars and noisome insects, and hurtful vermin in general, to go forth to prey upon the trees and plants. But when the sun rises they retire, well representing the nature of evil spirits, and the corruptions of the heart, and wicked men, and the enemies of our souls.32

So to Edwards, the actual sources of evil in the world would be Satan/demons and also sinful humans' hearts.

Edwards' analogy does reveal the truth of how after the first sin of Adam and Eve, God partly withdrew his good and holy presence from the world so that we're now living in a spiritual 'twilight' of sorts, where both good and evil occurs.

Edwards' view could also support my argument that that whenever any evil event happens, it's because God has allowed evil influences (e.g. Satan and/or sinful human nature) to have more freedom to do what they naturally want to do.

In Edwards' larger theological system, unfortunately, his explanation does not work, because to Edwards, God is the ultimate cause of why everything happens, including sin and evil.33 But in a theological system that does acknowledge that God gives people and angels genuine free will, I think Edwards' analogy is a useful starting point.

However, I don't think Edwards' analogy is as helpful to explain how God can actually control evil to the extent that would be required for God to arrange the fulfillment of particular prophecies. The problem is that if God simply withdraws his good influence and allows Satan, demons, or sinful people to have more freedom, then how can God guarantee how they will use that freedom?

This is where I think my second analogy is a little more helpful. In this analogy, spiritual warfare is completely real and is not just a sham or a puppet show. In fact, in this analogy, spiritual warfare actually becomes a critical part of divine providence.

Analogy 2: God Controls The Thermostat of Evil

In my apartment, I have a heater that I control by setting the thermostat to regulate to any temperature of my choosing. It does this by turning the heater's fan on or off to pump hot air into my apartment.

However, my apartment does not overheat because in the winter there is always a constant source of cold coming from the windows and exterior walls of the apartment. As long as the heater is functioning, the thermostat can control how much heat is pumped into the apartment, and thus, it can control the entire temperature of the apartment. This is true even though the thermostat does not have control over how cold it is outside, and it can't control whether I have any windows open or not.

So likewise, instead of God having to control both the good side and the evil side in order to have things work out the way that God has prophesied they will, I think it is actually possible for God to control only the good side, and yet, by extension, God's control over the good side also results in God having full control over evil.

In other words, God can control how much evil happens in the world not by controlling evil itself, but by controlling the amount of good that God's people or holy angels do to counteract, thwart, or oppose the evil that God knows is likely about to happen or that sinful humans secretly want to do. This is how spiritual warfare becomes a critical part of God's providence, and explains how God can "put the brakes" on evil without us having to say that God controls Satan like a puppet who must always go ask for God's permission before Satan can do any evil.

Are there any examples of this in the Bible? I think we can look at the Book of Esther.

At the time, the Jews had been exiled from Israel and many were living in the Medo-Persian empire. There, a high-level government official named Haman hated the Jews and wanted them to be destroyed, due to how he felt disrespected by a Jewish man named Mordecai (Esther 3:1-6). To carry out his plan, Haman convinced the king that the Jews were a threat to his rule, and persuaded the king to sign a decree that on a particular day, anyone who wanted to could legally attack any Jews living in the empire, kill them, and take their belongings (Esther 3:8, 3:13).

So how did God prevent this terrible event from happening?

God did not have to destroy Haman directly, or override Haman's free will. Instead, God seems to have dealt with the situation by using Mordecai's niece Esther's God-given beauty to move the king to choose her as his queen (Esther 2:17). Mordecai told Esther about Haman's evil plot, but Esther said that if she went to the king to protest this law, she risked being executed (Esther 4:8-12).

In response, Mordecai argued,

If you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this? (Esther 4:13-14)

So even though it doesn't directly say that God was involved in putting Esther into position as queen as a way to deal with this situation, it is certainly implied. Yet as Mordecai said, if Esther had not freely chosen to speak to the king, then God would have had some other way of saving the Jewish people from being killed.

Even later in the story, the king didn't save the Jews from being killed by repealing the evil law that Haman influenced him to write, because repealing any law was illegal (Esther 8:8). However, the king could give the Jews the permission to fight back if anyone attacked them (Esther 8:10-12). This was enough, and it worked. The king also ordered Haman to be hanged (Esther 7:10).

So I see this as an example of God working through people who freely did good to oppose and thwart evil that was being planned.

Now there's only one last question we need to answer, which is how God can know that Satan, demons, or sinful people will definitely do evil if it is necessary to fulfill Bible prophecy.

The Sources of Evil

In both of my above analogies, God's ability to precisely control evil by choosing when and how to thwart the evil intentions of Satan and sinful humans only works if there is a guaranteed source of constant evil which is always attempting to do as much evil as it possibly can.

Yet given that I believe that God does give his creatures genuine free will, then in relation to the instances of biblical prophecies where God seemingly needs evil to occur, how could God absolutely know that sinful people and Satan/demons would freely do the evil that is necessary to fulfill prophecy?

It's easy to argue that because they have rejected God and God's goodness, Satan and demons always freely choose to pursue evil, since that is the opposite of God's goodness.

Thus, Satan and demons can always be assumed to pursue maximum evil in whatever ways they possibly can, at all times. This means that Satan does not take naps, does not go on vacation, and does not decide to 'play nice' on some days. God is then constantly thwarting the evil that Satan and demons are attempting to do, in order to enforce God's necessary limits on evil. God would prevent, constrain, or direct this evil either through the opposition of God's holy angels or the good actions that God can influence or cause people to do.

But how can God predict that people will definitely act in a sinful way?

In general, I think both Christians and non-Christians generally presume that most people are mostly good-natured. However, there are a number of Bible verses that explain that if left to itself, the sinful human heart is full of nothing but evil:

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5).
The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth (Genesis 8:21).
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jeremiah 17:9, KJV).
Jesus said "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person" (Mark 7:20-23).
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire (James 1:14).
And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil (John 3:19).

There are also instances where the Bible talks about God withdrawing his influence to give people over to their sin as a punishment for their earlier sinfulness:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done (Romans 1:28).
But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would not submit to me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels (Psalm 81:11-12).

But why is this the case? Why is it that when humanity is left to itself, we all become sinners who follow our inherently-sinful hearts' evil desires?

That all goes back to Adam and Eve. When they first chose to reject God, the Bible says they became sinners, and so all their descendants would also be born as sinners (Romans 5:19). We can in some way picture this as being because all humanity goes back ultimately to Adam, since even Eve was made from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:18-23).34

Jonathan Edwards compares the sinful Adam to a corrupt acorn, which then grows through time to produce a corrupt family tree of all the rest of humanity, who are essentially a continuation of Adam’s own being.35 Oliver Crisp argues similarly, which I covered in my post on what it means to be made in the image of God.36 Thus, each person is essentially just a different variation of Adam and Eve, and since Eve came from Adam, then ultimately we are all a variation of Adam himself.

Yes, we still have free will, but now that humanity has become sinners, if left to itself, our free will would always choose wrongly, so that we cannot choose to do anything that is good on our own. Theologically, this condition is called total depravity.

Total depravity is commonly known as being represented by the letter T in the acronym TULIP which is used to describe the basics of Calvinist theology. Yet the concept of total depravity is also affirmed by Arminians, just as Arminius himself did.37

God's Answer To Total Depravity

So the question shouldn't be how God can definitely know that sinners will, if left to themselves, freely choose to sin in whatever ways God allows them to.

The question should actually be how God can oppose total depravity enough that God can prevent/restrain all the evil that sinners would freely want to do that God does not want to allow.

There are two forms of God's grace that can compensate for total depravity's negative effects on human free will: prevenient grace, and common grace.

Prevenient Grace

Prevenient grace (a.k.a. "the grace that goes before") is the action of the Holy Spirit drawing all people to Jesus/God (John 1:9, 6:44, 12:32, Titus 2:11, 1 John 4:19, Romans 10:20).38 God does this because God truly wants everyone to be saved (John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23).

Without this gracious divine influence, no one would ever have any interest in believing in Jesus (Romans 3:11, 8:7-8). Their minds would be spiritually 'blinded' by Satan's lies (2 Corinthians 4:4, John 12:40, 1 John 2:11) unless God opens them through prevenient grace (1 John 5:20, Ephesians 1:17-18). Even the disciples would not have chosen to follow Jesus without Jesus choosing them first (John 15:16).

But when the Holy Spirit is working as prevenient grace in our hearts, it opens up the possibility of making a genuinely free choice about whether to resist being drawn towards God, or not.39 Unfortunately, some do resist the Holy Spirit's work (Luke 13:34, 7:30, Acts 7:51).

If we do not resist this work of the Holy Spirit, then eventually, we will be brought to the point of believing in Jesus and being eternally saved. Thus, eternal life is opt-out, not opt-in. We do nothing to save ourselves, and eternal salvation is a gift, so that no one can boast about doing anything to save themselves (Ephesians 2:8-10), since not resisting grace is not a praiseworthy 'work'.40

Common Grace

Common grace is less obviously seen in the Bible, but due to total depravity, we know that common grace must exist. Common grace is the grace that God gives to all people, regardless of whether they are saved or not.

Common grace can include things like God's provision of basic physical needs for life (Matthew 5:44-45, Acts 14:17, Psalm 145:9). But most importantly, common grace is also what counters total depravity in human hearts, so that sinful people with totally depraved hearts do not act as sinfully and evilly as they possibly could.

This grace is necessary so that life can go on in this world, so that societies and families can exist, so that humanity doesn't totally destroy itself before God's plan for history is complete, as I argued in my post on why God doesn't prevent more evil.

This common grace that restrains sin should also be attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit in people's hearts and minds.41 As an example, God said that it was himself who kept King Abimelech from sinning with Abraham's wife Sarah (Genesis 20:6).

But the Holy Spirit's operation in sinners' hearts when acting as common grace is conceptually distinct from prevenient grace, since the outcome and purpose of each form of the Holy Spirit's operation would be different. Prevenient grace draws people to faith in God to gain eternal salvation, while common grace enables people to do good works to restrain evil in the world.

So exactly how does the Holy Spirit act as common grace?

We could say that the Holy Spirit could inspire, motivate, and enable people to do good works that otherwise would never naturally occur to the sinful human heart afflicted with total depravity.

The human conscience can also be seen as part of common grace (Romans 2:14-15), at least, when it's working properly (1 Timothy 4:2, Titus 1:15).

Human intelligence and common sense might also be ways the Holy Spirit can act as common grace, by making people realize that some evil things are not smart or wise to do, or to inspire them to do things to prevent evil in various ways. The natural desire to follow the law to avoid punishment by government authorities can also restrain some evil (Romans 13:3-4), provided the government's laws are just.

The Holy Spirit acting as common grace can also make use of sinful humanity's inclination towards selfishness, since even the worst of sinners can see the value in caring about others as long as these people are either helpful or useful to the sinner, or if these people love the sinner in return for the sinner's love (Luke 6:32-33).42 Yet this sort of selfish 'love' for others is not as admirable as loving others at cost to ourselves, which is what Jesus said is the greatest form of love (Luke 6:35, John 15:13, Romans 5:6-8).

Therefore, due to common grace, we can say that whatever good anyone does is attributed fully to God, who is the source of all good (3 John 1:11, John 3:21, 1 John 4:7, James 1:17, Mark 10:18).43

Still, God graciously chooses to give eternal heavenly rewards to his people for the good things we freely do in this life (Ephesians 6:8, Matthew 6:3-4, 6:6, 10:42, 25:14-23, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15), even though the ability, inspiration, and motivation to do these good works came only from God in the first place, not from ourselves (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, Paul could say that the good things he does is only because of Christ in him (Galatians 2:20), and the same goes for all Christians (Philippians 2:13).44

I've also mentioned in my other post on open theism and Bible prophecy that I believe it is no problem for God to actually force someone to do good or morally-neutral actions, if there were absolutely no other way for God to either restrain evil or fulfill Bible prophecy. However, in this case, these non-consensual good works would not be worthy of being rewarded since the individual's own free will wasn't involved.

Free Will Despite Total Depravity

So just as prevenient grace enables human free will to not resist the Holy Spirit drawing people to put their faith in Jesus, common grace enables human free will to resist being fully enslaved to sin and evil (John 8:34, Romans 6:6) and opens up the possibility that sinful humans can choose to do good instead.

Thus, I do agree with a decent amount of what Calvin says about no one having any free will to do good or believe in Jesus apart from God's grace.45 Therefore, there is nothing left for any Christian to brag about, whether our faith in Jesus, or our good works, since both of these are gifts from God and are only possible because of God's grace, even though we do participate in these things using our free(d) will.

So in summary, total depravity in sinful human hearts, along with the utter rebellion of Satan and demons who are filled with hatred for God and all things that are good, are the constant and predictable sources of evil that oppose God's goodness and love.

By God choosing when and where to restrain this evil through spiritual warfare and/or God's common grace, God can have complete control over evil, without God being the source of this evil. Spiritual warfare is then completely real, and Satan does not need to get God's verbal permission before doing any particular instance of evil. Satan also does not need to be thought of as always obediently following God's rules regarding what sorts of evil Satan is allowed to do.

But we must remember that God doesn't owe sinners anything. Therefore God can, if he so chooses, justly withdraw his common grace from human hearts in order to let people act as they would under total depravity and the tempting influences of Satan/demons. Yet God is not the source of these sinful or evil thoughts or actions, even though we must say that God allows this evil to occur by not preventing it due to various reasons, since Satan and sinful humans are not more powerful than God is.

For example, sometimes we do see the Holy Spirit's influence as common grace being removed from this world to a very great extent, so that people can sometimes act in fully-selfish ways. As a terrible example, in desperate situations, even mothers will kill and cannibalize their own babies (Lamentations 2:20, 2 Kings 6:28-29). Sorry for that image, but it is in the Bible, and it proves that there is no form of love that comes naturally to the sinful human heart — not even the love of mothers for their children.

It would be the same thing when God withdraws his protection or blessing from groups of people or individuals, either as punishment for their unfaithfulness (Deuteronomy 28:15-68, Isaiah 5:5-7), or for the purpose of spiritual testing (Job 1:8-12), or because it is necessary to fulfill Bible prophecy, as in the crucifixion of Jesus. Satan can then tempt people to give in to their existing sinful desires (James 1:15, 1 Peter 5:8), but if Satan could force anyone to sin, then they would not be personally accountable for their sin.46

So as long as nothing outside of the sinner makes them sin, then libertarian free will still exists, even for Satan, demons, and human sinners in a state of total depravity. That means they can be held accountable for their sin.47

Even Christians are still under the influence of sin, even though we now have a dual nature — our inner regenerated spirit which is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) and does not sin (1 John 3:9, NKJV),48 and our 'flesh' which is still under the influence of sin (Romans 7:14-20, Galatians 5:17, 1 John 1:8). This is why I like Gregory Boyd's view of sanctification. He says it is our 'flesh' that causes us to still sin, due to our upbringing in this sinful world that has ingrained sinful patterns of thought into our brains.

But, returning to those verses I quoted at the start of this post about God being the cause of 'evil' or 'calamity'/'disaster', we can explain these by noting that God does, in a way, take responsibility for these evil things that happen when he withdraws his grace and protection from Israel. This is because in the situations when God is judging his unfaithful people, it is necessary that they know their suffering is because they have abandoned God, rather than it simply being a case of bad luck, or because their army didn't train hard enough, or because God had been bested by some other deity, etc.49

This same reasoning is exactly the purpose of bible prophecy, so that God can prove to people that God truly exists and is superior to all other false gods, because only God can tell people ahead of time what will happen (Isaiah 48:3-5).

However, these verses don't mean that every instance of suffering in the world is due to God's punishment for sin (Luke 13:1-4, 13:10-16, John 9:1-3). And we can have confidence that because of God's omnipotence, he is able to bring good even out of evil (Romans 8:28), even though it wasn't intended for good (Genesis 50:20).

How Can God Fairly Punish Sinners Who Can't Avoid Sinning?

As a final question, then, we may ask how is it fair for sinners to be punished for their sins if they cannot avoid sinning without God's common grace enabling them to overcome their inherited total depravity?

First, I don't want to say that anyone is ever forced to sin against their free will. Otherwise, they could not be held responsible for it. As noted above, even sinners subject to total depravity still have free will, since no one outside of themselves and their own sinful nature is causing them to sin.

The exact way that any individual chooses to sin would also depend on his or her free will which could freely choose among the number of different sins that God has left open for this individual to potentially commit.

So it is fair for God to inflict temporary punishment on people for their sins in this life, if God judges that this punishment is necessary. But what matters far more than temporary punishment for sin is the eternal punishment for sin, which is eternal death (Romans 6:23, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10, Revelation 20:14-15).

However, because the punishment for all sin has been experienced by Jesus on the cross on behalf of all sinners (1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9, 10:12), in the end there will be only three categories of sinners who will face the punishment of eternal death for their sins:

A. Those who continually resist the Holy Spirit's work as prevenient grace, and so ultimately reject Jesus' offer of eternal salvation.

B. Those who will freely take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-11) during the upcoming seven-year Tribulation that happens after the Rapture.

C. The two individuals who will become either the Antichrist or the False Prophet (Revelation 19:20-21, 13:11-14), who would also be included in category A.

Prevenient grace enables all people to make a free choice to believe in Jesus or not, either in this life when they hear the gospel, or as I argue in my theory of Christian inclusivism, after death when they face God at the final judgment (Revelation 20:12-15).

Thus, it is totally fair for God to punish sinners with eternal death for sins they cannot avoid doing in this life, since everyone can avoid facing eternal death simply by believing in Jesus' promise that if we believe in him as our Savior, he will give us eternal life for free.

Summary of How God Controls Evil

So in summary, in this post I believe I've been able to demonstrate that:

The Bible says that God is fully and completely good and never does evil.
God is not the ultimate cause of the evil that Satan, demons, or sinful people do.
By choosing to not constantly oppose/thwart/prevent the evil that Satan, demons, and sinful humans naturally desire to do, God effectively gives 'permission' to these evildoers to sin, but while keeping spiritual warfare real and not turning it into a divine puppet show.
God allows some evil to occur due to all the factors discussed in this post and also in my post on why God doesn't prevent more evil.
Despite allowing the evil that is caused by evildoers' free choices, God can still have precise control over exactly how much evil occurs and when it occurs in the world, so that God can prophesy about people's evil actions that he will allow them to freely do in the future.
God does not need perfect foreknowledge of Satan or sinful humans' future free choices in order to prophesy about evil.
When God punishes sinful people for their sins it is due to God's righteous justice, even if this punishment is carried out by God allowing evil to happen to these people.

This is all possible because Satan, demons, and totally depraved sinful human nature are always trying to do as much evil as possible, but God can restrain any particular instance of evil in a number of ways, such as by:

Ending sinful people's lives.
Destroying evil societies.
Allowing evildoers to do evil against other evildoers.50
Sending holy angels to oppose the evil activities of Satan/demons or people.
Enabling and inspiring still-sinful people to do good through common grace in order to oppose/thwart/prevent evil.
Doing miracles in relation to situations that do not involve overriding anyone's free will.
Even outright forcing people to do good or morally-neutral actions, if absolutely necessary.

But God is not obligated to prevent all evil, and indeed, God cannot actually prevent all evil while still preserving the free will of God's created creatures, whether Satan, demons or sinful people.

Because the source of evil is not from God, then God does not sin whenever God chooses to withdraw his common grace or chooses to not oppose the activity of Satan/demons and sinful people when they freely choose to do evil. By choosing to withdraw this spiritual opposition or holy influence in particular ways, God can accurately predict how sinful people will behave, and thus, can prophesy about it.

However, we can say that God is ultimately 'responsible' in some sense for all that occurs since he was the creator of creatures with free will, and for allowing these creatures to have the freedom to disobey and reject God. It is this freedom that necessarily leads to a world where sin and evil is possible. Yet this fact does not mean that God wants all the evil and suffering in the world to occur, or that God is morally blameworthy for doing evil.51

Furthermore, God ultimately takes responsibility for evil by defeating it when he sent Jesus to die on the cross. It was then that God the Son suffered evil at the hands of Satan and sinful humans in order for God to take on the guilt for the sins of the world and pay the penalty for all evil himself (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 John 2:2).52 So if anyone still insists on blaming God for allowing sin, they should be satisfied with God's ultimate answer to sin, which was the humiliation, torture, and death of God's own divine Son.

Yet sinful people can be justly blamed for their sin and punished for it because they were the ultimate authors of their sinful actions. Additionally, all people either have had or will have the option of having their sins forgiven by choosing to put their faith in Jesus as their Savior, so that everyone who believes in him can have eternal life for free.

Still, God does not have to grant any of his creatures unlimited freedom to do evil, and so God can choose what evil to restrain and what not to restrain, according to his providential plan for the world.

One day, God will put an end to Satan and all sinners who reject God's offer of eternal life, so that no sin or evil will ever happen in the New Heaven and New Earth, and there will be no more death or suffering ever again (Revelation 21:4, 21:27, 22:3). This will be God's ultimate victory over evil.

In the meantime, we will not always understand why God allows any particular instance of sin, evil, and suffering to occur. Therefore, Christians must trust God's providence and his promise that, in the end, we will finally see all the good that came out of the evil that God did allow for one reason or another (Romans 8:28), and that we will be eternally compensated for every instance of suffering we experienced in this world due to sin and evil (Romans 8:16-18).

I hope this post has been helpful to explain at least some of the complex dynamics regarding God's relationship to sin, evil, sinners, and Satan/demons that we see going on in various places in the Bible. I also hope this can reassure you that God is still fully good, and thus, worthy of being loved, worshipped, and trusted regardless of what evil occurs in the world or that we may personally face in our lives.

Footnotes:

1. For more on translation possibilities that do not require these verses to mean that God is the ultimate cause behind all evil in the world, see Frederik Lindström, God and the Origin of Evil: A Contextual Analysis of Alleged Monistic Evidence in the Old Testament, trans. Frederick H. Cryer (Lund: Gleerup, 1983), 198–199. Some of these same difficult verses are examined from an open theist perspective in John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence, Rev. ed, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 86-92.
2. See my blog post Why Doesn't God Prevent More Evil? for an overview and critique of Thomas J. Oord's theology expressed in his book The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015) where Oord claims that it is better to say that God truly cannot stop some instances of evil than to say that God permits evil to happen that God could otherwise prevent.
3. Justin Dillehay, How Jesus Fulfilled the Passover, The Gospel Coalition, February 29, 2020.
4. C. Samuel Storms, "Open Theism in the Hands of an Angry Puritan: Jonathan Edwards on Divine Foreknowledge," in The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards, eds. D.G. Hart, Sean Michael Lucas, Stephen J. Nichols (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic,2003), 122.
5. William Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 149-150.
6. Such as in the film "12 Monkeys" (1995) starring Bruce Willis. Wikipedia.org, accessed January 1, 2026.
7. "Since God is an eternal being, he does not really foreknow anything. He simply knows eternally … what he thinks, he has forever thought. His thought is perfect and absolute; it needs no progress or improvement. So from God’s vantage point he simply knows (not foreknows) what we are doing with our free choices. For what we have, are and will choose is present to God in his eternal NOW." Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom, eds. David Basinger & Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 73.
8. As Clark Pinnock explains, "On the one hand, how is a timeless God supposed to act the way the Biblical God is said to act? A timeless being cannot deliberate or anticipate or remember. It cannot do anything or respond to anything. There cannot be any before or after. In short it cannot be the divine Agent we love and worship. And even worse for Geisler’s proposal is the fact that timelessness destroys temporal distinctions and rules out the genuine novelty which results from true freedom." Clark Pinnock, “Clark Pinnock’s Response,” in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom, eds. David Basinger & Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 96. Gregory Boyd agrees with Pinnock, and says that if God were timeless then God could never experience novelty, creativity, spontaneity, or relationships where one is truly responding to the other. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 128-129.
9. Oliver Crisp argues that before the incarnation, God the Son did not have a human body, contra Robert Jenson who argues that because he believes God is timeless, God the Son must have had a human body eternally. But Crisp says this situation described by Jenson would mean that God the Son is not metaphysically simple, and would be a 'composite' of at least two different parts, which means that God the Son would not be immutable or impassible, as Christian tradition typically asserts. Oliver Crisp, The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 20-31.
10. Thus "God’s knowledge of the temporal world is also temporal. God experiences things as they happen, and God’s knowledge of events develops as events take place. God doesn’t see the future in all its detail, because a great deal of the future is not there to be known." Richard Rice, Suffering and the Search for Meaning: Contemporary Responses to the Problem of Pain (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2014), 93. While God experiences time, God can also transcend time in the same sorts of ways that humans do through memory, reason, and imagination. Clark Pinnock, "Systematic Theology" in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 121.
11. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 135.
12. William Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 145. See also Paul Helm, The Providence of God: Contours of Christian Theology (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 45. For example, God may know that I am 30% likely to take one course of action, and 70% likely to do something else, but I could still freely choose to do the less likely course of action, thus 'surprising' God, even though he knew it was still a possibility that I might act in that less-likely way. Gregory Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 61.
13. William Hasker, “A Philosophical Perspective,” in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 145-146.
14. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 10. Jonathan Edwards agrees that God having foreknowledge of sins is effectively the same as the Calvinist idea of God ordaining sins. See Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 398.
15. The problem with God having perfect foreknowledge of our 'free' choices is explained by Clark Pinnock: "If God sees the whole of the future, then the future is fixed and frozen, and we are mistaken to believe that we have the liberty to choose one way or the other….So the future is not, as [Bruce Reichenbach] thinks, a realm of open possibility in which [Reichenbach] can by his freedom determine what is true. It cannot turn out different in any respect from what God from eternity has infallibly known it to be. Reichenbach can only choose to do actions which God has always known he would do. Therefore he cannot do otherwise than what he is destined to do." Clark Pinnock, “Clark Pinnock’s Response,” in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom, eds. David Basinger & Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 137-138.
16. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 34.
17. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 192.
18. Gregory A. Boyd, God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 35; Bruce A. Ware, God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2000), 69.
19. Interestingly, in the NKJV version, Job 2:10 is translated as "Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?" This would be more in line with the other instances of updated Bible translations of verses listed earlier in this post where God can cause disasters/calamities but these are not identified as 'evil'.
20. USS Callister, Wikipedia.org, accessed December 24, 2025.
21. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 86-87.
22. "Behind every particular event in history lies an impenetrably vast matrix of interlocking free decisions made by humans and angels. We experience life as largely arbitrary because we can't fathom the causal chains that lie behind every particular event. In Christ, God's character and purposes are not mysterious, but the vast complexity of causal chains is. The mystery of evil, therefore, is about an unfathomably complex and war-torn creation, not about God's character and purposes in creation." Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 80. See Boyd's analysis of the Book of Job on p.95-104.
23. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 92-94.
24. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 94-95.
25. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011), section 2.4.2, 310.
26. "The Lord's purpose is to exercise the patience of His servant by calamity; Satan endeavors to drive him to desperation; the Chaldeans strive to acquire gain from another's property contrary to law and right. So great is the diversity of purpose that already strongly marks the deed. There is no less difference in the manner. The Lord permits Satan to afflict His servant; He hands the Chaldeans over to be impelled by Satan, having chosen them as His ministers for this task. Satan with his poison darts arouses the wicked minds of the Chaldeans to execute that evil deed. They dash madly into injustice, and they render all their members guilty and befoul them by the crime. Satan is properly said, therefore, to act in the reprobate over whom he exercises his reign, that is, the reign of wickedness. God is also said to act in His own manner, in that Satan himself, since he is the instrument of God's wrath, bends himself hither and thither at His beck and command to execute His just judgments." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011), section 2.4.2, 310-311. See more in sections 2.4.3-2.4.5, p.311-313.
27. "Somewhere Augustine compares man's will to a horse awaiting its rider's command, and God and the devil to its riders. 'If God sits astride it,' he says, 'then as a moderate and skilled rider, he guides it properly, spurs it if it is too slow, checks it if it is too swift, restrains it if it is too rough or too wild, subdues it if it balks, and leads it into the right path. But if the devil saddles it, he violently drives it far from the trail like a foolish and wanton rider, forces it into ditches, tumbles it over cliffs, and goads it into obstinancy and fierceness.' ... For those whom the Lord does not make worthy to be guided by his Spirit he abandons, with just judgment, to Satan's action." John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011), section 2.4.1, 309-310. See more in sections 2.4.6-2.4.7 on p.314-316, 2.4.6-2.4.8 on p.314-316, 2.5.14 on p.334.
28. T. J. Mawson, Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011), 39.
29. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 403.
30. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 404.
31. "So, inasmuch as sin is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the Most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action and energy, and... necessarily follows on the want of his influence; this is no argument that he is sinful, or his operation evil, or has anything of the nature of evil; but on the contrary, that he, and his agency, are altogether good and holy, and that he is the fountain of all holiness." Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 404.
32. Edwards, "Images of Divine Things," no. 186 in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 11 Typological Writings, eds. Wallace E. Anderson, Mason I. Lowance Jr., and David H. Watters (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 120.
33. Given Edwards’ philosophical occasionalism, the distinction between God's causation of an event and God's permission of an event is very small or even nonexistent. Oliver D. Crisp, Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 64; Oliver D. Crisp, Jonathan Edwards Among the Theologians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 177. Edwards does at one point outright say that God is the 'author' of sin: "if, by 'the author of sin,' is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow; I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I don't deny that God is the author of sin." Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 399. But again, this excuse only works if sinners have genuine free will so that their actions are not fully controlled and caused by God.
34. "We have some difficulty accepting with our total being the conclusion that the whole race was condemned for Adam's sin. This is made far more acceptable when we see that the nature of things made it necessary that the race be charted with Adam's sin than to think that God made the decision in no relationship to necessity.... The race in Adam has descended, body and spirit, from him. This means that we were in Adam and were identified with him in our sin. It necessitates our being partakers with him in his guilt and condemnation." F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publishers, 2011), 30.
35. Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 3, ed. Clyde A. Holbrook (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 385–386, 389, 391.
36. Oliver D. Crisp, The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 131-137.
37. "In his 'Public Disputations' the founder of Arminianism declared unequivocally that because of Adam's fall all humanity has come under the dominion of sin and that 'In this state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace'." Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 56.
38. "Prevenient grace that frees the human will to respond to the gospel in repentance and faith comes quite apart from any freely determined reception on the part of the person. It is a sheer gift of God through Christ to all humanity (to some degree) and to those who hear the gospel proclaimed to a greater degree. Wesley and some other Arminians have even affirmed a sense in which grace is irresistible!" Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 59.
39. "Before Adam and Eve sinned, it was within the framework of possibilities within which they operated to remain in the practice of complete righteousness, or to commit sin. After they sinned, it no longer remained within the framework of possibilities for them to practice uninterrupted righteousness. The same is true for fallen man now (Rom. 8:7-8)." F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publishers, 2011) 21. "Jesus makes it clear that it does not fall within the framework of possibilities for a sinner to respond to the gospel unless he is drawn by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 6:44). The influence of the Holy Spirit working in the heart of the person who hears the gospel brings about a framework of possibilities in which a person can say yes or no to the gospel" (Forlines, 22). See also Forlines, 51-52. Even open theists affirm prevenient grace, as John Sanders does, although he calls it "enabling" grace: "But if humans are in bondage to sin, how can they respond to God and enter into a personal relationship of mutual love? The answer is enabling grace. Sinners do not trust or love God; they have turned away from God's love and are not inclined to accept his love.... Enabling grace is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for our redemption. This grace is the revelation of God's mercy and love, which opens up new options in the lives of sinners (1 Pet 1:3). The gospel story enlightens, convicts and enlivens us to a future that was closed to us before.... The love of Jesus elicits our loving response and motivates our imitation of his love." John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 256-257.
40. A similar argument is made by Roger Olson: "Imagine a woman on the verge of bankruptcy boasting that her endorsement and deposit of a gift check that saved her from financial ruin was the decisive element in her financial rescue. Anyone who heard her and knew the true circumstances of her situation would consider her either an ingrate or a lunatic. The decisive element was the gift of the check." Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 157.
41. After all, We must remember that God's grace is just a shorthand way of referring to God acting graciously, rather than thinking of God's grace as being some supernatural substance or effect that can be applied to sinners as if it were a sort of medicine or magical spell.
42. Jonathan Edwards imagines a situation where a gang of robbers receive a tip from an informant that the robbers' hideout is about to be raided by the authorities, and the otherwise-evil robbers express their gratitude and appreciation to the informant who tipped them off about the coming raid. Jonathan Edwards, “True Virtue,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 8, Ethical Writings, ed. Paul Ramsey, (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 583. Edwards goes on to argue that self-love can also explain things such as gratitude, pity, the instinctive parental affection for children, and even the human conscience, which are all things that restrain evil in the world to some degree (WJE 8: 575-616). "So, natural affection, love to our party, or to particular friends, tends to keep us from acts of injustice towards these persons; which would be real wickedness. Pity preserves from cruelty, which would be real and great moral evil. Natural conscience tends to restrain sin in general, in the present state of the world" (WJE 8: 616).
43. Arminius wrote "I ascribe to grace THE COMMENCEMENT, THE CONTINUANCE, AND THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL GOOD,—and to such an extent do I carry its influence, that a man, though already regenerate,can neither conceive, will, nor do any good at all, nor resist any evil temptation, without this preventing and exciting, this following and co-operating grace—from this statement it wil clearly appear, that I am by no means injurious or unjust to grace, by attributing, as it is reported of me, too much to man's free-will." Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 143-144. Thus, Olson says "Clearly then Arminius did believe people are totally dependent on grace for any and every good they have or do" (144).
44. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011) 2.5.15 p.335, 2.5.2 p.318-319.
45. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011) 2.2.26, 2.2.27, 2.3.1-2.3.12, p.286-306.
46. Regarding those who get caught up in things like the occult and end up getting demonically possessed, we might say that a person could be held responsible for freely putting themselves into a situation where they lose some of their free will, similar to a situation where someone willingly takes drugs or alcohol and then acts in ways they didn't necessarily have full control over. On the flip side, we do praise people who over time form themselves in such a way that they feel they must do something good and cannot do otherwise. See T. J. Mawson, Free Will: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011), 99. For example, otherwise, we would have to say that Judas couldn't be properly blamed for betraying Jesus when Satan entered into him. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 296. In these cases, the blame or praise for the final 'unchosen' end state and the actions that occurred in that 'unfree' state would, I think, transfer backward to the earlier free decisions that ended up creating that 'unfree' end state. As Edwards argues that the Arminians believe "If a man in one or more thing that he does, exercises liberty, and then by those acts is brought into such circumstances, that his liberty ceases, and there follows a long series of acts or events that come to pass necessarily; those consequent acts are not virtuous or vicious, rewardable or punishable; but only the free acts that established this necessity; for in them alone was the man free." Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 325.
47. "When an agent (a human or God) acts freely in the libertarian sense, nothing outside the self (including physical realities within the body) is causing it; the intellect or character alone rules over the will and turns it one way or another. Deliberation and then choice are the only determining factors, although factors such as nature and nurture, and divine influence come into play. Arminians do not believe in absolute free will; the will is always influenced and situated in a context. Even God is guided by his nature and character when making decisions. But Arminians deny that creaturely decisions and actions are controlled by God or any force outside the self." Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 75.
48.See comments on 1 John 3:9 by Zane Hodges, "1 John", The Grace New Testament Commentary, Vol. 2, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 1208-1209. "Sin does exist in the Christian, but it is foreign and extraneous to his regenerated inner self, where Christ dwells in perfect holiness. Since Christ is eternal life (1 John 5:20), the one who possesses that life cannot sin because he is born of God. The divine seed (sperma) of that life [i.e., the Holy Spirit — Ephesians 1:13-14] remains (meno, 'abides,' 'stays') in him who is born again, making sin an impossibility at the level of his regenerate inward self.... The regenerate person can express himself only through righteousness (cf. 2:29) and can never express himself through sin, because he cannot sin" (1209).
49. "The people were unwilling to recognize the Lord's hand against them (Amos 4:1-6; 9:10). They refused to believe that God would punish them for their sins, so they sought other explanations." John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 87.
50. See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, KY: 2011) 4.20.30, 1517. "Sometimes he directs to this end the rage of men with other intentions and other endeavors." "Thus he tamed the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians, the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians, the fierceness of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the arrogance of Babylon by the Medes and Persians, after Cyrus had already subjugated the Medes. The ungratefulness of the kings of Judah and Israel and their impious obstinancy toward his many benefits, he sometimes by the Assyrians, sometimes by the Babylonians, crushed and afflicted — although not all in the same way.... But the latter kind of men, although they were directed by God’s hand whither he pleased, and executed his work unwittingly, yet planned in their minds to do nothing but an evil act."
51. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003) 90.
52. Gregory A. Boyd, Is God to Blame?: Moving Beyond Pat Answers to the Problem of Evil (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003) 91.

The Power Of Thanksgiving In The End Times

2025-11-27T00:00:00+00:00

Lately, I've had a new appreciation for the difference that being thankful can make in my life. This might be a short(er) post than usual, but it seemed to be an appropriate topic due to American Thanksgiving happening this week.

I hope these thoughts can be encouraging, and perhaps help those who are suffering continue to hang on as we wait for Jesus to take all true Christians to heaven in the Rapture, hopefully very soon.

The Challenge of Being Grateful in the End Times

Although it can always be a challenge for us to remember to be grateful for the good things we have in our lives, I think this is especially challenging for Christians who feel called to watch for the signs of the end times.

As we might expect, many of these signs are things which tend to be negative, such as wars and threats of wars, pestilences, famines, earthquakes, false teachers and prophets, and Christian persecution (Matthew 24:5-12). Yet the daily news often involves far more negative subjects than just these things.

I could obviously try to provide a list of examples, but trying to list everything that is wrong with our world would take quite a while, and at the end we would all likely feel quite depressed and frustrated.

Now, Jesus does promise a special heavenly reward called the Crown of Righteousness for everyone who loves the promise that one day, at the Rapture, Jesus will come back to take all true Christians to be with him in heaven (2 Timothy 4:8, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18).

I believe that paying attention to the things that are going on in our world which indicate that we may be very close to the Rapture is one way that Christians who long for Jesus' return demonstrate this attitude in our daily lives.

Ironically, then, when Christians see things getting worse in the world, we should be hopeful, rather than pessimistic, because we know that our redemption at the Rapture is very near (Luke 21:28).

Christians can also have the peace of knowing that no matter how bad the world seems to get, we know the world will still generally be going on like 'normal' when the Rapture happens. It will be just like it was during the time before the worldwide flood came, or before the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were suddenly destroyed (Luke 17:26-30, Matthew 24:36-44).

I hope that all Christians would be excited about the idea of Jesus coming back to take us home to be with him (John 14:1-3). After all, Paul wrote that being in heaven with Jesus is far better than being in this world (Philippians 1:21-23, 2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

As just one example of how much better Christians' lives will be in heaven, we are told that at the Rapture, all true Christians who are alive will be instantly transformed from mortal to immortal:

Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51-53)

Our new glorified 'spiritual' bodies will be far better than they are now. I like how the Contemporary English Version puts it:

Basically, our bodily upgrade at the Rapture will be even better than if we went from living in a worn-out, floppy, saggy, flimsy tent that leaks in the rain and doesn't keep the cold out, to moving into a mansion made of the best and most luxurious building materials with every amenity we could possibly hope for (2 Corinthians 5:1-5).

Thus, it's natural that right now, Christians will groan inwardly in our spirits as we wait for this incredible promise to be fulfilled:

For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. And we believers also groan, even though we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, for we long for our bodies to be released from sin and suffering. We, too, wait with eager hope for the day when God will give us our full rights as his adopted children, including the new bodies he has promised us. We were given this hope when we were saved. (Romans 8:22-24, NLT)

And these new glorified bodies are only one part of how amazing our eternal lives in the New Heaven and New Earth will be, which will be completely free of sin and all forms of suffering and pain (Revelation 21:4).

Now, I do encourage Christians to think often about heaven, and to keep watching for the Rapture because I think these things should give us a lot of hope, and also help put our lives in this world into the right perspective. The Bible does encourage us to keep our minds on things that are eternal and currently invisible, rather than things that are visible and earthly (2 Corinthians 4:18).

But in the meantime, while we anticipate one day finally experiencing all of the amazing things God has promised for those who love him (1 Corinthians 2:9), there is a risk that constantly comparing our lives now to how incredible we imagine heaven will be can make our lives in this world seem almost unbearable.

Sometimes, I find I'm almost overwhelmed by all the suffering and negativity I see in the world, or that I feel at times when I'm especially vulnerable to negative thoughts. During these times, I just wish Jesus would come back already and fix everything, or else, take me out of here so I don't have to experience it anymore.

And I'm blessed to be someone who doesn't currently live with chronic pain, who isn't experiencing homelessness, or major illness, or physical disability, and who doesn't live in constant anxiety about how to put food on my table or pay my bills on a day-to-day basis. I don't live with an abusive spouse, or have children who have disowned me. I don't have kids that are suffering from terrible illnesses, and I'm definitely not suffering the way that persecuted Christians do in many countries around the world.

When I think about all these sorts of situations, I'm instantly humbled.

Now, that's not to say that I have no suffering in my own life, even if it is different. And I do think every Christian suffers in one way or another. Therefore, we shouldn't go around playing the "who suffers more" game to try to make ourselves feel justified in complaining about our lives, or to minimize our own suffering.

We also shouldn't judge others, because we really don't know what sorts of hidden suffering someone might be going through who otherwise seems to have an outwardly perfect life.

Of course, we can be encouraged that the Bible says that one day, all our suffering will be compensated for by how incredible heaven will be:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)

Furthermore, God promises to even bring some sort of good out of our current suffering (Romans 8:28).

I've also written about several ways that suffering can be useful to Christians. However, admittedly, holding onto these biblical promises and consolations doesn't actually reduce the suffering we are going through right now.

So then what can we do? How can Christians keep a positive attitude while we see all the signs occurring around us that seem to show that we do not have a long-term future in this world, since everything seems to be rapidly falling apart, or rather, falling into place for the Tribulation?

Here's where I think an attitude of thankfulness is extremely powerful.

The Proverbial Half-Full or Half-Empty Glass

I know it's a cliché, but I think that how we look at our life dramatically affects our attitude toward it.

Having a positive attitude toward our lives can increase our ability to keep on enduring all the trials and difficulties that Jesus said we would face in this world (John 16:33). And having endurance is especially critical for us who now live in these very last days before the Tribulation begins (Revelation 3:10-11).

I've noticed that when I feel pessimistic about the world, it's easy to see the glass as being half-empty. That is, I put my focus on all the negatives in my life, or all the things that seem to be missing that I think would make my life better. But when I focus on these things, then it causes several more negative attitudes to show up in my heart, like:

Grumbling and complaining to God or others about all the things I feel I'm lacking.
Feelings of envy or jealousy toward those who do seem to have these things I want.
Anxiety and fear about when or if I'll ever be able to have those things I want.

Even worse, I've noticed that when my focus is only on the half of the glass that is empty, then I totally miss the half of the glass that is full. I become oblivious to all the good things that I do have in my life, because I only see what is missing or negative.

So I think that one of the most powerful tools Christians have to help us get through the suffering we all experience or that we see in the world around us is to turn our focus away from these negative things by putting more focus on giving thanks for everything good that God has put in our lives.

Likely, if we could go and interview Christians who live in some of the worst places in the world, they could still list a few things in their lives that they are grateful for. Those of us who live in better places typically have far more that we should be grateful for every day.

And when we are grateful, we should then give thanks to God for everything we are grateful for. After all, God is the source of everything good in our lives (James 1:17). There is nothing good that I have that I didn't receive as a gift from God (1 Corinthians 4:7). Thus, we should always be giving thanks, regardless of our situation (1 Thessalonians 5:18).

So instead of making that list of everything that I feel is wrong with the world or my life, I remind myself that I should do the opposite.

When I do stop and challenge myself to make a list of how many things I have to be thankful for, I realize it could go on and on.

But instead of just making a one-time list, which then gets forgotten about and stuck in some obscure folder on my computer, I recently challenged myself to try to do this mentally at various points throughout the day.

For example, when I'm sitting at my desk, I'm reminded to give thanks for a functional computer that lets me do everything I need to do. I'm grateful for a comfortable chair, a working keyboard and monitor, and even some candles and other trinkets just for decoration.

I'm grateful for the comfort of my warm sweater, and grateful that my apartment is warm enough that I can type without my hands freezing. I'm grateful that I live in a safe neighborhood where I don't have to worry about my apartment being broken into and having my computer stolen, or having to live with sketchy roommates who might do something to break it.

I'm grateful for the electricity and internet connection needed to run my computer, and for even some spare time to spend watching YouTube videos. I can even be grateful for working eyes and fingers, for glasses that make it easier to read my screen, and for the ability to sit in my chair without pain.

Or when I'm doing dishes, I can be grateful for hot running water and soap to clean my dishes, for the food that I ate off of the dishes, and the ability to clean my own dishes without difficulty or pain. I'm grateful I have a family I can clean dishes for, and an apartment in which I can cook and eat my own meals, as well as the money to buy my own food.

When I do this sort of mental exercise, I find that I stop focusing on the negative things, and am able to focus on the positive. This shifts my attitude likewise.

In contrast, focusing only on what is lacking or what I think could be better only leads to a constant sense of bitterness, anger, frustration, jealousy, and ungratefulness for everything good that I do have.

Furthermore, it also helps me to adjust my expectations while I'm living here in this world. If I assume that everything in my life should be perfect, then any tiny little thing that is slightly imperfect can seem to be intolerable. This can then tempt me to complain to God about it, or feel angry that God didn't fix it or prevent it.

But if I shift my attitude to focus on all I have that is good, then some imperfections can be tolerated much more easily.

It also helps me to remember that Jesus never promised that Christians would have perfect lives in this world (John 16:33). I've written a previous post about the many reasons why God doesn't make Christians' lives perfect right now. Therefore, I can't blame God for not giving me what he never promised me.

Paul said he could be content with much, or with little (Philippians 4:11-13). He said we should remember that following Jesus isn't about getting rich, and so we can be content with having just the basic necessities (1 Timothy 6:6-8).

Therefore, I can remember to thank God for all the good things that he has given me in this life, and especially, for providing me at least the basics of what I need to live (Matthew 6:31-32). And in reality, he's given me far more than that.

Remember That We're Currently In A Spiritual War

Another thing that helps me adjust my perspective and attitude when I start to become ungrateful is to recall that while I'm in this world, my main goal is not to achieve maximum personal satisfaction and happiness.

Right now, all Christians are engaged in a spiritual war, whether we know it, or not:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Ephesians 6:12)

If you're interested, I've written more about how Christians experience spiritual warfare in my posts here and here.

But for this post now, what matters is that in a war, soldiers don't get to sleep in a comfortable, warm bed every night, eat luxurious meals, or have massages at the spa. They also aren't the ones who decide when it's time for them to pack up and head home from the front lines. They're stuck there, in the trenches, trying to make the best of things while they follow their commander's orders.

Paul encouraged Timothy to not get caught up in 'civilian' affairs, but to serve God as his commanding officer, even though this inherently involves some suffering (2 Timothy 2:3-4). So likewise, in this life, our primary mission as Christians is to follow God's plans and purposes for our lives, rather than getting caught up in pursuing all the things that non-Christians prioritize, such as wealth, success, fame, personal satisfaction, physical pleasures, and even happiness.

End-times teacher Lee Brainard once said, "we have this one short life to be soldiers; we have one long eternity to be fulfilled human beings".1

This is a helpful attitude for me to keep in mind when I'm tempted to start complaining about how bad things are in this world, or to whine about how unfulfilled and unsatisfied I am, despite how I do still have far more things to be thankful for on a day-to-day basis than I often realize.

Conclusion

So as I've argued in this post, despite us currently living in a spiritual battleground, in a sin-filled world, in these perishable and imperfect bodies, if we can remember to be thankful for all the good things God has given us, I believe it will enable us to endure these temporary imperfections and trials and difficulties with a more positive attitude.

And finally, someday when the Rapture happens (which I believe is coming very soon), we'll effectively be airlifted out of the spiritual trenches we're currently battling in.

Then we'll experience the reality of being seated with Jesus on his throne in heaven (Ephesians 2:6, Revelation 3:21). We'll return with Jesus at his second coming, at the end of the Tribulation, and will help Jesus rule the world which will ensure that it will be filled with righteousness and justice (Revelation 2:27, 19:15, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15).

In the meantime, let's be grateful for all the good things we still have in this world, even while we keep on watching for the Rapture, sharing the gospel with those around us, and doing the good works God has prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:10). This is how we engage in our Master's business until he returns (Luke 19:13), even while we go about doing all the other daily activities we need to do in this world.

Footnotes:

1. See the last few minutes of Lee Brainard, "The Glory Revealed To Us," Soothkeep, August 22, 2023, accessed at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4LR1tr1hxI on November 26, 2025.

Why Christians Should Keep Watching For The Rapture (Updated)

2025-09-27T00:00:00+00:00

Just this past week, what has been the highest-watch period for the Rapture that I've ever seen among end-times watchers, regarding the Feast of Trumpets on September 23-24, 2025, has come and seemingly gone.

A few people are still holding out hope that the Gregorian calendar is off by about two weeks compared to the Julian calendar, however, I'm not convinced by that argument, for a few reasons I mention in Appendix 1 at the end of this post.

However, just because the Rapture did not occur during this high-watch period does not mean that Christians should stop watching and hoping for the Rapture. High-watch periods are simply a time that looks like it could be a high possibility for the Rapture, and are never a hundred-percent guarantee.

In this post, I will explain why I believe that those who got their hopes up during this high-watch period were doing exactly what they should have done, and that there is no reason why Christians should stop watching for the Rapture simply because this high-watch period has apparently passed.

October 30, 2025 Update

New developments in the end-times watchers community suggest that this upcoming October 30-31 and possibly into November 1 are the last high-watch times of this season, so that Christians truly should again be on alert for Jesus to return any day now. For an explanation of this reasoning, please see Appendix 2, at the bottom of this post.

November 26, 2025 Update

In Appendix 3, I add some final thoughts about the passing of even more high-watch dates for the Rapture, and some concerns I have about certain trends I see among end-times watchers regarding false prophecies and false teaching about the gospel message.

No One Knows the Day or Hour

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32)

Even during this recent high-watch period during the Feast of Trumpets 2025, no one that I'm aware of who held out hope that the Rapture would occur was technically violating this prophecy.

This is because, as I explained in my previous post, the Feast of Trumpets does not begin at a set time or date, but depends on the ability of two witnesses to spot the sliver of the new moon from Jerusalem. This means that the Feast of Trumpets is known as the feast where when no one knows the day or hour it will begin.

Not even Joshua Mhlakela, the former pastor who has become famous for his testimony that Jesus appeared to him to tell him the Rapture would happen on either September 23 or 24, 2025, ever officially narrowed down the time period to only one of those particular days, or to a specific hour, even though he had his own personal guesses.

There was a lot of speculation and hope among many end-times watchers about certain hours within this two-day period. Some thought the Rapture would happen at dusk in Jerusalem, which is supposedly the time called the "twinkling of the eye". Others thought it might happen at the time when the "last trumpet" was blown in Israel as part of the Feast of Trumpets. Both of these things are alluded to in 1 Corinthians 15:52 as being associated with the Rapture.

But there was still enough uncertainty about when these events would occur that no one could say they absolutely knew the day or hour that the feast would begin, or whether the Rapture would happen at that moment.

As I noted in my previous post, the Old Testament Feast of Trumpets does have a lot of symbolism going for it that suggests it is meant to represent the Rapture.

Over the years, many end-times watchers have expected the Rapture to happen sometime during one of the two days of the Feast of Trumpets, because of how Jesus fulfilled the three Old Testament spring feasts to the exact day with his crucifixion, burial, and ascension. The feast of Pentecost was also fulfilled by God sending the Holy Spirit to the early church in Acts 2 on this exact day (Acts 2:1-41).

Therefore, anyone who tries to discourage Christians from hoping that the Rapture might occur during the Feast of Trumpets, on any year, by insisting that "no one knows the day or hour", has not done their homework.

And actually, anyone who quotes Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32 to claim that the Rapture will definitely not happen during any particular high-watch period are speaking against themselves.

Because if it is true that no one knows the exact day or hour of the Rapture, then it is also inherently true that no one can honestly say for sure that the Rapture will not happen on any particular day or hour!

That is, at least, not until after the Rapture has actually happened, the Antichrist has been revealed, and the Tribulation has started (2 Thessalonians 2:3-5, Revelation 6:1-2).

Therefore, Christians should still keep watching for Jesus' return at the Rapture, even after a high-watch period has seemingly passed.

It could be that, because the Feast of Trumpets is unique among all seven Old Testament feasts due to how it is the only feast where no one can know its exact start time, this feast could still symbolically represent how the Rapture will happen at a truly unknown day and time.

After all, there had to be some sort of identifiable signal given by God for the Israelites to know when they should begin the Feast of Trumpets at around the same time of year every year. It couldn't be completely random, or no one would ever have known when to celebrate it. So the symbolism and typology of the Feast of Trumpets and its uncertain start date and time does still point to the truth that the Rapture could occur on an unknown day and time anytime during the year.

Thus, Christians who are still watching and hoping for Jesus' return at the Rapture do not have to wait until the Feast of Trumpets next year, or for a new 'high watch' period to come along in order to remain watchful and hopeful for Jesus to come take us to heaven at the Rapture.

Furthermore, the Bible specifically encourages Christians to continually keep watching and remaining hopeful for the Rapture, and not just during particular times of the year.

There are also strong biblical warnings for Christians who are not watching for Jesus' return, and even more warnings for those who mock and scoff at the idea of the Rapture.

Both of these topics will be examined in the rest of this post.

Christians Are Called to Watch for Jesus' Return at the Rapture

The fact that a high-watch period has passed does not cancel out any of the verses in the Bible which teach that Christians should be watching for Jesus' return at all times. Indeed, the Bible says many times that Jesus is coming at a time we do not expect:

Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. (Matthew 24:42-44)

Likewise,

Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect. (Luke 12:35-40)

Jesus warned the Church of Smyrna that "Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you" (Revelation 3:3, NKJV).

Jesus also warned Christians to not get so wrapped up in their lives in this world that we are not watching for his return:

But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that day come on you unexpectedly. For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:34-36, NKJV)

If you are concerned about how the above verse says "pray that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things", as if it might imply that only some true Christians will go in the Rapture, I have written more about how I interpret this verse in my post about why all true Christians will be Raptured.

But in short, Paul explains that if Christians are paying attention, we will be able to see the day of the Rapture approaching:

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. (1 Thessalonians 5:1-5)

So the appropriate behavior for Christians is to give up living in ways that sinners do, and to carefully watch and be ready for the Rapture to happen at anytime (1 Thessalonians 5:4-8, Romans 13:11-14). Not all Christians will do this though, and so some will be living in ways that make them look like they should not have been "counted worthy" to escape the Tribulation.

So all Christians are instructed to always be watching for the Rapture, whether it's a 'high-watch' time or not, and to live accordingly as if Jesus could truly come to take us home at any moment. However, these verses also imply that some Christians will not do this, and so they will be shocked when the Rapture happens at a time they did not expect.

Just after a high-watch period has ended would certainly qualify as being a time when most Christians, even those who are watching for the Rapture, would not expect for the Rapture to happen. So this is not the time to give up watching, or to give up living in ways that please Jesus.

It is also certainly no excuse to give up on faith in Jesus altogether. Every day that the Rapture does not happen means we are simply one day closer to it.

I am still persuaded that the pretribulation Rapture is still the best interpretation of end-times Bible prophecy, as I explain in this post about my top five reasons why the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation begins.

I am also still persuaded that it is best to interpret the Book of Revelation literally, and that when we do so, it teaches that the Rapture will happen before all the terrible events in Revelation chapters 6 to 18.

In my opinion, those who argue against the pretribulation Rapture have not properly put together all of the different Bible verses which clearly say that the next time Jesus returns will be at a time when for most people around the world, life is going on like normal, even though Christians who are watching will simultaneously be able to see all the signs of the end times occurring in the world around us.

This situation described above clearly does not match descriptions of Jesus' official second coming when he appears in the sky on a white horse, followed by the armies of heaven, after the world has been devastated by all the divine judgments described in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 19:11-18). Thus, we know that Jesus' coming at the Rapture is not the same event as Jesus' second coming, just in case anyone needs any clarification on that.

And just because this recent high-watch time has passed, it does not cancel out any of these signs of the end times that are still increasing in frequency and intensity on a daily basis. This is exactly what Jesus prophesied when he said that these signs would be like a pregnant woman's contractions before she gives birth (Matthew 24:8, Mark 13:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:3).

I've heard this analogy used by other end-times watchers: let us imagine that a woman is pregnant, and the doctor gives her an expected due-date. If that due-date passes without the woman giving birth, she doesn't say, "Alright, that's it, clearly I'm never going to have this baby!". Instead, passing by her due date would mean that she's even more likely to give birth at anytime.

So let's not give up on hoping for the Rapture, just because this high-watch period has passed by.

Christians Are Called to Hope For Jesus' Return at the Rapture

No Christian should ever be embarrassed or ashamed about wanting to be with Jesus in heaven, in the places he is preparing for us (John 14:1-3), which will be far better than this world (Philippians 1:23). Many famous past heroes of faith also had this same desire (Hebrews 11:16).

Jesus' appearing at the Rapture is also called Christians' blessed hope (Titus 2:13).

So if Christians truly love Jesus more than anything else in our lives, then we should want to be with him in heaven. Accordingly, we should be interested in watching for the signs that the Rapture may happen soon.

It has been shown that the Rapture can be compared to a wedding between Christ and his Church, which human marriage between a man and a woman is meant to symbolically represent (Ephesians 5:31-32).1 We all know that the proper attitude of a bride who truly loves her fiancé is to be excited and looking forward to her wedding day.

So I believe that someone who truly loves Jesus and who wants to be with him should continually long for and watch for the Rapture. Therefore, such a person should at least hope that Jesus really might take us home to heaven to be with him on upcoming high-watch days, or indeed, any day, even today.

Furthermore, Christians who live their lives with this attitude of constantly longing for Jesus' return will one day be rewarded by receiving a special heavenly reward called the "crown of righteousness" (2 Timothy 4:8).

Christians are also told to encourage one another by reminding each other about the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:18), and to encourage each other to continue on in love, sharing the gospel, and doing good works as we watch and see the signs of this day approaching (Hebrews 10:24-25). In this way, we engage in our Master's business until he comes, and we will be rewarded for our work (Luke 19:11-27, Matthew 25:14-30).

Therefore, it is only appropriate for Christians to get excited about the Rapture, and to tell others about their hope of it happening on these days. That way, others can also look forward to it and gain that heavenly reward of the crown of righteousness.

So no Christian should ever be embarrassed that they were too watchful or too hopeful about the Rapture happening during a particular high-watch time.

Don't Be a Mocker and Scoffer

Conversely, I believe that for a true Christian to scoff at particular high-watch times and to claim that Jesus definitely isn't coming back then, to mock others for believing that he is coming back, and to ignore or downplay all of the signs that continue to point to the coming end-times, shows that something is not right in their hearts (2 Peter 3:3-4).

In contrast to Christians who eagerly want to be with Jesus, the mockers' and scoffers' behavior seemingly demonstrates that they themselves do not apparently either long for or love Jesus' appearing at the Rapture.

The mockers and scoffers also clearly do not demonstrate love for their fellow Christians who simply did what the Bible recommends regarding watching and longing to be with Jesus, and who are now sad and disappointed about this very promising high-watch time has passed by. Yet having love for fellow Christians is one sign that identifies who is a true Christian (1 John 3:10, 4:20).

One thing I had always wondered about when studying the end times was Jesus' parable of the faithful and wicked servants in Matthew 24:45-51 and Luke 12:42-48:

Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that wicked servant says to himself, "My master is delayed," and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Matthew 24:45-51)

While in the past, there have always been some scoffers and mockers who tried to discourage Christians who looked forward to the Rapture, the attention given to this recent September 23-24, 2025 high-watch period caused the mocking and scoffing attitude to explode across the Internet, even before these high-watch days had fully passed.

As I watched various YouTube videos and livestreams during these past few days, I saw how there were thousands of mockers and scoffers leaving comments saying that the Rapture was a false doctrine, and that Christians who hoped that Jesus would return at the Rapture during this time either did not understand the Bible, or had been deceived by Satan.

Many mockers and scoffers went even further to call those who had looked forward to this high-watch period 'false prophets', even though talking about a high-watch period for the Rapture is clearly different than making an absolute promise that it will definitely happen on a particular date.

Sometimes, the mockers and scoffers told these hopeful Christians that they needed to apologize and take down their channels, and even went so far as to condemn fellow Christians to hell or label them as being demon-possessed for simply being wrong about what looked to be a very promising high-watch time for the Rapture.

Overall, I'd say that a strong majority of the mockers' and scoffers' comments that I saw were hostile and seemingly full of anger and hatred. They did not demonstrate any of the fruit of the spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23).

In contrast, this fruit was being demonstrated by those believers who were still hanging onto their hope that Jesus might still come at the very last second of the Feast of Trumpets, since we know that Jesus wants as many people as possible to be saved (2 Peter 3:9), and so they were comforting and encouraging each other to not give up hope yet.

Furthermore, the mockers and scoffers, for all their claims of knowing Scripture better than others, did not follow the biblical instructions that Christians should not be quarrelsome but should be kind and gentle when trying to correct fellow Christians, if the mockers and scoffers truly felt that these Christians had been misled (2 Timothy 2:24-26, Galatians 6:1).

Instead, to tear down fellow Christians who were already heartbroken that Jesus did not come back at the Rapture as they had hoped seems to me to be much more like something Satan would do, since Satan is called the "accuser" of Christians (Revelation 12:10).

Such behavior also fits perfectly with how Matthew 24:45-51 describes the wicked servant's behavior, who says "My master is delayed," and proceeds to beat the servants who had been faithfully watching for their master's return.

That some people would try to make Christians give up hope in Jesus' return at the Rapture is also exactly what Jesus warned would happen, when he said that some people would attempt to take away or seize Christians' crowns (Revelation 3:11).

This verse comes immediately after Jesus' promise that he would keep true Christians completely out of the time of the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10), via the Rapture. Thus, it makes sense for Jesus' warning here to refer to that crown of righteousness, since as mentioned earlier, this is the crown that is promised to all Christians who love and long for Jesus' return at the Rapture (2 Timothy 4:8).

After all, eternal salvation can never be lost (Ephesians 1:13-14), so the risk of losing a crown, and the command to not let anyone take away this crown, must refer to some sort of reward that Christians can either gain or lose based on our actions and attitudes, and not to our eternal salvation which is received freely as a gift, based only on faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9).

So I believe that it is fair for Jesus to label these mockers and scoffers as being wicked servants, due to their behavior of attempting to steal away a major heavenly reward from fellow Christians who are simply loving Jesus and longing for him to return.

Because of how much attention this recent high-watch period for the Rapture received,2 this sort of mocking and scoffing has now occurred at a much higher intensity than I've never seen before, and which many other end-times watchers have also never seen before. Therefore, I would basically consider these prophecies of the wicked servants in Matthew chapter 24, and of the mockers and scoffers in 2 Peter chapter 3, to now be fulfilled, or at least, to have been fulfilled to a much greater extent than they were before.

So in a way, the fulfillment of these prophecies may actually show just how close we truly are to Jesus' coming at the Rapture, in comparison to before this recent high-watch time.

Yet ironically, how could the mockers and scoffers even be able to credibly say that "My master is delayed," (Matthew 24:48) if they are right that no one can have any idea of an approximate timeframe when Jesus was expected to return?

Currently, it does appear that Jesus has been 'delayed', at least compared to the many prophecies and confirmations that Christians received over the past few months about September 23-24, 2025 being the time when Jesus would return at the Rapture. I will share some of my personal thoughts on this possible 'delay' in the Appendix 1 at the bottom of this post.

But for now, in summary, when the mockers and scoffers are compared to the Christians who are eagerly watching for the Rapture, it seems clear that the mockers and scoffers are failing on a number of very important points:

They are not demonstrating love for Jesus and/or his return at the Rapture.
They are not demonstrating love for fellow Christians.
They are not demonstrating the fruit of the Holy Spirit.
They are not following the biblical instructions to encourage fellow Christians as we see the signs of the end times approaching.
They are not following the biblical instructions to correct fellow Christians who we believe are mistaken with gentleness and kindness.
They are actually acting like the wicked servants in Matthew 24 and Luke 12.

Yet another failing of the end-times mockers and scoffers is that they are not doing what God calls end-times watchers to do, which is to warn others when we see the signs of the end times are approaching. This will be discussed in the next section.

End-Times Watchers Are Responsible For Warning Others

In the Old Testament book of Ezekiel, God told the prophet Ezekiel to act like a watchman who would stand up on a fortified wall or tower of a city, and whose job was to watch for enemies who may come to threaten the city.

If this watchman saw enemies coming and did not warn the people in the city, then God would hold the watchman accountable for the deaths of the people that the watchman did not warn. But if the watchman did send out a warning, then God said that whoever did not listen to the warning would be responsible for their own deaths (Ezekiel 33:1-6).

Many end-times watchers take this verse very seriously. I do also, which is why I tried to do my part to put out information showing that this really was a very high-watch period, and to warn both Christians and those who may not yet believe in Jesus to get ready for the Rapture.

So when some critics tell Christians things like "Don't talk about the end times, just preach the gospel," I think these critics just don't get it. Watching for the end times is not incompatible with preaching the gospel. It is, in fact, possible to do both at the same time.

And in reality, believing that Jesus is coming back soon at the Rapture actually encourages evangelism, because Christians who truly love others will want to make sure that as many people as possible are saved before the Rapture happens, just as God does (2 Peter 3:9).

If Christians truly believe that the Tribulation will be the worst period of time in the entire history of the world (Matthew 24:21), it would be irresponsible of us to not warn others to get ready for the Rapture, and to not share the gospel with those who might not be saved, especially if we love them. In fact, it would be downright unloving to keep this information to ourselves.

If the Rapture does not happen when we expect, then as sad and disappointed as many end-times watchers often become, we should also be glad that it means there is more time for people who are not yet saved to possibly believe the gospel before the Tribulation begins.

We should not be ashamed that we put out warnings out of love for others when we saw everything coming together to make a very good case that the Rapture could happen at a particular high-watch day. This is exactly what end-times watchers should do, and it demonstrates the strong faith and courage of these watchers to openly talk to others about their faith in Jesus and in the coming Rapture.

For this reason, I believe that God is pleased with everyone who took this recent high-watch time seriously, and did what they could to warn others and share the gospel.

Does God Ever Commend the Doubters?

It is true that regarding this past September 23-24, 2025, some Christians did give very strong statements regarding their confidence in this high-watch period, such as Joshua Mhlakela's "one billion percent" guarantee that Jesus would return on one of these days.

But from what I saw, although most end-times watchers were excited about the possibility, they were also slightly hesitant to go that far in making any guarantees. This was especially true for the experienced watchers who had seen other high-watch times come and go.

Still, the end-times watchers and those Christians who received what they believed were prophecies and confirmations from God were doing what they should have done by sharing this information. It took faith, and courage, but God tends to commend these sorts of people, and criticizes the doubters.

For example, Peter asked for confirmation about whether the figure he saw coming toward the boat that he and the other disciples were in was truly Jesus. Once Peter received this confirmation, he stepped out in faith onto the water and took a risk that all the other disciples were not willing to take (Matthew 14:28-29).

Thomas, also, was unwilling to believe the testimonies of the other disciples that Jesus had truly come back from the dead. Once he, too, encountered the resurrected Jesus, he finally believed, but Jesus said "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29).

In the Old Testament, Gideon asked for confirmation twice about whether he should lead the Israelites into battle, and received it. Even though he may have been afraid, he still went ahead with the plan (Judges 6:36-40).

Abraham's wife Sarah is famous for doubting and laughing at the Lord's prophecy that she would have a child in her old age, as unlikely as it seemed. Yet God didn't seem to think it was very funny (Genesis 18:9-15).

So overall, I think God is likely far more pleased with those who spoke out and warned about this September 23-24 as potentially being the time for the Rapture, rather than with the scoffers and mockers.

But What About The Warnings About False Prophets and Teachers?

However, what about the scoffers' and mockers' accusations that the people who "set a date" for the Rapture were false prophets or false teachers who were inspired by Satan for the purpose of discouraging Christians and tarnishing Christianity's reputation in front of non-believers?

It is true that very rarely, God does use deception as a severe form of judgment on unbelievers (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, 1 Kings 22:19-23).

However, I do not see any instance in the Bible where God intentionally misleads his faithful people who are truly seeking him, or any examples of when God allows his faithful people to be misled en masse. I also cannot think of any instance in the Bible where true and faithful believers in God are commended for mocking and scoffing at anyone.

There are warnings against false prophets and teachers, however, these false prophets and teachers were false because they were teaching a false gospel message.

For example, Paul wrote to the Christians in the city of Corinth that,

But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. (2 Corinthians 11:3-4)

Again, in the same book, he says,

For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Likewise, in Galatians, Paul warns,

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:6-9)

In the entire book of Galatians, Paul is defending his ministry and his gospel message against false teachers who were telling the people that they had to also be circumcised and follow the Old Testament laws in order to be eternally saved:

Yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Galatians 5:3-4)

So that was the problem. It was not that someone was giving false hope regarding when Jesus might return at the Rapture, but was otherwise still preaching the true gospel message and warning others about Jesus' coming out of love and concern for others.

The only time that God warns his people to not believe someone who is pointing to his return is in the warnings for the people who will be alive during the Tribulation to not believe anyone who says that Jesus has already physically returned to Earth and is hiding out in the desert or in some other secret place (Matthew 24:23-28, Mark 13:21-23).

Yet in this instance, Jesus only says not to believe these lies because his own second coming will be as blatant as lightning flashing across the entire sky, so no one could possibly miss it (Matthew 24:27-28, Luke 17:23-24). Indeed, in the Book of Revelation, Jesus says that every person will see him for themselves when he returns from heaven on a white horse followed by his armies of angels and raptured saints (Revelation 1:7, 19:11-16).

Therefore, people who are alive during the Tribulation shouldn't believe the Antichrist when he declares himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish Temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

During the Tribulation, these false prophets who will endorse the Antichrist as being God will culminate with the False Prophet. This man will seem to do stunning miracles in the Antichrist's presence that will deceive the entire world, except for the saints, and he will also tell the world to make an idol of the Antichrist and take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:12-18, Matthew 24:24).

So the false prophets who either teach a false gospel message of salvation by works, or who will point people to worship the Antichrist, are completely different from any true Christians who were simply doing their jobs to warn about what looked to be a high-watch period for the Rapture, and who were also preaching the true gospel to anyone who had not yet believed it.

Therefore, the mockers and scoffers who are labelling Christian end-times watchers as being 'false prophets' are incorrect about their accusations.

Furthermore, Christian end-times watchers who taught about this past high-watch period should not be considered as false teachers, provided that they were preaching the true gospel message.

None of us have perfectly correct theology this side of heaven (1 Corinthians 13:12), especially on topics such as the end times. Our eternal salvation does not depend on having all the correct information or perfect beliefs about every theological topic.

Thus, while Christian teachers and pastors will be held to a higher standard than average Christians (James 3:1), Christians should not instantly label any Christian as a false teacher just because we disagree with them about some aspect of theology that is not the central gospel message. This is especially true when it comes to the topic of the end-times and eschatology, which is one of the most controversial theological subjects in the Bible.

Let's have grace for one another, and remember that love for one another covers a multitude of sins (1 Peter 4:8). Even if end-times watchers have been hurt by false accusations of mockers and scoffers, the proper thing to do is to forgive them and pray for them, because it seems that, like the people who crucified Jesus, they do not fully understand what they are doing or the things they are saying (Luke 23:34).

As one end-times watcher I came across argued, there are further reasons why Christians should not be angry toward the mockers and scoffers. That is because some of these current mockers and scoffers may actually only come to believe in Jesus once they finally see the Rapture happen, despite having personally doubted it and harshly criticized end-times watchers before then.

In this case, some of today's mockers and scoffers will become the saints who spread the gospel during the Tribulation. During this time, they will likely face just as much mocking and scoffing from the unbelievers during that time as they dished out to end-times watchers, if not more. Furthermore, during the Tribulation, these former scoffers may even end up having to die for their faith (Revelation 13:15, 20:4). Thus, we should pray for them, not get angry at them.

Furthermore, some of these current mockers and scoffers have claimed to have saved many of the videos that were made by Christians who preached about the coming Rapture, as evidence of how 'wrong' these Christians supposedly were. Yet in so doing, these mockers and scoffers are actually inadvertently preserving these videos that will testify to the truth of the Rapture when all other Christian content will likely be quickly deleted from the Internet after the Rapture does finally happen.

So even the mocking and scoffing may end up serving God's purposes, after all.

Conclusion

As shown in this post, there is a stark difference between two different categories of people, as demonstrated by their attitudes towards Jesus' return at the Rapture.

In the first category, there are Christians who are doing exactly what the Bible tells us to regarding longing for and watching for Jesus to come take us home to heaven at the Rapture. These Christians will rightfully remind and encourage others about this possibility, have the courage to point out upcoming high-watch times, and warn others to believe in Jesus before the Rapture occurs. No Christian should ever be embarrassed about doing these things.

In the second category are the people, among them even many Christians, who are mocking and scoffing at this first category of Christians, especially when a high-watch day passes. Yet these Christian mockers and scoffers are failing to demonstrate their love for God or for their fellow Christians, which is a far more serious fault than any of the end-times watchers who took a risk out of love to alert others to the possibility of the Rapture happening at a particular time.

All of this demonstrates that the mockers and scoffers have not studied Scripture as fully as they should. Furthermore, if they are truly saved, it also demonstrates a lack of both spiritual maturity and the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

And actually, there is of course, the third category of Christians who are simply too busy or uninterested to watch for Jesus' coming at the Rapture. They will be totally taken by surprise when it does happen, and will miss out on earning the special heavenly reward of the crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8).

Therefore, I will always side with the first category of Christians, even if putting out warnings about high-watch times and preaching the gospel offends the mockers and scoffers. I will always keep watching for the signs of the end times, and until the Rapture finally happens, I will always hope that it will, possibly even today, or at any future high-watch times.

And I hope that other Christians will do the same, no matter how many high-watch times happen to go by before the Rapture actually does happen.

In the Appendix 1 that follows, I will talk a little about some things I am still not sure about regarding why this particular high-watch period has passed, and why so many Christians were seemingly mistaken about what they believed they had heard from God.

In Appendix 2, I explain why there is still hope that Jesus will return on or near October 30-31 and into November 1, just in case the Rapture does happen, and this can stand as a testimony to the hard work of all the end-times watchers and the truth of all the confirmations and prophecies Christians received regarding September 23-24 for the Rapture.

Appendix 1: My Thoughts Regarding The Passing of Sept 23-24, 2025

I admit, I am rather perplexed by how it seemed that September 23-24, 2025, looked to be a near-perfect setup for the Rapture to occur, and yet it did not happen.

I am still, as of the time of writing this post, unsure what to make of all the Christians who posted videos on YouTube or other platforms, or who left comments on these videos to share their 'confirmations' that they believed God had shown them about Jesus coming back at the Rapture on either September 23 or 24, 2025, or the Feast of Trumpets this year, or at the very least, during the month of September.

After watching several dozen of these videos, from what I could see, these people were honestly praying to God and seeking him about whether Joshua Mhlakela's prophecy was true. They did not seem to have pre-conceived opinions one way or another, although they were certainly hopeful and excited about the possibility of Jesus' return, as all Christians should be.

It is especially perplexing, due to how both Joshua Mhlakela and many of the average Christians who received these 'confirmations' had much to potentially lose by having the courage to be obedient to share what they felt God had told them.

Many of these Christians had never before made videos and did not have huge platforms or YouTube channels that would benefit from the attention. A number of these Christians mentioned they were fearful of being called "date setters" or "false prophets", yet they were more concerned about obeying God, despite the risk of looking foolish.

It is true that many of these 'confirmations' were related to strange or seemingly trivial things. Some saw many license plate numbers that involved numbers like 923 or 924, heard particular songs such as "The Final Countdown" on the radio just after asking in prayer if Jesus will return at the Feast of Trumpets this year, or repeatedly saw numbers or other personal signs that these Christians had requested for God to show them.

Some of these confirmations did appear on the surface that they could have simply been coincidences. Any dreams about the Rapture could also be explained by the topic simply being on someone's mind when they went to sleep.

However, many of these Christians shared about how they were initially skeptical of the first 'confirmations' they received, because they were fully aware that it could simply be a coincidence. So they went on to ask again, and again, and prayed that God would not let them be deceived. Each time, they said they kept receiving more and more positive confirmations, sometimes immediately after praying for one.

To me, it seems unlikely that all of these 'confirmations' were really just coincidences. Some skeptics even shared how they received confirmations that they were not looking for or expecting, which convinced them to change their minds and to look seriously at this high-watch time.

Other Christians shared 'confirmations' that contained information that no one but God could have been able to reveal to them, to their spouses, or to their children. Some signs involved things that would truly have required either a miracle or some sort of supernatural intervention to explain how they came about.

Additionally, in most 'confirmation' videos I watched, the person sharing their confirmation seemed to demonstrate the true fruit of the Holy Spirit, such as love, hope, peace, joy, and humility (Galatians 5:22-23). They also frequently felt an urgency to share the true gospel message of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone with anyone who was watching. They were not asking for money, selling books, or asking for people to subscribe to their channels. As a result, my discernment didn't pick up many red flags about what they said.

And as I mentioned earlier in this blog post, I do not believe that God would intentionally mislead all of these apparently-genuine and faithful Christians who seemed to be truly seeking him and asking for him to reveal the truth to them. Again, God does not lie to his people (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18, Isaiah 66:9).

We are also told that Jesus' people will be able to hear his voice, and we will also be able to accurately distinguish Jesus' voice from other voices (John 10:2-5, 10:27). Presumably, the purpose of Christians being able to hear and identify Jesus' voice is so that we will be able to understand relatively accurately what Jesus is saying to us.

So I don't believe we can say that all of these Christians did not correctly identify the source of any words they heard from God in their hearts which confirmed to them that the Rapture would occur during this high-watch time.

However, there is always the chance that we may mishear or misunderstand what God says to us, since currently, none of us see everything clearly (1 Corinthians 13:12). So perhaps it was unwise for certain people like Joshua Mhlakela to have given "billion percent" guarantees that the Rapture would definitely occur over this past Feast of Trumpets, because this guarantee was not specifically part of the message given to Joshua from Jesus, and was Joshua's own assessment of how strong his belief was in his message.

But again, to think that all of these apparently faithful and mature Christians and end-times watchers all happened to mishear the exact same thing which falsely pointed to the Rapture occurring during the same timeframe of September 23-24, 2025, or at least to the Feast of Trumpets, or even just the month of September of this year, would seem to be very unlikely.

So like myself, many end-times watchers are currently perplexed and are unwilling to completely write this off as all being coincidences, confirmation bias, or demonic deception.

As I noted in my previous post, myself and many other end-times watchers have said that we have never before had hundreds or even thousands of average Christians all backing up a particular high-watch period for the Rapture with these sorts of 'confirmations'. So it is very confusing why God would allow this to occur, if God knew that the Rapture would not occur during this time.

A Possible 'Window' For The 'Delayed' Rapture

Furthermore, we not only have to make sense of why these 'confirmations' were all wrong, but we also need to take another look at the math regarding the 2550 days for the Tribulation that were mentioned in my previous post, which happens to exactly match the number of days from the Feast of Trumpets on September 23, 2025 to the Day of Atonement on September 15, 2032.

It is still true that this situation does not happen exactly again in any future spans of seven years where Jesus' second coming on the Day of Atonement would occur either on or before the two-thousandth-year anniversary of his death and resurrection, in either 2032 or 2033.

I have heard a suggestion which I believe seems plausible, and would still be compatible with the idea that Joshua Mhlakela's prophecy and all the confirmations of it by other Christians were truly given by God.

It turns out that if we go just with John's numbers given in Revelation 11:3 and Revelation 13:5, it adds up to 2520 days for the Tribulation period. So it could be that we are now in a thirty day window before the Tribulation officially begins.

It is true that no one has yet confirmed a seven-year covenant with 'many' that could fulfill Daniel 9:27, which will be the event that both identifies the Antichrist and officially begins the Tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8). So a period of at most thirty more days for the Rapture to occur, and for the Antichrist to then appear on the world stage and to confirm this seven-year covenant still fits with this proposed timeline.

Additionally, some end-times watchers have pointed out that when the angel Gabriel was coming to deliver a message to the prophet Daniel, Gabriel was delayed by twenty-one days because some sort of demon called the "prince of Persia" was able to oppose Gabriel, until Gabriel was helped by the angel Michael (Daniel 10:12-14).

In general, evangelical and pentecostal Christians tend to believe that spiritual warfare is real, and that the outcomes of this warfare can have real consequences in this world.

Of course, we may wonder why God would allow this to be the case, since it should be that God is so much more powerful than Satan and demons, and so God could easily overpower them. But if so, then, as just one example, there would be no point in having God's holy angels fight with Satan's demons as part of the process of throwing these demons out of heaven (Revelation 12:7-9), if God could simply do it with a metaphorical snap of his fingers.

But still, at the end of the Tribulation, God will send an anonymous angel to bind Satan and throw Satan into the bottomless pit (Revelation 20:1-3). So why wouldn't God just do this right now, rather than make God's angels have to fight against Satan and his demons?

Perhaps it is because just like humans, angels also have free will. As I explored in one of my previous posts, I believe that God does restrain evil in the world so that the world is not prematurely destroyed before Jesus' second coming. Yet God must also temporarily allow enough room for people's free will to be able to make a real difference in this world, for good or for evil. The same principles probably apply for angels and demons also.

However, no one has unlimited free will, and so one day, God will say he's had enough of Satan and his demons, God will finally dispose of them in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:10), just as will happen for everyone who rejects God at the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:13-15).

So maybe Jesus did tell us accurately that he was starting the process of returning for his church at the Rapture on the Feast of Trumpets this past September 23-24, but there was a delay due to possible spiritual warfare that may be going on behind the scenes.

Again, the parable of the faithful and wicked servants (Matthew 24:45-51 and Luke 12:42-48) does mention that the servants' master seems to be delayed. This implies that the master should have returned at a particular time, but did not, for whatever reason. It is this delay which inspires the mockers and scoffers to mistreat the faithful servants who keep watching.

So perhaps there being some sort of delay regarding Jesus' coming at the Rapture should not be completely unexpected, especially if this delay can be used by God as a test to see where people's hearts are at, to see whether they will continue to faithfully watch for him, or if they will mock and scoff.

Another verse which many end-times watchers are now turning to as an explanation is found in the book of Habakkuk:

For the vision is yet for an appointed time; but at the end it will speak, and it will not lie. Though it tarries, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry. (Habakkuk 2:3, NKJV)

This verse, if applied to the Rapture, would suggest that although it seems to us that there is a delay in the fulfillment of this prophecy, the Rapture will still happen, possibly even very soon.

See also the parable of the persistent widow in Luke 18:7-8, where Jesus says that if he is delayed, he will not delay for very long:

And will not God give justice to his elect, who cry to him day and night? Will he delay long over them? I tell you, he will give justice to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth? (Luke 18:7-8)

This verse does seem to apply to the current situation. Many end-times watchers are now all crying out to God for answers about why Jesus didn't come when he seems to have indicated to us that he would, and we want to be vindicated in front of the mockers and scoffers. Yet at the same time, many other Christians are also now falling away from having any faith that Jesus will still come back soon at the Rapture.

So I think we should trust that if there truly is some sort of delay going on here regarding the predicted time of the Rapture, the delay will not be for long.

Before God sent the worldwide flood, he told Noah and his family to get into the ark a full seven days before any rain came (Genesis 7:6-10, 7:16). At that point, the mocking and scoffing from Noah's unbelieving neighbors must have made Noah and his family feel rather ridiculous. But the flood did still come, and everyone who was not on the ark drowned.

Again, the prophesied 2520/2550 day counts for the length of the Tribulation seem to hint that we may have about a month or so at most for Jesus to delay the Rapture, up to October 23-24. Otherwise, all the calculations and timelines for Jesus' second coming that were mentioned in my previous post about why September 23-24 was a high watch day for the rapture get thrown off.

The astronomical "Revelation 12 sign" that I also mentioned in that previous post, which culminated on September 23, 2017 would also seem to lose all its meaning of pointing to the possible year of the Rapture if the Rapture were to occur next year, or any year after that.

Were We Using The Wrong Calendar?

Joshua Mhlakela did another interview on September 26 on the CentTwinz TV Youtube podcast, where he reaffirms his "billion percent" guaranteed that the Rapture is still going to happen soon, even within literal "days", and he believes the dates he was given by Jesus were not wrong.3 As a result, Joshua mentions the idea proposed by other end-times watchers that perhaps the calendar is off, and we were supposed to use the Julian calendar.

The Julian calendar is the one that was in use across the Roman Empire when Jesus was alive, rather than the Gregorian calendar we now use. The Gregorian calendar was created in 1582 by Pope Gregory to correct how the Julian calendar appeared to be getting slowly out of sync with the date of Easter, which was calculated based on the equinoxes and the phases of the moon. On the Julian calendar, September 23-24, 2025 is actually around October 6-8, 2025 on our Gregorian calendar.

So if we do go by the Julian calendar, the real Feast of Trumpets hasn't happened yet, and both Joshua's prophecy and all the 'confirmations' of it could still be accurate. It would also literally be true that as Habakkuk 2:3 says, although the fulfillment of these prophecies and visions seems to tarry/delay, it actually is not tarrying/delaying at all. This does appear to be the only way to save these prophecies and confirmations as being true.

However, I am not fully persuaded that the Feast of Trumpets should really start on a full moon, rather than the sliver of the moon, as would be required for this theory to be true. To me, it's very difficult to tell whether the moon is truly 100% full versus only 90% or 95% full just by using the naked eye, so I don't see how the full moon could be used as a reliable signal to start the Feast of Trumpets. Whereas the sliver of the new moon is either visible, or it isn't, which makes it useable as a definite sign of when to start the feast.

Yet it is interesting that if September 23-24, 2025 on the Julian calendar is around October 6-8, 2025 on the usual Gregorian calendar, that would make the Feast of Trumpets on the Julian calendar line up with two other things: the two-year anniversary of Hamas' October 7 invasion of Israel in 2023, and the beginning of the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot on the calendar most Jews are using. I heard someone also say that October 6-8 would also be the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles if the Jewish Essene calendar is used.

The Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot is a harvest festival that lasts for seven days, which the Jews celebrate by dwelling in small temporary structures called 'booths'. These booths remind them of when they dwelled in tents in the wilderness after the Exodus.4 After the Rapture, Christians will dwell in heaven with Jesus for seven years, in the dwelling places he said he is building for us (John 14:1-3). Is there perhaps some symbolic connection between the two?

However, to me, all of the current international interest in the two-state solution that I mentioned in my previous post is the primary indicator of how close we may be to the Rapture. So instead of trying to narrow down a specific time for the Rapture, I plan to simply pay attention to the signs of the end times, and in particular, to any ongoing negotiations that may end the current Israel-Hamas war with a declaration of "peace and safety" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-5). It would be especially significant if such an agreement may involve a seven-year covenant with 'many' (Daniel 9:27) that ends up dividing Israel to create a Palestinian state (Joel 3:2).

One benefit, however, of all of this recent hype about the Rapture on September 23-24, 2025, is that now so many more people have heard about the Rapture than before. This means that whenever the Rapture does happen, they will be less likely to be deceived by whatever false explanation governments will give to explain the Rapture away, such as it being a massive alien abduction.

Thus, if Satan or spiritual warfare is what is behind the apparent delay of the Rapture, this result would be an example of how God can use even the evil that Satan does to bring some sort of good out of it (Genesis 50:20, Romans 8:28).

Just as Satan's plan to kill Jesus backfired and enabled the possibility of eternal salvation for anyone who believe in Jesus (John 3:16), so Satan's attempt to stop or delay the Rapture may backfire into even more people hearing the gospel and knowing about the Rapture than before. In this way, if these people do not believe in Jesus now, they might at least be convinced to do so after the Rapture happens.

If that's true, then as much as I'd rather be with Jesus now, I can wait a little longer.

September 30, 2025, Update

As I said just at the end of the last section, one of the primary signs I'm now watching for is any talk of a sort of an agreement to bring peace between Israel and Hamas and/or the wider middle-east.

So it is very interesting that on September 29, President Trump and Israeli President Netanyahu had a White House press conference where they announced that Israel accepts a 21-point peace plan to end the Israel-Hamas war.5 They have given a 72-hour deadline for Hamas to agree, or else Israel has permission to do whatever they must to end the war.6 Qatar believes they can pressure Hamas to agree.7

If this plan were implemented, it would create a 'Board of Peace' headed by President Trump and with the involvement of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and other heads of state. "This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program". Another panel of experts would create an economic plan to rebuild Gaza and attract investment. A "guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people." And finally, an 'International Stabilization Force' would be created by Arab and other international partners such as Egypt and Jordan to handle the security situation in Gaza.8

Some of the countries who have agreed they would cooperate with the USA in implementing this plan include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt.9

I wonder if this peace plan, if accepted, could be the framework for the seven-year Daniel 9:27 covenant with 'many' that will be confirmed/strengthened by the Antichrist, after the Rapture occurs.

If Hamas does agree within the next few days, this could be the declaration of "peace and safety" in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10 that is followed by "sudden destruction" of the Rapture, and perhaps the Psalm 83 war.

All we can do is wait and see. Either way, it sounds like the war with Hamas may be coming to a close soon.

Appendix 2: October 30, 2025 Update

Now that a month has gone by, there are some interesting insights worth noting that may indicate that the end-times watchers were correct after all about the September 23-24 date, which point to October 30-31, 2025, as being the 'real' September 23-24.

I want to record these insights in case they happen to be true, for the sake of those who will be left behind. That way, if the Rapture does happen either today or tomorrow, this analysis may stand as a testimony that at least some Christians did know when Jesus would be returning, and that everyone who looked for the Rapture during this past month and shared their confirmations were telling the truth and were not deceived by false prophets.

Which Calendar?

So over the past few weeks, a variety of end-times watchers have been working on possible explanations regarding updated calendars which pointed to several other recent high-watch dates. The final one everyone seems to be looking at is October 30-31, 2025, possibly extending into November 1-3, 2025.

They argue that these dates preserve the truth of all the prophecies given to Joshua Mhlakela and others, as well as all the 'confirmations' that apparently-genuine Christians received in responses to their prayers regarding the truth of Joshua's prophecy. These dates also align with a dream Joshua had on October 13-14, and also three major dreams/visions given to other Christians which match quite well with this revised calendar.

The best summary of this revamped calendar I've found is summarized in a YouTube video on the channel Where 2 or More Gather in His Name, titled "The Puzzle that Confused the World (WITH AUDIO)".10 I will attempt to summarize the information here, but the video with the visual calendar may explain it better. I will also add references to other supporting information which can help confirm or supplement this calendar.

I will lay out the information below chronologically, beginning from September 23-24, 2025, to show how the current October 30-31 high watch dates have been found.

The first date given for the Rapture by Joshua Mhlakela and confirmed by many others which I wrote about in my post on September 23-24, 2025, came and went. This situation led to much confusion and disappointment among end-times watchers and everyone else who had gotten their hopes up.

From this point, we could truly say that Jesus was 'delayed', as I discussed earlier in this post. Habakkuk's strange prophecy also became relevant, when he said that although the fulfillment of it seems to tarry, we must wait for it, because it will actually not tarry (Habakkuk 2:3 NKJV, used to refer to Jesus in Hebrews 10:37, NKJV). This became a puzzle for end-times watchers to solve.

October 6-7, 2025 was the next high-watch date after September 23-24, 2025, because it was argued that the Julian calendar is 13 days behind the Gregorian calendar, and the Julian calendar was the one in use in the Roman Empire during Jesus' first coming. So October 6-7 on the Gregorian calendar would have been September 23-24 on the Julian calendar.

Yet the date passed without the Rapture happening, and so everyone was once again disappointed. At the time, some said this should be expected, as the Julian calendar was flawed since it does not match the rotation of the Earth around the Sun perfectly, which is why the Gregorian calendar was created to correct how the Julian calendar was slowly getting out of sync with the timing of Easter.

Joshua then had a dream during the night of October 13, 2025. In this dream, he was told "the 14/15 days will pass, then on the 16/17 October 2025 will be the rapture of the church."11 So everyone who was still listening to him and not calling him a false prophet got their hopes up for October 16-17, 2025.

And yet again, the Rapture didn't happen. So end-times watchers switched to looking at the Enoch calendar.

The months on the Enoch calendar begin with the new moon. There was a new moon on September 21, which is why the mainstream Jews celebrated the Feast of Trumpets on September 23-24, when the sliver of the new moon could be seen from Jerusalem.

However, there is an argument that the mainstream Jews were off by a month, since the new moon that begins the month of Tishri (the seventh month on the Jewish calendar) should have actually occurred in the constellation of Libra, not Virgo.12 The new moon occurred in Libra on October 21, 2025, and the sliver of the new moon was not large enough to see until October 23, which would make October 23-24 the true Feast of Trumpets (Leviticus 23:24-25).13

Using the same logic, and using Stellarium's online astronomy software,14 we can confirm that April was indeed the true first Jewish month of Nisan, because the Sun began moving through the constellation of Aries only after the full moon of April 12, 2025. The sun was also solidly in the middle of Aries during the new moon of April 27, 2025.15 This confirms that the seventh month of the Jewish calendar, Tishri, began later this year than the mainstream Jewish calendar claimed.

But obviously, the Rapture did not happen on October 23-24, 2025, either.

However, October 6-7, the night of the full moon, could be seen as the start of the true seventh month on God's heavenly "creator's" calendar. This idea of the full moon being the start of the heavenly month was revealed to a woman named Heleingwe Mchunu during a vision she had, which she discussed on her interview with the CentTwinz.16

If we look at all full moons in 2025 from January to October, we get: January 13, February 12, March 14, April 12, May 12, June 11, July 10, August 9, September 7, October 6. Because the March 14 full moon occurred before the spring equinox on March 20, the first full moon that would indicate the true start of the first Jewish month of Nisan would be April 12. This quirk of the Jewish lunar calendar effectively adds a "thirteenth" leap-month to 2024. So, counting from April 12 as the first day of the first month, it would make October 7 the first day of the seventh Jewish month of Tishri.17

That makes October 30-31 actually the 23rd and 24th of the seventh month, according to this heavenly full-moon calendar. If "September" in Joshua's prophecy actually means the seventh month (since 'sept' means 'seven' in Latin), then we can truly say that October 30-31 is actually still "September 23-24."

If we count sixteen and seventeen days from Joshua's dream on October 13, we also arrive at October 30-31.

October 30-31 is also only a week later than October 23-24. This seven-day delay could have some connection to how God told Noah and his family to enter the Ark seven days before it began to rain (Genesis 7:1-10). What's even more fascinating is that it can be argued that October 31 is the day that the worldwide flood began.18 In the Bible, Jesus compares the Tribulation to Noah's flood, where life was normal until the flood came and killed everyone (Matthew 24:37-44).

October 31 is also the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door in 1517, which is often seen as the start of the Protestant Reformation, and so is called "Reformation Day".19 Since then, it has been 500 years to 2017, the year when the 'Revelation 12' sign appeared on September 23-24, as I noted in my previous post, and another 8 years since then, with 8 being the number of new beginnings.

November 1 is also "All Saints Day", as per Catholic tradition.20 Therefore, October 31/November 1 would be a symbolically appropriate day for God to use to Rapture all true Christians, who are all saints (e.g., Philippians 1:1), while the destruction of the Tribulation begins on Earth.

November 1 is also forty days from September 23, if both the 23rd and 1st are included within that forty day count. Otherwise, excluding September 23rd-24th, forty days later could perhaps extend into November 2-3. Forty is a number often used in the Bible for times of testing, such as when God gave Nineveh a 40-day warning before it would be destroyed if they didn't repent (Jonah 3:4), Jesus was in the wilderness being tested for 40 days before his ministry began (Matthew 4:2, Mark 1:13), and the people of Israel were in the wilderness for 40 years after the Exodus, before crossing into Canaan (Exodus 16:35).

Others have suggested that the ten-day delay from October 21, the day of the new moon, would also perhaps make October 31-November 1 the Day of Atonement on the Enoch calendar (Leviticus 23:27, 25:9). However, I'm not so sure about that claim, since I would say that on the Enoch calendar, the ten day count should begin from the Feast of Trumpets on October 23-24, which would put the Day of Atonement around November 2-3.

Due to all this, October 30-31, possibly extending as far as November 3, would thus be the fourth 'high-watch' date the end-times watchers have proposed after September 23-24, 2025 passed. Now what's interesting is that there are three different people who have all had visions/dreams of there being four delays or four 'watch' periods for the Rapture before it actually happens.

Dreams and Visions Reveal Only Four Delays/Watches for the Rapture

A woman whose YouTube channel is called Irene For Christ shared about four vivid dreams she had in one night, around October 7-8.20

In her first dream, She was standing in a field in front of a white church with many other people, where various end-times watchers she recognized were standing together at the front of the group, facing this church. Everyone was staring up at the sky, expecting Jesus to return, but he didn't.

In her second dream, it was the exact same thing, except she noticed there were fewer people in the crowd and fewer end-times watchers waiting for Jesus.

In her third dream, again, it was the same thing, but with even fewer people watching for Jesus.

In the fourth dream, all the people who remained watching from the third time were still there, but this time Jesus did return and came down from the sky in a white robe and landed between the white church and the group of end-times watchers.

In this same video, Irene also shared about how later, on October 13, she had a dream where she was seeing the number 17 everywhere, to the point where it annoyed her. This will become relevant later.

Now let's compare Irene's dream to a vision given to Hlengiwe Mchunu, the woman who was also interviewed on the CentTwinz several times this past summer/fall about the upcoming Rapture dates. Hlengiwe shared in a YouTube video on October 25 about how God told her in just the past day or two that a vision she had been given earlier in the year was now fulfilled.22

In Hlengiwe's vision, there were, like in Irene's dream, many people lined up in rows, including elderly people and children, with end-times watchers standing near the front of this group. Jesus was above them, and he gave the entire group of people a puzzle to solve. People from the back were passing pieces up to the end-times watchers in the front, who put them together to complete the puzzle.

The puzzle was completed, and they looked up at Jesus who smiled and said it was perfect. But then Jesus immediately gave them another puzzle. She says at this point she noticed there were fewer people in the crowd than for the first puzzle, but they still worked together to solve this second puzzle, and were excited when they solved it. Again, they looked up at Jesus, and he said it was perfect, only to give the group a third puzzle, but there were now even fewer people around for this puzzle.

Yet again, they solved the third puzzle, and excitedly looked up at Jesus, who again told them that they got it, and it was perfect. Then he gave them a fourth puzzle. This time, everyone who had solved the third puzzle remained to solve the fourth one.

During the solving of this fourth puzzle, others standing around Jesus asked him if he thought the group would get it. Jesus replied "I've trained them for this, they will get it." When the puzzle was completed, the crowd looked up at Jesus, and he said yes, all four puzzles were completed and were correct. Then Hlengiwe woke up.

Now, after she was told the vision was fulfilled, she finally realized what it meant. She believes it means that all the four high-watch dates that were being looked at were correct. She remembers how at one point she was also told that "after these four, everything in heaven is complete", but she didn't understand it. Now she understands it as the fourth watch, which is final.

She said in her vision, there was no fifth puzzle to complete. So she says no one missed anything in all of these high-watch dates.

A man named Joseph Allen in the Zoom group in this same video then shared about a man who had a heart attack and had a near-death experience of heaven. While the man was in heaven, he was shown that Jesus stopped a clock from reaching midnight four times. He said Jesus could truly have come any of these four times, but each time, Jesus showed God the Father the blood he poured out on the cross, and asked for there to be more time given in hope of a few more people being saved.

Yet after the fourth time, the man said that God the Father would not allow any more delay, and so the clock will not be stopped again.

When combined, these three visions/dreams all involving the idea of there being four puzzles to solve and four delays watching for Jesus to return at the Rapture fit very well with there having been five recent high-watch days:

1. September 23-24, 2025 on the Gregorian calendar. This date was based on Joshua's original prophecy of the Feast of Trumpets being September 23-24, 2025, as on the currently-used mainstream Jewish calendar, and all the confirmations given to others that included things like the numbers 9, 23, 24, or September, etc.

2. October 6-7, 2025, which was September 23-24 on the Julian calendar, with the full moon. Using heaven's calendar which says that the full moon is the start of the true seventh month would have made this the Feast of Trumpets on the Julian calendar. Joshua endorsed this date on his first return to the CentTwinz podcast, as I mentioned in the first Appendix above.

3. October 16-17, 2025, based on Joshua's dream and Irene for Christ's dream on October 13. This would also have been the Day of Atonement which occurs ten days later if October 6-7 were the Feast of Trumpets on the Julian calendar.

4. October 23-24, 2025, based on the Enoch calendar where the Feast of Trumpets would be on October 23-24. This date relies on the new moon being in the constellation of Libra, which would have made October 23-24 the first day of the seventh month.

5. October 30-31, 2025, based on it being 23-24 days from October 6-7 as the start of the seventh month on heaven's full-moon calendar, and 16-17 days from Joshua and Irene for Christ's dreams on October 13. It is also an exact seven-day delay from the Feast of Trumpets on the Enoch calendar. Depending on the counting, November 1-3 would also be about forty days from September 23-24, 2025, and also the Day of Atonement on the Enoch calendar. This date range covers Halloween, the day Noah's worldwide flood began, and All Saints' Day, on November 1.

So we can see that beginning September 23-24, there have been four delays leading to four more high-watch dates when it seems that Jesus could have come back at the Rapture since they all, in one way or another, could have fit Joshua's prophecy of Jesus returning to rapture his Church on the 23-24 of September, which is the seventh month, equivalent to the Jewish month of Tishri.

This fact seems to indicate that since these four delays have now passed, this upcoming October 30-31, possibly extending into November 2-3, will be the 'real' date of the Rapture. In all of these various dreams/visions, there was not a fifth puzzle or a fifth time watching, but only four.

I have also heard some people sharing confirmations they've received that the Church will not be here past Halloween or into November. Yet again, we may question though which calendar is being referred to regarding October 31 or November 1, which if the Enoch calendar is used, could be quite a ways out, if we're only in September on that calendar.

In this way of thinking, I would not count the first high-watch date of September 23-24, 2025 as a real 'puzzle', since that date given by Joshua was straightforward, and so were all the confirmations of it. There were no riddles or calendars to solve.

Thus, I would count September 23-24, 2025 as the start of the first 'watch', which lasted until October 6-7. The next watch would have been from October 6-7 to October 16-17. The third watch would have been from the 16-17 to 23-24. And finally, the fourth watch is now almost over as we approach October 30-31, possibly into November 2-3, for the Day of Atonement on the Enoch calendar.

During the time of Jesus' first coming, the Romans used four watches in the nighttime, as times when they would change out the guards to keep watch for enemies. These were from 6 to 9pm, 9pm to midnight, midnight to 3am, and 3am to 6am.23 There is no fifth watch of the night.

The Bible says that Jesus came walking on the water to his disciples who were stuck in the boat in a storm during the fourth watch of the night (Matthew 14:25, Mark 6:48). This story does seem to parallel how all the end-times watchers, despite being disappointed and confused, have kept struggling all night long by refusing to give up on their faith in Jesus' soon return, despite the mocking and scoffing they endured through the previous three 'watches' after September 23-24. Hopefully, this means that Jesus will finally appear to save us before this fourth 'watch' period ends.

Given all of this, if this high-watch period of October 30-31, possibly extending into November 1-3, passes by without the Rapture happening, I think all the end-times watchers who have worked so hard on this over the last month, and collaborated among themselves, primarily on YouTube, will be truly perplexed and confounded.

Yes, there are still a few people looking at early to mid-November, or perhaps to Hanukkah, but these are the exceptions.

Personally, I believe it is most honoring to God to look at the next closest high-watch time for Jesus' return at the Rapture, rather than pushing it off until later. I do not want to be like the mockers and scoffers who claim they know that Jesus will definitely not appear on some particular day, because that attitude contradicts Matthew 24:36 and Mark 13:32.

Thus, if a good case can be made for the Rapture happening on the next upcoming high watch day, I always take it seriously.

Therefore, I hope this Appendix at least summarizes where we are now, and hopefully might be the last thing I write on this blog. If not, though, there is still no reason for Christians to stop watching for Jesus' return.

Appendix 3: November 26, 2025: Final Thoughts On The Above Dates and Visions

It is disappointing that the dreams and visions regarding the Rapture occurring during one of the high-watch dates which I documented in Appendix 2 have not been fulfilled. This does raise questions about all these dates outlined above, and the truthfulness of the various dreams and visions that seemed to endorse them.

Although I do not want to delete what I posted previously in case it is useful in some way to someone, I do want to add one last section here with my current thoughts on the situation.

There have been even more high-watch dates come and go since these ones I listed above, and still a few which I think are legitimate candidates to consider. However, according to my own calculations, I seriously doubt that it is feasible or credible to push these dates out any farther than perhaps the first week of December.

Personally, I still don't want to prematurely throw out Joshua Mhlakela's original prophecy of September 23-24 which so many other Christians had confirmations of, after they claimed to have sincerely asked for God to reveal to them whether Joshua's prophecy was true or not, and prayed that they would not be deceived.

Technically, we do still have until the start of the FIFA World Cup which is scheduled for June 11, 2026, before all the aspects of Joshua's prophecy that I reported on in my previous post would be invalidated.

But I don't blame anyone for giving up on following this particular group of end-times watchers after this number of failed Rapture predictions, especially after there has recently been some accusations made about the behavior of some individuals within the group which has caused a number of people, including Joshua, to leave it. I won't discuss that here, since I was never personally involved with the group and don't know all the details. I was only following their publicly posted YouTube videos and didn't have access to their private WhatsApp chats, Zoom calls, or watch their livestreams.

I admit that I have become more and more concerned over the past few weeks about some things I have heard lately from some end-times watchers.

Primarily, I worry about the increasing popularity of the claim that only some true Christians will be raptured — those who are personally holy enough, according to some undefinable, unmeasurable standard. Some people have even posted dreams or visions where they claim to have seen true Christians being left behind at the Rapture.

However, I debunk this idea in my post where I explain why all true Christians will be raptured. The Bible never says there is any requirement for Christians to be personally holy enough to be included in the Rapture.

Likewise, Christians are truly saved by faith alone, not by works. It seems there is some confusion among some end-times watchers who are implying or even outright saying that Christians have to give up sinning in order to be saved, or do enough good works to be saved. Yet it is impossible to do enough good works to earn or prove our eternal salvation, or to repent from all sin (1 John 1:8, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4:4-5, Galatians 2:16, Romans 7:18-25).

Although I believe that Christians who are truly saved can become confused about the gospel and teach incorrect ideas, it makes me concerned about some of these end-times watchers' apparent lack of biblical knowledge and spiritual discernment.

Furthermore, I am also concerned by how some end-times watchers endorse the idea of the "three days of darkness", which they say will begin before the Rapture. Again, some Christians claim to have had dreams and visions that support this idea.

In particular, I do not like how Heleingwe Mchunu has continually mentioned this idea ever since she was interviewed on the CentTwinz TV podcast,24 which makes me seriously doubt the accuracy of the rest of her teachings, dreams, visions, and prophecies. I did mention one of her dreams in Appendix 2 above because it seemed to be validated by the two other people's dreams/visions, but I have always felt somewhat skeptical of the rest of her claims.

Typically, the claim regarding this "three days of darkness" is that there will be three days of supernatural darkness all around the world, during which Christians are supposed to hunker down in our homes, lock all our doors and windows, light candles, and pray/fast. In some versions of this prophecy, they say demons will be released that will go around in the darkness outside where they will attack non-believers and try to break into Christians' homes. This prophecy traces back to a Catholic mystic in the 1700s.25

It is true that one of the ten plagues of Egypt before the Exodus involved three days of darkness coming across Egypt that was so dense that no one could do anything, although there was light where the Israelites lived (Exodus 10:21-23). Darkness will also come over the Antichrist's kingdom during the fifth Bowl judgment of the Tribulation (Revelation 16:10-11). And yes, there were three hours of darkness when Jesus was hanging on the cross (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44).

There is also the prophecy in Joel 2:31 that "the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes" (ESV). I believe this prophecy could have a dual fulfillment, since it was quoted by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:19-20), likely in reference to the events that occurred during the day of Jesus' crucifixion, and the night after.26 This prophecy may also be fulfilled again during the sixth Seal judgment of the Tribulation (Revelation 6:12).

However, this idea of there specifically being three days of darkness before the Rapture is not found anywhere in the Bible. And there definitely isn't anything in the Bible about hordes of demons being unleashed during a period of three days of darkness, and Christians having to hide inside and pray in order to be safe from them.

We need to remember that Christians have nothing to fear from demons, because the Holy Spirit in us is more powerful than they are (1 John 4:4). Satan flees when we resist him (James 4:7). There are even documented instances of Christians being able to instantly stop demonically-empowered 'alien abductions' from occurring by calling out to Jesus, as I reported on in my post here.

Additionally, the idea of there being a dramatic supernatural worldwide event before the Rapture goes against clear Bible verses which say that people will be living their lives like normal right up until when the Rapture happens (Luke 17:26-30, Matthew 24:37-39). Therefore, because there is no warning given to the world before it happens, the Rapture will catch most of the world completely off guard, like a thief who breaks into a home at night (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6).

So the fact that this prophecy of the three days of darkness has also not been called out as being false and unbiblical by more end-times watchers does have me concerned about the level of spiritual discernment of those who endorse it. It seems that they are putting their own dreams and visions above the Bible, rather than testing their dreams and visions against what the Bible says.

Despite all of this, Christians who are watching for the Rapture are still seeing signs in the world around us that the Tribulation is very near. This means the Rapture is even nearer than that, since there are many good reasons why the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation begins.

Most notably, the UN Security Council voted on November 17 to endorse President Trump's Israel-Gaza peace plan.27 To me, I think this could very well be the "covenant with many" (Daniel 9:27, NIV) which the Antichrist will confirm/strengthen/make greater when he comes on the world scene after the Rapture. I suspect the confirming/strengthening of the covenant will happen by the Antichrist adding a definite seven-year period to the covenant, and allowing Israel to rebuild their temple on the Temple Mount.

I find it interesting that supposedly, the de-facto leader of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman, wants Israel to "agree to an irreversible path to a Palestinian state with a hard deadline" before Saudi Arabia would agree to join the Abraham Accords.28 This same emphasis appeared at a UN conference that was held back at the end of July, which issued something called the "New York Declaration." This declaration included statements saying they want to create a specific timeline of "concrete, time-bound, and irreversible steps" for the resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue through a two-state solution.29

So it could be that everything is now in place for the Tribulation to begin, and all that we are waiting for is for the Rapture to happen, so that the Antichrist can be revealed to the world and improve on Trump's peace plan (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8).

Therefore, Christians should still not give up on watching for the Rapture, regardless of whether there is a plausible high-watch date in the near future, or not.

Yet I hope we would all use discernment and put the Bible first above any other dreams and visions which seem to blatantly contradict what the Bible teaches about the Rapture.

I also hope we will stand up for the true gospel message of eternal salvation, which is that we are eternally saved by putting our faith in Christ alone, period. Our eternal salvation doesn't depend at all on our personal holiness or good works, but only on the one 'work' of believing in Jesus as our Savior (John 6:28-29), who died on the cross to pay the penalty for all our sin (Hebrews 9:26, 10:12-14, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:21-28).

Furthermore, after we have believed this, our salvation cannot be lost because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of our bodily redemption at the Rapture (Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, Luke 21:28, Romans 8:23).

Thus, 'once saved always saved' is a thoroughly biblical teaching, and it really is the heart of the true gospel message. Don't believe anyone who preaches anything different, even if they are an angel from heaven (Galatians 1:8), or just someone on the internet who claims to have had a dream or vision that says otherwise.

Footnotes:

1. A good documentary on the subject of a Galilean wedding and allusions to the Rapture is titled "Before the Wrath" (2020) which can be found on YouTube. The biblical and scholarly research behind this documentary is available for free download in a .pdf from the documentary's technical advisor, Jay McCarl, at https://jaymccarl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/references-active-draft-rev-12e2809326-24.pdf. An additional more reader-friendly FAQ about his research is posted on his site https://jaymccarl.com/what-is-a-galilean-wedding/galilean-wedding-faqs/.
2. Even major news organizations picked up on all the discussion about the Rapture possibly occurring on September 23-24, 2025. See Danielle Greyman-Kennard, Why is the Rapture trending right now? — explainer, The Jerusalem Post, September 24, 2025.
3. "Unexpected Response from Mr Joshua on RAPTURE failure! Rapture is still happening | Why I'm not Sorry", CentTwinz TV, September 26, 2025, accessed September 27, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ4ewrTvOyY.
4. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 148-150.
5. Corinne Baum, James Genn, "Netanyahu agrees to Trump's peace plan, US president confirms", The Jerusalem Post, September 29, 2025.
6. Guy Elster, Idan Kweller, "Trump's Gaza ultimatum: 'Three to four days' to accept peace plan", The Jerusalem Post, September 30, 2025.
7. Amichai Stein,"Qatar tells US it can convince Hamas to disarm, accept Trump plan", The Jerusalem Post, September 29, 2025.
8. Elis Gjevori, "Here’s the full text of Trump’s 20-point plan to end Israel’s war on Gaza", Aljazeera, September 29, 2025.
9. Jacob Magid and Lazar Berman,"Trump unveils ‘historic’ Gaza peace plan, hails backing from Israel, Arab and Muslim states", The Times of Israel, September 30, 2025.
10. "The Puzzle that Confused the World (WITH AUDIO)", Where 2 or More Gather in His Name, October 27, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXCyavhZGnI. Another video which shows the same info in a slightly different format is "Congratulations team #rapture watch! You cracked it! #Rapture final update", Rapture Ready, October 27, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hGfLcHD4N4.
11. Joshua Mhlakela, posted October 14, 2025 on his channel Exodus 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxLLq-7A1bWS3GeWmB_4KUCZ6Z-Rgno8g2
12. "Unlocking the "Hidden Day" - OCT 23 Feast of Trumpets PROOF!", JudahLionKing, October 25, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkw9qarP6TM. He refers to an article by Jenna Zadaka, "Introduction to the Jewish Zodiac", At The Well to verify that Libra is the constellation that is properly associated with the Jewish month of Tishri.
13. It is argued that the moon must be at least seven percent full before it counts as the first day on the Enoch calendar, according to the research highlighted in the videos "Update: Rapture Tribulation Sunset to Sunset Oct 24-25 Full explanation for Joshua and everyone", Amanda, October 24, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeXLIv4KPpU, and "Explanation FOT Moon at 7% Rapture before sunset Israel time", Amanda, October 24, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV3aN4wgorA
14. Stellarium, https://stellarium-web.org/
15. The same info is highlighted in the video "100% PROOF OF (The Real 7th Month - Yom Teruah!) OCT 23 & 24 RAPTURE??? MUST WATCH!", JudahLionKing, October 22, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXQ70HWMyCA. He also demonstrates how a lunar-solar calendar works with a helpful animation, beginning at timestamp 16:14.
16. Hlengiwe Mchunu has also made several appearances on the CentTwinzTV podcast. After the September 23-24th date passed, her next inteview was titled "My first encounter in Heaven explains why RAPTURE didn’t happen| Why I’m not a false prophet|Part4", CentTwinz TV, October 4, 2025, accessed at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quTotZwu9Nc. Here, she affirms that Jesus told her he is still coming on September 23-24, 2025. She said that when God first took her to heaven to show her the calendar, she saw it labelled not with numbers, but with circles shaded to look like different phases of the moon. Then God told her that the full moon was the first of the month.
17. "True Enoch Calendar?", September, October 18, 2025, accessed at YouTube on October 30, 2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms9RLa4fRX4. See also "Oct 23-24 | 13th Leap Month Reveals God’s Calendar", Lightwarriors Rising Every Day, October 21, 2025, accessed at YouTube on October 30, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHIXV_2r6yM
18. Randy Nettles, "The Day of the Dead and the Great Flood", Rev310.net, November 17, 2023.
19. "Reformation Day", Wikipedia.org. Accessed November 1, 2025.
20. "All Saints' Day", Wikipedia.org. Accessed October 30, 2025.
21. "My Rapture Confirmations For October 23-24! @Waitingforjesusrapturenow @letstalkaboutittv.LetsTalk", Irene for Christ, October 20, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7kxQKGManI
22. "Hlengiwe's vision! Watch dates were puzzles - we got them right! Jesus is pleased!", Amanda, October 25, 2025, accessed October 30, 2025, at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJETkcg0Yqs
23. "The Significance of the 4th Watch", www.theglobalwatch.com, accessed October 30, 2025.
24. Hlengiwe Mchunu, "3 Days of Darkness Explained|There’s a difference between Rapture and the 2nd Coming of Jesus| Part3", CentTwinz TV, September 20, 2025, accessed at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35jbjbcF_8 on November 26, 2025.
25. "Three Days of Darkness", Wikipedia.org, accessed November 26, 2025.
26. See "Peter's Argument" and "The Celestial Dirge", The Star of Bethlehem, accessed November 26, 2025 at https://bethlehemstar.com.
27. James Genn, "WATCH: UNSC votes in support of Trump's Gaza peace plan", The Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2025.
28. "Strains emerge in US–Saudi talks on Israel normalization, Axios reports", The Jerusalem Post, November 25, 2025.
29. "UN conference launches 'New York Declaration' calling on ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the two-state solution," WAFA News Agency, July 30, 2025.

The Case for the Rapture on September 23 or 24, 2025

2025-09-08T00:00:00+00:00

This summer, there has been a lot of hype among online end-times watchers regarding the possibility that Jesus may return to take all true Christians to heaven at the Rapture this September.

More specifically, many end-times watchers believe the Rapture could happen during this upcoming Feast of Trumpets, also called Rosh Hashana, which is the feast that starts the Jewish new year. This year, the Feast of Trumpets is on September 23-24, 2025.

In the past, I commented on how it seemed that in 2023, there was also a lot going on around the Feast of Trumpets which made it a very 'high-watch' time for the Rapture. Yet since the Rapture did not happen then, clearly, it was not the right time.

However, the fact that the Rapture did not happen then does not mean that the Rapture will never happen. Indeed, every day that goes by makes the Rapture more likely.

The signs of the end times have not disappeared, and Jesus said that we should only expect them to increase in frequency and intensity, like a pregnant woman's contractions do when she is in labor (Matthew 24:8, Mark 13:8, 1 Thessalonians 5:3).

We are also running out of time for the seven-year Tribulation and Jesus' second coming to occur before the two-thousandth anniversary of Jesus' death and resurrection, which occurred at Passover on one of the years between 30 and 33 AD.

Jesus recommends that Christians should be watching for his return (Matthew 24:42-44, Luke 21:34-36, 12:35-40). There is also a special heavenly reward called the 'crown of righteousness' for Christians who long for and love Jesus' return (2 Timothy 4:8).

Therefore, I wanted to provide an update of what I see happening this year in September which makes it a 'high-watch' time for the Rapture to potentially occur. I hope that Christians who read this post will be extra-watchful and ready for Jesus' return, and perhaps also be motivated to share the gospel with their currently-unsaved loved ones again, just in case.

I also wanted to do this post so that, in case the Rapture really does happen this September, this post will be evidence that Christians knew ahead of time about the Rapture happening during this time period. This should help prove that the reason millions of people suddenly disappeared was not due to a mass alien abduction, or whatever other excuse the media and governments will invent to try to cover it up.

So if you do not currently believe in Jesus, the next few weeks would be a very good time to consider the gospel message and believe in Jesus, so that in case the Rapture does happen, you will not be left behind to suffer through the seven-year Tribulation.

Jesus said the seven years of the Tribulation would be the worst period of time in the entire history of the world (Matthew 24:21), so it is definitely worthwhile to avoid it by being raptured instead. It costs you nothing but to believe that Jesus died for your sins, so that you can have eternal life.

For those who claim this is 'escapism', Jesus himself specifically said that we should desire to be counted worthy to escape all these terrible things that are going to come upon the Earth in the end times (Luke 21:36, KJV). Just read the Book of Revelation and see the variety of disastrous wars, plagues, and other divine judgments that will make the earth nearly uninhabitable by the end of the Tribulation.

Below, I will provide several reasons why the Feast of Trumpets this year is a very high-watch period for the Rapture.

But No One Knows the Day or Hour

As soon as some Christians start talking about high watch periods for the Rapture, other Christians will immediately bring up Matthew 24:36 or Mark 13:32, which both say,

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (ESV)

The implication is that no one can know exactly when Jesus will come back at the Rapture.

We know that this verse is specifically referring to the Rapture, because it will be possible for people during the Tribulation to calculate the time of Jesus' second coming.

Daniel specifies that there will be 1290 days from when the Abomination of Desolation occurs to the end of the Tribulation (Daniel 12:11). The Abomination of Desolation will happen when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish temple (Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and he will likely kill the two witnesses in Jerusalem either shortly before or after his declaration (Revelation 11:7).

Daniel's prophecy means that it should be possible for people who are alive during the Tribulation to know the exact day of the end of the Tribulation, which would be at Jesus' second coming when he destroys the Antichrist, False Prophet, and all the armies that will be gathered against Jerusalem (Revelation 19:11-21, 16:12-21, Zechariah 14:1-21).

John also tells us that the first half of the Tribulation, when the two witnesses will be prophesying in Jerusalem will last 1260 days (Revelation 11:3). The world will be ruled directly by the Antichrist will be another period of 42 months, or 1260 days, using the 'prophetic' calendar of 360 days per year, with 30 days per month (Revelation 13:5).

When John's prophecies are taken together, we learn that the Tribulation will last at least 2520 days (1260 plus 1260 days), but Daniel's prophecy extends this to 2550 days (1260 plus 1290 days).

We know these exact numbers of days cannot be incorrect, because they were given from God to John, and from God to Daniel via the angel Gabriel (Daniel 9:20-23). God does not lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), and by extension, God's holy angels do not lie, either.

Thus, when Jesus talks about the days of the Tribulation being shortened, or else no one would survive it (Matthew 24:22), I believe it makes the most sense for Jesus to have been talking not about the number of days, but the length of the days.

This claim may be confirmed by how in Revelation 8:12, the Fourth Trumpet judgment causes the sun to not shine for a third of the day, and the moon and stars to not shine for a third of the night.

Now, some commentators might say that this judgment simply means the sky will be cloudy or dark for this period of time each day for some reason.

However, if the atmosphere were filled with smoke, ash, or dust of some sort, I don't think that it would suddenly clear up for the remaining two-thirds of each day/night. Plus, even if the sky is cloudy or full of smoke, ash, or dust, the sun and moon would technically still be shining, even if people on Earth couldn't see them.

But if the days and nights were somehow divinely shortened to last only two-thirds as long as before (i.e. the sun and moon only shine for 2/3 their usual time), so that we get, say, a 16 hour day, rather than a 24 hour day, then this could explain how both the exact number of days of the Tribulation could be fulfilled, even as the 'days' of the Tribulation are simultaneously shortened so that people can survive it.

God can clearly do such things if he desires to, such as when God extended the day for Joshua and the Israelites to be victorious over their enemies (Joshua 10:12-14), or when God apparently moved the position of the Earth or time itself backward as a sign to King Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:9-11, Isaiah 38:7-8). If God can do these things, then speeding up time during a portion of the Tribulation wouldn't be difficult for God to do.

Anyway, in summary, we know from the Bible that the Tribulation will last exactly 2550 days.

This detail will help not only the people who are left behind during the Tribulation count down to the day of Jesus' second coming, but it might even help Christians today foresee the day of the Rapture, as will be shown in the next section.

Calculating the Possible Years of the Tribulation

Recently, it has been noted among end-times watchers that there are exactly 2550 days between the Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah 2025, and the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur in 2032. This is presuming that we use the first day of Rosh Hashanah in 2025 as September 22, when it begins at nightfall in Israel, and the last day of Yom Kippur in 2032, which would be September 15.

It is often noted that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection fulfilled three Old Testament spring feasts to the exact day during his first coming (Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits).1 The Holy Spirit was also given in a special way to Jesus' followers on the exact day of the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).

Because of these precedents, it is often expected that Jesus will also fulfill the three remaining Old Testament autumn feasts to the exact day with events that will be related to his second coming. These feasts are: The Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah/Yom Teruah, the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur, and the Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot.

The next major end-times event is the Rapture and the start of the Tribulation. It turns out that this event fits surprisingly well with the details of the Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah.

The Feast of Trumpets is the celebration of the Jewish new year. As the name suggests, the ceremony involved blowing several trumpets. Two major descriptions of the Rapture say it will occur along with the sounding of the "trumpet of God" (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18) which may also be called the "last trumpet" (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

In the Old Testament, trumpets were blown to announce a call for the people to assemble together, a command for the people to move out from their current position, a call to go to war, a notice for people to prepare to hear an announcement, a warning to the people about judgment, or as a call for people to come celebrate and worship God.2

Several of these meanings could correspond well with how the Rapture will be a call for resurrected/glorified Christians to come assemble together with Jesus in the clouds, to move out from this world, and to announce the celebration and worship that will occur in heaven afterward (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-56, Revelation 4:1).

To those left behind, it would be a warning of the coming Tribulation judgment, and also God's declaration of war against Satan and his demons (Revelation 12:7-8).

Similarly, the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur, which occurs ten days later from the Feast of Trumpets, would then correspond with Jesus' second coming.

The Day of Atonement was a time for the people of Israel to confess their sins, feel remorse, and repent by turning away from their sins. This is exactly what the surviving one-third of the Jewish people will do at Jesus' second coming, when they will finally recognize him as their Messiah, despite having rejected him for so long, and will recognize their mistake, mourn, and repent (Zechariah 12:10, 13:8-9, Luke 13:34-35, Romans 11:11-24).3

The final autumn Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot is then a foreshadowing of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom, during which, all the nations will be expected to celebrate this feast or they will not receive rain for their crops (Zechariah 14:16-19).4

So let's return to the claim that between the first day of Rosh Hashanah 2025 and the last day of Yom Kippur 2032 there will be exactly 2550 days, which lines up with the exact number of days that the Tribulation will last, according to Daniel and John.

The interesting thing is that if this same calculation is done for other years in the near future, there are either 29 days too many, or one day too few or too many:

September 22, 2025, to September 15, 2032: 2550 days.
September 11, 2026, to October 3, 2033: 2579 days.
October 1, 2027, to September 23, 2034: 2549 days.
September 20, 2028, to October 13, 2035: 2579 days.
September 9, 2029, to October 1, 2036: 2579 days.
September 27, 2030, to September 19, 2037: 2549 days.
September 17, 2031, to October 9, 2038: 2579 days.
September 5, 2032, to September 28, 2039: 2579 days.
September 23, 2033, to September 17, 2040: 2551 days.

Now, depending on whether we count the last day of the Day of Atonement as being part of the total number of days or not, we could potentially end up with there also being 2550 days in the spans of years from 2027 to 2034, and 2030 to 2037.5

However, the only span of years where we get 2550 days between these two autumn feasts AND where Jesus' second coming would occur exactly two-thousand years from one of the years in which he may have been crucified (30 to 33 AD) narrows the possibilities down to only one: 2025 to 2032.

That's very interesting.

The Year of Jesus' Second Coming

But why must Jesus' second coming occur exactly two thousand years from his crucifixion?

This is related to the idea that there will be only seven thousand years of human history from the creation of the world to the end of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom.

This claim is based on extrapolating from the seven days that God took to create the world in Genesis chapter 1, and using the principle that to God, a thousand of our years are only like a day, as stated in 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4.

Jesus' Millennial Kingdom must last for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-4), and it will be a time of peace and prosperity for the world. This matches well with the seventh day of creation when God rested and simply enjoyed what he had created, which at that time was still fully good and untainted by sin (Genesis 2:1-3).

That leaves six thousand years from Adam to Jesus' second coming.

In my older post where I discussed the possibility of the Rapture occurring in 2023, I mentioned an interesting documentary called Messiah 2030, which makes a case for the idea that Jesus would return in 2030. The documentary's argument was partly based on this seven-thousand year timeline, which the documentary argues is confirmed by many other instances of biblical typology.6

This documentary also argues that, based on this timeline, Jesus' second coming will be 2000 years from his death and resurrection, which they argued occurred in 30 AD. This claim was based on a number of unusual things that were documented as beginning to happen in the Jewish temple starting in 30 AD, which this documentary suggests showed that God was no longer pleased with the Jewish sacrificial system, perhaps because Jesus was crucified in 30 AD as the last and final sacrifice for all sin (i.e., Hebrews 10:12-14).

30 AD would also fit nicely with there being exactly a 40 year gap between Jesus' crucifixion and when the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. In the Bible, God often uses the number 40 as a time of testing, such as when Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness being tested (Matthew 4:2), or when Israel spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness as a judgment on their lack of faith (Numbers 14:34).

However, if we used an exact two-thousand year count from 30 AD for Jesus' second coming, that would bring us to 2030. Subtracting seven years for the Tribulation would have meant that the Tribulation would have had to start in 2023.

Yet there are many good reasons why the Rapture must occur before the Tribulation begins, and yet Christians are still here (at least as of the date of this blog post), so by this fact, we know the Tribulation has not yet begun. Therefore, Jesus' second coming must be at least seven years in the future from now.

And we know that the Millennial Kingdom is a full thousand years, during which time Satan will be locked in the bottomless pit so that he is unable to deceive the nations (Revelation 20:2).

Therefore, Jesus' second coming where he defeats Satan's henchmen the Antichrist and False Prophet, who will have helped Satan deceive the world and convince so many people to take the Mark of the Beast during the Tribulation (Revelation 19:19-21), must happen before the official start of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom.

Basically, I'm just arguing that no part of the Tribulation will take place during the first seven years of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom. It has to be a full thousand years, and Jesus would not share any of that time with Satan or the Antichrist.

Therefore, since the generally-accepted range of years in which Jesus was crucified are from 30 to 33 AD, that means there is good reason for Christians to expect Jesus' second coming somewhere between 2030 to 2033, and not later.

Since it is already 2025, and the Tribulation is seven years long, we must eliminate 2030 and 2031 as being possible years for Jesus' second coming. That leaves us with two possible years: 2032, and 2033.

I admit that, based on the evidence presented in the Messiah 2030 documentary, and which I summarize in the Appendix of my post regarding 2023, it is a little perplexing why Jesus' crucifixion would actually have been in 32 or 33 AD, if prophetically significant signs began occurring in the Jewish Temple in 30 AD and lasted until its destruction in 70 AD. If Jesus' death was in 32 or 33 AD, it would lead to a period of only 38 or 37 years between then and the destruction of the temple, rather than a full 40.

My only speculation is that if those 40 years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD were truly supposed to be a divine time of testing for Israel, then perhaps that time period did begin in 30 AD, around the start of Jesus' ministry, or perhaps at the time when the Jewish religious leaders began to reject Jesus' teachings.

However, the Messiah 2030 documentary's overall point that there are many good reasons taken from the Bible to expect a two thousand year period between Jesus' resurrection and his second coming are still valid, even if the year the documentary predicted for Jesus' second coming is wrong.

So now the only question is, did Jesus die in 32 or 33 AD?

32 or 33 AD?

In Daniel chapter 9:24-27, the prophet Daniel received a timeline from the angel Gabriel regarding Israel's future. This timeline was presented as a period of seventy 'weeks' or 'sevens' of years, which if we do the math, adds up to 490 years. This period of time was given to Israel in order for them

To finish the transgression, to make an end of sins, to make reconciliation for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. (Daniel 9:24, NKJV)

This objective will be achieved when Israel finally stops repeating their long history of turning away from God, acknowledges Jesus as their true Messiah/Christ (meaning 'anointed one' in Hebrew and Greek) at his second coming, and submits to Jesus as their rightful king.

However, this 490 years is broken into two distinct periods: Seven plus sixty-two 'weeks', totaling sixty-nine 'weeks' of years from the time that a decree would be given to rebuild and restore Jerusalem, until the Messiah would come and be 'cut off' (i.e., killed), and at some point after this, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed (Daniel 9:25-26).

Then the final seven years would begin when the "prince" who would come from the same group of people that destroyed the Jewish Temple would confirm a seven-year covenant with "many" (Daniel 9:27). This final seven years is typically correlated with the Tribulation period, as will be discussed later in this post.

For our purposes right now, we are interested in the first sixty-nine 'weeks' or 'sevens' of Daniel's prophecy.

If we can calculate sixty nine 'weeks' of years from the time the decree to rebuild and restore Jerusalem was issued to the time when the Messiah was killed, then this should give us the year of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Sixty nine 'weeks' of years would be 483 years. Now we just need to know when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued. The issuing of this decree is documented in Nehemiah chapter 2.

Here, King Artaxerxes granted Nehemiah's request to allow Nehemiah to return to Israel and organize the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The date is given in the Hebrew month of Nisan (March) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign (Nehemiah 2:1).

Now the challenge is to translate this date into our Gregorian calendar system.

There is some debate regarding whether the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign was in 445 BC or 444 BC. The issue seems to be whether Artaxerxes' first year of ruling should be counted as part of his real 'reign', or whether it was only part of the 'accession' year which would not have been counted.

Either way, Daniel's prophecy of 483 'prophetic' years of 360 days per year leads to a total of 173,880 days. If this number of days is added to March of 444 or 445 BC, it leads us to April in either 32 or 33 AD.

There are a number of credible scholars who all agree that April 3, 33 AD is the most likely date for Jesus' crucifixion. This is based on historical facts of when certain figures such as Herod and Pilate were in power, and which years Passover was on a Saturday, so that Jesus could be crucified on a Friday as tradition and Scripture indicate (i.e. Mark 15:42-43, Luke 23:54, John 19:31).7

These scholars also consider the dates of lunar eclipses, if we want there to have been a lunar eclipse/blood moon visible from Jerusalem the night after the crucifixion, to go along with the mysterious darkness that lasted for three hours during Jesus' crucifixion. Both of these events were referred to by Peter during his speech at the day of Pentecost (Matthew 27:45, Mark 15:33, Luke 23:44, Acts 2:19-21).

Additional historical evidence for 33 AD is provided by the Greek historian Phlegon who refers to a mysterious darkness that turned the day to night around noon sometime in 33 AD, at the same time as an earthquake occurred. This earthquake is testified to in Matthew 27:51-54.8 So there are multiple ways of confirming that 33 AD was truly the year when Jesus died.

If we use March 13, 444 BC as the date of Artaxerxes' decree to rebuild Jerusalem, and as the start of Daniel's 483 'prophetic' year countdown, 173,880 days later would land exactly on April 3, 33 AD. If we wanted to move the end date of Daniel's prophecy to occur on Palm Sunday (March 29, 33 AD), when Jesus was proclaimed as the Messiah as he rode into Jerusalem but was rejected by the religious leaders (John 12:12-19), then Artaxerxes' decree would have been given on March 8, 444 BC.9 Either way, Daniel's prophecy fits the historical facts perfectly.

Yet, given that as shown earlier, the most likely range of years for the Tribulation that allows for Jesus' second coming to be on the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur on or before 2033 is from 2025-2032, I believe that even if Jesus' crucifixion occurred in 33 AD, he could very well return at the Day of Atonement in 2032, which would be only six months short of the two-thousandth anniversary of his death and resurrection.

This way, the two-thousandth anniversary of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection would occur during the first six months of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom, when this anniversary could be given an appropriate level of celebration and honor by everyone in the world.

In contrast, if Jesus returned at the Day of Atonement 2033, this would place the two-thousandth anniversary of his death and resurrection during the final six months of the Tribulation. At this point, the world would be in a truly horrific state, and the few Christians left alive who have escaped being hunted down and beheaded by the Antichrist (Revelation 13:7-8, 20:4) would likely be focused purely on survival.

And as shown earlier, there are too many days between the Feast of Trumpets 2026 and the Day of Atonement 2033 to fit with John's and Daniel's prophecies.

Therefore, I believe that the Rapture occurring at the Feast of Trumpets/Rosh Hashanah 2025, on September 23-24 fits very well with both a number of biblical prophecies and historical details that all point to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection having occurred in 33 AD, and his second coming occurring only six months short of exactly two thousand years since this monumental theological event, at the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur on September 15, 2032.

But No One Knows the Day or Hour!

But again, what about Jesus' statement that no one will know the day or hour of his return at the Rapture?

Some commentators think that Jesus was actually alluding to the Feast of Trumpets when he said no one would know the day or hour of his coming.

The Feast of Trumpets would only start once the bright sliver at the edge of a new moon was spotted in Israel by two witnesses who would report it to the religious leaders in Jerusalem. The start of the feast would then be announced by blowing a trumpet. So the exact day and hour that the Feast of Trumpets officially began depended on the weather (since clouds would keep witnesses from seeing the moon).10

This is why the Feast of Trumpets spans a two-day period, because if the sliver of the new moon was not spotted on the first day of the feast, it would likely be spotted on the second day.

There may also be some connection between Jesus' phrase in Matthew 24:36 and a first-century Jewish/Galilean wedding, which would only occur when the groom's father gave the approval to go ahead with the celebration. Therefore, no one besides the groom's father could be 100% sure when it would start.11 We are told in Ephesians 5:22-32 that human marriage is a symbol of Jesus' relationship with the Church (i.e., all true Christians).

If we consider that the Church got engaged to Jesus at the last supper before he was arrested, when he offered his disciples the cup of wine (Matthew 26:27, Mark 14:23, Luke 22:17-20), then the Church will be officially married to Jesus at the Rapture, when he comes back to take Christians to heaven to live in his Father's house (John 14:1-3) for seven days (i.e., the seven years of the Tribulation), and afterward, hold a wedding feast (Revelation 19:6-10).12

Then Jesus and the Church return to Earth together at Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:11-21), where the Church is depicted as being part of Jesus' heavenly armies on white horses (Revelation 19:14, Jude 1:14-15).

Thus, overall, the symbolism of both the Feast of Trumpets and of a Jewish/Galilean wedding, both of which are tied to the idea that no one but God the Father knows the exact day or hour when they will begin, fits very well with the Rapture.

Even if we take Jesus' words the most literally, because the Feast of Trumpets spans a two-day period, anyone who suggests that Jesus will return sometime during the Feast of Trumpets is not violating Jesus' prophecy.

Indeed, simply because the world is a sphere, the planet is always spanning two different calendar days. So the Rapture will certainly occur on one calendar day for part of the world, and the next calendar day for the rest. The exact hour in which the Rapture occurs will also be different in each time zone. Thus, some people will be awake and working when the Rapture happens, and others will be asleep (Luke 17:34-35).

However, there are hints that if Christians are watching, we will not be completely surprised by the Rapture:

In Revelation, Jesus says something similar to the Church of Sardis:

Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. (Revelation 3:3, NKJV)

This repeats Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:45-51, that if Jesus' servants are not watching for his return, he will arrive at a time when these servants are not expecting him. This is more evidence for the idea that life will remain generally 'normal' for most people right up until the Rapture.

On the flip side, however, these verses also imply that if we are watching, we should know when Jesus will be returning.

So it is certainly possible that Christians who are watching for the signs of the end times will know, within the approximate range of a day or two, when the Rapture will occur, and perhaps even the year when it is likely to occur, based on all that has been discussed above.

Joshua's Prophecy of September 23-24 2025, and Many Confirmations

What is especially interesting this year, is that there actually is someone who is claiming that Jesus directly told him that the Rapture will definitely occur this year during the Feast of Trumpets, on either September 23 or 24, and that Jesus' second coming will happen seven years later on the Day of Atonement, September 15, 2032.

His name is Joshua Mhlakela, a former pastor from South Africa.

He first went public with this information on an online YouTube podcast by CentTwinz TV, back on June 17, 2025.13 A follow-up interview on this same Youtube channel took place July 22, 2025.14

In these interviews, Joshua outlines a series of supernatural events, dreams, and visions he had which convinced him that God had a divine purpose for his life, and which prepared him for his ultimate task of revealing the date of the Rapture to the world.

Joshua repeated this personal testimony on another Christian YouTube podcast on August 29, 2025, where he addressed a few criticisms of his testimony.15

Basically, Joshua said that back in 2018, one morning during his devotional time, Jesus literally appeared to him in person and told him this information with these exact dates.

Jesus also said to him that the 2026 World Cup soccer tournament would not occur because the world will be in such a state of disarray due to the Rapture and onset of the Tribulation.

Joshua was told that from when Israel became a nation in 1948, until 'the exodus', meaning the Rapture, there would be 77 years. That would bring us to 2025.

Regarding the specific days of the Rapture, the exact words Joshua received from Jesus were:

"On the 23rd and 24th of September, 2025, I will come to take my Church. In these two days, no one knows the day or hour when I will come. Then after, there will be a seven year Tribulation on Earth for those left behind. On the 15th of September, 2032, I will return to Earth as King."

Joshua admits that in the past, predictions for the Rapture date have failed. Yet he says,

"I promise you, days have come and gone. Days have been spoken and they came to nothing. But not this one. I give you a billion percent that on the 23rd or 24th of 2025, the Rapture of the Church will take place."

Earlier this year, Joshua felt God telling him it was time to begin sharing this information publicly, to warn the world that Jesus is coming, and to give the "last call" to the world to turn to Jesus before the Tribulation begins.

Joshua does seem to have an ideal personality for such a mission, because he does not seem to mind being criticized or questioned, and appears to remain calm and yet very humble in all of these interviews. He says he does not want the attention for himself, but only wants God to be glorified, and for people to hear the gospel and be saved before the Rapture happens.

Since these interviews went live, there has been a flurry of debate among Youtube end-time watchers. Some are calling Joshua a false prophet, while others argue that nothing Joshua has said is inherently unbiblical, and that we would have to at least wait until the date passes to truly be able to say that he got it wrong.

These interviews with Joshua do seem to have brought out an even larger number of mockers and scoffers who are fulfilling Peter's prophecy that,

scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation". (2 Peter 3:3)

However, many other Christians are creating YouTube videos about how they prayed to God to and asked God confirm whether what Joshua has said is true, and whether the Rapture really will happen this year at the Feast of Trumpets, on the 23rd or 24th of September. And they are receiving positive responses of various sorts, many of which even involve the numbers 9 (for September as the 9th month) and 23 or 24.

Some of these confirmations have even come through comments, dreams, or visions of Christians' children. A few Christians have said that they were given preemptive confirmations regarding the Feast of Trumpets this year back even before they knew about Joshua's prophecy.

I've watched a decent number of these videos, and even though the ways that God is supposedly 'confirming' this date to Christians are rather unusual or highly personal, these people themselves all believe it is true, and they feel a sense of hope, joy, and peace, as well as urgency to share the gospel message.

Some of these people say they even created their first YouTube videos just to share their confirmations, so it is not as if these confirmations are only coming out on established channels that are trying to gain fame by riding on Joshua's coattails.

Among those who support Joshua and believe his message, they often argue that it makes sense that God would tell Christians who are watching for him the date of the Rapture.

One frequently cited verse to this effect is Amos 3:7:

For the Lord God does nothing without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets. (ESV)

Another is the same verse Peter quoted at Pentecost, Joel 2:28-29:

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. (ESV)

So it is not unreasonable or unbiblical to say that God might give revelation through dreams or visions to Christians, and even reveal things about the future to them.

Personally, I would rather land on the side of those who are hopeful and joyful about the coming Rapture, rather than those who are scoffing and mocking and trying to discredit Joshua or others who are confirming his prophecy.

And as noted earlier in this post, there are Bible verses which hint that Christians who are watching for Jesus' return will have some idea or sense of when it will happen, so that we will not be completely shocked like the rest of the world will be.

Although I'm always a little hesitant about dreams and visions, and am personally more persuaded by the mathematical and typological approach outlined above, I do find all of this very interesting.

Since I've been personally paying attention to news and looking for the end times for at least 15 years now, I can also confirm what other end-times watchers are saying, that although in the past, there were certain days that were hyped by a few people or certain YouTube channels as being the time for the Rapture, there has never been such a large number of Christians of all sorts coming out and saying that God has personally revealed or confirmed to them that the Rapture will happen this year, even in September, and even on the 23rd to 24th of September.

The first time when Jesus came, the people said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?” (John 7:31). So basically, they were saying that if Jesus was not the Messiah, then the true Messiah would have to do even more miracles and signs than Jesus was doing.

I feel the same way about all of these warnings about the Rapture that people are supposedly getting from God. If this upcoming Feast of Trumpets will not be the Rapture, then how many more warnings would God have to give people through dreams, visions, or other means to get our attention to highlight when the Rapture will actually occur?

Furthermore, I do not see the harm in people sharing the gospel message and warning others to put their faith in Jesus. I don't think that Satan would be deceiving people, even children, by giving them warnings or confirmations of a false Rapture date, if these dreams and visions lead these people to share the gospel with others in the hope of others being eternally saved.

However, even if we completely discount Joshua's testimony and all these other Christians' confirmations of it, there are still very interesting things happening this year at the United Nations during the Feast of Trumpets which may confirm that the Tribulation truly could begin at this time.

The Covenant with Many

As noted earlier, the seventy 'weeks' in Daniel's prophecy are split into two: sixty-nine 'weeks' of years, and the final 'week' of seven years. The first sixty nine weeks ended when Jesus was crucified.

The final seven years will begin when the "prince" belonging to the same group of people as those who destroyed the Temple in 70 AD (i.e. the Romans), will come:

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. Daniel 9:27

This "prince" is typically identified as the Antichrist. He is also referred to as "the Beast" in the book of Revelation, and as the "little horn" in Daniel 7:23-27.

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 reassures us that the Rapture, a.k.a, "the departure" (in Greek, the apostasia, which is often unfortunately translated less literally as "the apostasy", "the rebellion", or "the falling away")16 happens before the Antichrist is revealed to the world. There are also many other good reasons why the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation begins. Therefore, these final seven years of Daniel's prophecy must be fulfilled during the Tribulation.

It is generally agreed by most Bible scholars who hold to a premillennial, pretribulational, and futurist perspective of the end-times that the revealing of the Antichrist by confirming/strengthening a seven-year covenant with "many" is the first Seal Judgment at the start of the Tribulation, as per Revelation 6:1-2.

Most often, this seven-year covenant is interpreted as being some sort of a peace treaty that will involve Israel, and it will likely give them permission to rebuild their Temple.

This is because we know the Temple must be functioning by the mid-way point of the Tribulation, when the Antichrist enters it to declare himself to be God, and stops the sacrifices (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15, Mark 13:14, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Yet currently, if Israel were to rebuild their temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, it would cause a massive outcry by all Muslim countries around the world and potential military retaliation, since Muslims also claim the Temple Mount which currently hosts the Al-Asqa mosque as a holy site for their faith.

For many decades, Jews were not even permitted to openly pray on the Temple Mount, although as of 2021, this standard has either been relaxed, or is no longer being enforced.17 Still, today, when notable Israelis go to pray on the Temple Mount, it makes international headlines due to the outrage expressed by certain groups of Muslims.18

So something must clearly happen to change this situation.

The idea of the Tribulation beginning with a peace covenant is also suggested in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3:

For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. (NKJV)

In addition, it is possible to argue that this peace deal would give Israel the illusion of being safe, but it would actually be a deal with death and Sheol/Hell for Israel, as is suggested in Isaiah 28:15.

It has been argued that if Israel were to ever agree to a two-state solution with the Palestinians on the basis of the borders that Israel had in 1967, it would basically be signing Israel's death certificate. This is because those borders are believed to make Israel too small to humanly defend if they were attacked.19

The Bible prophesies about how Israel will fight two more major wars that have not yet occurred in Israel's history (Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38), where Israel will be saved by God's miraculous intervention (Ezekiel 39:1-8). So it seems that the seven-year covenant the Antichrist would confirm with 'many' will likely be a peace deal between Israel and the countries that will be affected by these wars.

For example, if Damascus were destroyed by a nuclear bomb during one of these wars (Isaiah 17:1-14), the surrounding countries and the rest of the world would certainly be crying out for peace.

Thus, Christians who study the end times pay close attention to whether Israel is currently being threatened by any major wars, and if there are any seven-year peace treaties being proposed that might claim to solve the Israel-Palestinian tensions, especially if said treaty might force Israel back to the indefensible 1967 borders.

Progress Toward a Two-State Solution in 2025

In previous years, the Abraham Accords received a great deal of attention from end-times watchers because of how the major stated purpose behind the Abraham Accords is to bring some sort of regional peace to the Middle East by creating an alliance against Iran.20 Saudi Arabia has hinted that they would join the Abraham Accords and normalize ties with Israel if the Israel-Palestinian issue could be solved.21

In only the past few days, Saudi Arabia has threatened that they will not normalize ties with Israel if Israel goes ahead and annexes any part of the West Bank, which they want to be kept for a potential Palestinian state. The United Arab Emirates has also threatened to pull out of the Abraham Accords if Israel annexes the West Bank.22

However, presuming that Israel can achieve and maintain the goodwill of their neighbors, there is a plan by a group called the Coalition for Regional Security to expand and strengthen the Abraham Accords into something called the Abraham Shield.23

The goal of the Abraham Shield plan is "to create a new regional order that ensures Israel’s security".

Part of this Abraham Shield plan would include "an Israeli declaration of a gradual, responsible, secure path of separation from the Palestinians within a decade, as part of a comprehensive regional agreement."

Earlier this year, the idea of a truce between Israel and Hamas that would last between five to seven years had been proposed to end the Gaza war and return the remaining Israeli hostages who were taken on October 7, 2023.24

Given the above news articles, it is very interesting that multiple different attempts to bring peace between Israel and its neighbors are now talking not in terms of permanent peace treaties, but ones that involve timelines ranging from five to ten years. This shows that the outlines of a seven-year peace deal may be taking shape.

Until now, none of these proposals have been linked to a specific date, such as the Feast of Trumpets.

However, this year, Saudi Arabia and France will be co-chairing an international conference on September 22, 2025 in New York, during the same time as the United Nations' 80th General Assembly.

French President Emmanuel Macron says purpose of this conference is "to gather the broadest international support for a two-state solution, the only way to secure the aspirations of both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples."25

As a precursor to this conference, another UN conference was held back at the end of July, which issued something called the "New York Declaration." This declaration includes statements saying they want to create a specific timeline of "concrete, time-bound, and irreversible steps" for the resolution of the Israel-Palestine issue through a two-state solution.26

Perhaps not so coincidentally, then, France and Saudi Arabia's plan appears that it will effectively force a two-state solution on Israel, whether Israel likes it or not. If Israel does not go along with their plan, international sanctions would be imposed on them.27

France has also said that it plans to recognize the State of Palestine at the UN General Assembly this year, and so have Canada, Australia, and the UK. 147 out of 193 countries in the UN already recognize Palestine as a state.28

The UN's International Day of Peace is also being held this year on September 21.29

So although there has been much talk about a two-state solution in past years, it sounds like this time, if France and Saudi Arabia can get enough countries on board (which seems likely), they could potentially create or endorse a plan very much like the Abraham Shield plan to set a timeline of somewhere between five to ten years of steps that Israel must follow in order to create a Palestinian state, under the promise of bringing "peace and safety/security" to the region, and with threats of sanctions if Israel does not cooperate.

This sounds very much like the outline of a seven-year covenant that could be strengthened or confirmed by the Antichrist, who would come on the world scene during the chaos that would occur after the Rapture happens.

God warned that eventually, the nations of the world will cause a two-state solution to happen, which will divide the land of Israel. This will displease God, and is one of the reasons why God will judge the world during the Tribulation and at the final battle of Armageddon (Joel 3:2). Therefore, Christians should not support a two-state solution.

However, we do know that Bible prophecy will be fulfilled, and so somehow, a seven-year peace deal/covenant to create a two-state solution and divide Israel's land will be created. The only question is exactly how it will come about.

There were rumors earlier in the summer that Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's current Prime Minister, is on board with a two-state solution.30

And American President Trump is proposing a "Nobel-worthy mega-deal" that would resolve the Israel-Gaza war by expelling Hamas from Gaza, and the USA would oversee the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.31 So even the USA, which has traditionally been Israel's closest ally, is wanting to see a deal get done to resolve this war and lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

So it seems there is a lot of international attention this year on resolving the Israel-Gaza war, creating a two-state solution, and recognizing the State of Palestine.

The fact that the next conference on this issue at the UN chaired by France and Saudi Arabia will be on September 22, just before the Feast of Trumpets on September 23-24, could very well result in them making some sort of statement or declaration about their plan for "peace and safety/security" between Israel and the Palestinians.

If so, this could possibly fulfill the warning in 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3 that when they are saying these things, sudden destruction will come upon the world.

Sudden Destruction When They Say 'Peace and Safety'

The Rapture would certainly qualify as "sudden destruction", because of the many dangerous situations that would likely occur in Western countries that still have decent numbers of Christians if these Christians all suddenly disappeared while performing tasks such as driving cars, operating heavy machinery, flying airplanes, or doing surgery.

Around the world, panic and chaos would also occur if all children under the 'age of accountability' were also taken to heaven during the Rapture.32

Although children being raptured is not specifically mentioned in the Bible, it is a reasonable deduction from the obvious fact that at least the young dependent children of Christian parents/caretakers would need to go with their parents/caretakers in the Rapture. By extension, it would seem fair for God to also rescue all the rest of the world's children, to save them from going through the Tribulation.

We do know that Jesus has a special love for children (i.e. Luke 18:15-17, 8:49-56). God would also presumably not want raptured Christian parents to worry about their young children being left behind.

Furthermore, it would not be fair for children to be forced into taking the Mark of the Beast by their non-Christian parents or caretakers, and for these children to suffer the eternal consequences of that, without these children having made a personal free choice to reject Jesus and worship the Antichrist instead (Revelation 13:16, 14:9-11). So it may be that all children will be taken to heaven at the rapture to spare them from that outcome.33

As I argue in my post regarding whether an alien abduction will be the false explanation for the Rapture, if all the world's children were taken to heaven in the Rapture, this might provide the Antichrist with a powerful way to scare the world into going along with his plans.

The panic and chaos that would likely occur among people who are left behind at the Rapture could lead some to take advantage of it and loot stores and perhaps commit other forms of violence. This would be especially likely if police forces and the military lose a number of Christian members who otherwise could help maintain law and order.

If the resurrection of deceased Christians occurs with a major earthquake, like the smaller earthquake that occurred when some deceased saints came back to life when Jesus died (Matthew 27:51-54), such an earthquake could add to this "sudden destruction".

Some Christians have claimed they have had visions or dreams of a massive West-coast earthquake occurring around San Francisco and/or perhaps the Yellowstone caldera either immediately before, during, or just after the Rapture.

Another source of potential "sudden destruction" could come from how, if the USA and other Western countries who tend to support Israel are thrown into chaos by the Rapture, it could be an ideal time for Israel's enemies to coordinate their efforts and attempt to wipe Israel off the map (Psalm 83:1-18).

God's supernatural defense of Israel that results in the destruction of Israel's neighboring enemies, including perhaps the city of Damascus (Isaiah 17:1-14), could be the event that allows Israel to rebuild their Temple without international opposition, if the rebuilding of their Temple were not included already in a potential seven-year peace deal.

Therefore, the Psalm 83 war and God's supernatural defense of Israel could also qualify as the "sudden destruction", which could take place in the immediate aftermath of the Rapture, while Israel's western allies are in a state of chaos and confusion, and unable to organize to help defend Israel due to the numerous holes in their military and governmental command structures that would result from Christians in these positions having been raptured.

The Psalm 83 war taking place just after the Rapture would also set up the situation in Ezekiel 38-39 to occur later during the Tribulation, when the 'outer ring' of countries who are hostile to Israel will attempt to destroy Israel during a time when Israel is living at peace. The fact that none of the 'inner ring' of countries who are listed in Psalm 83 are listed in Ezekiel chapters 38-39 suggests that something has happened to disable or neutralize these countries' ability to join in this future attempted destruction of Israel.34

After the Rapture and the Psalm 83 war, the Antichrist might even throw in permission for Israel to rebuild their Temple into his strengthened peace deal/seven year covenant, if this detail could get Israel's right-wing religious political parties on board. Some commentators have suggested that sharing the Temple Mount might even be a bold symbol of peace.35

In his vision, John saw that the Temple, when it is rebuilt, would not include the outer court because this area would be given over to the nations (Revelation 11:1-2). So perhaps the Temple Mount will be shared between a rebuilt Temple and the current Al-Asqa Mosque during the Tribulation period.

And the Temple Institute in Israel, which is deeply involved in preparing everything that will be necessary to rebuild the Temple and re-start Jewish worship, on the 9th of Av this past summer put out a post on their social media saying that it's time to rebuild the Temple36

There was already a ceremony earlier this summer where the Temple Institute sacrificed and burnt a red heifer. There are still some questions about whether this was only a 'practice' ceremony, but some people who were intimately involved claim that they did use a perfectly-qualified red heifer, a qualified priest, and followed all the requirements for the sacrifice as outlined in the Torah. If this is true, it would make the ashes of this heifer qualified to be used to purify priests who would serve in a rebuilt Temple.37

As far as I'm aware, these ashes are one of the last physical things that the Temple Institute needs to start rebuilding the temple, since they have supposedly already created all the other artifacts and are training priests to perform their duties in the Temple whenever it is built. All they would need now is the political permission to begin construction.

So there is already interest in rebuilding the Temple. After the Psalm 83 war, this interest might increase even more, and the international situation and internal political situation within Israel might change enough that the Antichrist can capitalize on this interest in rebuilding the Temple as a way to seal the deal on his strengthened/confirmed seven-year peace plan.

This is just some of my speculation regarding how things could play out to fulfill a number of end-times prophecies.

However, what does seem to be fairly certain is that these recent news articles demonstrate that a call for "peace and safety/security" between Israel and the Palestinians, and perhaps between other Abraham Accords countries too, on September 22, 2025, could be followed by the Rapture on the Feast of Trumpets, sometime during September 23-24, 2025.

Various sources of "sudden destruction" could then quickly follow the Rapture, providing an excellent situation for the Antichrist to rise to world prominence if he can provide answers and bring some sort of order that the world will be craving.

Astronomical Signs May Confirm the Rapture on September 23, 2025

Finally, there is one last detail which may add to all that has been argued previously about September 23-24 this year being a high-watch time for the Rapture.

In addition to all the above reasons for why September 23-24 is a high-watch period for the Rapture, some Christians are also looking at astronomical alignments and other celestial signs that they feel also confirm this year could be the Rapture.

God said that he created the sun, moon, and stars partly to act as signs to humanity (Genesis 1:14-15). Jesus also said that there would be signs in the sun, moon, and stars regarding his coming (Luke 21:25). Some end-times watchers also pay attention to certain solar eclipses and lunar eclipses, based on Joel 2:31.

(It should be noted that paying attention to signs in the sun, moon, and stars is not the same as astrology, which is the unbiblical idea that our lives are controlled by the stars and planets.)

Although I'm not always fully convinced by some these end-times watchers' interpretations of astronomical signs, there is at least one astronomical sign which has received enough attention over the years in relation to the Rapture that it is worth mentioning.

This year, the Feast of Trumpets on September 23-24 will be the exact eight-year anniversary of the 2017 'Revelation 12' sign.

This sign involved Jupiter and the Sun being in the constellation of Virgo, with nine stars and three other planets nearby Virgo's 'head', making a total of 12 'stars', and the Moon being near Virgo's 'feet'. Jupiter had spent nine months inside the 'womb' of Virgo before it was 'born' on September 23 of that year.38

This seemed to perfectly match the description of the "great sign that appeared in heaven" in Revelation 12:1-6:

A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. (Revelation 12:1-2)

In this astronomical sign, the woman clothed with the sun, with the moon at her feet, and crowned with twelve 'stars' would be seen as representing the people of Israel, who metaphorically gave birth to the Messiah, Jesus.

This interpretation is based on Jacob's son Joseph's ancient dream of the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him, which represented his father, mother, and eleven brothers (Genesis 37:9-10). Together, Joseph and his brothers became the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Jesus is the Messiah who came from Israel who will rule the world with a rod of iron (Revelation 12:5, 19:15, Psalm 2:8-9).

In this sign, the planet Jupiter would represent Christ, since Jupiter is called the 'king planet', and it has stripes and the large red spot. These details could be seen as echoing Jesus' scourging before his crucifixion which would have left stripe-like gashes on his back, and the soldier's spear which pierced Jesus' side after his death on the cross (Matthew 27:26, John 19:34).

The male child in Revelation 12:5-6 who is caught up to heaven may also refer not just to Jesus' personal ascension to heaven (Acts 1:6-11), but also to the rest of Jesus' body, the Church (1 Corinthians 12:12, 12:27). The Church will help Jesus rule during the Millennium with rods of iron (Revelation 2:27), but will be snatched up to heaven in the Rapture before the Tribulation, while unbelieving Israel is left behind to go through it.

However, Israel will be protected by God during this time, and some of them will escape into the wilderness at the Abomination of Desolation (Revelation 12:6, 12:13-16, Matthew 24:15-28, Mark 13:14-23) when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). After this, the Antichrist will turn his attention to persecuting the Tribulation saints, i.e., all the new Christians who believed in Jesus after the Rapture (Revelation 12:17, 13:7).

Therefore, it does seem that the Revelation 12 sign could be an indicator for the world of the coming Rapture. Back in 2017, many Christians expected the Rapture to happen on September 23 of that year, when Jupiter was 'born' out of Virgo.

Last year, many end-times watchers were also looking forward to the seven-year anniversary of the 2017 Revelation 12 sign, given that in the Bible, the number seven tends to represent completion. It can also represent divine intervention, or spiritual perfection.39

It was noted that a seven-year warning to the world during relatively 'good' years from 2017 to 2024 before the seven 'bad' years of the Tribulation would fit well with the typology of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh's dream of there being seven 'good' years before the seven 'bad' years of famine (Genesis 41:25-32).

Joseph's solution to this famine which involved the people selling everything they had, and even enslaving themselves to the Egyptian government for food (Genesis 47:13-26) may echo how people during the Tribulation will be required to take the Mark of the Beast if they want to have access to their money to buy food (Revelation 13:16-18).

This year, it is being noted that the number eight in the Bible is the number of new beginnings.40 Jesus came back to life on the first day of the week, which could also be seen as the 'eighth' day. It was also the eighth day after birth when the ancient Israelites circumcised their male children (Leviticus 12:3).

If the child that the woman in Revelation 12 representing Israel gives birth to was Jesus, as well as his body, the Church, then the idea of all true Christians being 'circumcised' at the Rapture as our earthly, fleshly bodies are transformed into eternal, immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50-54), exactly eight years after this Revelation 12 sign could be a symbolic match.

As of now, nothing else has really happened with this Revelation 12 sign, and next year would be its ninth anniversary. It is again claimed that the number nine in the Bible can represent divine completeness or finality,41 however, I don't really see nearly as many or as strong of connections between the number nine and Bible prophecy in Scripture as there are for the numbers seven or eight.

So this year will probably be the last year that this astronomical Revelation 12 sign could be credibly seen as having any symbolic meaning in relation to the timing of the Rapture.

Additionally, next year, the Feast of Trumpets will not be on September 23, so it would not be a perfect nine years from the Revelation 12 sign. However, this year it will be eight years to the exact same day that the Revelation 12 sign was completed. That fact makes me consider that this Revelation 12 sign may be more likely to be pointing to the Rapture occurring this year than previous or future years.

On its own, this argument from the Revelation 12 sign may appear to be questionable or weak. However, when combined with all the rest of the evidence and Christian testimonies regarding the Rapture potentially happening this September 23-24, it was worth mentioning.

Conclusion

In summary, there are a number of strong reasons to believe that this September 23 or 24, 2025, is a very high-watch day for the Rapture to potentially occur:

There are exactly 2550 days from the first day of the Feast of Trumpets, September 22, 2025, to the Day of Atonement on September 15, 2032, matching the prophesied length of the seven-year Tribulation in the books of Daniel and Revelation. This does not happen every year, and 2025-2032 is the only span of years remaining in which this number of days occurs where the end date for Jesus' second coming takes place before the two-thousandth anniversary of Jesus' death and resurrection in 2033 AD.
It is biblically plausible to suggest that Jesus will return at his second coming at the Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur in the year 2032, only six months short of the two thousandth anniversary of his death and resurrection.
The Rapture would correspond well with the details of the symbolism of the Feast of Trumpets, if God wants to fulfill the Feast of Trumpets to the exact day, as he did in the past with the Jewish spring feasts of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits, as well as Pentecost.
The Feast of Trumpets was known as being the feast on which no one knew the day or hour on which it would begin. Thus, Jesus' saying that no one would know the day or hour of his return (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32) could have been a hint that the Rapture would occur some year at the Feast of Trumpets, which has an uncertain start time over a two-day period.
This phrase that no one knows the day or hour of Jesus' return would also match with how the Bible says that the relationship between Jesus and the Church can be represented as that of between a husband and his bride, with the Rapture being the time of the wedding. In Jewish/Galilean wedding typology, no one but the groom's father knew the exact time the wedding would begin.
A former pastor named Joshua from South Africa has made dramatic claims of Jesus having appeared to him to specifically warn him that the Rapture will definitely occur this year on the Feast of Trumpets, September 23-24, 2025, and that as a result, the world in 2026 will be in chaos.
Many Christians are receiving personal answers to prayer which they claim confirm truth of Joshua's prophecy. These confirmations come in a variety of ways, including in Christians' dreams or visions, the dreams and visions of their children, or through Christians seeing the numbers 9, 23, or 24 in unexpected situations.
This year, on September 22, there is a high-level international conference chaired by France and Saudi Arabia that seems to seek to muster international agreement regarding taking concrete and irreversible steps toward a two-state solution. This could be the saying of "peace and safety" that is followed by the "sudden destruction" of the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 5:1-3) and perhaps the Psalm 83 war, which would precede the appearance of the Antichrist who will confirm or strengthen a seven-year peace deal that will lead to a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, and the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple.
This year, September 23, 2025, is exactly the eighth-year anniversary of the 'Revelation 12' astronomical sign which many Christians who are watching for the end times have seen symbolic significance in as perhaps foreshadowing and forewarning the world of the coming Rapture and Tribulation.

Although perhaps one or two of the above points could seem questionable, taken together, I believe this is a very significant convergence of signs which make a strong case that the Rapture may indeed occur sometime during September 23 or 24th, 2025.

So what should Christians do?

Of course, I am not recommending that Christians quit our jobs, rack up huge credit card bills, or cancel medical appointments. That's not responsible, just in case the Rapture does not happen now, for whatever reason end-times watchers may have overlooked or misinterpreted.

What I would recommend is that if Christians have not done so already, it would be wise to write a letter which explains what the Rapture is, warn about the coming Tribulation, and explain the gospel message. Then put copies of this letter in places in our homes where someone who enters our home to look for us after the Rapture may see it.

As an example, you can see my letter here. I give permission to everyone to copy it, in part or in whole, or to simply print it out in full using the 'Print This Post' button at the top of this page, if you do not have the time or ability to write your own letter. The same goes for any of the other posts on this blog which you want to print out or copy parts of that you feel may be useful for those who are left behind.

In this way, hopefully our left-behind loved ones, or even strangers who may enter our homes to search for us or for necessary supplies after the Rapture happens, might at least hear about the Rapture. Hopefully, this will help them not be deceived by whatever false explanation the governments and media will likely attempt to give, and they will also hear the gospel message and be eternally saved.

However, it may be better for Christians today to speak to our unsaved loved ones and warn them about the possibility of the Rapture ahead of time, and share the gospel with them again before September 22, 2025, just in case.

Even if this topic may seem scary, what is scarier is the possibility of our unsaved loved ones being left behind during the Tribulation and potentially taking the Mark of the Beast, which would lead to them face guaranteed eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11). Therefore, I do not believe that holding back on this topic is a loving thing to do, even if we may worry that this discussion may frighten our unsaved loved ones.

Yet all true Christians should not be afraid of the Rapture. If you have trusted in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of your sins and eternal salvation, your eternal destiny is 100% secure (Ephesians 1:13-14), and so you will definitely be included in the Rapture, and so will your dependent children. Even if Christians do not believe in the Rapture or disagree about its timing, or are not watching for the signs of the end times, they will still be raptured at the same time as all other true Christians, before the Tribulation begins.

Of course, if the Rapture does not happen this September, there is a chance that our loved ones may then scoff at us and mock us. But this risk is worth taking, because it is a minor price to pay when considering the much-greater risk of our loved ones potentially having to suffer in the Tribulation.

Christians will be rewarded in heaven for bearing the brunt of our loved ones' mocking, scoffing, or other potential insults we might receive when we warn them about the coming Rapture and Tribulation (Matthew 5:11-12). Alternatively, if we truly believe that the Rapture is coming but we do nothing to warn our loved ones, God may not be pleased with us (Ezekiel 33:1-6).

Therefore, I hope that anyone who reads this post will feel sufficiently warned about the possibility that the Rapture may occur this year on September 23-24, 2025. If I am wrong, then I'll be disappointed and perhaps a little embarrassed, but this outcome is better than if I had said nothing and the Rapture does actually happen.

Footnotes:

1. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 4-5. Nadler's book provides more details on these Old Testament feasts and how they are fulfilled in Jesus both historically and in the future. Similar arguments can be found on many Christian apologetic websites that focus on preaching the gospel to Jews.
2. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 108.
3. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 133-144.
4. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 153-154.
5. These numbers of days were calculated by looking up the first day of Rosh Hashanah and the last day of Yom Kippur in these specific years, according to the websites https://chabad.org and https://www.hebcal.com/. These dates were then entered into https://www.timeanddate.com/date/timeduration.html, which specifies that it does not include the final day in the total number of days calculated.
6. Messiah 2030 - The Prophetic Timeline (Part 1) is currently available on YouTube here, or on their website https://watch.messiah2030.com/. However, this documentary does not talk about the Rapture in relation to Jesus' second coming, and on their discussion forums, they seem to deny the biblical teaching of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Yet this theological error does not significantly impact the documentary's conclusions regarding a possible year for Jesus' second coming.
7. Colin J. Humphreys and W.G. Waddington, "The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse, and the Date of Christ's Crucifixion," Tyndale Bulletin 43.2 (1992), 331-351; Andreas Kostenburger, "April 3, AD 33: Why We Believe We Can Know the Exact Date Jesus Died," Center for Biblical Studies at Midwestern University, April 8, 2020, accessed September 7, 2025; and "Dating the Crucifixion" and subsequent relevant pages at Bethlehemstar.net, accessed September 7, 2025.
8. "In the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (i.e., AD 33) there was ‘the greatest eclipse of the sun’ and that ‘it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea", as cited in Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, 1:31–33, AD 121. Daniel Anderson, "Darkness at the crucifixion: metaphor or real history?" Creation.com, January 18, 2007, updated April 10, 2020.
9. These dates were calculated using Calculate Convert's BC & AD Date Calculator at https://www.calculateconvert.com/calculators/date/history.php.
10. "Feast of Trumpets (Yom Teruah/Rosh Hashanah)," Voice of Judah Israel, accessed September 8, 2025.
11. Jeff Van Hatten, "No One Knows The Day Or Hour, A Hebrew Idiom," FaithWriters, 11/05/20.
12. A good documentary on the subject of a Galilean wedding and allusions to the Rapture is titled "Before the Wrath" (2020) which can be found on YouTube. The biblical and scholarly research behind this documentary is available for free download in a .pdf from the documentary's technical advisor, Jay McCarl, at https://jaymccarl.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/references-active-draft-rev-12e2809326-24.pdf. An additional more reader-friendly FAQ about his research is posted on his site https://jaymccarl.com/what-is-a-galilean-wedding/galilean-wedding-faqs/.
13. "The Date for the END OF THE WORLD REVEALED | The Message I Received Personally From Jesus | Mr Joshua", CENTTWINZ TV, June 17, 2025, accessed September 5, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSfKjB9xkPM.
14. "It's THE END TIME | Rapture, Judgement, the Anti-Christ | 7 Year Tribulation | My Heaven Visitation | Part 2", CENTTWINZ TV, July 22, 2025, accessed September 5, 2025, at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgPwLADrios.
15. "Brother Joshua - A September to Remember", Medic4Christ, August 29, 2025, accessed September 5, 2025 at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ha-cFv9iS0. This video is also available at "Joshua, {A September TO REMEMBER}", Global Rapture Watchers, accessed September 8, 2025, at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuVRuOwzoqc.
16. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 239-240.
17. "Israel quietly letting Jews pray on Temple Mount, in break with status quo — TV," Times of Israel, July 17, 2021.
18. Hugo Bachega and Alys Davies, "Israeli minister sparks anger by praying at sensitive Jerusalem holy site," BBC News, August 3, 2025.
19. Gilad Sharon, "Ariel Sharon’s Son Explains Why Israel Cannot Return To Pre-1967 Borders," The Daily Beast, October 9, 2011, updated July 13, 2017. In 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued similarly, saying "We can't go back to those indefensible lines" (NBC News, "'We can't go back': Israeli PM rejects 1967 border proposal," May 20, 2011). This is still the position of several ministers in Israel's government today (World Israel News Staff, "Israeli ministers to Biden: The land of Israel is ours, two state solution is suicide," World Israel News, July 10, 2023.)
20. "The hard core of the Abraham Accords is regional security cooperation against Iran." James Traub, "Netanyahu Has Drawn a Saudi-U.S. Road Map," Foreign Policy, February 8, 2023.
21. "All the Saudis I met, officially or not, on the record or off, made a point of saying that they are ready for diplomatic relations with Israel only if the Palestinian issue is resolved. It sounded to me like they were still following the old Saudi playbook: A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have to come before normalization." Eric R. Mandel, "Will Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords?" Israel HaYom, March 11, 2022.
22. "Saudi Arabia, UAE said to agree on freezing normalization over West Bank annexation plans," The Times of Israel, September 7, 2025.
23. The Abraham Shield Plan, Coalition for Regional Security.
24. "Report: Mediators propose 5-7-year truce, complete IDF pullout from Gaza, hostages-for-prisoners swap," The Times of Israel, April 22, 2025.
25. Einav Halabi and Reuters, "Macron, Saudi crown prince to lead New York conference on two-state solution," YNet News.
26. "UN conference launches 'New York Declaration' calling on ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the two-state solution," WAFA News Agency, July 30, 2025.
27. Shirit Avitan Cohen, "Saudi Arabia, France to impose Palestinian state without Israeli input," Israel HaYom, May 16, 2025.
28. "International Recognition of Palestine," Wikipedia.org, accessed September 7, 2025.
29. International Day of Peace, UN.org.
30. Vered Weiss, "BOMBSHELL: Netanyahu agrees to two-state solution with ‘reformed’ Palestinian Authority – report," World Israel News, June 26, 2025.
31. Danny Zaken, "Trump's 'Nobel-worthy' mega deal revealed: This is how it will unfold," Israel HaYom, May 14, 2025.
32. Some Christians argue that all people under the age of twenty may be taken to heaven in the Rapture, if Numbers 32:11 indicates that the 'age of accountability' is as high as twenty. However, usually Christians today consider the 'age of accountability' to be around twelve or thirteen, and so I am not willing to make any guarantees about all teenagers being included in the Rapture. In my post on whether people can be saved after death, I argue that all people, even children, need to make their own decision to believe in Jesus in order to be eternally saved. This means I am not sure about the typical Christian arguments that children who die under some undefined 'age of accountability' are automatically eternally saved. Accordingly, I am not sure about whether children who have not yet made a decision to believe in Jesus as their Savior will be transformed from mortal to immortal at the Rapture like Christians will be (1 Corinthians 15:51-55). Instead these children could simply be taken to heaven in their regular mortal bodies for safe keeping, and then be returned to Earth after the Tribulation to finish growing up during the Millennial Kingdom, where they could make their own personal choices to believe in Jesus once they are capable of doing so.
33. It is true that more children will be born during the Tribulation (Matthew 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23), however, if all the world's children are taken to heaven at the Rapture, this means that the oldest that any child would ever become during the Tribulation would be seven years old, which Christians would generally consider to be below the 'age of accountability'. It could also be that God will not allow any child to be forced to take the Mark of the Beast during the Tribulation, and so the Mark of the Beast will only be for adults who have their own bank accounts (Revelation 13:16-17) and the ability to know exactly what they're doing when they freely choose to take the Mark of the Beast.
34. The countries involved in the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 wars are listed by their ancient names, which must be translated to the contemporary countries that now occupy these same regions. As far as I understand it, Psalm 83 mentions regions that are now in modern-day Jordan (Edom, Moab, and Ammon), the Gaza Strip (Philistia), Lebanon (Tyre, Gebal, and Phoenicia), Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (Amalek), and Syria (Assyria) (Psalm 83:5-8). Ezekiel 38 involves regions that are now in the modern-day countries of Turkey (Gomer and Beth-Togarmah), Iran (Persia), Sudan (Cush), and Libya (Put) (Ezekiel 38:3–5). These countries in the Ezekiel 38 coalition will be led by a man called “Gog,” from the land of Magog, who is listed as the chief prince of Rosh, as well as Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38:1–3). In modern-day terms, Magog, Rosh, Meschech, and Tubal now include parts of Russia and some of the southern formerly-Soviet Socialist Republics like Kazakhstan, and possibly areas of northern Turkey.
35. Leora Schefres, "The Temple Mount could be a home for all peoples — opinion," The Jerusalem Post, March 27, 2024.
36. "The Temple Institute in Jerusalem stirred global attention this week with a striking Facebook post featuring a wristwatch with an image of the rebuilt Jewish Temple. The post read: 'SYNCHRONIZE YOUR WATCHES! IT’S TIME TO BUILD!'". James Lasher, "Temple Institute Declares It Is Time to Build the Third Temple in Jerusalem," Charisma Magazine, August 4, 2025.
37. "Did the True Red Heifer Sacrifice Already Take Place?" End Time Headlines, August 11, 2025.
38. Christopher M. Graney, "Biblical signs in the sky on September 23, 2017?" EarthSky.org, September 23, 2017.
39. "The Number 7 in the Bible," Bible Study Tools.
40. "Meaning of Number 8 in Bible," Biblestudy.org.
41. "Meaning of Number 9 in Bible," Biblestudy.org.

Why Revelation Should Be Interpreted (Mostly) Literally

2025-08-07T00:00:00+00:00

Revelation is one of the most controversial books in the Bible because of the variety of ways that it can be interpreted. Unfortunately, because of this controversy, I suspect that many Christians simply throw their hands up in the air and give up on ever hoping to understand Revelation.

Yet Jesus says there is a blessing for people who read Revelation (Revelation 1:3).

So in this post I want to make a case that Revelation should be read mostly literally and in a straightforward manner, just like how Christians generally read the rest of the Bible. This approach makes Revelation more understandable than all other approaches to it which, in one way or another, interpret large parts of Revelation non-literally.

Why does this matter? Because when this straightforward approach is taken, it should become clear that Revelation is speaking primarily about real events that have not yet happened, but which will occur in the future.

These events include the seven year Tribulation, during which the disastrous events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will literally occur, followed by the literal bodily return of Jesus Christ at his second coming to this world to set up his literal thousand-year Millennial Kingdom, the literal final judgment of all people, and the literal creation of the New Heaven and New Earth.

Therefore, if the events described in Revelation have not yet occurred, then some future generation of people will be the ones who will have to face them.

Yet Jesus warned that the Tribulation will be worse than anything that has happened so far in the history of the world (Matthew 24:21).

Just think about that: it will be worse than the worldwide flood (Genesis chapters 6 and 7), worse than the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), worse than the plagues of Egypt (Exodus chapters 7 to 12), worse than the fall of the Roman Empire, worse than the plagues of the black death, worse than World Wars 1 and 2, worse than the Spanish Flu, worse than the famines in Mao's China, worse than whatever other horrible historical incident you can think of.

For this reason, the appearing of Jesus in the clouds in the pretribulation Rapture to take all true Christians to heaven be where he is (John 14:1-3), before the Tribulation begins, should truly be Christians' blessed hope (Titus 2:13).

In this case, Christians have a strong motive to evangelize now, in hope that even more people will be included in the Rapture.

And if this is true, then alternative views of Revelation which do not hold to a literal interpretation of the twenty-one judgments in this book, but instead ignore them, minimize their severity, or interpret them 'symbolically', may be doing a great disservice to Christians' motivation to share the gospel.

These other views also do not adequately warn unbelievers about what they may have to face in the near future, or provide them with knowledge about Bible prophecy so that they might at least change their minds and believe in Jesus once the Rapture does happen, and these prophecies begin to be fulfilled.

This is especially true now that it seems all the signs of the end times that we can expect to see before the Rapture are present, and so the Rapture could happen literally any day.

So although on the surface, the debate over the interpretation of Revelation might seem to be too obscure or purely academic, the outcome does actually have very practical consequences for both Christians and non-Christians today, and in the future.

What Genre of Literature is the Book of Revelation?

Commentators and scholars often begin their approach to Revelation by explaining that this book falls into an ancient genre of writing called apocalyptic.

Allegedly, this genre makes Revelation much harder to interpret than many other books of the Bible. Some portions of Daniel and other Old Testament books are also categorized as being apocalyptic.

The word apocalyptic comes from the ancient Greek verb apokalyptein which means 'to uncover' or 'to reveal'.1 Therefore, an apocalypse is defined as a writing that belongs to

A genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.2

Or in simpler terms, apocalyptic writings involve a recounting of how an angel or other spiritual being gave information to a human about the deeper spiritual realities that are going on behind the surface-level events in this world, with a focus on things like eternal salvation, and God intervening to save this world in the last days.

Thus, apocalyptic can be seen as an extension of the genre of Bible prophecy. The only subtle difference is that prophecy sometimes calls on people to change their ways to avoid a divine judgment, while apocalyptic is more 'pessimistic' because it prophesies that the situation will only get better for people after the divine judgment is over.3

None of what has been said about this genre, however, forces Christians to take a particular approach to interpreting Revelation.

Typically, approaches to interpreting Revelation as Bible prophecy (and not just as literature) fall into one of these four categories:4

Preterist: This approach claims that most of the events described in Revelation have already been fulfilled in the past, soon after when John wrote it, or even before John wrote it. Some preterists still allow for the future fulfillment of the final chapters of Revelation regarding Jesus' second coming, the final judgment, and a New Heaven and New Earth, but other preterists think that even these things were fulfilled (presumably, 'spiritually'), in the past.
Historicist: This approach claims that Revelation prophesies about the entire period of time beginning from when John wrote Revelation, all the way to the end of the world. The prophecies in Revelation are therefore seen as being in progress, such that some of these prophecies are claimed to have been already fulfilled by particular historical events.
Futurist: This approach claims that Revelation's prophecies have never been fulfilled in the past but will be fulfilled in the future, generally literally, in a short period of time called the Tribulation, which occurs immediately before Jesus' second coming.
Spiritualist (also called Idealist or Symbolic): This approach claims that Revelation is not talking about any particular events in this world, whether past or future, but is only talking about ongoing spiritual truths, such as the spiritual conflict between God and Satan, or between the saints and the world.

As will be discussed later, these approaches can be mixed and matched with broader perspectives on biblical eschatology that are known as premillennialism (which includes both pretribulationism and posttribulationism), postmillennialism, and amillennialism.5

Yet the fact that Christians have taken such a variety of views of Revelation should not undermine this book's authority:

Some readers may ask, "What about the fact that the Bible is interpreted in so many different ways even by conservative, traditional, orthodox Christians?" The implication is that the diversity of interpretations somehow undermines the authority of the Bible.... Diverse interpretations of the Bible, some of them equally legitimate and seemingly unresolvable, do not undermine its authority. It authority is why we continue to strive toward a unified, correct interpretation.6

So just because Revelation is apocalyptic and because there are a variety of views about how to interpret it does not mean that Revelation should be taken any less seriously than any other books of the Bible. Furthermore, we take Revelation seriously by trying to find the best interpretation of it.

Sometimes it is mentioned that the early church was not sure about whether to include Revelation into the canon of Scripture, as if this were a reason for Christians to take Revelation less seriously.

However, the early church Christians in the western half of the Roman Empire generally accepted Revelation as being authoritative right away, including important early church figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Revelation was also included in the earliest list of canonical books called the Muratorian Canon, which was created in the last half of the second century.7

If there was any debate over whether Revelation belonged in the Bible, it was primarily among theologians who lived in the eastern side of the Roman Empire. This is why Revelation was not included in the canonical list created at the Council of Laodicea in 360 AD. Yet Revelation was included in later canonical lists, such as the one made at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and was made an official part of the canon of Scripture at the Council of Constantinople in 680 AD.8

Christians typically believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding these early leaders as they finalized the canon of Scripture. Therefore, Christians should consider Revelation to be as authoritative, relevant, and useful for Christians today as any other book in the Bible.

But Wasn't Revelation Only Meant For the Early Church?

I've noticed that when commentators on Revelation start off by emphasizing how different apocalyptic literature is from other types of biblical literature, such as by saying that it is full of strange and bizarre symbols that make it difficult or even almost impossible to interpret, it is typically because these same commentators struggle to know what to do with these symbols.

As a result, these commentators tend to ignore the details of Revelation chapters 6 to 18, and focus instead on what they believe is the overall message of Revelation.

Such commentators frequently say that Revelation was primarily written to comfort the early church which was facing persecution of various sorts. As a result, some commentators say the main message we're supposed to take away from reading Revelation is that while Christians will face persecution in this world, God will win in the end and Christians will be vindicated, while their persecutors and false prophets will face God's judgment.9

While this overall message is certainly true, and it does make Revelation relevant to some extent to Christians of any era who face persecution, the claim that Revelation was primarily written to comfort early Christians who were facing a massive crisis of persecution is too simplistic:10

Nothing could be farther from the truth than to imagine the Christians in those seven Asian congregations as huddling wretches, holding onto their faith by their fingernails, with St. John, their pastor, reaching frantically for a desperate means (apocalypse!) to secure their endurance through the worst of times.11

When we examine the seven churches who were the initial recipients of John's letter that became the Book of Revelation, we actually see that they were facing a spectrum of situations.

On one end, the Christians in Smyrna, Pergamum and Philadelphia do seem to have been facing some persecution for their faith in various ways, but they were still standing strong, and they received Jesus' commendation for doing so (Revelation 2:8-13, 3:7-13).

In the middle, Christians in Ephesus and Sardis were becoming complacent, and so they needed encouragement to return to their once-vibrant faith and love, and to the good works they used to be doing (Revelation 2:1-7, 3:1-6).

Pergamum had some issues with false teaching and immorality (Revelation 2:14-17). Thyatira was also dealing with false prophets who were teaching immorality, but otherwise seems to have been doing well (Revelation 2:18-29).

On the other end of the spectrum, the Laodicean Christians were doing so well that their worldly success and material wealth was blinding them to the reality of their pitiful spiritual condition (Revelation 3:14-22).

So it is not true that the early church was being universally persecuted by the Roman Empire.

The infamous persecution of Christians in Rome by Emperor Nero that began in 64 AD when Nero needed a scapegoat to explain away the cause of a fire that burned down portions of his capital city was likely limited only to Christians in the city of Rome, although both the apostles Peter and Paul were likely killed at this time.12

Later persecution of both Christians and Jews by Emperor Domitian at the end of his reign seems to have occurred mostly only in the city of Rome and the region of Asia Minor. This is likely what was going on when John was exiled to Patmos and wrote the Book of Revelation,13 which the majority of scholars believe occurred around the year 95 AD.14

But in general,

throughout the second century, and well into the third, there was no systematic persecution of Christians [in the Roman Empire]. It was illegal to be a Christian, but those who followed the new faith were not sought out by authorities. Persecution and martyrdom depended on local circumstances, and particularly on the good will of neighbors. If for any reason someone wished to harm a Christian, all that had to be done was to present an accusation.15

There was certainly social pressure on early Christians who faced some discrimination for refusing to participate in some aspects of Roman life, but it came from a variety of sources, such as the expectation to honor the patron deities of trade guilds, for Christians who worked in these trades.16

Now, some preterist interpreters would say that John was not writing about current or future persecution, because the prophecies in Revelation had already been fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the second Jewish temple.

However, I don't understand this claim. Once Jesus was crucified and came back to life, the Jewish sacrificial system was no longer necessary or relevant, as it was only ever meant to foreshadow what Jesus would accomplish for everyone who believes in him (Hebrews 10:1-18). Thus, the destruction of the temple would have had no relevance to early Christians, many of whom had never even been Jewish in the first place.

Additionally, if the prophecies in Revelation had been completely fulfilled in 70 AD, then not only would Revelation be of no use to most Christians throughout history, but since John wrote it sometime around the late 90s AD, most of the Book of Revelation would have already been decades out of date even for the seven churches that were John's original audience!

Yet John clearly said that the things he was writing about in Revelation were "things that must soon take place" (Revelation 1:1, 4:1, 22:6). It would not make sense for John to have been writing about things that were long past, and had no relevance to his current audience.

Furthermore, we are told that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NRSVA). This must include Revelation.

This is the main flaw that I see with arguments that claim that the Book of Revelation was only meant for the early church.

Revelation would have had no meaning or usefulness for later generations of Christians if Revelation was primarily written to criticize the Roman Empire and encourage early Christians to not participate in the idolatrous Roman practice of emperor worship. Early Christians already knew that idolatry was wrong (e.g., Acts 21:25, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 John 5:21), so they didn't need an entire book to explain that to them.

Likewise, if the only message that John's original audience was supposed to take away from Revelation was to hold onto to their faith despite any current or future persecution and hard times, this message is already found in Jesus' description of the end times in Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-27, Luke 17:20-37 and 21:5-36, and Jesus' warnings of future persecution for his disciples in John 15:18-27.

So for Revelation to be relevant and useful to Christians, Revelation must provide us with additional information about the end times that is not included anywhere else in the Bible.

Otherwise, the decision to include Revelation in the canon of Scripture would only have been to make a lot of unnecessary work for all of the Christians throughout history who spent hours and hours carefully copying and re-copying manuscripts of it by hand, in order to preserve John's words for later generations of Christians.

The same problem arises if Revelation was only meant for the early church. Why spend all that time and effort to preserve it, if this book has no relevance for future generations of Christians?

However, preserving Revelation for future Christians would have been an especially important task if there is still an important message in this book for Christians both today, and in the future.

Literal or Symbolic?

So if Revelation is still authoritative, relevant, and useful for Christians today, then it implies that Christians today should actually read it. Not only should we read it, but we should be able to understand it.

After all, God gave John the vision which he wrote in the Book of Revelation in order to communicate with John, and by extension, with all Christians who read this book. This means that Revelation must be fundamentally understandable, despite the use of symbolic imagery in a few portions of it.

Yet even then, these symbols must mean something, and they must also be able to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with their use throughout Revelation, as well as their use in the rest of the Bible. Symbols cannot simply mean anything that interpreters want them to, or else they would actually mean nothing, and they would not achieve God's purpose of communicating truth to his people.17

This presumably obvious fact that God intends to communicate with Christians through the Book of Revelation means that I believe we should apply the same principles of Bible interpretation to this book as to any other book of the Bible.

The 'golden rule' of Bible interpretation, as outlined by D. L. Cooper, says,

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.18

It is this principle which means that the Bible should generally be able to be read and understood by average Christians, without needing to have special knowledge which is only available to the so-called 'experts' who have had the privilege of attending Bible college.

I believe that when we apply this 'golden rule' to how we read the Book of Revelation, it becomes clear that the various judgments and events depicted in Revelation chapters 6 through 20 are speaking mostly about literal events which have not yet occurred in the history of this world.

As just a few examples, all of the world's oceans and rivers have never been turned into blood (Revelation 8:8, 16:3-6), all of the grass and a third of the trees have not been burned up (Revelation 8:7), and all mountains, islands, and cities have not been flattened by an enormous earthquake (Revelation 16:18-20).

In comparison to other approaches to Revelation, only the futurist view can take these events literally, and all other approaches must interpret these events non-literally.19

Of course, this does not mean that every part of Revelation can be taken completely literally:

Futurists do recognize the presence of symbols in the book. The difference between the literalist and the spiritualizer is simply that the former sees the symbols as conveying a plain meaning.20

The most consistent way to handle the symbols in Revelation is either to let John explain them himself, or look at how these same symbols are used elsewhere in Revelation or in the Old Testament.

So as an example of where John explains a symbol, John says that the lake of fire represents eternal destruction, a.k.a., the second death (Revelation 20:14). See other examples of John directly explaining the meaning of some symbols in Revelation 4:5, 5:6, 5:8, 17:9-10, and 17:12.

When comparing with the Old Testament, we can see that the woman in Revelation 12:1-6 who is crowned with twelve stars, clothed with the sun, and who has the moon under her feet represents the people of Israel. This interpretation is based on Jacob's son Joseph's ancient dream of the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him, which represented his father, mother, and eleven brothers (Genesis 37:9-10). Together, Joseph and his brothers became the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Jesus is the Messiah who came from Israel who will rule the world with a rod of iron (Revelation 12:5, 19:15, Psalm 2:8-9).

Similarly, the seven-headed red dragon with ten horns in Revelation 12:3-4 represents Satan, who John connects back to the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Revelation 12:9, 20:1-2, Genesis 3:1-5). Here, God prophesied that Satan will be destroyed by the 'seed of the woman' (i.e., Jesus, who had no biological human father) (Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:30-35), which will finally occur at the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:10).

In contrast, one 'allegorical' or 'symbolic' interpretation of this same passage in Revelation chapter 12 is:

The male child of Revelation 12:5 represents the baptized soul in which Christ is born; the dragon's seven heads are the seven greater sins; his ten horns are intended to contrast with the ten commandments; the beast is a symbol of fleshly lust.21

Yet this interpretation is taken completely out of any context of what the red dragon, or beast (which, like the dragon, is also scarlet-colored with seven heads and ten horns) do elsewhere in Revelation chapters 13 and 17.

There are also absolutely no hints within the text that these symbols should be interpreted as the allegorical interpreter does. Thus, this allegorical interpretation appears to be completely arbitrary, and is likely based on the interpreter reading into Revelation his own personal preoccupation with sin.

This allegorical interpretation is also not compatible with Daniel's use of the same imagery of multi-headed animals or horns in Daniel chapter 7. Yet as I demonstrate in my analysis of the symbolism of the beast that comes out of the sea, a proper comparison with the imagery in the Book of Daniel supports the futurist understanding of the seven-headed scarlet-colored beast with ten horns in Revelation 13 and 17 who receives his authority from the dragon as being the Antichrist, who will rule with his ten sub-leaders over the final Satanic world empire that will persecute and kill God's people.

I've written more in another blog post about problems with the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. There, I give more examples of how this approach takes verses completely out of their literary context, and also ignores how the author's original audience would likely have interpreted these verses.

Yet considering a verse's literary context, the original author's most likely intended meaning, and original audience's most likely interpretation of said verse are basic principles of Bible interpretation. These shared principles of interpretation help constrain possible meanings of verses so that Christians can actually hope to come to a common consensus about what God was saying to the original recipients of Scripture, and by extension, what God is saying to us today.

Using this same approach, we can easily argue that the prostitute who sits on seven hills and also rides the beast for some period of time (Revelation 17:1-18) represents a religion that had formerly been faithful to God but had since turned to idolatry. There are two major instances that support this interpretation. First, The prophet Ezekiel used the same metaphor to criticize ancient Israel (Ezekiel 16:14-63). Second, God told the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute and to buy her back out of slavery as a real-world illustration of how God would redeem his unfaithful people (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-5).

The detail that this prostitute in Revelation is portrayed as being drunk on the blood of God's people shows that this religion will also persecute and kill God's people during the Tribulation (Revelation 17:6, 6:9-11, 7:13-14). However, this religion will only last until the Antichrist and his ten sub-rulers will destroy it (Revelation 17:16-17), likely before the false prophet demands that everyone worship the Antichrist by making the Image of the Beast and requiring everyone to take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:5-18).

These are just a few examples of how the Bible equips Christians to be able to make sense of these symbols used in the Book of Revelation in a way that is not totally arbitrary.

Even with this method, though, there are a few gray areas where it may not be perfectly clear whether something in Revelation is meant to be literal or symbolic, such as the strange description of the demonic 'locusts' that are released from the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-11. However, these verses do not impact our understanding of anything else in Revelation, and so perhaps it is the case that this particular prophecy will only make sense to the people who will live through that judgment.

The same may be said regarding the exact identification of what false religion is represented by the prostitute that rides the beast in Revelation 17, the meaning of the number 666 in Revelation 13:18, or what city or entity referred to as Babylon is destroyed in Revelation 18 that causes all the merchants of the world to mourn. I have seen some plausible guesses about these things, but ultimately it may be that only Christians who are alive during the Tribulation will fully understand what is being referred to by these symbols.

But I believe that in general, the way to properly detect which parts of Revelation are literal versus symbolic is to apply Cooper's 'golden rule'. If we can take any particular part of Revelation literally and it makes sense to us, then we should do so.

Literal versus Non-Literal Views of the Tribulation

The main difference between alternative views of the end times is primarily a question of biblical interpretation regarding how we should read Revelation, as well as how to consistently interpret many other portions of the Bible which also speak about the Tribulation:

The interpretation of the Scripture relative to the coming Tribulation is important first of all as a strategic exegetical problem. The revelation concerning the Tribulation is found in many passages in the Old and New Testaments and includes a major part of the Book of Revelation. Until the nature of the Tribulation is established, these portions are left without intelligent exegesis. This spreads confusion in the whole prophetic program of the future.22

This interpretive problem becomes more difficult when different approaches to the Tribulation disagree on whether these passages about the Tribulation should be taken literally or non-literally. These different approaches will be summarized below, and I will explain some problems I see with the approaches which take a non-literal view of the Tribulation and Millennium.

Premillennialism

Premillennialism is the view that Jesus' second coming will occur before the Millennium, which is treated as a literal period of a thousand years when Jesus will personally rule the world along with his saints (Revelation 20:1-4).23

This view was held by some of the earliest church theologians, even though there may not have been universal agreement about this approach to Revelation.24

Premillennialism can be divided into two sub-categories, depending on where one locates the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation and second coming of Jesus: pretribulationism, and posttribulationism.25 I will examine both sub-categories of premillennialism before moving onto other perspectives of the end times.

Pretribulationism

The pretribulational approach to eschatology is most compatible with a futurist view of the end times.

This approach argues that the Rapture happens before the seven-year Tribulation, and the Tribulation ends with the second coming of Jesus, along with his raptured saints who will help rule Earth during the Millennium (Revelation 2:27, 4:4, 19:14-15, Jude 1:14-15, Luke 19:11-27). People who become Christians during the Tribulation and who end up being killed for not worshipping the Antichrist or taking the Mark of the Beast will be resurrected at this point to also help Jesus rule during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4).

This approach typically sees God as having a distinct, ongoing plan for Israel which is separate from the Church, which means the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view could also be called the dispensational approach.26

Personally, I believe that this view is the most straightforward, literal approach to interpreting Revelation which follows the general flow of Revelation chapters 4 to 20.

In my view, Revelation chapter 4 begins with John's vision of the Rapture (compare Revelation 4:1 with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Revelation 3:8-10) which takes John to heaven. There, he sees God, as well as raptured/resurrected Christians who are depicted collectively as a group of 24 'elders' wearing crowns and white linen garments, and sitting on thrones (Revelation 4:4).

Chapter 5 then takes place in heaven as Jesus receives the seven-sealed scroll that only he is qualified to open, and so begin the Seal judgments of the Tribulation in Revelation chapter 6.

Revelation chapters 6 to 16 then describe the events of the Tribulation, starting with the Seal judgments, with the Seventh Seal judgment unlocking the next seven Trumpet judgments (Revelation 8:1-2), and the Seventh Trumpet judgment unlocking the final seven Bowl judgments, up to the preparation for the battle of Armageddon in the Sixth Bowl judgment (Revelation 16:12-16).

Jesus' second coming occurs at this battle of Armageddon, which is described in Revelation 19:11-21. The Seventh Bowl judgment, which includes a massive worldwide earthquake that flattens all cities, mountains, and sinks islands (Revelation 16:17-21), seems to describe the effects of Jesus' second coming, since the Old Testament describes significant geological changes to the Mount of Olives when Jesus finally touches down there (Zechariah 14:4).

Then, in my view, Revelation chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 contain symbolic descriptions of certain key end-times events and figures (i.e., the two witnesses, the beast/Antichrist, his ten sub-rulers, and his false prophet), and highlight their major actions during the Tribulation.

However, the exact timing of these events in relation to the twenty-one judgments of the Tribulation is not completely clear. That is, besides the fact that the two witnesses will be killed by the Antichrist 1260 days into the Tribulation (Revelation 11:3-13), and that the Antichrist will directly rule the world for 42 months (i.e. another 1260 days, or 3.5 years, using a 30 days per month 'prophetic' calendar — Revelation 13:5, 12:6, 12:14), presumably, during the last half of the Tribulation.

Although I have not cited any particular commentaries to support this view, my outline given above is based on my personal study of the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of the end times over the past 17 years or so.27

Posttribulationism

Posttribulationists claim that the Rapture occurs at the second coming of Jesus, at the end of the Tribulation. This approach is also called classical premillennialism, and it argues that the Church (i.e., all true Christians) goes through the Tribulation because it makes no distinction between the Church and Israel.28

Yet true Christians do not need to go through the Tribulation in order to be spiritually purified, unlike what posttribulationists sometimes claim.

And as I argue in my other blog posts, there are many good reasons to argue that the Rapture must happen at a time when life is going on like normal, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 17:26-35.

Yet after the twenty-one judgments in Revelation, is is difficult if not impossible to imagine that people will be living normal lives, buying, selling, planting, building houses, getting married, and so forth (see Revelation 18:21-24). That is, if these judgments are taken literally.

Therefore, the only way that the posttribulational view could makes sense is if the judgments of the Tribulation are far less serious than the descriptions of them in Revelation chapters 6-18 make them appear, if these descriptions are taken literally.

Thus, the main difference between pretribulationism and posttribulationism is that pretribulationists uses a literal interpretation of the Tribulation, while posttribulationists often use a non-literal or 'spiritual' interpretation.29

The most serious problem for posttribulationism is that if the Rapture happens after the Tribulation, at the same time as Jesus' second coming, then there would be no reason for Jesus to have to judge the Tribulation survivors in the Sheep and Goats Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). They would already have been sorted out into believers and unbelievers by the Rapture.

Furthermore, if the Rapture only happens at the end of the Tribulation, such that all believers are instantly changed from mortal to immortal (1 Corinthians 15:50-53), and all unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41-46), no one would remain alive in their regular, mortal bodies. This means there would be no one left who could get married and have children to repopulate the world during the Millennium.

After all, Jesus said that after people are resurrected/raptured, they will no longer get married (Matthew 22:30), and so presumably, they will not be having children, either. If the resurrected/raptured body is a 'spiritual' body that is no longer made of flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:44, 15:50), it would also be impossible for resurrected/raptured women to bear regular mortal children.

But we know the world will be repopulated by regular, mortal people during the Millennium, in order to set up the situation at the very end of the Millennium where there will be a vast number of unbelievers who will be led by Satan to rebel against Jesus' rule (Revelation 20:7-9).

I think this is a strong case that there must be enough of a time gap between the Rapture and the Sheep and Goats judgment for more people to become believers in Jesus after the Rapture, and to go on and demonstrate their faith by generously caring for other believers during the Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46), so that they can pass the Sheep and Goats Judgment and be permitted to enter the Millennial Kingdom in their regular, mortal bodies.

Thus, posttribulationism does not consistently fit with what is taught about the Rapture, Tribulation, and Millennium in the rest of Revelation or other parts of the Bible.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the belief that Jesus' second coming occurs after the Millennium, which in this view, is generally interpreted as a long period of time where the Church somehow solves the problems of the world and brings in worldwide peace and righteousness. Jesus returns at his second coming only to pat the Church on the back and say "well done", and wrap history up with the final judgment.30

Thus, postmillennialism would be quite compatible with the New Apostolic Reformation movement, which claims it is Christians' duty to take over the 'seven mountains' of society: family, religion, education, media, arts and entertainment, business, and government.31

There are some larger theological issues with this perspective. For example, it seems very prideful to claim that the Church will achieve on its own what the Bible mostly credits to Jesus, who will rule the world with an iron rod to guarantee peace, justice, and righteousness (Isaiah 11:1-5, Revelation 19:15), even though it is true that redeemed saints will help Jesus with this task as sub-rulers, in proportion to how well Christians served Jesus in this life (Revelation 2:27, 4:4, 19:14-15, 20:4 Jude 1:14-15, Luke 19:11-27).

Furthermore, in this life, Christians are all still sinners (Romans 7:14-25, 1 John 1:8-10), so I don't see how anyone could reasonably expect still-sinful Christians to perfectly rule over the world.

Just look at the general state of how divided Christianity is currently, and the not-infrequent difficulties and interpersonal strife between Christians that lead to scandals or churches splitting apart. If we can't even get things always right within our own local churches, or reconcile all disagreements between the different denominations of Christianity, what chance is there that we'll somehow be able to create a unified, sinless Christian world government?

As far as postmillennial views of the end times,

The Tribulation, however, according to postmillennialism, is not very definite and its character is not sufficiently serious to interfere with the onward march of the church to a great climax of triumph at the second advent of Christ. The Tribulation is a minor phase of the closing events of the age.32

Thus, postmillennialism cannot interpret the events in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 literally, because they would be far too serious of an interruption to the progress of peace and Christian values. But the wide variety of interpretations of these judgments offered by postmillennialists are not consistent with one another.33

If postmillennialism can only be plausibly believed by ignoring or severely downplaying the details of the twenty-one judgments in Revelation, this should be a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong with this interpretation.

Furthermore, Revelation says that the beast/Antichrist will make war on the saints and will overcome them during his forty-two month rule (Revelation 13:5-10), primarily, by beheading everyone he can catch who refuses to worship his Image of the Beast or take his Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11-18, 20:4).

Jesus also warned that in the end times, his followers would be hated by all nations and would be killed for their faith (Matthew 24:9-14).

These warnings blatantly contradict the postmillennialist claim that the Church will become ever-more successful until Jesus returns, and this prevents me from seeing postmillennialism as being a credible eschatological option.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism typically argues that the thousand-year reign of Jesus and his saints, during a time when Satan is bound (Revelation 20:1-6) is allegorically speaking about the entire Church age, beginning from the early church and ending with Jesus' second coming.

For example:

The binding of Satan happened spiritually at the cross; the reign of the saints is the present age; the loosing of Satan is a final period of deception coming on the world in the end of the age; the fire from heaven that devours the wicked is the second coming of Christ.34

Historically, although at least several of the earliest church authors were premillennial and took a mostly-literal view of Revelation and the end times, amillennialism began to dominate approaches to Revelation with the rise of the non-literal method of interpretation of Bible prophecy which became popular thanks to the early church theologians Origen,35 and also Augustine:

It is generally agreed by all parties that one of the major differences between amillennialism and premillennialism lies in the use of the literal method of interpretation. Amillennarians, while admitting the need for literal interpretation of Scripture in general, have held from Augustine to the present time that prophecy is a special case requiring spiritualizing or non-literal interpretation. Premillennarians hold, on the contrary, that the literal method applies to prophecy as well as other doctrinal areas and therefore contend for a literal Millennium.36

As a result,

In Augustinian amillennialism, the present age is regarded as the predicted Millennium; and inasmuch as the Tribulation is said to precede the Millennium by so much, it must already be past. Often it is identified with the troubles of Israel in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.37

The amillennial view would therefore require all the judgments of Revelation to be interpreted non-literally, because they have never happened exactly as described.38

The preterist view that the Tribulation occurred during the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD has already been refuted earlier in this post, because this event would have had no relevance to John's original audience or Christians since then.

Supposedly, there are other sorts of amillennialists who do believe in some sort of a future Tribulation, although they place this Tribulation after the Millennium.39 Yet this view would rearrange the entire flow of the Book of Revelation, and if the judgments of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 are taken seriously, they would have to all be crammed into Revelation 20:9.

Amillennialists would also have to spiritualize the Bible's description of the Millennium, if it is believed that we are now in this Millennium, because it should be obvious to anyone that, for example:

there is not currently such an abundance of food in the world that farmers cannot finish harvesting before it's time to plant again (Amos 9:13).
animals are not living in peace with one another or with humans (Isaiah 11:6-9).
all people with serious illnesses or disabilities are not healed (Isaiah 35:5-6).
the world is not full of righteousness and worship of God (Isaiah 9:6–7, 11:1–10, Zechariah 14:16–21, Micah 4:1–8).

So for all the above reasons, I don't see amillennialism as being a plausible approach to eschatology.

Liberal Christianity

A variant of amillennialism which some contemporary Christians may encounter is advocated for by proponents of liberal Christianity.

At least the traditional amillennial position on eschatology generally holds to a literal future return of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the New Heaven and New Earth. Yet today, liberal Christians go even farther with their symbolic interpretation of eschatology, and doubt that even these significant events will ever literally happen:

That Jesus Christ will return to earth has always been believed by orthodox Christians of all major traditions. The Apostles' Creed says that Jesus Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. All Christians believed in Christ's return to earth to judge the nations and to open up heaven to those who embrace his love and grace — until the rise of liberal Christianity with [the 18th and 19th century theologian Friedrich] Schleiermacher. From Schleiermacher on, liberal theologians have generally regarded talk of the parousia — the return of Christ and events surrounding it — as symbolic, metaphorical, not at all to be taken literally or as actual events in the future.40

This problem arises from liberal Christians' approach to theology which elevates human reason above the authority of Scripture, allowing science and philosophy to dictate what parts of the Bible are true and what are false.41

Liberal Christians also generally accept the results of 'higher criticism' — a method of biblical interpretation which treats the Bible just like any other book, rather than trusting it as God's inerrant and authoritative word.42

Due to these views, liberal Christians generally read the Bible through a 'naturalistic' lens which says that miracles are impossible, and so is predictive prophecy.43 The divine inspiration of Scripture is denied, and the Bible is turned into an inspiring fictional classic that should be read much like a parable.44

As a result,

The return of Jesus Christ in glory, divine judgments, a fulfilled kingdom of God, a new heaven and a new earth free of sin, sickness, and death, where there will be no more tears, all get treated as myths or symbols.45

However, Christians simply cannot interpret Jesus' return 'spiritually' or 'allegorically', because when Jesus ascended to heaven, angels told Jesus' disciples that Jesus would return in the same way that he left, which was by physically ascending into the clouds (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, Christians should expect Jesus to return physically, by literally descending out of the clouds.

And Jesus' return won't be in secret, since Jesus said that when he returns, it will be with such a dramatic display that it will be like lightning flashing from one side of the sky to the other, and so every person alive at that time will see him (Matthew 24:27, Revelation 1:7).

This is exactly what is described in Revelation 19:11-21, where Jesus returns on a white horse, with the armies of heaven following him, ready to destroy his enemies who have gathered at Armageddon to try to prevent Jesus' second coming (Revelation 16:12-16, 19:11-21, Zechariah 12:1-9, 14:1-15).

So at the very least, Christians should expect Jesus' second coming to be a literal, future event. This should be something that all Christians who study the end times can agree on, regardless of where we place Jesus' second coming in relation to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Millennial Kingdom.

Christians should also all agree on the literal future resurrection of the dead, just as Jesus was literally raised back to life at his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Sadly, Roger Olson documents how many prominent liberal 'Christian' scholars go so far as to either question, deny, or spiritualize the biblical promise that Christians will experience immortality in a New Heaven and New Earth.46

Yet to deny this is to effectively deny the core of Christianity, and places the entirety of Christians' hope in this life only. Paul said that this view, if true, would mean that Christians "are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

To deny the reality of eternal life is to make Christians' faith in Christ completely pointless. The entire gospel message is that Jesus will one day bring everyone who have ever had faith in him back to life, and will give them literal eternal life (John 3:16, 6:40, Romans 6:23) in the New Heaven and New Earth, where there will be no more death, suffering, or pain ever again (Revelation 21:4).

Thus, Olson argues that,

Insofar as they have given up belief in bodily resurrection and the return of Jesus Christ to establish his fulfilled kingdom and a new heaven and new earth, free of sin, sickness, and death, liberal theologians have departed from Christianity. Theirs is a secularized, gutted, emptied eschatology with no recognizable continuity with biblical, historical, orthodox Christian eschatology.47

But ironically, it could be argued that liberal 'Christianity' is actually more consistent than traditional amillennialism is, because liberal scholars spiritualize all Bible prophecy about the future, rather than just some of it, even if doing so takes the liberals beyond the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps traditional amillennialists did not think that anyone would dare to go that far, but there is nothing inherent in the 'spiritual' or 'allegorical' approach to Bible prophecy that limits it to interpreting only the Tribulation and Millennium non-literally, while leaving the prophecies about Jesus' second coming, the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and the New Heaven and New Earth to be fulfilled literally.

Thus, I think amillennialism's non-literal approach to Bible prophecy is not only inconsistent, but it is also dangerous, because if applied consistently, then, as demonstrated by liberal 'Christianity', it can be taken as far as to deny the core of Christian hope for eternal life after death, which is the gospel message.

The Distinctiveness of the Premillennial Pretribulational View

Overall, I agree with Walvoord that,

Generally speaking, a literal interpretation of the Scriptures dealing with the Tribulation and taking into account all the factors revealed in Scripture concerning the Tribulation tends to support the pretribulational concept.48

So just to summarize, out of all of the above views, it is only the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of the end times which, thanks to its use of the literal method of interpretation of Bible prophecy, interprets the Tribulation and Millennium as being exactly as they are described in the Bible.

This is the only view of eschatology which does not have to spiritualize, ignore, or downplay the details of the twenty-one Tribulation judgments described in Revelation chapters 6 to 18, or the descriptions of Jesus' second coming and future Millennium in Revelation chapters 19 and 20.

Refuting Attempts to Discredit A Literal Interpretation of the End Times

Unfortunately, rather than engaging in this exegetical debate about the proper way to interpret Bible passages about the end times, some scholars and theologians prefer to tear down Christians who hold to a premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation.

Often, this is done by implying that this view is not only unscholarly, but that it is also only the result of a few modern authors who have taken Revelation completely out of context.

For example, I have heard some critics imply that the only reason that many Christians today interpret Revelation from a mostly-literal futurist perspective is because these people have read the fictional Left Behind book series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, or (gasp!) — saw one of the movie adaptations of these books.

Personally, I don't know why any Christian should look down on the Left Behind series. Even though these books are obviously Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins' fictional portrayal of their interpretation of the end times, it has been suggested that,

In terms of [the Left Behind series of books'] impact on Christianity, it's probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible.49

So if the millions of people who read these books were inspired to believe in Jesus for the first time, or take their faith more seriously, or were moved to share the gospel with others out of concern that their loved ones might be 'left behind' at the Rapture, then I think that is a very good thing. It should not be looked down on by any scholars or theologians, even if they disagree with Lahaye and Jenkins' approach, or with the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation as a whole.

However, it is rather insulting to imply that the only reason anyone reads the Book of Revelation from a mostly-literal futurist perspective is because of the Left Behind books.

Clearly, Lahaye and Jenkins did not get their interpretation of Revelation from thin air.

Lahaye has written his own commentary on Revelation which, although it is not necessarily seen as being 'academic', I think actually does a decent job at interpreting Revelation from a premillennial, pretribulational, futurist perspective.50 And Lahaye is not the first Christian to have expressed such an interpretation of Revelation:

The futurist approach is held by the majority of the most popular contemporary evangelical writers and Bible teachers.... The best-known version of futurism today is that of dispensational theology. This is the camp of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Clarence Larkin, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, and many others.51

The futurist view of the end-times was also held by some notable early church teachers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus.52 Yet as seen earlier in this post, other early church authors like Augustine and Origen took a more 'spiritual' approach.

Despite this difference of views on the end times, we can say that in general, the early church believed that Jesus' return was imminent (i.e., that Jesus could return at any time):

The central feature of pretribulationism, the doctrine of imminency, is, however, a prominent feature of the doctrine of the early church. Without facing all the problems that the doctrine of imminency raises, such as its relation to the Tribulation, the early church lived in constant expectation of the coming of the Lord for His Church.53

At the same time,

It is true that the early church fathers were not always consistent, as on the one hand they held that the Lord could come at any moment and then perhaps in the next paragraph would intimate that something had to happen first.54

How the coming of the Lord could be a daily expectation as is indicated by the early Fathers and at the same time have a lengthy series of events preceding the Second Advent was apparently not resolved in the early church.55

Given that many far more important theological doctrines such as the two natures of Jesus (the hypostatic union) and the Trinity were not fully defined until later, and that historical theological disputes and debates focused on more critical theological issues, it is not surprising that the early church did not make it a priority to work out every detail of eschatology.56

Walvoord says,

Through much of the history of the church, the apparent conflict between the concept of imminency and the necessity of intermediate events before the Second Advent continued to be a problem, with no complete solution until pretribulationism — placing the Rapture before [all other] end-time events — was advanced.57

Of course, a common criticism of Christians who hold to the premillennial, futurist view of the end times that includes a pretribulation Rapture comes from the claim that the concept of the Rapture was invented by John Nelson Darby. Darby was a Bible teacher and evangelist who lived from 1800-1882, who was a member of of the Plymouth Brethren denomination.

Some critics even accuse Darby of getting his idea of the Rapture from a woman named Margaret McDonald who supposedly had some sort of a vision of Jesus' return. Yet Darby claimed to have derived his views on the end times from his own study of the Bible.58

However, Darby was not the first theologian since the time of the early church to advocate for the premillennial, futurist view of the end times. The Spanish Jesuit named Francisco Ribeira argued for the futurist approach to Revelation in 1585, and Samuel Maitland, the librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, introduced the futurist view to Protestants in 1827, which Darby later popularized.59

Yet to endorse or discredit an idea simply based on who else once expressed it, or who may have been the originator of it, is called the genetic fallacy.60 Judging whether an idea is true or not must occur based on evidence and arguments, not based on who else once believed it, or who currently believes it.

Or as Walvoord says,

The truth or error of pretribulationism must be settled on the exegesis of the Scriptures rather than by polling the early church Fathers or attempting to discredit the doctrine as originating from questionable characters.61

So if it should not matter who once put forward a particular view of the end-times, then likewise, it should not matter when a particular view of the end-times was first proposed.

After all, the accusation that the pre-Tribulation Rapture is a new understanding of the end times can also be leveled against the posttribulationist argument that the Rapture will only happen after the Tribulation:

It may be conceded that the advanced and detailed theology of pretribulationism of today is not found in the early church fathers, and there are some grounds for tracing this to Darby, who seems to have been the first to make this sharp distinction. What posttribulationists do not seem to realize is that the detailed arguments for posttribulationism as they are now advanced are even more recent than Darby; and if recency is an argument against pretribulationism, it is also an argument against posttribulationism. The fact is that the development of most important doctrines took centuries, and it is not surprising that even in the twentieth century new light should be cast on our understanding of Scripture.62

Christians should have no problem with the idea that there may be new theological discoveries and greater understandings of Scripture beyond what Christians believed in the past:

The charge that the doctrine of imminency is a new and novel doctrine is false, but the charge that pretribulationism has been developed and defined to a large extent in recent centuries is true. In any event, the thesis that the early fathers were omniscient and once-for-all defined every phase of theology is an unjustified limitation on the liberty of the Spirit of God to reveal the truth of Scripture to each generation of believers.63

The Bible itself seems to endorse the idea that Bible prophecy will become clearer as we get closer and closer to when the end times will occur.

The prophet Daniel did not fully understand some of his own prophecies, but was told by an angel that "the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9). This implies that these prophecies will become un-sealed for believers to understand sometime either near to or during the end times.

This claim makes sense, since I believe that it is only now possible to understand how some of the prophecies in Revelation could be literally fulfilled because of the development of modern technology.

As just one example, the ability of people all around the world to see the bodies of the two witnesses lying in the streets of Jerusalem for three days (Revelation 11:9-12) would have been difficult to understand before the invention of the television. Now, with smartphones and satellite Internet, live video streams can be easily watched basically anywhere in the world.

Robotics, computer-generated imagery, and rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence may indeed make it possible to create an image/idol of the Antichrist that will be able to speak and seem to be alive (Revelation 13:15), in contrast to all previous idols that were statues that could not see, hear, speak, or move (Jeremiah 10:5, 51:17, Daniel 5:23, 1 Corinthians 12:2, Revelation 9:20).

There was also never a case in history past where every person in the world was required to take some sort of a 'mark' in/on their forehead or right hand in order to be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18). Yet this is also now becoming a possibility thanks to the rise of technologies such as online banking, digital currencies, QR codes, RFID chips, and blockchain technology.

Even more importantly, the entire world has never been required to worship a single entity, whether a person, an idol, or a false god, or face the punishment of being beheaded (Revelation 13:11-15, 20:4).

Yes, there was one instance where, around 111-112 AD when Christianity was technically illegal, the Roman governor of the province of Bithynia would test whether someone who was brought to him was truly a Christian by asking them to pray to the gods, burn incense to a statue of the Roman emperor, and curse Christ, because these were things he had been told that Christians would never do.64

If the people being questioned did refuse to do these things, the governor would sentence them to death, not specifically for being a Christian, but simply for their "pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy".65

The early document titled "The Martyrdom Of Perpetua", perhaps written by Tertullian, recounts another famous instance of early Christian persecution in 202-203 in Carthage, during the reign of Septimus Severus. At this time, while it was not illegal to be a Christian, it was illegal for people to become new Christians. During her trial, the young woman Perpetua was asked to sacrifice to the emperor, but she refused. As punishment, she and several other new Christians who likewise refused were put in jail and were later killed in an arena by wild animals or gladiators.66

Perhaps the closest historical instance to what is described in Revelation 13:15-18 occurred in Rome under Emperor Decius from 249 to 251 AD. He wanted to restore and enforce the worship of the Roman gods, because he believed that the empire was facing problems because the people were neglecting to worship their gods.

As a result, Decius declared that worshiping the Roman gods was mandatory throughout the Roman Empire. Everyone was required to obtain a paper certificate that said they had offered a sacrifice to the Roman gods and burned incense to a statue of the emperor. Anyone who did not have this certificate was to be considered an outlaw. If Christians were found without their certificate, they would be arrested and tortured in an attempt to get them to recant their faith and follow the new law. To get around this law, some Christians bought false certificates in order to avoid persecution.67

So although the above instance could be seen as being somewhat similar to the requirement for all people to receive the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13, there are also several significant differences:

the paper certificates were not a mark that was printed in/on people's foreheads or hands.
the certificates were not used to limit people's ability to buy or sell.
it was possible to get around this law by buying or forging fake certificates.
Christians were tortured for not having a certificate, not beheaded.
this law applied only to people inside the Roman Empire, not to everyone in the entire world.

Furthermore, some Christians may have given in to this law, but later repented and reaffirmed their faith.

In the cases of Christians who had obtained fake certificates or who had repented, there was a debate about whether they should be allowed back into good standing with the church. In the end, it was decided that Christians who had purchased or forged certificates could be readmitted immediately, but others who had actually given in and sacrificed would only be allowed back in when they were on their deathbeds, or if they stood strong in a future instance of persecution.68

In contrast, Revelation clearly says that,

Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, they will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:9-11 NRSVA)

So it does not seem that it is possible for anyone to repent for taking the Mark of the Beast. Those who do take it are guaranteed to face God's wrath, which, as an annihilationist, I would interpret as being some period of physical torment which then ends in eternal destruction.

Yet since all true Christians are sealed by the Holy Spirit the moment we first believe, which guarantees that we will be eternally saved (Ephesians 1:13-14), it must be impossible for anyone who is a true Christian to take the Mark of the Beast.

God's people are sometimes depicted in the Bible as being marked 'spiritually' on the forehead to protect them from divine judgment (Ezekiel 9:4-6, Revelation 7:3, 9:4, 14:1). The Mark of the Beast may be Satan's attempt to twist and copycat this spiritual reality.

Logically, then, it seems that there must be something about the Mark of the Beast that makes it so much worse than simple idolatry, which, as in this historical example, Christians can commit, and can be repented of and forgiven.

Even in the Old Testament, the Israelite people were repeatedly forgiven for turning away from God and worshiping idols — even in the famous and blatant incident of idolatry with the golden calf at Mount Sinai (Exodus 32:7-14).

So there must be something extremely specific or special about the Mark of the Beast that causes people who take it to become immediately worthy of facing eternal divine punishment, and which is beyond the sin of idolatry. The extreme seriousness of the Mark of the Beast is shown by how God actually has an angel fly around the world, directly telling the people at that time that they must not take the Mark, or they will face eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11).

As I discussed at the end of a previous post, it seems there is a strong possibility that the Mark of the Beast may perhaps genetically change those who take it in such a way that they would be no longer fully human. If so, it would be impossible for them to be redeemed through the death of Jesus Christ because, since Jesus was fully human, his death can only atone for humanity's sins (Hebrews 2:14-17).

But regardless of exactly what the Mark of the Beast will be, there has been no instance anywhere in history, either literally or symbolically, of it being possible for people to take some 'mark' in/on their hand or forehead which immediately dooms them to face eternal divine punishment that they cannot repent of and be forgiven for.

All of this is strong evidence that the Mark of the Beast has never been fulfilled by any historical instance of Christian persecution, and so it must be referring to something that will still happen in the future.

And if so, then all the other details surrounding this Mark must also be yet-future, such as the existence of some man symbolically referred to as 'the beast' who rules the entire world for 42 months (Revelation 13:5-8), and a false prophet who endorses this man by doing miracles for him, and calling on the people of the world to make the Image of the Beast and to take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11-18).

Therefore, because only the futurist perspective of Revelation can properly account for all of the details about the Mark of the Beast that we are given in Scripture, I believe this is strong support for the premillennial, pretribulational approach to the end times, in contrast to all other approaches discussed in this post.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this post, the literal approach to reading the Book of Revelation which generally interprets the events in Revelation chapters 6 to 20 in a straightforward way, naturally leads to the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist approach to the end times.

The strengths of this perspective are that it:

explains how Revelation is still relevant to Christians today and in the future, not just the early church.
makes Revelation generally understandable to Christians though a straightforward interpretation of the divine judgments and other biblical symbols.
is consistent with the rest of what the Bible teaches about the end times, the return of Jesus, and the Millennial Kingdom.
makes sense of the unique details about the Mark of the Beast, and why those who take it will face automatic eternal destruction without any chance of forgiveness.
provides hope for Christians that Jesus will literally return in the clouds to at the Rapture to transform all Christians from immortal to mortal and take us to heaven before the Tribulation happens.

In comparison, all other approaches to Revelation which take it non-literally end up having problems of one sort or another:

Preterism has to believe that John was not talking about things that were in the future, even though this would make Revelation completely irrelevant to both his original audience and any future Christians. Preterism also has to interpret all the prophesied judgments of Revelation non-literally in order to claim that they were fulfilled in the past.
Historicism has to allegorize the judgments of Revelation in order to claim that some of them have been fulfilled in the past. There is also no consistency among historicist interpreters about which past events fulfilled certain prophecies in Revelation.
Posttribulationism cannot explain how anyone would be left to enter Jesus' Millennial kingdom in regular mortal bodies if the Rapture occurs at Jesus' second coming.
Postmillennialism is too optimistic about the ability of sinful Christians to bring peace and righteousness to the world, when the Bible says this will only occur after Jesus' second coming during the establishment of his Millennial Kingdom. Plus, postmillennialism has to significantly downplay the seriousness of the judgments in Revelation 6 to 18 so that they do not interfere with the continual improvement they expect the Church to bring to the world until the time of Jesus' second coming.
Amillennialism inconsistently allegorizes both the Millennium and the judgments of the Tribulation, but interprets Jesus' second coming, the final judgment, and New Heaven and New Earth literally. The allegorical/spiritual method of interpretation has no consistency and often takes Bible passages out of context or reads the interpreter's own desires into Scripture.
Liberal Christianity ignores how Jesus promised that he would literally return to Earth in the future. By interpreting all Bible prophecy non-literally, liberal Christianity denies critical elements of the gospel message, such as the future resurrection of all Christians, and eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Of course, one criticism of the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation is exactly that Jesus and John said these things would happen "soon" (Revelation 1:1, 3:11, 22:6-7, 22:12, 22:20), yet here we are nearly two thousand years later.

However, God's sense of time is different than humanity's, and God is waiting as long as he has to bring the end times in order for as many people as possible to be saved before then (2 Peter 3:8-9, Psalm 90:4, Romans 11:25).

And if this is why God is waiting until the very last possible minute to start the end times, then this is a very good reason for Christians to prioritize evangelism. We shouldn't be like the scoffers who say that Jesus isn't returning for a long time (2 Peter 3:3-7), or claim that certain things still have to happen before the Rapture. We should not tempt Christians to feel complacent and put off sharing the gospel, especially if evangelizing is uncomfortable, awkward, or personally risky.

Thus, the teaching of the imminent return of Jesus in the Rapture, followed by the onset of the end-time Tribulation that involves all of the terrible judgments in Revelation chapters 6 to 18, should keep every generation of Christians focused on the great commission that Jesus gave us before he ascended into heaven (Matthew 28:19-20).

The warning given in Revelation that Jesus truly could return "soon" should provide Christians with a constant sense of urgency for us to reach our loved ones with the gospel message, since there is no guarantee that we will have time to do so in the future.

In this way, the teaching about the end times contained in the Book of Revelation has been relevant for every generation of Christians, simply because we do not know for sure when the Rapture will happen or when the Tribulation will begin (Matthew 24:36). In contrast, I do not believe that any other approach to the end times provides as much motivation for Christians to share the gospel message.

I hope that any Christians who disagree will make their own arguments for their own perspectives on the end times by addressing the potential flaws with these perspectives that I have highlighted in the above post. I hope they will truly engage in this exegetical and theological debate over the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, rather than attempting to demean the proponents of the premillennial, pretribulational perspective for other reasons.

And if you are reading this and have not yet personally trusted Jesus' promise to give eternal life to everyone who believes in him, I would highly recommend for you to do so now.

Footnotes:

1. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 22.
2. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 26, quote from John J. Collins, "Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre," in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. Collins (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1979), 9.
3. "It is impossible to distinguish ultimately between prophecy and apocalyptic, for the latter is an extension of the former.... Certain differences do in part distinguish the two forms: prophecy tends to be oracular and apocalyptic visionary, and prophecy has a certain optimistic overtone (if the nation repents, the judgment prophecies [sic] will not occur), while apocalyptic tends to be pessimistic (the only hope lies in the future rather than the present). However, both center on salvation for the faithful and judgment for the unfaithful." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 13.
4. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 2-3.
5. "It should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position, so that one's eschatology does not necessarily dictate which approach to Revelation is to be preferred." Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28.
6. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 59-60.
7. Osborne notes there were a few skeptics who argued that there were errors in Revelation. For example, it was objected that there was no church in Thyatira in the late second century, but these objections were answered by Epiphanius and Hippolytus. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002) 23.
8. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 23-24. Osborne notes that part of the reason these theologians on the eastern side of the Roman Empire did not accept Revelation right away was because the differences in language and style in Revelation made them question whether it was truly the Apostle John who wrote it. Yet scholars have argued that the grammatical irregularities in Revelation could be explained by it being written by someone who "is often thinking in Hebrew as he writes the Greek" (Osborne, 24). If John was exiled on Patmos, it is unlikely he had anyone around to help him write his letter or act as a secretary for him to smooth out his words. Plus, John was originally a fisherman, not a scribe or linguist, and if John was actively writing while having his vision, as a few places in Revelation may suggest (Revelation 1:11, 10:4, 14:13, 19:9, 21:5), I think it would actually be expected that his grammar would not be the best!
9. Osborne calls this the 'apocalyptic mindset': "The fundamental perspective of the book is the exhortation to endure persecution on the basis of the transcendent reality of God's kingdom in the present as grounded in God's control of the future.... The judgment of the wicked and the vindication of the saints are important elements in apocalyptic and dominate Revelation as well. In light of this, the ethical mandate to persevere or overcome is essential, for apocalyptic is ethical at heart and demands faithfulness on the part of the people of God." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 14-15.
10. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 31-32.
11. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 33, see also 217, quoting Eugene Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 70.
12. "It is difficult to know the extent of the Neronian persecution. Christian writers from the latter part of the first century, and early in the second, recall the horrors of those days. It is also very likely that both Peter and Paul were among the Neronian martyrs. On the other hand, there is no mention of any persecution outside the city of Rome, and therefore it is quite likely that this persecution, although exceedingly cruel, was limited to the capital of the empire." Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 46.
13. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 46-48.
14. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 192.
15. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 59.
16. At the time when John wrote Revelation, "While there was no official Roman persecution, Christians felt a great deal of economic and social pressure to participate in Roman life, including the trade guilds with their idolatrous feasts and cultic practices as well as the imperial cult.... When Christians refused to do so, a great deal of antipathy was naturally directed against them.... While there is no developed persecution in the book, there was a great deal of daily opposition as well as signs of intensification on the near horizon." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 11.
17. Walvoord notes that, for example, "at least fifty different systems of interpretation (of Revelation) have arisen from the historical view alone." Thus, as Gregg admits, "if the prophecies' meanings cannot be identified with certainty, even after their fulfillments, the value of the prophecies to the readers of any period, whether before or following the fulfillments, is in serious question." Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 37.
18. D. L. Cooper, as cited in Jack Kelley, "How to Interpret the Bible", Grace Thru Faith, February 12, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025.
19. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 40.
20. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Revelation (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1968), 9, as quoted by Steve Gregg in Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 41.
21. This interpretation comes from the early eastern church commentator Methodius. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 30.
22. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 14.
23. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 27.
24. The earliest commentary on Revelation that has survived, by Victorinus of Pettau who died in 303 AD, was "firmly premillennial". It is suggested that based on quotations in other people's writings, the early church writers Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius also held this view. (Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28). John Walvoord argues that "The early church was far from settled on details of eschatology, though definitely premillennial" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156). Charles Ryrie has also claimed that "premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church" (Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 29, quoting Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loiseaux Brothers, 1953), 17). Others doubt whether this was true, since Justin Martyr, although stating that he held to premillennialism, admits that there were "many" other Christians who thought otherwise (Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 29, citing Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.)
25.This specific distinction did not necessarily exist among premillennial early church authors, who had not developed detailed systems of eschatology. "It was actually impossible for the Tribulation question even to be discussed intelligently until the Protestant Reformation had restored a theological foundation that would support it. Unfortunately the Reformers went back to Augustine for their eschatology instead of the early chiliastic [i.e., premillennial] Fathers; and until premillennialism was again established in the post-Reformation period, the advance of the interpretation of prophecy had to wait. In a word, the early Fathers were not specifically pretribulational, neither were they all posttribulational in the modern meaning of the term. They simply had not raised the questions involved in this controversy" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156). See also Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 20.
26. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 21. Revelation generally does not say much about Israel in comparison to the Church, except possibly if the male child in Revelation 12:5-6 refers not just to Jesus' personal ascension to heaven (Acts 1:6-11), but also to the rest of Jesus' body, the Church (1 Corinthians 12:12, 12:27) who will help Jesus rule during the Millennium with rods of iron (Revelation 2:27), but which is snatched up to heaven in the Rapture before the Tribulation, while unbelieving Israel is left behind to go through it. However, Israel will be protected by God during this time, and some of them will escape into the wilderness at the Abomination of Desolation (Revelation 12:6, 12:13-16, Matthew 24:15-28, Mark 13:14-23) when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). After this, the Antichrist will turn his attention to persecuting the Tribulation saints, i.e., all the new Christians who converted after the Rapture (Revelation 12:17, 13:7). The location of the battle of Armageddon will also begin in a place in northern Israel called Har Megiddo (Revelation 16:16), but the battle will make its way down to Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:1-14, 14:1-5). There, finally, the surviving one-third of Israel will recognize Jesus as their Messiah when he returns at his second coming to save them from the Antichrist's armies (Zechariah 12:10, 13:8, Revelation 19:11-21, Luke 13:34-35, Romans 11:11-24).
27. I have taken an academic course on Revelation during my Masters degree, read a number of different mainstream Christian authors' books about the end times, as well as both academic and non-academic commentaries on the books of Revelation and Daniel, and listened to various online pastors and other generally well-known and respected Bible prophecy experts who teach this perspective.
28. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 21.
29. "In a somewhat less degree [as between premillennialism and amillennialism] the same hermeneutical difference is seen in the pretribulational versus the posttribulational positions. Pretribulationism is based on a literal interpretation of key Scriptures, while posttribulationism tends towards spiritualization of the Tribulation passages." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979) 54-55.
30. "Postmillennialists assert that the millennium will come by the spiritual and moral influence of Christian preaching and teaching in the world. This will result in increased conversions, a more important role of the church in the world, earthly prosperity, the resolution of social ills and a general adoption of Christian values. Evil will diminish until the time of Christ's second coming, which will mark as well the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment." Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 93.
31."New Apostolic Reformation" Wikipedia.org, accessed August 5, 2025.
32. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16.
33. "It is a characteristic of postmillennialism that it does not attempt a literal interpretation of the Tribulation. Some [postmillennialists] less conservative than Hodge, such as Snowden, regard the Tribulation as any time of trouble, now largely past or associated with the apostolic period. Hodge himself did not offer any specific system of interpretation, as illustrated in his comment on the Book of Revelation: 'Some regard it as a description in oriental imagery of contemporaneous events; others as intended to set forth the different phases of the spiritual life of the Church; others as designed to unfold the leading events in the history of the Church and of the world in their chronological order; others again assume that it is a series, figuratively speaking, of circles; each vision or series of visions relating to the same events under different aspects; the end, and the preparation for the end, being presented over and over again; the great theme being the coming of the Lord, and the triumph of his Church'". John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 15-16.
34. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28.
35. "The inroads of the spiritualizing principles of Origen, which caused the downfall of premillennialism in the third and forth centuries and the departure from the Scriptures and which characterized the organized church until the Protestant Reformation, were hardly a climate in which an intricate problem such as pretribulationism versus posttribulationism could be solved" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156).
36. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 54-55.
37. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16.
38. "The tendency in amillennialism is to avoid specific details in describing the Tribulation. In effect, while admitting the fact of the coming Tribulation, amillennarians spiritualize the sequence of events that are prophesied. This is particularly true in the interpretation of the Tribulation section of the Book of Revelation." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 17.
39. "The fact that the Book of Revelation was written after this event [the destruction of the temple in 70 AD], however, and that a time of trouble is predicted to precede the Second Advent has led some [amillennialists], like Berkhof, to hold to a future Tribulation, placing the fulfillment of Scripture dealing with the Tribulation, including the battle of God and Magog, after the Millennium." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16-17.
40. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 146.
41. "For many, if not most, liberal Christians, the best of modern thought serves as a ruling norm for Christian belief. The Bible is still a source, but contemporary philosophy and science decide what parts of it are true and what parts are not." Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 48.
42. "Many liberal Christian theologians (and those influenced by them) have concluded from higher criticism that the Bible cannot be trusted to be what Christians believed about it for centuries. Higher criticism began in the eighteenth century in Europe but really took off among academic biblical scholars in the nineteenth century. And it evolved further during the twentieth century up to and including the Jesus Seminar of which Marcus Borg was a member. Higher criticism approaches the study of the Bible as ancient literature and refuses to engage in 'special pleading' for it. The practitioners of higher criticism set aside faith in the Bible as God's Word written and seek to examine its origins, evolution, and meaning using secular techniques of literary criticism. Higher criticism has not achieved much by way of consensus about the Bible, except that it is thoroughly human in origin and radically conditioned by cultures and traditions." Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022) 56.
43."Biblical scholarship is not the problem; the problem is higher criticism's naturalistic assumption, which colors and conditions how critics see the Bible. For example, most higher critics of the Old Testament assume that prophetic foretelling of the future cannot be real, so if a prophet is recorded as foretelling a future political event or war, that prophet's writing must not really be his. The book attributed to the prophet must have been written later — after the events foretold." (Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 56). "The problem with higher criticism is when it undermines the truth of the Bible using naturalistic assumptions about the impossibility of miracles and of God's supernaturally inspiring prophets to foretell future events" (Olson, 57).
44."By approaching the Bible with a naturalistic lens, liberal Christians strip it of supernatural inspiration and reduce it to a Christian classic that is fictional but nevertheless inspiring and even transforming. The Bible becomes primarily parabolic in nature" (Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022) 58).
45. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 159.
46. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 147-160. He examines the views of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Gary Dorrien, Washington Gladden, Henry Churchill King, L. Harold DeWolf, Delwin Brown, Donald E. Miller, Peter Hodgson, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, and Douglas Ottati.
47. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 161.
48. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 39.
49. "Left Behind", Wikipedia.org, accessed August 5, 2025.
50. Tim Lahaye, Revelation Unveiled (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), which is a revised and updated version of his older commentary that was formerly titled Revelation Illustrated and Made Plain.
51. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 40. Gregg also lists Isaac Williams, Stern, Bisping, J. A. Seiss, Robert H. Mounce, and George Eldon Ladd as others who held this view (Gregg, 32-33). The pretribulation Rapture was especially popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 19).
52. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 20.
53. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 51.
54. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 51.
55. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 155-156.
56. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 50-51, 156.
57. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 54.
58. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 19, 50, 150-154. Walvoord says "The assertion that pretribulationism in its modern form can be traced to some extent to Darby is supported by Darby's own writings. In his search for premillennial truth, Darby arrived at the position that the church is a special work of God distinguished from His program for Israel, This, in turn, led to the position that the Rapture is a special event for the church itself" (Walvoord, 150-151).
59. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 42, 32.
60. "Genetic Fallacy", Wikipedia.org, accessed August 8, 2025.
61. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 157.
62. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 50.
63. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 53-54.
64. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 50-51.
65. Alan Lauffler Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 A.D. (Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 4.
66. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 98-99, Alan Lauffler Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 A.D. (Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 60, 64, 69-71.
67. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 100-102.
68. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 103.

How Do YOU Do Theology?

2025-05-21T00:00:00+00:00

During my PhD, as part of my attempt to understand Jonathan Edwards' theology regarding his belief in double predestination, I read some books that explored theories about how we construct our worldview — i.e., our understanding of reality.

In the past, famous philosophers believed that it was best to build our understanding of reality similar to how people build a building.

That is, start with a solid foundation of basic truths which are so self-obvious that they cannot possibly be doubted, and then build subsequent truths on top of those truths, and more truths on top of those ones, etc. This theory is called foundationalism.1

An alternative theory is called holism. This theory proposes that our conceptual understanding of reality can be portrayed as a web or net.

At the center of this net are our most important beliefs about reality which we might call our 'convictions', and these convictions are less likely to change over time. In comparison, the outer edges of the net contain less-important beliefs that can more easily be changed without disturbing our central convictions.2

Personally, I find that holism is a more useful way of thinking about the structure of our theological beliefs, and how these beliefs can have different levels of importance. It helpfully illustrates how less-important beliefs can be added, modified, replaced, or given up on without affecting our core theological convictions.

In fact, being open to changing our beliefs to match with better evidence is a sign of intellectual courage and integrity. As we grow spiritually, it is likely that some of our beliefs about God, ourselves, and the world will change — hopefully, for the better.

I have personally changed some of my less-critical beliefs in order to better fit with one of my core convictions about God's goodness, and have found that my personal worldview has become more consistent and biblical as a result.

Therefore, it is worth thinking through how we do theology and build our Christian worldview, so that we can do so more intentionally and conscientiously. We can also consider whether there may be improvements we could make to our worldview by incorporating some ideas that we had previously ignored or rejected, or by rejecting some ideas we had previously believed.

Additionally, being aware of how we do theology may help us understand why there is so much variation within Christian theology. Understanding some of the reasons we may disagree with other Christians should help us have grace for our brothers and sisters despite our theological disagreements.

In this post, I will discuss three aspects of how we do theology that I believe have a significant influence on the shape of each individual Christian's worldview, and which also influence the theology of churches and even entire Christian denominations.

But first, to set the stage, I want to suggest another analogy beyond just a 'web' or 'net' that helpfully illustrates many aspects of how individual Christians build a 'holistic' worldview which supports their personal faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Doing Theology Is Like Building A Raft

Imagine you find yourself treading water out in the middle of the ocean, with no land in sight, waiting to be rescued. In this analogy, keeping your head above water represents having an active personal faith in Jesus as your Savior.

You don't know how you got here, but floating all around you is an enormous collection of objects of different sizes, shapes, and materials. These objects represent different ideas about God, ourselves, and the world.

To keep your head above water, you first grab onto the largest and most buoyant object you can — say, a large barrel. This barrel might represent a simple Bible verse like John 3:16. Holding tightly onto this barrel keeps you floating, but doing this for the long term might be difficult if your rescue is going to be days away.

So you grab the next-biggest piece of floating debris that you can find — maybe a large piece of wood or foam — and join it to this barrel by tying the two together with some rope. You continue this process of picking up floating objects from the water and securing them into a raft which keeps you afloat while you wait for your Rescuer to come.

We can picture someone in this scenario who soon has a barrel, a few pieces of wood, and a life preserver strung together into something which keeps them afloat well enough in calm seas. This might be comparable to the basics of faith we would find outlined in the early church creeds.

But let’s imagine that the ocean waves start to get larger, choppier, and soon a full-blown storm has arrived. The person with only a basic theological understanding of the gospel may find it harder to keep afloat when the storms of life such as doubt, persecution, suffering, or hard times wash over them.

Such a person may even be pushed under the waves for a time and appear to have lost their faith, yet eventually they will bob back up to the surface sooner or later, and so they will finally be rescued (Ephesians 1:13-14).

However, a person who has a larger and stronger raft will have a much easier time waiting for rescue. If their raft is strong enough, they may even be able to climb up right on top of it and sleep peacefully despite the strongest storms the ocean might bring, like Jesus did in the boat on the lake of Galilee (Matthew 8:23-26). When faced with doubts, persecution, hard times or suffering, their faith remains strong, because they have a Christian worldview which is consistent, coherent, and able to withstand criticism.

If we put together enough pieces, we might even learn where we came from and how we got to be out here floating in the ocean in the first place. We'll know how to look for the signs that the Rescuer is about to come, how to live in the meantime, and what to expect after being rescued.

We will learn about our Rescuer, how great he is to come save us when we don’t deserve it, how much he loves us, and what he was willing to do to save us. We will know how to rely on his Holy Spirit, how to teach others about the Rescuer, and how to keep afloat in this stormy ocean of life.

Therefore, I believe that every Christian should desire to build the best worldview/raft we can, in order to support our faith in times of crisis, and to make the time spent waiting for our Rescuer spiritually easier.

And yes, this means that I believe that every individual Christian builds their own worldview/raft, even though we can learn from others and examine how they have built their worldviews/rafts. Even then, every Christian's worldview/raft will be slightly different, depending on the exact combination of materials that we choose to make up our rafts, how we put the pieces together, and which pieces we leave out from our rafts.

This is why we have such a variety of beliefs among Christians who are all working with the same Bible. We get Calvinists, Catholics, Arminians, Open Theists, Wesleyans, Mennonites, Lutherans, and so forth, who all have variations in their theology, to a greater or lesser extent.

Even within these Christian denominations or ideologies, each individual believer will have a slightly different worldview, because if we are thinking for ourselves and reading the Bible for ourselves, we will not just believe everything we are told to by others.

In my experience, I have not found a single pastor, author, or scholar who I can say I fully agree with about everything they say. Thinking for ourselves about our worldview is a healthy mindset which prevents us from blindly absorbing others' theological mistakes.

I also hope any readers of this blog will reject any mistakes I might be making, even though I try to do my best to avoid them.

Now, let's look at the first of three aspects of how we do theology which has a significant influence on the shape of our worldview/raft.

Aspect 1: What Sources of Authority Do You Prioritize?

The first major aspect of how we build or evaluate a Christian worldview is to consider the theological sources of authority behind the particular beliefs within this worldview.

Just as in my raft analogy, the floating items in our rafts are made of different materials, so our beliefs that make up our worldview are based on different sources of authority.

I believe that the categories of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral include all of the possible sources of authority that Christians can appeal to when making theological statements. These sources are: Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience.3

Scripture contains arguments for our beliefs that are based primarily on our interpretation of the Bible.
Tradition contains arguments for our beliefs that are based primarily on what Christians in the past believed and passed down to us, perhaps going all the way back to the early church.
Reason contains arguments for our beliefs that are based primarily on our philosophical assumptions and thoughts about reality, or more simply, on what 'makes sense' to us.
Experience contains arguments for our beliefs that we have gained over the course of our lives through our practical experiences and personal spiritual experiences.

Given the above, it can be useful to think about which one of the above sources of authority we tend to prioritize, or which sources support our most central theological beliefs.

To help determine this, we might reflect on what sort of theological arguments we find most convincing when we encounter them in sermons, podcasts, books, blogs, or even during discussions with friends or skeptics.

Below, I've attempted to suggest some other possible clues that might indicate that a Christian prioritizes each of the above four sources of authority when building their Christian worldview.

As a disclaimer, I'm not saying that prioritizing one of these sources of authority is inherently or automatically better than another, and I've tried my best to keep my descriptions neutral. In general, I suspect most Christians will tend to resonate most strongly with one or two of the below descriptions, even though there are likely some elements of the others that we will relate to also.

Scripture

If you prioritize Scripture, you probably learn the most from studying the Bible directly, and you likely make time to read the Bible every day. In fact, you've probably read through the Bible multiple times, using several different reading schemes and/or translations. And you typically don't skip the 'boring' books, either. You may also have many Bible verses memorized word-for-word.

You might like delving into the meaning of key words in the original Biblical languages to gain greater insight into their meaning. You also likely enjoy reading Study Bibles which provide extra insight into the historical or cultural nuances of certain Bible verses. If you really want extra insight, you might go read a Bible commentary or two on a particular book of the Bible. Your favorite Bible studies are probably those that focus on individual books of the Bible, rather than on a broader theological theme or topic.

You probably like it best when pastors preach sermons that look at Scripture in depth without skipping over any verses, even if this means it takes months to finish one book of the Bible.

You appreciate it when other Christians can either quote, cite, or at least paraphrase specific verses to support their theological statements. If they can't or don't do so, you might call them out on it.

You probably pay close attention to the words used in prayers or worship songs during a church service, and you might raise concerns with your church leadership if you perceive some phrases in these songs or prayers to be 'unbiblical'.

You likely resonate with Psalm 119:11. And like Jesus, you might frequently find yourself saying, "It is written...", or in more contemporary language, "The Bible says...". As a result, you might have been called a "Bible thumper," possibly even by other Christians.4

You may have a favorite version of the Bible which is probably based on arguments about how it is the best version when it comes to how it translates particular passages of Scripture. Alternatively, you might like the Amplified version of the Bible which lets you see several alternative possible meanings of important words as you read.

Tradition

If you prioritize tradition, you probably love learning about what important and influential Christian figures from the past thought about God. You probably like reading biographies about your favorite Christian figures, whether recent or historical. You might like watching movies and TV series which depict what life was like for Christians in the past.

You might take comfort in the long line of Christians who have gone on before you, or who have been key figures in your denomination's history, even going back to the list of faithful believers in Hebrews chapter 11. You might look forward to meeting your favorite Christian heroes in heaven.

When discussing theology or the Bible with other Christians, you frequently bring up things that past theologians said or taught. If a famous theologian taught something you agree with, you will feel especially vindicated about holding this particular belief.

You might have certain early-church creeds memorized, or portions of your denomination's most important confessions or catechisms.

The older a theological source is, the more authority you might perceive it to have. Alternatively, new theological ideas or uncommon interpretations of Scripture probably make you feel nervous or suspicious.

You might prefer it when a pastor uses a prayer from a traditional prayer book, rather than praying with his or her own words. You might be drawn to denominations which have old buildings and traditional liturgical practices.

You might be accused of being "stuck in the past" for preferring hymns over modern worship songs. You might feel dread in the pit of your stomach when you hear your pastor say "And now we're going to try something a little different..."

You probably gravitate to works of historical theology which show how the Christian faith was developed or changed over time, or to documentaries that explore major moments in theological history, such as the conversion of Emperor Constantine, the Great Schism of 1054, or the Reformation.

You might also like studying other ancient non-Biblical sources such as the Apocrypha, Gnostic Gospels, Talmud, Koran, or ancient Greek or Chinese philosophers' writings to see how they could appear to support certain Christian ideas.

Reason

If you prioritize reason, you probably like studying Christian apologetics. This is a category of theology which aims to support the truths of Christianity based on things like logical analysis and historical or scientific facts. You always want to be able to give a reasonable answer to anyone who asks why you believe what you do (1 Peter 3:15).

You might like books which explain how Christianity fits within larger philosophical understandings of reality, and you probably enjoy debates over different worldviews such as atheism, monotheism, polytheism, deism, syncretism, pluralism, idealism, materialism, realism, pantheism, or panentheism.

You might also feel passionately about the debates over topics like free will, God's foreknowledge, providence, and theodicy that often take place between Christians who identify as Calvinists, Arminians, Open Theists, and Process Theists.

You might occasionally be called "argumentative" or "contentious". Your appreciation of and insistence upon logical consistency or pointing out logical fallacies might frustrate some people.

You likely enjoy sermons which highlight a theme or build up a particular theological idea based on bringing together verses taken from many different parts of Scripture. You might also like learning about how difficult Bible verses actually do not contradict one another. You might like learning why various early church heresies were labelled as such, and pride yourself on knowing how to refute them.

You might like listening to debates where Christians contend for the truth of Christianity against skeptics, atheists, or people of other religions. You might study other religions to be able to more easily refute them if you come across someone you want to witness to who is part of these religions.

You also probably have at least one systematic theology book on your bookshelf, perhaps along with other books which are focused on more specialized topics of theological interest to you. And these books are probably arranged nicely in some sort of order that makes the most sense to you.

You probably jump at the chance to defend or explain Christianity to someone who has questions about it, and sometimes get up the courage to debate with skeptics (or even other Christians) in the comments sections of websites.

Experience

If you prioritize experience, you probably enjoy spending a lot of time in personal prayer or worship. You probably love the idea of going on a prayer walk outdoors in nature, or on a Christian retreat where you can participate in various activities that can help you feel closer to God.

When you read the Bible, certain verses stand out because they speak to your current spiritual needs or real-life situation. You are likely strongly moved by your favorite worship songs. You might be drawn to denominations which allow or encourage greater emotional expression and personal interaction during services, even if these denominations are less traditional.

You probably love hearing testimonies from other Christians about how they came to faith, how God is working in their lives, and things they've learned about God through their personal situations. News from missionaries about miracles they saw God do probably excite you, and so do stories about how God was already at work in non-Christian cultures to prepare the way for the gospel message.

It might comfort you to look back over your Christian life and remember the times you felt God's presence the strongest, or reminisce about how you've seen the Holy Spirit at work in your life, or recall times when God really came through for you in a practical, tangible way. Journaling might appeal to you as a way to keep track of your prayer requests or spiritual insights and struggles, and to enable you to look back and see how God answered these requests, or how much you've spiritually grown.

You are probably attracted to devotional books that focus on personal practical application of Christian truths, or books which claim to teach you about how to hear God more clearly or be aware of God's presence at all times.

Contemplative prayer probably appeals to you, along with other less-common spiritual practices and disciplines. These practices may raise some eyebrows among other Christians who think they are strange or questionable.

Even if someone makes a compelling theological claim or interpretation of Scripture, you might just 'feel' that it's not right, due to how it doesn't give you a sense of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness, or promote self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). You might rely on these sorts of feelings fairly often when attempting to discern truth, even though other Christians warn you to avoid mistaking your own feelings for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

During Bible studies, you might often think of how your past experiences relate to the topic, and when asked for advice by other Christians, your first instinct is likely to share what has worked for you personally in the past.

What do you think? Do you identify with some of the above descriptions?

And of course, it should be noted that this is just talking about which sources we tend to prefer or prioritize. It doesn't mean we only use our favorite source(s) of authority and exclude or ignore the others, because ignoring some sources of authority can lead to problems for Christians, as I'll discuss below.

Conflicts Among The Different Sources of Authority

If you've spent much time in church, seminary, or other places where various types of Christians interact, as you were reading the above descriptions, you likely thought of some particular Christians you know who clearly fall into the above categories.

You might also have seen arguments or disagreements between Christians because of differences in how they prioritize these different sources of authority.

I also believe that some of the differences between different Christian denominations' theology can be traced back to which source(s) of authority they prioritize.

For example, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican/Episcopalian denominations tend to put a decent amount of weight on their traditions, whereas Pentecostals typically emphasize experience over tradition.

During the Reformation, the Reformers often appealed to Scripture to override what they saw as the incorrect teachings of Catholic tradition. Yet Baptists, Mennonites, and others in the Radical Reformation also used Scripture to justify moving beyond some of the traditions which the Reformers retained from Catholicism.

John Wesley, who was the progenitor of various denominations such as the Wesleyans, Methodists, the Salvation Army, and Church of the Nazarene, was interested in applying lessons from Christian experience to encourage the practical spiritual formation and sanctification of his followers, whom he organized into small groups that met during the week to study the Bible, pray, and encourage one another. Although this was untraditional for the time, based on Wesley's experiential success, many other denominations have now come to adopt the same practice.

As another example, Calvinists may tend to emphasize their interpretations of Scripture and appeal to other famous theologians such as Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, or Augustine (i.e., tradition) to support their beliefs. In contrast, Arminians and Open Theists often appeal to philosophical arguments about free will (i.e., reason) and their own interpretations of Scripture to argue that the Calvinists are incorrect about their understanding of God's sovereignty, foreknowledge, and the doctrine of predestination.

In my raft-building analogy, these sorts of disagreements — whether between individual Christians or between Christian denominations or ideologies — would be like people floating in the ocean while criticizing each other's rafts. Yet as long as our rafts are all floating (i.e., as long as they support our faith in Jesus Christ as our personal Savior), then perhaps the differences in which materials we prioritize or exactly how our rafts are constructed are less critical then we sometimes think they are.

Of course, ideally, our theological beliefs should be supported by all four sources of authority.

As a result, if there seems to be a conflict between different sources of authority regarding one of our theological beliefs, this is perhaps a hint that we should look more closely at it.

For example, I was completely shocked when, during my duties as a Teaching Assistant, I read one student's paper in which he argued that he believed the Holy Spirit had told him that parts of the Bible are now obsolete or incorrect.

Conveniently for him, these portions of Scripture included all the verses which called out a particular sin which Christians have traditionally believed to be a sin, but which our Western culture today believes is no longer a sin. The student then went on to argue that traditional Christians needed to have more tolerance for his untraditional perspective, while being notably intolerant of anyone who disagreed with him.

This is a clear example of a Christian doing theology by attempting to use his personal experience to dismiss both Scripture and tradition.

However, the student's claim also made no logical sense, because all the words of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21), and so the Holy Spirit would never contradict Himself, since in a contradiction, at least one statement is a lie, and God never lies because he is the Truth (Titus 1:2, John 14:6, 14:17, 16:13, 1 Corinthians 13:6). So in the end, the student's argument didn't have much support from reason, either.

Therefore, it seems most likely that the student's interpretation of his personal spiritual experience was mistaken. His erroneous theology may have made him feel good about saying this sin was no longer a sin, but if so, he has missed the fundamental truth that Christianity is not about making us feel good about ourselves or our sin.

As another example of potential conflicts between different sources of authority, I met a fellow doctoral student whose entire project was aimed at refuting his very traditional denomination's long-held beliefs about sexual morality, based primarily on the student's arguments from a much more recent theologian's personal experiences.

Yet because this student's denomination prides itself on holding to very ancient Christian traditions, the student's arguments that depended on a much more recent theologian's views had basically no chance of changing his denomination's mind on this issue.

In this case, the refusal of a very traditional denomination to change its views was a good thing. However, there are also times when a stubborn adherence to tradition may cause problems for Christians.

For example, in my PhD dissertation, I argued that Jonathan Edwards held to the difficult doctrine of double predestination mostly due to the practical need for him to conform to his Puritan community's theological tradition, which he reconciled himself to based on a personal spiritual experience.

His view was also influenced by his understanding of hell that he saw in Scripture, and his rejection of a competing theological tradition which was genuinely undermining the gospel message.

However, Edwards' arguments for double predestination ultimately contained several flaws when it came to logical consistency (i.e., reason), and also required him to ignore some verses of Scripture which disagreed with his conclusions.

For example, Edwards was unable to explain 1 Timothy 2:3-4 or 2 Peter 3:9 which speak about God's desire for everyone to be saved. Instead, Edwards seems to use reason to justify ignoring these verses, since he claimed that "we may justly infer what God intends by what he actually does, because he does nothing inadvertently, or without design".5 So if some people are not eternally saved in the end, in Edwards' worldview, it is because God wanted it that way, despite the fact that Scripture clearly says otherwise.

So in my raft analogy, it would be like Edwards was being pressured to take this one piece (i.e., his tradition's doctrine of double predestination) and include it somewhere in his raft. So he wedged it in there, and felt justified in doing so because of his personal spiritual experience. Unfortunately, this caused several other pieces of his theological worldview to pop out of place (i.e., Scripture, and reason).

This should have been a clue that Edwards needed to keep revising his theology until all the conflicting verses of Scripture could be convincingly accounted for, and the logical inconsistencies in his philosophy had been corrected. Yet the results would likely have caused him to question his community's tradition, which would have led to negative personal consequences for Edwards and his ministry.

Although I would have hoped that Edwards would have eventually done this if he had lived longer, realistically, we should remember that no one's theology will ever be perfect in this life (1 Corinthians 13:12), and so we should not expect perfection from fellow Christians.

What About Scripture Alone?

As seen in the examples I gave earlier, there can be problems if we try to make our experience the center of our raft, if it requires us to exclude Scripture, tradition, or reason. The same is true if we were to put tradition or reason at the center and exclude Scripture or experience.

For example, those who prioritize reason may be tempted to reject things in the Bible that don't make sense to them, or things that they can't scientifically explain.

But Christianity is, at it's core, based on the miraculous resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which vindicated everything Jesus said and taught about himself, God, and the gospel (Romans 1:4). Paul said that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then Christians should be pitied, because we would be totally deluded, and our sins would not actually be paid for (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

The Reformation also showed how sometimes it is necessary to reject parts of tradition if tradition has gone awry and is teaching things which have no support from Scripture, or at worst, is teaching things that are actually contrary to Scripture.

So ideally, I believe it is safest to put the parts of our worldview which come from Scripture closer to the center of our Christian worldview than the parts which come from tradition, reason, or experience. This means we should be willing to question or critique our beliefs which have come from tradition, reason, or experience on the basis of Scripture, and potentially change or give up these beliefs, if there is a clear and unresolvable conflict with Scripture.

However, I realize that I have come to this position thanks partly to being raised in various Protestant traditions, which emphasize the authority of Scripture above all other sources of authority. Through my personal experience, I have also seen what happens when people prioritize something other than Scripture in their worldview, and so I have personally resolved to try to make Scripture my ultimate authority and source of truth, even if it seems to conflict with tradition, reason, or aspects of my personal experience.

This means I subscribe to the principle of sola Scriptura, which translates to "Scripture alone". This is one of the Reformation's Five Solas, which are five principles of Protestant theology that defined Protestantism in contrast to the theology of the medieval Roman Catholic Church.6

Yet we must remember that,

[Sola Scriptura] does not mean that tradition or councils are not considered. It means that the Scriptures alone are the final and the highest authority. Everything that the Scriptures address are to be used as the final word on that topic. All things that we learn from other sources must be compared to Scripture, and if they do not match Scripture or if they contradict Scripture, then we are not to affirm them.7

But in practice, what makes the situation complicated is that it is impossible to interpret Scripture without relying to some extent on these other three sources of authority!

For example, let us consider tradition. As the Christian historian Justo L. Gonzalez, writes,

Without understanding the past, we are unable to understand ourselves, for in a sense the past still lives in us and influences who we are and how we understand the Christian message. When we read, for instance, that "the just shall live by faith," Martin Luther is whispering at our ear how we are to interpret those words—and this is true even for those of us who have never even heard of Martin Luther. When we hear that "Christ died for our sins," Anselm of Canterbury sits in the pew with us, even though we may not have the slightest idea who Anselm was....The notion that we read the New Testament exactly as the early Christians did, without any weight of tradition coloring our interpretation, is an illusion. It is also a dangerous illusion, for it tends to absolutize our interpretation, confusing it with the Word of God.8

So we cannot say that we rely literally only on Scripture, even though some Christians sometimes claim to do so. If a Christian does claim that all they need is Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13), it should be noted that the word translated as "you" in the original Greek is plural.

This means that being "guided into all truth" is a group activity!

We need others to help us understand what the Holy Spirit is teaching us through the Bible. To try to read the Bible on its own without any help at all from others would surely be quite confusing. So just as in many other areas of life, Christians can benefit greatly from learning from others who are more knowledgeable or who have studied a topic for longer than we have.

Thus, it is useful to read some theology and Biblical studies to learn from these experts, even as we carefully think through what these experts teach us and compare it with our own understanding of Scripture, and discuss it with other Christians.

In this way, hopefully, the Church/Body of Christ which is made up of all true Christians (Romans 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:12-13) can slowly work our way closer to the truth, under the leading of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).

And from a practical perspective, all of us learn how to interpret the Bible from someone else (i.e., tradition), and the people we learn from are also basing their interpretations on either tradition, reason, or experience.

But of course, this is not to say that interpreting the Bible with the help of these other sources of authority means that we can make the Bible mean whatever we want it to mean. There are good principles of Biblical interpretation which help constrain our interpretation of Scripture and narrow down the most likely meaning of verses.

We should always try to understand the author's most likely original intent, audience, and historical context. Looking up the meaning of words in lexicons or dictionaries, and comparing with other Bible translations can also help us understand what individual words mean, if it's not clear.

We must also read each verse within its literary context. This means understanding what sort of genre we are reading, what sort of conventions are expected in this sort of genre, and the general topics and flow of ideas that are being discussed before and after the verse in question.

Yet none of these principles of interpretation can rightly be used to say that a particular Bible verse is not true or authoritative, if we believe that all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and useful to Christians in one way or another (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21).

Aspect 2: What Verses Are At The Center Of Your Theology?

So far, we've seen how our worldview is affected by which source(s) of authority we prioritize when we do theology, whether Scripture, tradition, reason, or experience.

We've also seen that the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura means that Scripture should have a very important role in any strong Christian worldview, even if our interpretation of Scripture will always be influenced by these three other theological sources of authority.

Yet just as some of our beliefs will inherently be closer to the center of our worldview than others, we also inherently need to put some verses of Scripture closer to the center of our holistic understanding of the Bible. Which verses we choose to put closer to the center will change the overall shape of our worldview to a greater or lesser extent.

This is the second-most important aspect of how we do theology which affects the shape of our Christian worldview.

A recommended approach to Biblical interpretation is to use the clearest verses to interpret the more difficult verses. This is the Protestant doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture,9 also called the clarity of Scripture.10

As expressed in the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, article VII, this doctrine means that

Those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.11

Basically, this principle means that what we need to know about the absolute basics of the gospel regarding how to have eternal life is clear enough in the Bible that we don't need to be an expert in Biblical interpretation or theology in order to understand it.

Of course, this principle of the Perspicuity of Scripture is itself a traditional Protestant belief.

In the earliest years of the Reformation, Bible translators were sometimes persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church for translating the Bible into local vernacular languages. It seems that church leaders feared that the variety of interpretations that would arise from allowing average Christians to read the Bible for themselves would lead people to no longer simply trust the experts in the church hierarchy, even though preventing non-experts from reading the Bible was effectively a form of censorship.12

No matter how much some experts might dislike the fact, it is true that no one can force anyone to believe anything. Each of us end up choosing our own beliefs, ultimately based on faith, even in the most minimal case of simply choosing to believe what someone else says we should believe.

Thus, having individual access to Scripture and the right to read and interpret it for ourselves is a privilege which all Christians should value and make use of. Most Protestant churches encourage their members to read the Bible for themselves, and I would hope that the Catholics and Orthodox now do as well.

What's even more convenient is that today, anyone with an internet connection can access the Bible and other Bible study resources for free through online resources like BibleGateway,13 and BibleHub.14

The fact that Scripture is now so easily accessible means that every Christian will likely have a few of the clearest Bible verses either at the very center of their worldview, or very near to this center. As mentioned previously, John 3:16 may be one such verse.

Then, if we follow the principle of the Perspicuity of Scripture, how we interpret these clearer verses will affect how we interpret more difficult verses.

We see an example of this sort of interpretation when John Wesley argued that because of the very clear verses which say that God truly wants everyone to be saved (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:3-4), when it comes to the more complicated verses the Calvinists use to try to claim that God only wants to save some people, Wesley could proclaim, "Whatever these other verses mean, they cannot mean that!".15

Thus, it could be interesting to think about which verses we prioritize in our Biblical interpretation, or which verses we place at the center of our Christian worldview and our understanding of the gospel.

Like for Wesley, one clue that can indicate which verses we prioritize may be how we use these central verses to override what we see as potential misinterpretations of other less-clear verses.

For example, one of my favorite and most-central verses in my Christian worldview has become Ephesians 1:13-14:

To me, this verse clearly teaches two core tenets of Free Grace theology:

We are saved only by putting our faith in Jesus Christ alone for eternal life.
The moment we first trusted in Jesus as our Savior, we are sealed by the Holy Spirit so that we can never lose our eternal salvation.

I often use this verse to override any interpretation of other Bible verses which seem to wrongly suggest that our salvation depends on doing good works of some sort, or that we must persevere in faith until death or the Rapture to be eternally saved.

Other similar verses which clearly teach salvation by faith alone that I frequently find useful, helpful, or reassuring are:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
John 6:28-29: Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
John 6:40: For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.
Ephesians 2:8-9: For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 4:5: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Romans 3:21-24: But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
2 Corinthians 5:21: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Romans 8:1: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
1 Thessalonians 5:9: For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

A few other very-central verses to my understanding of the gospel are:

1 John 4:8 and 4:16, which say that God's core nature is Love, which is the basis for my theory of Christian inclusivism.
1 Timothy 2:3-4, which, like John Wesley, I also use to override any verse which might seem to suggest that God only wants to save some people.

So, do you have a few favorite Bible verses that you keep coming back to, or which you cling to during tough times like someone clinging to a big floating barrel in the middle of a rough ocean? Or is there a very central verse which you have built the rest of your Christian worldview around?

Is Our Worldview Ever Complete?

Theoretically, it seems like it should be possible to incorporate every piece we find floating around us into a perfect raft with no gaps or holes in it at all. When I first started studying theology, this is what I thought the goal of doing systematic theology was, and I wanted to find ways to fit it all together perfectly.

While this would be ideal, practically, it seems impossible, because no one has yet done it.

Even the shapes and sizes of pieces given to us by the Bible do not always seem to fit perfectly with one another. This is why Biblical interpretation and systematic theology have been ongoing pursuits since the time of the early church, even though we are all working with the same Bible.

Because of these considerations, if anyone claims to have all the answers, I would be very suspicious of them.

Probably, they have to work extremely hard to try to cram and twist all the pieces into someplace or another in their raft/worldview, but some of these pieces will not be in their most natural or intuitive place. When we poke at one piece to test if that's really how it's supposed to fit, it might pop right out, and take other pieces along with it.

Thus, having humility is important to help us recognize that in this life there will always be a few extra pieces of material floating loosely in the water around our rafts that we don't quite know how to handle. Even for the most mature, well-studied Christian, there will always be some things in theology or the Bible that don't quite make sense to us, things that we can't explain, and things that we simply do not know.

It doesn't hurt to occasionally pick these pieces up and re-examine them, and wonder about them, and try to test-fit them into our worldview/raft. But in the end if they don't fit, and our raft seems sufficiently sturdy for our current stage of life, we can accept that we still don't quite understand these pieces, and put them aside again for a while.

We should also be humble enough to be willing to hear some critique of our worldview/raft from fellow Christians, in case there may be some improvements we can make to our theology, or potential flaws in our worldview which we are not currently aware of.

In particular, there are a few theological errors I believe we should try to avoid when constructing our worldview, because they have the power to significantly skew the shape of our worldview/raft.

Aspect 3: Errors In Our Worldview

Being humble and recognizing that no one will ever know it all doesn't mean that we can't think critically about our worldview, or other people's worldviews. We don't have to accept bad theology just because we feel sympathy or compassion for the person who created it, or because we want to appear to be tolerant of all ideas.

Reason helps us recognize that some pieces do obviously fit together better than others. In these cases, we should be willing to examine what those pieces are, because the more closely the pieces in our raft fit together, the more sturdy our raft will be, and the better it will help us weather the storms of life.

There are two main errors I believe Christians can make when we are creating our worldview, although both errors ultimately boil down to the same fundamental problem of theological inconsistency:

Incorporating unbiblical ideas into our worldview.
Holding mutually-incompatible theological ideas.

Thus, whether we have any of the above errors in our worldview is the third aspect of how we do theology which can affect the shape of our worldview/raft.

I'll explain and give some examples of these errors that we can watch out for in the last two sections below.

Error 1: Incorporating Unbiblical Ideas Into Our Worldview

Although in my raft-building analogy we are surrounded by many floating items made up of either Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, we will also find some objects currently floating around us which are not made of any of the above materials.

These other objects will not ultimately float very well. They might temporarily appear to float, but eventually they will become water-logged and will only weigh down our rafts and compromise its structural integrity.

These types of objects represent ideas that are proposed to us by our culture, or by other religions or non-Christian philosophies about life. Yet ultimately, if these ideas are not compatible with Scripture, tradition, reason, or Christian experience, then they are ideas from Satan which have been thrown into the water to confuse us, scare us, discourage us, or keep us from knowing and preaching the truth.

Some examples of ideas from our Western culture which I believe are impossible to incorporate consistently into a strong Christian worldview are:

A belief in the existence of aliens.
The theory of biological evolution, which requires the unbiblical idea of physical death before the first sin.
The idea that all religions lead to heaven.
The claim that people can be good enough to merit eternal life.
The idea of spiritual reincarnation, rather than bodily resurrection.
The possibility of purgatory as an after-death requirement for Christians.
The belief that some parts of the Bible are not completely true.

At worst, by trying to incorporate all sorts of unbiblical things into their worldview, some Christians might end up going completely off track and "make shipwreck" of their understanding of the gospel (1 Timothy 1:3-7, 1:18-19).

In such a case, their rafts no longer hold together at all, and they fall apart or sink, leaving the person flailing around in an ocean of error, confusion, and potential negative practical consequences in their lives.

While a raft can still float with some of these water-logged materials in it, such that it will not prevent the person from eventually being rescued, ideally, we should try to remove as many of these materials as possible. By analyzing all of our ideas that make up our worldview in the light of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, hopefully we can identify them and find better ideas to replace them with.

Error 2: Holding Mutually-Incompatible Theological Ideas

Another problem I've come across in theology is when people try to hold together two beliefs that are mutually incompatible. If one belief/piece is incorporated into a person's worldview/raft, they will never be able to properly fit the other belief/piece, and vice-versa.

Such a person might justify their choice by saying that we don’t have to have rational reasons for what we believe, since faith is all that’s required, and so we can believe things that don’t make logical sense or appear to be inconsistent with one another.

If someone does insist on holding mutually-incompatible theological beliefs, it would be like someone holding onto their raft with one arm, and with the other arm they're holding onto another floating object that they refuse to let go of, but which cannot be combined into their raft.

As a result, the person is left floating in the water, unable to fully climb up on top of either their raft or the other object. This is surely not a very comfortable or enjoyable place to be. Yet the person continues to insist that the two pieces are compatible and that their raft is working well.

Yet in reality, not only does this look silly, but it's also exhausting.

This error reminds me of Jonathan Edwards' attempt to argue that God is not the ultimate cause of sin and evil, even though Edwards also claimed that God is the ultimate cause of everything that happens, including the fall of Adam and Eve into sin, and that God is in full control of every person's 'free will' (if you can even call it that in such a worldview).

In the end, Edwards seems to have recognized the problem in his theology, but he was unable to resolve it. As an excuse, he appealed to 'mystery', and argued that God's wisdom and ways regarding this issue are just so high that humans cannot understand it.16

Or at least, so high that Edwards couldn't understand it. Arminians and others would say the problem is with the Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty, rather than with our ability to understand the Bible or God's 'mysterious' ways.

Yet it seems that some Christians like Edwards will still insist on holding mutually-incompatible ideas, even if it makes them spend so much effort trying to convince themselves and others that it works, when it would be simpler to let go of one of these mutually-conflicting beliefs and build a more theologically-consistent worldview.

In these cases, as it was for Edwards, it is likely that there is something else going on which prevents the person from being willing to make what should be an obviously reasonable choice.

Conclusion

So in summary, I believe that there are three important aspects of how we do theology which influence the shape of our personal Christian worldview:

How we prioritize the four different sources of authority (Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience) when doing theology. This may change depending on the particular doctrine/belief in question.
Which Bible verses we see as the clearest and that we accordingly put closest to the center of our worldview, and use to interpret other less-clear verses.
What ideas we have incorporated into our worldview which do not come from one of the four theological sources of authority, but are from our culture and/or non-Christian religions or philosophies.

Recognizing that these three aspects of how we do theology shape our worldview is an important step in learning to think critically about our beliefs, so that we don't make the mistake of thinking that our way of reading the Bible is the only correct one, or that our worldview is the only truly 'Christian' one.

In this way, realizing how these aspects of doing theology affect our worldview should help us have grace for other Christians who believe differently on non-essentials of the faith, or who understand parts of the Bible differently than we do.

We can also examine these three aspects of how we and/or other Christians do theology, in order to learn about how these things can influence our worldview, and use the insights we gain to continually refine and improve our worldview.

If you are interested in understanding you own worldview better, here are a few questions that could be interesting for you to think about or journal about, in order to explore the influences that have shaped your theology and your understanding of the Bible:

If you wanted to challenge something your pastor said in a sermon, what source of authority would you feel most comfortable basing your argument on?
What are some of your most central beliefs about God?
From where did you learn your most central beliefs about God?
Can you categorize your theological beliefs according to which beliefs are primarily supported by the four different sources of authority?
Which people in your life have had significant influence on shaping your beliefs? (e.g., family, friends, neighbours, pastors, teachers, celebrities, authors, past theologians or Christian leaders, televangelists, politicians, talk show hosts, YouTubers, bloggers, magazine writers, comedians, fictional characters...)
Which Bible verses do you rely on to interpret other difficult Bible verses?
Are there any particular ideas about God or some traditional doctrines which you struggle to make sense of?
Have you ever changed one of your beliefs to make it fit better with the rest of your worldview? What was it that caused you to change your mind on this issue?
How much trust do you put in your own feelings or past experiences when it comes to using them to make theological decisions?
In your opinion, what criteria makes someone a theological 'expert' who is worth learning from? What criteria might discredit an expert or make an expert untrustworthy?
Where do you agree or disagree with your church or denomination's traditional practices or beliefs?
Have you ever had a disagreement with another believer over a theological statement? Was the disagreement due to a difference between the sources of authority you both prioritized? How did you reconcile this disagreement?
Where do you feel your culture is pressuring you to give up parts of a Biblical worldview in order to be seen as cool, respectable, intelligent, tolerant, etc.?

Hopefully these questions can spark some interesting reflection on your personal worldview and how you do theology. They might also be interesting to discuss in a small Bible study group, or with a few close Christian friends.

Footnotes:

1. Nancey Murphy, Theology In the Age of Scientific Reasoning (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1990), 4-7.
2. This model was invented by W. V. O. Quine in 1951. Nancey Murphy, Theology In the Age of Scientific Reasoning (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1990), 8. See also James Wm. McClendon Jr. and James M. Smith, Convictions: Defusing Religious Relativism Revised edition (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Pres International, 1994), 95–97, who talk similarly about the relationship between doctrines and lesser supporting convictions.
3. Donald A. D. Thorsen, The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Tradition, Reason & Experience as a Model of Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 22.
4. "What is a Bible-Thumper?", GotQuestions.org.
5. Jonathan Edwards, “Dissertation I: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 427. I was unable to find any instance anywhere in Edwards' writings where he actually explains what he thinks 1 Timothy 2:3-4 or 2 Peter 3:9 actually mean. A similar instance where Edwards ignores other verses of Scripture which do not agree with his view of predestination (such as Ezekiel 18:23, John 3:16, 2 Corinthians 5:19, and 1 John 2:2) occurs when he says that, "however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper, absolute design, and of a certain number only; and therefore such a design only can be prosecuted in any thing God does, in order to the salvation of men" (Jonathan Edwards, "Freedom of the Will," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey [Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008], 435). So regardless of what Scripture clearly says about God's desire to save everyone, or how Christ died for and redeemed the whole world, Edwards claims that he actually knows better than Scripture, due to all of Edwards' arguments made earlier in his book Freedom of the Will, many of which rely heavily on philosophical arguments about causality, which would put them under the category of reason.
6. "What are the five solas of the Protestant Reformation?", GotQuestions.org, accessed May 15, 2025.
7. Matt Slick, "What are the Five Solas?", Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, March 7, 2015, accessed May 15, 2025.
8. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Volume 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 3.
9. "What is the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture?", GotQuestions.org
10. "Clarity of Scripture", Wikipedia.org, accessed May 15, 2025.
11. "Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scripture" in The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith, hosted at A Puritan's Mind. For the entire Westminster Confession, see https://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/. Note that I do not fully subscribe to the Westminster Confession, although I find its description of this idea helpful
12. "Direct access to sources gave laymen a sense of competence in matters previously reserved exclusively to high church authority. The medieval church, fearing the social consequences of religious egalitarianism, had always forbidden the circulation of vernacular bibles among the laity and vigorously suppressed the gospel translations of groups like the Waldensians and the Wyclif Bible of Lollards." (Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform: 1250-1550: An Intellectual and Religious History of Late Medieval and Reformation Europe, [Yale University Press, New Haven, 1980], 202). John Wycliffe had translated the Latin Vulgate into English due to his conviction that the Bible belonged to the entire body of the Church, and not just the clergy. His followers called Lollards continued Wycliffe's beliefs, but were persecuted (Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Volume 1, Revised and Updated [New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010], 413-415). It wasn't until William Tyndale created an English translation of the New Testament in 1525 that English bibles became generally available to the laity in England. Yet even then, Protestant leaders sometimes censored dissident laity who criticized these leaders and their doctrines on the basis of Scripture alone (Ozment, 203).
13. BibleGateway
14. BibleHub
15. This is my paraphrase from Wesley's sermon "Free Grace". See Albert Outler, ed. The Works of John Wesley. Volume 3: Sermons, ed. Frank Baker (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982-1984), 556.
16. Janelle Louise Zeeb, "An Examination of Jonathan Edwards’ Theological Method Concerning the Problem of Reprobation" (PhD diss., University of Toronto and Wycliffe College, 2022), 150-164. For example, in response to critics of double predestination who claimed that this doctrine was so contrary to reason and against God's goodness that it is necessary to find alternative interpretations of those portions of Scripture which seem to teach double predestination, Edwards replied, "indeed it would show a truer modesty and humility, if they would more entirely rely on God's wisdom and discerning, who knows infinitely better than we, what is agreeable to his own perfections, and never intended to leave these matters to the decision of the wisdom and discerning of men; but by his own unerring instruction, to determine for us what the truth is; knowing how little our judgment is to be depended on, and how extremely prone, vain and blind men are, to err in such matters" (Jonathan Edwards, "Freedom of the Will," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey, [Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008], 438.)

Don't Fall For The Great (Alien UFO) Deception

2025-03-15T00:00:00+00:00

When Jesus' disciples asked him about what the end times would be like before Jesus' second coming, the very first thing Jesus said was "Watch out that no one deceives you" (Matthew 24:4, NIV).

In context, Jesus was warning about a person that end-times scholars refer to as the Antichrist, who will attempt to impersonate Jesus. The Antichrist will claim to be the Messiah and even claim to be God (Matthew 24:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), although he will actually be empowered by Satan (Revelation 13:4).

The Antichrist will be backed up by a false prophet who will do many impressive but deceptive 'miracles' as a way to support the Antichrist's claims. The false prophet will even be able to make fire come down from the sky, much like the prophet Elijah's famous miracle which distinguished the true God from a false god (Revelation 13:13-14, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, 1 Kings 18:38-39).

The Antichrist will also appear to be killed by a sword and come back to life, thereby faking a 'resurrection' that will appear to verify his claim to be God (Revelation 13:3-4), just as Jesus' real resurrection proved that he truly was the Son of God (Romans 1:4). The Antichrist will also be the only one who is able to kill God's two witnesses that will be prophesying in Jerusalem, who will be otherwise invincible (Revelation 11:3-7).

This is all going to be so impressive that if it weren't for the Holy Spirit's divine influence, even the people who will believe in Jesus during the Tribulation would be deceived (Matthew 24:24). The rest of the world's people will be duped into worshiping the Antichrist (Revelation 13:8), and into taking the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18), which will condemn them to eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11).

Although the Antichrist's claim to be God will be the peak of this great deception, and will likely occur about halfway through the seven-year Tribulation (Revelation 11:3-13, 13:3-5), I believe that in some sense this deception has already started.

How?

Because the very first lie the Antichrist will need to convince the world of once he comes to power will be to explain away how millions or even billions of people suddenly disappeared in an event that Christians refer to as the Rapture.

The Need for a False Explanation for the Rapture

After all, when all true Christians and all of the world's children are taken to heaven in the Rapture before the Tribulation begins, the people who are left behind on Earth will be more than a little concerned. Most likely, they will be in full-blown panic mode.

Hopefully, a large number of people who heard about the Rapture ahead of time will immediately drop to their knees and believe in Jesus once it happens. These people will have just seen a very powerful sign that confirms the truth of everything their Christian friends or family had told them about God, Jesus, the gospel, and the end times.

Many people who had previously called themselves Christian but who had never actually put their faith in Jesus will hopefully also wake up and truly trust in Jesus alone for eternal life, not their religious rituals, or their baptisms, or their church denomination, or their own good deeds, or whatever else they had previously trusted.

When put together, these two groups could explain how the Bible says that there will be a truly massive number of new Christians on Earth during the Tribulation, although many of them will end up having to die for their faith (Revelation 7:9-17, 12:17, 13:7, 20:4).

However, the Antichrist will not want to publicly admit that the Rapture just happened, precisely because it would be such a powerful testimony about the truth of Christianity.

Now, there is a theory that the Antichrist will claim that he has come to save the world and that as a first step, he was the one who caused all those 'bad' people to suddenly disappear, leaving behind only 'good' people. But I don't believe this would be the most convincing lie, because it doesn't explain why the children would also have disappeared.

There would also be no evidence which could prove that what the Antichrist claimed was actually true. Was it really because of the Antichrist, or was it because of Bob from Timbuktu who also claims to have mystical powers? There would be no way to prove it one way or the other.

So instead, many end-times commentators and scholars believe that the Antichrist will give a different false explanation for the Rapture. And actually, our society has already been prepared for decades to believe this false explanation.

What will this explanation be? That the Rapture was a mass alien abduction.

The Fictional Setup For A Mass Alien Abduction Deception

Ever since the famous 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Welles of H.G. Wells' fictional story "War of the Worlds" caused a panic about an alien invasion, the idea of intelligent alien life existing on other planets and even visiting Earth has become a staple of science-fiction stories. Many of these stories speculate about how humanity might interact with aliens and the advanced technology these aliens might possess.

In many well-known sci-fi stories, aliens (or humanity in cooperation with aliens) have invented fantastical technology to transport people to and from their spaceships.

In the older stories, this technology could appear as a beam of light that shines down from the ship and causes people to float upwards into the spacecraft. But in newer stories, this technology is depicted as being able to make someone almost instantly disappear and reappear on a spacecraft (or in some other location). The special effects in these shows typically portray the teleported person's body as either glowing, sparkling, or being surrounded by light, until they suddenly disappear.

Now, no one knows exactly how the Rapture will appear when it occurs. Some fictional portrayals of the Rapture depict Christians instantly vanishing while leaving behind no-longer-needed items of clothing, pacemakers, hearing aids, glasses, dentures, and so forth.

But it should be noted that although the Bible says that raptured Christians' bodily transformation from mortal to immortal will be instantaneous (1 Corinthians 15:52), the Rapture itself could be a longer process which actually allows the people of the world to see Christians rising up into the clouds to meet Jesus in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18).

So it seems that no matter how the Rapture happens, science fiction has prepared left-behind people to accept the possibility that people could either instantly disappear as they are teleported away, or that they could float upward as they are vacuumed up into alien motherships, all thanks to advanced alien technology.

Previously, the only instances of this sort of teleportation were recorded in Scripture, and were clearly attributed to God's miraculous intervention.

For example, after his resurrection, Jesus was able to suddenly appear inside a room with locked doors (John 20:19, 20:26), and Jesus also physically ascended into the clouds when he went back to heaven (Acts 1:9-11). The Apostle Philip was instantly teleported from one place to another (Acts 8:39-40), and in the Old Testament, the prophet Elijah was taken to heaven by ascending in a fiery chariot (2 Kings 2:11).

So in order to deceive the left-behind people, Satan would need an alternative explanation for how such a massive sudden disappearance of people could have happened, without appealing to divine intervention. Based on our culture today, I believe that the explanation which would be accepted by the greatest number of people would be a mass alien abduction.

However, such an explanation does no good if it is kept only in the realm of science fiction. For this lie to be believed, people would need to think that aliens actually exist, and that these aliens are able to travel to Earth. It turns out all of this groundwork is well underway.

Claims About Real-World UFO and Alien Activity

According to a study in 2017, 47% of people surveyed in 24 countries believe "in the existence of intelligent alien civilizations in the universe".1 Another survey of Americans in 2021 said that about 65% of those surveyed believed that intelligent life might exist on other planets, and 51% interpreted UFO activity to be likely evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth.2

Even more surprisingly, as far back as 2010, 20% of adults in 22 countries were surveyed as believing that aliens are already here and are living on Earth disguised as humans. This belief was strongest in India (45%) and China (42%).3

The theory of biological evolution from non-living matter to intelligent life is a critical part of making a belief in alien beings possible:

The secular concept of intelligent alien life is implicitly based on the premise that, if life evolved on the earth, it must have evolved elsewhere in the universe. Evolution requires millions of years of death and suffering as 'normal,' and is therefore opposed to the biblical account of the entrance of death [into the world] through man's sin.4

Yet if there is no creator God, and no fall into sin, then there is no need for Jesus to be our Savior, since there is no need to worry about God holding us accountable for not following his laws.5

Moreover, if advanced alien civilizations have survived for millions of years and have advanced to greater technological heights than humankind, then it only reinforces the irrelevance of God. In other words, "The aliens have got on quite well without Him, so who needs Him?" The "no need for a god" idea (at the least, no need for the supreme deity of Judeo-Christian religion) dominates most UFOlogy and science fiction stories.6

Thus, biblical creationists would say that the theories of biological evolution and the big bang are simply additional lies that many people alive today have believed. Put together, these lies allow people to not only believe that aliens exist, but also that a creator God does not exist.7

So already, we can see that the concept of intelligent alien life undermines a biblical worldview in many important ways.

Yet a belief in the possibility of aliens visiting earth is no longer limited to just fringe conspiracy theorists, new-age practitioners, or fans of science fiction. Listed below are some news headlines from the past few years that show how seriously the topics of aliens and UFOs are now being taken by scientists, academics, military officers, intelligence officials, and politicians:

"Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready", The Jersualem Post, December 10, 2020.8
"Navy ships capture video of pyramid-shaped UFOs, orbs flying above", New York Post, April 12, 2021.9
"Pentagon whistleblower warns of UFO intelligence failure ‘on level of 9/11’", New York Post, April 30, 2021.10
"UFOs display tech US doesn’t have and can’t defend against, ex-intelligence chief Ratcliffe", Washington Examiner, June 27, 2021.11
"NASA is assembling a team to gather data on unidentifiable events in the sky", CNN, June 9, 2022.12
"Pentagon officials suggest alien mothership in our solar system could send mini probes to Earth", FOX News, March 14, 2023.13
"UFOs becoming increasingly attractive to US academics - study", The Jerusalem Post, May 28, 2023.14
"Scientists expand search for signs of intelligent alien life", Reuters, May 31, 2023.15
"Alien-like message sent to Earth in a test to prepare for the real thing," CNN, June 1, 2023.16
"Military whistleblower goes public with claims US has secret UFO retrieval program: ‘Terrestrial arms race’", FOX News, June 6, 2023.17
"U.S. recovered non-human 'biologics' from UFO crash sites, former intel official says", NPR, July 27, 2023.18
"Congress is revisiting UFOs: Here's what's happened since last hearing on extraterrestrials", USA Today, November 13, 2024.19
"UFOs are real: what the experts said to congress", Newsweek, November 14, 2024.20
Republican South Carolina Representative "Nancy Mace Says Mystery Drones Could be 'Craft from Outer Space'", Newsweek, December 17, 2024.21
"Senator on Whether Mystery Drones Are Aliens: 'Anything Is Possible'", Newsweek, December 18, 2024.22
"Former defense official makes earth-shattering UFO revelation as unexplained drones leave millions on edge", FOX News, December 25, 2024.23
"Air Force veteran saw alien, ‘nonhuman’ egg-shaped aircraft while working for secret UFO retrieval program: report", New York Post, January 16, 2025.24
"Donald Trump Jr. Says There’s ‘Fairly Definitive Evidence’ of Aliens — and Elon Musk Should Look Into It", The Daily Beast, January 16, 2025.25
"Upcoming UFO documentary filmed in secret claims to have made 'the biggest discovery' in human history," unilad.com, January 24, 2025.26
"UFO whistleblowers testify to the presence of aliens here on Earth — representing '80 years of lies and deception'", DailyMail.com, March 14, 2025.27

These news articles themselves are working to get the idea of aliens potentially visiting Earth via UFOs into the public consciousness, which could make it less surprising to left-behind people if the Antichrist were to announce that aliens were the cause behind millions of people disappearing all at once.

Such a declaration could not only appear to explain away the Rapture, but it might also offer the Antichrist a greater level of power.

Former US President Ronald Reagan once said, “I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”28 Evil aliens who just abducted all of the world's children would certainly meet that criteria.

This explanation might serve a second purpose if the Antichrist were to claim that raptured Christians were actually 'evil undercover aliens' who were recalled home from their subversive missions at the same time.

The threat that such aliens might reappear in the future could also inspire all the world's countries to join forces to attempt to fight Jesus and his heavenly armies at the second coming (Revelation 16:14-16, 19:11-16), if Jesus' second coming to set up his worldwide Millennial Kingdom were misportrayed by the Antichrist as the return of the evil aliens who are coming to conquer Earth and enslave its people.

Unfortunately, even the words of the Bible that Christians are strangers and foreigners (sometimes translated as 'aliens') in this world, and that Christians are citizens of a heavenly kingdom could be taken out of context to support such a conclusion (e.g., Hebrews 11:13, 1 Peter 2:11, Philippians 3:20-21).

The same is true for Jesus' words that he is not of this world but is from above (John 8:23), and that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world but from another place (John 18:36).

The Bible does say the Antichrist will slander God as well as "those who live in heaven" (Revelation 13:6), which would include raptured Christians. Falsely labelling raptured Christians as evil undercover alien agents would certainly count as slander.

If an enormous number of UFOs were to appear in the world's skies just after the Rapture and put on some fancy display, it might solidify this false explanation in many people's minds.

I wouldn't even be surprised if after the Rapture, the Antichrist might broadcast a worldwide press conference where he might introduce the world to 'good' aliens who he might say are prepared to help humanity by giving us even more advanced technology to counter the 'evil' alien threat.

This false explanation could perhaps also justify the state-sanctioned murder of new Christians who convert after the Rapture (Revelation 6:9-11, 12:17, 13:7, 20:4).

Evidence That UFOs And Aliens Are A Demonic Deception

However, it must be remembered that no matter how convincing this deception might appear, it is just that: a deception.

And how do we know that this is all a deception? Because the most likely explanation for aliens and UFOs is that they are actually demons.

There are three main lines of evidence for this claim which I have pulled out from the excellent and well-researched book by Gary Bates, titled Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Updated and Expanded, (2010).

1. The Shape-Shifting Nature Of UFOs And Aliens

Bates documents that the appearance of UFOs seems to change according to humanity's expectations.

He says there were stories of people in ancient Rome and Greece who saw "fiery globes," "flying shields," or "flaming chariots" in the sky. There are also American Indian legends of "flying canoes." People in the 1880s claimed to see "airships" or flying "cigars" which when sketched looked very similar to early balloons and zeppelins which would begin to be developed only a few years later. After aircraft had been invented, UFOS took on the shapes of metallic flying disks or rockets, as well as triangles, boomerangs, and cones. Since the 1990s, many UFOs simply appear as colored lights.29

Thus, Bates proposes that "one cannot discount the possibility that the UFOs may be manifesting themselves in an understandable form of technology for the age."30

Yet these manifestations do not necessarily remain consistent even over the duration of one sighting. Bates cites several UFO researchers who note that these UFOs can change shape, suddenly appear and disappear, or merge together. This unexplainable behavior is moving some prominent UFO researchers toward an "interdimensional" explanation for UFOs, rather than the idea that UFOs are physical alien spacecraft from another planet.31

As one researcher puts it,

After 50 years of the modern UFO era we have literally millions of eyewitness accounts, hundreds of photographs, and in recent years many examples of video documentation, but we still do not have one single piece of hard physical evidence.... This suggests they are not physical, but spiritual manifestations. Even physical landing traces can be explained as a type of 'counterfeit creation,' or manipulation of mass and energy, not to mention shapeshifting and many UFOs' ability to make 90 degree turns [at incredible speeds] and other maneuvers that are considered to be impossible in the physical realm.32

This 'interdimensional' explanation for UFOs would put these researchers surprisingly close to the truth that these are indeed 'interdimensional' spiritual beings (a.k.a. demons and/or fallen angels) rather than real physical spacecraft or advanced technology.

Further proof that these 'aliens' are not truly beings from other planets comes from how, as with UFOs, the physical appearance of these 'aliens' also seems to be influenced by the expectations of the individuals who supposedly had close encounters with these beings:

Reports from countries other than America, and to a lesser though increasing extent Britain, feature an amazing variety of colorful creatures, often rooted in the cultural history of the area. But America's cultural dominance of the world is fast spreading into the realms of UFO experience and the "grays" [classic "gray"-looking aliens] have started to proliferate elsewhere.33

Bates verified this theory when, at one event where he was speaking, a man came up to him to tell him about his encounter with an extraterrestrial visitor. Before the man could tell Bates the details of what the visitor looked like, Bates asked, "Was the spaceman wearing a one-piece silver or white jumpsuit with a glass-type helmet?" The man was stunned and asked how Bates could have known that. Bates replied that he made a guess based on the man's current age, and the fact that the man claimed to be ten years old at the time of this encounter, which would have put it in the late 1960's. At this time, this sort of depiction of 'spacemen' was popular in trendy science-fiction shows, such as Lost in Space.34

This lack of consistency regarding the shape and size of these UFOs, and the changing appearances of these supposed 'alien' beings themselves, plus the UFOs' frequently-noted abilities to move faster and do maneuvers that no human technology can match makes a lot more sense if these are actually spiritual entities who are masquerading as aliens and UFOs in order to deceive humanity.

The supposed origin of these alien beings is another inconsistency that raises questions.

Some of the earliest 'alien contactees' claimed that the aliens told them they were from other planets from within our own solar system, including the moon, Jupiter, and Venus.35

Others claimed that aliens came from a mysterious planet with a highly elliptical orbit which causes it to cross into Earth's vicinity every 3600 years, although scientists have noted that life on such a planet would be impossible due to the vast changes in temperature it would undergo along this orbit.36

Later contactees claimed the aliens told them they had come from the Pleiades star system, or from Zeta Reticuli, or Sirius.37

Yet still other UFO researchers currently speculate that UFOs are from parallel universes or that they are beings which have "evolved to a new level of consciousness or spirituality and are able to communicate with us from distant galaxies".38

It is noted that this shift of aliens claiming they are coming from locations that are farther and farther away increasingly precludes anyone from testing these aliens' claims about their origins.39 Such a progression from aliens existing on nearby planets to distant star systems and then to alternative dimensions also parallels the themes found in the progression of science-fiction stories.40

Thus, Bates proposes that "despite their own claims to be an advanced or highly evolved alien species, the entire hypothesis that aliens come from other planets, star systems, or parallel universes appears to be an elaborate masquerade".41

Several high-profile UFO researchers agree.

Brad Steiger, who is one of the most prolific authors regarding UFOs and paranormal topics, has abandoned the idea that UFOs are actually physical beings coming to Earth from other planets. Instead, he says "we are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth".42

The famous UFO researcher John Keel likewise says that

The UFOs do not seem to exist as tangible, manufactured objects. They do not conform to the natural laws of our environment. They seem to be nothing more than transmogrifications tailoring themselves to our abilities to understand. The thousands of contacts with the entities indicate that they are liars and put-on artists. The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon.43

Another very well-respected researcher named Jacques Vallée notes that the experiences of 'alien abductees' are nearly identical to stories of people who have had occult experiences of interactions with fairies, goblins, elves, angels, and demons. These similarities include experiences of missing time, stories of being taken to a place where people are shown half-human and half-'other' children, sometimes claims of people having sexual intercourse with these supernatural beings, leaving physical marks on the abductee's body afterward, along with psychological changes in their minds, and sometimes mysterious medical problems.44

A senior bibliographer for the Library of Congress, Lynn E. Catoe, notes that,

A large part of the available UFO literature is closely linked with mysticism and the metaphysical. It deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities as well as phenomenon [sic] like poltergeist manifestations and possession. Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomenon that have long been known to theologians and parapsychologists. 45

UFO researcher John Keel agrees that the study of alien encounters overlaps quite a bit with demonology:

Demonology is not just another crackpot-ology It is the ancient and scholarly study of the monsters and demons who have seemingly coexisted with man throughout history. Thousands of books have been written on the subject, many of them authored by educated clergymen, scientists, and scholars, and uncounted numbers of well-documented demonic events are readily available to every researcher. The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar, if not entirely identical, to the UFO phenomenon itself. Victims of demonomania (possession) suffer the very same medical and emotional symptoms as the UFO contactees.... The devil and his demons can, according to the literature, manifest themselves in almost any form and can physically imitate anything from angels to horrifying monsters with glowing eyes. Strange objects and entities materialize and dematerialize in these stories, just as the UFOs and their splendid occupants appear and disappear, walk through walls, and perform other supernatural feats.46

The Bible does say that Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), and God's holy angels can appear as regular human men (i.e., Genesis 19:1-5, Mark 16:5-6), so demons appearing as other sorts of beings would not be unbiblical.

But why would demons want to spend their time pretending to be aliens and UFOs? It turns out that the UFO and 'alien' phenomenon includes an agenda to undermine Christian beliefs and promote alternative religions, as we will see next.

2. The False Religious Claims Made By 'Alien Abductees'

A second line of evidence that 'aliens' are actually demons comes from how many people who end up having close encounters with these 'aliens' tend to come back telling very similar stories which appear to be inordinately focused on discrediting the truth of Christianity and the Bible.

A very common thread wound through such beliefs is that our ET 'space brothers' are more highly evolved, both physically and spiritually, than human beings, and that they are here to 'help us' and oversee our own 'evolution'.47

Many claim that the increased number of sightings, visitations, and abductions today is because the 'space brothers' have come to help us ascend to our next stage of enlightenment, or 'spiritual' evolution.48

Thus, researchers say that regarding those individuals who have had encounters with 'aliens',

The most telling effects occur on the experiencer's personalty and outlook on life or world view. It has been noticed by the majority of researchers that the person undergoes a type of religious transformation. They have also suggested that instigating a belief change in the abductee could be the reason for the whole enterprise.49

Part of this 'spiritual evolution' or 'religious transformation' seems to be giving up on traditional understandings of religion:

The denial of the Christ of the Bible and a reshaping of our traditional religious views is a very common thread that runs through UFOlogy. It seems incredible that seeming alien space travelers are so interested in Christian ideas.50

[The aliens] frequently claim that Jesus is not the Savior of all mankind but one of a few good religious leaders who have appeared on this earth, or even that he is a UFOnaut like them. All their efforts seem focused on undermining the Bible and the Christian view that Jesus is the Savior of mankind, and replacing it with the view that they are the saviors instead.51

Some alien contactees claim that aliens told them the Bible is inaccurate, has been incorrectly edited, or is full of "holes".52 Alternatively, some researchers speculate that the Bible was written with alien help, because the Bible speaks about things that technologically un-advanced people should not have known.53

Other UFO researchers attempt to reinterpret Biblical events and explain that these things were actually due to the activity of aliens, not God. 54

One New-Age husband and wife couple — Brad and Sherry Steiger — who have together written more books on UFOs than anyone else, claim that aliens have been pushing humanity toward greater intellectual and technological maturity, as well as guiding people toward "ever-expanding mental and spiritual awareness".55

A relatively consistent feature of the Steigers' prolific writings is that they advocate an almost complete reinterpretation of the Bible. They are not alone. It would be possible to fill volumes with a melange of creative ideas by contactees and New Age writers on how conventional religions formed as a result of extraterrestrial interference in human affairs. But, particularly, we see in such notions a continual reinterpretation of the Bible according to modern UFO/New Age beliefs.56

Regarding Jesus, it is claimed that he is not the Son of God but "an interstellar being who ascended to the next level",57 and that he did his miracles through the power channeled to him by alien spacecraft.58 Some claim that Jesus rose from the dead thanks to extraterrestrial technology.59 Some abductees even claim to have seen Jesus on board an alien spaceship.60

Thus, Bates says,

These beings seem intent on changing our traditional view of the world — in short, our view of reality. Achieving this goal is not as difficult as one might think. As we have repeatedly shown, the evolutionary world view, coupled with a diet of science fiction and a decline of traditional religious beliefs, has prepared the world for the arrival of the space brothers and their new religion.61

And what is this 'new religion'? We should not be surprised that it seems to primarily be New Age or occult beliefs.

It appears that these beings want to bring the world into a new order; that is, one great unifying religion under their auspices. Yet this religious agenda is not new. It is one that has been around for as long as mankind has been on the earth — this new religious order is supposed to embrace all faiths, but it is noticeably intolerant of biblical Christianity.62

After their experiences with the aliens, contactees are often "told that they had been chosen to spread the cosmic wisdom of the space brothers to all mankind. Even in the early days of such contacts, it was clear that the 'missions' given to contactees were to 'raise a cosmic awareness and consciousness,' sometimes by spearheading new religions".63

"Surveys have overwhelmingly shown that the majority of abductees subsequently develop an interest, and openly participate in New Age/occultic or Eastern-type mystical religions".64 Yet other studies note that many abductees already had prior interest and experiences in occult activities, and that their experiences with aliens tend to lead to even greater involvement in the occult, along with a strengthening of their New Age beliefs and psychic experiences.65

The modern New Age/UFO movement is happy to embrace those of other religious persuasions. It has roots in Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, Taoism, Animism, and most other mystical religions that are steeped in the worship of spirits, deities, dead ancestors or reincarnated ones, and even the heavenly bodies. Christians are embraced, too, providing they are not too dogmatic about their faith and don't mind a reinterpretation of the Bible here and there.66

In terms of beliefs, the New Age movement can include those who believe that all of reality is really one, that everything is God and God is everything, and thus, that humanity is God or part of God. This may include beliefs that humans never really die, but are reincarnated, and that humans can create their own reality through altered states of consciousness. There is generally not just one source of absolute authority, but everything is relative. The highest goal of many New Age practitioners is to achieve a 'higher state' of consciousness, sometimes even [falsely] called "Christ-consciousness".67

Thus, it make some researchers wonder,

How credible is it to think that literally thousands of extraterrestrials would fly millions or billions of light-years simply to teach New Age philosophy, deny Christianity, and support the occult?68

From a Christian perspective,

New Age beliefs, which the space brothers endorse in a variety of forms, appear to be a counterfeit or substitute religion designed to keep people away from the knowledge of the true Creator God of the Bible. This is an immense effort on the part of the deceivers, and you may wonder why. It is clear that the 'space beings' believe in the God of the Bible or else they would not be expending so much effort to convince us otherwise. Simply stated, they are the adversaries of God.69

The 'aliens' even seem to have their own version of Christian end-times events which parallel what the Bible warns about the future, in which the 'aliens' warn of a coming time of tribulation for Earth which will be full of disasters.70

It is no secret that the space brothers have been threatening a global catastrophe — via our own carelessness or imposed by them — unless we change our ways. In some cases, they claim to have created humankind and therefore they have the right to do with us as they want. The way of salvation, it appears, is by following these new religious leaders into the New Age. And if the inhabitants of the earth do not change, then the select few who believe will be spared and saved.71

These 'alien' predictions even include a few different versions of a Rapture-like event. Yet even here, there is no consistency:

Aliens make predictions of an imminent period of global chaos and destruction. They say that a certain number of humans ... will be 'rescued' from the planet in order to continue the species, either on another planet or back on Earth after the destruction is over.72

UFO and New-Age proponent Brad Steiger claims that many people on Earth today are actually from alien worlds, or at least, that their 'souls' are from another world. He says these people may either be descendants of space beings who mated with humans to prepare the Earth for 'transformation', or else, are "Star People" who are here to help the aliens fulfill their task.73

However, since it is only true Christians who will be taken at the Rapture, these 'Star people' will clearly be left behind to have to go through the Tribulation.

Thus, instead of it being the UFO believers who will be rescued from the planet and taken to another world, some propose that instead it will be people who hold to supposedly 'old-fashioned' traditional religious ideas who will be removed from the planet. As the famous New Age author Barbara Marciniak writes:

The people who leave the planet during the time of Earth changes do not fit in here any longer, and they are stopping the harmony of Earth. When the time comes that perhaps 20 million people leave the planet at one time there will be a tremendous shift in consciousness for those who are remaining.74

These claims are not surprising if one main purpose of the demonic 'alien' deception is to provide an alternative explanation for the Rapture.

3. Alien Abductions Can Be Stopped In The Name Of Jesus

However, I believe the strongest piece of evidence that 'aliens' are actually demons is how there are many reports that alien abductions can be stopped if the would-be abductee invokes the name of Jesus.

Bates offers the testimony of a man called Bill D., who one night felt paralyzed in bed after seeing some strange lights over a nearby forest. Bill's room became full of mist or fog, and he felt he was being suspended above his bed, yet he couldn't move or scream. In his mind, he thought "Jesus, Jesus help me!", and he then had the sense that his words had hurt whatever entity was trying to hurt him, so it left. He fell back onto his bed, waking up his wife.75

Bates says,

It was the first time these experienced field investigators had ever heard of an abduction being stopped, and this man did it by just calling on the name of Jesus. Many researchers had previously recognized the spiritual nature of abductions, but no one had attempted to specifically research the spiritual aspects on their own merits."76

After publicizing this research, more Christians came forward to these researchers to report similar 'abduction experiences' that they had been unwilling to speak about to their churches, but which had also ended when they called out to Jesus. Thus,

As the number of cases mounted, the data showed that in every instance where the victim knew to invoke the name of Jesus Christ, the event stopped. Period. The evidence was becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.77

However, the researchers noted that there seemed to be two different categories of Christians: ones who were truly born again (i.e., they had truly put their faith in Jesus Christ for their eternal salvation), and those who only claimed to be Christians because they went to church or had some generic belief in God.

The researchers noted that born-again Christians tended to be mostly ignored by 'aliens' unless the Christians decided to get involved with occult activities. In contrast, people who claimed to be Christians but did not identify as being born again experienced 'alien abductions' at the same rate as people from other religions, including Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and agnostics.78

This fascinating result that aliens tend to leave born-again Christians alone, and that alien abductions can be stopped in the name of Jesus only make sense if what is happening is a spiritual phenomenon, not a physical one. Additionally, such behavior by 'aliens' (really demons) gives strong evidence for the truth of Christianity and the spiritual power of Jesus Christ.

The Recognized "Deceptive" Behavior of Aliens

If the above three points of evidence are not enough to demonstrate that 'aliens' are not what they seem, then it is worth noting that even UFO researchers themselves admit that aliens behave in rather 'deceptive' ways:

Why would supposedly intelligent and more 'evolved' advanced beings play this game of cat and mouse? On one hand, they provide us with enough evidence, such as sightings and burn marks on the ground, to suggest something is out there. Then with seeming stealth, they engage, interact with, and even abduct, humans in the dark of night, subjecting their captives to all manner of scientific examinations and strange sexual practices. And then they seem to act very coyly, as if not wanting to be seen at all. For most, the 'why' factor remains one of the great mysteries of UFOlogy.79

After all, if aliens truly did exist, then why not show up in a way that is irrefutable and visible to everyone?

Nothing would alter our world more than a mass landing in full view of TV cameras. However, the messages from the ETs themselves suggest that we are "not ready" for such a feat, not until a sufficient amount of contactees have instigated a new belief system. The "unreal" characteristics of UFOs, combined with the messages of the space brothers, suggest that these reported 'aliens' have something to hide. This is also a view almost universally endorsed by all serious UFOlogists.80

As one abductee-turned-researcher warns,

Before we allow ourselves to believe in the benevolence of the alien interaction, we should ask, do enlightened beings need to use the cover of night to perform good deeds? Do they need to paralyze us and render us helpless to resist? Do angels need to steal our fetuses? Do they need to [do terrible things to us and our children?] Are fear, pain, and deception consistent with high spiritual motives?81

Thus,

One would have good reason to be suspicious of their motives, despite their yarns about being here to help us. These beings say one thing and do another. They talk about doing good but they actually behave abominably. People are scarred, physically and emotionally, for the rest of their lives by such experiences.82

Other 'abductees' may experience a sort of "Stockholm syndrome" where they start to welcome these experiences,83 and are even told by the aliens that the awful and painful things the aliens supposedly do to them are for the abductee's own good.84

Therefore,

Although many pro-UFO researchers would justify the aliens' bad behavior as being simply matter-of-fact and business-like, it makes little sense, especially since their messages are often ones of salvation, claiming the high moral ground and condemning poor human behavior. If they are so technologically advanced and have been visiting the earth for hundreds, or even thousands, of years, why are they not friendlier or more reasonable in their behavior toward us? Surely they would understand our human nature and sensibilities, and seek our cooperation. And if they are genuinely concerned about our environment, why do they not use their technology to help us?85

All of this, put together, offers strong evidence that UFOs and 'aliens' are most likely demons in disguise. They are attempting to deceive humanity, not only in order to lead people into false religions or convince people of the theory of biological evolution, but ultimately, to provide a false explanation for the Rapture and the following seven-year Tribulation.

So What's Actually Going On?

So as shown, none of the supposed UFO or 'alien' encounters and abductions seem to hold up to in-depth rational analysis regarding what these 'aliens' and 'alien contactees' claim.

Rather, the aliens' behavior parallels other accounts of demonic and occult activity, and the ultimate proof that this is true is how 'alien abductions' can be stopped by calling out to Jesus Christ.

Therefore, we can safely say that these 'aliens' are not actually coming from other planets in our solar system or galaxy. But then how do we explain abductees' stories of what they have experienced?

Some 'abductees' working with UFO researchers may simply want attention, and so they tell the researcher what the researcher seems to want to hear.86 However, it is too simplistic to attribute this motive to every single case.

As an alternative hypothesis about what is actually happening to people who claim to have had close encounters with aliens, Bates suggests that many of these supposed alien abductions could actually be false memories planted through hypnosis into the minds of individuals during a state of sleep paralysis, which is halfway between being awake and being asleep. This makes sense, as most abductions are claimed to happen at night when the abductee is asleep in bed.87

Courts of law recognize that false memories can be generated through "regressive hypnosis" when a patient is in a suggestive state of mind.88

Many of today's health professionals also claim that hypnosis unlocks a person's imagination (not just the memory), and when imaginative events come to the surface, they can be mistakenly interpreted as memories.89

If a false memory is remembered as being traumatic, the person can experience the same level of stress and the same symptoms as someone who has actually been traumatized.90

Bates has an entire chapter dedicated to supporting his theory that demons may be inducing a state of hypnosis in 'alien abductee' victims in order to plant false memories into these people's minds,91 — especially people who are already susceptible either through having a prior belief in the existence of aliens,92 or the use of mind-altering substances, involvement in occult practices, or prior traumatic experiences.93

Based on how other types of hypnotism can also cause the sensation of missing time, Bates suggests that "the missing time aspect is the strongest clue that many of these ['alien'] experiences are being induced hypnotically".94

Any physical wounds, scars, or other marks left on 'abductees' bodies could also be added by the demons in order to leave supposed 'evidence' of the alien abduction,95 because the Bible shows that angels can physically interact with, harm, and even kill people (e.g., Genesis 19:11, 19:15-16, 2 Kings 19:35).

When combined with the biblical understanding of spiritual warfare, in which God, holy angels, and God's people contend against Satan and Satan's fallen angels (a.k.a., demons), such behavior on the part of 'aliens' fits very consistently within a biblical worldview.

An Explanation For The Mark Of The Beast?

Although it may seem a little 'out there', I also wonder if the lie that aliens are coming to earth to help humanity's evolution could be part of the Mark of the Beast, which the Antichrist will force everyone on earth to take during the Tribulation, or else they will be cut off from the world's financial system (Revelation 13:16-18).

After all, if the Mark of the Beast is simply a tattoo or microchip implant that contains a password or personal identification number that allows individuals access to a fully digital economy, then it is unclear why taking this "Mark" is such a terrible thing that doing so will condemn all who take it to eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11).

Jesus does warn that people cannot serve God and money at the same time (Luke 16:13), thus making the love of money a form of idolatry (Ephesians 5:5).

But if taking the Mark of the Beast is simply a case of idolatry, we know that idolatry can be forgiven. Many times in the Old Testament the Israelites worshipped false gods for a time, yet later turned back to worshipping the one true God after the intervention of godly prophets or kings.

The New Testament also records how people were forgiven of practicing idolatry once they put their faith in Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 12:2).

Therefore, I have heard some scholars speculate that there will be something about taking the Mark which will make those who take it actually become unredeemable, just as angels become unredeemable once they sin:

There is no salvation for angels once they have rejected God and their heavenly abode. Only the physical descendants of the first Adam can be saved via the death and resurrection of the "last Adam." Some adherents to the angelic view [of the Nephilim] believe that once the human race had been genetically corrupted by angelic seed, they would have fallen outside of God's plan of salvation for the human race, since we need to be literal descendants of Adam (1 Cor. 15:21-22), the first human who brought sin into the world.96

Changing people's DNA so that they are no longer fully human may theoretically make such people unredeemable, if people need to be fully human just like Jesus was in order for his death to atone for their sins (Romans 5:12–19, Hebrews 2:14–17, 1 Corinthians 15:21-22).

Granted, it is not clear exactly what sort of a change or how great of a change in a person's DNA would be necessary to make one no longer fully human. It would have to be something different from typical genetic copying errors that occur naturally through human reproduction and lead to various genetic diseases, or the sorts of DNA mutations that can be caused by exposure to radiation, as the Bible never says that these things make people unredeemable.

Yet some evidence for the possibility that genetic manipulation of human DNA may be part of the Mark of the Beast could also come from how, although it is very controversial, there is a line of Christian thought which argues that before Noah's flood, Satan attempted to corrupt humanity's genes in order to make it impossible for God to send a fully-human Savior.

This attempt was made by having "sons of God" (fallen angels) mate with the "daughters of man" (human women), in order to create what are called the "Nephilim", which were half-human, half-demon hybrids who filled the world with violence (Genesis 6:1-8, 6:11-13).97 Bates notes that the term "sons of God" is consistently used to refer to angels throughout Scripture, as angels were created directly by God.98

This line of thought regarding the Nephilim was commonly held by the translators of the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, as well as ancient Jewish interpreters, early Christian writers, and various Christian apologists even today.99

Thus, when the Bible says that Noah was "perfect" or "complete" in his "generations" (Genesis 6:9, KJV), it might mean more than just that Noah was the last God-fearing human on the planet.

It could also mean that his genes (and presumably, those of his wife, sons, and sons' wives, who also accompanied Noah on the ark), were the only ones left which had not been genetically corrupted by the fallen angels.100 This could explain God's need to wipe out everyone who had been genetically altered, and start over with Noah and his family to repopulate the world.

The most popular alternative view of the "sons of God" as simply being men descended from the 'righteous' line of Seth who married the "daughters of man" descended from the first murderer Cain does not explain why God would have to wipe out everyone on the planet except for Noah and his family.

As Bates says, "being born into an ungodly family by unbelieving parents does not mean that one is excluded from the promises of God that arise from faith in him".101

There were also times when the Israelites intermarried with pagan women, and although these women tended to lead the Israelites into idolatry, the solution was divorce, not death (Ezra 10:2-3).

So it does not seem that these explanations that the Flood was necessary because of typical human intermarriage make as much sense as the more controversial explanation above, as strange as it is.

Some alien researchers claim that 'aliens' are attempting to interfere with humanity's genes once again, which could make Jesus' warning about the end times being as in the days of Noah true in more ways than one (Matthew 24:37-39).102 Indeed, the creation of alien-human hybrids is claimed by some researchers to be one of the purposes of supposed 'alien abductions':

John Mack — a professor of psychiatry at Harvard who has studied stories of UFOs and alien abductions — speculates that the purpose of these aliens' apparently strange sexual experiments on abductees is "to produce a hybrid species which — the abductees are sometimes told — will populate the earth or will be there to carry evolution forward, after the human race has completed what it is now doing, namely the destruction of the earth as a living system".103

Some researchers speculate that,

Their purpose is to create human/alien hybrids for the purpose of transforming human consciousness; that is, to alter our own perception of ourselves as a species. This 'transforming' view is common among abduction researchers and UFOlogists who, over the years, have interviewed thousands of 'abductees,' noting that this 'breeding program' seems to be rampant. Many abductees also claim that the aliens themselves have told them such things. These common accounts imply that interfering aliens have been 'fiddling' with our genes from the beginning and that we might be the playthings of 'superior' races. Such a program, if true, would certainly alter mankind's view of itself.104

This makes me wonder if, after the Rapture, the Antichrist might claim that 'good' aliens told him that humanity needs to 'evolve' itself in order to survive the upcoming disastrous "earth changes" (a.k.a., the Tribulation).

The Antichrist could even claim to be a human-alien hybrid himself, and say that by taking his "Mark", humans will be genetically changed to become superior like he himself is. His 'superiority', or even his 'immortality' could be demonstrated by how he survives an apparently-fatal head wound from a sword (Revelation 13:3-4).

In such a way, the Antichrist's lie would be very much like the lie Satan first told Adam and Eve, that if they did what Satan said and ate the forbidden fruit, they would not die but would become "like God" (Genesis 3:4-5).

As bizarre as it might all seem to people today, such an explanation makes a lot of sense not only of God's potential rationale for causing the worldwide Flood, but it also provides an explanation for why taking the Mark of the Beast will be such a terrible thing that all who take it will become instantly and unchangeably worthy of facing eternal destruction (Revelation 14:9-11).

Final Comments

Although the topic is very strange and may initially appear completely un-credible, I felt the need to write this blog post in order to warn about what I feel will be the most likely false explanation for the Rapture, which will also predispose the world into following the Antichrist and taking his Mark of the Beast.

Of course, some might say that this elaborate alien and UFO deception will not be necessary, because people will simply follow the Antichrist due to his charisma and his false prophet's fake miracles, as well as the Antichrist's apparently 'miraculous' recovery from a deadly head wound.

However, if this was all that was necessary, then there would be much less reason for Satan to bother having his demons masquerade as aliens for the last hundred years or so, or for these demons to go through the effort of deceiving everyone who claims to have interacted with 'aliens' into thinking they were interacting with real beings from other planets.

Of course, there may be additional deceptions which Satan has in his back pocket to make use of during the Tribulation. For example, we could think of the message of the worldwide ecumenical movement which claims that all religions really worship the same God, or the popular idea discussed among some end-times scholars that the Antichrist will claim to be the Islamic Mahdi.

However, I believe the alien explanation would be most suited to the majority of non-religious left-behind people of the world. Furthermore, as seen earlier, this explanation could also appeal to left-behind religious people of all sorts, through the inclusive 'New age' religion the 'aliens' are trying to convince humanity to adopt.

Whereas trying to convince previously non-religious people to adopt a brand new religion, or to persuade religious people to change their deeply-held beliefs, only by appealing to supernatural or spiritual 'evidence' would likely be much more difficult for Satan, the Antichrist, and the false prophet to do.

I wonder if even the left-behind elements of the Roman Catholic church might fall in line with such an 'alien' explanation for the Rapture:

As far back in 2008, the Jesuit director of the Vatican's observatory said that Christians should consider any potential intelligent alien life to be “extraterrestrial brothers,” although these aliens may not need redemption like humans do, if they did not fall into sin as humans did.105

Alternatively, Pope Francis has said that if aliens arrived at the Vatican and wanted to be baptized, he would do it.106 Provided that this was not just a humorous quip to highlight the point of his sermon, it would show that the Pope himself is open to the theoretical possibility of alien life.

These hints that the Roman Catholic Church appears to be open to the possibility of intelligent alien life are interesting, given that many end-times commentators suspect that after the Rapture, the left-behind, apostate elements of the Roman Catholic Church may be what forms the core of a worldwide false religion which is symbolized by the 'whore of Babylon' in Revelation chapter 17, similar to how God depicted the then-idolatrous Israelites as being a female prostitute in Ezekiel chapter 16.107

Regardless of exactly how this all plays out during the Tribulation, I hope this is enough proof that if millions of people have suddenly disappeared, the skies are filled with UFOs, and a charismatic leader comes on the world stage who endorses the idea that 'good' aliens are here to unify humanity, correct our 'mistaken' religions, and even help humanity physically 'evolve' into superhumans, that you will know that it is all a demonic, Satanic deception.

Most importantly, no matter what the Mark of the Beast actually turns out to be,

If, for any reason, someone says that you can't buy or sell without opting into some system that requires a mark in/on your right hand or forehead, and/or someone tells you to worship someone who isn't Jesus returning in the clouds wearing a robe dipped in blood, sitting on a white horse, surrounded by the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:11-14), in a display that will be like lightning flashing from the east to the west (Matthew 24:27, Luke 17:24), DON'T DO IT. Even if it costs you your life.

And if you're reading this after the Rapture has happened, and if everything I've warned of above turns out to be correct, or even kind of close to what's actually happening, then I hope this will be proof that Christians were telling the truth. We were not abducted by aliens, and we were not undercover evil alien agents who stole the world's children.

Actually, we were rescued from Earth in order to not have to face God's judgment which will be coming upon the unbelieving world (Revelation 3:10).

Yet even now, you can still be eternally saved by putting your faith in Jesus Christ alone. Then, no matter what happens during the next seven years, you can have the peace and joy of knowing that one day you will have eternal life in a new Heaven and New Earth where there will be no more suffering or death (Revelation 21:1, 21:4).

If you happen to have to die for Jesus because you reject the Mark of the Beast or refuse to worship the Antichrist or the Image of the Beast, you can also look forward to helping rule the world with Jesus for at least a thousand years after he returns to Earth at the end of the seven-year Tribulation (Revelation 20:4).

And of course, if you're reading this before the Rapture occurs, but you have not trusted in Jesus alone for your eternal salvation, this is definitely the moment to do so, because based on all the signs of the end times that we're seeing, the Rapture could happen literally any day now.

Footnotes:

1. Anthony Deutch, "Are Earthlings Alone? Half of humans believe in alien life", Reuters, Dec. 18, 2017.
2. Courtney Kennedy and Arnold Lau, "Most Americans believe in intelligent life beyond Earth; few see UFOs as a major national security threat", Pew Research Center, June 30, 2021.
3. "One in Five (20%) Global Citizens Believe That Alien Beings Have Come Down To Earth and Walk Amongst Us In Our Communities Disguised As Humans", Ipsos.com, April 8, 2010.
4. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Updated and Expanded (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2010), 215. See also 35-36, 139.
5. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 52-53.
6. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 53.
7. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 138-139.
8. Aaron Reich, "Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready", The Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2020.
9. Yaron Steinbuch, "Navy ships capture video of pyramid-shaped UFOs, orbs flying above", New York Post, April 12, 2021.
10. Yaron Steinbuch, "Pentagon whistleblower warns of UFO intelligence failure ‘on level of 9/11’", New York Post, April 30, 2021.
11. Jerry Dunleavy, "UFOs display tech US doesn’t have and can’t defend against, ex-intelligence chief Ratcliffe", Washington Examiner, June 27, 2021.
12. Katie Hunt and Ashley Strickland, "NASA is assembling a team to gather data on unidentifiable events in the sky", CNN, June 9, 2022.
13. Greg Wehner, "Pentagon officials suggest alien mothership in our solar system could send mini probes to Earth", FOX News, March 14, 2023.
14. Aaron Reich, "UFOs becoming increasingly attractive to US academics - study", The Jerusalem Post, May 28, 2023.
15. Will Dunham, "Scientists expand search for signs of intelligent alien life", Reuters, May 31, 2023.
16. Jacopo Prisco, "Alien-like message sent to Earth in a test to prepare for the real thing", CNN, June 1, 2023.
17. Danielle Wallace, "Military whistleblower goes public with claims US has secret UFO retrieval program: ‘Terrestrial arms race’", FOX News, June 6, 2023.
18. Vanessa Romo and Bill Chappell, "U.S. recovered non-human 'biologics' from UFO crash sites, former intel official says", NPR, July 27, 2023.
19. Eric Lagatta, "Congress is revisiting UFOs: Here's what's happened since last hearing on extraterrestrials", USA Today, November 13, 2024.
20. Sean Duke, "UFOs are real: what the experts said to congress", Newsweek, November 14, 2024.
21. Monica Sager, "Nancy Mace Says Mystery Drones Could be 'Craft from Outer Space'", Newsweek, December 17, 2024.
22. Emma Marsden, "Senator on Whether Mystery Drones Are Aliens: 'Anything Is Possible'", Newsweek, December 18, 2024.
23. Mollie Markowitz, "Former defense official makes earth-shattering UFO revelation as unexplained drones leave millions on edge", FOX News, December 25, 2024.
24. Natalie O'Neill, "Air Force veteran saw alien, ‘nonhuman’ egg-shaped aircraft while working for secret UFO retrieval program: report", New York Post, January 16, 2025.
25. Leigh Kimmins, "Donald Trump Jr. Says There’s ‘Fairly Definitive Evidence’ of Aliens — and Elon Musk Should Look Into It", The Daily Beast, January 16, 2025.
26. Poppy Bilderbeck, "Upcoming UFO documentary filmed in secret claims to have made 'the biggest discovery' in human history", unilad.com, January 24, 2025.
27. Wiliam Hunter, "UFO whistleblowers testify to the presence of aliens here on Earth — representing '80 years of lies and deception'", DailyMail.com, March 14, 2025.
28. Steve Hammons, "Reagan’s 1987 UN speech on ‘alien threat’ resonates now", CultureReady, July 29, 2015.
29. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 152-155, 164, 171.
30. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 153, 358-359.
31. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 155-156, 264.
32. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 263, quoting researcher "Clark" from CE-4 Research Group, "The Premise of Spiritual Warfare," www.alienresistance.org/ce4premise.htm, March 7, 2003.
33. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 231, quote from Mark Pilkington's documentary, "Screen Memories: UFO Mythology and Science Fiction Films," www.hedweb.com/markp/ufofilm.htm, December 10, 2002.
34. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 364
35. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 170, 94, 169, 159.
36. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 207-208.
37. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 209, 228, 159.
38. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 159.
39. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 159-160.
40. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 61.
41. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 267.
42. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 163, quoting Brad Steiger, "Blue Book Files Released," Canadian UFO Report, Vol. 4, No. 4, p.20, 1977.
43. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 158-159.
44. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 230.
45. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 287, citing Lynn E. Catoe, UFOs and Related Subjects — An Annotated Biography, United States Government Printing Office, 1969, as quoted in CE-4 Research Group, "The Premise of Spiritual Warfare," www.angelfire.com/on2/ce4/premise.html, 29 January, 2010.
46. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 260, quoting John Keel, Operation Trojan Horse (Lilburn, GA: Illuminet Press, 1996), 192.
47. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 21.
48. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 36.
49. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 239.
50. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 160.
51. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 269.
52. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 136, 289, 206-210.
53. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 105-107.
54. For example, it is claimed that aliens helped create humanity, rather than God (Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 289), that Sodom and Gomorrah was a nuclear blast caused by alien visitors (Bates, 200, 285), that aliens abducted Enoch (Bates, 201), that the 'sons of God' who intermarried with human women in Genesis chapter 6 were aliens interbreeding with a lesser form of humanity to create modern humans (Bates, 207, 380-381), and even that aliens caused the worldwide flood of Noah (Bates, 93). Others go so far as to say that God is an extraterrestrial who was made immortal through advanced technology, and that heaven is "merely a supertechnological society" which has overcome sickness and death (Bates, 94, 140). As Bates says, "UFO literature is riddled with biblical references.... Many of the ETs' messages have paralleled biblical events, stories, and prophecies. At the same time, the biblical texts are often misquoted and misrepresented. Members of the pro-UFO lobby, such as von Daniken and Sitchin, have twisted the Bible to read into it what they want to believe. This is deceitful. The original bible authors — intelligent people in their own right — should be fairly represented and their writing portrayed accurately — not with the biased view that they must have been primitive and ignorant because they lived long ago" (Bates, 238).
55. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 284-285.
56. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 285.
57. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 284.
58. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 94.
59. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 282.
60. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 260.
61. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 268.
62. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 268.
63. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 286. Bates notes that "Many in the pro-UFO lobby regard Jesus as an extraterrestrial visitor who was on the same 'spiritual' mission as the current ET visitors. Cultists — such as Billy Meier and Rael, who claim to have met Jesus in His flying saucer — say they believe this. Many of these same UFO cultists also believe the Bible's claim that Jesus will return to the earth again" (Bates, 250).
64. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 240, citing "UFOs and Alien Abductions," www.christianinformation.org/ufo2.html, December 20, 2002.
65. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 255-256, 288, 243-244, 240.
66. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 294.
67. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 309.
68. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 159.
69. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 272.
70. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 238, 289.
71. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 245.
72. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 242, 318-321.
73. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 288.
74. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 319, quoting Barbara Marciniak, Bringers of the Dawn: Teachings from the Pleiadians (Rochester, VT: Bera and Co., 1992), cited in "Rapture: The New Age Version," www.redmoonrising.com/newage.htm, 29 January, 2010.
75. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 257-258, quoting an interview with CE-4 Research Group, August 1996, cited in "The Premise of Spiritual Warfare," www.alienresistance.org/ce4premise.htm, March 7, 2003.
76. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 258.
77. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 259.
78. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 256-257, 261-263.
79. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 156.
80. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 158.
81. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 242, citing Dr. Karla Turner, "Aliens — Friends or Foes? UFO Universe, Spring 1993, cited in "The Premise of Spiritual Warfare," www.alienresistance.org/ce4premise.htm, March 7, 2003.
82. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion,242-243.
83. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 243.
84. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 270.
85. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 240.
86. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 254.
87. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 251-252.
88. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 253.
89. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 253.
90. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 255.
91. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 343-344.
92. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 353.
93. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 359-360.
94. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 363.
95. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 362.
96. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 391.
97. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 380-399.
98. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 382. Yet he does note that there are some instances when this is used to refer to people, such as Adam, who was also directly created by God. Furthermore, born-again Christians can also properly be called "sons of God" (Romans 8:14, Galatians 3:26), because we have become new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17).
99. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 383.
100. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 390.
101. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion,, 386.
102. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 388.
103. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 248, quoting John Mack from "Nova Online/Kidnapped by UFOs/John Mack (Interview With John Mack)," www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/johnmack.html, January 6, 2003.
104. Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion, 128-129.
105. Catholic News Service, "Vatican astronomer says if aliens exist, they may not need redemption", Catholic Review, May 22, 2008. Yet as Bates argues in his book, such a possibility does not make theological sense, it would seem unjust for God to punish un-fallen aliens on some distant planet for humanity's sin, which brought death and decay into the entire universe (Romans 8:19-23) (Gary Bates, Alien Intrustion, 376). And as noted earlier, the aliens who interact with humans clearly do not seem to be behaving righteously, if they are lying about who they are and where they come from, and how they mostly cause suffering and harm to the humans they interact with.
106. Adam Withnall, "Pope Francis says he would baptise aliens: 'Who are we to close doors?'", The Independent, May 14, 2014.
107. It appears that this worldwide false religion will be responsible for the persecution of true Christians during at least part of the Tribulation (Revelation 17:1-5, 6:9-11), and will dominate or control the Antichrist's government until this religion is destroyed by the Antichrist and his ten subordinate kings (Revelation 17:15-18). This will likely occur at the halfway point of the Tribulation, when the Antichrist pronounces himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4), and demands all worship for himself through his false prophet and the idolatrous Image of the Beast (Revelation 13:5-9, 13:13-15).

Why Doesn't God Make My Life Perfect?

2024-09-30T00:00:00+00:00

One question I've heard frequently is:

"If God is love (1 John 4:16), then why doesn't God make my life perfect? Wouldn't that be a loving thing for him to do? Doesn't God want me to be happy, well-fed, safe, healthy, and rich? If not, then how can I trust Him with my eternal future? It's not like it would cost God anything to do all of this for me now, right?"

The idea that God should make every Christian's dreams come true in this life view might appear to be taught by certain passages of Scripture, such as:

"Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life" (Psalm 23:6).
"I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or his children begging for bread" (Psalm 37:25).
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matthew 7:11).
"Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4).

These sorts of verses are very popular among some churches that teach what is called the 'prosperity gospel', which claims that God does want Christians to have perfect lives right now. (Often, though, there is a catch where it is claimed one must donate money to said church before the blessings appear).1

However, more experienced interpreters of the Bible know that these verses are not necessarily promising Christians all of the worldly blessings that we could ever imagine.

For example, Psalm 37:4 clearly says that if we delight in God, then God will give us more of himself, because he is what we desire most. It's not referring to glamorous homes, fancy cars, expensive clothes, or luxurious tropical vacations.

Matthew 7:11 does suggest that we can ask God for whatever blessings we would like, just as children often ask their parents for things the children would like. But God, as our good and wise father, knows better than we do what is best for us. Thus, God will only give us what is truly good for us, rather than what we think is good for us.

However, rather than addressing such verses one-by-one, in this post I will share several different reasons why I think God does not make Christians' lives perfect right now.

I will also explain why, despite not solving all our problems or taking away our suffering in this life, God is still worthy of our love, trust, and ultimate allegiance regarding our eternal future.

God Doesn't Owe Sinners Anything

I believe the first thing we should remember when asking for things from God is that from one perspective, God doesn't owe sinners anything.

As I've argued in more detail elsewhere, when Adam and Eve first sinned, they effectively rejected God and wanted to be their own gods instead. But because God is love and the source of all goodness and existence (James 1:17), Adam and Eve also effectively chose the opposite of God, which is misery and death (Genesis 2:16-17, James 1:14-16). Thus, sin is always contrary to ultimate human happiness and true wellbeing.

The Bible teaches that since all people are descended from Adam and Eve, all people have also become sinners (Romans 3:23-24, 5:12). Christians, too, are sinners, and we will still be sinners our entire earthly lives (1 John 1:8, 1:10, Romans 7:22-25). And the only thing that sinners justly deserve is death (Romans 6:23).

So technically, God doesn't owe anyone anything, except for eternal death.

Therefore, anything good that sinful people still have or enjoy today is only because of God's mercy and grace. Acts 17:25 says that God gives us "life and breath and everything." Everything good in our lives is a gift from God (James 1:17, 1 Corinthians 4:7). Even the ability to work and earn a living comes from God.

Thus, who are we to demand that God must give us more than he already has? The fact that we are alive, have air to breathe, food to eat, water to drink, and (hopefully) clothing and shelter is already far more than we deserve. Therefore, we should be extremely grateful to God for giving us even the absolute basics that we need to survive.

Of course, God is even more generous than simply keeping us alive. God loves sinners so much that he was willing to send his only divine Son to be born as the man named Jesus, who would die on the cross to suffer the punishment of death that our sins deserved (John 3:16, 1 John 4:10, Romans 5:6-10), even though he himself had never sinned (1 John 3:5).

Now, anyone who simply believes that Jesus has died for his or her own sins is promised eternal life in a place that will be far better than anything we can currently imagine (John 6:40, 1 Corinthians 2:9).

And if God was willing to do that, then yes, we can trust that God also wants to give us all sorts of other things that he knows are good for us:

He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? (Romans 8:32)

But receiving "all things" is not promised to happen for Christians this current life. It's something that we will receive in the future as an inheritance:

Heaven is the best place for our inheritance to be, anyway, since there, this inheritance will not decay away like earthly possessions do, and it is at no risk of being stolen by anyone else (Matthew 6:19-20). The moment we believed in Jesus, we became qualified for this inheritance by being adopted into God's family as his children (Galatians 4:4-6), and the Holy Spirit sealed us to guarantee that we will one day receive this inheritance (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Christians are also promised that we will have not just this inheritance, but also heavenly rewards that will last forever, depending on how many good things we did for God in this life (1 Corinthians 3:11-15, Mark 9:41, Matthew 6:3-4, Luke 6:35).

Yet if God will give Christians all of these amazing blessings in heaven, then why won't he also give Christians everything we want in this life? I'll explain in the next section.

Blessings for Obedience?

One reason Christians can get confused about God giving us all sorts of blessings in this life is because of how in the Old Testament, God did make this sort of a promise to the people of Israel.

In Deuteronomy chapter 28, the Israelites were told that if they obeyed God and stayed faithful to his covenant with them, then they would receive all sorts of earthly blessings, including:

blessings on their crops and herds
blessings on their children
rain for their crops
financial prosperity
their enemies would fear them
victory over their enemies in battle

But on the flip side, if they disobeyed, then they would receive the opposite of those things:

pestilences and diseases would afflict them and their animals
their property would be destroyed or stolen by their enemies
no rain would fall which would lead to famines
they would need to take loans from foreigners
their enemies would defeat them in battle

The same general idea appears in the Psalms and Proverbs, also. For example,

"The Lord's curse is on the house of the wicked, but he blesses the dwelling of the righteous" (Proverbs 3:33).
"Disaster pursues sinners, but the righteous are rewarded with good" (Proverbs 13:21).
"Blessed is the man who fears [i.e., respects and reveres] the Lord, who greatly delights in his commandments! His offspring will be mighty in the land; the generation of the upright will be blessed. Wealth and riches are in his house, and his righteousness endures forever" (Psalm 112:1-3).

Psalm 91 is also filled with promises of protection, even going so far as to claim that no evil will happen to those who trust God (e.g., Psalm 91:9-10).

Yet none of these promises are repeated in the New Testament to Christians. So why is this? Why wouldn't God bless Christians in this life in the same way that he blessed the people of Israel?

I think there are a number of reasons.

Israel's Repeated Failures

First, we can look at the Old Testament, and see that despite all the amazing promises God gave the Israelites, they still disobeyed God. Over and over and over again, the people would promise to obey God and follow God's laws, but usually within only a generation or two, they had begun worshipping idols and disobeying God's law.

Then God would punish them just as he promised by letting their enemies conquer them, or sending famines or pestilences, until the people would again cry out to God to save them from their enemies or problems. Finally, God would help them in one way or another, and the people would promise to be faithful again.

Until the next generation, when the pattern would start over. (Just read the book of Judges).

So this history shows that God promising people earthly blessings in exchange for their faithfulness to God does not have a track record of success.

Even Solomon—the wealthiest and most successful king of Israel—eventually disobeyed God and ended up worshiping idols (1 Kings 11:1-10).

Indeed, in one of the harshest critiques of ancient Israel, the prophet Ezekiel compared Israel to an unfaithful wife who goes out and works as a prostitute (Ezekiel 16:8-31). Yet instead of being paid by her lovers (who represented the foreign countries nearby Israel), she used the earthly blessings God gave her to pay for her lovers' attention (Ezekiel 16:32-34). God was obviously not pleased at all with this behavior.

Thus, given the failure of such promises of worldly blessings to guarantee Israel's faithfulness, it seems that God has decided to do things differently for Christians. After all, there is the saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.

However, there are two more very plausible reasons why God does not bless Christians in the same way as he blessed certain faithful people in the past.

God Doesn't Want Gold Diggers: The Stories of Job and Abraham

In the Book of Job, we meet a man named Job who is said to be "blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1). He had been very blessed by God, and was extremely wealthy—even a billionaire, by today's standards (Job 1:3).

However, Satan believed the only reason why Job was faithful to God was because of all the earthly blessings that God had given Job. As a test of Job's faith, God allowed Satan to take away all of Job's blessings. Satan believed that this loss would convince Job to turn against God and curse God (Job 1:9-11).

So Job suffered a series of dramatic tragedies which killed his children and deprived him of his herds, but he didn't curse God. He seemed to accept the loss of these things as God's will, recognizing that everything he had came from God in the first place (Job 1:20-22).

But then Satan challenged God to let him attack Job's health, which God also agreed to (Job 2:4-6). So Job was struck with severe sores all over his body (Job 2:7-8). Even his wife told him that he should curse God, but Job still refused to do so (Job 2:9-10).

Three of Job's friends then showed up and argued that Job must have sinned in order to be experiencing such misfortunes, because everyone knows that God blesses those who are righteous and curses those who are wicked, right? But Job continually insisted that he had not sinned. This back-and-forth conversation goes on for many chapters.

Despite all of this, Job kept his faith in a coming Messiah who would redeem him and resurrect him on the last day (Job 19:25-27). So God told Job's friends to repent from what they said about Job, and rewarded Job by restoring the blessings God gave him (Job 42:7-17).

Thus, although it had a happy ending, I believe the main point of Job's story was to demonstrate that God wants people to be faithful to him regardless of whether they are currently being blessed or not.

Our faithfulness despite facing difficult circumstances shows that we truly want God and recognize our need for him. God doesn't want us to be spiritual 'gold diggers' who seek a relationship with him only for the immediate earthly benefits that he can bring us.

This approach of God not giving Christians everything we could ever want is also better for our testimony to non-Christians.

Imagine this: if God gave every Christian everything we had ever wanted and made our lives perfect the moment we believed in Jesus, then non-Christians who look at our lives would likely say the same thing that Satan did about Job: "Those Christians only love God because of all the blessings God gives them."

Futhermore, then non-Christians would only be motivated to turn to God to get these blessings, rather than because they recognize the infinitely greater gift which God has given us, which is sending Jesus to die for us so that we can have our sins forgiven and enjoy eternal life forever with God. This is the real reason why we should love God; not because God makes all our earthly hopes and dreams come true in this life.

We see the same thing in the story of Abraham.

What if you asked God for something incredibly amazing, and he gave it to you? Would you be able to give it up if God asked you to?

That was the dilemma that faced Abraham. He and his wife Sarah had never had a child of their own, but God had promised it would happen one day, so that Abraham would have many descendants (Genesis 15:5-6). This was the first test of Abraham's faithfulness, to see if he would wait patiently for that promised child and trust God's promise, even though he and his wife were both very old.

Unfortunately, Abraham failed this test when he took things into his own hands and had a son with Sarah's slave woman Hagar, which was not what God intended (Genesis 17:15-19).

Finally, when Sarah and Abraham did have a child named Isaac, then several years later, God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac to God by killing him on an altar.

Incredibly, Abraham was actually ready to go through with it. It seems Abraham had such faith in God's promise that he would have many descendants through his son Isaac that Abraham was convinced that God would bring Isaac back to life afterward (Genesis 22:5, Hebrews 11:17-19). Fortunately, God stopped Abraham before he harmed Isaac, however, Abraham did pass God's test (Genesis 22:12).

Abraham's actions proved that he loved God and wanted to obey God more than he wanted to cling to the amazing blessing of Isaac that God had given him. Otherwise, Abraham would have effectively turned Isaac into an idol that he loved more than he loved God.

Can we imagine being asked to do the same thing, and give up our most precious blessing that God has given us? I don't think many of us would want to be in Abraham's shoes (er... sandals).

Personally, I'd also rather have a lower level of earthly blessings than to end up facing a test like Job did, in order to prove that my faith in God and love for God is for the right reason.

God Leaves Room For Our Faith

A related reason why God does not make Christians' lives perfect now is because it would remove our need for faith in him.

Again, imagine if, as soon as we became a Christian, all of our difficulties disappeared and we received everything we could ever want. This miracle would be pretty blatant proof to both ourselves and others that God is real. But right now, God wants his people to have faith in him and his promises:

And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

By definition, faith is not the same as actually seeing or having the things that God has promised us:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

Jesus said that people who have seen less evidence but still believe in him are more praiseworthy than those who have seen tons of evidence which convinced them to believe, such as the crowds who witnessed the miracles Jesus did when he was here on Earth, or the disciples who saw Jesus alive after his resurrection (John 20:29). For Christians today,

Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (1 Peter 1:8-9)

So God allows Christians to have trials and difficulties in this life because it allows room for our faith to exist.

And God is surely aware of how much testing each of us needs to experience in order to show that our faith in God is genuine.

In Job's case, because he had so many earthly blessings to begin with, if he lost only a few of these blessings, would he have needed as much faith that God was still worthy of being loved and trusted?

So if God says he will test our faith, then in Job's case, it seems that Job's extreme blessings required an equally extreme trial. Therefore, maybe this is why God doesn't bless Christians with everything we wanted in this life, or we'd have to face trials like Job and Abraham had, too!

Trials and difficulties also refine and strengthen our faith, which makes it more precious and will result in great rewards (1 Peter 1:6-7). And remember, heavenly rewards that last forever are much more valuable than earthly material wealth which can be stolen or decay away (Matthew 6:19-20).

James even says that if we persevere in our faith despite the difficulties we face, then in the end, we will receive a special reward called the Crown of Life (James 1:12). Successfully holding on to our faith during small trials is what builds our endurance and helps us become spiritually mature so that we can hold on to our faith to the end of our lives, despite even more challenging situations that might come our way in the future (James 1:2-4).

Furthermore, trials can even draw us closer to God. I've heard some Christians say that they developed much closer relationships with God when they were undergoing difficult trials in life than when everything was going smoothly for them. This does make a lot of sense. For example, if we never had problems, would we pray as much as we do now? Honestly, I probably wouldn't. I might even start taking my blessings for granted, rather than appreciating the good things God has given me.

Thus, I believe that if there were no difficulties in our lives, there would be much less need for faith in God. But faith pleases God. So God leaves room in our circumstances for each of us to have faith, and teaches us to hold on to the amazing promises that we will experience in heaven, and to seek him even in the middle of our problems.

Christians holding on to our faith despite our troubles is also a strong witness to others around us.

In the first few centuries after Jesus ascended to heaven, the early Christians were persecuted in various ways. Yet incredibly, this persecution made even more people want to become Christians. Perhaps seeing Christians hold on to their faith despite what they suffered inspired others to think there really might be something to these Christians' beliefs, after all.

This historical fact led to a saying: "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church". The same truth is testified to by missionaries in challenging circumstances around the world today.2

Objection: Wouldn't Earthly Blessings Be A Better Way to Encourage Faith?

Now someone might argue that if God really wants everyone to be eternally saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4), then God would have a better success rate at getting people to believe in him if he would use earthly blessings as a sort of 'carrot' to convince unbelievers to put their faith in him regarding all the amazing promises God makes about eternal life and heaven.

Sort of a 'try before you buy' situation, right?

However, we've already seen that earthly blessings were not such a great way to convince the Israelites to be obedient to God in this life. If these blessings failed to encourage obedience, then it also seems likely that the same sorts of blessings would also fail at the task of persuading people to believe in God's promises regarding eternal life.

People could always doubt whether the blessing really came from God, or whether it was something else. They might also lose interest in God once they have whatever earthly blessing they asked for.

For example, rather than earthly blessings being an encouragement to people to put their faith in God, the Bible shows that earthly blessings can actually keep people from being interested in believing in God.

In Luke chapter 14, Jesus compared his invitation to people to enter God's kingdom to a man inviting people to attend a great wedding feast. In the similar parable in Matthew 22:1-10 the feast-giver is a king, and the wedding is for his son.

The man holding the feast first sends out invitations to people who appear to be the nobles or elite of society, but they all respond with excuses about why they can't come. One says they have just purchased some new property that they need to inspect, another says they need to try out their new teams of oxen. Another says they have just gotten married, and so they were... ahem... busy (Luke 14:16-19).

All of these things are good in themselves, and can be seen as blessings from God. However, these people prioritized and valued their earthly blessings more than God's invitation to them to come be part of his kingdom (Luke 14:15).

In response to this insulting behavior, in the parable, the man holding the banquet sends out invitations to those who are poor, disabled, or travelers, and they come to the feast instead (Luke 14:21-24).

Perhaps the reason why these people responded to the invitation was precisely because they were worse off than the nobles or 'elites'. To these less well-off people, the feast seemed like an amazing opportunity that they didn't want to miss out on.

This parable thus makes the same point as Jesus' interaction with the rich young man who couldn't make himself give up his many possessions in order to follow Jesus. After this encounter, Jesus told his disciples,

Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:23-24)

Perhaps this is so because people who are perfectly satisfied with how well their lives are going on Earth do not find the distant and unseen promises of heaven to be as attractive as the things they can see and experience right now. In contrast, for people who are facing difficulties and suffering in this life, these heavenly promises might be their only source of hope.

Also, just as in the case of the rich young man, highly blessed people might find turning to God very difficult if doing so might cost them those same blessings that they hold so dear.

And finally, just as with ancient Israel, it seems it may be more true that people tend to turn to God when times get tough and they realize they're at the end of their own abilities to solve their problems.

End-times Bible prophecy supports this argument. During the seven years of the upcoming Tribulation which will be the worst time in human history (Matthew 24:21-22), the Bible says that many, many people will be saved by turning to Jesus. Perhaps even on the order of billions of people might be saved, as John said he could not count them (Revelation 7:9-14), but John could clearly count into the range of hundreds of millions (Revelation 9:16, NRSVA).

These people would have been alive during the years before the Tribulation when life was generally normal like it is now, but they never believed in Jesus then, and so they missed going to heaven in the Rapture.

It seems for all these people, it will take seeing the Rapture and going through at least some of the terrible divine judgments of the Tribulation in order for them to finally wake up and realize that all the Raptured Christians were right: God exists, and Jesus is the only way for them to be eternally saved.

Christianity Is Not About Worldly Blessings

Just as Christianity is not about making us feel good about ourselves, Christianity is also not about giving us everything we could ever want in this life.

I like the CEV Bible translation's version of Paul's words which reads:

[Some] people think religion is supposed to make you rich. And religion does make your life rich, by making you content with what you have. We didn't bring anything into this world, and we won't take anything with us when we leave. So we should be satisfied just to have food and clothes. (1 Timothy 6:5-8, CEV)

Other translations substitute "godliness" for "religion," but the message of the verse is the same: being a Christian isn't going to automatically make you financially rich, or solve all your problems in life.

In fact, the early Christians suffered not only by being insulted, mistreated, or thrown in prison, but also by having their possessions stolen from them. Yet they rejoiced, because they knew they had something better waiting for them (Hebrews 10:32-34). The "something better" may refer to the promises we looked at earlier in this post, about the eternal rewards and inheritance in heaven that we can look forward to.

Even many faithful Old Testament figures personally suffered in ways that seem contrary to the promises given to Israel as a whole:

David was often on the run, hiding out in caves and the wilderness to avoid being killed by King Saul or other enemies (e.g., 1 Samuel 22:1-5, 23:15, 23:24-25, 23:29, 26:1).
Joseph was sold into slavery, falsely accused of a crime, and jailed in an Egyptian dungeon for years (Genesis 37:12-36, 39:1-23).
Elijah had to run for his life and hide in a cave to avoid being killed by the evil Queen Jezebel (1 Kings 19:1-8).
Jeremiah was beaten and put in stocks because he gave an unfavorable prophecy (Jeremiah 20:1-2).
Daniel was unjustly thrown into a den of hungry lions (Daniel 6:16-17).
Samson was captured by his enemies, blinded, and forced to do hard labor (Judges 16:21).
John the Baptist was unjustly jailed and later beheaded by a corrupt ruler (Matthew 14:3-10).

Or, as the author of Hebrews summarizes regarding even more examples of people who were commended for their faith:

Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life. Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Hebrews 11:35-40)

Thus, throughout history, God's most faithful people have not been the ones who had perfect lives, but rather the opposite. Still, they demonstrated the same attitude as Job, "Though he slay me, I will hope in him" (Job 13:15), because ultimately, there is no other source of truth or eternal life besides God (John 6:68, Acts 4:12).

So it shouldn't be surprising to see the same pattern continue for Jesus' disciples in the New Testament:

Steven was stoned to death for preaching the gospel (Acts 7:54-58).
Peter and other disciples were imprisoned and beaten multiple times for doing miracles and preaching the gospel (Acts 5:17-40).
Many disciples were imprisoned (Acts 8:3).

And look at everything Paul said he endured while on his missionary journeys, starting churches and preaching the gospel:

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)

The same sorts of hardships, torture, imprisonment, and martyrdom continued during various times and places for early Christians in the Roman empire, until Christianity was legalized.3

Such treatment continues for Christians and missionaries around the world in countries which are hostile to Christianity.4 More stories could be found by looking into the lives of influential Christian figures throughout history.5

This all fulfills Jesus' warnings to his disciples that they will have trouble and difficulties in this world (John 16:33), and that because people hated Jesus, they would also hate his disciples and treat them similarly to how they treated Jesus (John 15:18-20, Matthew 10:24-25).

So why would God let this happen to his most faithful people?

I think the answer comes when we look at the difference in purposes and promises given to Israel and the Church.

The Purposes of Israel and the Church

As seen already, Israel as a whole was given particular promises regarding land and earthly blessings. These things were meant to inspire their obedience, so that they could serve God's purposes in the world.

They were supposed to be a special people who would be a blessing to the whole world (Genesis 12:1-3, 22:15-18), such as by acting as a light to the other nations around them regarding the truth of God and God's will for how people should live (Romans 2:17-20, 3:1-2). But when Israel disobeyed, God had to punish them in order so that they didn't continually give a bad witness about God to these same nations (Deuteronomy 29:21-28, Ezekiel 5:5-8, 5:14-17).

But the Christian's hope is not tied to receiving land, or descendants, or worldly blessings.

It's true that there are blessings that naturally come from being obedient to God's will for our lives and avoiding sin. However, these blessings are only because avoiding sin saves us from experiencing the suffering and difficulties that sin always brings into our lives sooner or later, which can even include an early death (James 1:15, 5:19-20).

Sometimes we suffer from our own unwise or sinful decisions, such as if we choose to break the laws of the countries we live in, and experience the just consequences of our actions (1 Peter 4:15). Sometimes, we might experience difficulties in our lives as a result of God 'disciplining' us when we've sinned, but that's because God cares for us and doesn't want us to do things that ultimately hurt ourselves and others (Hebrews 12:5-11, 1 Corinthians 11:32, Revelation 3:19).

But overall, the promises that God gives to Christians are primarily about eternal life which is a gift received via faith, not something earned based on obedience (Ephesians 2:8-9). Instead, as far as this life goes, Jesus gives Christians promises such as:

"I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:20).
"In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world" (John 16:33).
"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid" (John 14:27)/

As comforting as these may be, I believe that understanding the purpose for Christian's suffering in this world may also help us endure this suffering more patiently.

The key, I believe, is when Paul said:

Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship from God that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now revealed to his saints. (Colossians 1:24-26)

So in some strange way, Paul's sufferings were "filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions," specifically, with regard to the Church. This might seem like a very arrogant statement for Paul to be making, but it actually makes sense if we think about it.

Jesus' suffering and death on the cross was obviously the only thing which pays for sins. So Paul's suffering was not redemptive in the same sense as Jesus' was, and Paul's suffering was not helping pay for people's sins. However, Paul's suffering was 'redemptive' in a way because much of the suffering he experienced was in relation to his missionary activities of going around starting churches and preaching the gospel.

If he and other missionaries and evangelists had not been willing to endure the suffering that came along with this activity, then presumably, they would have stopped preaching. But then no one would have heard the gospel, or believed in Jesus and gained that eternal life which Jesus died to purchase for everyone (1 Peter 1:18-19, Revelation 5:9, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

As Paul so clearly summarizes:

For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? (Romans 10:13-15).

Thus, without Christians being willing to preach the gospel and endure the suffering and difficulties that come along with doing that, whether to a greater or lesser extent, no one else would believe in Jesus or gain eternal life.

Therefore, whenever Christians suffer as a result of testifying about Jesus, that suffering can be called 'redemptive', and it can be seen as a supplement to Christ's own sufferings because without this supplemental suffering, no one else would be eternally saved.

And we are promised that if we suffer along with Christ in this way, that we will receive not just the inheritance that is promised to all Christians which we looked at earlier in this post, but we will also be counted as co-heirs with Christ himself:

It is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him. (Romans 8:16-17, NRSVA)

However, what about the other sorts of difficulties and suffering that Christians experience in this life? Can that sort of suffering also be 'redemptive'? After all, not every Christian is called to be a missionary, pastor, or evangelist. Many of us are also fortunate that we live in countries where we aren't openly persecuted for our faith.

Although it may seem strange, I do believe that all the little difficulties and problems and issues and sufferings that Christians experience in life can indeed be 'redemptive', provided we handle them correctly.

If we can keep a cheerful attitude despite the problems in our lives, despite the physical suffering we might experience as a result of injuries or illnesses, and despite not being as wealthy or successful as we'd hoped, this will stand out to the unbelievers around us.

They will wonder why it is that we're enduring the same sorts of problems as they are, yet, we seem much less emotionally bothered by our difficulties. Instead of being grumpy, bitter, or angry when problems and suffering come our way, we can instead be patient and at peace, and treat others around us with love.

Then others who see us behaving this way might be inspired to ask us why we respond so differently to these problems than they do. And this would give us a perfect opening to share the gospel.

After all, the primary reason we can react differently to these difficulties is because we have the promise of eternal life to look forward to. Living forever in a perfect new body (1 Corinthians 15:42-49), in custom-made eternal mansions (John 14:1-3, KJV), in a place where there is so much wealth that the walls and streets are made of gold and the foundations are made of precious gemstones (Revelation 21:18-21) will forever outweigh all the suffering we experience here:

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. (Romans 8:18)

Thus, all things really can be said to work together for good, for those who love God (Romans 8:28). And this means that Psalm 91:9-10 is indeed ultimately true for Christians, due to this heavenly inversion that transforms our temporary earthly suffering into eternal rewards and blessings.

And as I've written about more in another post, suffering can even be useful for Christians in a variety of ways.

As one example, it equips Christians to have sympathy for others who are suffering in the same sorts of ways as we have suffered, and thereby equips us to minister to them and care for them better than others who have not suffered in such a way (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

Christians' suffering can also prepare us to meet Jesus face to face. For example, Paul says that Christians who love and long for Jesus' appearing at the Rapture will earn a special eternal crown (2 Timothy 4:8).

But if our lives here are going too well, we might not want them to be interrupted. Instead, we might hope the Rapture will happen sometime later—perhaps after our next vacation, after we graduate university or college, after we've gotten married, or even not until much later, after our children are grown and we've seen their weddings and our grandchildren's weddings.

Yet Christians who are facing trying times would likely be much more eager for Jesus to come back and take us to heaven, in order to be rescued from our problems and suffering. For Christians in the midst of suffering, the Rapture truly is a blessed hope that they long for every day (Titus 2:13). If our temporary problems inspire us to long for Jesus' return and earn eternal rewards as a result, then perhaps we should be grateful that God did not make our lives better right now.

Wealth Is Spiritually Dangerous

A final reason reason why God might not bless Christians with everything we desire is because even to believers, financial blessings can be a potential risk to the quality of our spiritual lives.

Jesus said,

No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. (Luke 16:13)

Judas is a prime example of a follower of Jesus who gave into the temptation to prioritize money over God when he accepted money in exchange for betraying Jesus (Matthew 26:14-16).

Paul also warns,

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

In the end, wealthy people who have abused their wealth will face God's judgment, as James warns:

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you. (James 5:1-6)

So that's pretty harsh, but it does accurately portray how some wealthy people in the world have gained their riches not through divine blessing, but by exploiting and abusing others. Hopefully, true Christians would never behave in such a way.

Even the charge of living a life of luxury and self-indulgence would likely make Christians feel ashamed of ourselves when we face Jesus, when we consider how much of a difference we could have made to others' lives by giving generously to good causes. Indeed, early Christians were noted for how they were very generous and shared everything they had with other Christians who were in need (Acts 2:44-47).

In contrast, Jesus criticized the church of Laodicea for mistaking their physical wealth and prosperity as a sign of divine blessing, when actually, they were spiritually lukewarm and disgusting to Jesus (Revelation 3:15-17). Conversely, the persecuted church of Smyrna was poor and afflicted with many troubles, but Jesus said they were rich (Revelation 2:8-11).

In the case of Smyrna, the richness would refer to the quality of the Smyrnaean Christians' spiritual lives, such as their relational closeness to Jesus, and perhaps the quantity of heavenly rewards they were earning. In comparison, Jesus said he was knocking on the door of the Laodicean church just to try to get in, which shows these Christians were not very spiritually close to him at all (Revelation 3:20).

Thus, these are just some examples about how mistaken attitudes toward wealth can cause problems for Christians. If we don't have tons of earthly wealth, maybe we should be grateful that God has also spared us from these sorts of potential spiritual dangers.

God Does Promise Us Enough

In the meantime, however, God does promise that he will care for Christians:

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you. (Luke 12:22-31)

Don’t love money; be satisfied with what you have. For God has said, "I will never fail you. I will never abandon you." So we can say with confidence, "The Lord is my helper, so I will have no fear. What can mere people do to me?" (Hebrews 13:5-6)

However, these verses still do not prove that Christians will never suffer by being homeless or hungry. These verses don't mean we will never be mistreated or hurt by evil people. Yet God still knows what we're going through, and ultimately, keeping our faith in God's goodness and love for us despite our circumstances (like Job did) is what truly matters:

Dear friends, don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot do any more to you after that. But I’ll tell you whom to fear. Fear God, who has the power to kill you and then throw you into hell. Yes, he’s the one to fear. What is the price of five sparrows—two copper coins? Yet God does not forget a single one of them. And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows. (Luke 12:4-7, NLT)

So again, God does allow Christians to suffer from various problems and difficulties in this life. But since God is perfectly good and loves us and knows everything we're going through, we can trust that there is some greater purpose behind our suffering, even if we can't see it now. A good and loving God wouldn't allow us to suffer if there were absolutely nothing good at all that could come from it (Romans 8:28).

It could be that sometimes, our temporary suffering that God permits us to experience is only our doorway to heaven, where God will wipe away every tear we ever cried, and there will be no more problems or suffering at all (Revelation 21:4). Thus, Christians should not fear death.

Furthermore, there is always the chance that the Rapture could happen at any moment. When that happens, all true Christians who are currently alive will instantly become immortal and will be taken to heaven without dying (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-57).

Given that today, almost all the signs of the end times are here, we can be encouraged that all our difficulties and suffering could end at any time (Luke 21:28). This hope should give us the courage to keep hanging on, no matter how difficult life gets before then.

Conclusion

I hope this post has shown that when Christians experience difficulties and our lives are not perfect, we shouldn't complain that God is being unloving or unjust.

Unlike ancient Israel, Christians are never promised that God will give us all sorts of earthly blessings. And as we saw in this post, although these promises applied to Israel as a whole to encourage their obedience to God, it did not necessarily apply to every individual Israelite—especially some of the most faithful ones.

For Christians, God has set things up differently. Earthly blessings are not guaranteed in exchange for obedience, because God wants people who will love and trust him despite our external circumstances. Yet for Christians, our obedience and good works will be eternally rewarded, which is far better than having temporary earthly blessings, anyway.

Thus, whether our earthly blessings come or go, like Paul did, we can say,

I have learned how to be content with whatever I have. I know how to live on almost nothing or with everything. I have learned the secret of living in every situation, whether it is with a full stomach or empty, with plenty or little. For I can do everything through Christ, who gives me strength.(Philippians 4:11-13, NLT)

But in general, Christians are promised that God will care for us in this life so that we can have the basics of what we need to live.

And honestly, if we're living in North America or Europe, chances are that God has given us far more than just the basics. Thus, we should always be grateful for these blessings, and not get upset that God hasn't given us even more.

Furthermore, because of our hope of heaven and all the incredible things we'll get to have and experience there, Christians can have a significantly different attitude toward when our lives aren't perfect.

By demonstrating patience, peace, and trust in God despite the problems in our lives right now, we are testifying to our faith to those around us.

By having patience and faith in God despite our difficulties, we are also showing God how much we love him—not because he gives us everything we want right now, but because of how Jesus died for our sins so that we can have eternal life.

Thus, even if we have a life here that is nothing but difficulty and suffering, eternal life in heaven will make our faith in Jesus Christ infinitely worth it.

Believing in Jesus is easy, and if you haven't yet trusted in him for eternal life, you can read my short post about how to have eternal life. Then, if you would like to learn more about what promises Christians can look forward to in heaven, see my post here.

Footnotes:

1. Joe Carter, "9 Things You Should Know About The Prosperity Gospel", The Gospel Coalition, September 2, 2023.
2. This phrase is attributed to the early church theologian Tertullian, as quoted by Augustine. GotQuestions.com, What does it mean that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church”?, November 22, 2023.
3. See my previous blog post "The Symbolism of the Beast From the Sea", which gives a short summary of the various persecutions suffered by the early church in footnote number 15.
4. Barbara Kay, "Barbara Kay: Our politicians may not care, but Christians are under siege across the world", The National Post, May 7, 2019. See also "Christians in Afghanistan Call for Help as New Reports of Persecution Surface", Persecution.org, August 23, 2021.
5. For one popular account of such persecution over the centuries, see John Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, edited by W. Grinton Berry (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell, 1998).

The Symbolism Of The Beast From The Sea

2024-07-24T00:00:00+00:00

One of the more complicated and misunderstood symbols in the Book of Revelation is the seven-headed beast that John saw coming out of the sea in Revelation chapters 13 and 17.

This beast relates to a particularly evil man who is referred to in the Bible as the Antichrist (1 John 2:18), the man of lawlessness, and the son of destruction/perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Recently, I have seen some people claim that the one head of this beast which John said will be fatally wounded by a sword but still manages to heal and live (Revelation 13:3, 13:14) should be identified with a current infamous American politician who was not fatally wounded, and whose attacker did not use a sword.

Yes, really.

So it seems that people today just don't read their Bibles, even as they cite verses from it to make claims about who they think the Antichrist will be.

However, Christians who are living in the time before the Rapture do not need to worry about who this evil man will be. This is because at the Rapture, all true Christians will be physically taken to heaven, and we will no longer have to worry about things that happen in this world.

However, the Bible also tells us that after the Rapture, many millions if not billions of people who were left behind on Earth will believe in Jesus (Revelation 7:9-14).

Yet these brand-new believers will have to face the next seven terrible years before Jesus returns at his second coming. This period of time is referred to as the Tribulation, and Jesus said it will be the worst time in all of human history (Matthew 24:21-22).

In part, this terrible time will be because of the man who is referred to as the Antichrist. I've already written a post which summarizes the most obvious traits of the Antichrist, so that he can be identified by people who are left-behind after the Rapture.

This post will examine further details about what we can learn about the Antichrist from the symbolism of the beast that John saw coming out of the sea, in case it may be helpful to anyone who is left behind after the Rapture.1

Yet even Christians who do not have to worry about being on Earth when the Antichrist is ruling can still benefit from this study. In particular, I hope this study will demonstrate that Christians should not be deterred from reading the Book of Revelation because of critics who claim it is too hard to understand due to some of the unusual symbolism.

Remember that "all scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17 NRSVA). This is true even for the Book of Revelation.

At the very least, I hope that if you read this post, you will be equipped to counter the nonsensical interpretations of other people who label various politicians as being the Antichrist based on faulty interpretations of the beast that comes out of the sea.

So let's get into it!

The Physical Traits Of The Beast From The Sea

The beast that John saw coming out of the sea is described primarily in Revelation chapters 13 and 17.

The physical characteristics of the beast are:

It comes out of the sea (Revelation 13:1).
It has seven heads and ten horns, with a crown on each horn, and blasphemous names on its heads (Revelation 13:1).
Its body is like a leopard, with feet of a bear, and mouth of a lion (Revelation 13:2).
One of its heads has a mortal wound which is healed (Revelation 13:3).
The mortal wound is caused by a sword (Revelation 13:14)
It is scarlet coloured (Revelation 17:3).

To make things easier, in the rest of this post I will refer to the beast that comes from the sea simply as "John's beast" or "the beast".

Now, these traits listed above may seem random, however, they are not. We can gain much insight into exactly what John is trying to represent when we remember that John is not the only inspired biblical author to have a vision about symbolic beasts.

The prophet Daniel also had a vision about four beasts when he was serving in the court of King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. And it just so happens that aspects of the beasts in Daniel's vision match up perfectly with the beast that John describes in Revelation.

In Daniel 7:1-8, Daniel describes four different beasts which he saw coming up out of the sea:

A lion with eagle's wings.
A bear.
A leopard with four wings and four heads.
A beast with iron teeth and ten horns.

We can now see that John's beast is made up of the same types of animal body parts as the beasts described in Daniel's vision (i.e. a mouth like a lion, feet like a bear, body like a leopard, and ten horns).

One difference is that John's beast has seven heads. Yet Daniel's leopard-like beast is described as having four heads, so the idea of symbolic beasts having multiple heads is not unheard of in Scripture.

Thus, if we can determine what these four beasts in Daniel's vision represent, it will likely give us insight into John's beast as well.

Four Beasts And A Five-Part Statue

Among conservative Bible scholars, the four beasts in Daniel's vision are usually believed to correspond to the different portions of a statue of a man which King Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream.2

As described in Daniel 2:31-35, different portions of the statue were made of different materials:

the head of gold
the chest and arms of silver
the torso and hips of bronze
the legs of iron
the feet of iron and clay mixed together

At the end of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, the statue was destroyed by a huge boulder which hit the statue's feet, and caused the rest of the statue to crumble into dust that was blown away by the wind.

God gave Daniel the interpretation to Nebuchadnezzar's dream, where Daniel identified each portion of the statue as being a political empire, beginning with Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon as the head of gold, and ending with God's eternal kingdom as the boulder which will destroy and replace all human kingdoms and empires (Daniel 2:36-45).

Historically, we can see that the empires which ruled over the land of Israel after the Babylonians were the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans. The symbolism of the four beasts in Daniel's vision fits surprisingly well with this same series of four empires, as will be shown below.

Babylon

The lion-like beast with eagle wings (Daniel 7:4) represents Babylon, which was also represented as the statue's head of gold (Daniel 2:37-38). Babylon was known for their images of winged lions which guarded their royal palaces.3

In Daniel's vision, the lion-like beast has its wings plucked off, and it stands upright like a man and is given a human mind (Daniel 7:4). This corresponds well with details of King Nebuchadnezzar's personal life, where he lost his mind as a divine judgment on his pride, causing him to live like a wild animal until God restored his sanity seven years later (Daniel 4:28-37).

Medo-Persia

The Medo-Persian Empire conquered Babylon during Daniel's own lifetime, following the infamous incident where the divine hand of God wrote mysterious words on the palace wall while King Belshazzar (Nebuchadnezzar's son) was having a wild party (Daniel 5:1-31). That very night, Darius the Mede conquered Babylon and killed Belshazzar.

Thus, the Medo-Persian Empire would correspond to the statue's chest and arms of silver in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:32, 2:39). Interpreters also see similarities between the Medo-Persian Empire and the symbolism of Daniel's bear-like beast.

The symbol of the bear may indicate this empire was “powerful like a bear, ferocious, but less majestic, less swift, and less glorious... inferior in appearance and heavy and ungainly in movement" (in comparison to the lion/Babylon).4

The bear is described as being lifted up on one side, while eating three ribs in its mouth (Daniel 7:5). The three ribs could represent how the Medo-Persians conquered Babylon, Lydia, and Egypt, and the bear being raised up on one side might represent the lopsided balance of power between the Medes and Persians within this empire.5

Greece

The leopard-like beast is generally seen as representing the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great, which is also represented as the torso and hips of bronze in Nebuchadnezzar's statue (Daniel 2:39).

It is noted that a leopard was less feared than a lion, but it was faster. The four wings on the leopard also emphasize its speed, which matches with the remarkable and unprecedented speed of Alexander the Great’s conquests.6

The four heads on this leopard-like beast (Daniel 7:6) may represent how after Alexander the Great died, his empire was geographically split up among his top four generals.7 This detail will be helpful to remember when we return to examining John's seven-headed beast.

Rome

As the next historical empire which conquered Greece, the Roman Empire is represented as Daniel's fourth beast with iron teeth and ten horns (Daniel 7:7), and would correspond to the statue's two legs of iron in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (Daniel 2:33, 2:40).

The Roman Empire was eventually split into eastern and western sides, and was ruled by two different emperors. This detail would correspond well with the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's vision having two legs.

The body of the fourth beast is not described by Daniel. Yet Daniel does say that this beast is different from the others, and it devours the whole world and tramples it into pieces (Daniel 7:7, 7:23, 2:40). It is also the only beast that is described as having a metallic component (i.e., iron teeth).

One scholar notes that:

Just as this monster was ‘different’ from all the others, so the Roman Empire differed from those that had preceded it. Rome possessed a power and longevity unlike anything the world had ever known. Nations were crushed under the iron boot of the Roman legions, its power was virtually irresistible, and the extent of its influence surpassed the other three kingdoms.8

There is more that needs to be said about this fourth beast regarding the ten horns, as well as the horns' relationship to the feet of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. This will be discussed later on in this post.

Support For This Interpretation Of The Beasts

The interpretation of these four beasts in Daniel's vision as being four successive empires which ruled over the land of Israel, and their multiple heads and wings as representing divisions of ruling power within these empires is supported by a similar passage found in the Jewish Book of 2 Esdras.

2 Esdras is part of the category of biblical books which are called the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha contains extra books that early Christians (and most Protestants during the Reformation) did not see as being equal to the other books of Scripture in terms of their spiritual authority. Thus, these books are not included in most Bibles that are printed today. However, these books had been included in the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Old Testament that would have been used in the early churches, and so these books were traditionally seen as still having some sort of use or value for Christians.

2 Esdras is considered to be apocalyptic literature, which is the same genre as the Book of Revelation and portions of the Book of Daniel.

In 2 Esdras chapters 11 and 12, a three-headed eagle-like beast is depicted as gaining and losing different numbers of wings. The author of 2 Esdras interprets the eagle’s wings as being different kings who will reign over this kingdom and then lose their rule or be killed by subsequent kings (2 Esdras 12:13-21, NRSVA).

The heads of the eagle represent three of the kingdom's even more oppressive rulers who come later on, and who finish off the beast's/kingdom's actions (2 Esdras 12:22-25, NRSVA).

It is noted by Frederick Murphy that “What happens with the eagle mirrors Roman history, from Julius Caesar to the Flavians, whose dynasty ended in 96 CE”.9

The final and largest head of the eagle is depicted as dying in bed (2 Esdras 12:26, NRSVA), which happened for Emperor Vespasian. At the time, such a death would have been unusual for an emperor.10

This example in 2 Esdras confirms that in Jewish apocalyptic literature it was possible to use beasts to represent kingdoms or empires, and for parts of these beasts to represent rulers. Additionally, just as in Daniel's vision, what happens to these rulers during their reigns is described by what happens to the beast or parts of the beast.

Thus, 2 Esdras confirms that it is reasonable to interpret the four beasts in Daniel's vision as representing four successive empires, and the parts of the beasts as representing different rulers within these empires.

The Beasts Come Out Of The Sea

Elsewhere in Scripture, the sea monsters named Rahab and Leviathan are used to represent oppressive foreign empires such as Egypt or Babylon (e.g., Psalm 74:14, 87:4, Isaiah 30:7, Ezekiel 29:3, 32:2-3, Jeremiah 51:34).

To ancient near-eastern people, the sea represented a constant threat to life, and a source of chaos.11 This theme also appears in the Bible.

For example, God calmed the chaotic waters in order for the land to appear on the third day of creation (Genesis 1:9-13). The entire world was also destroyed by water during the flood (Genesis 7:1-24). Jesus famously calmed a rough storm when he was in a boat that threatened the lives of the disciples (Luke 8:22-25), and James also uses the sea as a metaphor for chaos (James 1:6). Thus, it is appropriate for the sea to be symbolically absent from the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21:1).

Other commentators have noted that the sea can represent all the non-Jewish nations of the world.12

Thus, the sea is an appropriate metaphorical source for both Daniel and John's beasts (Daniel 7:2-3, Revelation 13:1), which represent foreign non-Jewish empires that threatened God's people.

With this background, we can now move on to interpret the seven heads of John's beast.

The Seven Heads On John's Beast

In Revelation 17:9-10, the seven heads of the beast are said to represent two different things:

seven kings: five which no longer rule, one who is currently ruling, and one more that will rule in the future.
seven mountains/hills upon which sits the metaphorical prostitute who is called Babylon the Great.

The prostitute named Babylon the Great represents an entity which is rich, is associated with the colors of scarlet and purple, and persecutes/martyrs God's saints (Revelation 17:4-6).

Usually, in the Bible, God used the symbol of female prostitutes to represent how God's people became unfaithful to their covenant with God and began worshiping other gods (e.g., Ezekiel 16:8-63, Hosea 1:2).

Regarding the seven hills/mountains, there are a number of cities which claim to have been built on seven hills. For John's target audience, the most notable of such cities would likely have been Rome and Jerusalem, but could also have included Athens. Other such cities of interest to Bible prophecy scholars today include Washington D.C., Mecca in Saudi Arabia (the most important city for the religion of Islam), and Brussels in Belgium (the capital of the European Union).13

But John's first readers of the Book of Revelation would most likely have interpreted the seven hills as referring to the city of Rome, and the prostitute as being the idolatrous Roman practice of Emperor worship.14 The early Christians' refusal to offer sacrifices or prayers to statues of the Roman emperor was one reason that Christians were persecuted at various times and places within the ancient Roman Empire.15

Thus, it is common for biblical interpreters to attempt to identify the seven heads of John's beast with seven Roman emperors. However, there were many more than only seven Roman emperors, and commentators cannot decide among themselves which seven should count, or even which one to begin counting from.16 So this does not seem to be the best interpretive option.

Which emperor would be considered as “the one who is living” during John's time also varies depending on when commentators estimate the Book of Revelation was written. Suggestions include Nero, Galba, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, or Domitian.17

An alternate suggestion which tries to fit the seven kings with seven historical rulers takes a more symbolic view of these kings by noting that

[Rome] was an Etruscan monarchy until the expulsion of the last Etruscan king… in 508 B.C. From the perspective of canonical Roman tradition, there were exactly seven kings in all: Romulus, Numa, Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Marcus, Tarquinus Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus … while there were probably more than seven historical kings, Roman and Etruscan historians identified minor figures with major ones to maintain the canonical number.18

Yet since John said that one king/head was currently living at the time when he was writing Revelation, this purely historical interpretation seems obviously incorrect.

Some commentators attempt to give up on identifying the seven heads as seven historical rulers altogether. Instead, they say the number seven simply represents "completeness", and the fact that John says the sixth head was currently ruling during his time shows that "the end is near".19

Yet this interpretation seems overly simplistic given that, based on the earlier analysis of the beasts in the Book of Daniel and 2 Esdras, there is a specific meaning attributed to the various heads and portions of the beasts' bodies. The same is likely true for John's beast.

Furthermore, because of the large number of allusions in Revelation 13 and 17 to the Book of Daniel,20 it seems clear that John is intending for his readers to recall Daniel’s vision and to interpret the symbolism of his beast in a similar way.

John's Beast As A Conglomerate Of Daniel's Beasts

I believe that John himself gives the clue to the interpretation of the heads when he says they represent seven kings, five which are fallen, one which is currently ruling, and one which is still to come and rules only for a little while (Revelation 17:10).

So as he says, unlike Daniel's third beast where the four heads represented four leaders who ruled over parts of Greece simultaneously after Alexander the Great died, John is using the seven heads of his beast to represent seven kings who rule in sequential order.

It has been suggested that the seven heads of John's beast represent a series of human empires which have ruled over the land of Israel in different eras.21

Furthermore, we can see that the body of John's beast is comprised of parts from Daniel's first three beasts: the mouth of a lion, the feet of a bear, and the rest like a leopard (Revelation 13:2). John's beast also has the ten horns of Daniel's fourth beast (Revelation 17:3).

These details support the idea that John's beast transcends time, such that John's beast includes "within itself manifestations of other oppressive kingdoms" which historically ruled over and opposed God's people.22

From Genesis to Revelation, we see that in chronological order throughout Scripture, these kingdoms/empires were:

Egypt
Assyria
Babylon (Daniel's first lion-like beast)
Medo-Persia (Daniel's second bear-like beast)
Greece (Daniel's third leopard-like beast)
Rome (Daniel's fourth beast with ten horns)

Indeed, in this scheme, Rome would be the sixth kingdom, and would correspond with the sixth head/king of the beast which John said was ruling during his lifetime (Revelation 17:10).

However, we still have not figured out what the ten horns on Daniel's fourth beast represent, since it seems that they are the same ten horns as on John's beast.

Thus, solving the mystery of these ten horns on Daniel's fourth beast will also allow us to identify the seventh head of John's beast.

The Ten Horns On Daniel's Fourth Beast

As you may have guessed by now, there is debate among commentators over what the ten horns on Daniel's fourth beast represent.

As seen earlier, this beast is often interpreted as representing the Roman Empire. Daniel also clearly mentions that the ten horns are ten kings (Daniel 7:24). So, just like for the seven heads in John's beast, some commentators try to find a sequence of ten Roman emperors to label as these kings.

Yet Daniel saw three of these kings being uprooted or replaced by a greater king, who initially comes up as only a "little horn" (Daniel 7:8, 7:20). Both this greater king and Daniel's fourth beast are prophesied to be defeated by the coming of the Messiah (Daniel 7:21-22). This will happen at the Battle of Armageddon, which occurs just after Jesus' second coming in Revelation 16:12-16 and 19:11-21.

However, there were many more than just ten Roman emperors, and commentators who take this approach often disagree on which ten were the most important emperors that should be worthy of being counted among these ten. There were also never three emperors who were replaced by only one emperor. And finally, the Roman Empire was not defeated by Jesus at his second coming, since the second coming is a yet-future event.23

The same problem occurs if we identify the ten horns as either ten Roman provinces, or ten client kings of Rome.24

Furthermore, John specified that the ten horns had not yet received their power (Revelation 17:12), and so identifying them as any historical figures who lived at or before the writing of the Book of Revelation seems blatantly incorrect.

Alternatively, as with the seven heads, some scholars claim the number ten only symbolizes "completeness", rather than a specific series of kings.25

But let us return again to Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue. The very last stage of the statue after the two legs of iron is the feet and toes made of iron and clay (Daniel 2:41-42). Presumably, if the statue is depicting a typical human, there would be ten of these toes.

Therefore, it seems logical that these ten toes are the same as the ten horns on Daniel's fourth beast (Daniel 7:24), which would also correspond to the ten horns on John's beast which represent ten kings who had not yet begun to rule during John's time, and do so for only a short time after they receive power (Revelation 17:9-12).

Therefore, just as the statue's feet and toes made of iron and clay could be seen as an extension of the two legs of iron, the seventh head of John's beast is often referred to by prophecy commentators as the "Revived Roman Empire," which will have ten kings/rulers or administrative divisions.

Daniel also says that it is in the days of these ten toes/kings that God would set up his eternal kingdom (Daniel 2:42-45). This detail confirms that the feet of the statue represent a kingdom/empire which will rule for only a "little while," or symbolically, "one hour" before Jesus' second coming occurs (Revelation 17:9-12).

After Jesus' victory, he will set up his own kingdom which will initially last for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-6), and then carries on into eternity in the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 22:1-5).

So in conclusion, the seventh head of John's beast could be labelled as the "Revived Roman Empire" which will exist for only a brief time before the ten kings who rule this empire will give all their power over to the Antichrist for the last 3.5 years/42 months of the Tribulation period (Revelation 17:13, 13:5, Daniel 7:25).26

It is this empire which will exist at Jesus' second coming, and which will be defeated by him at the Battle of Armageddon, fulfilling Daniel's prophecies of the statue that is destroyed by a boulder (Daniel 2:44-45), or the fourth beast which is killed with fire (Daniel 7:11, Revelation 19:20).

Who Are The Ten Kings?

Many prophecy commentators have speculated about what these ten kings may be.

In the past, the European Union was seen as having a lot of potential to become the Revived Roman Empire. This is because the Antichrist is prophesied to come from the same people who destroyed the second Jewish temple in 70 AD, who were the Romans (Daniel 9:26-27). The Roman Empire was based primarily in Europe, although it also included some areas now found in Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and North Africa.

However, it wasn't clear to prophecy experts how the EU would end up with only ten members during the Tribulation, if the EU was supposed to fulfill the prophecy of the ten kings.

In a previous blog post, I discussed how the BRICS countries were ready to expand to ten members, and so this group also seemed like it could be an alternative possibility for the ten kings.

However, currently BRICS+ has only nine members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates, because Argentina declined the invitation to join. (August 2025 Update: there are now ten BRICS+ countries, because Indonesia joined in January 2025).

So currently in this time before the Rapture, we might not yet see the ten-king kingdom clearly forming. Perhaps the specific group of ten kings will only be fully formed or become identifiable in the chaos that will occur after the Rapture.

However, as noted earlier, it could be possible that the number ten in reference to these toes/horns/kings is only symbolic and represents a larger number of countries, or maybe even the whole world.

After all, a statue with, say, 193 toes on the feet, or a beast with 193 horns on its heads (to represent, for example, the current number of members of the United Nations) would be rather bizarre and potentially difficult for God to depict clearly in visions or dreams to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, and John.

Yet what is most important is not the specific identity of the ten horns, but of the "little horn" who comes up among them, and eventually becomes the ultimate evil world ruler known as the Antichrist.

Is The Beast An Empire Or A Person?

So, based on the earlier analysis, it seems that John's beast is a temporal conglomerate that represents seven human empires which either have dominated or will dominate the land of Israel and persecute God's people.

Yet the things that the beast does in the Book of Revelation seem to fit much better with the actions of an individual person. For example, the beast:

will say proud/haughty words about itself (Revelation 13:5).
will blaspheme God and the raptured Christians who are safe in heaven (Revelation 13:6).
will be endorsed by a false prophet who will do impressive miracles when he is in the beast's presence (Revelation 13:11-13, 19:20).
will have an 'image' made of it which can speak (Revelation 13:15).
will be associated with the number 666, which is "the number of a man" (Revelation 13:18).
will be captured at the battle of Armageddon along with the Antichrist's false prophet, and thrown into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 19:20).

Furthermore, it is noted that throughout Revelation, the masculine pronoun "he" is used to refer to the beast.27

It is also noted that in Revelation, the "parallels between the beast and the Lamb indicate that he [the beast] is a person: both have followers on whose foreheads are inscribed their names, both are conquerors, and both receive worship".28 Thus, in a number of ways, the Antichrist will attempt to impersonate Jesus.

All of these details are difficult to imagine and understand if John is intending them to refer only to an empire.

So it could be that, as in the case of Daniel's first lion-like beast, and the heads of the eagle in 2 Esdras, while the beast represents the empire, the actions of the beast represent the actions of the empire's ruler.

This makes sense because if a ruler has absolute control over the empire, then whatever the ruler does, the entire empire also effectively does.

Thus, as one commentator writes,

The antichrist … is in a general sense the seven-headed beast, and yet at the same time the eighth head or eighth king in particular, who somehow belongs to the seven (v. 11). In other words, the antichrist in Revelation is both an institution and a person, an empire and an emperor.29

Now, let us address the above comment which mentions that the Antichrist is also the 'eighth' head/king which seems to appear on John's beast.

The Antichrist As The Little Horn That Becomes The Eighth King/Head Of The Beast

So how does the Antichrist go from being only Daniel's "little horn", to "the beast" who has power over the entire world for the last 42 months of the Tribulation? (Revelation 13:5-8). I believe we can track his rise to power by putting verses from the books of Daniel and Revelation into their logical and chronological order.

First, Daniel says the Antichrist comes up as a "little horn" among the ten horns/kings who will be ruling the seventh head/empire of John's beast. But right from the start, the Antichrist seems to be proud, as he "speaks great things". As he comes up, he takes over the power of three of these pre-existing rulers/horns, thereby "plucking them up by their roots" (Daniel 7:8).

This initial appearance of the Antichrist likely corresponds to the First Seal judgment in Revelation 6:1-2. There, a rider on a white horse appears who seems to have conquered, but also goes out to conquer more. This conquering could be in the military sense, but it could also be more of a political conquest, as the Antichrist slowly gains more and more power.

Yet at some point, it seems the three kings who the Antichrist initially replaced may return, perhaps as sub-rulers under the Antichrist, because the Bible says that all ten kings will give their power and authority to the Antichrist (Revelation 17:12-13).

At this point, after the Antichrist has received the full authority of the ten kings, he has effectively become the seventh head of the beast. Since this seventh head is also the head of the beast which will be in power at that time, the Antichrist could simply be called "the beast", for short.

Now we can make sense of how John writes that "one of its [the beast's] heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed" (Revelation 13:3).

Specifically, the apparently-mortal/deadly wound will be caused by a sword (Revelation 13:14). The Greek word for sword used here is machaira, meaning a large knife, dagger, or sword.30

Once again, these details make much more sense if the seventh head of the beast is referring to a person, rather than referring in general to an empire, as some commentators suggest.31

So it seems that someone will try to kill the Antichrist by using a knife, dagger, or sword, and the assassin may even appear to succeed, until the Antichrist seemingly miraculously recovers.

In this way, the Antichrist will somehow make it appear that he has been resurrected. However, the Bible warns that the Antichrist's 'miracles' will all be done through the deceptive power of Satan (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10). So it will somehow be a fake resurrection.

Yet this apparent miracle would provide a convincing basis for the Antichrist to declare to the people of the world that he is God. He will even do this in the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

After all, it was Jesus' resurrection from the dead which validated his claims to be God (John 10:17-18, 20:27-28, Romans 1:4, Acts 17:31).

At this point, after the Antichrist has received this seemingly-fatal wound and pulled off a fake resurrection, the Antichrist could be counted as the resurrected 'eighth' king/head of the beast, although he was formerly the seventh head which seemed to die when he was assassinated (Revelation 17:11).

Shortly after this, the Antichrist will also demonstrate the ability to kill the two witnesses who will prophesy in Jerusalem and cause many problems for the world's people during the first half of the Tribulation (Revelation 11:3-7). These two men had previously been invincible, due to their ability to shoot out fire from their mouths to destroy anyone who attacked them (Revelation 11:5). The world will celebrate the two witnesses' deaths (Revelation 11:10).

With these two demonstrations of the Antichrist's apparent invincibility, it's completely understandable that most people in the world will say "Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?" They will actually worship the Antichrist as God, and will worship Satan also (Revelation 13:4).

At this point, the Antichrist will receive the full authority of Satan (Revelation 13:4), and he will rule the whole world for the last 3.5 years (42 months) of the seven-year Tribulation period (Revelation 13:5).

Together, the Antichrist and the ten kings (who likely will stay on as sub-administrators) will hate whatever false religion is represented by the prostitute named Babylon the Great, and they will somehow destroy it by using fire (Revelation 17:16-18).

In this way, if Babylon the Great is a future idolatrous religion, after it is destroyed, the Antichrist will claim all the world's worship for himself and Satan.

Under the instructions of the Antichrist's false prophet, the people of the world will make an idol of the Antichrist that will behead people who refuse to worship it (Revelation 13:14-15, 20:4). Furthermore, everyone who refuses to take the Mark of the Beast will be cut off from the global financial system, so they will be unable to buy or sell anything (Revelation 13:16-17).

At this point, the persecution of Christians which already began in the Fifth Seal judgment will increase, because Christians and faithful Jews will be the only groups of people who will refuse to worship the Antichrist as if he were God (Daniel 7:21, 7:25, Revelation 13:7-10).

Thus, it is appropriate for the beast in John's vision to be colored scarlet (Revelation 17:3) — the color of blood — because every empire which comprises one of the seven heads of the beast, from Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, the Revived Roman empire, to the 'eighth' Antichrist global dictatorship will all have persecuted and killed God's people, whether Jews or Christians.

The dragon which represents Satan in the Book of Revelation is similarly red colored (Revelation 12:3), and he would be the ultimate inspiration and power behind the murder of Jews and Christians during the Tribulation. Jesus did say Satan was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44).

Yet because there are far more people in the world today, the Antichrist will likely achieve the terrible accomplishment of killing and persecuting the most saints out of any of the previous seven empires.

In the end, we could say that

Governments are beastly when they scheme to eliminate people who get in the way of their purposes. The greater the number of people affected, the greater the beastliness of the government that participates in such annihilation.32

So perhaps it is appropriate for the Antichrist to be called "the beast" itself, because he will outdo all previous empires in his level of utterly totalitarian control over the world, and also outdo them in how severely and comprehensively he will be able to persecute God's people.

No one else in history has been able to control every single person's ability to buy and sell, yet the Antichrist will be able to do so by using whatever technology that will enable the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18). It is also likely that he will make use of all the most advanced surveillance systems, probably enhanced with artificial intelligence, to try to track down and eliminate all Christians and Jews.

Such a dictatorial empire with this level of technological control really will be the pinnacle of evil, and Jesus' second coming will be the only hope to free humanity from the beast's worldwide domination.

Conclusion

To summarize, John's seven-headed beast with ten horns in the Book of Revelation represents all historical and yet-future empires which have had dominion over the land of Israel, and which have persecuted God's faithful people.

Yet due to the level of control that the Antichrist will eventually have over the last world empire, and how he will be the ultimate and most severe persecutor of God's people throughout history, he can effectively be identified as "the beast" itself.

Thus, the aspects of what "the beast" is described as doing in the Book of Revelation that seem to imply the beast is a man should be interpreted as happening to or being done by the Antichrist himself.

This includes how he will receive an apparently-fatal wound from a sword, and pull off a fake resurrection which will stun the world into believing his claims to be God, and worshipping him.

However, as invincible and terrible as the Antichrist will seem, he will only rule the world for 3.5 years. Jesus will throw the Antichrist into the Lake of Fire along with the Antichrist's false prophet after they are captured during the Battle of Armageddon, at the end of the Tribulation (Revelation 19:20). So Jesus will have the final victory.

Even better, everyone who lost their lives due to refusing to worship the Antichrist or take his Mark of the Beast will be resurrected. They will get to help Jesus and his Church rule the world for the next thousand years (Revelation 20:4).

So what does all of this mean for you today?

If you have not already done so, I would highly recommend that you take Jesus up on his offer to believe that he died for your sins, so that you can have eternal life.

This way, if the Rapture has not yet happened, you can look forward to escaping the terrible time of the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10). Share this good news with your friends and family, so that they can also hopefully be saved before the Rapture occurs.

But if millions or even billions of people have just disappeared all around the world, you will be heading into the seven-year Tribulation.

No matter what it costs you, absolutely DO NOT take the Mark of the Beast. Doing so will lead to your automatic condemnation to the Lake of Fire (Revelation 14:9-11), and eventual eternal destruction.

Yet even if you die during the Tribulation, if you have believed in Jesus, you will have eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth, where all tears will be wiped away and there will never again be any suffering or death (Revelation 21:4). It will be better than anything anyone can currently imagine (1 Corinthians 2:9), and so it's infinitely more worthwhile to believe in Jesus and have him be your king rather than to follow the Antichrist.

Footnotes:

1. This post is based on a final paper I wrote for a course on the Book of Revelation during my Master of Theological Studies degree at Tyndale Seminary.
2. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 182-183, 187.
3. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 189-190.
4. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 192.
5. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 192-193.
6. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 194.
7. Thomas A. Howe, Daniel in the Preterists’ Den: A Critical Look At Preterist Interpretations of Daniel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 205-206; John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, MI: Moody, 2012), 195.
8. Stephen R. Miller, Daniel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, The New American Commentary Vol. 18, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 201.
9. Frederick J. Murphy, Apocalypticism in the Bible and Its World: A Comprehensive Introduction (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 148.
10. Theodore A. Bergren, “2 Esdras” in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version With the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books Third Ed., eds. Michael D. Coogan et. al. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 351.
11. “Monsters,” Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, eds. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, Tremper Longman III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 562-563.
12. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, eds. Philip E. Rawle & Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, MI: Moody Publishers, 2011), 204.
13. Wikipedia.org, "List of Cities Claimed To Be Built on Seven Hills"
14. A. J. Beagley, “Babylon”, The Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, eds. Ralph P. Martin, Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 112.
15. Emperor Nero captured, tortured, and executed many Christians after blaming them for the fire that burned down part of the city of Rome in 64 AD, but this persecution was limited to the city of Rome. The policy of requiring Christians to sacrifice to pagan statues of gods or statues of the Roman emperors appears to have begun under Emperor Trajan, as shown in letters that were sent between Emperor Trajan and one of his governors named Pliny, who was attempting to figure out how to deal with Christians in his region who caused problems for the local economy that depended on the sale of idols and sacrifices for pagan temples. But the persecution here was mostly limited to Pliny's region of Bithynia. In the early third century during the rule of Emperor Septimus Severus, it became illegal to become a Christian. The document "The Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicitas" shows how if new converts to Christianity were caught, they were put on trial and were asked to sacrifice to the gods or the emperor, and if they refused, they were killed in the arenas. But it was only in 249 AD under the Emperor Decius who wanted to restore the old Roman religions that worshipping the gods and emperor became mandatory for all people throughout the Roman Empire, and paper certificates were given out as proof that individuals had done so. Christians who refused were imprisoned and tortured if they were caught without the certificate. Finally, Emperor Diocletian implemented harsh policies to arrest church leaders and required all Christians to sacrifice to the gods and emperor, or be tortured and killed. Fortunately, this persecution decreased as political chaos took most of Diocletian's and his immediate successors' focus off of Christians, and perscution of Christians officially ended inside the Roman Empire when Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in 313 AD. Justo L. Gonzales, The Story of Christianity Volume 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 44-46, 50-51, 98-99, 100-102, 120-126.
16. David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary 52c (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 946-947.
17. David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary 52c (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 947, 949.
18. David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary 52c (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 948.
19. Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, Revised Edition, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 317.
20. G. K. Beale, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in The Revelation of St. John (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984), 267.
21. Dennis E. Johnson, “Revelation” in The ESV Study Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 2481.
22. "Just as the four beastly kingdoms in Daniel 7 spanned hundreds of years, so the [Roman] empire dominant in the first century A.D. has latent within itself manifestations of other oppressive kingdoms that may be manifested in the future, as 17:10–11 show." G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1999), 685.
23. Thomas A. Howe, Daniel in the Preterists’ Den: A Critical Look At Preterist Interpretations of Daniel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 225-226.
24. David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, Word Biblical Commentary 52c (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998) 951.
25. Thomas A. Howe, Daniel in the Preterists’ Den: A Critical Look At Preterist Interpretations of Daniel (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 209.
26. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, eds. Philip E. Rawle & Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, MI: Moody Publishers, 2011), 204.
27. Daniel K. Wong, “The Beast from the Sea in Revelation 13”, Bibliotheca Sacra 160 no. 639 Jl-S (2003): 337-338.
28. Daniel K. Wong, “The Beast from the Sea in Revelation 13”, Bibliotheca Sacra 160 no. 639 Jl-S (2003): 338.
29. Ramsay J. Michaels, Revelation The IVP New Testament Commentary Series 20 (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1997), 197-198.
30. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 1206.
31. Such as is claimed by Walvoord, who prefers to interpret the head that was wounded as being the Roman Empire having been killed and coming back to life as the Revived Roman Empire. See John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, eds. Philip E. Rawle & Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, MI: Moody Publishers, 2011), 205-206.
32. A. Berkley Michelson, Daniel & Revelation: Riddles or Realities? (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 136.

Overview of My Christocentric Theory of Inclusivism

2024-03-26T00:00:00+00:00

This is an overview of my series of blog posts where I attempt to build a case for a Christocentric theory of soteriological inclusivism.

Or in other words, this is a summary of my attempt to explain how I believe that all people will have a fair opportunity to hear the gospel and experience eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth. However, all who are saved in the end will have clearly put their faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior who died for their sins.

Hopefully this series will be able to reassure Christians who worry about God's justice regarding people who never had a chance to hear the gospel. I also aim to give hope to Christians who worry about people they know who died without ever having personally put their faith in Jesus. This is my best understanding of how it might be possible for these people to still be saved, backed up by Scripture and philosophical reasoning.

These posts will make the most sense if they are read in the order listed below, as together, they explore and refute the other alternatives to inclusivism in order to build up to my own theory of Christian inclusivism. Then in the last two posts I deal with a few potential objections to my theory.

Below are links to each post:

The rest of this post includes shorter summaries of these posts, to show the overall flow and logic of my theory of Christian inclusivism. This summary is mostly for people who have read my previous posts and want a refresher of my overall argument, or for people who don't care to see the detailed arguments, evidence, citations, and Bible verses I include in my longer posts.

Post 1: Does God Really Want To Save Everyone?

I begin by laying out the four main perspectives on the question of who will end up being eternally saved. These are:

Exclusivism: only people who believed in Jesus and/or the only true God during their earthly lives will be eternally saved.
Inclusivism: Christianity is the only true faith, but non-Christians can still be saved even if they didn't know about Jesus or believe in him during their earthly lives.
Pluralism: all religions lead people to the same God and teach the same core values, so any religious person can be saved.
Universalism: everyone will be saved, eventually.

Then the rest of my first post focuses on refuting exclusivism, by arguing that Scripture says God really does want to save everyone, contra certain theologians who argue that God only wants to save some people.

So we can say that if God really does want everyone to be saved, then we can be sure that everyone will have an opportunity to be eternally saved, somehow.

Post 2: Will God Save Everyone?

In contrast to exclusivism, my second post refutes universalism, because I believe the Bible is also clear that not everyone will be saved.

The most significant problem with universalism is that it denies people the freedom to reject God. This problem appears in the theology of Karl Barth, which I analyze to show that he believed that because Jesus died for everyone, no one can reject God forever. It has already been decided for them that they will love God.

But if they can't say no, then it's not really love, as love must be freely chosen. There would also be severely negative implications for God's character.

At this point we must say that the Bible reveals that although Jesus' death was theoretically enough to redeem every person who has ever lived, and that everyone who ever lived has had or will have a genuine opportunity to be eternally saved (contra exclusivism), not everyone will actually end up being eternally saved (contra universalism).

So it seems we've narrowed down our initial four options to just two: religious pluralism, or inclusivism.

Post 3: But Don't All Religions Lead to Heaven?

In this post, I examine whether religious pluralism is a potential solution to how it might be possible for people who never heard the gospel during their lives to still be eternally saved.

The idea that all religions worship the same God appears to be quite attractive, but there are two main issues with it.

First, even though it seems like religious pluralism is tolerant of people's varying religious beliefs, it is actually intolerant of anyone who holds tightly to their faith's most particular beliefs which, if true, would exclude other religions from also being true. Thus, religious pluralism cannot tolerate the claim that religions actually are different from each other, or admit that different religions teach different things about God.

Second, the Bible is also extremely clear that there is no way for anyone to be saved unless they personally believe in Jesus (e.g., John 14:6, 3:16-18, 3:36, Acts 4:12, Romans 3:22-25, Philippians 2:6-11). Belief in Mohammed, or Moses, or even just believing in one God isn't enough (James 2:19).

So from a Christian perspective, religious pluralism should be ruled out. That means some sort of Christian theory of soteriological inclusivism is necessary to explain all the Bible says about who will be saved. Now the challenge is to figure out how such a theory would work.

Post 4: Can People Choose To Believe In Jesus After Death?

There are three main approaches to inclusivism I've heard, which are:

Each person has an encounter with God/Jesus after death, giving individuals who have not previously had a chance to accept or reject the gospel the opportunity to make their final decision regarding God's offer of salvation then.
God judges people based on what their earthly actions revealed about their hearts being oriented either toward God or away from God.
God judges people based on how they responded to the truths about God that they did have access to during their lives, perhaps through nature, or maybe through otherwise false religions.

This post focuses on the first option.

It does seem logical that if a personal choice to believe in Jesus is absolutely necessary for salvation, then if that choice can't be made in this life, it must be made after death.

This would be true even for infants and children who died before they could reach an age where they could make that choice for themselves, in order to avoid certain theological and ethical problems. Such a claim may be less comforting to grieving parents, however, I argue that most people who die young will probably not choose to reject Jesus.

Yet the main problem with the idea that people can choose to believe in Jesus after their deaths is that there is no clear biblical evidence for it, even if it seems to be a logical necessity.

Some critics might also cite the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:19-31 to attempt to disprove such a theory. However, I show that it is possible to read this parable in alternative ways which do not require us to reject the possibility that people may be able to be saved by believing in Jesus after they have died.

Christians might also be concerned that this theory could discourage Christians from evangelizing.

A good theory of inclusivism should never say that evangelism is unnecessary. It also shouldn't let people think they are safe when they intentionally put off the decision to believe in Jesus after they do hear the gospel. But I believe we can still say that God must offer everyone a free chance to believe in him either in this life or the next, and that God will do so, if he truly wants everyone to be eternally saved.

However, before we become too attached to this theory of inclusivism, it is worth examining the two other theories mentioned above.

In contrast to the possibility of people believing in Jesus after death, these two theories teach that there are ways that people could still make an equivalent choice in this life, even if they never heard about Jesus or the gospel.

Post 5: Will 'Good' People Be Eternally Saved?

This is probably the most 'common' version of inclusivism, and studies show it is believed by a surprisingly large number of Christians.

However, this theory has major problems, because many Bible verses clearly say that no one will be eternally saved due to their good works, and no one meets God's standard of perfect righteousness, so everyone is worthy of experiencing eternal death.

The Bible is 100% clear that there is absolutely no way for anyone to be saved except by having faith in Jesus Christ as their Savior (John 14:6, John 3:16-18, Acts 4:12). This is the only 'work' we must do (John 6:28-29). This is proven by how the repentant criminal on the cross had no chance to do good works before he died, yet Jesus said the criminal would be with him in paradise (Luke 23:43).

Yet there are also verses that talk about God judging people's works after they die, and these works having some relation to people's eternal salvation (e.g., Romans 2:6-11, Acts 10:34-35, John 5:28-29, Revelation 20:11-13).

So we need to somehow reconcile all these verses, since all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16), and God never lies (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).

In the book of Revelation, it does say that at the final judgment, people's works will be judged (Revelation 20:11-13). Yet what truly matters is whether these people's names are written into the Book of Life (Revelation 20:14-15).

So there are a few possible ways this could all be explained:

The verses talking about righteous people being eternally rewarded are only theoretical, since no one actually meets God's perfect criteria of sinlessness except for Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, Luke 18:19). Then all that matters is whether people believe in Jesus as their Savior, or not.
People's works will reveal whether they had faith in Jesus or not, even if they never heard about him during their lives (e.g., Matthew 25:31-40).

But option number 2 raises a question: just how many good works are necessary to demonstrate that someone had some sort of unconscious or implicit faith in Jesus Christ? The Bible doesn't say.

There is also that one verse which warns that some people who did apparently 'good' works (even in Jesus' name!) will be rejected by Jesus, because he will say he never knew them (Matthew 7:22-23).

The Bible's ambiguity on this topic means that no one can have assurance of salvation by looking at their good works.

Practically, Christians only cause ourselves stress and fear when we attempt to discern whether we have done enough good works to prove that we truly believe in Jesus. This is also true if we think we have to keep on doing good works to prove we are truly saved. I call this idea 'treadmill theology'.

The antidote to 'treadmill theology' is given in Ephesians 1:13-14. This verse is clear that the moment we believe in Jesus, we are guaranteed to have eternal life. So there is no reason to tell Christians that we have to keep doing good works in order to prove our faith is genuine, or keep our salvation.

Now I can propose a basic outline of my theory of inclusivism which I believe can address all the categories of verses mentioned thus far.

A Working Theory of Inclusivism

One possible way to reconcile all of these verses raised so far would be to say that if someone loves Love, as demonstrated at least sometimes during their lives by how they acted, that might be a way for people who never knew about Jesus to still be eternally saved.

This argument is based on the connection between how the Bible says God is love (1 John 4:8, 4:16), all the Old Testament law being summed up as loving God and loving others (Matthew 22:37-40), and Jesus' comments about how if we love him, we will obey his commandments (John 14:15).

However, for completeness, we should examine the third possibility for Christian inclusivism, which is that people may be able to learn enough about God to put their faith in him during this life, even if they never heard the Christian gospel.

Post 6: Are There Divine Truths in Nature or Other Religions?

There are Bible verses which talk about how people can know something about God from observing nature. Paul specifically mentions that God's "eternal power" and "divine nature" should be known to everyone from nature (Romans 1:19-20).

From an apologetic perspective, there are good scientific arguments that support the idea that the universe and life on Earth were intelligently designed by a creative God.

But the Bible is not optimistic about the possibility that people can be saved based only what they see of God in nature. Instead, the Bible seems to say that divine revelation through nature simply means that people have no excuse for not believing in God (Romans 1:18-23).

Furthermore, it is obvious that nature does not reveal the details of the gospel message, such as that Jesus was God's divine Son who came to live as a human being and die for humanity's sins, so that anyone who believes in him can have eternal life (John 3:16).

So if nature isn't a great way for people to learn about God, then what about other religions? Might there be enough truths about God in otherwise 'false' religions that someone could still come to know enough about God to be eternally saved?

I look at some Christian theologians who have suggested this as a possibility, and critique their arguments. The main issue is there are no clear examples in the Bible of someone who was actually worshipping a false god, but who was saved because of the 'truth' that was still found in this false religion, without that person giving up their false religion and turning to put their faith in the true God.

I also argue that even if some divine 'truths' may have been passed down through the generations in otherwise 'false' religions, these truths are likely only useful for preparing people to hear the gospel, rather than being a substitute for the gospel.

In conclusion, I do not believe that there is enough divine truth in nature or in otherwise false religions for people to be eternally saved.

In the next post I'll give a summary of my detailed theory of Christian inclusivism.

Post 7: My Theory of Christian Inclusivism

This post is where I lay out my detailed theory of Christian inclusivism by building an argument from the basic statement that God is Love (1 John 4:8, 4:16). From this foundation, and with support from other relevant Bible verses, I believe we can logically derive the following points:

God created humanity in order for him to enjoy participating in loving relationships with people.
People are designed to be happiest when we love God and love others, and are loved by God and by others.
Because God is perfect love, God also requires perfect justice to be upheld against people who sin by acting in unloving ways.
God must give people the free will to either love him or reject him.
For those who love him, God will allow this loving relationship to continue forever by giving them eternal life.
The most appropriate and loving fate for those who reject God is eternal annihilation.

Then, based on the gospel message in the Bible, we can say that:

All people are sinners, and humanity as a whole has rejected God back when Adam and Eve sinned.
God loves sinners and wants to forgive them, even if it comes at a cost to himself.
God sent Jesus to die in the place of sinners, so that all sinners can be forgiven if they accept this payment on their personal behalves, by putting their faith in Jesus Christ.
The only way for anyone to be saved is by believing in Jesus as their Savior.
God truly wants to save everyone, and so he will ensure that believing in Jesus is a genuine possibility for all people at some point in their lives, or else, after death, such as at the final judgment.
Those people whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire to be eternally destroyed.
Those people who do believe in Jesus will live with God forever in the New Heaven and New Earth.

If we compare the above two sets of points, it is clear that the ultimate choice which matters in each case regarding eternal life is either:

to love God, or reject him.
to believe in Jesus as one's personal Savior, or not.

Because God is perfect love, God is also perfectly just, and so these two choices must be, in some way, the same choice. God's justice would ensure there are not different standards regarding eternal salvation for those who hear about Jesus and those who do not.

I argue that if people have loved Love in their hearts during their lives, at the final judgment, they will feel sorry about the times when they sinned (i.e., when they did not act in a loving manner), and they will agree with God that they are unworthy of experiencing eternal life as a result of these sins.

Yet God will then present the gospel one last time to everyone. Those people who love Love will respond to God's demonstration of love in the gospel, and will believe in Jesus as their Savior, and so they will be eternally saved.

Those who do not love Love will not respond to God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ. At this point, they will have hardened themselves beyond anyone's ability to persuade them to believe the gospel. They will only be fit for eternal destruction.

In this way, I believe that all these different Bible verses about the final judgment, good works, sin, salvation, and faith in Jesus that sometimes appear to conflict can actually all be true at the same time. My theory of soteriological inclusivism upholds the gospel as absolutely central, while ensuring that God's love, goodness, justice, and mercy are also maximized because everyone gets a fair and equal opportunity to be eternally saved.

Against critics who would argue that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man disproves my theory, I argue that all this parable may indicate is that those who reject what they know about God in this life will be unlikely to change their minds in the afterlife, even at the final judgment.

Another criticism of my theory might be that there is no reason to be a Christian now, if people can wait until the final judgment to believe in Jesus. In response, I point out many blessings that people gain in this life by becoming Christians now, and how it is a privilege to be God's ambassadors to the rest of the world by sharing the gospel with others (2 Corinthians 5:19-20, NLT).

However, if my theory is true, we can evangelize without being afraid of what might happen if people don't believe in Jesus in this lifetime, and without threatening them that they must believe in Jesus during this lifetime, or else...

The next two blog posts in this series address two major questions that might be raised by my theory:

Why would a loving God let anyone reject him, if God knows that doing so is not in their best interest?
Why would anyone choose to reject God at the very end, if they know it will lead to their eternal destruction?

Post 8: Why God Lets People Reject Him

In this post, I answer the question of why a loving God would let people finally reject him, when it is clear that doing so is not in their eternal best interest.

I explain why the idea of human free will is so important theologically, in order to uphold the idea of God's perfect goodness, and ensure that God is not responsible for human sin, although he had to ensure that sin was a possibility.

These critical points are illustrated by looking at the example of Adam and Eve and the first sin, and why God couldn't prevent them from sinning if he gave them free will. I also show how their sin was at its core, a choice to doubt God's goodness and reject him as their God.

Thus, as I have claimed several times throughout this series, the reason why God gives people free will is so that their love of him would be genuine. I illustrate this point with several analogies from human relationships that can help us understand why God had to give all people the ability to reject him, if they so choose.

Post 9: Why Would Anyone Reject God?

Some critics might say that as soon as anyone comes face to face with God, such as at the final judgment, no one could possibly choose to reject him. Yet if this were true, then we no longer have free will. Without genuine free will, we are back to all of the issues I discussed in my previous post.

So this post will attempt to understand how and why some people will still choose to reject God, even at the final judgment.

I believe insight can be found once again by returning to the story of Adam and Eve, and examining what it was that motivated them to sin. The reason they sinned is ultimately the same reason why people will choose to reject God, even if it leads them to face eternal destruction in the Lake of Fire.

In order to sin, we must tell ourselves that we know better than God does what is ultimately best for us. Simultaneously, we also slander God's character by saying to ourselves that God is not perfectly wise, good, or loving, because he is trying to keep us from experiencing the happiness that we could gain from sinning.

Critics would say that people should learn from experience that sin only leads to misery, such that eventually, everyone should realize that choosing God is the right path. Yet I refute this argument by examining the story of Pharaoh and the ten plagues of Egypt.

In the end, I propose that the major difference between people who are saved and people who will be eternally destroyed comes down to pride.

It is only people who insist that they are right and that God is wrong who will reject God's final offer of salvation. They will effectively reject God's assessment of their situation and call him a liar. They will refuse to humbly admit that they are sinners in need of a Savior, and that their good works could never earn eternal life.

Yet such a choice to reject God is ultimately irrational, considering that eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth will be better than anything anyone can imagine, and it only requires us to believe that Jesus died for our sins. To learn more about this, see my post about how you can have eternal life for free, right now!

Conclusion to My Series on Inclusivism

However it works out, the Bible is clear that God truly does want to save everyone, and so somehow, we can trust that God will ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to be eternally saved. Yet everyone who is saved will be saved only on the basis of putting their faith in Jesus.

I believe I have offered a theory of Christian inclusivism which can withstand the major objections that critics might raise against it, as well as account for all the relevant Bible verses I'm aware of.

I also believe this theory does not discourage evangelism or downplay the great commission (Matthew 28:19-20), as there are many blessings that Christians gain in this life right now.

For example, one main blessing is that Christians no longer have to fear death. Christians can also gain eternal rewards by serving God with our lives now.

So if Christians love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39), we should want as many people to also gain all of these benefits by believing in Jesus right now.

That way, they will also go with us to heaven when the Rapture happens, along with all other Christians.

In this way, we will be blessed to avoid being on Earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10), which Jesus said will be the worst time in the entire history of the world (Matthew 24:21-22). And the signs of the end times are showing that the Tribulation could begin very soon, even though it appears that on the surface, everything is going along just like normal.

Yet even if our loved ones do not accept Jesus right now, they will still have a chance to, provided that they do not take the Mark of the Beast or worship the Antichrist during the Tribulation. As soon as anyone takes the Mark of the Beast, they will have no opportunity to be saved at the final judgment, and are instead doomed to face eternal punishment in the Lake of Fire (Revelation 14:9-11).

Of course, no one's theology is perfect in this life (1 Corinthians 13:12), and so I am always open to hearing other potential criticisms of my theory. I would also love to hear if there are any Bible verses that readers believe I have overlooked, or which have not been sufficiently addressed by my theory. My email can be found on the 'About Me' page.

Why Would Anyone Reject God?

2024-03-14T00:00:00+00:00

As I argued in my theory of Christian inclusivism, I believe that God must give people the ability to ultimately reject him. Those who do so will be thrown into the lake of fire and suffer the punishment of eternal destruction (i.e., annihilation).

In my previous post, I answered the first of two main questions that critics might raise against this idea. There, I argued in more depth that God must allow people to reject him, so that for those who do accept Jesus as their Savior, their love for God would be genuine.

This is why God had to allow Adam and Eve the possibility of sinning, even if God knew their sin would lead to all the suffering that the world has experienced since then.

Similarly, I argue that in the end, God will ensure that every single person will be given a fair and free choice about whether to accept Jesus as his or her Savior to gain eternal life (John 3:16), or reject him. This choice is fundamentally the same as choosing whether to love God/Love or not, because God is Love (1 John 4:8, 4:16).

In the end, all who love God/Love will admit they have sinned and will respond positively to God's demonstration of love that was shown when he sent Jesus to die for their sins (1 John 4:10, John 15:13), and they will believe in Jesus as their Savior. Everyone who believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins will love God for this same reason.

Critics of my theory of inclusivism might say that, at that moment when someone is seeing God face to face and is then presented with the ultimate choice between eternal life or eternal destruction, no one in their right mind would choose to reject God's offer of salvation. If these critics were right, then the final judgment would lead to universalism, and everyone would end up loving God and having eternal life.

However, in this post I will argue that even when people are facing God at the final judgment, it must still be possible for them to choose to reject God. Otherwise, they would not truly have free will, and without free will, we're back to all the issues I discussed in my previous post.

And actually, the reason these people will choose to reject God's free offer of eternal life at the final judgment is basically the same reason why Adam and Eve chose to sin in the Garden of Eden.

To begin to understand why people might reject God, we must look at how free will works, and how God makes it possible that we can actually choose between multiple different courses of action.

How Does Free Will Work?

Free will is obviously a complex topic. A significant number of books and philosophical treatises have been written about different theories which explain how we have free will. Neuroscientists also try to investigate how the decision-making process occurs in people's minds from a biological point of view.

On one side, some philosophers say that we do not truly have free will, because they claim that all of our actions and thoughts are fully determined by pre-existing causes, such as our brain chemistry. This chemistry is influenced by various external factors that act on our bodies which are outside of our control. These factors were themselves caused by previous causes, and those causes were also caused by earlier causes, going back in an unbreakable chain of cause and effect to the very first cause of the existence of the universe. Or so they claim.1

Although the Calvinistic theologian Jonathan Edwards didn't know about the more 'scientific' aspects of this explanation, it is effectively the same theory of free will that he argued for in his famous book Freedom of the Will. He thought that the movement of every tiny atom and molecule in the entire history of the universe can be traced back through the links of cause and effect back to God's initial creation of the universe.

So, to Edwards, nothing in the entire history of the universe could ever have been any different than it actually was, and is, and will be. Otherwise, he thought there would be no determining 'cause' behind why, for example, I chose to eat spaghetti for dinner tonight, rather than tacos. It would be an instance of an effect (a choice) that occurs without a cause that could fully explain why that particular effect/choice happened, rather than a different effect/choice. To Edwards, such a situation would be inconceivable.2

In contrast to this view of philosophical determinism, a libertarian view of free will means that our decisions are not completely determined by either internal or external factors. While our desires, instincts, habits, conscious and unconscious motivations, personality, brain chemistry, and mental state can influence our decisions, in order for us to have libertarian free will, none of these influences can be so overwhelming that we could not have chosen to do otherwise. If any of these influences do become so overwhelming that they force us to act in a particular way, then we would no longer have free will.

Even in extremely difficult decisions where each option we are considering has different and incomparable reasons behind why we might choose it, we do not usually choose randomly, but deliberately consider the pros and cons of each option. Then when we finally choose one option, we can say we chose it because of the reasons that justified our choosing it. Yet if our choice was free, our decision cannot have been determined by any of those reasons, and we must have always had the ability to choose otherwise.3

Or in other words, if a choice was made with libertarian free will, then theoretically, if we could go back in time, we could have chosen something different than what we actually chose, because nothing was forcing us to choose the way we did.4

And just for clarification, it is not necessary that every single action we do is a result of our free will. But unless a decision is made with libertarian free will, such that we could have chosen to do otherwise, we cannot be held morally accountable for that decision by God or by others, nor justly rewarded or punished accordingly.

Thus, when it comes to the 'ultimate' punishment of eternal destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:8-10), I believe that God must give everyone at least one free libertarian choice to accept or reject Jesus as their Savior, or God would be unjust to punish them with eternal death for their disbelief.

Hopefully this is clear enough, but there are also two other conditions that must be met in order for us to make a truly free choice.

Condition 1: The Need For Multiple Options to Choose Between

First of all, for a choice to be truly free, we must have multiple options to choose from. Otherwise, even if we have free will, it would not do us any good, because we would only have one option available to us.

For example, If I only have spaghetti sauce and pasta noodles in my cupboard, it doesn't matter how much I want to eat tacos instead. If I have no way of going to the grocery store to buy the supplies to make tacos, and no way of ordering tacos to be delivered, if I want to eat dinner, I would have to eat that spaghetti, or choose to go hungry. Even this example, though, I do still have an option to go hungry. If I truly had only one option, I would have to eat the spaghetti, and I couldn't even choose to not eat it.

This is why, if God gives people free will so that they can freely choose to love him, God must also give them the option of freely choosing to reject him.

This is why God created the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. If God had not created that tree and not told Adam and Eve to not eat its fruit, then although Adam and Eve had free will, they would have had no way to choose to disobey/reject God. (And yes, disobeying God is the same as rejecting God, because God's nature as perfect Love (1 John 4:8) means that obeying him is the same as loving him.)

Now, similarly, as I argued in my previous post, God must give each individual the same choice of whether to return God's love, or reject that love. For those who hear the gospel, our choice to love God is expressed as choosing to believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior, who died for our sins on the cross (John 3:16, 6:28-29). This choice to love God or not will determine whether an individual experiences eternity in the New Heaven and New Earth, or is eternally destroyed.

But if God wants our love for him to be genuinely meaningful and valuable to him, he cannot force us to love him. That means that God must give us the option to reject him and be eternally destroyed, even though ideally, God wants everyone to be saved.

So having at least two different options to choose between is the most basic requirement for free will to be possible, in addition to being able to make the choice without our choice being fully determined by unchosen influences. But there is a second requirement that is necessary in order for a free choice to be possible.

Condition 2: The Need for A Motive To Choose Each Option

No matter how many options are open to us to choose from, we cannot actually choose any of them unless we have a motive for selecting each of the possible options.

For example, let's say I open my cupboard, and I see that I have the supplies to make spaghetti for dinner. I also know that in my fridge, I have all the supplies I need to make tacos. However, on one shelf of my cupboard, I also spot a tin of sardines.

Now, I could eat those sardines, if I chose to. Nothing is physically preventing me from eating those sardines. I'm not allergic to them, and Batman will not break in to stop me from reaching for the sardines. I have the ability to lift my arm, grab the can, pry open the lid, and dig a fork right into those sardines.

The only thing that prevents me from doing so is that I currently have absolutely no motivation to eat those sardines.

Now, I could gain a motive to eat said sardines if they were the only thing I had left to eat and I was hungry enough, and I had no other way of obtaining better food. But until then, I would never willingly eat those sardines.

This is obviously a silly example, but the same principle is true for any choice, no matter how ethically consequential or inconsequential.

So, in order to truly have free will, we need two other things in addition to the faculty of free will. We need at least two different options to choose between, and at least one possible motive for choosing each option. If either of these conditions are lacking, then it would not be possible to make a free choice.

But Why Would Anyone Reject God's Love When They Know The Consequences?

This brings us to the question we asked in the introduction to this post: why would anyone intentionally choose to reject God's love, if they knew that doing so would certainly lead to their own eternal destruction?

The universalist Thomas Talbott argues that no one will continually choose to reject God's love, because, although people might choose sin and evil for a while, eventually, they would realize that their lives are more pleasant without sin and evil. So he claims:

that is how God works with us as created rational agents. He permits us to choose in the ambiguous contexts in which we first emerge as self-aware beings, and he then requires us to learn from experience the hard lessons we sometimes need to learn. So in that way the consequences of our free choices, both the good choices and the bad ones, are a source of revelation; they sooner or later reveal—in the next life if not in this one—both the horror of separation from God and the bliss of union with him. And that is why the end is foreordained: all paths finally lead to the same destination, the end of reconciliation, though some are longer and a lot more painful than others.5

Talbott argues that in the end, if anyone actually understood the above, they would have "no intelligible motive whatsoever to reject him [God]."6

However, if it is guaranteed that eventually, everyone will realize that choosing to love God is in their best interest, then we have lost one of the conditions for making a free choice, which is the possibility of having a motive to make the choice to reject God. This lack of a motive to make the opposing choice would mean that these people's choice to love God would no longer be truly free.

Yet because I strongly believe that love must be freely chosen in order for it to truly be love, then if God ever removed the possibility for people to reject God, it would contradict the reason why God created people with free will in the first place—so that loving relationships between God and people could be possible.

Thus, even for people who will face God at the final judgment, after having their works judged by God to prove that they are sinners who are worthy of eternal destruction, and having been given one last chance to believe in Jesus as their Savior, it must still be possible for them to freely reject God.

To do so, these people would need to have a motive for their rejection of God. But what could that motive possibly be?

Some might say that at that point, only the most hardened, God-hating people would tell God to throw them into the lake of fire just out of spite, because they will think that if God loves them, then forcing God to destroy them instead will cause God to suffer, and they like the idea of causing God to suffer. Now, maybe some people will think this way, but I doubt this would be the motive for everyone who ends up being condemned to the lake of fire.

Instead, I think Jerry Walls has a more convincing answer to this question. Walls argues that the only way people could willingly choose sin, evil, and ultimately, eternal destruction, is because they have the ability to deceive themselves about what will actually make them the most happy.7

Jerry Walls writes,

It seems to me that the ability to deceive ourselves may be an essential component of moral freedom.... If we cannot deceive ourselves, there can be no sustained motive to choose evil, and hence no freedom to so choose.8

Moral freedom requires both the ability to respond to God’s grace as well as the ability to resist it. And the latter requires the ability to deceive oneself, which entails the ability to avoid clear perception of God’s relation to happiness.9

Basically, Walls is arguing that if we truly believe that God only wants what is best for us and that all of God's instructions are for our own good, then we would never sin. Similarly, it's definitely in our best interest to accept Jesus as our Savior, so that we can have an amazingly wonderful eternal future in the New Heaven and New Earth.

So the only way to convince ourselves that sinning and/or rejecting God will make us happier than following God's instructions is to deceive ourselves by persuading ourselves that God is wrong.

Yet God is never wrong, since God never lies (Titus 1:2). Therefore, to disagree with God is to believe a lie about reality. Or in other words, to disagree with God is to willingly deceive ourselves about reality.

Let's test Jerry Walls' claims by considering the example of Adam and Eve.

The Example of Adam and Eve

Before they sinned, Adam and Eve faced a conundrum. The serpent (Satan, as per Revelation 12:9) told them that God was lying to them, and that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would actually greatly benefit them. It was this false idea that God was withholding something even better from them—that they could become like God—which tempted them to sin (Genesis 3:4-6)

This false idea opened up the possibility that Adam and Eve could make a free choice to disobey God, because until they had a potential motive to eat the forbidden fruit, they would never have considered doing so.

Yet, simply having a potential motive for such a choice was not enough to make Adam and Eve to choose as they did. They had to willingly and actively choose to believe that Satan was telling the truth, and simultaneously choose to believe that God was lying, although they had no evidence to support this conclusion.

Indeed, based on everything they had seen up to that point, Adam and Eve should have believed that God was good and that God wanted what was best for them, because God had provided everything they needed in the Garden of Eden. In contrast, Satan had done nothing for them that could have given them a reason to trust him.

Furthermore, they also had to choose to reject or ignore God's warning that to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would lead to their deaths (Genesis 2:16-17).

Thus, twice over, Adam and Eve convinced themselves that God was lying to them, and chose to believe that they could gain a greater benefit from sinning than from obeying God.

Similarly, whenever we choose to disobey God, we think that sinning will lead to greater benefit or happiness for us than if we choose to not sin. We also choose to ignore or deny that God has our best interests in mind when he told us not to sin.

In order to sin, therefore, we must pridefully tell ourselves that we know better than God does what is ultimately best for us. Simultaneously, we must also slander God's character by saying to ourselves that God is not perfectly wise, good, or loving, because he is trying to keep us from experiencing the happiness that we could gain from sinning.

Of course, sin might seem to make us happy temporarily, but sooner or later sin will always lead to misery, and ultimately, death (James 1:14-15). In this way, sin is fundamentally deceitful (Hebrews 3:13). This is why God instructs us to not sin. It's not because God wants to ruin our fun, but because God knows the full negative consequences of sin which we don't fully see or understand when we make a choice to sin.

This returns us to Talbott's earlier objection that through experience, people should learn that sooner or later, sin always leads to suffering. When they realize this, people should be motivated to give up their sins and turn back to God.

Walls agrees that if God allowed sinners to become progressively more miserable from their sins, eventually there would come a point that sinners would wake up to it and would be forced to change their minds about their sin. However, Walls says that the decision to turn away from sin and back toward God under these circumstances would not qualify as a free choice.10

Therefore, even this connection between sin and misery must have limits, as Walls explains:

Of course, God is the only one who knows us well enough to know at what point our freedom is broken. Only God knows how much inducement through misery one can stand before his freedom is eliminated. But again, my claim is that there is a limit to what freedom can tolerate, and if a person resists to that point, then God cannot add more pressure without violating his [or her] freedom. To be sure, if God added such further pressure, the person would be forced to see that sin causes misery and would find it impossible not to submit to the pressure. But the choice to submit under these circumstances would not qualify as a free choice.11

In other words, if God allowed sinners to become so miserable that they eventually had no other choice but to turn to God, then God would have taken away the sinner's free will to reject him.

So even when sinners start to discover that their sin is not actually making them happy, but is making them more miserable and ruining their lives, they can still deceive themselves into thinking that it is not that bad, or think that the alternative would be worse.

As an example that I believe supports Walls' point, let us consider one of the most confusing and debated details in the Old Testament, regarding how God interacted with Pharaoh during the ten plagues of Egypt.

The Example of Pharaoh

It can seem confusing why, if God said that he was sending Moses to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave Egypt, that God also said he would 'harden' Pharaoh's heart so that Pharaoh would not agree to Moses' request (Exodus 4:21).

Talbott himself suggests that the purpose of this hardening was to keep Pharaoh from giving in to Moses' request too quickly.12 So when it was necessary, God strengthened Pharaoh's own inner desire and determination to not let the Israelites leave Egypt, despite the awful consequences that God warned both Pharaoh and his people would suffer because of Pharaoh's repeated refusals.

One reason that God hardened Pharaoh's heart was so that God would be able to bring enough plagues on Egypt to properly judge both Pharaoh and the Egyptians for how they had mistreated the Israelites (Exodus 10:1-2). Another reason was so that the Egyptians would know that only God is God (Exodus 14:4, 9:14, 14:16-18).

Scholars often note how all the plagues that God sent on Egypt were targeted against various aspects of life that the Egyptians believed were controlled by their false gods.13 When God demonstrated that he was more powerful than these false gods by negatively affecting things that the Egyptians believed these gods should have been in control of, it was a merciful form of evangelistic outreach to the people of Egypt who otherwise would never have had any interest in worshipping the one true God.

It seems this strategy was effective, as the Bible records that many people who were not Israelites also left Egypt with them (Exodus 12:38, NIV).

Furthermore, the details of these plagues and the parting of the Red Sea would also have been a sort of evangelism to the other pagan peoples in the region. The news of what happened to the Egyptians and to other hostile people the Israelites encountered in the wilderness made its way to the people in Canaan, such as Rahab. She wisely chose to side with the Israelites instead of her own people, which saved her life and her family members' lives when the Israelites conquered Jericho (Joshua 2:8-14).

Seeing God's power more fully demonstrated may also have humbled Pharaoh in a deeper way than if Pharaoh had given in after only one or two plagues: "In the case of Pharaoh, his God-given strength to disobey God's command no doubt revealed to him, in a way that perhaps nothing else could have revealed, the self-destructive and self-defeating character of his own self-exaltation."14

Thus, the reason that God 'hardened' or 'strengthened' Pharaoh's prideful desire to not immediately give in to Moses' request was ultimately for Pharaoh's own good, and the good of his people. Without seeing the ten plagues, the Egyptians would never have questioned the power of their false deities. For Pharaoh, the death of his firstborn son showed him his own powerlessness, and his need for Moses' God who is the only one who has the ultimate power over life and death.

However, even then, in order for God to not override Pharaoh's free will to either believe in God or reject God, Pharaoh must still have had the ability to deceive himself about the cause of the plagues.

If Pharaoh did choose to deny the role of Israel's God in all the plagues, including the death of Pharaoh's son, and the dramatic escape of the Israelites through the Red Sea, how might he have done so?

He would have had to come up with some other 'reasonable' explanation for why all these things happened. Maybe he hadn't been devoted enough to his Egyptian gods? Maybe it was due to some unfavorable star alignment? Who knows what lie he might have told himself in order to avoid facing the truth.

And this brings us to the next section of this post, where we will examine the role that human reason plays in our choice to sin and reject God.

The Role of Reason in Self-Deception

In my previous blog post, I examined several questions posed by the 17th century author Pierre Bayle who wondered why God didn't prevent Adam and Eve from sinning, given that God knew all the negative consequences that their sin would have on the world.

One of Bayle's final questions regarding this situation was: why couldn't God have made Adam and Eve more intelligent or 'reasonable', so that they wouldn't have sinned?

John Feinberg is a modern theologian who asked a similar question. Feinberg's only answer was that to do so would have meant that God would have had to make humans morally and intellectually superior to the way we are now, in order to give us the ability to discern which desires and actions would lead to evil, and God would also have had to give us the moral fortitude to overcome those desires. Yet then, we would no longer be the way that God desired to make us.15 I find this to be a rather unsatisfactory answer.

So I haven't yet seen someone provide a solid answer to the question of why God did not give humans greater reasoning abilities, to enable us to avoid freely choosing to sin, or at least, to enable us to choose far less sin and less serious sin than we currently choose.

Ironically, I think the question can be answered when we consider Bayle's own comments about the nature of human reason, along with the other principles we've seen so far in this post.

Bayle said that "human reason … is a principle of destruction and not of edification. It is only proper for raising doubts, and for turning things on all sides in order to make disputes endless".16

For example, Bayle argued that many critical truths that are revealed to us in Scripture do not make sense to our supposedly 'reasonable' minds, and so we must accept them only on the basis of faith.

He referred to the doctrine of the Trinity, which early Christians realized they needed to affirm in order to try to explain how, despite there being only one God, in the Bible we see Jesus and the Holy Spirit also acting in ways that show they are equally divine. There is also the mystery of how Jesus could be fully God and fully human at the same time. Instead of making sense of these mysteries, our 'reason' is only able to raise objections to these doctrines.17

Bayle also explained how, when it comes to the question of why there is evil in the world, our minds can invent many different explanations that could seem equally plausible and reasonable, which may or may not match up with divine revelation in Scripture.18

So in summary, Bayle believed that human reason cannot lead us to the truth, but it is very good at raising objections or doubts about the truth, especially when it comes to supernatural truths which are above reason. If we put too much trust in our reason, it will lead us astray and into endless unsolvable debates and confusion, because we can come up with convincing reasons for believing many different ideas.

This means that I believe it is our faculty of reason that is actually a critical part of human free will. It is our 'reason' that lets us consider multiple different courses of action, and extrapolate the possible consequences of those actions. It is also our 'reason' that can then come up with various reasons why we should or should not act in any particular way.

For example, it is only if Adam and Eve were able to raise 'reasonable' doubts about God's warnings to them regarding eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they would have been able to actually consider eating from it.

It is also only if Adam and Eve could have persuaded themselves that it was 'reasonable' to believe that Satan was telling the truth and that God had lied to them that they could have convinced themselves to follow through on their temptation and decide to eat the forbidden fruit.

Yet because their choice was truly free, they must still have had the ability to reason either for or against eating the fruit. Only then could they be properly held accountable for their choice by God. If one motive became so overwhelming that it forced them to act in that way, they would no longer have had free will.19

Thus, God could not have created Adam and Eve with such intelligence and rationality that they would always choose what is wisest and best, or they would have had no ability to even consider sinning, and they would not truly have had free will, unless they chose to act completely irrationally. But it is highly unlikely that such rational beings would choose to act irrationally.

So we can say that Augustine was correct when he suggested that humans were originally created in a “middle transitional state between wisdom and folly which allows man to be seduced without the blame falling on God."20

Thus, this answers the question of how people can reject God. Our malleable and finite 'reason' allows us to justify multiple different courses of action to ourselves, even if some of those actions are ultimately not good for us.

However, we still need to look at why people might choose to reject God.

Why People Reject God

Universalists like Thomas Talbott argue that,

insofar as God remains hidden from us and we do not fully understand the true nature of God or the consequences of separating ourselves from him, we are in no position to reject the true God at all. We may reject a caricature of God, as frequently happens in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception; but we are in no position to reject the true God until our ignorance has been removed and our misjudgments have been corrected.21

However, if our ignorance were removed and our misjudgments were corrected, it is basically the same as saying that God should override our free will and force us to see reality correctly, so that we have no choice but to make the correct and 'reasonable' decision to love God and trust Jesus as our Savior.

But as I argued in my previous post, although God does want everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 33:11), God cannot force people to love him, because love inherently cannot be forced but must be freely chosen.

Talbott also seems to presume that the main problem regarding why people reject God is only due to a lack of knowledge about God, rather than a fundamental problem in people's hearts.

I think I agree more with John Piper, who suggests that the ultimate reason why people refuse to believe in Jesus once they hear the gospel is "owing most deeply not to the mind's problems with history, science, logic, or ethics, but to the heart's overpowering desire for something that does not fit with Christian faith."22

If someone wants to believe in Jesus, there is a lot of historical, scientific, and logical analysis that has been done that shows that believing that Jesus truly lived and taught the things he did, died on the cross, and came back to life three days later is completely reasonable.

There is an entire category of theology called 'apologetics' that focuses on explaining all the reasons why we can trust that Christianity is true, how we can know that God created the universe, and so forth. The popular Christian author Lee Strobel is one notable example of someone who became a Christian after he set out to investigate the evidence for Christianity for himself.

However, people can also come up with all sorts of 'reasonable' objections as to why they do not want to believe that God exists, or why they think they do not need to believe in Jesus as their Savior. They then attempt to explain the evidence of the world around us in ways that fit with their chosen beliefs.

For example, Richard Dawkins famously said, “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."23 So it was not necessarily Darwin's theory of evolution which led to atheism, but atheists appreciated Darwin's theory because it allowed them to feel intellectually fulfilled while holding onto their prior choice to be an atheist.

Some atheists honestly admit that they simply do not want there to be a God.24 It makes sense that such people would find great comfort in a human-made theory that claims to explain the existence of the universe and of humanity that does not require them to believe that there is a creator God who will hold them accountable for their actions.

This is just one example of how it is our faculty of human reason that makes disbelief in God possible, but disbelief must be a possibility in order for faith to also be a possibility.

Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Without faith in Jesus, we cannot please God (Hebrews 11:6).

After his resurrection, Jesus told his doubting disciple Thomas that "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29).

These statements about faith only make sense if it is possible for people to not believe in God.

In the current dispensation of history, God is hidden enough that it is possible for people to believe that he does not exist, if they don't want to believe that he exists. This means that God cannot do anything that would overwhelmingly 'force' someone to believe in him. But for those who want to find God, he promises that if we seek him, we will find him (Luke 11:9).

So once again, I find C.S. Lewis very helpful when he wrote:

The Irresistible and Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His [God's] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.25

Even in the case of Paul on the Damascus road, I agree with the assessment that this incident was not truly a 'conversion' in the sense of convincing Paul to believe in God. Paul was already a highly-educated Jewish Pharisee who clearly believed in God so much that he thought the early Christians were committing blasphemy by saying Jesus was God, and he set out to persecute them (Acts 22:3-5). So as William MacDonald writes:

It must be remembered that the dramatic conversion of the "chief of sinners" on the road to Damascus was not the overpowering of a God-hater, but the enlightenment of a badly mistaken man who up to that time had thought he was serving God and was doing so "in all good conscience"!26

Yet Paul still had free will afterward, as Paul implies that he could have chosen to be disobedient to this vision of Jesus that he received on the Damascus road, although he did not do so (Acts 26:19-20).

So God gives people the freedom to not believe in him, because this is the condition that also makes faith a possibility. If God did anything that was so overwhelming that our minds were not able to come up with some alternative 'reasonable' excuse that would enable the possibility of disbelief, our free will to believe in God would be taken away.

And we have evidence that God can actually do quite a bit without removing our free will to not believe in him.

During the yet-future seven-year period of time called the Tribulation, which is described in the book of Revelation, God will send twenty-one severe divine judgments on the world. This will be in order to punish people for their sinful rejection of him (e.g., Isaiah 26:20-21), for their mistreatment of God's people (Revelation 6:10, 16:4-7), and for their division of the land of Israel (Joel 3:1-3).

The Bible says that despite how terribly the people who are living on Earth during the Tribulation will suffer, and even if on some level they recognize that they are facing God's judgment (Revelation 6:15-17), most of them will still refuse to turn to God and repent of their various sins (Revelation 9:20-21, 16:8-9, 16:10-11).

Before the Tribulation, all true Christians (and probably all children) will be suddenly taken to heaven in an event called the Rapture (John 14:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, 1 Corinthians 15:50-54). Hopefully, once that happens, many people who heard about the Rapture beforehand will finally realize their 'crazy' Christian friends and family members who warned them about it were telling the truth, and they will believe in Jesus.

However, many more people will not want to believe that the Rapture just happened, because they will not want to believe that the Christians were right. Instead, they will choose to believe whatever lie will be told in the mainstream media to explain away the Rapture. It has often been suggested that a mass alien abduction will be the go-to excuse, based on how our society has been accustomed to the idea of aliens through science-fiction and news stories which claim that aliens and UFOs are real.27

Thus, in this section we have seen how people's determination to not believe in God comes not just from a misunderstanding about God or a lack of information about God. Instead, it is actually a willful choice they make, based on something in their heart that does not want to acknowledge that God is their creator who holds them accountable for their sins.

They then willingly believe whatever alternative theories or ideas they can find, no matter how objectively irrational these theories are, in order for them to feel that they can 'rationally' reject the reality that the God of the Bible exists. In this way, they willingly deceive themselves.

In one sense, these people are 'blinded' to the truth of the gospel because of Satan's lies (2 Corinthians 4:4). But if it were true that they literally could not believe the gospel because Satan was interfering with their free choice, then I believe that God could not properly hold them accountable for their disbelief.

Instead, I believe these people are 'blinded' by their own choice to believe whatever 'lie' Satan presents to them (whether directly or indirectly), and they deceive themselves by coming up with reasons why it makes more sense for them to believe Satan's lie than to accept God's truth, just as Adam and Eve did. In this way, although Satan's lies do play a role in 'blinding' people to the gospel, the people themselves are still accountable for their decision to allow Satan to blind them.

Indeed, at one point, Paul writes to the early church to not let anyone deceive them (2 Thessalonians 2:3), which implies it is a choice to allow ourselves to be deceived. See also 1 Corinthians 3:18, Galatians 6:3, Ephesians 5:6, 1 John 1:8, 3:7.

So in summary, God gives all people free will and an opportunity to love him or reject him, because God wants our love for him to be genuine. Although it is in our eternal best interest to choose to love God in return and accept Jesus as our Savior, our minds are still able to justify making the opposite decision by coming up with reasons why we do not want to believe what God says about reality.

Free Will at the Final Judgment

All that has been said thus far in this post must also remain true even at the final judgment.

At this judgment, everyone who has not been resurrected earlier at either the Rapture (1 Corinthians 15:51-53) or after the Tribulation (Revelation 20:4) will be resurrected to have their lives personally judged by God (Revelation 20:11-15). Because the Bible says that God truly wants everyone to be saved, I believe that after this personal judgment of people's lives, God will explain the gospel to each person and allow them one last chance to believe in Jesus, in order to have their names written into the Book of Life (Revelation 20:15).

However, again, since God values our free will so that our love for him is genuine, God will ensure that nothing that these people will see or experience at this judgment will be so overwhelming or irrefutable that it forces them to repent, love God, and believe in Jesus as their Savior. Otherwise, they would lose their free will.

Presumably, even when they are face-to-face with God, some people will retain an inner desire to reject God. They will then use their faculty of reason to come up with some excuse that can justify their decision to not accept God's final offer of salvation, even though it means they will be eternally destroyed.

At that point, though, if people still reject God when seeing him face-to-face, after having been told that accepting Jesus as their Savior is the only way to avoid the second death, there will be nothing else that could possibly convince them to change their minds. They will have been hardened beyond all possibility of salvation, and there will be no place for them in the New Heaven or New Earth which will be full of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13), where God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

Thus, as Walls says, “if God allows us to retain libertarian freedom, some illusions may endure forever.”28 Whatever lies people will tell themselves to justify their final choice to reject God will never be corrected.

Although the Bible does say that in the end, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11), I am convinced that this verse only refers to all the people who will ever believe in Jesus as their Savior. No one can say "Jesus is Lord" without having the Holy Spirit in them (1 Corinthians 12:3), and the Holy Spirit only indwells a person the moment they believe in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13-14).

One day, though, after everyone who rejected God is eternally destroyed in the Lake of Fire, then Philippians 2:9-11 will be fulfilled, and God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28).

The purpose of God's gift of free will to humanity will have been fulfilled, and those who will have eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth will never again need or even want the option of rejecting God. Then we will experience true freedom to do whatever we want to do, since none of our desires will be sinful once we have become just as perfectly righteous as Jesus himself is (1 John 3:2).

The Problem of Pride

So in the end, anyone who refuses to accept that God is telling us the truth about reality, and who refuses to admit that we are sinners who need to believe in Jesus as our Savior to have eternal life, is effectively claiming that God is a liar:

He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. (1 John 5:10)

Why would they call God a liar? For the same reason that Adam and Eve did, when they chose to believe Satan's lie instead. They thought they knew better than God did what was true, and what was best for them. And that's called pride.

Pride is the source of the very first sin, when the angel Lucifer decided he wanted to be worshipped like God, instead of worshipping God as he was created to do, and so he became known as Satan (Ezekiel 28:17, Isaiah 14:12-14).

Pride is also what causes people to attempt to boast before God and claim that their good works should be enough for God to accept them, without needing to admit they are sinners in need of a Savior (e.g., Matthew 7:21-23, Ephesians 2:8-9).

In contrast, it takes humility to have faith and trust that God does know better than we do what is true, and what is best for us. It takes humility to admit that we are sinners who deserve eternal death (Romans 6:23) and that nothing we can do could ever earn eternal life (Titus 3:5, Galatians 2:16).

The difference in attitude is demonstrated well by the contrast between the tax collector and the Pharisee in Luke 18:9-14. The tax collector humbly admits he needs God's mercy for his sins, while the Pharisee is thinking of his good works and praises himself for being superior to other people who are sinners. If the Pharisee will not give up his prideful focus on his own works and realize that he also needs God's mercy for his sins, then God will ultimately say to him, "I never knew you" (Matthew 7:21-23).

So everyone who chooses to ultimately reject God will do so by choosing to willingly deceive themselves. Their motive will be due to their prideful desire to refuse to admit that they are sinners who need Jesus to die for their sins so that they can have eternal life.

Using their reason, they will come up with whatever excuse they find convenient to allow them to reject the reality that they are created beings who are accountable to God for their sins, even though this choice will lead to their eternal destruction.

Yet such a choice is ultimately irrational, considering that eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth will be better than anything anyone can imagine (1 Corinthians 2:9). We will have immortal, strong, beautiful bodies that will never get sick or be injured, and will live in a perfect society of love between God, angels, and all redeemed people from all of history.

Would you like to experience an eternity like this? It is completely free, and the moment you believe that Jesus died for your sins so you can have eternal life, you will be sealed with the Holy Spirit who guarantees your salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14). For more on this topic, check out my article on how you can have eternal life for free.

Conclusion

This is the end of my series of posts on Christian inclusivism. I plan to make a summary post with links to each article, to provide a high-level overview of what I have argued in each post.

Hopefully this series has been able to offer hope to you if you worry about God's justice regarding people who never had a chance to hear the gospel, or if you worry about people you know who died before they personally accepted the gospel. This is my best understanding of how it might be possible for them to still be saved, backed up by Scripture and philosophical reasoning.

However it works out, the Bible is clear that God truly does want to save everyone, and so somehow, God will ensure that everyone has a fair opportunity to be eternally saved. Yet everyone who is saved will be saved only on the basis of Jesus' death for their sins.

Yet there are still good reasons why we should care about trusting in Jesus as our Savior right now.

Christians are blessed to know the gospel so that we can have hope for the future, and this gives us peace despite the trials we face.

We can live with a perspective which focuses on loving God and loving others, and serving God to earn heavenly rewards that last forever, rather than wasting our efforts by trying to selfishly get as much temporary wealth or pleasure as possible before we die.

Christians also get to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit who gives us spiritual gifts, along with many other blessings.

Even if others might still have a chance to be saved at the final judgment, these blessings that Christians experience in this life due to knowing Jesus as our Savior should motivate us to share the gospel with others right now, just as Jesus instructed us to (Matthew 28:18-20).

Given that it seems all the signs of the end times are here, the Rapture could happen practically any day. Let's have the courage to be disliked and share the good news with others about how they can be eternally saved by putting their faith in Jesus.

Then, not only will the people we tell hopefully choose to believe in Jesus and have eternal life, but if they believe before the Rapture happens, they will also go with us to heaven in the Rapture, thereby escaping the terrible judgments of the Tribulation.

This will also save them from having to make the very hard choice to not take the Mark of the Beast or worship the Antichrist. Not doing so means they will possibly face martyrdom for their faith.

But even then, it's better than the alternative. Because the only exception to everything I've written in my theory of inclusivism is that if people take the Mark of the Beast, there will be no second chances for them at the final judgment, and they are guaranteed to face eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9).

Footnotes:

1. For an example of this sort of philosophy, see Sam Harris, Free Will (New York, NY: Free Press, 2012).
2. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 238, also 345, 414.
3. Randall S. Firestone, “An Argument for Libertarian Free Will: Hard Choices Based on Either Incomparable or Equally Persuasive Reasons,” Open Journal of Philosophy 7 (2017): 64-93.
4. T. J. Mawson, Free Will: A Guide For The Perplexed (New York, NY: The Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011), 17.
5. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 258-260, quote from 259.
6. In contrast, anyone who does understand this and still rejects God has made such an irrational choice that Talbott believes it is no longer a free choice which they could be held personally responsible for. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 144.
7. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 129, 131.
8. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 130.
9. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 131.
10. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992)Walls, 132.
11. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992)Walls, 132.
12. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 243-244.
13. As a short summary of these typical arguments, you can read "What was the meaning and purpose of the ten plagues of Egypt?", GotQuestions.org
14. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 244.
15. John S. Feinberg, The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 127, 133.
16. Pierre Bayle, "Manicheans," in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 151.
17. Pierre Bayle, "Second Clarification," in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 410-411.
18. Pierre Bayle, "Manicheans," in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 147-152.
19. Randall S. Firestone, “An Argument for Libertarian Free Will: Hard Choices Based on Either Incomparable or Equally Persuasive Reasons,” Open Journal of Philosophy 7 (2017): 79, 87.
20. Adam M. Willows, “Augustine, The Origin of Evil, and the Mystery of Free Will,” Religious Studies 50 (2014): 260
21. Thomas B. Talbott, "Response by Thomas B. Talbott," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 144. Obviously, he doesn't mean to imply that God is always completely hidden from us, because God did reveal himself to humanity in many ways, most importantly, by having the Son of God become incarnate as the human man Jesus. However, it is true that God doesn't come down and put on indisputable displays of his glory that would cause us all to fall on our faces and force us to admit that he exists. God leaves enough room for people to doubt his existence, power, and goodness if they want to, which is necessary to enable the possibility that people might choose to reject God.
22. John Piper, "Seventy Years Without Shipwreck: Five Reasons That Some Fall Away", DesiringGod.org, May 20, 2022.
23. Jonathan Sarfati, "Refuting Atheists’ ‘Useful Dupes’", Creation.com, August 2022, citing Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (W.W. Norton, 1987), 5-6.
24. A notable atheist Thomas Nagel has admitted that he simply doesn't want to believe in God. He wrote: "I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that." Annie Holmquist, "An Atheist Explains the True Reason Religion Terrifies Him", Intellectual Takeout, June 14, 2018.
25. C.S. Lewis. "The Screwtape Letters," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), letter 8, 207.
26. William G. MacDonald, "The Spirit of Grace" in Grace Unlimited, ed. Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship Inc, 1975), 86.
27. For an article that goes into more detail on why they will likely explain away the Rapture by claiming it was a mass alien abduction, see Arden Kierce, "Was It Aliens, or Was It The Rapture?", RaptureReady.com, June 20, 2023.
28. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 133.

Why God Lets People Reject Him

2024-01-08T00:00:00+00:00

As I argued in my theory of Christian inclusivism, I believe that God must give people the ability to ultimately reject him, and those who do so will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction (a.k.a, annihilation).

However, the only people who will be eternally destroyed are those who continually rejected the Holy Spirit's attempts at drawing them toward putting their faith in God, right to the very end. These people will continue to resist even after Jesus' final judgment of their works has proven that their sins deserve eternal death, and that their good works are not enough to earn salvation.

At that point, nothing else could possibly convince them to repent and believe in Jesus. They will only be fit to be thrown into the lake of fire and suffer the second death (Revelation 20:14-15).

Thus, I prefer to see eternal salvation as opt-out, rather than opt-in.

However, there are two questions that critics might raise about these claims:

Why would a loving God allow some people to ultimately reject him if it means that they will be eternally destroyed?
Why would anyone choose to reject God's love?

I believe there are plausible answers to both of these questions which will give us insights into the nature of sin, why a good God allows people to sin, why people willingly choose to sin, and ultimately, why some people will still reject God's offer of salvation, even at the final judgment.

The first question will be the subject of this post, and the second question will be answered in my next post.

Why Wouldn't God Prevent People From Ultimately Rejecting Him?

I believe the Bible is quite clear that at least some people will actually experience eternal death (Revelation 20:15, Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41-46, 7:21-23).

God's omnipotence means that nothing happens which God does not ultimately permit to happen. Therefore, it is clear that God must allow people to choose eternal destruction, even though God would have preferred for them to be eternally saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23).

So I believe that at least some people will choose to freely reject God to the bitter end, even if they face eternal death as a result.

Unfortunately, not everyone is happy with that idea.

For example, Thomas Talbott argues that God's love for people means that God should override people's free will in order to save them, because it is in each person’s best interest to be eternally saved. Talbott says:

When we humans confront the possibility of serious and irreparable harm — that is, harm that no mere human can repair or cancel out at some future time — we feel justified in interfering with someone's freedom to inflict such harm. We feel justified, first of all, in preventing one person from harming another irreparably; a loving father may thus report his own son to the police in an effort to prevent the son from committing murder. And we may feel justified, secondly, in preventing our loved ones from harming themselves irreparably as well; a loving father may thus physically overpower his teenage daughter in an effort to prevent her from committing suicide.1

Similarly, then, Talbott claims:

Just as loving parents are prepared to restrict the freedom of children they love, so a loving God would restrict the freedom of the children he loves, at least in the cases of truly irreparable harm.2

Eternal destruction in hell would certainly be an instance of irreparable harm. All other evils that people suffer in this life are temporary, and any harm they cause can be repaired (and/or compensated for) by God, either in this life, or the next.3

For example, God promises that in the New Heaven and New Earth, he will wipe away all tears, thus somehow compensating or comforting all eternally-saved people for our sufferings in this life (Revelation 21:4). The only people whose tears will not be wiped away are those people who are not saved. They will suffer an eternal, permanent, and irreparable loss.

So in Talbott's opinion, a loving God should prevent people from experiencing such a loss, even if it means that God has to override a person's free will to reject God.

As persuasive as this argument might appear, it is possible to refute Talbott's claims about what he thinks a loving God should do. Jerry Walls, for example, takes issue with Talbott's analogy, and says that there is a difference between a loving father overriding a daughter's ability to commit suicide, and God overriding a sinner's choice to be damned.

Walls argues that in the case where a father prevents a daughter from committing suicide, it is because the choice to attempt suicide usually occurs when an individual is not thinking clearly because they are in the grip of strong emotions. Afterward, the person who was saved is typically glad they are still alive.4

However, Walls says that if someone continually chooses evil, then they are not just under the influence of a temporary emotion or situation. Walls' commitment to libertarian freedom means that if he were convinced that some individuals truly wanted to end their lives, then he would not try to stop them. He argues that a strong commitment to libertarian freedom is a key component of justifying the traditional Christian doctrine of hell.5

Why this is so will be explained in the next section.

God's Goodness Requires Human Free Will

Without libertarian (i.e., non-compatibilistic) free will, there are terrible implications for God's character. These are illustrated in a disturbing analogy by Thomas McCall:

Imagine a parent who is able to control each and every action of his children, and furthermore, is able to do so by controlling their thoughts and inclinations. He is thus able to determine each and all actions taken by those children. He is also able to guarantee that they desire to do everything that they do, and this is exactly what he does.

He puts them in a special playroom that contains not only toys but also gasoline and matches, and then gives them explicit instructions (with severe warnings) to avoid touching the gasoline and matches. Stepping out of sight, he determines that the children indeed begin to play with the matches. When the playroom is ablaze and the situation desperate, he rushes in to save them (well, some of them). He breaks through the wall, grabs three of the seven children, and carries them to safety. When the rescued children calm down, they ask about their four siblings. They want to know about the others trapped inside, awaiting their inevitable fate. More importantly, they want to know if he can do something to rescue them as well.

When they ask about the situation, their father tells them that this tragic occurrence had been determined by him, and indeed, that it was a smashing success—it had worked out in exact accordance with his plan. He then reminds them of his instructions and warnings, and he reminds them further that they willingly violated his commands. They should be grateful for their rescue, and they should understand that the others got what they deserved. When they begin to sob, he weeps with them; he tells them that he too has compassion on the doomed children (indeed, the compassion of the children for their siblings only dimly reflects his own).

The children are puzzled by this, and one wants to know why such a compassionate father does not rescue the others (when it is clearly within his power to do so). His answer is this: this has happened so that everyone could see how smart he is (for being able to know how to do all this), how powerful he is (for being able to control everything and then effectively rescue them), how merciful he is (for rescuing the children who broke his rules), and how just he is (for leaving the others to their fate in the burning playroom.) And, he says 'This is the righteous thing for me to do, because it allows me to look as good as I should look".6

In this story, the supposedly 'loving' father is ultimately responsible for three negative things:

Putting the matches and gasoline in the children's playroom.
Determining that the children will start a fire with the matches.
Only deciding to rescue some of the children, rather than all of the children.

Similarly, if humans did not have libertarian free will, then God would be to blame for:

Creating a world where sin is a possibility.
Determining that people would actually sin.
Choosing to eternally save only some people from facing eternal destruction in hell for their sins.

If you have read my previous blog posts, you will recognize that these three points are actually exactly what Calvinism teaches about God.

Now, some Calvinists would object to this analogy, but after studying Jonathan Edwards's theology of predestination for my PhD dissertation, I would agree that McCall's analogy is an accurate portrayal of how Calvinism depicts God.7

In Edwards' Calvinistic view of predestination, God actually wants most people to be condemned to hell, so that God can be maximally glorified to the small number of people that God chose to eternally save. If too many people were saved, Edwards seems to think that it would somehow actually make God appear less glorious, and cause the people who are chosen to be eternally saved to be less happy.

This conclusion is rather bizarre, and it causes a number of contradictions even within Edwards' own theology, as I argue in my dissertation.

Since Edwards is called the "the most formidable defender of Calvinism in the history of North America",8 I believe his inability to create a system of theology that is both logically and biblically consistent that can justify his theory of predestination is clear evidence that Calvinism is not true.

For example, at the most basic level, predestination is simply not consistent with how the Bible is extremely clear that God truly does want to save everyone (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23).

Since God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18), and all of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16), we know that every word in the Bible is true.

The Bible is also what teaches us that God is fully good, and completely all-powerful and all-knowing.

Therefore, we can confidently say that:

If it were only up to God, because God wants everyone to be saved, and because God's omnipotence means that no one else can thwart God's desires, then in this case, everyone would be saved.
The Bible is clear that not everyone will be eternally saved (Revelation 20:15, Isaiah 66:24, Matthew 25:41-46, 7:21-23).

Thus, the only answer to why some people will not ultimately be saved is to say that it is because these people used their own free will to reject God's offer of eternal salvation.

God would not allow another person's misuse of his or her free will (or the influence of Satan or demons) to eternally condemn someone who otherwise might have heard the gospel and freely chosen to be saved. It must be up to each individual — and each individual alone — to make the final decision about whether he or she wants to be eternally saved, or not.

Thus, as I argue in my theory of Christian inclusivism, each person must be given their own personal, free choice in the matter of their eternal salvation. This is regardless of how old they were when they died, or where they lived during their lives, what religion they followed, and even whether they heard the gospel or not.

This is the only explanation for why some individuals will not be eternally saved which is compatible with God's perfect goodness and his desire to truly save everyone, despite how not everyone will end up being eternally saved.

However, it might seem that God would still be guilty of:

Creating a world where sin is a possibility.
Allowing people to misuse their free will to sin.

If God is good, and God wants everyone to be saved, then why would he allow people to sin in the first place, which then opened up the possibility that some people would be eternally destroyed? Don't wise parents prevent their children from hurting themselves, rather than just rescuing the child after the child has already gotten themselves into trouble?

Preventing people from sinning would also saved Jesus from the hassle of having to become a human and die on the cross for everyone's sins. Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane is evidence that he clearly did not want to go to the cross unless it was an absolutely necessary part of God's plan to save sinners (Matthew 26:38-39, Mark 14:34-36).

So why did God put himself through that, and also subject everyone else in history to the misery and suffering that that results from sin and from God's punishment of sin (Genesis 3:16-19, James 1:13-15, Romans 1:28-32)?

Why God Allows People To Sin

This question takes us all the way back to the very first two people ever created: Adam and Eve. God put them in the Garden of Eden which was a paradise, and God told them they could enjoy eating fruit from all the trees that God had planted there. There were also two other trees: the Tree of Life, and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

God gave Adam and Eve only one rule: do not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If they did, God warned that they would die (Genesis 2:15-17).

It seems like a simple rule, right? How hard can it be to avoid eating fruit from one very specific tree?

But even though Adam and Eve did not yet have a sinful nature, and although they knew God's warning, they still sinned when they chose to eat fruit from the forbidden tree (Genesis 3:1-6).

For thousands of years, Christians and skeptics alike have wondered about this event. What went wrong? Why did Adam and Eve make such a bad decision? Why didn't God stop them? Or at least, why didn't God make them smart enough to not sin? Why did God have to put that tree there, anyway? Did God actually want them to sin? Is it all God's fault?

In the 17th century, an author named Pierre Bayle wrestled with these questions, and he argued that all of the Christian explanations are unsatisfactory.9 I will briefly examine these explanations and summarize Bayle's objections to them, as we work our way toward what I think is the most plausible answer to the question of why God allows people to reject him and be eternally destroyed.

The Calvinist Answer

Christians who identify as Calvinists appear to have a straightforward answer to why God allowed Adam and Eve to sin. Their case can be summarized by referring to only two major Bible verses:

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (Romans 8:28).
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18).

For example, Jonathan Edwards repeatedly argued that redeeming humanity from sin would bring more glory to God and more happiness to the small fraction of humanity who will be eternally saved than if Adam and Eve had never sinned.10 However, Edwards struggled when he tried to explain how sin could happen in a way that doesn't imply that God is ultimately to blame for it.11

In fact, Edwards did at one point outright admit that God is the 'author of sin',

if, by "the author of sin," is meant the permitter, or not a hinderer of sin; and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events, in such a manner, for wise, holy and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow; I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the author of sin, I don't deny that God is the author of sin.12

Of course, I believe that Edwards is inconsistent to even use the term 'permit', because in Edwards' deterministic worldview, God controls everything that happens,13 exactly like the father who determines that his children will 'freely' play with matches in McCall's analogy. For God to truly 'permit' people to do something without God being the ultimate cause of it, people would need libertarian free will. Edwards, though, argued that libertarian free will could not exist.14

However, let's ignore that for now, and give Edwards the benefit of the doubt when he says that God only 'permits' sin, for the purpose of maximizing God's glory and the ultimate happiness of everyone who is finally saved.

Although he lived before Edwards did, Bayle had some apt criticisms of this typical Calvinist explanation for why God allows people to sin:

If you say that God has permitted sin in order to manifest his wisdom, which shines forth more in the midst of the disorders that man's wickedness produces every day than it would in a state of innocence, you will be answered that this is to compare God either to a father who allows his children to break their legs so that he can show everyone his great skill in mending their broken bones, or to a king who allows seditions and disorders to develop through his kingdom so that he can gain glory by overcoming them. The conduct of this father and this monarch is so contrary to the clear and distinct ideas by which we judge goodness and wisdom and in general all the duties of a father and a king, that our reason cannot conceive how God could act in this way.15

So Bayle and I both agree that Calvinism is not the best explanation for why God would allow people to sin, even though the verses cited at the start of this section are still very much true, and are a great encouragement for Christians when we experience suffering.

However, the main theological alternatives to Calvinism also have problems when it comes to answering Bayle's question.

The Arminian Answer

The major theological alternative to Calvinism is called Arminianism, named after the theologian Jacob/James Arminius. In the 16th century, Arminius became famous for rejecting Calvinism and emphasizing that individuals' own genuinely-free will is the ultimate reason these people will not be eternally saved.

Arminians argue that free will is why Satan and a third of the angels rebelled against God (Revelation 12:3-4). Adam and Eve's free will was also the cause of the first sin, and the sinful nature everyone inherited from them is what now causes each person to be a natural-born sinner (Romans 5:12-14).

As a result, God was not directly involved with any of this sin. God simply chose to let people and fallen angels act in ways that God did not approve of.

This argument that God is still good and loving despite the existence of evil and sin is known more broadly in theology as the 'free will defence'. However, it is not flawless. As Bayle said,

Those who say that God permitted sin because he could not have prevented it without destroying the free will that he had given to man, and which was the best present he made to him, expose themselves greatly. The reason they give is lovely. It has a je ne sais quoi, an undefinable something, that is dazzling. It has a grandeur. But in the end, it can be opposed by arguments more easily understood by all men, and based more on common sense and the ideas of order.16

The main problem with Arminianism when it comes to the question of sin and God's goodness is due to Arminianism's reliance on the idea of God's perfect foreknowledge.

Specifically, if God foreknew that Adam and Eve would freely choose to sin, thus, making both themselves and all of their descendants become sinners who are worthy of eternal death, then why didn't God stop Adam and Eve from doing this?

Bayle argued that if God foreknew how Adam and Eve would misuse their free will to sin, but God allowed them to sin anyway, then God is like a mother who allowed her daughter to go to a party where the mother knew for sure that the daughter would lose her virginity. In this case, Bayle says the mother clearly doesn't love either her daughter nor the virtue of chastity.17

So Bayle is implying that because God didn't stop Adam and Eve from sinning when God definitely knew that they would, and God foreknew all the negative effects that sin would cause in the world throughout all history, it shows that God did not truly love Adam and Eve (or their descendants), and God doesn't truly love holiness, either.

However, there is a convincing response to this objection. But before getting there, we must briefly address another flaw with the Arminian answer to this question.

The problem comes from how the traditional Arminian view of God's foreknowledge means that God perfectly knew from all eternity past that certain individuals he planned to create would definitely use their free will to ultimately reject him.

If God did have this foreknowledge, then simply by going ahead and creating these people, God is effectively predestining them to eternal destruction. For more on this line of reasoning, see my post where I critique William Lane Craig's theory of predestination that appeals to God's middle knowledge.

So Arminianism does not actually solve the problem of predestination. It is also open to Bayle's critique that it seems that God is not perfectly good or loving, because of how God allowed Adam and Eve to freely choose to sin when he perfectly foreknew that they would do so.

But what if God doesn't have perfect foreknowledge of what people will do? Would this lack of foreknowledge mean that God is less blameworthy for allowing Adam and Eve to sin? This brings us to the third (and much less common) Christian answer to this question.

The Open Theist Answer

Open theists say that while God is still omnipotent and omniscient, not even God can know for sure what someone will freely choose to do until the person does it. This means that while God can foreknow everything that does not depend on someone's free will, it is philosophically impossible for anyone—even God— to perfectly foreknow what someone with libertarian free will freely do.18

Therefore, when God made Adam and Eve, he knew that because he created them with free will, there was a chance that they might use it to sin. Maybe even a very high chance. But because God did not foreknow their choice, it was not guaranteed that they would sin. In the open theist perspective, God genuinely did not know for sure what Adam and Eve would choose to do if they were tempted.

Yet Bayle argued that the open theist option isn't any more convincing. Even if God didn't perfectly foreknow that Adam and Eve would sin, but God still allowed them to sin, then Bayle says the first sin is still God's fault, because God's omniscience means that God knew exactly what Adam and Eve were doing and thinking as they were being tempted to sin.

In this case, it would be like a mother who follows her daughter to the questionable party, and peeks through a window where she sees her daughter being cornered by a would-be-lover. Bayle said that in this situation, the mother should barge into the party and prevent the daughter from giving in to her potential lover, or again, the mother doesn't love either her daughter nor the virtue of chastity.19

So Bayle believed that God should have intervened and prevented Adam and Eve from sinning, even if it came down to God having to physically restrain them.20

Yet if God did that, then obviously, Adam and Eve would not have had the freedom to either obey or disobey God. If God would have intervened and always prevented them from sinning, then Adam and Eve would not actually have had free will. Regardless of what they wanted to do, God's intervention would have prevented them from doing anything different than what God wanted them to do.

Thus, theologians who support the idea of libertarian free will accept that God cannot give people free will while preventing them from using it in ways that God does not desire.21 As Richard Rice puts it:

God must respect the consequences to which our actions lead. For actions to have real integrity, they must have real results. After all, freedom is more than making a decision, it also involves making a difference.22

Furthermore, if God did intervene in some way to stop Adam and Eve from sinning, then I believe that Adam and Eve would have been able to argue that God did not give them a truly fair test.

For example, in Bayle's analogy, if the mother had burst in and dragged her daughter out from the party when she believed her daughter was about to give in to her lover, the daughter could always complain that if the mother had waited just one more second, the daughter would have declined her lover's suggestions and left the party of her own free will.

Similarly, even a fraction of a second before Adam and Eve actually sinned, there was still a chance they could have decided not to sin. For God to let them make a truly free choice, God had to let them go all the way to the point of actually sinning if they so chose, even though such a choice would lead to great misery and eternal death for both them and all their biological descendants.

So then, we might ask, why did God even bother giving Adam and Eve free will, if God knew (or if God even suspected) that it might lead to sin, a world full of suffering, and that in the end, many people might freely choose to reject God and be eternally destroyed?

Why Human Free Will Is Important to God

Let us now answer Bayle's objection that a God who allowed Adam and Eve to sin is not a perfectly good or loving God.

We must remember that it was God's own idea to put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden. If God did not want it to be possible for Adam and Eve to sin, he could have simply avoided creating that tree. They could happily have eaten fruit from all the other trees that God also created, and gone on to have kids, and humanity could have lived in the garden forever.

However, by putting the tree in the garden, and giving the rule to Adam and Eve to not eat from it, God opened up the possibility that Adam and Eve might choose to disobey him and sin. Without the tree and God's one rule, Adam and Eve would have had no way to make a choice, and thus no free will to obey or disobey God.

But why is God so hung up on obedience and disobedience? And why did he care so much if Adam and Eve disobeyed him?

I think our confusion comes because for most humans, disobeying an instruction is not inherently the same as choosing to reject them as a person. In some cases it might be true, but it is not true by default. For example, just because we ignore our parents' instructions to not eat the cookies in the cookie jar does not mean that we no longer love our parents, or that we don't want them to be our parents anymore.

But for God, it's different. Because God inherently is love (1 John 4:8, 4:16), all of God's commandments, laws, and rules are expressions of God's perfect love. This is why all of God's commandments are summarized as loving God and loving others (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:8-10).

Thus, to choose to disobey God is the same as choosing to act in an unloving way. Yet since God is love, when we choose to act in an unloving way, it is choosing to reject God himself, since God is Love.

Furthermore, we can see that what Adam and Eve were doing when they sinned was not just the equivalent of a child eating a cookie from the jar when the parent had told them it was forbidden. When the serpent (i.e., Satan—Revelation 12:9) tempted them to eat the forbidden fruit, he suggested to them that if they did so, they would be like God, and they would know good and evil for themselves (Genesis 3:5).

By acting on Satan's suggestion that if they sinned they would become like God, which would make them able to make their own rules about what is right and wrong, Adam and Eve revealed that in their hearts, they wanted to be their own gods, rather than having God be their god.

Therefore, in at least two different ways, Adam and Eve rejected God when they sinned.

By rejecting God, who is Love, and who is also the source of all existence and goodness (James 1:17), Adam and Eve chose the opposite of God, which is misery and death (Genesis 2:16-17, James 1:14-16, Romans 1:28-32). Thus, sin is always contrary to human happiness and wellbeing.

This basic test regarding the forbidden fruit, then, was the way that God offered Adam and Eve the choice between loving/obeying God and disobeying/rejecting God. Free will, after all, requires that we have at least one choice with at least two options to choose between.

Therefore, God could not override or take away Adam and Eve's free will or their ability to reject him without also making it impossible for them to truly love God.

Likewise, if God created people in order to love them, and for them to love him in return, there was no other way for God to achieve this goal without giving humanity free will.

Examples of How Free Will is Necessary For Love

To illustrate this fact, let us return to an analogy I have used in an earlier post:

Let's imagine that a scientist were able to covertly insert a microchip into the brain of a man who she had a crush on, which allowed the scientist to make the man act in a loving way towards the scientist. Even if the microchip made the man feel like he was voluntarily loving the scientist, he would not actually be doing so, for he is fully controlled by the scientist. In effect, the scientist would simply be loving herself by manipulating the man like a puppet, and the man's love for the scientist would not be genuine.23

This example shows our innate understanding that it is only if someone has a truly free choice about whether or not to love someone that his or her love becomes genuinely valuable and meaningful to the person whom he or she loves.

Critics might respond that this claim is false. They may argue that parents automatically love their children, and children automatically love their parents. God is like humanity's parent because he created us. Parents do not feel less loved by their children just because their child did not freely choose to be born to their parents. So likewise, critics say, our love for God can still be valuable to God even if we never make a free choice to love God.

In response, I would say that such a critic has made several errors in this argument.

First of all, people are only reborn as "children of God" once we put our faith in Jesus as our Savior and the Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts (John 1:12, 3:3-8, 3:16-18, Romans 8:15-17). By definition, then, all of God's children have freely responded to God's love that he showed to us through Christ (1 John 5:1). Universalists are not correct when they claim that everyone who has ever been created by God is automatically a child of God.

Furthermore, in this fallen world, some parents do not always love their children, and even worse, some parents actually do horrible things to their children.

Also, even though a child who has been well-loved by a parent will generally naturally respond with love for that parent, many loving parents know the sad reality that once their child grows up, their child's love for them is not guaranteed to continue.

In this way, then, the parent-child analogy is actually better for helping us understand why God might choose to create people who are not guaranteed to love him in return. Ideally, out of the union of their love, a husband and wife choose to create another person who they commit loving and caring for. They hope that their love will be returned, but they accept the risk that they may be heartbroken if their child grows up to reject them.

This is the same sort of risk that God took when he chose to create other beings with free will, in order to make it possible for God to participate in more loving relationships than just his own inner-Triune relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is the reason why I believe God created the world.

God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means that God is fundamentally a three-way loving relationship within himself, and so Love is what God actually is, and Love is what God loves most.24 But again, in order for the love expressed by his created people to be the most valuable to God, that love must be freely given by his people. This is why God created us with free will, even though there was a risk that people would use our free will to reject God by sinning.

Bayle could object, though, that in the New Heaven and New Earth, all eternally-saved people will truly love God, although they will no longer have the freedom to reject God. So this fact might prove that freedom to reject love is not necessary in order for love to be valuable to God.25

In response, we can appeal to the example of human marriage, which is the best analogy that the Bible uses to illustrate the love between God and God's people (Ephesians 5:22-33).

If a marriage between two people is based on love, it must be consensual, not forced.26 Typically, a man freely proposes to a woman who he loves and desires to marry, and the woman then accepts or declines the man's offer. The man is prepared for both possibilities, and he knows the heartbreak that her rejection might cause him to feel, and how a rejection would likely be the end of his romantic relationship with the woman.

But if the woman freely accepts the man's proposal, they go on to exchange vows to love one another and to be loyal to one another for the rest of their lives. By doing this, they have freely given up the freedom to love or not love one another, and also given up the freedom to romantically interact with other people. In exchange, the married couple enjoy a higher sort of freedom to love one another in ways that God has reserved to be experienced only within the committed relationship of marriage.27

So likewise, in the New Heaven and New Earth, people who have freely accepted Jesus as our Savior will no longer need (or even want) the freedom to sin or reject God. We will be as perfect and sinless as Jesus himself is (1 John 3:2). We will then be truly free to eternally experience the fullness of the love that God has for us, which we only experience a tiny foretaste of in this life.

Thus, human free will to sin or not sin is not something that God values in itself. Yet human free will is absolutely necessary in order for God to gain what he wants most: an eternity of mutually-loving and freely-chosen relationships with his people.

That meant that in some sense, God had to give humanity free will, if God wanted to enable the possibility of having eternally-loving relationships with some of his created people.

It also meant that God knew there would be the possibility that some people would reject him. There was no way to avoid this potential outcome if God also wanted the possibility of some people freely choosing to love him.

This is why from all eternity past, God had already decided that if humanity did sin, God would send his Son into the world to die for sinners, so that everyone can have their sins forgiven while also upholding God's perfect justice (which is an aspect of God's perfect love). Thus, from God's perspective, Jesus is the perfect sacrificial lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8, KJV) in order to atone for all of humanity's sins (1 John 2:2).

Anyone who believes in Jesus as our personal Savior (John 3:16) receives God's forgiveness for our sins that Jesus purchased for us. The moment we believe this, the Holy Spirit indwells and seals us as a guarantee of our eternal future with God (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Now, everyone effectively gets to make the same ultimate choice as Adam and Eve did, as to whether we will freely choose to love God and have eternal life with God, or reject God and be eternally destroyed.

This ultimate choice can be made in this life by those who are fortunate enough to hear and believe the gospel. If you would like to learn more about this, see my post about how you can have eternal life for free.

For everyone else who never heard the gospel, I am convinced that their ultimate choice will happen at the final judgment. Then, God's judgment of their lives will show them that they are sinners who are worthy of eternal destruction, and whose good works are not enough to earn heaven.

But God still loves them and wants to forgive them and be with them forever, so I am convinced he will present the gospel to them and give them one final opportunity to believe in Jesus and be eternally saved. For more on this idea, see my theory of Christian inclusivism.

Conclusion

Thus, to achieve God's purpose of enabling the possibility of participating in eternally-loving relationships with his created people, God must give each individual the choice as to whether to believe in Jesus and be saved, or reject God and suffer eternal destruction.

God cannot override anyone's free choice, but must allow them to follow through and actually reject him, even if the consequences are as severe as eternal destruction.

This is true even though such rejection and the eternal destruction of these individuals saddens God, and also saddens others who loved the individual during their earthly lives.28 But being emotionally hurt and rejected is an unavoidable possibility when we love another person who has free will.

Therefore even if I were somehow given the power to cause everyone I love to believe in Jesus and be eternally saved by overriding their free will, I wouldn't want to. Even if I knew that otherwise, they would all reject God and face eternal death. Because I know that if their love for God is not freely chosen, it would not be valuable or meaningful to God. I would also have turned them from real people with free will into mere objects that I could manipulate to make myself happy, which does not respect how God created them to be.

For the same reason, God will not allow anyone else or anything to interfere with a person's ability to make this final, free choice to love God or reject him, even if the outcome is not what God had hoped it would be.

This is the answer that I give to those like Talbott who argue that God should not allow anyone to reject him. I'm not alone in this argument, as many other theologians have argued likewise.29

However, someone might raise the second objection which was listed at the start of this post: if God can't outright prevent people from sinning, or completely eliminate the possibility that people might choose to sin, then it seems that God should at least have made people more intelligent or more reasonable, so that they would be less likely to misuse their free will to sin.30

Furthermore, once anyone becomes aware of God's amazing offer of eternal life in a new universe that will be better than anything we can currently imagine (1 Corinthians 2:9, Psalm 16:11), and that the only alternative is eternal destruction, why would anyone still freely choose to reject God?

These questions will be addressed in my next post.

Footnotes:

1. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 256.
2. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 256.
3. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 256.
4. Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 135.
5. "My assumption, however, that a person should ultimately have the right, if he so chooses, to do himself irreparable harm obviously involves a strong commitment to the value of libertarian freedom. This value judgement is surely one of the main pillars of the orthodox Christian doctrine of hell, and indeed, I think the doctrine would topple without it." Jerry L. Walls, Hell: The Logic of Damnation (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992), 136.
6. Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016), 46-47, citing Thomas H. McCall, "We Believe in God's Sovereign Goodness: A Rejoinder to John Piper," Trinity Journal 29.2 (2008), 241-242.
7. Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016), 47.
8. Mark A. Noll, "Edwards, Jonathan," in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister E. McGrath et al. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 145.
9. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 175.
10. Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, WJE 3: 259–260, 336; Edwards, "Miscellanies," no. 156 in WJE 13: 304; Edwards, "Miscellanies," no. 348 in WJE 13: 419–420; Edwards, "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 509; Edwards, Freedom of the Will, WJE 1: 407–408.
11. See my dissertation, Janelle L. Zeeb, "An Examination of Jonathan Edwards’ Theological Method Concerning the Problem of Reprobation", PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto and Wycliffe College, 2022, section 3.4.4. Many commentators agree that Edwards' explanation of original sin is inconsistent, including Clyde Holbrook, Samuel Storms, John Gerstner, Sam Logan Jr., and others (John J. Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 210, referring to John Kearney, "Jonathan Edwards' Account of Adam’s First Sin," Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 15, no. 2 [Autumn 1997]: 127–141).
12. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 399.
13. However, given Edwards’ philosophical occasionalism, the distinction between God's causation of an event and God's permission of an event is very small or even nonexistent. Oliver D. Crisp, Jonathan Edwards and the Metaphysics of Sin (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 64; Oliver D. Crisp, Jonathan Edwards Among the Theologians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2015), 177.
14. See my dissertation, Janelle L. Zeeb, "An Examination of Jonathan Edwards’ Theological Method Concerning the Problem of Reprobation", PhD Dissertation, University of Toronto and Wycliffe College, 2022, section 2.2.1.
15. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 175-176.
16. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 177.
17. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 177-178.
18. See my Master of Theological Studies thesis, Janelle Louise Zeeb, "An Analysis of Clark Pinnock's Open Theism as a Potential Solution to Theodicy", MTS Thesis, Tyndale Seminary, 2015, 44-46.
19. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 181.
20. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 189-191.
21. Clark Pinnock, "Systematic Theology," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 115; Millard J. Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?: The Current Controversy over Divine Foreknowledge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 194-195.
22. Richard Rice, Suffering and the Search for Meaning: Contemporary Responses to the Problem of Pain (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2014), 100.
23. Gregory A. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," in Four Views on Divine Providence, eds. Stanley N.Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 188-189.
24. Jonathan Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," in WJE 21: 113–114; Jonathan Edwards, "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 432-433, 437, 441–442, 455-456. See also WJE 8: 527–531.
25. D. Antony Larivière and Thomas M. Lennon, "Bayle on the Moral Problem of Evil," in The Problem of Evil in Early Modern Philosophy, eds. Michael John Latzer and Elmar J. Kremer (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001), 105.
26. Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 69.
27. Norman Geisler, If God Why Evil? A New Way to Think About The Question (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2011), 62-63.
28. Contra Talbott's assertion that if God truly loves someone, God must also love the other people that that person loves, and do what is best for them. His implication seems to be that if God loves Christians, then God should also eternally save all the people that Christians love, regardless of whether these other people themselves have freely chosen to love God or not, so that Christians will not be sad to eternally lose their loved ones. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 215-218.
29. C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," in The Complete C.S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 48; Norman L. Geisler, "God Knows All Things" in Predestination & Free Will:Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom, ed. David Basinger and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 69; Gregory A. Boyd, "God Limits His Control" in Four Views on Divine Providence, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 188–189; Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 381; Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 41–47; F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), 48–50; Fred Berthold, God, Evil, and Human Learning: A Critique and Revision of the Free Will Defense in Theodicy (Albany: State University of New York, 2004), 65–68.
30. Pierre Bayle, "Paulicians" in The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle, Second edition, trans. P. Desmaizeaux (London: J.J. and P. Knapton et al., 1734-1738), 178-179.

The Rapture Is Coming: Watch For The Seven-Year Covenant With 'Many' (Updated)

2023-09-20T00:00:00+00:00

I've recently come across something critical regarding a major end-times Bible prophecy that might be almost ready to be fulfilled. Therefore, I felt that a post about it would be worthwhile, in order to warn about how close the world might be to the Rapture and the start of the Tribulation.

The last seven years before Jesus' second coming are called the Tribulation. Jesus said that this will be the worst period of time in the entire history of humanity (Matthew 24:21).

Therefore, Jesus' promise that he will return in the clouds at the Rapture to suddenly take all Christians to be with him in heaven sometime before the Tribulation begins is truly an encouragement, and is something for Christians to look forward to (Titus 2:13, 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, John 14:1-3).

Although Christians will not know the exact day or hour of the Rapture (Matthew 24:36), the Bible says that if we are watching for it, we should be able to see that day approaching (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-5). I have already discussed some of the signs of the end times that we should look for in my posts here and here.

However, this post will suggest that we may now have enough information to know when the Tribulation itself will begin. What is even more important is that this information suggests the Tribulation may begin very soon.

If so, then the sudden disappearance of millions of Christians and perhaps all/most of the world's children could be only days or weeks away. Therefore, all Christians should be very excited, and we should be extra watchful during this time (Matthew 24:42-44). We should also share the gospel with others while we still can.

Conversely, if you are not a Christian, I would highly recommend that you seriously consider the gospel message now, so that you can believe in Jesus and not only gain eternal life, but also be saved from going through the Tribulation.

This is a long post (yet not as long as it seems, due to the footnotes), but I am writing it in case the scenario discussed above comes to pass, in order to possibly provide information to those who will be desperately searching for answers after the Rapture. Whenever the Rapture happens, I won't be here afterward to give further information or clarification. So although some of what follows is speculative, I felt it was better to share my thoughts on this topic now, than to write nothing.

As of September 20, 2023, I've added several new paragraphs in a few sections below that are labelled with this date, and a larger update at the bottom of this post. In these sections I evaluate what has happened so far, and look at a few more interesting possibilities in September for high-watch periods for the Rapture.

The Seven-Year Covenant Is The Start of the Tribulation

During the Tribulation, the Bible says that a man called the Antichrist will rule the world along with ten kings (Revelation 17:12). We do not yet know exactly who the Antichrist is, but there is a very significant clue that will make it possible to identify him once he appears on the world stage.

This clue comes from Daniel 9:27, which says that the Antichrist will "make a strong covenant with many for one week." In the context of this prophecy, one week means a period of seven years. If you want to know more about how we know that this prophecy of one week means seven years, check out my post here.

The revealing of the Antichrist is generally thought to be the very first judgment of the Tribulation (Revelation 6:1-2, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10, Daniel 7:19-22). Yet there are many good reasons why the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation begins.

Therefore, any talk of a particular day when a seven-year covenant might be made with 'many' becomes extremely relevant for identifying the possible beginning of the Tribulation.

A Common Interpretation of the Seven-Year Covenant

A common interpretation held by many Bible prophecy experts is that this covenant in Daniel 9:27 would be a peace treaty between Israel and several other countries. This peace treaty would be designed to last for seven years.1

There is good evidence for this interpretation based on 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3:

Birth pains are a metaphor that Jesus used for the beginning of the Tribulation (Mark 13:8, Matthew 24:8). In addition, it is possible to argue that this peace deal would give Israel the illusion of being safe, but it would actually be a deal with death/Sheol for Israel, as is suggested in Isaiah 28:15.

The Bible prophesies about how Israel will fight two more major wars that have not yet occurred in Israel's history (Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38), where Israel will be saved by God's miraculous intervention (Ezekiel 39:1-8). So it seemed that the seven-year covenant the Antichrist would make with 'many' would likely be a peace deal between Israel and the countries that will be affected by these wars.

For example, if Damascus were destroyed by a nuclear bomb during one of these wars (Isaiah 17), the surrounding countries and the rest of the world would certainly be crying out for peace.

An alternative possibility for a similar peace deal were the Abraham Accords that were signed over the past few years between Israel and several other countries. Prophecy experts imagined that these accords would be enlarged and confirmed by whoever will be the Antichrist.

The connection to peace and safety comes from how the major stated purpose behind the Abraham Accords is to bring some sort of regional peace to the Middle East by creating an alliance against Iran.3 Saudi Arabia has hinted that they would join the Abraham Accords and normalize ties with Israel if the Israel-Palestinian issue could be solved.4 (More on this will be discussed below).

Thus, an expansion or strengthening of the Abraham Accords by adding more countries to it in order to bring peace and stability to the Middle East also appeared like it had good potential to fit some of the criteria for the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27.

But normally, peace treaties are designed to be permanent, not temporary. It is always possible that some new agreement could be designed to have some sort of a seven-year transitional period toward achieving full peaceful coexistence between Israel and the Palestinians, but nothing like that has been mentioned yet in relation to the Abraham Accords or the so-called 'two-state solution'.

A New Possibility for the Seven-Year Covenant

However, new information that has come out recently suggests that this common interpretation of the covenant in Daniel 9:27 may not be accurate. After all, in Daniel 9:27, it doesn't actually say that this seven year covenant will be directly related to Israel's geopolitical situation, or that it will be a peace treaty.

Therefore, any sort of agreement that the Antichrist could make between 'many' could be a candidate to fulfill this prophecy.

Furthermore, a few words in the original Hebrew language mean that the phrase in Daniel 9:27 can be translated into English as "he will strengthen/confirm [Hebrew root verb gabar] a covenant/treaty [Hebrew noun berit] with many/a multitude [Hebrew plural noun of rov] for one week/period of seven [Hebrew noun shavua]".5

It is notable that in Hebrew, the way to talk about making a new covenant is to "cut" a covenant, using the Hebrew verb karat.6 This phrase comes from when back in the Old Testament, people would sacrifice animals as a way of establishing a covenant with each other (Genesis 21:27, 15:7-21). Yet the verb karat is not used in Daniel 9:27.

So the specific words used in Daniel 9:27 hint that whatever this covenant will be, it won't be a brand new agreement, but a pre-existing one that the Antichrist somehow strengthens or confirms which will have many participants or signatories.

Prophecy experts have been very curious about why this covenant would be prophesied to last for only seven years. But finally, we might have the answer to this detail.

The September 2023 UN Summit

Recently, among those who are watching for the signs of the end times, there has been a lot of attention given to a major United Nations meeting called the Sustainable Development Goals Summit which is scheduled for September 18-19, 2023.7

Several aspects of what the UN has announced they want to achieve at this meeting fit surprisingly well with the description of the covenant in Daniel 9:27.

In an article published June 13, 2023, the UN says that their 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which they committed to in 2015 are at high risk of not being met by 2030. Therefore, they say:

The SDG Summit, in September 2023, must signal a genuine turning point. It must mobilize the political commitment and breakthroughs our world desperately needs. It must deliver a rescue plan for people and planet. At the center of this rescue plan, Heads of State and Government must recommit to seven years of accelerated, sustained, and transformative action, both nationally and internationally, to deliver on the promise of the SDGs. Leaders can show their resolve by adopting an ambitious and forward-looking political declaration at the SDG Summit and presenting global and national commitments for SDG transformation.8

Notice how the UN says they must "recommit" to this vision, or in other words, confirm their earlier commitment to meet a deadline that is currently only seven years away.

They say something similar elsewhere, but with a few extra details:

But the [2030] Agenda is a promise, not a guarantee. At the halftime mark [2023], the promise is in deep peril. For the first time in decades, development progress is reversing under the combined impacts of climate disasters, conflict, economic downturn and lingering COVID-19 effects. The SDG Summit serves as a rallying cry to recharge momentum, for world leaders to come together, to reflect on where we stand and resolve to do more. It is a moment to recommit to a vision of the future that ensures no one is left behind. Fundamental shifts in commitment, solidarity, financing and action must put us back on track to end poverty, realize just societies and reset a balanced relationship with the natural world.9

Notice their use of the term "promise," which is an English synonym for the term covenant.10

As the UN's 17th SDG goal, they say they want to "strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development."11

So the leaders of many countries who make up the UN are going to be talking about confirming/strengthening a seven-year promise/covenant on September 18-19, 2023.

This should be enough for any Christians who are interested in the end times to perk up and pay close attention. If this turns out to be the covenant prophesied in Daniel 9:27, then the Rapture will have to happen sometime before then. I'll explain more about that near the end of this post.

Yet some further details about this upcoming Summit provide additional hints that this really might be the Daniel 9:27 covenant. If you've made it this far into my post, you might as well just keep reading.

A Global Rescue Plan

The UN is calling this upcoming summit a "rescue plan" for the world, and they list all the challenges and threats that the world supposedly needs rescuing from.12

The rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:1-2 is usually interpreted as being the Antichrist. In our culture, someone who is being portrayed as a savior or rescuer often comes riding in on a white horse. This may have come from how in the Bible, Jesus will show up on a white horse at the end of the Tribulation to save the world from the Antichrist (Revelation 19:11-13).

Jesus warns that in the end times, many people will come and falsely claim to be the Christ/Messiah, and they will deceive many people (Matthew 24:4-5).

So I can't help but wonder if the Antichrist might portray himself to be the 'savior' or 'rescuer' of the world by having answers to all these apparent problems that the UN is concerned about. This portrayal would make sense, because I believe the Antichrist will want to impersonate Jesus.

No One Left Behind

A mildly humorous detail (at least, to those who study Bible prophecy) is how the UN says that they want countries to "recommit to a vision of the future that ensures no one is left behind".13

Christians who believe in the pretribulation Rapture often talk about how the people who aren't taken to heaven at the Rapture will be "left behind" on Earth to go through the Tribulation. The best-selling fictional book series about what life on Earth might be like after the Rapture is even titled Left Behind.

It could just be a coincidence that whoever wrote this above paragraph for the UN's summit used those words, but it is still interesting given the other details discussed above.

More menacingly, leaving no one behind could imply that no one will be able to opt out from participating in the UN's 2030 goals.

If you look at the UN's Sustainable Development Goals at the bottom of the webpage cited here,14 you may notice that these goals touch on almost all aspects of our daily lives.

Although the goals sound positive, the concern is that in order to achieve these goals, governments all around the world will have to have strong enforcement mechanisms in place to ensure that everyone acts in accordance with these goals, because after all, that's the only way to 'save the planet.'

During the Tribulation, the Antichrist will be given total power over the entire world (Revelation 13:7-8). Those who refuse to obey the Antichrist by worshiping his idol/image that will be able to speak, or by taking his Mark of the Beast in/on their right hands or foreheads will be denied the ability to buy or sell (Revelation 13:15-18). Eventually, if these refusers are caught, they will be beheaded (Revelation 20:4).

So people will be able to opt out of the Antichrist's system, but not without severe consequences.

Thus, any sort of global agreement that requires everyone to participate is important to pay attention to, because even if the goals sound positive, it could quickly turn negative if absolute power is given to the authorities to enforce it.

A New Global Financial System

It turns out that the UN has also said that at their upcoming summit,

At the global level, a once-in-a-generation commitment is needed to overhaul the international financial and economic system so that it responds to today’s challenges, not those of the 1940s.15

In 2022, Pope Francis had also called for changes to the world's economy.16 In June 2023, Emmanuel Macron (the president of France) also said the world needs to re-imagine its financial system in order to address poverty and climate change.17

The fact that the UN and several influential world leaders are currently focused on transforming the world's economy is extremely relevant to Bible prophecy, given that, as mentioned earlier, during the Tribulation, the Mark of the Beast will be implemented to control all buying and selling (Revelation 13:16-18).

Such a system would require the elimination of physical cash, because cash cannot be centrally controlled. Cash would have to be replaced by a purely digital form of money, and some computer would need to track and specify exactly how this money can be used by every individual person. Interestingly, these very things are now being proposed at the highest levels of global government and finance.

The UN wants to create "a digital identification system linked to banking and mobile payment platforms".18 They say that such a system of digital ID would help reach people who currently fall through the cracks in terms of social services, or who lack access to the "digital economy".19

The World Health Organization also wants a global digital ID system as part of its 2024 Pandemic Treaty.20

Around the world, many countries are already working on their own version of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Some have already begun using them.21 A few private companies are also attempting to build a system that could support global digital ID and a digital currency system.22

Of course, for a truly global system, these different national or private CBDCs would have to be exchangeable with one another. Thus, it's not surprising that "the IMF wants central banks to agree on a common regulatory framework for digital currencies that will allow global interoperability".23

Yet, once banking is fully digital and your bank account is linked to your personal digital ID number—which may also be used to limit your ability to travel or your access to certain locations and services like vaccine passports did—it would be very easy for a totalitarian government to control people by threatening to turn off individuals' ability to use this system if these people do not obey all the government's rules.24

If this scenario seems outlandish, the ability and willingness of a democratic Western government to freeze the bank accounts of certain individuals was already demonstrated during major protests in Canada during the Covid pandemic.25

So we are not that far away from having the technology and global systems that could be easily turned into the Mark of the Beast system, since major institutions around the world are working hard at developing and implementing these systems right now.

Technically, the Mark of the Beast only needs to be fully operational by the mid-point of the Tribulation. Therefore, after the Tribulation begins, there would be some period of time where the Antichrist, False Prophet, and ten kings would be able to refine and finalize this global digital financial system.

However, some preliminary version of this system could be rolled out during the earlier parts of the Tribulation.

For example, issuing a brand new global digital ID might be a good way for governments to figure out exactly who was raptured, and who was left behind.

Linking this ID to a bank account that offers a new form of money, or to direct access to government benefits and subsidies, might then also be a way for leaders to respond to how food prices will skyrocket due to famine and/or hyperinflation relatively early on during the Tribulation (Revelation 6:5-6).

Recap Number 1

So thus far, at the UN's upcoming SDG Summit this September 2023, many leaders of countries will strengthen/confirm their promise/covenant to meet the SDG goals in seven years. Therefore, it seems that such an international agreement could perfectly fit the requirements of the covenant in Daniel 9:27.

Some details of the UN's goals also foreshadow a global digital financial system that will be a prerequisite for controlling all buying and selling for all people, as the Bible predicts the Antichrist will do via the Mark of the Beast.

Therefore, if this upcoming UN agreement actually is the prophesied Daniel 9:27 covenant, then it will be the start of the Tribulation, and the main individual who leads the world's leaders to confirm it will be the Antichrist.

Why 2030?

However, we might ask why the UN is so focused on meeting their 2030 deadline.

Since they admit that they are currently not on track to meet their own deadline, the easiest thing to do would be to simply change the deadline, right? Yet they say, "giving up on the SDGs or extending the deadline to meet them is not an option."26

But why not?

Even if climate change is actually happening, it is a gradual natural process, not one that cares about political deadlines. For example, the world is not going to suddenly end the second that King Charles' climate clock runs out.27

Today, even with the help of radar and computerized global weather simulations, meteorologists often can't get their predictions right. More than once, I've looked at the weather app on my phone, and found that it doesn't even accurately tell me what the current weather is! And unlike speculative models about the future climate, the current weather is something that can be actually measured in real-time.

So I wonder if there is actually some other reason why 2030 is such an important deadline for the world's leaders.

There is a Bible prophecy that says:

After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (Hosea 6:2)

This is referring to the people of Israel during Jesus' Millennial Kingdom. During this period of a thousand years after the Tribulation, the survivors in Israel will finally recognize Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10-14, 13:8-9, Matthew 23:39), and Israel will finally possess all the land that God originally promised to Abraham (Genesis 15:18-20).

When this prophecy in Hosea 6:2 is combined with the biblical idea that to God, one 'day' can be as long as a thousand years (2 Peter 3:8), it suggests that Jesus will return after about two thousand years to set up his Millennial Kingdom.

Most Bible scholars believe that Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection occurred at Passover on one of the years between 30-33 AD. Two thousand years later would thus be 2030-2033, which could hint that Jesus' second coming might occur sometime during these years.

A recent documentary titled Messiah 2030 presents many interesting hints from Scripture that this interpretation may be correct, and the documentary's creators opt for the earlier 2030 date.28 Alternatively, the next most likely year is 2033.29

2030 would be more mathematically satisfying, considering that Israel's second Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, which would be exactly 40 years after Jesus' death, if Jesus died in 30 AD.

God previously used a period of 40 years as judgment for Israel when they rejected his offer to enter the promised land (Numbers 14:34). So, another forty-year period to give Israel a chance to change their mind about Jesus before God allowed the Romans to besiege Jerusalem, destroy the Temple, and scatter the Jewish people out of their land as a punishment for rejecting Jesus would perhaps make sense (e.g., Matthew 27:22-25, 24:1-2, 23:37-39).

The Messiah 2030 documentary supports its choice of 2030 by citing some Jewish sources which claim that during the 40 years from 30 to 70 AD, there were several unusual supernatural signs that may have indicated that God was no longer pleased with the Jewish sacrificial system. I will look at this evidence in more detail in the Appendix at the bottom of this blog post.

But if this documentary's analysis is correct, then it is extremely interesting that the UN is pushing for 2030 as the non-negotiable year by which they are determined to achieve their global sustainability goals.

Satan is currently the ruler of this world, and he has the power to give all authority in the world to whoever he wants, such as those who promise to worship him (Luke 4:5-8).

Satan was obviously around at the time when Jesus was crucified (Luke 22:3), so he would know the exact year that Jesus died. Satan also knows there will be no way for him to delay Jesus' second coming, because Satan is far less powerful than God is. So, given all this, it seems Satan could find ways to ensure that certain powerful world leaders also prioritize this same year, even if they do not appear to do so for the same reason.

Because it is prophesied that the Antichrist will confirm a seven-year covenant with many at the start of the Tribulation, and the Antichrist is defeated by Jesus at his second coming at the end of the Tribulation (Revelation 19:19-20), then if Jesus' second coming will be in 2030, there really isn't much time left in 2023 before the Antichrist must be revealed in order to confirm the seven-year covenant.

Does September have any prophetic significance?

Another interesting detail is how the UN's upcoming SDG summit is planned to occur on September 18-19. This year, the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) occurs on September 15th to 17th.

This is especially interesting because Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection fulfilled three Old Testament spring feasts to the exact day during his first coming (Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits).30 You can see all these feasts described in Leviticus chapter 23.

The Holy Spirit was also given in a special way to Jesus' followers on the exact day of the Feast of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4). Because of these precedents, it is often expected that Jesus will also fulfill the three remaining autumn feasts to the exact day with events that will be related to his second coming.

In particular, prophecy experts sometimes believe that the Feast of Trumpets (Rosh Hashanah) may be related to the Rapture.

In the Old Testament, trumpets were blown to announce a call for people to assemble together, a command for people to move out from their current position, a call to go to war, for people to prepare to hear an announcement, to warn people about judgment, or to call people to come celebrate and worship God.31

Several of these meanings could correspond well with how the Rapture will be a call for Christians to come assemble together with Jesus in the clouds, to move out from this world, and to announce the celebration and worship that will occur in heaven afterward. To those left behind, it would be a warning of the coming Tribulation judgment, and also God's declaration of war against Satan and his demons (Revelation 12:7-8).

Jesus also mentioned that no one would know the day or the hour of his next coming (Matthew 24:36), which will come at a time when life is generally going on like normal.

So when Jesus said no one will know the day or hour, Jesus must have been referring to the Rapture, because once the seven-year covenant is agreed to, it should be possible to calculate the exact day of Jesus' second coming. The Tribulation is exactly 2520 days long, split into two halves of 1260 days each (Revelation 11:3, 12:6), and it ends with Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:11-21).

Some commentators also think Jesus was indirectly alluding to the Feast of Trumpets when he said no one would know the day or hour of his coming.

Supposedly, the Feast of Trumpets would only start once the bright sliver at the edge of a new moon was spotted in Israel by two witnesses who would report it to the religious leaders in Jerusalem. The official start of the feast would then be announced by blowing a trumpet. So the exact day and hour that the Feast of Trumpets began depended on the weather (since clouds would keep witnesses from seeing the moon), and a few other unpredictable factors.

There may also be some connection between Jesus' phrase in Matthew 24:36 and a Jewish wedding, which would only occur when the groom's father gave the approval to go ahead with the celebration. Therefore, no one besides him could be 100% sure when it would start.32

However, although the Feast of Trumpets may seem to be connected to both the Rapture and the start of the Tribulation, some prophecy experts do not think the Rapture has to literally occur on this day. Instead, the Rapture could happen anytime, and it would still fulfill the biblical symbolism of this feast.

Yet if the Rapture were to happen on the exact day of an Old-Testament feast, the Feast of Trumpets would be a good candidate.

So the fact that the UN's summit occurs just after the Feast of Trumpets this upcoming September is very interesting, because it could correspond to the official start of the Tribulation.

However, the timing of this summit might not prove anything regarding the day of the Rapture, other than the Rapture would have to happen sometime before the seven-year covenant is officially confirmed by the Antichrist and 'many'.

Alternative Potential 'Rapture' Days Are Coming Very Soon

As an alternative potential 'rapture' day to the Feast of Trumpets, I have recently come across persuasive arguments made by a few end-times watchers who say the Feast of Pentecost did not occur fifty days after Passover, as Christians traditionally believe it does.

Instead, these end-times watchers argue that Pentecost happened later, at the Feast of New Wine. This feast supposedly occurred in midsummer, at the time when the wheat harvest was over and the first grapes were available to produce said 'new wine'.33

This claim seems to have biblical support because of how a bystander at Pentecost accused the early Christians of being drunk on "new wine," which would have only been available around that time of year (Acts 2:13-15). This new wine was also supposedly not to be consumed by the general public until the high priest had performed a drink offering in the Temple, interestingly, at the exact same hour as when the Holy Spirit descended on the early church: the third hour of the day—9:00 AM (Acts 2:15).

Also, using biblical typology, the Book of Ruth tells the story of Ruth (a gentile woman, representing the mostly non-Jewish Church) who married Boaz (a man representing Israel's redeemer—Jesus). Supposedly, their wedding took place shortly after this Feast of New Wine (e.g. Ruth 2:23, Ephesians 5:25-33).

If this alternative perspective is correct, then this year, the Feast of Pentecost would actually be on July 26, 2023, and it is immediately followed by the 9th of Av on July 27.

The 9th of Av is the infamously tragic day of the Hebrew calendar on which both of Israel's temples were destroyed, despite these events occurring several hundred years apart. A number of other tragedies have occurred in relation to the Jewish people also on this same calendar day (just Google it).

Yet the Church, made of all true Christians, is now the true Temple of God because of how the Holy Spirit comes to live inside each Christian the moment we first believe in Jesus (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19, Ephesians 1:13-14, 4:30, Acts 2:1-4, 2:14-21).

So if the Church were to be raptured on the 9th of Av (this year, July 27), it would fit perfectly with the historical precedent for the 9th of Av as being a day when God previously removed the physical dwelling place of his Holy Spirit from this world.

The Rapture would certainly be a tragedy for Israel. Evangelical Christians are often strong supporters of Israel, and the USA (which has many Christians in it and is a strong military ally of Israel) would likely be one of the most crippled countries after the Rapture. Thus, after the Rapture, it may be difficult or even impossible for the USA to come to Israel's aid, if, for example, Israel suddenly found themselves fighting the Psalm 83 war.

So as we have seen in this section, the biblical symbolism and historical precedents could suggest that the Rapture could also occur around one of these upcoming dates (July 26 or 27, 2023), which would leave a gap of several weeks before the Feast of Trumpets in September. This possibility will be analyzed more later on in this post.

But What About Peace and Security?

However, how would this upcoming UN summit fit with how the Bible says,

While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:3)

As discussed at the start of this post, this verse is believed to be talking about the start of the Tribulation period.

So isn't it interesting that the UN's International Day of Peace is being held this upcoming September 21, 2023. This is just a day or two after the UN's SDG summit. The close scheduling means that the UN even says that "the 2023 observance of the International Day of Peace coincides with the SDG summit (18-19 September)".34

The UN says that the International Day of Peace

is a call to action that recognizes our individual and collective responsibility to foster peace. Fostering peace contributes to the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will create a culture of peace for all.35

Furthermore,

Peace is needed today more than ever. War and conflict are unleashing devastation, poverty, and hunger, and driving tens of millions of people from their homes. Climate chaos is all around. And even peaceful countries are gripped by gaping inequalities and political polarization.36

So the UN's International Day of Peace does seem to qualify as a time when people will be calling for "peace and safety." So what would be the "sudden destruction" that is supposed to happen right after this?

After the Antichrist has been revealed (Revelation 6:1-2), the very next divine judgment is an outbreak of worldwide violence (Revelation 6:3-4). This in line with how Jesus warned that after the false Christ appears there will be many wars and rumors of wars involving conflicts between kingdoms/nations, and also between various ethnic people groups (Matthew 24:6-7).

Given the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, some Russian officials are warning that it could turn into World War III.37Alternatively, there are several other hot spots around the world that could also turn into World War III.38 That list doesn't even include the tensions in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas that could turn into the Psalm 83 war practically anytime.

How ironic would it be if World War III or the Psalm 83 war were to begin on a day when the world is calling for international peace?

Recap Number 2

Thus, within the span of only a few days during this upcoming September, we will have the biblical Feast of Trumpets which might signify the start of the Tribulation, and then a covenant will likely be confirmed by many world leaders for a period of seven years (Daniel 9:27).

The world will then proceed to call for "peace and safety," even as there is a risk that some significant war could suddenly begin almost anytime (1 Thessalonians 5:3, Revelation 6:3-4).

If this is what will happen in September, it all fits amazingly well with Bible prophecy — perhaps a little too well for it to all be dismissed as just a coincidence. If the Rapture happens sometime between now and September 18-19, it would pretty much guarantee that these other end-times Bible prophecies are about to be fulfilled.

But What About Israel?

For those who are concerned that Israel is not involved enough in all of the things being discussed so far (despite Israel being on board with the UN's SDG goals,39) do not worry: Israel is still a major concern for many world leaders.

Earlier this year, the UN Secretary General gave a speech in which he talked about the SDG goals. Yet he also

outlined core elements of the proposed New Agenda for Peace, in line with the UN Charter, international law, and human rights, with prevention at the heart. He said "[w]e must work harder for peace everywhere" — in Ukraine, Palestine and Israel, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, the Sahel, and other parts of the world where two billion people are affected by conflict and humanitarian crises.40

So peace between Israel and the Palestinians is still one of the UN's goals.

Some UN experts noted earlier this year that it has been 75 years since Israel became a nation and supposedly caused a tragedy that displaced the Palestinian people. These experts criticize Israel for how they have treated the Palestinian people all this time.41

In July 2023, both the UN Secretary General and Pope Francis called on Israel to return to negotiating a two-state solution with the Palestinians.42 Even China is unhappy with Israel's 'encroachment' on Palestinian land, and supports the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.43

So although the Daniel 9:27 covenant with 'many' does not specify it will be a peace treaty that involves Israel, there is certainly a lot of pressure being put on Israel by the UN and other world leaders to make peace with the Palestinians. Who knows how this may escalate after the Psalm 83 and Ezekiel 38 wars, and what the Antichrist might do about it once he comes to power?

Regardless, the basic conditions for the prophecies of Daniel 9:27 and 1 Thessalonians 5:3 do not necessarily require a direct connection to Israel. Given that both of these prophecies could be fulfilled within the same few days in September is extremely interesting.

September 20, 2023 Update

Over the last few weeks, the interest in achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians has increased significantly.

Just last week, it was announced that Saudi Arabia would be hosting an event on September 18, 2023 on the sidelines of the UN SDG Summit to discuss Israel-Palestinian peace.44

The outcome of that meeting is that the EU and and Saudi Arabia have committed to jump-starting the Israel-Palestinian peace process by planning a series of meetings over the next year about what sort of 'incentives' that Israel and the Palestinians must be given in order to convince them to agree to a Palestinian state. They insist that "there is not a viable other solution" to the Israel-Palestinian tensions than creating an official Palestinian state.45

I wonder if perhaps offering Israel the chance to rebuild its temple on the Temple Mount might be part of such a package that could convince Israel to sign a treaty that is otherwise not in its favor?

Also at this UN SDG summit, the United States announced they want to work toward normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel and creating a Palestinian state.46

So all of this is extremely interesting given that it is occurring right at the same time as the UN's SDG summit.

But there is yet another detail about Bible prophecy that could be fulfilled shortly before this upcoming UN SDG summit that could add further support for the possibility of September 2023 being the start of the Tribulation.

A New (And Potentially Better) Group of Ten Kings

The Bible prophesies that during the Tribulation, the last major empire that will dominate the world will be composed of ten "kings" (Daniel 7:23-24). These ten kings will only come to power for a short time along with the Antichrist (Revelation 17:12).

But the exact relationship between these kings and the Antichrist is complicated.

Daniel also says that near the beginning of the Antichrist's career, when the Antichrist is represented as just a 'little' horn, this man will take the place of three of these ten kings (Daniel 7:24-27). Yet it seems the three leaders will not be completely gone, as later on in the Tribulation, all ten kings will give their power to the Antichrist (Revelation 17:12-13).

Because of these prophecies, end-times watchers have been paying close attention to any international alliances of countries that could become powerful enough to dominate the whole world, and which would involve exactly ten members.

The EU received a lot of attention in the past for being a potential candidate to fulfill these criteria. This is because the Antichrist will come from the same people who destroyed the second Jewish temple in 70 AD, who were the Romans (Daniel 9:26-27). The Roman Empire was based primarily in Europe, although it included the areas now found in Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, and North Africa.

However, it wasn't clear to prophecy experts how the EU would end up with only ten members during the Tribulation, if the EU was supposed to fulfill the prophecy of the ten kings.

The D-10 is a group of the world's ten leading democracies who also seemed to have some potential to fulfill the prophecy of the ten kings.47

However, there is now potentially a new group of ten countries that is worth paying close attention to.

In August 2023, the group of countries known by the acronym BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are planning their own summit in which there are rumors they will admit up to five new countries into their alliance, to make ten countries total.48 There are many countries that want to join BRICS, and so the leaders of BRICS simply have to choose who they want to accept.49

The BRICS countries have also been talking about launching their own currency, which could threaten the strength and value of the US dollar for international trade.50

This final world empire with ten kings is also prophesied to be like trying to mix iron and clay (Daniel 2:40-45). That is, it will be partly strong and partly fragile, and it won't bind together very well.

This description had appeared to be true for the EU over the last decade or so as it underwent Brexit, and also faced various internal tensions between major members on a number of important issues. Yet several foreign policy analysts note that the BRICS group of countries also fit such a description:

Analysts in the Western press largely described the [BRICS] outfit as nonsensical and predicted its imminent demise. In 2011, the Financial Times’ Philip Stevens announced it was "time to bid farewell" to the "BRICS without mortar." A year later, another columnist at the paper, Martin Wolf, asserted that BRICS was "not a group" and that its members had "nothing in common whatsoever." BRICS has also been described as a "motley crew," "odd grouping," "random bunch," and "disparate quartet"... BRICS member countries have numerous differences and disagreements... And yet, despite their differences, not one BRICS leader has ever missed the group’s annual summits.51

The fact that the EU currently has more than ten members and there are no rumors of them cutting it down to ten anytime soon, while the BRICS might just be on the verge of adding five more to make a total of ten countries, all just a month or so before the UN's SDG summit, is very interesting.

It might mean that this group of ten BRICS+ countries will be the ones to dominate the world during the Tribulation, in a sort of an alternative 'New World Order' to Western countries,52 even if the Antichrist is still prophesied to have connections to Europe.

Such a scenario might make a lot of sense.

Since it is clear that the Rapture will happen before the Tribulation (see my post here), many Western countries who have larger numbers of Christians will likely lose a larger percentage of their adult populations at the Rapture than the countries who make up the BRICS+ will. This might naturally give the BRICS+ a sudden boost of political and economic influence during the Tribulation, and make them a desirable partner for the Antichrist.

And if you're wondering, in just the past few days, the BRICS have "called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital".53 So that's still very relevant for Bible prophecy, as discussed earlier in this post.

September 20, 2023 Update

The BRICS had their summit in August, and they made offers to six additional countries to join their group. These countries were Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates. If their leaders accept this offer, these countries would officially join BRICS on January 1, 2024.54

However, there have been news stories that say that Argentina's current president is not interested in joining BRICS,55 and neither are any of the other presidential candidates.56

So it is possible that if Argentina declines the invitation, there will be five new members officially added to BRICS this upcoming January, to make a total of ten BRICS members who may fit perfectly with the ten kings in Revelation 17:12 and Daniel 7:23-24.

Implications for the Rapture: Two Possibilities

So given all the very interesting potential correspondences between upcoming events and end-times Bible prophecy as discussed above, there are two possibilities we must consider:

Possibility 1: This Is NOT The Covenant With Many

Let us imagine that it turns out that the UN's upcoming summit to confirm their 2030 Sustainable Development Goals is not the prophesied covenant of Daniel 9:27. The day comes and goes without the Rapture happening, and life continues on like normal.

Given how well the UN's 2030 agreement matches the description of the Daniel 9:27 covenant, goes along with a global call for international peace (1 Thessalonians 5:3), and may come just after the formation of a new ten-country alliance that doesn't bind together very well (Daniel 2:40-45, 7:24-27, Revelation 17:12-13), then all these interesting correlations with Bible prophecy would have to be an amazing coincidence.

However, all the other signs of the end times are currently present and are increasing like birth pains, even while society somehow continues to hang on the very edge of 'normal', despite several looming issues that could disrupt this 'normal' in the near future, and while rapid progress is being made toward the systems that would be necessary to create the Mark of the Beast.

What are the chances that all of this is lining up just as the Bible said it would, exactly seven years before what might be Jesus' second coming, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Bible prophecy?

Due to all of this, we must seriously consider the second possibility:

Possibility 2: This IS The Covenant With Many

Let us imagine that The UN's upcoming reconfirmation of their 2030 Sustainable Development Goals is the prophesied covenant of Daniel 9:27.

If so, whoever leads the world in confirming this covenant will be the Antichrist, and the Rapture will occur sometime before this covenant is officially confirmed by the Antichrist and 'many'.

In this case, there are two possible timelines for when Bible prophecy might be fulfilled, depending on whether Jesus was crucified in 30 AD or 33 AD.

I have read several different articles that go in depth using the Hebrew calendar, solar/lunar eclipses, and other historical details to try to argue for usually one of these two years. However, I don't want to assume the authors are doing their math correctly, nor do I want to spend the time to verify their methodology and historical research.

So let's just consider both timelines and see how they could each potentially fit with end-times Bible prophecy.

Timeline 1: Jesus' Second Coming Is In 2030

Let us imagine that the 30 AD date for Jesus' crucifixion is correct, and this upcoming UN summit will confirm the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27.

If so, then despite the chaos the Rapture will cause, the UN Summit will go ahead as planned on September 18-19, and the world's leaders will recommit to meeting their 2015 SDG goals by 2030.

Whoever it is that leads the world in this global re-commitment will be the Antichrist. This summit will come just shortly after the Feast of Trumpets warns the world of the coming Tribulation, and the confirming of this covenant will coincide with the world calling for international peace, but experiencing sudden destruction (1 Thessalonians 5:3).

Then the Tribulation will begin, and it will last for 2520 days until Jesus' second coming in 2030, likely on either the Feast of Trumpets or the next feast (the Day of Atonement) that happens ten days later.

In this scenario, there may be only a gap of several weeks at most between the Rapture and the start of the Tribulation. Depending on how many people are raptured, and what else happens shortly after the Rapture, this short period of time may be enough for North American society to become mostly functional again, just in time for New York to host the UN's summit.

Yet there would still likely be much sorting-out left for the world to do during the early stages of the Tribulation. This may include issuing a global digital ID to verify who has been left behind on Earth, and creating a global digital currency to prepare the way for the roll-out of the Mark of the Beast.

The benefit of this timeline is that the 30 AD date for Jesus' crucifixion lines up better with the 70 AD destruction of the second Temple that happened 40 years later, and could explain the strange things that started happening in the Temple around 30 AD (see Appendix). Plus, it would truly be a seven-year covenant, from 2023 to 2030, without the UN having to revise or extend their target deadline.

There would also be a relatively short gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation, more in line with how the removal of the Restrainer at the Rapture (i.e., the Holy Spirit who lives inside every true Christian as per Ephesians 1:13-14) is what allows the Antichrist to publicly appear on the world stage (2 Thessalonians 2:3-9).

A short gap would also fit better with the idea that the Rapture is a rescue mission to remove Christians right before God's wrath falls on the rest of the world (1 Thessalonians 1:10, 5:9, Revelation 3:10). This divine rescue would be in line with how Noah entered the ark only seven days before God sent the worldwide flood (Genesis 7:1-5), and the angels got Lot and his family out of the sinful city of Sodom just barely before God destroyed it (Genesis 19:12-26).

It should be noted that this timeline does not mean that the current Secretary General of the UN is the Antichrist. The Antichrist is also not necessarily a current leader of any country, even if he is likely to be involved in politics somewhere in Europe. Yet in the chaos that will happen between the Rapture and the signing of the seven-year covenant, the Antichrist will somehow gain enough influence to be the one to lead the world into confirming their 2030 covenant.

Thus, if the seven-year covenant of Daniel 9:27 is what will be agreed to at the upcoming UN summit, then it seems likely that the Rapture will also happen far enough ahead of this summit that there would be enough time for this change of leadership to occur. Whereas if the Rapture happened on the Feast of Trumpets that is only a day or two before the summit, it seems less likely that there would be enough time for this leadership change to occur.

Therefore, the sooner the Rapture happens, the more time there would be for the Antichrist to rise up to power in time to confirm the covenant with 'many' in September. The upcoming August BRICS meeting might produce the ten kings who will rule for a short time along with the Antichrist (Revelation 17:12-13), and at some point early on his career, the Antichrist will take the place of three of these leaders/kings (Daniel 7:24-27).

Based on some interesting astronomical evidence that is presented in the documentary The Star of Bethlehem, Jesus was probably born in 3-2 BC.57 That means Jesus would have been about 31-32 if he were crucified in 30 AD (remember, there was no year 0).

Jesus is usually thought to have had at least a three year ministry (3 Feasts of Passover are recorded in the Book of John: John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55), and we are told that Jesus began his ministry when he was around age 30 (Luke 3:23). But this timeline is still possible if his ministry began when he was 28 or 29.

So if this timeline is correct, although it seems to be only a short time from now, it fits together remarkably well. The Rapture could happen anytime between now and September 18-19, but potentially as soon as July 26-27. Yet let us now consider the alternative timeline.

Timeline 2: Jesus' Second Coming Is In 2033

Let us now presume the 33 AD date for Jesus' crucifixion is correct. If so, something dramatic would have to happen in order to force the UN to delay the confirming of their 2030 SDG goals until the fall of 2026 (seven years before 2033), likely also near the Feast of Trumpets.

A good candidate for the reason that the UN would delay such an important meeting would be because of the chaos that the Rapture will cause, as well as potentially the start of the Psalm 83 war between Israel and several surrounding countries.

Yet there is the possibility that it could be something else besides the Rapture that would cause the UN to delay their SDG summit.

But something that could cause the UN to cancel a huge meeting that has taken months to plan would have to be something very important, like the declaration of World War III, or perhaps the Psalm 83 war and the destruction of Damascus (Isaiah 17). Yet none of these things could happen while the world is saying that things are going on normally, just like they always have (2 Peter 3:3-4).

So I will assume that the only event that could happen between now and then which would be big enough to delay this upcoming UN SDG summit until 2026 would be the Rapture. Maybe I'm wrong, but let's run with that idea for now.

In this scenario, there would be a gap of several years between the Rapture that would happen sometime before September 2023, and the start of the Tribulation sometime in 2026.

However, such a long gap seems out of place if part of the purpose of the Rapture is for God to save Christians (and possibly all children under a certain age or level of maturity) from experiencing God's wrath during the Tribulation (1 Thessalonians 1:10, 5:9, Revelation 3:10).

If there were a long gap between the Rapture and the Tribulation, it would be a time when many people might become Christians and many more children would be born, but they would all be doomed to go through the Tribulation period. That doesn't seem like something a loving God would do if he truly doesn't want anyone to perish.

After all, Peter says, "the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).

Furthermore, the Bible often uses the metaphor of a thief breaking into someone's house at night to describe how the world will be shocked and unprepared for the beginning of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:43, Luke 12:39, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-4, 2 Peter 3:10, Revelation 3:3, 16:15).

But if the Rapture happened three whole years before the Tribulation, the world would not likely be shocked by the beginning of the Tribulation, because they would have had such a long time to see it coming, and the Rapture would have confirmed to many left-behind people that Bible prophecy is true.

Another problem with this timeline is that it would require the UN to change their SDG deadline to 2033 in order to have a seven-year covenant, which they claim they will not do. They can't just shorten the covenant to four years to try to meet the old 2030 deadline, or else the confirmation of the covenant with 'many' wouldn't be for a period of seven years (Daniel 9:27).

So let us presume that in this timeline, the UN extends their SDG deadline to 2033.

The Bible tells us the Antichrist will declare himself to be God in the rebuilt Temple halfway through the Tribulation (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15-24), perhaps after almost miraculously surviving what should have been a deadly wound to his head (Revelation 13:3-4, 13:11-14).

He will also miraculously kill the two witnesses who will have been prophesying in the streets of Jerusalem without anyone being able to harm them for the first 1260 days of the Tribulation (Revelation 11:3-13). The world will celebrate his victory over these two 'nuisances' (Revelation 11:9-10).

In this timeline, that means these events would happen sometime around 2030.

After these dramatic events, the Antichrist might receive the full authority of all ten kings (Revelation 17:12-13) in order for him to force the world to meet the UN's SDG goals at all costs, because the world has "run out of time," and so "tough love" is needed to save the world from its own undoing.

That means the Antichrist must have absolute power, and so everyone who resists going along with his orders and/or refuses to take his Mark of the Beast would be portrayed as being enemies of humanity who deserve execution (Revelation 13:7-10, 13:15-18, 20:4). Many people might approve of the Antichrist's drastic dictatorial actions simply out of fear.

One slight benefit of this timeline is that the 33 AD date for Jesus' crucifixion may line up better with a lunar eclipse that occurred on the night after the potential day when Jesus was crucified.58

Another slight benefit is that if Jesus was born in 3-2 BC and was crucified in 33 AD, he would have been 34-35 when he died, which would have made him about 31-32 when he began his ministry. This would have been a respectable age for a Rabbi to begin teaching. Church tradition says Jesus was 33 when he was crucified, which doesn't match either of these timelines, however, tradition is not always correct.

My Preference for Jesus To Return In 2030

Personally, I think the 2030 timeline for Jesus' second coming would be more ideal and less complicated than the 2033 timeline.

The 2030 timeline fits all the events together perfectly without extra-large gaps between the Rapture and the Tribulation, and without requiring some other equally world-changing event to happen before this September in order to throw off the UN SDG summit until 2026.

Of course, I would also like the Rapture to happen so that I could go be with Jesus as soon as possible, so perhaps my judgment is biased. Yet I hope yours is too, because if you are also hoping that Jesus will soon return at the Rapture, then you will receive an eternal heavenly crown as a reward (2 Timothy 4:8).

Conclusion

Of course, all of this is somewhat speculative, even if it seems right now like it could all fit perfectly with Bible prophecy.

It would fit especially well if Jesus' second coming will be in 2030, and if so, the Rapture will happen sometime in 2023, likely before the UN's upcoming SDG summit on September 18-19. Alternatively, perhaps something else will interrupt this summit from being held, and the seven-year covenant the Antichrist will sign with 'many' will actually be a different agreement.

However, because of how all the evidence suggests that this UN summit really might be the fulfillment of the Daniel 9:27 prophecy, I believe that Christians should be extra, extra ready for Jesus to appear in the clouds for the Rapture during the next few months (e.g., Matthew 24:44-50).

We really might be seeing all these things beginning to happen (Luke 21:28), just like the Bible tells us we will if we're paying attention (Hebrews 10:25, 1 Thessalonians 5:2-5). If this analysis is accurate, we could even begin literally counting down the days to the start of the Tribulation, even if the Rapture could still happen anytime before then.

Thus, since we won't know for sure the day or the hour of the Rapture (Matthew 24:36), I would highly recommend that Christians should get your Rapture letters written and put them where someone might find them after the Rapture. Also, tell your unbelieving friends/family about the Rapture ahead of time to warn them, and share the gospel with them as often as you can, even if it risks making them annoyed with you, or if you worry they will think you're crazy.

It's worth it to be ready so that we're caught serving Jesus when he returns (Matthew 24:42-51), rather than scoffing and saying the Rapture definitely won't happen in the next few weeks (2 Peter 3:3-4).

But if the Rapture hasn't happened before the UN's upcoming SDG summit finishes, and they do go ahead and reconfirm these 2030 SDG goals, then we'll know that it was not the covenant in Daniel 9:27, despite this agreement having some strikingly similar features. We will know this because a mid-wrath or post-Tribulation Rapture are not biblical options, because of how the Bible says life will be going on like normal at the Rapture. Life will certainly not be normal either during or after the Tribulation.

Furthermore, Jesus promises that Christians will be kept safe from the entire time of the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10). The revealing of the Antichrist occurs at the start of the Tribulation (Revelation 6:1-2), and the key identifier that will reveal the Antichrist will be how he confirms the seven-year covenant in Daniel 9:27.

Therefore, people who are Christians now and people who become Christians before the start of the Tribulation absolutely cannot still be here on Earth after the Antichrist confirms the real seven-year covenant.

Remember: just because the Rapture hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it will never happen. One of these days, it will happen. Some particular day will be the last day of 'normal' before the Rapture. Some particular week will be the very last week before the Tribulation begins. It's only a question of time.

It's very possible that the next few days, weeks, or months will be a very good time for the Rapture. Christians should get excited, do what we can to spread the gospel, warn others about being left behind after the Rapture to face the Tribulation, and spiritually prepare ourselves to meet Jesus face to face.

If you have never before trusted in Jesus as your savior, now is possibly your very last chance to do so in order to not miss the Rapture.

Accepting the gospel message is completely free, and you can do it right now, simply by praying to Jesus in your thoughts or out loud, and saying you believe in him and accept his death on the cross for your sins, so that you can have eternal life (John 3:16).

September 20, 2023 Update

Apparently, already on September 18th, the UN has officially adopted a declaration to accelerate their pursuit of the Sustainable Development Goals over the next seven years.59

So it seems that since the Rapture hasn't happened, this was not (or is not yet) the seven-year covenant with "many" that is prophesied in Daniel 9:27, despite how promising it appeared to be.

There has also not been any particularly interesting individual who has recently popped up on the international stage who seems like a good candidate for the Antichrist.

Therefore, because the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation, which begins with the Antichrist confirming a seven-year covenant with 'many', we know that the Tribulation has not begun. However, there are still good reasons to stay watching closely for the Rapture throughout the rest of September 2023.

The 'Revelation 12' sign that several end-times watchers on Youtube were paying close attention to over the last month or so has a ton of interesting detail that all points to the union of Christ with his Church at the Rapture. There is too much to go into here, but you can find several videos about some of the things going on in this astronomical sign on the Youtube channel God A Minute.60

Now, I don't find every single detail of this analysis to be convincing, but all together, the sheer number of interesting things going on in the constellation Virgo right around September 19 seems like too much to just be a coincidence. Many end-times watchers believe this sign indicates the Rapture is about to happen. However, even though the ideal alignment of this sign on September 19 has passed, the full series of interesting celestial events won't be over until September 23 or even a few days later.

Furthermore, very important meetings at the UN will continue until September 26th, which is the day after the Jewish feast of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement).

Some end-times watchers have argued that if 2023 is a Jubilee year, then the Feast of Trumpets is actually celebrated at the same time as the Day of Atonement, which this year is September 24-25. So if the Rapture will occur on the Feast of Trumpets, there is possibly a second opportunity for the prophetic significance of that feast to be fulfilled on the exact day it occurs in 2023.

Yet whenever I've looked into it, I've found that it's very difficult to determine which year is a Jubilee year, or even which year is a Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25). Many end-times watchers disagree about these things, and so I can't say for sure if the claim that 2023 is a Jubilee year is correct. There is also no Bible verse about the Feast of Trumpets moving to the Day of Atonement in a Jubilee year.

But if it is true that 2023 is a Jubilee year, it could explain why the Rapture has not yet happened although the usual date for the Feast of Trumpets, the SDG summit, the International Day of Peace, the Saudi-EU peace discussion about Israel-Palestinian peace, and the Revelation 12 sign that all appeared to fit together so nicely have passed.

Another possibility is that the Rapture could occur on the Day of Atonement, and Jesus will fulfill the Feast of Trumpets again later at his second coming. Some end-times watchers have even argued that we could look at the last fall feast, the Feast of Booths, as a potential Rapture high-watch time, but this is a less-popular opinion.

Others have looked at the upcoming full moon on September 29 as perhaps having some significance, although to me, that seems less relevant than some of these previous options.

So although as of the posting of this update, September 19 and the UN's SDG summit is officially over, there are still several more interesting days to look for in September, so I believe it's still a high-watch time for the Rapture.

Yet regardless of what happens, none of the signs of the end-times that Jesus said to watch for before his return have disappeared, and they will continue to increase in frequency and intensity just like he said they would (Mark 13:8, compare with Isaiah 66:9).

Until the Rapture happens, the Holy Spirit who is at work through the Church will continue to restrain the appearance of the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2:6-8). Things will remain generally 'normal' like in the days of Noah and Lot when people were eating, drinking, marrying, buying, and selling (Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 17:28-30) until the Rapture occurs and the sudden destruction of the Tribulation begins when they are saying "peace and safety" (1 Thessalonians 5:2-3).

So there is no reason for anyone who was particularly excited by this high-watch time to be disappointed. Nothing has really changed, and it's likely that the Revelation 12 sign meant something in relation to the end times and the Rapture, even if we don't know for sure what that is. Some have thought it is a seven-day 'warning sign' before the Rapture on the Feast of Atonement, but again, we would have to wait to see if that is true.

Hold on to your hope in Jesus' soon return at the Rapture, so that you don't lose the Crown of Righteousness that is promised to everyone who loves watching for Jesus' return (2 Timothy 4:8, Revelation 3:10-11).

Jesus is still coming back very soon, and it is still very important to tell others about him and how they can be saved by believing in him so they can have eternal life, and also, be ready for the Rapture whenever it does happen.

Appendix: Evidence for Jesus' Crucifixion in 30 AD

As mentioned earlier, scholars seem to be divided on what year Jesus was crucified, whether it was 30 AD, or 33 AD. This is relevant to end-times Bible prophecy if Jesus will return exactly two thousand years from the year he died, came back to life, and ascended to heaven.

The recent Messiah 2030 documentary presents some fascinating evidence from the Jews' own sources that may confirm that Jesus died in 30 AD, exactly 40 years before the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans.61

The Bible says when Jesus died, the thick curtain that separated the rest of the Temple from the Holy of Holies where God's presence dwelled suddenly tore in half, right from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38). So it would not be out of place for other supernatural signs to have also begun occurring in the Temple in 30 AD.

Supposedly, in the Jerusalem Talmud, it says,

Forty years before the destruction of the temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the [high priest's] left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open (Jacob Neunser, The Yerushalmi p.156-157).

The Babylonian Talmud supposedly agrees:

Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the lot ['for the Lord'] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

Some of these details (the 'lot' and the crimson thread/strap) refer to details of two animal sacrifices that occurred every year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur).

The lot for the sacrificial goat coming up in the high priest's left hand every year for 40 years is statistically extremely unlikely. The color change of the sacrificial goat's thread/strap should have signified that God had accepted the high priest's sacrifice and forgiven the people's sins for another year. The western light/lamp was supposedly used to re-light the rest of the temple's lamps the next day, and so the western lamp was given an extra-large reservoir of oil so that it should have been able to burn all night long.

To me, this is all extremely interesting, because it likely provides strong confirmation that Jesus did die in 30 C.E.

Since Jesus provided the single sacrifice that takes away all sin forever (Hebrews 7:27, 10:12-14, 1 John 2:2), there was no longer any need for the Jewish sacrificial system to allow people to have a right relationship with God. Now, everyone who believes in Jesus as their savior has all their sins forgiven once and for all (Acts 10:43).62

Theologically, the evidence mentioned about the scarlet thread/strap turning white fits well with the above Christian interpretation, just like Isaiah 1:18 and Daniel 12:10 imply.

The color scarlet is the color of blood, and without blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Hebrews 9:22). Yet God's perfect righteousness is often symbolized by the color of pure white (e.g., Daniel 7:9, 11:35, Matthew 17:2, Luke 9:29, Revelation 1:14, 7:14). 2 Corinthians 5:21 says "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Jesus is also described as our perfect, final high priest (Hebrews 7:23-28).

So the scarlet thread/strap turning white after a sacrifice for sin was made by Israel's high priest would have strong theological significance, as would the scarlet thread/strap no longer turning white after Jesus had made the final perfect sacrifice for sin in 30 AD.

In fact, the author of the Book of Hebrews warned the early Jewish Christians that if any of them returned to the system of animal sacrifices after believing in Jesus, it would be like they were rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, in a similar way to how Jesus had been rejected by the Jewish leaders before he was crucified (Hebrews 6:4-6, John 19:14-16, Mark 15:9-15).

Of course, currently, Jews who do not believe that Jesus was their Messiah reject this interpretation and have alternative explanations for such events. They also criticize this interpretation that is given by Christians.63

This criticism isn't surprising to Christians, since Paul said Israel became partly blinded/hardened to the fact that Jesus truly was their prophesied Messiah (e.g. see Isaiah 53:1-12) while the gospel goes out to the rest of the world (Romans 11:25, Acts 13:45-47).

Yet during the Tribulation, 144,000 Jews will come to faith in Jesus (Revelation 7:1-8), perhaps due to the preaching of the two witnesses during the first 1260 days of the Tribulation (Revelation 11:3).

By the end of the Tribulation, the surviving one-third of Israel will finally recognize that Jesus is their Messiah who is the promised descendant of David (Zechariah 12:10–14, Isaiah 9:6–7, Luke 1:31–32, Acts 2:22–36), and they will call out for him to save them from the Antichrist's armies that have gathered against Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:7–9, 13:8–9, 14:3-5, 14:12-15, Revelation 16:14-16).

This is the moment that Jesus promised his second coming would occur (Matthew 23:39, Luke 13:35).

Footnotes:

1. Grant R. Jeffrey, Countdown To The Apocalypse (Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbook Press, 2008), 15, 132; Mark Hitchcock, Who Is The Antichrist? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2011), 108-112, 121-124.
2. Gilad Sharon, "Ariel Sharon’s Son Explains Why Israel Cannot Return To Pre-1967 Borders," The Daily Beast, October 9, 2011, updated July 13, 2017. In 2011, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued similarly, saying "We can't go back to those indefensible lines" (NBC News, "'We can't go back': Israeli PM rejects 1967 border proposal," May 20, 2011). This is still the position of several ministers in Israel's government today (World Israel News Staff, "Israeli ministers to Biden: The land of Israel is ours, two state solution is suicide," World Israel News, July 10, 2023.)
3. "The hard core of the Abraham Accords is regional security cooperation against Iran." James Traub, "Netanyahu Has Drawn a Saudi-U.S. Road Map," Foreign Policy, February 8, 2023.
4. "All the Saudis I met, officially or not, on the record or off, made a point of saying that they are ready for diplomatic relations with Israel only if the Palestinian issue is resolved. It sounded to me like they were still following the old Saudi playbook: A resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have to come before normalization." Eric R. Mandel, "Will Saudi Arabia join the Abraham Accords?" Israel Hayom, March 11, 2022.
5. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 143, 911, 1038, 439, 1050.
6. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 143.
7. United Nations, "United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Summit 2023".
8. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, "We Need 7 Years of Accelerated, Transformative Action to Achieve SDGs," June 13, 2023.
9. United Nations, "UN 2023 SDG Summit."
10. "Covenant" in the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, eds. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 355. They define a covenant as an "oath-bound promise whereby one party solemnly pledges to bless or serve another party in some specified way."
11. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "Goal 17."
12. "The SDG Summit, in September 2023, must signal a genuine turning point. It must mobilize the political commitment and breakthroughs our world desperately needs. It must deliver a rescue plan for people and planet. At the center of this rescue plan, Heads of State and Government must recommit to seven years of accelerated, sustained, and transformative action, both nationally and internationally, to deliver on the promise of the SDGs." United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, "We Need 7 Years of Accelerated, Transformative Action to Achieve SDGs," June 13, 2023.
13. United Nations, "UN 2023 SDG Summit."
14. United Nations, "United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Summit 2023".
15. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, "We Need 7 Years of Accelerated, Transformative Action to Achieve SDGs," June 13, 2023.
16. Joe Hoft, "Red Pope Francis Calls for 'New Economic System' that Guarantees 'Food, Health, Economic and Social Rights'," The Gateway Pundit, October 16, 2022.
17. Le Monde with AFP, "Global Financial Pact summit opens with Macron's call for 'public finance shock'," Le Monde, June 22, 2023.
18. Kate Irwin, "UN Proposes Digital ID System for Banking and Mobile Payments," Inside Bitcoins, June 25, 2023.
19. Calum Handforth and Kendrick Lee, "How digital can close the 'identity gap'," United Nations Development Programme, May 19, 2022.
20. Aaron Kheriaty, "The WHO Treaty Is Tied to a Global Digital Passport and ID System," Brownstone Institute, May 24, 2022.
21. "As of July 2022, there were nearly 100 CBDCs in research or development stages and two fully launched: the eNaira in Nigeria." Andrew Stanley, "The Ascent of CBDCs," International Monetary Fund, September 2022.
22. Leo Hohmann, "Worldcoin CEO: Global Digital Currency Tied To Global Digital ID Will Soon Be Required 'Whether You Like It Or Not'," The Gateway Pundit, July 21, 2023.
23. Ahmed Eljechtimi, "IMF working on global central bank digital currency platform," Reuters, June 19, 2023.
24. Jacob Nordangard, "Global Digital ID Coming On Heels Of Coronavirus Panic Of 2020," Technocracy News & Trends, April 6, 2020.
25. Ian Austen, "Canada Ends Its Freeze on Hundreds of Accounts Tied to Protests," The New York Times, February 22, 2022.
26. United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs, "We Need 7 Years of Accelerated, Transformative Action to Achieve SDGs," June 13, 2023.
27. Neil Murphy, "King Charles unveils climate countdown clock at London summit," The National News, June 28, 2023.
28. Messiah 2030 - The Prophetic Timeline (Part 1) is currently available on YouTube here, or on their website https://watch.messiah2030.com/. However, this documentary does not talk about the Rapture in relation to Jesus' second coming, and on their discussion forums, they seem to deny the biblical teaching of a pre-Tribulation Rapture. Yet this theological error does not significantly impact the documentary's conclusions regarding a possible year for Jesus' second coming.
29. Within the span of years between 30 AD to 33 AD, it was only the Passovers on April 7 of 30 AD and April 3 of 33 AD where the Day of Preparation occurred on a Friday, which lines up with what the Bible says about the day when Jesus was crucified (John 19:14, Luke 23:54, Mark 15:42, Matthew 27:62). See "Dating the Crucifixion" at BethlehemStar.com.
30. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 4-5. Nadler's book provides more details on Israel's feasts and how they are fulfilled in Jesus both historically and in the future. Similar arguments can be found on many Christian apologetic websites that focus on preaching the gospel to Jews.
31. Sam Nadler, Messiah in the Feasts of Israel, Revised Edition (Charlotte, NC: Word of Messiah Ministries, 2010), 108.
32. Jeff Van Hatten, "No One Knows The Day Or Hour, A Hebrew Idiom,", FaithWriters 11/05/20.
33. I don't have space to discuss this idea in more detail now, but you can watch several in-depth videos on this topic on the YouTube channel Generation2434.
34. United Nations, "International Day of Peace."
35. United Nations, "International Day of Peace."
36. United Nations, "International Day of Peace."
37. Kent Masing, "Medvedev Threatens To Use Russia's Arsenal Of 'Inhumane Weapons'; Warns World War 3 Is 'Getting Closer',", International Business Times July 12, 2023.
38. Robert Farley, "5 places World War III could start in 2023," Business Insider, January 3, 2023.
39. Danielle Ziri, "Israel commits to new UN sustainable development agenda," The Jerusalem Post, October 11, 2015.
40. "UN Secretary-General Outlines Priorities for the UN for 2023," IISD SDG Knowledge Hub, February 8, 2023.
41. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner, "Right of return of Palestinian refugees must be prioritised over political considerations: UN experts," June 21, 2023.
42. Anadolu, "UN chief reaffirms his support for two-state solution in meeting with Israeli president," The Nation, July 21, 2023. Anadolu, "Pope calls on Israel, Palestine to resume dialogue amid ongoing escalation," The Nation, July 10, 2023.
43. Anadolu, "'Stop encroaching upon Palestinian land,’ China tells Israel," The Nation, May 25, 2023.
44. Jacob Magid, "Saudis co-hosting UN event aimed at revamping Israeli-Palestinian peace process", The Times of Israel, September 14, 2023.
45. Tovah Lazaroff, "Saudi Arabia, EU launch new initiative for Israeli-Palestinian peace", The Jersualem Post, September 19, 2023.
46. Tovah Lazaroff, "Biden: US to work for Israeli normalization and two states", The Jerusalem Post, September 19, 2023.
47. James Rogers, "Time for the D10 to replace the G7?" June 16, 2020.
48. Vinod Dsouza, "5 New Countries To Join BRICS Alliance in August," Watcher.guru, June 30, 2023.
49. Tim Cocks, "More than 40 nations interested in joining BRICS, South Africa says," Reuters, July 20, 2023.
50. Mihaela Papa, "How long will the dollar last as the world’s default currency? The BRICS nations are gathering in South Africa this August with it on the agenda," Fortune, June 25, 2023.
51. Oliver Stuenkel, "BRICS Faces a Reckoning," Foreign Policy, June 25, 2023.
52. Astrid Prange, "A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West," DW, April 10, 2023.
53. "BRICS Summit Calls for Establishment of Independent Palestinian State," The Palestine Chronicle, July 24, 2023.
54. Carien du Plessis, Anait Miridzhanian and Bhargav Acharya, "BRICS welcomes new members in push to reshuffle world order", Reuters, August 24, 2023.
55. "Argentina will not join the BRICS group; Alberto Fernandez has renounced participation in the summit", The Rio Times, August 21, 2023.
56. "Main opposition candidates against Argentina joining BRICS", MercoPress, August 26, 2023.
57. See "Dating Christ's Birth" at BethlehemStar.com.
58. See "Dating the Crucifixion" at BethlehemStar.com.
59. "UN General Assembly adopts declaration to accelerate SDGs", UN News, September 18, 2023.
60. God a Minute, YouTube.com
61. See the documentary Messiah 2030 - The Prophetic Timeline (Part 1), starting at 1 hour 31 minutes on YouTube here or at https://watch.messiah2030.com/. This information is confirmed and explained more from a Jewish perspective by Tovia Singer, "Why Didn't the Red Ribbon on the Head of the Scapegoat Turn White in 30 C.E.?" Outreach Judaism, although Tovia does not accept the Christian interpretation of the evidence mentioned here.
62. Yet the Bible prophesies that animal sacrifices will be reinstated during Jesus' Millennial Kingdom in a limited way (Ezekiel 43:18-27, 44:10-16, 45:22), and at least the Feast of Booths will be celebrated worldwide (Zechariah 14:16-19). I wonder if these sacrifices during the Millennial Kingdom are intended to remind the people who will be alive during that time of Jesus' past sacrificial death for sin, since the people will not be seeing death, violence, and blood as an everyday part of their blessed experience (Isaiah 11:1-9, 65:20-23).
63. Tovia Singer, "Why Didn't the Red Ribbon on the Head of the Scapegoat Turn White in 30 C.E.?" Outreach Judaism. Despite Tovia's alternative explanation, Tovia does not directly cite any textual evidence to support the claim that these unusual signs did not begin happening immediately and consistently after 30 AD.

Read This When Millions of People Suddenly Disappear

2023-09-13T00:00:00+00:00

Have millions or even billions of people around the world suddenly disappeared all at once, in the blink of an eye? Even perhaps including some of your friends and family?

Is the world full of fear, confusion, and chaos as a result?

Are the world's leading experts claiming that it was a mass abduction by aliens? Or maybe some shift into a new era or dimension of consciousness?

If so, I want to reassure you that no, it wasn't. And all those people who disappeared are completely safe.

In fact, they're now happier than they have ever been in their entire lives. You don't need to worry about them.

In this post below, I'll explain what has happened, what it means, and what you need to know for your immediate future, because things are about to become very dangerous for everyone who has been left behind on Earth.

Where Did All The Missing People Go?

This event, although it has been shocking to you, has actually been known about for just a little less than two thousand years. You've probably even heard it mentioned before.

It's called the Rapture, and it's described in the Bible:

For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

At the exact same moment, God changed the bodies of the people who disappeared from mortal to immortal:

After everyone who was raptured met Jesus in the clouds, we went from there to heaven, where Jesus has been preparing places for us to stay with him. Jesus said:

Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. (John 14:1-3)

So that's what just happened. Everybody who suddenly disappeared had, at some point in their lives, believed that Jesus Christ had died for their sins so that they could have the free gift of eternal life:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, NRSVA)

If all or at least some children have suddenly disappeared also, it is because they fit into one of two categories:

They were old enough to have personally believed in Jesus, and did so.
They were too young to have personally believed in Jesus, or were older but mentally incapable of doing so. But God, in his love and mercy, chose to spare them from having to experience the terrible events that will be occurring on Earth over the next several years.

I believe this second category will definitely include the young children of Christian parents, since God wouldn't rapture the parents and leave their helpless children behind. But it could potentially include all children who were not yet old enough to have personally rejected Jesus' offer of salvation, since we know that Jesus loves children very much (Matthew 19:13-15, Matthew 18:1-6).

There is no specific age cutoff given in the Bible for children in relation to the Rapture. Some scholars argue that the age at which God counts people to be personally responsible for their beliefs may even be as high as twenty, based on Numbers 32:11, as well as modern scientific studies which suggest that a person's brain is only fully developed around that age. If so, it is possible that perhaps everyone who is under twenty years old may be taken to heaven in the Rapture.

The concept of the Rapture has been mocked for many years (2 Peter 3:3-4), despite there being several convincing Biblical arguments for it. Even now, authority figures and other experts of various sorts (maybe even some pastors and priests) are probably telling you that whatever just happened wasn't the Rapture.

But hopefully, if everything has happened as described above, this will convince you that the Bible is true and that Christians who warned about the coming Rapture were telling you the truth.

And if you believe that the Rapture did just happen, then you will hopefully care about what else the Bible says will happen in the next few years. Christians who have studied Bible prophecy refer to this upcoming period of time as the Tribulation.

What Do The Rapture And The Tribulation Mean?

If you missed the Rapture, the good news is that there's still time for you to believe in Jesus as your savior.

However, you will be heading into the Tribulation.

Jesus warned that during the Tribulation,

This will be the worst time of suffering since the beginning of the world, and nothing this terrible will ever happen again. If God doesn't make the time shorter, no one will be left alive. But because of God's chosen ones, he will make the time shorter. (Matthew 24:21-22, CEV)

The Tribulation includes all the events that will occur as described in chapters 6 to 19 of the Biblical book of Revelation.

It ends with the second coming of Jesus Christ, along with his heavenly armies of saints and angels. Jesus will destroy the armies of the world who will make one last-ditch attempt to oppose him, and Jesus will then set up his kingdom that will last for 1000 years (Revelation 19:11-21, Jude 1:14-15, Revelation 20:1-6).

There may be some period of time between when the Rapture occurs and when the Tribulation starts. This gap could be perhaps as long as weeks, months, or even a year or two, because it will take some time for the world to get reorganized and deal with the chaos the Rapture caused. But I don't think the gap will be decades.

That's because the purpose of the Rapture was to prevent all true Christians (and perhaps all children) from experiencing God's wrath, which will be poured out on all the God-rejecting people who were left behind on Earth.

Jesus promised all true Christians who live before the Rapture that "I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world" (Revelation 3:10, NLT).

God also promised, through the Apostle Paul's writings, that Christians who believed in Jesus before the Rapture would not experience God's wrath and judgment, which would come on the world suddenly and surprise everyone who wasn't paying attention:

For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, "There is peace and security", then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labour pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness... For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him. (1 Thessalonians 5:2-10, NRSVA)

Christians who studied Bible prophecy and paid attention to current events have warned for many decades that the world is approaching the Tribulation. We could see the signs of the end times increasing in frequency and intensity, just like contractions do for a pregnant woman in labor, as mentioned in the verse above. But this was only the lead-up to the Tribulation.

Whenever the Rapture happens, afterward, there will no longer be a single true believer in Jesus left on the planet. This makes the world ready for God's testing and divine judgment.

Therefore, I believe the events of the Tribulation will begin quite quickly after the Rapture.

What Will Happen During the Tribulation?

The Tribulation will involve God sending twenty-one specific divine judgments on the world. These judgments are grouped into three sets, and are represented symbolically as Jesus opening the seals on a scroll, as angels blowing trumpets, or as angels pouring out bowls of divine wrath onto the world.

Here is a very brief summary of these future judgments:

The 7 Seals

Seal 1: The revelation of the Antichrist, a.k.a. "the Beast" (Revelation 6:1-2, 2 Thessalonians 2:3). There is more information about him later in this post, to help you identify him when he appears.
Seal 2: Outbreak of worldwide wars and violence (Revelation 6:3-4, Matthew 24:6, Matthew 24:12).
Seal 3: Some sort of economic disaster and/or severe famine, which means that for most people, a day's wage will only buy a quart of wheat or 3 quarts of barley (Revelation 6:5-6).
Seal 4: One quarter of the world's population die from violence, famine, pestilence, and animal attacks (Revelation 6:7-8).
Seal 5: People who believed in Jesus after the Rapture may begin to be killed for their faith, just like many martyrs were in the past (Revelation 6:9-11), thus leading to a great number of people standing before God in heaven (Revelation 7:9-17, Matthew 24:9-10).
Seal 6: Something causes an earthquake that moves every mountain and island from their places, and meteorites strike many cities (Revelation 6:12-17).
Seal 7: Thunder, lightning, and an earthquake occur as the Trumpet judgments are prepared (Revelation 8:1-5).

The 7 Trumpets

Trumpet 1: A third of the trees and all green grass is burned up (Revelation 8:7).
Trumpet 2: Something like a large, burning mountain impacts the ocean, turning a third of it to blood, killing a third of the sea life, and destroying a third of the ships (Revelation 8:8-9).
Trumpet 3: A star from heaven falls that contaminates a third of the freshwater streams and rivers and people die from the bitter water (Revelation 8:10-11).
Trumpet 4: All sunlight, moonlight, and starlight reaching the earth is reduced by a third (Revelation 8:12).
Trumpet 5: Demonic locusts are released on the world that sting and torment people for five months (Revelation 9:1-11).
Trumpet 6: A third of humanity is killed by fire, smoke, and sulfur, perhaps centered around the Euphrates river (Revelation 9:18, 9:14).
Trumpet 7: An earthquake, lightning, and hail, as the seven bowl judgments are prepared (Revelation 11:15-19).

The 7 Bowls

Bowl 1: Painful sores break out on people who took the Mark of the Beast and worshiped the Antichrist (Revelation 16:2).
Bowl 2: The sea somehow becomes like the "blood of a corpse" and everything living in it dies (Revelation 16:3).
Bowl 3: The freshwater rivers also become like blood (Revelation 16:4-7).
Bowl 4: The sun scorches people with intense heat, causing them to cry out in pain (Revelation 16:8-9).
Bowl 5: The Antichrist's kingdom is plunged into darkness and people moan from their sores (Revelation 16:10-11).
Bowl 6: The Euphrates river dries up to allow the kings from the east to bring their armies for the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 16:12-16).
Bowl 7: The strongest earthquake in history occurs, many cities are destroyed, and extremely heavy hail falls (Revelation 16:17-21).

This might all sound unbelievable now, but similar judgments happened back before the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, to convince Pharaoh to let the Israelites leave (Exodus 7:4-5). You can read about these judgments in the Biblical book of Exodus, chapters 7 to 12.

God has the power to do whatever he wants, and so I think even if we don't understand every detail of these judgments now, they will all be fulfilled perfectly. If you are alive on Earth during the Tribulation, you should be able to compare what you see in the book of Revelation to current events that are happening, as irrefutable proof that what the world is experiencing is divine judgment.

Additionally, during the Tribulation, two prophets will appear in Jerusalem and will prophesy for 1,260 days (Revelation 11:3):

They have the power to shut the sky, that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague, as often as they desire. (Revelation 11:6)

So that will also be going on along with all the rest of these judgments.

Finally, the battle of Armageddon happens, when the Antichrist will bring his armies down toward Jerusalem and try to make a final stand against Jesus who returns in the clouds with the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:11-19). But Jesus will win, the Antichrist's armies will be destroyed, and the Antichrist and False Prophet will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 19:20-21).

When we consider all of these divine judgments that are prophesied to occur, it makes sense why Jesus says the Tribulation will be the worst time in humanity's history, and that if the Tribulation wasn't shortened, everyone would die (Matthew 24:21-22).

It's Not Too Late For You

Now, if you are reading this after millions or maybe even billions of people have suddenly disappeared, then you have missed the Rapture.

And due to all the divine judgments that will be happening over the next few years on Earth, there is a high chance you will end up dying in one way or another (Amos 5:18-19). So now is a really good time to make sure you know what your eternal destiny will be.

It's important for you to know that every human being is a sinner (Romans 3:10, 3:23), even those of us who were raptured.

Being a sinner means that we all act or have acted in ways that are not perfectly good or loving. Sinning is a violation of God's instructions for how all people should behave, which is summed up as loving God and loving others (Luke 10:27). And committing even one sin means we deserve eternal death:

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

But even now, it's not too late for you to choose to believe in Jesus as your personal savior, who died on the cross for your sins. He experienced the suffering and death that you justly deserve, to satisfy God's justice and pay the divine penalty for your sins, so that you can have eternal life for free.

It's extremely easy to accept this free offer of eternal life:

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

So if you have believed in Jesus, now, even if you die, you can be assured that someday you will be resurrected and will receive an immortal body that will never age, get sick, or be able to be injured or destroyed. You'll be reunited with everyone who disappeared in the Rapture, and with all the people who believed in God throughout history.

You'll get to live forever with God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, and all the saints in the New Heaven and New Earth, where there will be no more crying, suffering, or death (Revelation 21, Hebrews 12:22-24).

There is far more that could be said about all of this, but for now, that's enough. I truly hope you have taken this advice to believe in Jesus.

Whether you have believed in Jesus or not, please continue reading, because there is a very important warning you need to hear.

A Warning About The Antichrist, False Prophet, and Mark of the Beast

After the Rapture, the next major thing to watch for is the appearance of the Antichrist.

He will likely appear to be a good guy with incredible charisma and intelligence. He will rapidly rise up in power and influence over the world, initially, through peaceful means (Revelation 6:1-2).

Ten world leaders will hand over their authority to him (Daniel 7:24, Revelation 17:12-13). He will confirm some sort of covenant between "many" that is designed to last for seven years (Daniel 9:27).

But don't trust him or be fooled by him, because he's actually working for Satan (Revelation 13:4-9, Matthew 24:4-5, Matthew 24:23-27).

Most people will follow him and be deceived by his lies:

When the wicked one appears, Satan will pretend to work all kinds of miracles, wonders, and signs. Lost people will be fooled by his evil deeds. They could be saved, but they will refuse to love the truth and accept it. So God will make sure they are fooled into believing a lie. All of them will be punished, because they would rather do evil than believe the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12, CEV)

Halfway through the Tribulation, the Antichrist will declare himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, in Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-18):

He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:4, NIV)

As a result, the Antichrist will start persecuting anyone who believes in Jesus or who refuses to worship the Antichrist as God (Revelation 13:7-8, Daniel 7:25).

There will also be a powerful religious leader (the False Prophet) who will endorse the Antichrist and do miracles for him, which will be extremely impressive and deceive even more people:

It [the False Prophet] performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in the sight of all; and by the signs that it is allowed to perform on behalf of the beast, it deceives the inhabitants of earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet lived; and it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast could even speak and cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be killed. (Revelation 13:13-15, NRSVA)

Even more importantly, the False Prophet will require everyone to take the Mark of the Beast or be cut off from all ability to buy and sell:

Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person. Its number is six hundred and sixty-six. (Revelation 13:16-18, NRSVA)

So this warning is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT to pay attention to:

That's because:

So please, just don't accept the Mark!

I'm convinced that if you have truly believed in Jesus, the Holy Spirit will give you the ability to say no to taking the Mark, no matter what suffering you might have to face, even including torture or death.

You won't be able to take the Mark of the Beast because your eternal salvation is guaranteed the moment you believed in Jesus. You can never lose it or do anything to renounce it, due to how the Holy Spirit lives inside you now:

There are some end-times Bible teachers who argue that this divine sealing was only for Christians who lived before the Rapture. These teachers argue that people who believe in Jesus during the Tribulation (a.k.a. Tribulation saints) will have to keep themselves saved by their own effort.

But this can't be true, because eternal salvation is always by God's grace alone, through faith in Christ alone, and has nothing to do with our actions/works, or else people could brag that they did something to earn their salvation:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

This verse would still apply to the Tribulation saints, and not just to Christians who believed in Jesus before the Rapture. There will not be some people who receive eternal life only by faith in God, and others who have to do something to earn it. As Charles Ryrie explains:

The basis of salvation in every age is the death of Christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations.1

So in all human history, everyone who has ever been saved had faith in God, and was saved only because Jesus died for them. Yet the specific details of what these saved people knew about God and about God's promise to send Jesus to die for their sins varied, since other than believing in God and/or Jesus, no specific theological knowledge is necessary for salvation.

How faithful people lived out their faith also varied, depending on what God called them to do. Some examples of difficult things that God called his faithful people to do can be seen in the Bible, the book of Hebrews, chapter 11.

So for believers in Jesus during the Tribulation, your faith will be demonstrated by standing strong and refusing to take the Mark of the Beast. Because if it were possible for you to be both sealed with the Holy Spirit and take the Mark of the Beast, there would be a conflict with regard to your eternal destiny. God won't let that happen.

Therefore, you can be confident that God will give you the ability to stand strong and perhaps even face death as a testimony of your faith in him. But don't worry: if you are killed for your faith, you'll be resurrected and rewarded by ruling with Jesus when he returns at his Second Coming (Revelation 20:4).

What You Should Do Now If The Rapture Has Happened

If the Rapture has happened, then here's what I would strongly recommend you should do as soon as you can:

If you didn't do it earlier, please believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you can have eternal life. Then no matter what happens, your eternal future in heaven is guaranteed (Ephesians 1:13-14).
Pray to God and ask him to give you strength and to protect you and provide for you, and to give you courage to stand strong in your faith during the persecution that will be coming. Also pray for discernment to not be deceived by lies and deception, and to have wisdom to know what to do.
Find or buy a Bible, because I suspect they will quickly be banned, confiscated, and destroyed. I also suspect the authorities will ban and destroy other Christian books and take down Christian websites. The homes of people who were raptured should have at least one Bible, and most churches store Bibles in their pews, offices, or libraries. Keep some extra Bibles around to give to others who have also chosen to believe in Jesus who don't already have one.
Start reading the Bible for yourself, and pray that the Holy Spirit will help you understand it. I would recommend for you to begin with the book of John, then read Matthew or Luke. The book of Revelation, especially chapters 6 to 19, will give you an outline of what to expect in the future, although some of it is presented symbolically. The book of Psalms may also be comforting and reassuring to you. If you're lucky, the homes of people who were raptured might also contain other Bible study resources and books on theology that could be helpful for you. But don't just believe everything in these other books without verifying it with the Bible (Acts 17:11).
Tell your family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors that the Rapture has just happened, and warn them to not believe whatever lies are being told by the authorities and experts. Warn them about what will be happening during the Tribulation, and tell them that they also need to believe in Jesus, and to not take the Mark of the Beast.
Begin stockpiling food, medicine, and basic supplies to help get you through the third Seal judgement and survive without taking the Mark of the Beast. Share generously with others in need (Matthew 25:34-40), and trust that God will help you have enough (Matthew 6:25-33).
Pray that God will give you wisdom about where you should go and what you should do in case you need to leave your current location due to disasters or violence.
Find a group of other new Christians to meet with to support and encourage each other, to pray for each other, to study the Bible, and to worship God together. Be careful, though, because there will be many churches still operating after the Rapture because they were run and attended by people who weren't truly Christians. Many of these churches might be promoting a new worldwide false religion that will persecute real Christians who will refuse to go along with it (Revelation 17). If the church you find to attend isn't talking about how you need to believe in Jesus to have eternal life, which is fully a gift of God's grace, and isn't warning you about the Tribulation, or about not taking the Mark of the Beast, or about not worshiping the Antichrist, I would go elsewhere.

What You Should Do Now if the Rapture Has Not Yet Happened

If the Rapture has not yet happened, then here's my list of what I think you should do now while you still can:

If you haven't done so before, believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you can have eternal life. Then look forward to one day being with Jesus, whether at the Rapture or perhaps sooner.
In the meantime, try to find a faithful church to attend which preaches that we are saved only by putting our faith in Christ, and not by anything we can do. (If you can't find a good church, I'd recommend watching pastor JD Farag's online services at jdfarag.org while you keep looking for a home church). Read your Bible and make time each day to pray to God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit to get to know him better, and to be strengthened and comforted in difficult times.
If you know people who might be left behind, talk to them now about Jesus, and about the Rapture and the Tribulation. Offer to give them a Bible, if you have a spare one, or buy them one as a gift. Warn them about what will happen, and encourage them to put their faith in Jesus so they don't miss the Rapture. Pray that God will soften their hearts and open their ears and eyes to the truth. Or, in the worst case, pray that after the Rapture, they will wake up and realize you were telling them the truth, and that they will believe in Jesus then.
Do good things for God while you still can, to make a difference in the world and earn heavenly rewards (1 Corinthians 3:12-15, Matthew 25:14-30, John 9:4, Luke 19:13).

Finally, I would encourage you to write a letter like the one I've written in this blog post to your currently non-Christian family, friends, or anyone else who might find it once the Rapture happens. Put a copy of your letter with your will or other important documents, and also put a copy in an obvious place where it will be seen by someone who enters your home to look for you (or for supplies) after you are raptured.

In your letter, do like I did earlier in this post: explain why you have suddenly disappeared, where you are now, and what will be happening next, and for people to avoid the Mark of the Beast at all costs. Encourage your reader to put their faith in Jesus, and give them any last wishes you might want to tell them.

Feel free to copy parts of this blog post to make use of in your own letter, or simply use the 'Print This Post' button at the top of this post to print the entire post either as a .pdf or a hard copy. If you want to include even more information about the end times, you can also copy parts of or print out any of my other relevant blog posts:

If you have unbelieving family members, friends, or roommates, you could also explain to them now why you are writing this letter and where you are putting it, so that when the Rapture happens, they can find it for themselves if they don't want to read it now.

(Of course, if they do want to read it now, then that's a fantastic opportunity to share your faith with them, and to encourage them to believe in Jesus so that they can be raptured too!)

Personally, I also have a few books on my bookshelf that I've clustered together in plain sight and wrapped with a piece of white paper, on which I wrote in large text: "PLEASE READ these books in case of SUDDEN DISAPPEARANCE of MILLIONS of PEOPLE". I hope that if my landlord, emergency services, or a looter comes into my apartment after the Rapture, they'll see the note and be intrigued enough to take the books. For me, these books include:

a Bible.
Charles C. Bing, Simply By Grace: An Introduction to God's Life Changing Gift (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2009). This is my favorite short and clear book about the gospel and the Christian life.
John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011). I recommend this book as a clear and easy to understand commentary on the book of Revelation. Another good option is Tim Lahaye, Revelation Unveiled (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999).
Mark Hitchcock, Who Is The Antichrist? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2011). This book should help those left behind identify the Antichrist and not fall for his deception.
Gary Bates, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, Updated and Expanded (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Book Publishers, 2011). This book offers a persuasive Christian explanation for what 'aliens' actually are (i.e., demons). I included it because I think the Rapture will most likely be explained away as a mass alien abduction, and I don't want people to fall for that lie.

So you could also go through your books and see if there are any useful ones you can point people to after the Rapture. Or, maybe consider buying some of the above if you want some good resources to leave behind for others.

Conclusion

Based on everything that's happening in the world now, I think we can see things being set up for the first few seal judgments and other signs of the end times. The seven-year covenant with 'many' may also be on the verge of being confirmed.

So I would encourage you to write your letter and talk to your non-Christian family and friends about Jesus and the Rapture very soon, because Jesus could come take Christians to heaven at any moment.

Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near (Luke 21:28).

Footnotes:

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2007), 134.

Will All Christians Be Raptured?

2023-09-11T00:00:00+00:00

Sometimes when I bring up the topic of the Rapture, it seems to make some Christians nervous, rather than excited.

Yet the promise that Jesus will one day suddenly return in the clouds to resurrect all deceased Christians, transform all living Christians from mortal to immortal, and then take us all to heaven with him before the Tribulation begins is called our blessed hope (Titus 2:13). Paul tells Christians to encourage each other by reminding each other of the coming Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:18).

One reason that many Christians may not be looking forward to the Rapture is because they were told that only some Christians will be raptured, while the rest will be left behind on Earth to suffer and be martyred during the Tribulation. These Christians might worry that they will be one of the ones that will be left behind. This is called the partial Rapture theory.

But if a partial Rapture were a possibility, then instead of the Rapture being a source of encouragement, hope, and joy for Christians as the Bible says it should be, the Rapture would become something to fear. So already, we can see that this argument that only some Christians will be raptured is false, because it removes the encouragement that Christians should have when they think about the Rapture.

Fortunately, there are many more solid biblical reasons why we can be confident that all true Christians will be included in the Rapture. In this post I will lay out these reasons, and also explain a few verses that are often misused to teach that not every Christian will be raptured.

I hope that by the end of this post, if you are a Christian, you will never again worry about being left behind, so that you can look forward to the Rapture with excitement and hope.

A Disclaimer

First, there is one thing I need to address. It is true that there are going to be many "Christians" who will be left behind when the Rapture happens. This is because although they call themselves Christians, these people have never personally trusted in Jesus as their Savior who died for their sins so they can have eternal life.

Some of these people will likely be the first ones who will speak out after the Rapture and deny that it just happened. They will say "Well, I'm a Christian, and I'm still here, so it wasn't the Rapture." Entire churches may even still be here after the Rapture if their pastors never preached the true gospel to their congregations.

Sadly, these "Christians" will have thought they were true Christians because of how they may have:

lived in a 'Christian' country
been 'good' people
had Christian parents or grandparents
attended worship services on Sundays
participated in Sunday school as a child
celebrated Christmas and Easter
read the Bible
were baptized
participated in Communion/the Eucharist/the Lord's Supper
tithed
volunteered at church in various ways
worked as pastors, priests, or other high-level church officials
written theology books
taught at Bible colleges

Or really, you could add to this list almost anything else that might define a Christian other than having personally believed in Jesus as one's Savior.

Jesus warns that people can do all sorts of amazing things such as prophesying in his name and casting out demons, but still not have a personal relationship with him which comes through faith (Matthew 7:22-23). So if you think you are a Christian for one of the above reasons, but you have never admitted that you are a sinner who needs Jesus to die to pay for your sins, then you should expect to be left behind at the Rapture.

However, as long as the Rapture has not yet happened, there's still time for you to believe in Jesus and be saved, and then you will be ready for whenever the Rapture happens. If you would like more details about the gospel and how to accept Jesus as your Savior, check out my post here.

So in the rest of this post, when I use the term Christian, I am referring to true Christians, which are those people who have personally trusted in Jesus for eternal life.

All Christians Will Be Raptured

Now, the quickest way to disprove the idea that some true Christians will be left behind at the Rapture is to review the key Bible verses about the Rapture:

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18, NRSV)

Note how there is nothing in the above verse which says that only some of the Christians who are still alive at this time will be caught up to be with Jesus. If it were a possibility that some true Christians would be left behind at the Rapture, then why didn't Paul mention this possibility and warn his audience about how to avoid being left behind?

Usually, those false teachers who argue that only some living Christians will be raptured make it dependent on the individual Christian's personal holiness or worthiness.

Yet what the false teachers often forget is that the Rapture is not just an event for living Christians, but also for deceased Christians. Just as the above verses in 1 Thessalonians say, those who have died after putting their faith in Jesus will be resurrected, and then living Christians will be caught up along with them to meet Jesus in the clouds.

I have never heard anyone who claims that only some living Christians will be caught up also argue that only some of the deceased Christians will be resurrected at the Rapture. I suppose that's because you can't scare Christians who are already dead. So if false teachers want to scare Christians by threatening them with not being raptured unless they do what the false teacher says, the false teachers naturally have to target only living Christians.

However, to be consistent, these false teachers should at least claim that only some deceased Christians will also be resurrected at the Rapture. This is because there is nothing different between deceased Christians and living Christians in terms of personal holiness or worthiness that could explain why all deceased Christians will be resurrected at the Rapture, but only some living Christians will be included in the Rapture.

After all, no Christian has ever become perfect or sinless in this life, because we are all sinners: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). Jesus instructed us to pray "forgive us our sins" (Luke 11:4) as part of the Lord's Prayer because he knew that there would never come a time in our lives when we would no longer sin.

So all Christians who have died were not living perfectly holy lives, and all Christians who are alive at the Rapture will not be living perfectly holy lives, either.

The same is true for any other criteria that someone might want to use to argue that only these sorts of Christians will be caught up at the Rapture. To be consistent, people who argue this way would need to say that only some of the deceased Christians would also be resurrected at the Rapture (the ones who met the particular conditions to be included in the Rapture).

However, there is nothing in the Bible that says there is some particular condition that deceased Christians must have met before they died in order to be resurrected at the Rapture. Likewise, there is nothing that gives any particular condition(s) that living Christians must meet in order to be included in the Rapture.

If false teachers argue that the last generation of Christians living before the Tribulation are so immoral that some of these Christians will need to be left behind in order to be 'purified' by suffering in the Tribulation, then these false teachers clearly haven't read 1 and 2 Corinthians to see the scandalous things that were going on in that church. Yet Paul never hinted that the Corinthian Christians were not true Christians. Instead, he called them his brothers and sisters (1 Corinthians 1:10, NRSV) and said they were sanctified in Christ (1 Corinthians 1:2).

The result is the same in any other period of church history. There was no time when Christians weren't struggling with sins of various sorts, some of which we would be shocked by if we imagined them being committed by people in our churches today.

Thus, if some Christians today need to be spiritually purified by suffering in the Tribulation, then why do all the deceased Christians get to skip such 'purifying' when they were not any better? So the argument that only living Christians need purification doesn't make any sense, except, again, if the argument is being made by a false teacher who is trying to scare Christians by threatening them with missing the Rapture.

So if all deceased Christians will be resurrected at the Rapture, then all living Christians will be transformed and caught up at the Rapture. To argue anything else is to be inconsistent.

Now, although this thought experiment was worthwhile in order to point out flaws in the false teachers' logic, ultimately, it doesn't matter because in another verse, we are told explicitly that all Christians who are alive at the Rapture will be included:

Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:51-53, NRSV)

Did you catch that? We will all be changed. The Bible couldn't be any clearer than that. Therefore, if you believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you can have eternal life, then you will be included in the Rapture.

The Spiritual Dangers of the Partial Rapture Theory

After further reflection, I've come to realize that the false teaching that only some true Christians will be raptured is actually not only theologically wrong, but also rather dangerous.

This is because, once the Rapture happens, as mentioned earlier, it might mislead some of these left-behind people who mistakenly thought they were Christians into thinking they are still truly saved, although they didn't qualify to participate in the Rapture.

In this way, the theory of a partial Rapture would keep these left-behind people from waking up and realizing that actually, they were never truly Christians at all, and that they still need to truly put their faith in Jesus Christ alone for their eternal salvation.

Yet the idea that Christians need to be holy enough in order to be raptured can lead to spiritual problems for true Christians, too. In particular, I see two main risks in the false teaching of a partial Rapture:

It can lead to an attitude of pride in Christians who believe they are somehow good enough to be included in the Rapture. Consequently, they may look down on other Christians who they believe do not meet whatever arbitrary and unbiblical standard they think is required for someone to be raptured.
It leads Christians to trust in their own ability to meet whatever arbitrary and unbiblical standard they have invented in order to be included in the Rapture, rather than trusting in Jesus alone. But judging oneself to be 'good enough' to be raptured because of personal holiness, good works, or even 'watchfulness' for the Rapture is very similar to the people in Matthew 7:21-23 who think they will be eternally saved because of the good things they have done.

Now I'm not saying that everyone who believes in a partial Rapture is not truly saved because they are trusting in their works for their salvation, rather than in Jesus.

But I do think the logic of the false teaching about a partial Rapture is very similar to the idea that Christians need to do enough good works in order to be truly saved. In effect, both teachings place all the credit for our salvation (whether that's our eternal salvation, or our salvation from the Tribulation via the Rapture) on Christians' good works, rather than on our faith in Jesus' death for our sins on the cross.

For more on this problem of trusting in our good works for our salvation, see my posts on 'treadmill' theology, and also why it isn't true that all 'good' people will be eternally saved.

So any Christian who truly believes that we are eternally saved by putting our faith in Christ alone, should also, if they want to be consistent, say that this is also the only criteria a person must meet in order to be included in the Rapture.

The Church Is The Body of Christ

A further argument for why all Christians will be included in the Rapture comes from how the Church—made up of all true Christians regardless of their particular denomination—is described as being the body of Christ.

Paul used this analogy a few different times in his letters:

The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ. Some of us are Jews, some are Gentiles, some are slaves, and some are free. But we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, NLT)

Just as our bodies have many parts and each part has a special function, so it is with Christ's body. We are many parts of one body, and we all belong to each other. (Romans 12:4-5, NLT)

Instead, we will speak the truth in love, growing in every way more and more like Christ, who is the head of his body, the church. He makes the whole body fit together perfectly. As each part does its own special work, it helps the other parts grow, so that the whole body is healthy and growing and full of love. (Ephesians 4:15-16, NLT)

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Notice here that in two of the verses above it is the Holy Spirit that joins individual believers together to form the body of Christ. We also know that no one can say that Jesus is Lord without having the Holy Spirit in them (1 Corinthians 12:3).

Therefore, if you have trusted in Jesus as your Savior, and you can say Jesus is Lord, then you have the Holy Spirit in you, and you are part of the body of Christ.

The Holy Spirit is a seal and a guarantee of your eternal salvation which you received the first moment you believed in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:13-14). Therefore, you cannot lose the Holy Spirit, and you will never lose your salvation.

Now according to these verses, it means that at the Rapture, Jesus will be uniting his body with himself, who is its head. So it wouldn't make sense for Jesus to unite only some of the parts of his body with him at the Rapture. Why would he tear his body apart like that, when he says his purpose for his body is for it to grow together and build itself up in love (Ephesians 4:16)?

Furthermore, Jesus' death on the cross was enough to pay for all sin (1 Peter 3:18, Hebrews 7:27, 9:25–26), so there is no reason for any part of his body to have to suffer again because of sin. Therefore, no true Christians will be left behind to suffer through the Tribulation because of their own sins.

Also, due to being part of Christ's body, Christians are credited with Jesus' own perfect righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 3:21–25, 1 Corinthians 1:30-31). Therefore, there is no need for us to become more righteous by suffering through the Tribulation.

The Church is the Bride of Christ

This argument is even more true when we see that the Church (made up of all true Christians) is not just Jesus's body, but we're also his bride:

In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:28-32)

So Jesus loves the Church not just as his body, but also as his bride. Using this metaphor, it wouldn't make any sense for Jesus to take only part of his bride to heaven to be with him, and leave the rest of his beloved bride on Earth to suffer and be killed during the Tribulation.

Yes, there will be many people who will believe in Jesus after the Rapture, and so they will be eternally saved. They are the ones who will have to endure through the Tribulation, and many of them will be killed for their faith (Revelation 6:9-11). They are also the ones who will be resurrected to rule along with Jesus and the Church during the Millennial Kingdom as a reward for being killed (Revelation 7:9-17, 20:4).

However, this group of believers are not the Church. How do we know this?

Because Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18). Yet God will allow the Antichrist to overcome believers who are on Earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 13:7). Therefore, they are two different groups of people.

There is confirmation of this in how we see that Christians who make up the Church are promised that we will not face God's wrath:

But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10, NRSV)

So this verse says that being justified is different from being saved from God's wrath. Being saved from God's wrath is a benefit for Christians who live before the Rapture, in addition to having our sins forgiven by God. This is confirmed in the following verse:

For God chose to save us through our Lord Jesus Christ, not to pour out his anger on us. Christ died for us so that, whether we are dead or alive when he returns, we can live with him forever. (1 Thessalonians 5:9-11, NLT)

The reason that all Christians who believe in Jesus before the Rapture will be saved from the Tribulation is because the Tribulation is when God will pour out his wrath on the Christ-rejecting world (2 Peter 3:7). Yet Jesus promised Christians who live before the Rapture that we won't even experience the time of the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10).

This is because God's wrath is only meant for those who reject him (John 3:36, Ephesians 2:3, Romans 1:18, 2:8). One second after the Rapture, the only people who will be left on Earth will be those who had not yet put their faith in Jesus (John 6:28-29).

Paul instructed the Thessalonian Christians to "wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming" (1 Thessalonians 1:10, NRSV). This is a clear promise that the Rapture will happen before the Tribulation.

Thus, the Church will not be on Earth during the Tribulation. Instead, Christians will be safely with Jesus in his Father's house (i.e., heaven), just as he promised us (John 14:2-3, Isaiah 26:19-21).

This makes sense when we remember that there is no reason for the Church to be on Earth during the Tribulation.

The Tribulation is the last seven years that are assigned to Israel in order for them to complete God's purposes for them (Daniel 9:24-27). One of these purposes is for God to bring Israel to the point of recognizing that Jesus is their true Messiah, which is the condition that must be fulfilled before Jesus' second coming (Matthew 23:39, Zechariah 12:10–11, 13:8–9). For more on this, see my post here.

The Tribulation period will also be a second chance for everyone who didn't believe in Jesus before the Rapture to believe and be eternally saved before Jesus' second coming.

But the Church already knows that Jesus is our Messiah, and we have already believed in him. Therefore, there is no reason why Christians who have believed in Jesus before the Rapture must go through the Tribulation.

However, there are still some verses that can trouble Christians because if these verses are not interpreted correctly, it can appear that they teach that true Christians will go through the Tribulation. These verses will now be addressed to show how they do not contradict the clear verses we have already seen that say that no true Christians will be left behind at the Rapture.

Objection: The Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids/Virgins

This parable in Matthew 25:1-13 is frequently used to claim that only Christians who are somehow "ready" for Jesus' return will be raptured, while the rest will have to go through the Tribulation.

Alternatively, I have also heard this parable used in a number of other ways, so there is not much consistency in how this parable is interpreted.

The best interpretation of this parable that I've come across is from Zane Hodges. He explains that this parable is not talking about Christians and the Rapture at all, because it's actually about believers who will live through the Tribulation period.

The setting of this parable is that ten bridesmaids are waiting with their lamps/torches in order to perform what was called a "torch dance". This was a common part of a Jewish wedding celebration during the first century AD. It would have been considered an honor for the girls who were chosen to perform this dance for the bridegroom, bride, and their guests at their wedding feast.1

Thus, the bridesmaids are not the bride (i.e., the Church), and they are not the ones getting married to the bridegroom. Yet the bridesmaids are to have a special role in the wedding celebration.

In the parable, while waiting for the bridegroom (and bride) to come start the wedding feast, all the bridesmaids fall asleep. When they get woken up by a shout that the bridegroom is coming, only half of the girls were wise enough to have brought extra oil to re-light their torches/lamps.

Those girls who had the extra oil and re-lit their torches/lamps are able to go directly into the wedding feast with the bridegroom and bride to perform their dance and enjoy the celebration, while those girls who were foolish and unprepared are locked out of the party while they are away trying to buy more oil.

Zane Hodges interprets this parable as saying that during the Tribulation, only some believers will have spiritually prepared themselves to make it through the extra-difficult last three-and-a-half years of the Tribulation. Those believers who remain faithful despite the severe persecution of Christians during this time will be rewarded by ruling with Jesus and the Church during Jesus' Millennial Kingdom.2

In contrast, those believers who do not remain faithful are still eternally saved, but they will lose their physical lives and will not be resurrected until after the Millennial Kingdom is over. This outcome would fulfill Jesus' warning that only those who endure (in faith) to the end (of the Tribulation) will be (physically) saved (Matthew 24:12-14).3

This judgment on unfaithful believers during the Tribulation seems harsh, but it makes sense.

At the Sheep and Goats Judgment in Matthew 25:31-46, Jesus judges everyone who has physically survived the Tribulation to see if they will be permitted into his Millennial Kingdom, apparently based on whether they did particular good works. However, there is no category at this judgment for true believers who did not do good works. So the only possibilities are either:

The Holy Spirit will guarantee that all true believers during the Tribulation will do these good works, or
Any true believers who did not do these good works are not alive to be judged at this judgment.

The possibility of option 2 makes sense when we consider the specific things that Jesus commends the faithful believers for doing in Matthew 25:35-36.

It can seem that these faithful believers pass Jesus' judgment because of the good works they do, while those who do not do these things are condemned to the lake of fire (Matthew 25:46). Yet that seems to be salvation by works, rather than faith, which is contrary to Scripture (e.g., Galatians 2:16).

However, we can say that these things that Jesus mentions the faithful believers will do during the Tribulation will actually be evidence of their faith in him. This is because these believers will have been cut off from all ability to buy and sell, since they will not take the Mark of the Beast. Due to this, sharing their food, water, and extra clothing with other persecuted believers would require strong faith that God will provide for them in the future.

It would also take strong faith for believers to visit those who are in prison if the Antichrist's government is jailing and executing known Christians (Revelation 13:10). Visiting those who are sick would also require believers to trust God to keep them healthy if they are now cut off from the ability to buy medicine in case they get sick.

In contrast, believers who do not do these things would demonstrate that they have weaker faith. Under the intense pressure of the last half of the Tribulation, these weaker believers may be tempted to give up their faith and take the Mark of the Beast in order to survive. But since taking the Mark leads to eternal negative consequences that aren't compatible with eternal salvation (Revelation 14:9-11), God could graciously allow these unfaithful believers to be killed in various ways in order to prevent them from taking the Mark.

These believers in category 2 who die will still be eternally saved, but by not enduring in faith, they won't be resurrected with the faithful martyrs after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 20:4). The unfaithful believers will have to wait to be resurrected at the final judgment, after the Millennial Kingdom is over.

This means they will have missed out on the joy of seeing the Millennial Kingdom, even though they will still experience eternity in the New Heaven and New Earth. Missing out on the Millennium is depicted as the foolish bridesmaids not being able to join in the celebration of the wedding feast.

Overall, Hodges' interpretation is far more convincing to me than other interpretations I've heard because it is theologically compatible with the earlier verses which clearly teach that all Christians who live before the Rapture will be raptured.

Objection: You Must Be Strong Enough/Counted Worthy To Escape The Tribulation

One of the more difficult verses that often scares Christians into thinking they might not be raptured is Luke 21:34-36.

After Jesus gave his disciples many details about things that will happen during the Tribulation, he said:

But watch yourselves lest your hearts be weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly like a trap. For it will come upon all who dwell on the face of the whole earth. But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:34-36, ESV)

On the surface, it does seem like Jesus is saying that Christians need to pray to be somehow 'strong' enough to be included in the Rapture, and thus escape the Tribulation period. But because this is not taught anywhere else in the Bible, especially in the clear passages about the Rapture, it cannot be the correct interpretation.

Now, it is possible that Jesus could be referring to the people who will live through the Tribulation. As was discussed earlier in the Parable of the Ten Bridesmaids, those people who will believe in Jesus after the Rapture will need to pray that they will be strong enough to hold onto their faith and survive the judgments of the Tribulation in order for them to "stand before the Son of Man" at the Sheep and Goats judgment.

After all, an important principle of Biblical interpretation is that clear Bible verses must be used to interpret the unclear verses, not the other way around.

So, we have already seen earlier in this post that the two major passages in Scripture about the Rapture do not include any warnings or conditions that Christians must meet in order to be included in the Rapture. Therefore, we cannot interpret this verse in Luke 21:36 as saying that there is some condition that Christians must meet in order to qualify to be raptured.

We also can't interpret these verses in a way that overrides what we saw in the previous section of this post about how all Christians are equally members of Christ's body/bride, and the verses that say all Christians will be saved from God's wrath that is to come on the world during the Tribulation.

However, there is an alternative interpretive possibility for Luke 21:34-36. This verse is one of the rare instances in which there is a significant difference between the few Greek manuscripts that different English Bible translations use.

Most modern English Bibles translate Luke 21:34-36 in ways similar to the verse shown at the start of this section from the ESV. Alternatively, the KJV and NKJV use a different manuscript and translate this verse as:

But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly. For it will come as a snare on all those who dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man. (Luke 21:34-36, NKJV)

Now my academic background is theology, not Biblical studies, so I'm not going to discuss the history of these different manuscripts or how these variations arose, or which variant is more likely to have been in the original manuscript. However, some scholars would say the original is the one used by the KJV/NKJV.

In this case of the KJV/NKJV variant, it is easier to explain how this verse is compatible with the Rapture in a way that does not imply that only some Christians will be raptured.

For example, let's compare this verse with 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3:

Yet Paul goes on to say:

But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:4-11)

So this entire passage in 1 Thessalonians seems to parallel quite well what Jesus says in Luke 21:36, KJV/NKJV.

Both passages discuss an "escape" in relation to the disastrous events that the world will experience in the end times. In Luke, the focus is on some people who will escape the sudden start of the Tribulation, and in 1 Thessalonians, the focus is on others who will not escape from the sudden destruction.

Both passages include instruction for Christians to stay alert and watch for Jesus' return, and behave properly while watching. These verses also include hints that some people who are not watching will be very surprised when the Rapture happens.

But again, neither of these passages teach that some true Christians will be left behind.

However, the Bible does warn in several places that not all Christians will be equally ready when Jesus returns at the Rapture. In fact, this is exactly what Jesus is warning about at the start of these verses. Some Christians will be too caught up in sinful behavior or worrying about the things of this life to want to think about being caught up at the Rapture.

The same warning is repeated elsewhere in the Bible.

Paul explains that if Christians are paying attention, we will be able to see the day of Jesus' return at the Rapture approaching. The appropriate behavior then is to give up living in ways that sinners do, and to soberly watch and be ready for Jesus to return in the clouds (1 Thessalonians 5:4-8, Romans 13:11-14).

This may be why the crown that Paul says Jesus will give to everyone who is eagerly looking for Jesus' return is called the "crown of righteousness" (2 Timothy 4:8). In contrast, Christians who scoff about the nearness of Jesus' return are said to do so because they want to keep indulging their own sinful desires (2 Peter 3:3-4).

So yes, Christians should watch for Jesus' return, and pray that the Holy Spirit will help us avoid living in ways that look no different than the unsaved world world that we will be leaving behind at the Rapture. Not all Christians will do this though, and so some will be living in ways that make them look like they should not have been "counted worthy" to escape the Tribulation. Yet even these Christians will still be raptured.

The story of Lot is a potentially helpful illustration of this.

Remember that Jesus said that when he returns, it will be like it was in the days of Lot (Luke 17:28). Lot lived in a very sinful city named Sodom, along with his family.

However, Lot, his wife, and his two daughters were considered righteous by God. Thus, they were counted worthy of escaping the judgment and destruction that God was about to bring on the city. God sent angels to take Lot and his family out of the city just in time before the destruction came (Genesis 19:15-16).

Lot, though, is a rather unusual character. He is called righteous and is said to have been "greatly distressed" by the sin he saw around him (2 Peter 2:7-8).

Yet in the story in Genesis, Lot shockingly offers his two unmarried daughters to the lusty crowd of men who have surrounded Lot's house, saying that the crowd can "do to them as you wish," as long as the crowd leaves Lot's two angelic visitors alone (Genesis 19:6-8). But that doesn't really seem like something a 'righteous' father would do, does it?

Furthermore, after Lot and his family escape the destruction of Sodom, they end up living in a cave, where Lot's two daughters act in another shocking and indecent way (Genesis 19:30-35).

Therefore, the best explanation is that Lot and his family were "counted worthy" to escape the judgment on Sodom because they believed in God, just as Abraham did (Romans 4:3-5, Genesis 18:23-26). It is not because they were morally flawless, since the Bible tells us they were not.

Similarly, all Christians will be "counted worthy" of escaping the Tribulation simply because we have faith in Jesus, even if, judging only based on outer actions, some Christians will not appear to be living in ways that are any different from the world around them.

But in either case, both variants of Luke 21:34-36 are explainable in ways that do not conflict with the clear Bible verses that say that all true Christians will be included in the Rapture.

However, it turns out that the KJV/NKJV variant about being "counted worthy" may be more consistent when we consider how it fits with the Parable of the Faithful and Wicked Servant in Matthew 24.

Objection: The Faithful and Wicked Servant

After Jesus tells his disciples about the coming Tribulation in Matthew 24, he ends with a short parable:

This is another passage that is often used to claim that Christians who are not being watchful for Jesus' return at the Rapture will experience negative consequences.

Here, the behavior of the wicked servant parallels with the behavior Jesus warned against in Luke 21:34-36. Yet the servant goes beyond simply being drunk and un-watchful, since the servant denies Jesus's soon return and mistreats fellow servants.

This wicked servant's behavior matches well with how Peter predicts that

scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." (2 Peter 3:3-4)

So this parable is yet another way of saying that at Jesus' next coming at the Rapture, not all Christians will be found to be faithfully watching for Jesus' return and serving God as they should be. Those who are found faithfully serving God will be rewarded, but others will suffer negative judgment.

Now, the judgment that the wicked servant faces can seem very harsh. The phrase about "weeping and gnashing of teeth" reminds many Christians of verses like Matthew 13:41-42 or 13:49-50 which talk about wicked people being eternally destroyed in the lake of fire after the final judgment (Revelation 20:14-15).

However, as Zane Hodges points out, we shouldn't interpret the punishment of the wicked servant as him being eternally destroyed.

After all, the servant is still a servant, as is the wicked servant in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:26-30. See also the Parable of the Minas in Luke 19:11-27, where the wicked servant is differentiated from the nobleman's enemies who are killed (Luke 19:27). And we know that all Christians are eternally secure, based on Ephesians 1:13-14 and other verses.

So whatever the fate is for the wicked servant, it is not eternal destruction.

Instead, Hodges says that weeping and gnashing of teeth was a common expression of intense grief in the Middle East during Jesus's time. The expression "cut in pieces" is likewise talking about the experience of receiving God's severe judgment, but is not meant to be taken literally. This wicked servant is called a hypocrite because he claimed to be a servant, but he was not found acting in ways that a servant should act, and so he is deprived of some sort of reward that causes the servant to feel intense grief.4

That grief is not caused by missing out on the Rapture, but rather, it is the loss of some sort of position of ruling authority in eternity. As Wilkins explains:

In v.25, Jesus speaks of the faithful and wise servant whom his master made ruler over His household to give them food in due season. That's in this life. But then He says that if the servant-ruler is still fulfilling his task when the Master comes, the servant-ruler will be made ruler over all His goods. In other words, the servant-ruler now, if he's faithful until Christ comes, will be a ruler over much more in the life to come. This seems to be a promise of eternal rulership. A loss of such rulership would cause great grief.5

It would surely be embarrassing to be caught being a bad servant at Jesus' return (1 John 2:28). These verses along with others imply that some Christians will face deep regret and loss when their lives are judged for eternal rewards (Luke 19:26, 1 Corinthians 3:15), versus the blessing and commendation that is promised to other Christians who have been more faithful during their lives (Matthew 25:21, Luke 19:16-19, 1 Corinthians 3:14).

Yet this feeling of loss will be temporary, as Hodges explains:

So since this passage is about a real servant of Christ who has lost the promotion and the rewards that could have been his by being faithful, he experiences intense grief. Some Christians experience a muted form of this grief now when they look back at wasted years and opportunities, but when we stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ, we will no longer have our sin nature and the grief will be intensely acute. We will be perfect and will be able to see with painful clarity what we have lost. Grief is an appropriate response to that. This does not mean that such servants will weep and gnash their teeth forever, for we know that God will wipe away all tears from every eye (Revelation 21:4).6

Thus, this parable is an encouragement to Christians that because Jesus could return anytime at the Rapture, we don't know how long we will have to serve God. Therefore we should be diligent and do our best to serve God now in whatever ways he calls us to, because we will be rewarded for doing so, especially if we are found serving him when Jesus returns.

Obviously, this shouldn't be taken to an extreme. Christians need to sleep, eat, and relax too, as this is an important part of keeping ourselves functional enough that we can serve God well, as I've written about here. No one can literally serve God every minute of the day.

But in general, this parable teaches that some Christians will be more actively involved in following and serving God when Jesus returns, while others will not be doing this, and so there will be different consequences for these two groups of believers when Jesus returns.

Practical Application Of This Parable

Given how close it seems the world may be to the Rapture, I hope all Christians will wake up and do what God calls us to do to for him before we no longer have the opportunity. Let's be faithful servants with whatever time we have left.

Anything we can do to tell others about Jesus and to encourage them to believe in Jesus so that they don't get left behind at the Rapture should be at the top of our priority lists, even if it risks making us look silly.

At worst, if your loved ones don't believe you now, hopefully they will remember what you said after the Rapture happens, and they will believe then, and avoid falling for the great deception that will come on the whole world (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

An extremely easy thing you can do right now is to simply write a letter explaining what the Rapture is and why you have suddenly disappeared. You can also warn your reader about the coming Tribulation, to not take the Mark of the Beast, and most importantly, explain the importance of believing in Jesus to have eternal life.

Feel free to copy directly from (or even print out in full) my post titled "Read This When Millions of People Suddenly Disappear" if you like what I wrote there and want to use that as your letter.

Put your letter in a place where people will likely see it if they come into your house to look for you after the Rapture happens. Also put a copy with your will or other important documents. Some Christians I know plan to put such a letter in their pantries so that if anyone breaks into their home after the Rapture happens in order to look for supplies, they will find the letter then.

This way, even if your family, friends, coworkers, roommates, or landlord are not open to talking about God now, you can still reach them after the Rapture. Then, the fact that you warned about the Rapture ahead of time in your letter might convince them to seriously consider what else you have to say about Jesus, and motivate them to pay attention to your warnings about what will be happening in the world in the near future.

Conclusion

As explained in this post, there is no reason for any true Christian to worry about being left behind at the Rapture. All of the clearest verses about the Rapture do not give any condition(s) that Christians must fulfill in order to be raptured.

Instead, those parables and other verses that are often used to make Christians nervous about missing the Rapture are best understood in other ways that do not contradict the clear and strong arguments that all Christians will be raptured. This is how consistent Biblical interpretation should be done.

However, there is a risk for people who only call themselves Christians, but who have never truly put their faith in Jesus. If they don't admit that they need Jesus to die for their sins and instead choose to believe that the things they do can earn them eternal salvation, then they will be left behind at the Rapture.

Hopefully, the Rapture will cause many of these Christians-in-name-only to realize their mistake and to truly believe in Jesus then, although they will face the Tribulation which will be the worst time in the history of the world (Matthew 24:21).

As in the parables we examined in this post, it will be a challenge for these new believers to keep their faith due to the severe persecution they will face. However, if they are faithful to the end, whether they physically survive the Tribulation or are martyred, they will be eternally rewarded.

Footnotes:

1. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 63-65.
2. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 64-68.
3. Robert Wilkin, "Why Are All The Gentile Sheep Found Faithful, But Only Five of the Ten Virgins? — Matthew 25:1-13 & 25:31-46," Grace Evangelical Society, January 30, 2018. See also John Claeys, "Matthew 25:31-46: Salvation by Works?" Grace Evangelical Society, September 1, 2017.
4. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 58-62
5. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 60.
6. Zane C. Hodges and Robert N. Wilkin, Tough Texts: Did Jesus Teach Salvation By Works? (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 59.

My Theory of Christian Inclusivism

2023-07-13T00:00:00+00:00

This post is the culmination of several of my previous blog posts. In them, I explored why I believe that Christians need to endorse some sort of theory of soteriological inclusivism in order for us to be faithful to all the verses in the Bible that tell us about who will ultimately be saved.

That is, we need to believe that God truly wants to save everyone, even though in the end, not everyone will be saved.

For example, we are told that in the New Heaven and New Earth, there will be at least one person from every tribe, language, and nation that has ever existed (Revelation 5:9-10, 7:9-10). Therefore, there must be some way that eternal salvation is genuinely open to all people—including those who never heard the gospel during their lives, or those who died before they were capable of personally putting their faith in Jesus Christ.

In the previous posts, I've examined a few theories of Christian inclusivism that I've come across. These include:

that all religions lead to the same heaven.
that people can choose to believe in Jesus after death.
that all 'good' people will be saved.
that there is enough divine truth in nature or in other religions for people to be saved.

In this post, I want to finally outline my own theory of Christian inclusivism. That is, I want to explain how I think it is that everyone will have a fair opportunity to be eternally saved, yet everyone who is ultimately saved will be saved only on the basis of putting their faith in Christ.

To do this, I will blend the best of Jonathan Edwards' theology with some insights from Karl Barth that have been mentioned previously into one theory, combined with my preference for understanding hell as eternal annihilation, and predestination as election to service.

Some of my arguments here may be short, as this is only an outline, and more detailed support for some of my claims is found in my previous posts. Furthermore, each point in my outline builds upon or adds to the others to form one continuous argument. Each point will be numbered to make it easy to see how they connect.

The Short Version

However, in case you just want a short summary of what I'm proposing, here it is, along with a very short introduction to Biblical eschatology to give the necessary context:

At one point or another, all individuals will have their lives judged by Jesus Christ (Romans 14:10-12, Acts 17:31, Romans 2:6-8, Hebrews 9:27-28, John 5:22). Regardless of which judgment individuals face, those who are eternally saved will be rewarded for every one of their good works, no matter how small (Mark 9:41).

For Christians who lived before the Rapture, we will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ, where the things we did in this life will be judged to determine our eternal rewards (2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). This judgment will happen after the Rapture, which is when we will be resurrected and/or instantly changed from mortal to immortal (1 Thessalonians 4:14-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53). The Rapture will take place at least seven years before Jesus' second coming.
For people who survive the seven-year Tribulation that follows the Rapture, they will be judged at the Sheep and Goats Judgment that takes place after Jesus' second coming (Matthew 25:31-46, Mark 13:24-27). This judgment will determine who is allowed into Jesus' Millennial Kingdom, and who is thrown into the lake of fire, as will have already happened for the Antichrist and the False Prophet at Jesus' second coming (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 19:20).
Everyone who takes the Mark of the Beast will not pass the Sheep and Goats Judgment. Alternatively, they may be condemned directly to the lake of fire as the Antichrist and False Prophet will be, because they will have effectively already made their final choice to reject Jesus by taking the Mark (Revelation 14:9-11, Matthew 13:36-43). Some prophecy experts teach that taking the Mark of the Beast is not just idolatrous worship of the Antichrist, but it actually does something to those who take it that makes them unredeemable, because idolatry can be forgiven (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), but there is no hint that taking the Mark can be forgiven.
For the saints who will be martyred for their faith during the Tribulation (Revelation 6:9-11, 13:10, 13:15), they will be judged once they are resurrected after Jesus' second coming. This judgment will determine their rewards and ruling positions during Jesus' Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4-5).
I'm not sure when Old Testament believers will be resurrected, judged, and rewarded, although we know they will be (Daniel 12:1-3, Job 19:25-27). It could be either along with Christians at the judgment seat of Christ, or perhaps with the other resurrected saints after the Tribulation and before Jesus' Millennial Kingdom begins.
For everyone else who has ever lived in history, they will be judged at the Final Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). This judgment will happen after the final Gog-Magog rebellion at the end of Jesus' thousand-year Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:7-10).

For my theory of inclusivism, it is the final judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 that is the most relevant. It is here that everyone who never had an opportunity to hear the gospel during their lives will be judged.

The purpose of this judgment will be to demonstrate that they are all sinners, and that their good works are not enough to earn salvation, (e.g., Romans 3:10-12, 3:20, 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-6).

Then, after their works are judged, I believe God will give all these people one last opportunity to accept Jesus as their personal Savior. God's love and justice require him to give them such an opportunity, because he truly wants everyone to be saved (e.g., 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9).

Every single person who will be eternally saved is a sinner who is saved only on the basis of Jesus Christ's death on the cross for his or her sins (Romans 3:23-26). Thus, everyone who is saved will have personal faith in Jesus and love for Jesus, for there is no other name but Jesus' by which people can be saved (Acts 4:12), and there is no other mediator between God and humanity besides Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5).

Everyone who is eternally saved will also be made perfectly holy, as God is holy (1 Peter 1:14-16, Hebrews 12:14). Primarily, this will occur through receiving a new, incorruptible body that is untainted by sin, as I argue in my post here.

Thus, the only people who will end up being annihilated in the lake of fire will be those who have clearly had their works judged, been shown their sin and heard God's judgment that their sins are worthy of eternal death, been offered a clear opportunity to believe in Jesus Christ, and yet still rejected Jesus. Thus, salvation is opt-out, not opt-in.

Despite my theory, at the end of this post, I will explain why there are still very good reasons to become a Christian now, and for Christians to continue to share the gospel with others.

My Theory of Christian Soteriological Inclusivism

My theory of inclusivism was inspired by several interesting ideas I came across in Jonathan Edwards' theology as I was working on my PhD dissertation. Yet what matters most is whether my claims can be supported by Scripture, and whether they are in line with traditional Christian understandings of God's nature and character.

Each of the following points builds on the earlier ones, and will be referred to in other points:

God is Love (1 John 4:16). This is because God is a perfect, eternal relationship of love between the three equally-divine Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (i.e., the Trinity, as seen in Matthew 3:16-17).1
Therefore, due to Point 1, what God loves most are perfectly loving relationships, because that is what God himself is.2 So God created people in order to potentially create a greater number of eternally loving relationships between people and God, and between people themselves.3
People's ultimate happiness is found in being loved by God and by others, and in loving God and loving others, because this is what God made us for (Point 2). This is why Jesus said that loving God and loving others are the two most important commandments that all the rest of God's Law rests on (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:9-10), because the Law is good and was given for our good (e.g., Romans 7:12, 1 Timothy 1:8, Joshua 1:8, Psalm 19:7-11).4
Based on Points 1 to 3, God loves the whole world, and therefore, God wants all people to have perfectly loving relationships with himself and with each other, forever (John 3:16-17, 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11). This is what will occur in the New Heaven and New Earth, which will be a world of love.5
Therefore, if it were only up to God’s will, everyone would be saved (Point 4). God is omnipotent, which means that God can do whatever God wants (Jeremiah 32:27, Job 42:1-2, Isaiah 14:27). Satan, fallen angels, and other people are not more powerful than God, and so they cannot prevent God from saving any individual person.6
Yet the Bible clearly says that not everyone will be saved (e.g., Isaiah 66:24, Revelation 20:12-15, Matthew 25:41-46).
So, to explain the discrepancy between Points 5 and 6, the only reason that any individual person is not saved is because of that individual's own free choice. Individuals must make a free choice to love God because God cannot force an individual to love him, or it would no longer be love.7 If people did not have a free choice to love God, that relationship would lose all value to God, and it would not fulfill the reason why he created the world (Point 2).
Therefore, due to Points 5 and 7, God must have some way for all individuals to make that choice to love God and others or not. Thus, God needed to give people the ability to freely reject him (Acts 7:51, Matthew 23:37), even though God knew this rejection would lead to sin, evil, suffering, and death (John 10:10, James 1:15, Genesis 2:16-17), which are the opposite of God's intentions for human happiness (Point 3).
People who reject God/Love will have no place in the New Heaven and New Earth (e.g., Luke 14:16-24, Matthew 7:21-23), as they do not fulfill the purpose for which they were created (Point 2). They would not want to live there anyway, unless they valued love for God and love for others, because heaven will be a world of love (Point 4).
Due to Point 9, theoretically, God would have to create some other place for these people who reject him to live. But a world without God/Love would be a world of total isolation, sin, evil, and hatred, and thus, it would be complete misery (the opposite of Point 3). A world without God/Love is what Christians usually think of as hell.8
A loving God does not want people to live forever in complete misery (Points 3 and 4). Therefore, the Bible teaches that annihilation (i.e. eternal death/destruction) is the ultimate fate for those who finally reject God/Love (e.g., Matthew 10:28, Romans 6:23, 2 Peter 2:6).

This is appropriate because if these people do not want to live in loving relationships with God and all others, then there is no purpose for them to exist (Point 2). Furthermore, by rejecting the eternal God who created them (Colossians 1:16) and who upholds all creation in existence (Hebrews 1:3), they have rejected the source of their own existence, and thus, they have effectively chosen eternal non-existence.
Yet The Bible says that annihilation/eternal death is a punishment for sin (2 Thessalonians 1:9, Romans 6:23, Matthew 25:46). Sin is everything that goes against God's desires for people to live in loving relationships with himself and all others (Point 3). A loving God (Point 1) hates sin, because sin is the opposite of love (Proverbs 6:16-19, Proverbs 15:9, Romans 1:18, Psalm 5:4-5).
A loving God (Point 1) also desires perfect justice for all people (Psalm 33:5, Deuteronomy 16:19). Yet someone can only be justly punished if they can avoid doing whatever it is that deserved that punishment (e.g., Ezekiel 18:25-28, Deuteronomy 24:16).
But all people have become sinners because of how Adam and Eve first sinned (Romans 5:12-14). All people have sinned (Romans 3:23), and thus, no one is righteous (Romans 3:10-12). Therefore, all people deserve eternal death (Point 11).
Yet God loves everyone (Point 4), and his love moves him to want to be merciful to sinners (Matthew 9:13, Exodus 33:19, Daniel 9:9). To love someone is to desire their ultimate happiness, even if it comes at a cost to yourself (John 15:13). God's solution for the problem of sin was for the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, to be born as the human named Jesus (John 1:14).

Jesus was able to live a perfect, sinless life of love (1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15), and he volunteered to accept the punishment of death that all sinners deserve (1 Peter 2:24, Philippians 2:8) by dying once for all sin, even the sins of the entire world (1 John 2:2, John 1:29, 2 Corinthians 5:19). In this way, God, who is love (Point 1), lovingly chose to absorb his own wrath at sin, and satisfied his own perfect justice (Points 12, 13, 14), while making it possible for him to mercifully forgive the sinners who he loves (Point 4).
Now, anyone who believes that Jesus died for their sins (Point 15, summed up as John 3:16-17) is permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit, as a guarantee of their eternal salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14). The Holy Spirit unites them to Jesus, so that Jesus' death can be counted as theirs. In this way, God can forgive believers' sins, and God treats believers as if they were as sinless as Jesus is (2 Corinthians 5:21, Colossians 1:21-22). This is the gospel, which literally means 'good news.'
Believing in Jesus is the only way for people to have their sins forgiven and thus, for people to have eternal life (Acts 4:12, John 14:6). It is not possible to be good enough to earn eternal life, and other religions do not provide alternative paths to heaven.
But many people have died before they had an opportunity to hear the gospel and believe in Jesus (Points 15, 16, and 17). Even if some people do hear the gospel, they may not have heard it clearly or understood it properly.9 Many children have died before they were old enough to personally believe in Jesus, and some people may not have ever had the mental capability to understand the gospel.
But God truly wants to save everyone (Point 4), and no external factors can prevent God from saving someone (Point 5), except for an individual's free choice to not love God (Point 7) and/or not believe in Jesus (Point 17). Therefore, we are left with only two options regarding the people in Point 18:
1. They get the opportunity to accurately learn about Jesus and make a free choice to believe in him after death.
2. God has some way that they could know enough about himself to make an equivalent choice before they died, such as through the divine truths that may be revealed in nature, or in other religions.
Recall that a loving God is perfectly just (Point 13). It would be unfair for God to have one standard for people who do hear the gospel clearly enough and accurately enough to make that choice to believe in Jesus as their Savior during their earthly lives, and another standard for everyone else.

A just and loving God would also want to avoid the situation where some individuals would have been saved if they had not heard the gospel during their lives. That is, God would need to make sure that a person who could have been saved under options i) or ii) in Point 19 would not be automatically condemned to eternal death if he or she hears the gospel and does not immediately believe it.

For example, in my earlier post, I imagined a woman walking downtown who hears the gospel for the first time from a street preacher. However, she doesn't believe it right away because she's still thinking it over or trying to understand it. Or maybe she's even turned off from it, due to the preacher's angry demeanor. Yet the next moment, she steps off the curb, is hit by a bus, and dies instantly. The fact that she heard the gospel and didn't believe it in time before she died must not mean that she is condemned to eternal destruction — especially if she could have been saved under one of the two options in Point 19, if only she had been hit by the bus before she heard the gospel.

Otherwise, hearing the gospel would become a liability, and people might be better off not hearing it during their earthly lives. Yet that would contradict with how Jesus commanded Christians to preach the gospel and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-20). Why would a loving God who wants all people to be saved (Point 4) command Christians to do something that would condemn many other people to eternal death?

Or put another way, people who do hear the gospel during their earthly lives should not be put at a disadvantage when compared to those who do not hear the gospel. God is just (Point 13), and God loves everyone equally (Point 4), so he would not make it harder for some people to be saved than others. Furthermore, the gospel must always be a blessing, and never a curse. So when people hear the gospel, it should make it more likely — not less likely — that they will be eternally saved.

Therefore, whatever personal choice is necessary for non-Christians to be saved, it must be equivalent to putting their faith in Jesus as their Savior who promises them eternal life, so that those who hear the gospel are not put at a greater advantage or disadvantage than others in terms of having an opportunity to receive God's gift of eternal life. (Even though there are many other benefits to being a Christian besides just eternal life, as will be discussed at the end of this post).
Furthermore, as hinted at in Point 19, based on Points 1, 7, and 17 it seems that the free choice that God ultimately needs individuals to make can be thought of as both:
1. to love God/Love.
2. to believe in Jesus for eternal life.
So, how will these two criteria be used by God when he determines people's eternal destinies?
At the final judgment, everyone who was not previously resurrected either at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17) or before Jesus' Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4) will be resurrected in order to be judged (Revelation 20:11-15). This judgment will consider their works, as well as whether their names are written in the Book of Life (Romans 2:6-11, Revelation 20:12-13, 20:15). But the Bible does NOT say that all these people will be automatically condemned to the lake of fire, unless they took the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-11).
Based on Point 21 i), I propose that at the final judgment, God will judge people according to whether they loved Love or not. This judgment would be based on the individuals' actions (Revelation 20:12), in that at least at times, individuals who loved Love should have attempted to act in loving ways toward others, or felt regret and guilt in their consciences when they did not (Romans 2:14-16).

There is good scriptural support for this part of my theory, based on how John says, "love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God" (1 John 4:7-8). John also says "whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him" (1 John 4:16).

More verses equate love for God with obeying God's commandments (e.g., John 14:15, 14:21-24, 1 John 5:3), which are again, summed up as loving God and loving others (Point 3). Other verses say that acting in loving ways towards others is, in some way, expressing love for God himself (e.g., Mark 9:36-38, 9:40-42, Matthew 10:41-42, 25:40, Luke 9:48). I've written more about this in my post here.

So we can safely say that if someone loves Love, they love God, and they are already 'in God' in some sense, even if they don't yet know about Jesus or the gospel. I believe these individuals who loved Love — as shown at the final judgment by their actions and consciences — will have their names written in the Book of Life (Revelation 20:15).
But, also due to Points 20 and 21, the choice to love Love must also be equivalent to believing in Jesus for eternal life, because all people are sinners (Point 14), and there is no other way for anyone to have their sins forgiven besides believing in Jesus (Point 17).
Based on Point 23, I propose that for anyone who never got an opportunity to hear the gospel during their lives, if they love Love in their hearts, as demonstrated during Jesus' final judgment of their actions and consciences, they would inherently feel regret and shame at the times when they acted in unloving ways, or when they failed to act in loving ways, or when they had unloving motives in their hearts (Romans 2:15-16).
Such individuals who love Love would also value justice (just like God does, who is Love, as per Points 1 and 13). Therefore, individuals who love Love would humbly agree with God's judgment that they deserve eternal death because of all their sins (Points 11 and 12).
However, because God truly wants to save everyone (Point 4), and Jesus is the one who will be doing the judging (John 5:22-23), I believe that after he has judged everyone's works and shown beyond all doubt that all people are sinners who deserve eternal death, he will inform everyone that he has already suffered the penalty of death that their sins deserved (Points 15 and 16), and that if they will only believe this, they can have eternal life with him in the New Heaven and New Earth (Point 17).
I believe that anyone who truly loves Love would see how the gospel is a demonstration of God's ultimate love for them (Point 15). If they love Love, they will not resist the Holy Spirit who is drawing them to Jesus' love and mercy (John 12:32, Acts 7:51, Matthew 23:37), and they will accept Jesus' offer. They would then feel gratitude toward him, and would desire to praise and worship him for how he died on the cross for their sins.
In contrast to Point 28, those who reject Jesus' final presentation of the gospel will prove that they do not love Love. Their rejection of his offer will show that they are full of pride and self-righteousness, and that they reject both the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:12, Romans 1:18) and the Truth, who is Jesus himself (John 14:6).

These people will probably even hate Jesus for telling them their good works aren't enough to save them (Matthew 7:21-23), or for telling them that they are sinners (Matthew 23:27-28). They would demand that he accept them just as they are, and let them keep sinning forever.

Since a loving God won't do that (Point 11), then they will probably say fine, Jesus can go ahead and destroy them. They might even take perverse delight in the thought that they are causing Jesus to lose out on their eternal love and worship. I wouldn't be surprised if they even curse Jesus to his face as they are thrown into the lake of fire.
Regarding infants and children who died too young to understand the gospel, as I said in this post, they are still descendants of Adam and Eve, which means they are born as sinners (Point 14, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3).

Therefore, we must still say that even they needed Jesus to die for their sins (Point 15). Thus, they too will need to make a free choice about whether to believe in Jesus or not (Point 7). However, because they were not exposed to the sinful world for very long, I doubt that they would have much motive to reject Jesus, even if it must remain a possibility due to the nature of free will.

Summary and Evaluation of My Theory

Although it's impossible to know exactly what percentage of people might be saved at the final judgment, I believe that Christians can be very optimistic. We know there will be at least one of every tribe (Revelation 7:9-10), but hopefully also many more than that.

Yet, unlike some of the other theories of inclusivism that I analyzed, in my version of inclusivism, everyone will be saved only because of Jesus, and all saved people will explicitly put their trust in Jesus, even if this only occurs after death. But it seems that the opportunity to believe in Jesus after death must be given for people who died as infants and young children anyway, so it's not unreasonable to say that God will give that same final opportunity to everyone else who didn't have an opportunity to believe in him during their lives, since God truly wants everyone to be saved.

Yet during their lives, people's loving actions, attitudes, and motives, even if expressed in false religions, will reveal whether they loved Love or not. Because God is Love and he wants everyone to be saved, at the final judgment, after their good works are shown to be insufficient for salvation, and their sins are shown to be worthy of eternal destruction, God will give them one final opportunity to believe in Jesus and be saved.

All people who truly loved Love will recognize their sin and their need for a savior, and will humbly believe in Jesus when given this final opportunity to do so. Conversely, those who did not love Love but rather loved selfishness, wickedness, money, or power will be less likely to change their mind at the final judgment, and at least some of them will reject Jesus' offer.

Those who do reject this final offer will have been hardened beyond any possibility of redemption, and so they will be fit only for eternal destruction. Their situation would be analogous to those Israelites who hardened their hearts against God in the wilderness and rebelled, so they were not allowed to enter the promised land and were instead punished with physical death (Hebrews 3:7-19).

So in the end, it will be true that everyone who is eternally saved will be saved only because Jesus died for their sins, and because they had faith in Jesus as their Savior. No one will be saved because of their good works, or because of their faith in other religions, or because of what hints of Gods' character they may have seen in nature or in otherwise false religions. There truly is no other name besides Jesus by which people will be eternally saved (Acts 4:12, John 14:6). At the final judgment, everyone will finally recognize that Jesus truly is God (Philippians 2:9-11), and all who reject Jesus will be condemned to eternal death by being thrown into the lake of fire (John 3:16-18, 3:36, 1 John 5:11-12).

But it does not mean there is no hope for those who did not hear about Jesus during their earthly lives, or who died before they were able to make such a choice.

A Possible Objection

Critics of my theory would likely refer to Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31). In this parable, the rich man is never given any opportunity after his death to repent and be saved. He doesn't even face God or Jesus at the final judgment, but simply finds himself immediately suffering in fire.

The rich man also doesn't plead for forgiveness or say that he is sorry for his sins. He simply regrets that he is suffering, wants his suffering to be reduced, and wants his family members to avoid ending up suffering like he is. (He also attempts to boss around Abraham and Lazarus to try to get them to help him).

I have mentioned this parable in my post on hell as eternal annihilation, because if the parable is taken literally, it seems to claim that the unsaved will immediately face eternal conscious torment the moment they die, and there are no more chances to repent or be saved.

In that post, I agreed with Edward Fudge, who argued that Jesus' parable is probably a modification of a common Rabbinical story that came in several variations. The main point is the final 'punchline' of the parable (Luke 16:31), which is that those who reject what God has revealed to them in Scripture still wouldn't believe it even if someone rose from the dead to confirm it.10

This parable was therefore particularly relevant for the scribes and Pharisees who knew the Old Testament, but most of them didn't recognize or believe that Jesus was their Messiah, even after his bodily resurrection.

I've recently come across more analysis of this parable by David Jakubovic. In his article, Jakubovic highlights several scholars who show that the details of this parable do not fit with the rest of what the Bible teaches about heaven and hell, salvation, or the final judgment.11

For example, Lazarus is not depicted as being saved because he recognized he was a sinner who needed God's forgiveness. The parable only mentions that Lazarus had a hard life on earth but in the afterlife he was in comfort, while the rich man lived in comfort on earth but was now suffering in the afterlife (Luke 16:25).

Ralph Cunnington summarizes the problems that occur if we try to take this parable literally:

Most treatments of the text note that the parable is not intended to provide actual descriptions of the afterlife. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, much of the imagery appears to be based upon a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian folk-tale. This is perfectly acceptable for a parable because parables do not purport to depict true stories, but it should caution us against viewing the details of the narrative as a realistic account of the afterlife. Secondly, the parable contains details that are problematic even for defenders of the conscious punishment position. The rich man is portrayed as having a bodily existence (v. 24) and he is able to see Lazarus, suggesting that Lazarus is in Hades as well (although seemingly in another compartment). The former detail is incompatible with a future resurrection of the body and the latter has more in common with 1 Enoch 22:1-14 than with New Testament descriptions of the intermediate state of believers (2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 1:23; Hebrews 1:23; Revelation 6:9-11).12

As a result,

Those who argue that Jesus must be describing spiritual realities in this parable face a real problem here because they either have to affirm spiritual realities contrary to Scripture (a corporeal existence in a compartmentalised intermediate state) or admit that Jesus is picturing an intermediate state that does not completely correspond to the spiritual reality, thus undermining their argument. Thirdly, it is clear that the descriptions of the afterlife are necessary in order to illustrate the central teachings of the parable. This suggests that the details are not, in themselves, intended to be teachings of the parable anymore than the actions of the dishonest manager (Luke 16:1-13) are intended to provide investment advice.13

Thus, Cunnington concludes:

The theological intent and significance of a parable should always be consistent with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere and with the whole canon of Scripture. As we have seen, Scripture nowhere else teaches that unbelievers proceed to conscious punishment upon death and therefore we should be reluctant to conclude that Jesus teaches otherwise here.14

Jakubovic likewise quotes one scholar who says,

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was never intended as an account of human destiny. On the contrary, it was a satirical story by means of which Jesus attacked Pharisaic piety in general and the Pharisaic understanding of human destiny in particular.15

So the best interpretation of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is to say that Jesus was making use of a common cultural understanding of the afterlife, which may have been taught by the Pharisees, in order to critique both it and the Pharisees themselves. Thus, this parable doesn't present any difficulty for my theory above.

All it might confirm is that those who continually rejected what they heard about God in the Bible during their lives will not be likely to change their minds, even at the final judgment (Luke 16:31).

So Then Why Be A Christian Now?

So if it is still possible to believe in Jesus and be saved at the final judgment, then a cynic might wonder why anyone would even bother becoming a Christian now. Similarly, Christians might fear that such a theory of inclusivism discourages evangelism, because it removes the urgency for people to hear the gospel and believe it during this life.

However, there are still some very good reasons why Christians should continue to evangelize, and why there is value in becoming a Christian now.

In the Appendix of a previous post, I examined what Karl Barth wrote about salvation. He argued that although everyone will be saved eventually, the benefit of being a Christian now is that we know God as our Redeemer and we can recognize and confess the gospel, unlike others who don't yet know it.16

Although I'm convinced the Bible says that not everyone will be saved, I think the second part of Barth's insight is useful here. The Bible says that in some sense, people who believe in Jesus in this life are only the "first fruits" of everyone who will eventually be saved:

But we must always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and through belief in the truth. For this purpose he called you through our proclamation of the good news, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, NRSV)

In ancient Israel, the first fruits were the early part of the harvest that came in the spring, although the rest of the crops weren't ready to harvest until the end of summer (Numbers 18:12-13). Jesus used harvest imagery to talk about the final judgment (Matthew 13:24-30, 13:36-43). Using these metaphors, we can say that Christians are both the early part of this harvest, and we also act as workers to help Jesus bring in the harvest of others who will also be saved (Luke 10:2, Matthew 20:1-16), by taking the gospel to people so that they can also believe (Romans 10:14-15).

In another verse, Christians are called Christ's ambassadors:

For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, "Come back to God!" (2 Corinthians 5:19-20, NLT)

So if you are a Christian, you have been chosen to help with these tasks in whatever way your spiritual gifts enable you to. This is a privilege, and whether we are the ones who sow seeds of the gospel or are the ones who see people put their faith in Jesus, Christians can all rejoice together (John 4:36-38).

Sharing the gospel is also important not just so individuals can become eternally saved, but even for the wellbeing of our entire society.

Faithful churches are like lampstands that shine the light of the gospel out into our world to repel the darkness, and like salt that holds off moral decay (Matthew 5:13-16, Revelation 1:20, 2:5). So if Christians don't evangelize or teach people to become disciples (Matthew 28:19-20), then we shouldn't be surprised when our churches die out, and our society becomes increasingly immoral.

The Personal Benefits of Being a Christian

There are also here are many personal benefits to knowing Jesus and trying to follow his instructions for how he wants us to live now.

The greatest benefit of being a Christian now is that we get to enjoy a personal relationship with Jesus (1 John 5:20, John 17:3), through the Holy Spirit who comes to live in our hearts the moment we first believe the gospel (Ephesians 1:13-14, John 14:16-17, 14:22-23).

There is no greater privilege than being able to boldly come to Jesus in prayer about everything, (Hebrews 4:15-16, 1 John 5:15), and to know that God is our Father (Romans 8:15-16, John 20:17). In the New Heaven and New Earth, Christians will be even further united with Jesus, in some way that's similar to how a man and woman are united in marriage (Ephesians 5:31-32, Revelation 19:6-10, 21:2).

Furthermore, because of our hope in our future bodily resurrection, we don't have to fear death (Hebrews 2:14-15, 1 Corinthians 15:54-56), and we can go through life with the supernatural hope that comes from knowing we have eternal life (1 John 5:13). We can be confident that our eternal future is completely secure, and that nothing can separate us from God's love (Romans 8:38-39).

The Holy Spirit is God's love poured into our hearts (Romans 5:5). The Holy Spirit also gives us the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22). The Holy Spirit also helps sanctify us, so that we can overcome sins that would otherwise make our lives miserable and lead to death (James 1:14-15, Romans 7:5).

Christians also gain spiritual gifts that we can use to serve God and build up the church, spiritual armor to protect us from evil, and a new family of other Christians who can love us, support us, and pray for us, like I talked about in my post here.

By using our spiritual gifts and the other talents that God has given us, we can earn heavenly rewards that will last forever (1 Corinthians 3:11-14, Colossians 3:23-24, Matthew 6:19-20). There is also an inheritance for all believers (1 Peter 1:3-5, Ephesians 1:18), and we can even be co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17)!

Faithful Christians who have served God in this life will be rewarded by ruling with Christ over cities in his Millennial Kingdom and/or eternity on the New Earth (Luke 19:17-19, 2 Timothy 2:12). We'll also have authority to judge the world, and will even judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:2-3, Revelation 2:26-27, 5:10, 20:4).

And, what might be most relevant to Christians who are alive now, we have the promise that one day soon Jesus will take us to be with him in heaven at the Rapture (John 14:1-3). In this way, we will avoid suffering God's judgment that will be poured out on this sinful, God-rejecting world during the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10).

So, since we should love others as we love ourselves (Mark 12:31), we should also want everyone to be able to experience all these wonderful things, just like God also wants them to. Therefore, we should still share the gospel and pray that people will believe in Jesus now.

In this way, we can emphasize God's perfect, loving character and how he truly wants everyone to believe in Jesus and be saved, rather than perish (John 3:16-17). There are many good reasons to believe in Jesus now, and the sooner someone believes, the longer they will have to enjoy all the benefits of a relationship with Jesus.

Plus, best of all, eternal life is completely free. If you don't know Jesus as your Savior, you can begin such a relationship right now, simply by praying to Jesus in your thoughts or out loud, and saying you believe in him and accept his death on the cross for your sins, so that you can have eternal life.

Conclusion

What other implications might there be from this theory of inclusivism? I think there are several which I hope to explore more in the future.

For example, the idea of Christians being chosen/predestined by God, not for salvation, but for service to God in this life and a special position in Christ's future kingdom is very interesting (e.g. John 15:16-19, 1 Peter 2:9, Matthew 22:14).17

This might also be one way to understand some of the difficult Bible passages regarding free will and divine sovereignty, such as when God prophesies that people were chosen for particular roles in this life, even before they were born. For example: John the Baptist, Josiah, and Cyrus (e.g. Luke 1:13-17, 1 Kings 13:2, Isaiah 44:28, 45:1-6).

It doesn't mean these individuals were predestined for eternal salvation, because their salvation would depend on their own free choice. But it could mean that these people were chosen for a special role or task that they could do regardless of whether they ended up being eternally saved.

For example, despite how John the Baptist proclaimed that Jesus was the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29-35), John seems to still have wrestled with the question of whether he personally believed that Jesus was the Messiah or not (Matthew 11:2-3). See also Judas, who was chosen to serve with Jesus and the disciples, but Jesus calls him a devil (John 6:70-71).

So service to God in this life can be separated from eternal salvation, and this might improve our understanding of how free will relates to God's sovereignty. But more on this will have to wait.

In the meantime, what do you think of my outline of a theory of Christian inclusivism? Does it seem plausible? Are there any relevant Bible verses you think I've overlooked?

If you want to send me any suggestions for improvements or things to consider, feel free to send me an email through the address on my About Me page. I can't promise that I'll reply (life gets busy), but I will read them and consider them.

If you find my theory persuasive, then I hope it can encourage you if you're worried about the eternal salvation of people you love who haven't yet believed in Jesus, despite your best efforts to witness to them. Perhaps you might also find hope for loved ones who died before they understood the gospel or clearly expressed faith in Jesus.

I also hope my theory highlights how loving, just, and merciful our Triune God is, and how amazing it was that he would send Jesus to die for all of our sins. God truly is Love, and all who love Love will one day recognize this, believe in Jesus, and live with God forever in a perfect world of complete love. I hope you'll be there!

Footnotes:

1. Edwards said the fact that God is said to be Love (1 John 4:8, 16) "shows that there are more persons than one in the Deity: for it shows love to be essential and necessary to the Deity, so that his nature consists in it" (Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," in WJE 21: 113–114). Conversely, if God was not Triune, then God could not be Love in Himself, since "one alone, without any reference to any more, cannot be excellent; for in such case there can be no manner of relation no way, and therefore, no such thing as consent [i.e., love]" (Edwards, "The Mind," in WJE 6: 336-337, Edwards, "Miscellanies," no. 117 in WJE 13: 284). Edwards said God's glory/beauty "must consist primarily in love to himself, or in the mutual love and friendship which subsists eternally and necessarily between the several persons in the Godhead" (Edwards, "True Virtue," in WJE 8: 557).
2. This is my alteration of Edwards' idea that God is "Being in general", who loves all other beings and seeks their good, except for beings who are opposed to the good of other beings and/or the good of "Being in general" (Jonathan Edwards, "Dissertation 2: True Virtue", in WJE 8: 540-545. See also Edwards, "The Mind," nos. 1 and 45 in WJE 6: 332–38, 362–64.) Instead, I start with the claim that God is Love, who therefore loves love and hates what goes against love (i.e., sin/evil), which is much easier to prove from the Bible.
3. This is similar to how Edwards thought that a larger network of mutually-loving relationships has more "spiritual beauty" or "true virtue", which was derived from Edwards' philosophy of aesthetics. (Edwards, "True Virtue," in WJE 8: 540, 548–549, 562–563).
4. This is similar to how Edwards said that God created the world in order for people to know God and love God, which makes them happy. Therefore, God's glory and creaturely happiness are identical, and God is most glorified when his people are happiest (Edwards, "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 459). Essentially, a creature's true happiness consists of the creature knowing and loving God, perceiving God's beauty and glory, and rejoicing in God as the creature's "supreme end" (Edwards, "End of Creation", 533). Yet again, though, I would prefer to argue from Scripture, which is easier. Since all of God's commands for people are ultimately to love God and love others, and God loves us and wants what is best for us, then following God's commands is what will make us happiest, which is to love and be loved, since Love is what God is.
5. Edwards said heaven will be a society of perfect love between saints, angels, and the Trinity. There, redeemed saints will perfectly love all others, and will be perfectly loved by all others in return. Edwards believed that the saints will grow in their knowledge and love of God for all eternity, becoming progressively happier and closer to God, and God will be even more glorified. It is therefore in God’s own interest to ensure that the saints are eternally happy, and God will continue to bless his saints with infinite good. Saints will also rejoice in each other’s happiness. (Edwards, "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 443, 533–536, Edwards, "Heaven is a World of Love," in WJE 8: 370-374, 382, Edwards, "True Virtue," in WJE 8: 541–54.)
6. Edwards, Freedom of the Will, WJE 1: 378–380. Edwards also says "every being had rather things should be according to his will than not; and therefore, if things ben't [are not] according to his will, it must be for want of power. It can't be for want of will, by supposition; it must therefore be for want of sufficiency. It must be either because he can't have it so, or can't have it so without some difficulty, or some inconvenience" (Edwards, "Part V: Predestination," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 27, "Controversies" Notebook [Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008].) Although Edwards thinks that God can do whatever God wants, I would argue that God cannot force someone to love Him, because that would not be true love (see sources in next footnote). Thus, although God wants everyone to love Him, the nature of free will which is necessary for love to be possible means that God's omnipotence is not able to guarantee that everyone will freely choose to love Him.
7. I have talked about this in more detail in my post here. See also Gregory A. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," in Four Views on Divine Providence, eds. Stanley N. Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 188-189; Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 69; C.S. Lewis. "The Screwtape Letters," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), letter 8, 207.
8. For example, the hell/purgatory that C. S. Lewis imagined in his story "The Great Divorce" where the 'ghosts' live is a miserable, dreary place where the ghosts don't even like each other. Yet this would only be the mildest version of a world without any love/goodness. Actually, though, a world without any love at all would be even worse than a planet full of Reavers from the Firefly/Serenity sci-fi series, where everyone would be full of as much hate and rage as possible, and their only goal would be to do maximum harm to themselves and all others.
9. "In this life, of course, we rarely, if ever, choose in a context of full clarity. We all emerge and start making choices in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and illusion, where God remains at least partly hidden from us. But that merely makes matters worse.... For insofar as God remains hidden from us and we do not fully understand the true nature of God or the consequences of separating ourselves from him, we are in no position to reject the true God at all. We may reject a caricature of God, as frequently happens in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception; but we are in no position to reject the true God until our ignorance has been removed and our misjudgments have been corrected" (Thomas B. Talbott, "Response by Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 144.)
10. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third ed. (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 148-151.
11. "While many ECT-defenders [where ECT stands for Eternal-Conscious-Torment] are quick to take the account literally enough to undergird ECT hell, they usually hesitate to take the other motifs quite so literally, since these inevitably lead to anomalies & absurdities, as has been demonstrated many times. For instance, Szukalski points out: 'The narrative detail about the poor man being 'carried away by angels' is curious in that such a belief does not occur in Jewish writings before the mid-second century.'' It is only 'curious' because it is unbiblical! Powys makes a similar point about the eschatologically unscriptural landscape of the parable as a whole: 'This story alone is devoid of recognizably ‘Christian’ teaching; it is entirely composed of the thoughtforms of first century Judaism…‘ Why is this passage devoid of the characteristic ingredients of Synoptic eschatology?’ It makes no reference to the fulfilment of the Kingdom of God, or the coming of the Son of Man, or judgment issuing either in life or destruction.' Emphasizing how the parable is deliberately 'comprised of the imagery of immediate, automated post-mortem compensation, a commonplace in Pharisaic teaching, but foreign to the teachings of Jesus as reported elsewhere'". David Jakubovic, "'Turn or Burn!' 1920s Style", Afterlife.co.nz, May 3, 2023.
12. Ralph Cunnington, "A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers," Evangelical Quarterly, 82.3, 2010, 234-235.
13. Ralph Cunnington, "A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers," Evangelical Quarterly, 82.3, 2010, 235. See also a good quote from Tony Wright: "We need not conclude that Jesus is endorsing in any way the veracity of these motifs. In this parable Jesus no more provides information about the intermediate state than, in other parables, does he provide instruction on correct agricultural practices (Luke 15:4-6) or investing tips (Luke 16:1-13)."(Tony Wright, "Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology – Part 2," Churchman 122:2, 2008, 114.)
14. Ralph Cunnington, "A re-examination of the intermediate state of unbelievers," Evangelical Quarterly, 82.3, 2010, 235. In the same article, Cunnington deals with 2 Peter 2:9 that is often translated as "and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment," yet he gives reasons why it is perhaps better translated as "keep the unrighteous to be punished" (232).
15. David Jakubovic, "'Turn or Burn!' 1920s Style", Afterlife.co.nz, May 3, 2023, citing David J. Powys, Hell: A Hard Look at a Hard Question (Paternoster, Carlisle, 1997), 225.
16. "[Christians] have over the rest of the world the one inestimable advantage that God the Reconciler and the event of reconciliation can be to them a matter of recognition and confession, until the day when He and it will be the subject of His revelation to all eyes and ears and hearts, and therefore of the recognition and confession of all men." (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2004), §58 section 4, 149).
17. Shawn Lazar, Chosen to Serve: Why Divine Election Is to Service, Not to Eternal Life (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017), 137-141, 171, 202-203, 207-212, 238-239.

Are There Divine Truths in Nature or Other Religions?

2023-05-01T00:00:00+00:00

In my past several posts, I've been building a case for why I believe that some sort of theory of Christian inclusivism is necessary if Christians want to believe everything the Bible says about which individuals will be eternally saved.

As a reminder, Christian inclusivism is the idea that although Christianity is the only true religion/faith, people who were not Christians and who never heard the gospel during their earthly lives can still be eternally saved, because God truly wants to save all people.

However, despite this, not everyone will be saved, and so universalism isn't a biblical option. Inclusivism also denies that all religions lead to the same God or the same heaven, and thus, it is not the same as religious pluralism.

I believe that a theologically-sound theory of inclusivism could be an option for Christians who might otherwise be tempted to endorse universalism. It could also resolve the negative consequences for God's character that can be implied by exclusivism.

A good theory of inclusivism could also reduce the anxiety that Christians may feel regarding the eternal destiny of our neighbors, friends, and family members who don't currently believe in Jesus, or who died without accepting Jesus, despite our best efforts to witness to them.

Three Possibilities For Christian Inclusivism

There may be historical precedent for Christian inclusivism, as demonstrated by the behavior of the earliest Christians.

It is suggested that Christians in the early church believed that God was at work in all people, and so these Christians could live with "a subtle combination of relaxation and urgency in relation to non-Christians. On the one hand, they do not seem obsessed about the fate of the majority of pagans among whom they lived, yet on the other hand they still engaged in vigorous mission activity among them."1

So although I'm convinced that some form of Christian inclusivism seems to be biblically necessary, and it might even have historical precedent, the challenge is to explain how it works.

That is, Christian inclusivists need to explain on what basis God will judge people who never heard the gospel (or who died before they had the ability to understand and personally respond to the gospel) that could lead to at least some of those people being eternally saved.

There are several possibilities I have heard Christians propose, including:

Each person has an encounter with God/Jesus after death, giving individuals who have not previously had a chance to accept or reject the gospel the opportunity to make their final decision regarding God's offer of salvation then. I explored this option in my post here.
God judges people based on what their earthly actions revealed about their hearts being oriented either toward God or away from God. I discussed this option here.
God judges people based on how they responded to the truths about God that they did have access to during their lives through nature, or maybe, through otherwise false religions.

A disclaimer: I haven't read every book or article on Christian inclusivism that exists. However, it seems to me that most proposals for Christian inclusivism would fall into one of these categories, or might make use of a combination of these basic but distinct claims.

In the rest of this post, I will examine the third and last option, and explain why I believe it is not as persuasive as the first or second options.

People Can Know Something About God Through Nature

David said that the sky and stars testify about God to all people:

The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never heard. Yet their message has gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world. (Psalm 19:1-4, NLT)

Psalm 8 likewise praises God's design of the stars, humanity, and all the animals.

In Romans 1:18-23, Paul said that all people should know something about God from what they can see in nature. Two specific divine traits that Paul mentions include God's "eternal power" and "divine nature."

In theology, the idea of knowing something about God from nature is called general revelation, because it is available to all people, at all times. In contrast, special revelation is communication given directly from God, such as was given to the human authors of the books that would become the Old and New Testaments.

In the theology class I was a TA for, it was common for students to endorse the idea of general revelation by pointing to beautiful sunsets, rainbows, forests, mountains, and the stars as being examples of God's glory and goodness.

The 18th century theologian Jonathan Edwards loved walking in nature. One reason for this was because he believed he could see many things in nature that pointed to spiritual truths about God, or to other truths that were found in Scripture. He wrote:

I believe that the whole universe, heaven and earth, air and seas, and the divine constitution and history of the holy Scriptures, be full of images of divine things, as full as a language is of words; and that the multitude of those things that I have mentioned are but a very small part of what is really intended to be signified and typified by these things.2

Edwards filled several notebooks with lists of the theological ideas that he believed could be seen in the sun, moon, stars, snakes and spiders, grass and vegetation, rivers, trees, clouds, and animals, among other things.3 For example, the beauty of nature represented God's goodness, grace, and love, while thunder and lightning represented God's wrath at sin.4

So this is one way that some Christians say they can see God through nature.

Alternatively, Christians who lean more toward science might point out how the physical properties of the universe, our solar system,4a and even the Earth itself appear to be "finely tuned" to support the existence of life.4b This is called the anthropic principle, and it is often referred to as support for the idea that God created the universe.

Similar arguments for God's amazing design of living things could be made from the irreducible complexity of certain aspects of biological organisms.4c In irreducibly complex systems, without every component being exactly the way it is, the entire system loses all functionality. These examples are strong support for the idea that God created life, because these irreducibly-complex biological systems could not have evolved piece-by-piece.

Therefore, it is certainly possible for Christians to argue that nature provides evidence of God's existence, power, and glory.

But Nature Is Not Enough To Lead People To Salvation

However, there is a major difficulty for theories of Christian inclusivism that rely on general revelation.

This difficulty is that Paul also said that because all people can know some basic truths about God by looking at nature, all people are "without excuse" when they suppress this truth and refuse to honor God or thank God (Romans 1:18-23). Then, as a judgment, God allows these people's minds to be darkened so that they fall into idolatry, sexual immorality, and a variety of other sins (Romans 1:24-32).

So in effect, Paul's explanation in Romans 1 is an elaboration of the point he makes later, that,

No one is righteous—not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one. (Romans 3:10-12 NLT, quoting Psalm 14:2-3)

Other Bible verses make the same point, such as Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 53:6, and Romans 3:23. All people are sinners due to being descendants of Adam and Eve, who sinned when they doubted God's word in the Garden of Eden and chose to disobey God's instructions (Romans 5:12-14).

Because of Romans 1:18-23, Bible commentators and theologians usually say that general revelation does not provide enough information about God for people to be eternally saved.

For example, John Calvin argued that although some things about God are revealed in nature, the problem is that sinful humans can't properly perceive God by looking at nature without also having been told about God through God's Word. Yet, once someone has faith in God because they have been told about him, then they can see God's glory in creation.5

Jonathan Edwards made the same point when he argued that Christians learn from Scripture how to interpret the spiritual meaning of what they see in nature. We also need the help of the Holy Spirit in order to properly understand spiritual things. Without the Holy Spirit and Scripture as a guide, Edwards thought that people are effectively 'blind' to seeing God's glory in nature.6

This argument can appear to be supported by how the famous skeptic David Hume argued that when we look at nature on its own, without any other sources of information, it is difficult to make any conclusions about what sort of God might have created it.

For example, Hume said that things such as earthquakes, diseases, and other natural disasters might suggest that the designer of the world (if there is one) is incompetent. Or maybe, these things show that the world is the product of both good and bad forces or gods, or even a whole pantheon of gods, each with their own area of expertise.7

Some atheists have made similar objections against a perfectly good and loving God based on the suffering they see in nature.

For example, Charles Darwin famously said, "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ [parasitic wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars."8

Sir David Attenborough also rejected the idea of a good and loving God, citing an instance of a parasitic worm that he found living inside a child's eyeball.9

Christian apologists rightly point out that any such suffering in nature is the result of the first sin of Adam and Eve. Because of the first sin, the natural world became partly corrupted and subject to a curse, until it will be set free at some point in the future when Jesus returns (Romans 8:20-22). Thus, there are ways that Christians can defend God's goodness despite the suffering that we currently see in nature.

Regardless, Paul's statement in Romans 1:18-21 must still be true, because every word of Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), and the Holy Spirit is God, who never lies (Titus 1:2).

So it seems that what is revealed in nature about God is enough for people to know that God exists, and this makes them accountable to God when they turn away from God. Yet it does not seem that nature on its own provides enough information for people to know that they need to believe in Jesus in order to be eternally saved.

However, because God truly wants all people to be saved, then there must be some way for this to be possible, even for people who lived in times or places when they did not have access to the Bible or to Jewish or Christian missionaries.

So if nature is ruled out as a way for people to know enough about God to be saved, then what other source of information about God might unevangelized people have access to?

Some inclusivists suggest that maybe God is able to make use of whatever genuine truths about him are found in otherwise false religions. If people respond positively to these truths, then God might consider their faith in these truths to be equivalent to having faith in Jesus. In this way, these people might be able to be eternally saved, even without having known specifically about Jesus or the gospel.

C. S. Lewis hints at something like this possibility at the end of his Narnia series.

Does God Accept The Worship and Service of False Deities As Worship and Service Of Himself?

In the The Last Battle, the final novel of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia series, Lewis imagined a character named Emeth. Emeth is a soldier in an enemy army and worships a false god named Tash.

At this point in the book, many of the characters are gathered together outside a horse stable. A conniving monkey says that inside the stable is "Tashlan," which is a mash-up of the names Tash and Aslan. In Narnia, Aslan is equivalent to Jesus Christ. The monkey has claimed that Tash is the same as Aslan, and so the soldier Emeth is eager to go into the stable to meet his god Tash.10

Emeth goes in, but everyone else assumes that he will be killed. During the subsequent battle between the Narnians and the enemy army, the boy Eustace is captured and thrown into the stable by an enemy soldier. Other characters are likewise thrown in, including the human leader of the Narnian army, and Eustace's friend Jill.

Inside the stable, Eustace, Jill, and the Narnian leader find themselves in the presence of various humans who had been on Aslan's side in previous Narnia books. They are all depicted in glorified bodies, wearing fine robes and crowns.11 They are in a sort of heavenly dimension, with fruit trees, green grass, sunshine, and a clear sky, rather than inside a horse stable.

One of the characters, Queen Lucy, describes what has been happening from her perspective inside this heavenly dimension. When Emeth came through the stable door, expecting to see his false god Tash, he actually met these other good characters. But Emeth seemed to be in a daze or trance, and he didn't quite realize where he was, so he wandered off somewhere.12

Aslan then appears and ends the world of Narnia, after performing a final judgment of all creatures. Aslan welcomes the creatures who loved him into the heavenly alternative-dimension. After all of this, the saved characters come across Emeth again, who has also been saved from the destruction of Narnia.

Emeth explains to them that,

For always since I was a boy I have served Tash and my great desire was to know more of him and, if it might be, to look upon his face. But the name of Aslan was hateful to me.13

When Emeth found himself to be in this heavenly alternative-dimension, he wandered around looking for Tash. Instead of Tash, though, he met Aslan. Emeth says,

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc [emperor] of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, "Son, thou art welcome." But I said, "Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash." He answered, "Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.... For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted".14

So it seems that Lewis is proposing a theory of Christian inclusivism where anyone who truly seeks what he or she thinks is God, and also does what is right, is accepted by God. This is similar to when the Apostle Peter said, "Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears [i.e., respects] him and does what is right is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34-35).

Yet this verse (and Lewis' story) must be interpreted in ways that do not teach salvation by works. It is clear from the Bible that no one is saved by the good works that they do during their lives, but only by faith in God/Jesus (e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9).

Lewis is also careful to clarify that the false god Tash is not actually the same as Aslan, in order to avoid the unbiblical idea of religious pluralism, which suggests that all religions worship the same God.

But it could also appear that Lewis is saying that Emeth was saved because he responded to the truth about God that he knew from his false religion. Lewis' depiction of Emeth's entry into heaven might also imply that people from other religions who are eternally saved will initially think that they have entered heaven due to their false gods or their false religion.

However, the Bible says that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10-11).

So Christians need to be careful about implying that people from other religions will enter directly into heaven without recognizing who Jesus is and what he has done for them.

Because of Philippians 2:10-11, I am quite certain that, unlike Lewis' depiction of Emeth, any Hindus who end up being saved will not be wandering around heaven wondering where all their gods are. Any ancient Greeks who are saved will not be in heaven asking for directions to Mount Olympus, and any saved Muslims will not think they earned their way into heaven through performing the works prescribed by the 'Five Pillars' of Islam.

In fact, it might actually be better to see Lewis' story as primarily promoting a combination of the first two inclusivistic options I listed earlier: a post-mortem encounter with Jesus, along with the idea that God will judge each person's heart as it was revealed by a person's actions.

I just wish that Lewis had depicted this a little more clearly, to avoid mistakenly suggesting that in heaven, some people may not initially realize that the reason they have been eternally saved is because of Jesus's death for their sins.

It would also be important for a theory of Christian inclusivism to avoid implying that God doesn't ultimately care which religion a person follows, as long as the person tries to do what is good. Otherwise, it does not make sense why Jesus instructed Christians to take the gospel to all people (Matthew 28:19-20). Therefore, it does not seem that all religions are equal when it comes to fulfilling God's purposes for people's lives.

However, obviously, Christian evangelists have not been able to reach all people. Might there still be some way that God can reach these people with his truth, even maybe through their otherwise-false religions?

Is There Truth In Other Religions?

C.S. Lewis is not the only Christian who has suggested that people from other religions can still possibly be eternally saved. This is also Clark Pinnock's basic proposal in his book A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Zondervan, 1992).

Pinnock says that on the basis of Acts 14:16-17,

Since God has not left anyone without witness, people are judged on the basis of the light they have received and how they have responded to that light. Faith in God is what saves, not possessing certain minimum information. Hebrews is clear: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (Hebrews 11:6).15

So far, this is all supportable by Scripture, and I have argued similarly in my blog post here. However, where Pinnock takes it is more questionable. Although it is slightly long, here is Pinnock's summary of how he understands the salvation of people who never knew about Jesus or the gospel:

People cannot respond to light that did not reach them. They can only respond to revelation that did. Scripture and reason both imply that no one can be held responsible for truth of which they were inculpably ignorant; they are judged on the basis of the truth they know. A person is saved by faith, even if the content of belief is deficient (and whose is not?). The Bible does not teach that one must confess the name of Jesus to be saved. Job did not know it. David did not know it. Babies dying in infancy do not know it. It is not so much a question whether the unevangelized know Jesus as whether Jesus knows them (Matthew 7:23). One does not have to be conscious of the work of Christ done on one's behalf in order to benefit from that work. The issue God cares about is the direction of the heart, not the content of theology. Paul says that faith makes the difference. God is the "Savior of all men [potentially], and especially of those who believe [actually]" (1 Timothy 4:10). This is the path I will take to explain how the unevangelized gain access to God and are finally saved.16

The question then for this post is what true 'light' might be found in other religions that unevangelized people could respond to, in order for them to be eternally saved.

Pinnock suggests that,

God calls on all persons to seek him, whether they seek him from within religion or outside it. There is enough truth in most religions for people to take hold of and put their trust in God's mercy.17

For example, Pinnock claims,

Though Christianity and Islam, for instance, are vastly different, they are not without important similarities. Christians and Muslims, together with large numbers of people from other traditions of the world, believe there is one God who created the universe and they admire the work of his hands. Christians do not have a monopoly on belief in one God. Even oriental religious systems with an absence of clear belief in a personal God do not lack for abiding insight into religious and philosophical truth. Even there, the light shines and points to a greater light.18

Yet I am reminded of how James said, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (James 2:19). Thus, belief in monotheism alone is not particularly praiseworthy.

Furthermore, historically, monotheism has actually been a key reason that Muslims and Jews have rejected the idea that Jesus is God. Christians have been persecuted by both groups because worshipping Jesus as God while also worshipping God the Father appears to contradict the idea of monotheism.

Thus, starting from the point of there being only one God is not necessarily helpful for inter-religious dialogue, unless these other monotheistic religions are prepared to accept the Christian belief that God is a Triune being of three divine persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (e.g., Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19).

Additionally, Pinnock seems to be implying that a belief in monotheism alone is enough to save someone.

In contrast, at least C.S. Lewis' version of inclusivism had some provision for considering a person's heart and/or works, and whether these works are in alignment with God's loving character, which would exclude those who commit atrocities in the name of a false god. In Pinnock's version, it seems that if people were convinced that their monotheistic god told them to do something terrible, and they acted on it, then that would be a praiseworthy act of faith!

Even more troubling is how Pinnock claims that Christians have things to learn from other religions:

Other religions have resources for speaking truth and referring to realities that Christians need to learn about. As George Lindbeck says, "Whatever the faults of Hellenization, it must be seen as a process in which Christians learned much of inestimable value from ancient paganisms and from the culture and philosophies that were their offspring".19

This is very questionable, especially since Pinnock does not provide any specific examples of things that were of 'inestimable value' that Christians learned from the pagan Greeks. Pinnock only mentions how Paul claimed that God had not left himself without a witness in any nation (Acts 14:16-17), and how Paul strategically made use of some things that Greek poets had said in some of Paul's initial presentations of the gospel to Greeks (Acts 17:28).20

And actually, rather than being a benefit, there are arguments to be made that ideas which crept into Christianity from other religions have actually harmed Christian theology.

For example, Randy Alcorn has pointed out how the Greek philosophy of Platonism which disdains the physical world has undermined Christians' understanding of bodily resurrection and what we should expect eternal life to be like on the New Earth.21

Thomas F. Torrance has also investigated how the proper biblical understanding of God's grace (i.e., God acting graciously toward people in various ways, most importantly, by sending Jesus to atone for sin) was gradually distorted through the influence of Greek philosophy on various early church leaders, until God's grace came to be thought of as some sort of mystical substance or energy that could be dispensed by the church's sacraments.22

In a later book, Pinnock himself argues that Greek metaphysical assumptions about God may have led to possible misportrayals of God. For example, God came to be seen as ultra-transcendent, timeless, unchangeable, impassible, and thus unresponsive to the world, much like the Greek philosophers believed, unlike the Biblical depiction of God as relational, passionate, and flexible enough to adapt to people's free choices.23

Furthermore, Pinnock admits that there can be some problematic ideas found in other religions that would prevent someone from believing in God as he truly is:

For example, the antimetaphyiscal tendency of Buddhist theology would not help a person trying to conceptualize God as loving and personal. The Muslim emphasis on works righteousness would not propel people to seek the mercy of God. The Hindu notion of illusion would not encourage people to take this life and its tasks seriously.24

Therefore, it seems that Pinnock has not clearly proven that there is enough 'light' in other religions to allow those who follow them to be saved.

And unfortunately, Pinnock's appeals to Old Testament figures such as Job to support his claims is actually a logical fallacy called a red herring, because these people are not relevant to this topic of how God will judge unevangelized people, as I will show in the next section.

Are There 'Pagan' Saints?

One difficulty with Pinnock's theory of inclusivism is how he often labels people like Abel, Abram, Job, Enoch, Melchizedek, Abimelech, and Noah as "pagan saints," simply because they did not know as much about God as Jews or Christians today do.25

About these people, Pinnock says,

These were men who sought God and were rewarded for their faith (Hebrews 11:6). Though the content of their theology might have been pre-Christian and deficient from a later standpoint, they were moving in the direction toward God, no matter whether their religion helped or hindered their approach.26

Throughout his book, Pinnock refers to these individuals as proof of his argument that people from other religions can still be saved if they have faith in God. However, I think this claim is somewhat disingenuous.

Most Christians would argue that people like Job, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were eternally saved because they trusted in the one true God, even though greater details about God and how God would save people through Jesus were not yet revealed. They did not worship idols or participate in some other false religion, as Pinnock might imply when he describes them as pagans.

For example, Job famously said,

For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God, whom I shall see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. (Job 19:25-27)

Job also offered sacrifices to God as compensation or atonement for sins (Job 1:5). This shows he had some awareness of what sin was, and that sacrifice somehow pleased God and/or took away God's displeasure at sin.

So Job was not a 'pagan' saint who worshipped some false god, because he worshipped the true God in the way that he had been taught. Job had faith that he would be resurrected because God would redeem him by sending a savior. In terms of the content of Job's theology, that's pretty good, considering that Job is often thought to be one of the oldest books of the Bible.

Noah and Enoch are similar to Job, because both these men walked closely with the true God.

Enoch pleased God so much that it seems he was taken directly to heaven in a sort of personal Rapture before the worldwide Flood came (Genesis 5:24).

Noah was also a preacher of righteousness to the world of his time (2 Peter 2:5), and he is said to have walked with God (Genesis 6:9) in the sense of having a close personal relationship with God. Noah is listed in Hebrews 11 as an example of someone who had strong faith in God (Hebrews 11:7).

Thus, both Enoch and Noah were not 'pagans', in the sense of following other religions and worshipping idols or other false gods.

Abram, who would later be renamed Abraham, is not recorded in the Bible as personally being part of a false religion or worshipping idols, although his family before him did so for at least some time before they left Ur (Joshua 24:2, Genesis 31:53, Genesis 11:31).

Still, after God called Abram to leave his home and head out to a new land that God would show him, Abraham had faith in God's promise to give him many descendants (Genesis 15:3-6, Hebrews 11:8-10). Abraham's faith in God's promise was enough for him to be eternally saved, and this is why Abraham is an example of all who would later put their faith in God (Romans 4:3-12). Like Job, Abraham also had faith in God's ability to bring people back from the dead (Hebrews 11:17-19).

So if Pinnock wanted to make a case that people from other false religions can still be saved, he would need to find someone in the Bible who was actually worshipping a false god, but who was saved because of the 'truth' that was still found in this false religion, without that person giving up their false religion and turning to put their faith in the true God.

However, I do not believe there is any such example in the Bible.

Even Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, came to eventually recognize Daniel's God as the only true God who had sovereignty over the kings of the world, after God had humbled Nebuchadnezzar for seven years (Daniel 4:34-37). Darius the Mede also believed in God after he saw God rescue Daniel from being eaten in the lion's den (Daniel 6:25-27). So these two individuals are not helpful examples for a theory of inclusivism.

Pinnock refers to the Queen of Sheba who came to hear Solomon's wisdom as an example of someone who was 'unevangelized' who will still be saved. 27 Jesus said that this queen would rise up on the last day and would condemn those who heard Jesus but rejected him, implying that she is saved (Matthew 12:42). However, the Queen of Sheba does not count as a worshiper of a false god, because at the end of her time of learning from Solomon, she praised God who she recognized as the Lord of Israel (1 Kings 10:8-9). So she really wasn't 'unevangelized' after all, contra Pinnock's claim.

Melchizedek also does not qualify as being 'unevangelized,' because he is described as being a priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:1-3). In the book of Hebrews, Melchizedek is used as an example or foreshadowing of Jesus, and it is unlikely that the author of Hebrews would have compared Jesus to Melchizedek if Melchizedek had worshipped a false god (Hebrews 5:5-6, 6:19-20, 7:15-25). The fact that Abraham tithed to Melchizedek also seems to show that Abraham recognized him as being a true follower and priest of God. The author of Hebrews even says that Melchizedek was superior to the Levitical priests of Israel (Hebrews 7:4-13).

Cornelius, the Roman centurion, was described as being a non-Jewish person who still respected and prayed to Israel's God, and so was well-spoken of by the Jewish people (Acts 10:1-2, 10:22). Although Cornelius had not yet heard the gospel until God sent Peter to him, he certainly wasn't a 'pagan' in the sense of worshipping false gods. Plus, he and his family became Christians.

What about Abimelech? Pinnock refers to King Abimelech as being a Canaanite who had greater faith in God than Abraham did.28 Yet this is a bit of an overstatement.

Abimelech received a warning about divine judgment from God in a dream, and acted on it by returning Sarah to Abraham after having believed that she was available to marry (Genesis 20:3-7). However, it is not completely clear what Abimelech's beliefs were about God, either before or after this incident.

Abraham said he thought that there was no one who feared God in Abimelech's kingdom, and this is why he felt the need to lie about Sarah being his wife (Genesis 20:11). This, though, only reflects Abraham's personal judgment of Abimelech's faith, and says nothing about Abimelech's true beliefs.

So it's impossible to say whether Abimelech believed in God before his dream. Since there is not enough evidence, it may be best to see Abimelech as being similar to the king of Nineveh, who also repented after being warned about God's judgment (Jonah 3:6-9), rather than as someone who had faithfully worshipped the true God all along.

The Syrian commander Naaman is perhaps the closest example to a 'pagan saint' that I can think of in the Bible, but even he doesn't meet the necessary criteria to support Pinnock's theory of religious inclusivism.

After Naaman was cured of leprosy by following the prophet Elisha's instructions, Naaman said, "Behold, I know that there is no God in all the earth but in Israel" (2 Kings 5:15), and he promised to not offer sacrifices to any other gods (2 Kings 5:17). However, Naaman also asked to be pardoned when, in service of his master, he would have to go into a pagan temple and bow his head as part of his duties (2 Kings 5:18). Elisha told him to not worry about it (2 Kings 5:19).

So I would say that Naaman was truly saved because he became a believer in God, but he was not a 'pagan saint' before he became a believer in Israel's God.

However, Naaman is an interesting suggestion that, for example, it might not be a sin for formerly-Muslim Christians to go into a mosque to pray because it is socially expected or legally required of them. This would be true especially in a country where it is forbidden to openly be a Christian, provided that they pray to the true God in their hearts. Yet Naaman is still not a Biblical example of someone being saved because they had faith in and worshipped a different god.

Therefore, I do not see any examples in Scripture that could support Pinnock's argument that there are people who can be saved by believing in or worshipping a different god than the true God of Israel, Yahweh, who is known by Christians as God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

A More Plausible Option: The Prisca Theologia Theory

Despite the lack of supporting biblical evidence, if Christian inclusivists still want to argue that there is some way for God to reveal himself to unevangelized people through the 'truths' that can be found in other religions or traditions, there is a more plausible way to do so.

For example, Pinnock refers to Moses' father-in-law Jethro, who was the priest of Midian (Exodus 18:1-12). About him, Pinnock says,

Jethro had known and worshiped God outside the covenant with Israel before he met Moses, and was delighted to learn how great God was to deliver Israel out of Egypt. He realized that the god he had served was better revealed as Yahweh, and therefore joined in the worship of him with Moses and Aaron.29

So yet again, if this is true, then Jethro was not worshipping a false or 'pagan' god. He simply did not know as much about God as the Israelites did, because of the special covenant that God had made with Abraham and his descendants. But if Jethro was worshipping the true God, then we might ask, how did he know enough about the true God to be considered a priest? The same question also applies for Melchizedek.

A plausible answer may come from the prisca theologia theory, sometimes also called ancient theology. This is the idea that all people groups have had some exposure to the truth about God because of knowledge that had been passed down to them from ancient sources that can be traced back to even before the worldwide Flood.

This idea was used by early Christian apologists such as Phlio, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, and Eusibius, in order to argue that the best Greek and Roman philosophers were working with the same truths that were given to the Jews and Christians through Scripture. Jonathan Edwards also made use of this theory to respond to critics of Christianity who said that God was unfair to not give equal divine revelation to all people.30

I think this theory has some decent potential, and it is compatible with Biblical history. For example, Adam and Eve were told the initial gospel that the "seed" of the woman would defeat Satan, although this savior would be wounded in the process (Genesis 3:15). This verse is usually thought of as the earliest prophecy that the Messiah would be born from a virgin.

The idea of animal sacrifices to temporarily cover sins also goes back to how God created the first clothes for Adam and Eve from animal skins to cover their newfound shame (Genesis 3:21). This is why Abel's sacrifice of a lamb was pleasing to God, but Cain's sacrifice of produce he had grown was not (Genesis 4:4-7).

The idea of animal sacrifice was passed down to Noah, who knew about 'clean' animals that could be sacrificed to God (Genesis 7:1-3, 8:20). What else might Adam and Eve have known about God that they passed down to their sons and daughters, all the way down to Noah? Then Noah and his family could have passed it on to their descendants after the Flood.

What makes the prisca thelogia theory more plausible is to remember that before the Flood, people lived much longer than they do now.

Adam lived to 930 years old, and when the ages of other patriarchs are put on a timeline with Adam, it is amazing to see that Noah was born only 126 years after Adam died! Noah's grandfather Methuselah, and his father Lamech, both lived for about 250 and 50 years, respectively, while Adam was still alive.31

Therefore, what Adam knew about God could have passed almost directly to Noah with just one or two intermediaries.

Noah and his sons also lived for several hundred years after the Flood, although future generations' lifespans were rapidly decreasing. Shem's lifespan, for example, overlaps with Abraham's, and Shem even outlived Abraham by a few decades!32

This means that it should have been possible for accurate information about God to have been passed along by Noah and his sons to several future generations after the Flood, with very few intermediaries.

Some evidence for the prisca theologia theory may come from the intriguing suggestion that the basic gospel message is "written in the stars" through the constellations of the zodiac, and that this was known to several different groups of ancient people.

In 1882, Joseph Seiss wrote a book called The Gospel in the Stars. He emphasized that God made the sun, moon, planets, and stars to be signs to humanity, on the basis of Genesis 1:14. Seiss noted how astronomy was very important to ancient cultures such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Egyptians, and how everyone seems to have learned the same constellations from extremely ancient sources, even dating back to before the worldwide Flood.33

Because of this, Seiss claimed:

It thus appears that in treating of these starry groupings and pictures we are dealing with something very different from the inventions of paganism and mythology—with something as sacred in origin, as venerable in age, and as edifying in import as anything known to man. Corrupt religion and classic fable have interfered to obscure and pervert their meaning, and scientific self-will has crowded them with impertinent and unmeaning additions; but, in reality, they constitute the primeval Bible—a divine record of the true faith and hope of man, the oldest in human possession.34

Seiss goes into striking detail in his book regarding all the biblical doctrines that he believes can be seen in the constellations. It's really fascinating and encouraging, and I would definitely recommend Seiss' book. If Seiss is right, then the constellations could be one way that ancient people could have been reminded of the gospel message that had been passed down to them from Adam and Eve, through Noah's family.

Difficulties With the Prisca Theologia Theory

Yet the difficulty for the prisca theologia theory begins after the Tower of Babel incident. It was then that God sent yet-another judgment on all the people of the world, in order to restrain sinful humanity's ambitions. God confused everyone's languages so that the formerly-unified post-Flood society had to break up into smaller groups and spread out around the world (Genesis 11:1-9).

Presumably, when this separation occurred, some of the knowledge about God that this pre-Babel society had would have gone along with at least some members of each new people group.

For example, many cultures around the world have stories of a worldwide Flood that can be seen as distorted accounts of Noah's ark.35 The most famous one is called the Epic of Gilgamesh, which mentions how an immortal man survived a worldwide Flood in a cube-shaped ark. Some Bible critics have claimed that the Epic of Gilgamesh was the source of the story of the Flood in Genesis. Yet for a number of reasons, it is clear that the Epic of Gilgamesh is just one more distortion, while Genesis contains the original accurate story.36

These distorted Flood stories, though, are just one example of how, even if ancient people groups took with them some truths that they had learned about God from Noah and his descendants, this knowledge was lost, distorted, or corrupted as time went by.

Jonathan Edwards argued that this sort of corruption is what eventually led pagan cultures into idolatry and human sacrifice. Yet ingeniously, Edwards also saw these two sinful things as also preparing pagan cultures to hear the gospel.

For example, the idea of a deity becoming connected to a physical idol may have, in a way, prepared these cultures to understand the idea of the incarnation of the Son of God as the human Jesus. Also, human sacrifices done to appease angry gods could have prepared these cultures to understand how Jesus' death on the cross saved all humanity from God's wrath at sin (e.g., Romans 5:8-10, 3:24-26).37

The prisca theologia theory could also explain the variety of pagan stories that seem vaguely similar to some details about Jesus Christ. In many stories in pagan cultures, there are tales about a special child whose mother was a virgin, and the child would become a savior that would die and return to life again.38 These could all be seen as variations of Genesis 3:15.

It has also been suggested that human reason might have been one way that God could still reach out to unevangelized people.

For example, Pinnock optimistically refers to how some early church authors like Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others may have thought that as long as people lived their lives according to the 'logos' (in ancient Greek, logos meant 'divine word', 'reason', or 'wisdom') they could be saved, even if they didn't know about Jesus. This is because the 'logos' was actually the Word of God, the second Person of the Trinity, who became incarnate as Jesus Christ (John 1:1-14).39

Edwards, though, was pessimistic about the role of reason in salvation. He said that people in non-Christian cultures, despite having access to some truths of divine revelation handed down from ancient sources such as Adam or the patriarchs, have denied or distorted these truths through their unregenerate reason.40

So at least theoretically, it seems possible that all people should be able to know something about God either from what they see in nature, or from the truths of reason, or from whatever knowledge of God may have been passed down to them from Adam and Eve and Noah. Some of these truths may have persisted in otherwise false religions, and if people had believed in these truths, then perhaps God could mercifully consider their faith as being equivalent to having faith in Jesus.

However, because of the corruption of nature and human reason due to sin, and the distortions of the prisca theologia over time into other religions, it is questionable as to how much people can actually learn about God from these sources.

Therefore, I do not believe that this third option is as useful when it comes to creating a persuasive Christian theory of inclusivism.

Furthermore, the idea of the prisca theologia may backfire, and make people worry about the truthfulness of the Bible, and whether the stories contained in it might only be corruptions or distortions of earlier truths, too.

However, there is good reason to trust that this is not the case, and to believe that the Bible is in fact the divinely-preserved record of truth that goes back as far as Adam and Eve. These reasons will now be discussed in the final section of this (admittedly longer than I would prefer) blog post.

Why We Should Trust That The Bible Is Accurate

So, why should we believe that the Bible alone contains the uncorrupted truth about God and the world's history, while all other people's traditions and religions are corruptions of it?

A scholar named M. W. J. Phelan proposes a fascinating theory about the origin of the book of Genesis, especially the earliest portions, and how they came to be included in the Torah (i.e., the first five books of the Bible).

Phelan notes that many of the stories in the earlier portions of Genesis end with a phrase saying "these were the generations of [INSERT NAME HERE],", as a sort of sign-off on the portion of Scripture that was written by the person it names. These personal sign-offs are called toledoth.41

Thus, based on this evidence, we can say that Adam himself wrote up to what is now Genesis 5:1, which includes the genealogy of Cain as far as Adam knew it until Adam died. Noah then inherited these records, and personally wrote up to Genesis 6:9, based on what he was told from his father Lamech and grandfather Methuselah. Noah's sons collectively wrote up to Genesis 10:1, and Shem wrote up to Genesis 11:10, thanks to Shem's long lifespan. Abraham's father Terah wrote up to Genesis 11:27, Then Ishmael and Isaac wrote up to Genesis 25:12 and Genesis 25:19, because Isaac outlived Ishmael. Esau and Jacob wrote up to Genesis 37:2, which is where Moses and Aaron picked it up and continued to Numbers 3:1, when Moses took over writing the rest of the Torah.42

Phelan suspects that Moses and Aaron were able to access and retrieve records of Joseph's story from the Egyptian records before they left Egypt, and Moses, having been raised as an Egyptian prince, would have had the training to read these documents.43 Thus, Moses was a Holy-Spirit-inspired collator and editor of all these records, and he passed them down to Joshua when the Israelites entered Canaan. Minor edits to give context for later readers may have been made by Samuel, and the original text may have been converted into the later 'square' style of Hebrew letters by Ezra.44

In this way, Phelan produces a persuasive counter-explanation to the typical 'scholarly' explanation for the origins of the Torah. The typical explanation is called the documentary hypothesis, and it relies on at least four anonymous editors who worked much later in Israel's history and are referred to simply as J, E, P, and D.

I find Phelan's analysis to be very persuasive because he demonstrates the integrity of all these ancient accounts by analyzing their literary structure, as well as other features of the ancient text, to show that the accounts have not been significantly edited from what was written by the original Holy-Spirit-inspired authors.

The only small question in this theory is: how did the possession of these records pass from Shem to Abraham?

Supposedly, there are Jewish traditions that Melchizedek actually was Shem.45 The name Melchizedek in Hebrew means "king of righteousness," and it is possible that it was a hereditary position that was passed down the generations from Adam to Shem,46 who ended up becoming the king/priest of ancient Jerusalem. Thus, Shem could have passed on his family records to Abraham when they met, as described in Genesis 14.

Alternatively, Phelan proposes that the records may have been inherited by Abraham's father Terah, who was a distant descendant of Shem according to Genesis 11:10-26, and Terah then gave them to Abraham.47

Phelan's theory of how the records passed down also seems to presume that Moses could actually read the sources that went back to Adam, even after the Tower of Babel incident when languages were confused. How can this be explained?

It is claimed that, "There is a predominantly Jewish school of thought which holds, very seriously, that Hebrew, Biblical Hebrew, that is, is the original language of mankind (and of God) that was spoken before the Confusion of Tongues and Babel".48

It's true that in God's providence, God could easily have allowed the Hebrew language to persist unchanged after Babel among select descendants of Shem, where it passed down all the way to Terah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finally, Moses and Aaron and the rest of the Israelites who left Egypt. Thus, Moses could have been able to read all the ancient sources that had been passed down to him, and compiled them into the Torah, without worrying about having to translate them into Hebrew.

Therefore, it is certainly plausible to believe that, after the Tower of Babel, all the other non-Hebrew-speaking people groups took some of the truth with them as they spread out across the world. The initial members should have known about God and about God's plan to send a redeemer who would be the son of a virgin, and who would die as the ultimate sacrifice for sin. They would also have known the history of the world up to the point of the tower of Babel, including the stories of creation, the fall into sin, and the worldwide flood.

However, all these people-groups eventually corrupted this truth into pagan myths, except for the people who eventually became the Israelites. This is not because the Israelites were any better or less sinful than other groups of people, but was simply because they had access to the divinely-inspired proto-Scriptures that were passed down from Noah.

So it does make sense that from one perspective, it could seem like all the people who make up these other non-Israelite cultures are collectively 'guilty' for losing or corrupting the knowledge of God that they had access to. This knowledge may have included what they had know about God through nature (such as possibly the meanings of the constellations of the zodiac).

Yet it still seems wrong that God would hold all members of these people groups as accountable for this situation, since later generations had no way to recover the knowledge that earlier generations had lost or corrupted.

Furthermore, despite God allowing all non-Israelite cultures to go their own ways for a time (Acts 14:16, 17:26-31), God still wants to save everyone (2 Peter 3:9, 1 Timothy 2:4). Therefore, there must be some way that people from these cultures could be saved, even if not through the knowledge they could learn about God through nature, or from their pagan religions and traditions that were corruptions of ancient divine truths.

Conclusion

This is the end of my series of posts exploring the three main approaches to Christian inclusivism. As mentioned before, I find that the first two (an after-death encounter with Jesus, or judgment based on what works reveal of a person's heart), both seem much more plausible than the last option which was explored in this post.

In a future post, I want to propose my own theory of Christian inclusivism that I think can explain how everyone who loves Love will accept and believe in Jesus as their Savior, if given an opportunity to do so at the final judgment. In this way, the Bible verses that say that no one will be saved apart from faith in Jesus can be compatible with salvation being truly open to all people, even those who haven't heard the gospel in this life, or who died before they were capable of personally accepting or rejecting Jesus Christ.

However, such a theory also needs to explain why evangelism is still necessary, and the value of becoming a Christian in this life. Such an explanation is possible, and thus, I think a Biblically-sound theory of Christian inclusivism is definitely a possibility. Keep watching for my next blog post!

By the way, in case you haven't heard the incredibly good news of the gospel and how you can have eternal life for free, simply by believing in Jesus, then check out my summary here.

Footnotes:

1. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 36-37, referring to George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 58.
2. Jonathan Edwards, "Types," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 11, Typological Writings, eds. Wallace E. Anderson, Mason I. Lowance Jr., and David H. Watters (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 152.
3. See Jonathan Edwards’ notebooks "Images of Divine Things," and "Types," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 11, Typological Writings, eds. Wallace E. Anderson, Mason I. Lowance Jr., and David H. Watters (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008).
4. Jonathan Edwards, "Images of Divine Things," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 11, Typological Writings, eds. Wallace E. Anderson, Mason I. Lowance Jr., and David H. Watters (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), no. 28, page 58.
4a. Mark Harwood, "How good is our neighbourhood!" Creation 39(1): 24–26, January 2017.
4b. Jonathan Sarfati, "The Universe Is Finely Tuned For Life", Creation Ministries International, 2020.
4c. Jonathan Sarfati and Michael Matthews, Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 10, Creation Ministries International.
5. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 2011), 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6, on pages 47-74.
6. John J. Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 68. Bombaro cites Jonathan Edwards,"Types of the Messiah," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 11, Typological Writings, eds. Wallace E. Anderson, Mason I. Lowance Jr., and David H. Watters (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 192. Here, Edwards seems to imply that the types are made for God’s people or the church to understand, but he makes no mention of the reprobates’ 'blindness' per se.
7. David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, 1779, Part 5, 24-26.
8. Dylan Miller, "Parasitic wasps: Darwin’s ultimate evil?" Open Think, Dalhousie University, July 20, 2021. For example, the Glyptapanteles wasp lays its eggs inside caterpillars, and then the larvae hatch and feed off the caterpillar until it dies.
9. Robert Gurney, "What about parasites?" Creation 31 3 (June 2009): 34–37.
10. C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle," in The Chronicles of Narnia (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008), 728.
11. C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle," in The Chronicles of Narnia (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008), 739-740.
12. C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle," in The Chronicles of Narnia (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008), 744-745.
13. C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle," in The Chronicles of Narnia (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008), 755.
14. C. S. Lewis, "The Last Battle," in The Chronicles of Narnia (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2008), 756-777.
15. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 158.
16. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 158.
17. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 111.
18. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 139-140.
19. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 139.
20. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 139.
21. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2004), 52, 112-113, 176-178, 265.
22. T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1948), 54, 77-89, 98-99, 135-136, 139-141. "Grace was the gift of spiritual energy that ranged itself within the heart of the believer, and delivered him from evil by bringing him understanding of truth, power to resist evil and live a holy life" (140). "The Church was regarded as endowed in some way or other with this spiritual power which made the believer godlike, and in fact united him to God. The Church as the body of Christ was looked on as the depository of pneumatic grace, which might be dispensed in sacramentalist fashion after the analogy of the mystery religions" (141).
23. Clark H. Pinnock, Most Moved Mover (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 65-74.
24. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 112.
25. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 22, 26-27, 30, 40.
26. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 111.
27. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 153.
28. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 111-112.
29. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 26-27.
30. Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 581-585.
31. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 403.
32. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 403.
33. Joseph A. Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972), 21-24.
34. Joseph A. Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972), 23-24.
35. Rebecca Conolly and Russell Grigg, "Flood!", Creation 23 (1), December 2000: 26–30. For much more in-depth research, see Bill Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis (The Creation Science Movement, 2011), 160-366.
36. Jonathan Sarfati, "Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic", Creation 28 (4), September 2006: 12–17. See also Bill Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis (The Creation Science Movement, 2011), 381-389.
37. Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 584, 586-588. See also Joseph de Maistre, "Elucidation on Sacrifices" in The Collected Works of Joseph de Maistre, where he argues that ancient people had long understood the idea of animal sacrifices as pleasing the gods and taking away guilt, which later turned into the idea of human sacrifice, which was properly fulfilled in Jesus's death.
38. Joseph A. Seiss, The Gospel in the Stars (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972), 25-29. See also Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), 583, which mentions how in both the Hindu Vedas and Chinese I Ching there are "stories about a hero who expiated crimes by his own sufferings, and that many heathen from different traditions acknowledged a divine incarnation and realized that virtue comes only by an infusion of grace." Edwards also recorded examples of heathen stories about gods and goddesses that he believed could be seen as distortions of Biblical figures (583).
39. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 36.
40. John J. Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 262. Bombaro cites Jonathan Edwards, "The Miscellanies: 833–1152" in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 20, ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), nos. 959, 986, and 1020 on pages 239, 309–311, and 351, respectively.
41. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 228-229. See also Jonathan D. Sarfati, The Genesis Account (Powder Springs, GA: Creation Ministries International, 2015), 17-22. Sarfati, however, argues the toledoth may be seen as introducing the material which comes after them. This would change the authorship of certain portions of Genesis slightly, but it still supports the view that these accounts were written by eyewitnesses immediately involved in the events, and not later editors.
42. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 212-215, 228-237.
43. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 212-215, 234-235, 255.
44. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 258.
45. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 254.
46. Verse By Verse Ministry International, "Who was Melchizedek and what is the Order of Melchizedek?", March 7, 2014.
47. M. W. J. Phelan, The Inspiration of the Pentateuch (Waterlooville, Twoedged Sword Productions, 2005), 254.
48. Bill Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis (The Creation Science Movement, 2011), 389.

Expect The Rapture When Things Are 'Normal'

2023-01-10T00:00:00+00:00

What are your expectations for the new year?

Do you have plans that you are looking forward to? Or are you nervous about all the things that you see in the news, and things that experts have said might be coming this year? Maybe some of both?

One of the things I probably spend too much time doing is reading news, in order to keep up to date on events related to the signs of the end times.

Personally, I don't have high hopes for this year, at least when it comes to things pertaining to the bigger picture regarding the state of this world. And I'm not the only one. Many other Bible prophecy experts are saying that right now we are seeing everything being set up for the Tribulation, as recorded in the Biblical book of Revelation.

I admit that at times, I start to worry how difficult life might become before the Rapture happens—when all true Christians will be taken to heaven to escape the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10).

However, I feel less anxious when I remember that there are several pieces of Biblical evidence that the world will be still going along relatively normally right up to the Rapture.

And actually, it's when things seem 'normal' that we should especially be ready for the Rapture to happen. So that's very exciting.

One purpose of Bible prophecy is for God's people to be encouraged. It's a way that God gives us hope and confidence in God's plan for the future, when we see things happening just like God told us they would ahead of time (John 16:33).

Ultimately, we know that everything that's happening in the world is leading to the New Heavens and New Earth, where there will be no more evil, sin, crying, pain, or death (Revelation 21:1-8).

So if we see things in the world today being set up for the Tribulation, then we know the Rapture is even closer than that. The Rapture is something that all Christians should be looking forward to, because it is called our blessed hope (Titus 2:13). Christians are meant to comfort and encourage each other by reminding each other about Jesus's soon return for us (1 Thessalonians 4:17-18).

In this post, I want to reassure you that even though Christians will be able to see the end times approaching, and it might seem that things are getting worse and worse, we can trust that the world will not fall apart before Jesus comes to take us to heaven with him (John 14:1-3).

I know I have talked about this before, but here, I want to go into more detail and analyze all the different pieces of evidence to support my claim. Therefore, it is a slightly longer blog post. (I'm just giving a heads-up that you might want to find a good time to settle in to read it.)

However, I hope this in-depth discussion will help reassure anyone who is feeling nervous about what we see happening in the world today, or who might be worried about what some experts have predicted might occur in 2023.

Hopefully, by the end of this post, you might even become a little excited about how close we could be to Jesus's return for the Church at the Rapture, which could happen anytime.

The Rapture Will Happen During The Days of Noah and Lot

The largest clue regarding the approaching end times is how Jesus said that the next time he returns, the world will be like it was when Noah and Lot were alive:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot—they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day when Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained from heaven and destroyed them all—so will it be on the day when the Son of Man is revealed. (Luke 17:26-30)

A similar passage is found in Matthew:

For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:37-39)

If you want to read more, you can find the stories of Noah in Genesis chapter 7 and Lot in Genesis chapter 19.

Now, there are two different features of these stories that give clues regarding what the world will be like as the end times approach:

Both Noah's and Lot's societies were becoming increasingly immoral and sinful.
Both Noah's and Lot's societies were going on just like 'normal' until Noah and his family entered the ark and rain started to fall, or until Lot and his family were rushed out of Sodom by the angels.

Both of these points provide evidence that the Rapture will happen when our world is characterized by these two traits: becoming increasingly sinful, yet going along 'normally'.

Let's begin with the first point:

1. Increasing Sinfulness in Society

Before the worldwide flood, we are told that: "the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5).

Regarding the moral state of Sodom and Gomorrah, we're told: "Now the men of Sodom were wicked, great sinners against the Lord" (Genesis 13:13). We can see at least some of Sodom's sins based on what the men of the city were trying to do to the undercover angels who came to verify the condition of these cities (Genesis 19:4-11).

Likewise, Paul warned that the last days will be difficult, because people's behavior will become increasingly immoral:

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

If you read the news, I doubt you will be able to go a single day without seeing a story related to these traits.

Some end-times commentators will point to the rise of particular sexual sins in our Western societies.

There is a quote attributed to Ruth Graham, the wife of Billy Graham, who said, "If God doesn't punish America, he'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah." Today, we could expand that to include not just America, but many other countries around the world.

And actually, increasing sexual immorality in itself is a form of God's judgment.

Paul explains that God lets people fall into sexual immorality as a punishment for rejecting what they know about God, and for worshipping nature and created things rather than worshiping God who created all things (Romans 1:18-27).

But society goes even further downhill from there:

Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:28-32, NLT)

The last sentences in the above quote remind me of how Isaiah warned that sinful people will eventually say what is evil is actually good, and what is good is actually evil (Isaiah 5:20).

During these times before the Rapture, Christians will feel like Lot did when he lived in Sodom and was surrounded by sin, and was greatly troubled by it (2 Peter 2:7-8).

We might even be persecuted for holding on to our own values:

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)

I believe we are seeing all these things increasing, even in societies that have benefitted from a strong Biblical influence in the past.

Therefore, it seems that the world is ready for God's judgment, and becoming increasingly ready for it each passing day. Yet strangely, even as the world continues to become worse and worse, it will seem to most people that life is going on normally.

2. Society Will Continue Normally Until God's Judgment Comes Suddenly

Just as in the days of Noah and Lot, it will seem to most people that everything is continuing along normally. It will seem so normal, in fact, that Christians who warn about God's coming judgment will be scoffed and laughed at:

Peter warned that in the last days, scoffers will say,

Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. (2 Peter 3:4)

However, the scoffers only say this because they ignore the historical fact of the worldwide flood that killed everyone except for Noah and his family (2 Peter 3:5-6). Similarly, the scoffers ignore the warnings about God's future judgment of the world (2 Peter 3:7).

So Peter's prophecy confirms what we've seen so far. It will be like in the days of Noah, before the flood, when most people expected the world to just keep going on like it always has, until the judgment suddenly came.

Some scoffers like to remind Christians who are looking for signs of the end times that "concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32).

And this is certainly true. However, in the verses that come right after this verse, Christians are encouraged to be awake and watchful for their Lord's return (Mark 13:33-37). So there's nothing wrong with watching.

The Bible even promises those who are looking forward to Christ's return a special heavenly reward in the form of a crown of righteousness (2 Timothy 4:8). So don't lose your hope, even if others around you are skeptical about Jesus's soon return.

Even though Jesus says that no one but God the Father knows the exact day or hour that he will be coming back, Paul says that Christians who are watching will have some awareness of the approximate time of Christ's return. Therefore, we won't be surprised like those who weren't watching:

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6)

The above passage is very interesting, for a number of reasons:

It confirms that the Tribulation will come upon the world suddenly, like a thief unexpectedly breaking into a house.
It also confirms that people will be saying "peace and security" before the Tribulation suddenly begins, which suggests that the world will be mostly going along like 'normal'. Or it might even seem that things are getting better.
But, despite things being 'normal', somehow, there will still be enough signs so that Christians who are watching should be able to see that Christ is coming back for us soon.

How can all of these details be true at the same time? Let's look at Jesus's analogy of the end times being like when a pregnant woman goes into labor.

The End Times Will Begin Like 'Birth Pains'

Given all the discussion above, it is interesting that even during the Covid pandemic, people were still carrying on with 'normal' activities: buying, selling, marrying, planting, building.

This fact reassured me that we hadn't yet entered the Tribulation, even though in some ways, some aspects of some of the world's governments' responses to the pandemic foreshadowed the coming Tribulation.

What is even more interesting is that now, as most parts of the world seem to be increasingly returning back to 'normal' life, even average Christians are picking up on the fact that the world is not headed in a good direction.

According to a recent survey done in April of 2022, almost half (47%) of Christians in the USA believe that humanity is now living in the end times. That number increases to almost two thirds (63%) among evangelical Christians in the USA.1

Now, in some sense, these Christians are right, because the 'end times' or the 'last days' can be considered to have begun during Jesus' ministry (Hebrews 1:2, 1 Peter 1:20) and at Pentecost (Acts 2:17).

However, if by the 'end times' these Christians mean the last seven years of history before Jesus will return to earth (a.k.a., the Tribulation), then no, the end times have not yet begun, because the Rapture has not yet happened, and things are generally 'normal'.

What these Christians are likely picking up on are the signs of the approaching end times that Jesus said to watch for, which he said will begin like birth pains:

For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains. (Matthew 24:5-8)

Luke's version of this passage also includes mention of pestilences/diseases (Luke 21:11). Enough said.

Many end-times watchers like to highlight data that shows that all of these things are increasing around the world. We are now seeing all the signs that we would expect to see before the Tribulation begins, and news stories related to these things are coming at a faster and faster rate.

I've been watching both mainstream news and alternative news for over a decade, and I can say that although I saw some signs back then, there were still a few things that still had not yet fallen into place.

Now, though, everything is coming together far faster and more clearly than I've ever seen before. Many other end-times watchers are also saying the same thing.

Of course, we still don't know how much more we will see before the Rapture. But it's very exciting to finally be seeing things clearly pointing to end-times prophecies all lining up just like the Bible predicts.

Yet there is debate over whether these verses in Matthew 24:5-8 and Luke 21:8-11 describe the state of the world before the Tribulation begins, or whether Jesus was describing the beginning of the Tribulation and the first few divine judgments in Revelation 6.

There are certainly some clear parallels between these verses and the start of the Tribulation, including:

the revealing of the Antichrist as the ultimate false Christ (Revelation 6:1-2).
the worldwide wars in the second Seal judgment (Revelation 6:3-4).
the terrible famine in the third Seal judgment (Revelation 6:5-6).
the pestilence that is part of the fourth Seal judgment (Revelation 6:7-8).

But I think these passages in Matthew and Luke could be dual-references. Before the Tribulation, we should expect to see all these signs increasing in frequency and intensity. But the signs will really become even more intense once the Rapture happens and the Tribulation begins.

Jesus also warned that the Tribulation will come upon the world like a "snare" or "trap" (Luke 21:34-35). This means the onset of the Tribulation will be sudden, without warning, like when someone accidentally steps onto a bear trap. Just like the flood began suddenly in Noah's time, and the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah happened suddenly in Lot's time.

So perhaps the signs of the end times could be compared to how there are some birth pains before a woman's water breaks, but once it does suddenly break, there is no way to stop the labor process, and the pain becomes increasingly intense.

From the above verses, we can say two things:

There is no hint that we should expect the signs of the end times to slow down or for them to be put on hold for decades, just like how a woman's birth pains don't slow down or stop once the true labor process begins.
But the signs of the end times will NOT gradually increase to the point where the world enters the Tribulation without knowing it. The first four judgments in the book of Revelation occur in a particular sequence, with definite beginning points, which is why they can be symbolized by men on horses riding out one after the other (Revelation 6:1-8).

However, like Paul said, Christians who are paying attention will be able to see the end-times snare or trap being pried open little by little, until it is set and ready to be sprung at the right moment.

I believe that the event which will spring the trap is the Rapture. In the chaos and confusion that the Rapture will cause, all the rest of the prophetic pieces needed for the Tribulation will fall into place.

Where We Are Today

Interestingly, today, Christians aren't the only ones who are seeing the world being set up for the Tribulation.

On December 19, 2022, Israel's intelligence ministry put out a report that said:

The world is at a transition point analogous to being on the verge of a cliff, after which a series of crises striking simultaneously will reorder the planet’s geopolitics, the place of technology, the economic order and a variety of other disciplines from health to energy.2

To me, that sounds a lot like what will happen during the Tribulation. And I certainly don't think that life will be 'normal' when this occurs.

Personally, I think it seems that the world is now being set up for the first few Seal judgments.

In particular, the second Seal judgment of the outbreak of worldwide wars (Revelation 6:3-4),3 and the third Seal judgment of worldwide hyperinflation,4 and/or famine (Revelation 6:5-6),5 seem like they could be possibly looming just over the horizon.

Progress is also rapidly being made around the world on digital currencies,6 and digital identification systems.7 These seem to be at least some of the technologies required to enable total government control over who will be able to buy or sell via the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18).

The Psalm 83 war, the Gog-Magog war (Ezekiel 38), and the destruction of Damascus (Isaiah 17) also seem like they could be triggered anytime, based on the precarious state of the Middle East.

These wars would be the perfect set-up for the Antichrist to confirm or strengthen a peace treaty between Israel and 'many' which will last for seven years (Daniel 9:27) and will be the official starting-point of the seven year Tribulation. This treaty could perhaps be something like an expanded and strengthened version of the Abraham Accords that have come about in the last few years.

Just recently, Danny Danon, who was Israel's former ambassador to the UN, said that,

It's just a matter of time before courageous leaders step out of the shadows and full peace is achieved between all the children of Abraham.8

A famous quote that ominously foreshadows the worldwide acceptance of the Antichrist when he will come on the scene was made by the former Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henry Spaak, who also chaired the first session of the UN General Assembly. He supposedly said:

We do not want another committee, we have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass into which we are sinking. Send us such a man, and be he god or devil, we will receive him.

This quote is likely even more true today, given the heightened problems the world is facing in 2023, and the lack of influential leaders who know how to solve anything.

Yet we know that the Antichrist is not revealed to the world until after the Church's 'departure' (Greek: apostasia) according to 2 Thessalonians 2:3. I believe this 'departure' is a reference to the Rapture as I explain in my post here.

These are just a few of the most notable signs of the end-times that I see that suggest Jesus is returning soon. I can't help but agree with another end-times commentator who sees 12 signs that the world is rapidly running out of 'normal'.9

I would say that as we enter 2023, I find myself wondering about not how much longer it will be until the world enters the Tribulation, but how much longer can it be?

However, Christians shouldn't be afraid. Even though we see these things forming up now that will be fulfilled during the Tribulation, God has the ability to restrain things for a little longer, if necessary. And we know God is longsuffering and merciful, and God wants all people to repent rather than face God's judgment (2 Peter 3:9).

Yet as Christians who can see these things coming, it's our job to tell others and warn others about God's coming judgment of this world (Ezekiel 33:1-6). We should be appealing to people we know to turn to Jesus now, before the Rapture, so that they don't have to endure what will be the worst time in human history.

Yet as we watch for the signs and warn others, we can also be encouraged that we know for sure that Jesus will return to take all true Christians to heaven in the Rapture when the world is still 'normal', as I'll explain in the next section.

The World Will Not Be 'Normal' At Jesus' Second Coming

The fact that Jesus said the world will be going on like in the days of Noah and Lot the next time when he returns is clear evidence for the Rapture happening before the Tribulation.

It is also evidence that the Rapture is not the same event as Jesus's second coming.

This is because at the end of the Tribulation, when Jesus finally returns to the planet with the armies of heaven to set up his millennial kingdom, the world certainly be anything but 'normal', after having been through all twenty-one of the judgments that are described in the book of Revelation chapters 6 to 19.

The world will also not be 'normal' during even the beginning of the Tribulation, because of how severe the first four Seal judgments will be, which lead to a quarter of the world's people being killed (Revelation 6:8).

(If you're interested, you can read a summary of these judgments in my post here).

This argument for the pre-tribulation Rapture is confirmed by how Jesus said that the Tribulation will be the most awful time in the history of humanity:

When people realize they have entered the Tribulation, some people will be so terrified that their hearts will fail (Luke 21:26, NKJV).

So I can't believe that life will be going on as 'normal' at Jesus's second coming in Revelation 19:11-16. I can't imagine that people will then be buying, selling, planting, and marrying, with everything in the world going on like business as usual.

In fact, if we examine Revelation chapter 18, it says that at the judgment of the mysterious end-times entity called "Babylon," the merchants of the world will weep because there is no one who can buy their goods (Revelation 18:11-13). Then there also won't be anyone playing music, or building, or milling grain, or getting married (Revelation 18:21-24). This is just before Jesus returns at the Second Coming in Revelation 19.

So therefore, I'm convinced that when Jesus said the world will be like the days of Noah and Lot the next time he appears, he must have been referring to the state of the world when the Rapture occurs, which will be before the Tribulation begins.

Further Evidence That The Rapture Will Be The Transition Point Away from 'Normal'

I have heard many end-times commentators argue over the meaning of the word 'taken' in Matthew 24:40-42 and Luke 17:34-35:

Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (Matthew 24:40-42)

Some commentators say it is a reference to the Rapture, but others argue it is talking about people being suddenly 'taken' away (i.e., killed) in divine judgment.10

However, the word translated as "taken" in the above verses is the Greek verb paralambano.

In most contexts in the Bible, this verb means "to take to one's side" or "to receive to one's self". In the passive tense used here in Matthew and Luke, it can mean "to be carried off".11

But this verb doesn't imply destruction or death. For example, paralambano is the verb used when the angel tells Joseph to go ahead and "take" Mary as his wife (Matthew 1:20).

Interestingly, we also see paralambano used when Jesus promises his disciples that:

This verse in John is clearly referring to the Rapture, because it fits perfectly with Paul's more detailed descriptions in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-54.

Also, even in John 14:2-3 itself, it's clear that John can't be referring to Jesus's second coming at the end of the Tribulation.

At that point, Jesus comes back to this world with the armies of heaven to fight the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 19:11-16), whereas at the Rapture, people go to be where Jesus is, and where he has been preparing places for us in the Father's house (i.e., heaven). They are two completely different events.

So I would see these verses in Matthew and John as confirming what was said during the prior analysis of the days of Noah and the days of Lot:

Jesus will return suddenly at the Rapture to take (i.e., paralambano—to take to his side, receive to himself, and carry off) all Christians with him to heaven, just like he promised in verses like John 14:2-3, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:51-54. Everyone else who had never believed in Jesus up to that point will be left behind.

The Rapture will also be the sudden transition point from when things were 'normal' to when the world will face God's judgment during the Tribulation.

Yet even more evidence that the world will be 'normal' until the Rapture comes from what the Bible suggests the state of the Church will be like in the last days.

The Last Church Era Is Laodicean

There is an interesting theory that some end-times prophecy watchers refer to, which is that the letters to the seven churches in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were not written in a random order.

Instead, while these were seven real churches, there is a theory that these churches and their characteristics also foreshadow the spiritual condition of the historical Church in its various stages and forms, beginning from the early church, and continuing until the Rapture.12

In this theory,

Ephesus is the early church of the first century, which started off well, but gradually lost its spiritual passion.13
Smyrna is the persecuted church of the second and third centuries, when the Roman Empire martyred and tortured many Christians for refusing to worship the Emperor.14
Pergamum is the church after Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity in Rome in 313 AD. Pergamum was generally faithful to Christ and stood up for the truth against various heresies about Jesus. Later, though, it began to compromise with the world and became partly corrupted, bringing in some un-biblical doctrines and a hierarchical structure of authority.15
Thyatira is the church of the middle ages, which further attempted to combine Christianity with pagan philosophy and added even more un-biblical traditions. However, there were also people in this church who truly loved God and tried to serve others selflessly.16
Sardis is the 'spiritually dead' church, although it appeared to be busy doing God's work. Sardis can be compared to the church before the Reformation. Then, only a few leaders rejected false traditions and preached the true gospel of salvation by faith in Christ alone, which is all due to God's grace and not human good works, on the basis of the authority of Scripture.17 Today, several major Christian denominations that were founded during the Reformation still exist, however, they have been strongly declining in numbers over the last century.18
Philadelphia is a church that has been faithful to Christ and has witnessed to the gospel through missionary activity while facing opposition. Its members are encouraged by Jesus to hold onto their faith, despite their weakness. Philadelphia represents all faithful churches that will exist until the Rapture that have focused on spreading the gospel.19
Laodicea is the last church which has become spiritually lukewarm and disgusting to Jesus. This church was neither spiritually refreshing (cold) nor spiritually medicinal (hot) to its society.20 It could be described as being full of many people who thought they were saved because of their outer religious activities, but they hadn't truly believed in Jesus for their eternal salvation.21

Now, this theory is not completely perfect, because the last four churches, although they have their separate historical beginnings, all persist in some form until the Rapture.

We know this because Jesus tells the faithful members of Thyatira to "only hold fast what you have until I come" (Revelation 2:25).

Jesus also warns the church of Sardis that,

If you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you. (Revelation 3:3, NRSV)

The language of Jesus coming like a thief parallels nicely with Paul's warning in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-6 that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, which as I showed earlier, is a reference to the Rapture. Peter makes use of the same analogy of the last days coming like a thief in 2 Peter 3:10.

Jesus also promises the church of Philadelphia that,

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

This is a clear promise that the church of Philadelphia will still be around at the Rapture. Yet the church of Philadelphia is also described as having only a little strength/power left at this point, although it has been faithful and hasn't denied Christ (Revelation 3:8).

In contrast, the church of Laodicea is the last church of the Church age, and it seems it doesn't think it needs Jesus at all. This church thinks it is rich and successful, but actually, Jesus says it is poor, naked, blind, and pitiful (Revelation 3:17). Jesus is on the outside, knocking to be let in by anyone who wants to have a genuine relationship with him (Revelation 3:20).

Many end-times commentators would argue that the church of Laodicea is found today in churches with leaders who promise Christians that God wants us to be happy, healthy, and rich in this life. And their leaders usually are excessively rich, thanks to how they persuade their listeners to donate to them, while claiming that God will then give the listeners more money.

But becoming rich or successful in this world is not what Christianity is about (1 Timothy 6:5-10, NLT).

Now, if this is a fair interpretation of church history and the general state of large parts of the church in the end times just before the Rapture, then it is more proof that the world will remain generally 'normal' until the Rapture.

Why?

Because true Christians who will believe in Jesus after the Rapture won't be able to set up churches that could be mistaken for being rich and successful.

Instead, people who convert to Christianity after the Rapture will likely have to operate like the early church, by meeting secretly in individual homes or other places for worship in order to avoid persecution. In many places around the world where Christianity is illegal or persecuted today, this is how Christians have to meet.

And by the time of the fifth Seal judgment, religious persecution will become so intense around the world that many people will be killed for their faith in Christ (Revelation 6:9-11).

Of course, there will be some 'churches' that continue to operate 'normally' during the first half of the Tribulation. That will be because their leaders and members never had personal faith in Jesus as their Savior, and so they were not raptured.

These left-behind 'churches' will likely become part of the false one-world religion that, for a time, will operate in union with the Antichrist's system and will persecute true Christians (Revelation 17:3-6).22

However, this false religion will eventually be destroyed by the Antichrist and the ten kings (Revelation 17:16-18). This will probably occur at the halfway point of the Tribulation, when the Antichrist will declare himself to be God and demand that everyone worship only himself (Revelation 13:5-7, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).

This destruction will be done with the help of the False Prophet's miracles and the creation of the Image of the Beast that kills those who won't worship it (Revelation 13:12-15). Eventually, many Christians will be beheaded (Revelation 20:4), and others will have to find ways to survive without taking the Mark of the Beast.

Many end-times watchers have predicted that if the world continues the way it is going, Christian persecution will increase. This will be true even in Western countries, as our governments become less and less favorable to Christian morality. In particular, churches may eventually lose their charitable statuses if they aren't willing to endorse particular sins that our governments believe should be supported.

It's true that some Christian persecution may increase before the Rapture, depending on how much longer Jesus waits before coming back for us. If so, this persecution will contribute to faithful churches feeling even more like they only have a little strength/power left, like in the case of Philadelphia (Revelation 3:8).

But it is also clear that the sequence of these seven churches shows that in general, the faithful church will NOT have to return to operating like the early church did when it was facing massive systemic government persecution.

If anyone is skeptical of this interpretation of these seven churches, other verses confirm the general idea that in the last days, some churches will fall away into false teaching and immorality (e.g., 1 Timothy 4:1-3, 2 Peter 2:1-3). Most notably:

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Thus, Jesus's warnings to be on the lookout for false Christs and deception (Matthew 24:23-27) have always been relevant to the church. These warnings will be especially relevant during the Tribulation because of the false world religion that will arise along with the Antichrist who will attempt to impersonate Jesus.

Therefore, while none of this seems positive on the surface, there is actually a positive and encouraging message we can gain from it.

This message is that faithful Christians today can trust in the promise Jesus made to the church of Philadelphia that Jesus will keep us from/out of the time of the Tribulation (Revelation 3:10).

Therefore, we don't have to worry that the Church as a whole will return to the state of the persecuted church of Smyrna, because the Rapture will happen before the last false worldwide religion will appear and begin to persecute true Christians during the Tribulation.

Conclusion: The Paradox of the Last Days

In summary, this is what we should expect as we approach the last days:

The world will be getting worse both morally and in terms of wars, famines, diseases, earthquakes, and other disasters.
But the world will also be going along relatively normally, and people will be buying, selling, planting, building, marrying, etc.
The signs of the approaching Tribulation will increase in frequency and intensity like a pregnant woman's birth pains.
But most people in the world will be mostly oblivious to the signs of the end times.
Christians who are paying attention will see the Tribulation approaching.
But the Tribulation will begin suddenly, without warning, once the Rapture happens.

As I have shown in this post, I believe there are multiple pieces of Biblical evidence that show that life will be 'normal' right up to the Rapture.

The Bible also shows that the world doesn't slowly creep into the Tribulation. Instead, the Tribulation begins with a bang that catches most of the world off-guard. I believe that 'bang' will be the Rapture.

Therefore, Christians today shouldn't be afraid of what we see happening in the world.

We are supposed to be waiting and watching for Jesus's return at the Rapture, who will save us from the coming wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10). We are never told to watch for the rise of the Antichrist or for the onset of God's wrath in the Tribulation.

Yet, depending on how much longer we have before the Rapture, times might become more challenging as the signs of the end times continue increasing.

However, we can be confident that before the Rapture, we will not see any wars that reach the level of the second Seal judgment (Revelation 6:3-4), even though Jesus said we will see various wars and threats of wars increasing (Matthew 24:6-7).

And no matter how bad inflation and food supply problems might become before the Rapture, it won't become so bad that for most of the world, it takes an entire day's wages to pay for a small amount of wheat or barley, perhaps equivalent to a loaf of bread (Revelation 6:5-6).

And there won't be any wars or diseases or famines that wipe out more than a quarter of the world's population before the Rapture happens, either (Revelation 6:8).

So if you are a Christian who is concerned about the future, I hope this post will comfort you. I also hope it will encourage you to keep holding on to your hope in the Rapture (2 Timothy 4:8), to keep watching for Jesus's return, and to do what God is calling you to do for him while we still have time.

In particular, I would recommend writing a letter like this one and putting it in a place where it could be found by anyone who might look for you after the Rapture.

Or, even better—talk to your friends and family right now about Jesus and why they need to believe in him to be saved, both eternally, and from the coming Tribulation.

If you are reading this before the Rapture and you have not yet believed in Jesus, it's very simple to do, and also completely free. Then you can not only have the hope of being saved from experiencing the Tribulation through the Rapture, but you will also gain eternal life, and a personal relationship with God!

There's no time to wait, because Jesus told us that

Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. (Luke 21:28)

This verse is not talking about our personal salvation, which is eternally secure the moment we believe in Jesus (Ephesians 1:13-14).

Instead, it's talking about the Rapture, which Paul calls the "redemption of our bodies" (Romans 8:23). It is then when we will receive our new, eternal, glorified bodies that will never again age or become sick or weak (1 Corinthians 15:42-49).

And so Christians should be excited, because it seems to me that our bodily redemption and rescue from this sinful world is now very, very near, indeed.

P.S. If you would like some daily encouragement regarding news about the end-times and Jesus's soon return, as well as clear reminders of the truth of the gospel, check out the videos by Watchman River on Youtube, also available on Rumble. I have watched many of them, and have found his teaching to be quite reassuring, and hopeful, although he preaches the traditional Christian view of hell as eternal torment, while I prefer Annihilationism.

Footnotes:

1. Jeff Diamant, "About four-in-ten U.S. adults believe humanity is 'living in the end times'," Pew Research Center, December 8, 2022. Yet strangely, at the same time, "about seven-in-ten evangelicals say either that they are not sure Jesus will return during their lifetime (50%) or that Jesus will definitely or probably not return during their lifetime (21%)."
2. Yonah Jeremy Bob, "World order on verge of cliff - first Israeli national intel assessment," The Jerusalem Post, December 19, 2022.
3. Robert Farley, "5 places World War III could start in 2023", Business Insider, January 3, 2023.
4. Brian Evans, "The world could face the worst financial crisis since World War II as hyperinflation looms, hedge fund says", Business Insider, November 3, 2022.
5. Michael Snyder, "The Food Crisis of 2023 Is Going To Be Far Worse Than Most People Would Dare To Imagine, October 17, 2022.
6. Ian Smith, "Central Bank Digital Currencies: Which countries are using, launching or piloting CBDCs?" Euronews.com, November 3, 2022.
7. "A Snapshot of Digital ID in the 10 Most Populous Countries — Part 1", Trulioo.com, August 13, 2019.
8. Middle East Monitor, "Israel-Saudi Arabia to normalise ties 'within a year' claims former ambassador," December 12, 2022.
9.
10. Hal M. Haller, "Matthew" in The Grace New Testament Commentary Vol. 1 Matthew-Acts, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 115.
11. William D. Mounce, "4161" in Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 1234.
12. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 52.
13. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 59, 64.
14. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 64.
15. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 67-68.
16. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 72.
17. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 73, 81.
18. Dean R. Hoge, "Mainline Churches: The Real Reason For Decline," First Things, March 1993. Hoge says, "somehow, in the course of the past century, these churches lost the will or the ability to teach the Christian faith and what it requires to a succession of younger cohorts in such a way as to command their allegiance." A new study in 2021 showed that while both mainline and evangelical churches are declining in numbers, the mainline churches are still shrinking faster than evangelical churches: Ryan P. Burge, "Mainline Protestants Are Still Declining, But That’s Not Good News for Evangelicals", Christianity Today, July 13, 2021.
19. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 83-85.
20. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 205-206. An alternative interpretation is that both hot and cold drinks were enjoyable, but "in contrast, the temperature of a cup of lukewarm water or wine is more like that of its surroundings; it does not distinguish itself to the touch. When applied to the Christians at Laodicea the imagery suggests that their works in no way distinguish them from others in their society": Craig R. Koester, "The Message to Laodicea and the Problem of Its Local Context: A Study of the Imagery in Rev 3.14-22," New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 407-424. Accessed March 31, 2012. doi: 10.1017/S0028688503000201.
21. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 89-91.
22. John F. Walvoord, Revelation, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, revised and edited by Philip E. Rawley and Mark Hitchcock (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2011), 255. "Her position as a rider indicates on the one hand that she is supported by the political power of the beast, and on the other that she is in a dominant role and at least outwardly controls and directs the beast" (255). She is called Babylon because, "it has been noted by many writers that the iniquitous and pagan rites of Babylon crept into the early church and were largely responsible for the corruptions incorporated in Roman Catholicism from which Protestantism separated itself in the Middle Ages" (256-258).

Self-Care Is Spiritual Warfare

2022-12-12T00:01:00+00:00

(Or alternatively titled, "How To Defeat Satan With A Bowl of Oatmeal.")

It's fairly well known that December can be a tough month for many people.

One survey suggests that 64% of people feel the 'holiday blues', and twenty four percent of people feel these blues quite strongly. The blues can include feelings of fatigue, loneliness, sadness, and frustration.1

The holiday blues can also make pre-existing mental health challenges even more difficult:

The holiday season beams a spotlight on everything that is difficult about living with depression.... The pressure to be joyful and social is tenfold.2

However, this isn't to downplay how many people struggle with mental health conditions on a regular basis.

In the past, I have taken advantage of Christian counselling during a time when I wasn't feeling my best. My counsellor would at times remind me about the importance of self-care. Things like getting enough sleep, eating enough healthy food, getting exercise, taking time to relax and rest, and so on.

At the time, it seemed like silly advice. I didn't think that any of these things were going to make me feel better about the issues I was in counselling for, which at times made me feel so bad that I wished I could just die and go to heaven already.

And usually, I just felt guilty when I took naps or spent time relaxing or working on hobbies. I felt that I wasn't doing something productive and useful, and so I was wasting the limited time that God had given me in this life to do good works and earn eternal heavenly rewards. Then that made me feel even worse about myself.

Lately, though, I've come to realize that the idea of self-care isn't silly at all. I also realized that I shouldn't feel guilty about taking care of myself by taking time to rest, relax, exercise, or eat regularly.

That's because, as I will argue in this post, I believe that self-care is actually an important form of spiritual warfare!

And although it's called 'self' care, which could make it appear to be selfish, I will argue that it isn't, because self-care is also a way of loving others.

Therefore, I think self-care should be something that all Christians keep in mind as one weapon in our spiritual arsenal that we can use to protect ourselves from the enemy's attacks whenever we are feeling stressed or depressed.

Christians Are Satan's Targets

When you think of spiritual warfare, probably the first thing that comes to mind is someone who goes around casting out demons, right?

Maybe someone who's like the modern-day spiritual equivalent of Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings, who uses special spiritual gifts to stand up against the most evil forces of darkness.

Or at least, we might think of a strong Christian who has a really great prayer life, reads the Bible daily, attends church every week, and who intercedes in prayer for others and for world events.

Or maybe we picture activists who try to peacefully push back against harmful government policies, and whistle-blowers who expose unethical practices in large organizations.

Or we could think more broadly about anyone who speaks out and stands up against corruption, mismanagement, injustice, sin, and evil wherever it shows up in the world.

And it's true that all these activities could be examples of engaging in spiritual warfare.

But spiritual warfare also occurs wherever and whenever God's people try to do God's will, even in much smaller or less obvious ways.

Remember that Satan hates anything that is good and loving, because God is love (1 John 4:8). God is also the one who created everything, and so God is the source of all life and goodness (James 1:17). As a result, all that Satan wants to do is to steal, kill, and destroy, wherever and however he can (John 10:10, John 8:44).

As Christians, our mission is to love God and love others (Matthew 22:37-40, 1 John 4:21), to do good works (Ephesians 2:10), and to share the gospel with all people and teach them about God and what God wants us to do (Matthew 28:19-20).

If you're a Christian, then no matter who you are, what your job is, or what your spiritual gifts are, there is some way or another that you can do these things. And by doing these things, you are fulfilling God's mission for your life and helping bring about God's purposes for the world. That means you are simultaneously thwarting Satan's plans.

Therefore, Satan wants to stop you from making a difference for God in this world, in whatever ways you are currently doing that.

This means that your life won't be as easy as it would have been if you were not a Christian. You're going to face opposition, difficulties, and challenges that will tempt you to give up on living for Jesus, or to give up your faith.

But remember, just keeping your faith is a victory that will lead to eternal rewards:

For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:4-5)

And it is expected that our faith will be tested, to prove how genuine and valuable it is:

In this you rejoice, even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith—being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honour when Jesus Christ is revealed. (1 Peter 1:6-7, NRSVA)

At times, these difficulties, trials, and challenges might feel so tough that even if you keep your faith, you might be tempted to give up on living altogether.

I've been there too, and so have many significant godly Biblical figures who were tempted to give up on their missions and either wanted to die, wished they had never been born, or struggled with despair. Let's consider:

Moses (Numbers 11:14-15)
Elijah (1 Kings 19:4)
Paul (2 Corinthians 1:8-9)
Jonah (Jonah 4:3, 4:8)
Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:14-18)
Job (Job 3:20-22, Job 6:8-9)

So just because you're facing difficulties and might be feeling like you can't go on, it doesn't mean you are a failure of a Christian. In reality, it probably means the exact opposite.

I would even say that as Christians, if we aren't experiencing any difficulties in our lives whatsoever, then perhaps we aren't taking our faith seriously or doing what we should be doing for God.

After all, in a war, a smart enemy won't waste resources taking out soldiers who are just sitting around not being effective. Instead, a smart enemy would focus his limited resources on taking out those soldiers who are the biggest threat to his schemes.

So if you're facing challenges while you're faithfully trying to love God and love others, and are using the spiritual gifts that God has given you, then you should be encouraged that you're doing something right, and you should keep on doing it.

However, that doesn't mean things will get easier. After all, Jesus said "Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world" (John 16:33, NLT).

As the world approaches the end times, we can be encouraged that the Rapture will happen to take all Christians to heaven before the world enters the Tribulation. But in the meantime, things will likely become even tougher for the average person around the world, including Christians (Matthew 24:6-8).

Despite this, as long as we are still here, we are told that we should be occupying ourselves with God's work until Jesus comes back (Luke 19:13).

Therefore, self-care will become even more important for Christians as we look forward to the day when Jesus will come back to take us to be with him (John 14:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17), because it's one way of keeping ourselves 'in the game' until then.

Don't Quit: Keep Yourself In The Game

One end-times commentator whose podcast I listened to compared what Christians experience in this life to playing on a sports team.

It's the final game of the season, and there are only five minutes left on the clock. Our team's score is so high that there's no possible way the opposing team could make up the difference. The timer is counting down to the end of the game, and it's guaranteed that we're going to win.

However, we still have five minutes left to play. Although the opposing team can't win, they could, out of vindictiveness and spite, decide to hit individual players with everything they've got. This would be in order to try to cause injuries that send these players off to the hospital, to keep them from participating in the victory celebration they are anticipating.3

Now, we know that Jesus has already won the victory over sin, death, and the devil when Jesus died on the cross for all sin, rose again, and ascended into heaven (Colossians 2:13–15, Hebrews 2:14–15). But Satan is still attacking Christians with everything he's got until he will be locked up for a thousand years (Revelation 20:1-3) and is finally thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).

So in the meantime, our goal is to keep ourselves in the game, by keeping our faith, doing what God calls us to do, and staying alive until God decides it's time for us to go home.

Paul compares the Christian life to running a race or fighting a boxing match (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, 2 Timothy 4:7-8). In both cases, it's tough, exhausting, and it hurts. It's no wonder that sometimes, quitting seems like the most sensible option.

Paul admitted that he longed to be done with the fight and go home to be with Jesus, which is far better. But he knew that he couldn't give up yet, because he was still useful to God by staying and helping the early churches (Philippians 1:21-24).

There is an inspirational quote I've seen that says "I pray that when I die, all of hell will rejoice that I am out of the fight."4

I like this. I think it should be each Christian's goal to live in such a way that Satan will be glad when God finally takes us home, whether in the Rapture, or perhaps sooner. Or at least, it's something I want to aim for personally.

However, sometimes the storms of life and the spiritual battle gets so tough that making a difference for God in the world seems impossible. We might be so exhausted and beat up that it feels like all we can do is hunker down and hold on for dear life.

It's during these times that I think self-care is most necessary, and this is when self-care also becomes a completely legitimate form of spiritual warfare.

How Self-Care Is Spiritual Warfare

It's easy to assume that 'spiritual' warfare would only involve 'spiritual' activities like:

prayer
reading the Bible
going to Bible study
going to church
resisting temptation
overcoming habitual sins

And of course, these are all good things to do. These activities can certainly help encourage us, strengthen our faith, and make our Christian lives easier.

But I think spiritual warfare can also include activities such as:

eating a snack or a meal
taking a nap
going for a walk outside
reading an enjoyable book
going for coffee with a friend
listening to music that makes you feel happy
wrapping up in a warm blanket
taking a hot shower or a relaxing bath
getting enough sleep at night
working on hobbies
watching sports, tv shows, or a movie

Does this sound ridiculous? I don't think so.

Let's look at when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness after his baptism:

Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. (Matthew 4:1-2)

Notice that it's only then that Satan showed up to try to tempt Jesus (Matthew 4:3).

It's like Satan knew that if he tried to tempt Jesus right at the start of the forty days, when Jesus was feeling fresh and well-fed, Satan would have had less of a chance of getting Jesus to give in to his temptations.

So Satan waits until Jesus is physically hungry, thirsty, and probably tired, too. (After all, sleeping out in the wilderness on rocks and scraggly vegetation can't be comfortable).

Now obviously, we're not Jesus, but I think Satan's strategy is still the same when he attacks Christians. He will send his demons to come pester us and try to tempt us when we're at our weakest and most vulnerable, both physically and/or emotionally.

I've noticed this pattern in my own life. Once I realize this, then I can keep a closer watch on it. This is also where self-care can become a form of spiritual warfare.

Because if I realize when the pattern is beginning, then I can also try to do things to address my physical or emotional state in order to keep myself from becoming an easy target for Satan to pick on, as I'll explain below.

How Spiritual Warfare Shows Up In My Life

Here's how the above pattern usually works for me:

I start getting stressed for some reason, maybe over a little thing that really isn't a big deal in the big scheme of things, but it's enough to make me start worrying about all the potential negative consequences it could lead to.

Then I begin having negative and pessimistic thoughts about myself or about my personal future.

Then I start comparing my life to how other people's lives appear to be going, or I begin comparing my ministry to how much others seem to be doing for God.

Since the outcome of that comparison in my pessimistic state of mind is always negative, then I start criticizing myself, and I begin to feel useless and depressed. Or at worst, I feel like I'm a burden who contributes nothing to anyone and is only a drain on others.

That's when I start being tempted to think that things would be easier both for me and for others if I were in heaven. In the moment, it feels like I'm thinking completely objectively, and that everything really is as bad as it feels it is.

However, I've learned that when I get into this frame of mind, usually part of the problem is that I'm either hungry or tired.

And if I do something simple like have a small bowl of oatmeal, I'll usually start feeling better within half an hour or so. Then the negative thoughts disappear or fade at least a little in severity.

Or sometimes, I feel better after I have a nap or a good night's sleep. Or after I take a hot shower to relax. Or after a walk.

Sometimes, I just need to put on a comfy, warm pair of clothes, wrap up in a blanket, put on some good music, and do something fun and creative to relax for a few minutes, or hours, or days, or longer, if I really need to. For example, when writing my dissertation, I once had an entire week when I just had to stop and work on my hobbies before I could get the motivation to get back to it.

But in the past, I used to really hate when this happened. I'd criticize myself harshly for wasting so much time doing things like working on hobbies that are ultimately not really 'useful' in any way to anyone, besides keeping me mentally healthy.

Because like I mentioned earlier, for me, I'm happiest when I feel like I'm making a difference in the world for God, in one way or another. So when I take time to nap, sleep, eat, relax, or do something fun and creative, it feels like I'm no longer making a difference.

That would return me to the cycle of criticizing myself, and I'd again start comparing myself to other people who seem to be making more of a difference than me. Then I'd feel even worse about myself, and the spiral downward would continue.

However, recently, I realized that I shouldn't be so negative about the time I spend on self-care activities.

Because even if during these times I'm not currently 'doing' anything that feels useful, it's better to at least still be here, because then there's at least a chance that once I'm feeling better, I will be useful again.

Whereas if I give in to the temptation to end my life early, then I would cut off all chances of potentially being used by God in this life in the future, and Satan wins.

So therefore, if, through self-care, I can thwart Satan's desire to take me out and so destroy any chance of being useful to God in the future, then self-care becomes a form of spiritual warfare.

And that means I shouldn't feel that it's unproductive or useless, and I shouldn't feel guilty for needing these things. Because really, if I can defeat Satan by something as simple as eating a bowl of oatmeal, then why shouldn't I? It's literally the easiest form of spiritual warfare that I can imagine!

Now, of course, this is just my personal experience. Maybe spiritual warfare shows up differently for you, especially if you have a different personality type that has different weaknesses. If so, then your self-care activities might also be different.

However, that doesn't negate my point that I believe we all have some times when we tend to feel worse than others, and that this is when you become more vulnerable to spiritual attacks. Therefore, it's important for each of us to recognize how this works in our own lives, and have an arsenal of strategies we can use to help us counter the enemy's attacks.

Of course, self-care isn't an excuse to indulge in things that are unhealthy and/or sinful. I could list many examples of these things, but I suspect you already know what I'm talking about. Or if you're thinking of something sinful that you want permission to do under the guise of it being 'self-care', the Holy Spirit will convict you about that.

These sinful things, although they may seem attractive and may feel good in the moment (as sin always does), will only lead you to more misery, and if followed too far, to death (James 1:14-15). That means that sin and excessive unhealthy indulgences are the opposite of self-care, and should be avoided.

Now, one objection that I suspect many Christians might have to the idea of self-care is that it seems to be selfish. However, this is false, because as I will argue below, self-care is a way not only of loving ourselves, but also of loving others.

Self-Care Is A Way To Love Ourselves

Let's imagine that one of our friends or family members comes to us and tells us that they aren't feeling well, either physically, or emotionally. If we truly love them, we should want to do what we can to make them feel better.

We might tell them to go rest, while we make them a bowl of soup or a cup of hot chocolate. We might try to cheer them up by watching their favorite movie with them, or doing something to take their mind off their issues. We might take them out for ice cream and let them vent to us.

Hopefully, we wouldn't tell them to just suck it up, or to ignore whatever is troubling them because it's not a real problem. Hopefully we wouldn't tell them that they just need to keep going full steam ahead, even if it feels like they are exhausted and on the edge of burnout.

And I really hope that we wouldn't say that if they take a break to take care of themselves, then they're weak, lazy, unmotivated, selfish, being a burden, and on and on.

But sometimes this is what I tell myself when I'm feeling down. It's like I can have more love and grace for others than I have for myself.

However, God repeatedly instructs us to love others just like we love ourselves (Matthew 22:39, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, James 2:8).

So this commandment presumes that we should love ourselves. And there's nothing wrong with loving ourselves, because God already loves us so much that he died for us (John 3:16).

Therefore, even if self-care was only a way of loving ourselves, it would still be a valid and good thing to do. However, as unusual as it may sound, self-care is also a way of loving others, as I'll explain in the next section.

Self-Care Is A Way To Love Others

Someone might object by saying that in John 15:13, Jesus says that the highest form of love is to be willing to die for someone else. So shouldn't we be willing to do everything we can for others, even if it means that we ourselves are hurt in the process?

If that's what the verse means, then it could seem to contradict the idea of self-care, or of even setting boundaries with others. It would mean we have to give, and give, and give some more, until we have literally nothing left. But I think this is not the best interpretation of John 15:13.

Obviously, Jesus did choose to give up his life to die on the cross for the whole world even though no one was forcing him to, and this is the greatest example of love. (Jesus also knew he would be resurrected, though, and that by going to the cross, he would get what he wanted most: people who will love him eternally. So it was ultimately a victory, not a loss).

Sometimes in this world there are tough situations where someone chooses to die in order to save another person's life because there is no alternative. We can think of bodyguards who take a bullet for the person they are protecting, or parents who feed the last of their food to their child and go hungry themselves.

But in other situations where someone's life isn't at stake, then love doesn't have to look like giving up everything for another person's sake.

Even Jesus took personal time out for himself (Matthew 14:22-23), and prioritized the needs of his disciples over the crowds (Mark 6:31). Jesus didn't heal every single person in the country who needed healing, or feed every person who needed food, even though he did do some miracles for some people. Jesus was also criticized for spending time attending dinner parties as part of his ministry (Luke 5:30-32, Luke 7:34).

In the book Boundaries, Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend argue that setting proper limits with others is actually a way of loving others who otherwise won't take responsibility for their own issues or lives.

Cloud and Townsend argue that,

Appropriate boundaries actually increase our ability to care about others. People with highly developed limits are the most caring people on earth.5

Why is that? Because,

Boundary-injured individuals make promises and then do one of two things; (1) they resentfully make good, or (2) they fail on the promise. Boundary-developed people, however, make good [on their promises] freely and gladly. Or they don't promise at all.6

What is more loving: to give to others cheerfully (2 Corinthians 9:7) and follow through on our promises, or to give resentfully and also risk not following through on our promises?

We also need to care for ourselves in order to care for others effectively and in sustainable ways, without becoming people who are then just as needy as those we are trying to help. Cloud and Townsend describe this as "counting the cost" of our helping. They warn that,

Following up on guilt-ridden or compliant responsibilities can be quite costly, painful, and inconvenient. The lesson you need to learn is to not promise too much before you have done your spiritual and emotional [or financial] calculations.7

Even if someone is in real need, we all have limits. Townsend and Cloud believe that we should all,

Learn what your limits are, give what you have "decided in your heart" to give, and send other people in need to those who can help them. Empathize with these people's situations. They often need to know that you see their needs as valid and that they really do need help. And pray for them. This is the most loving thing you can do for the pain and needs around you that you can't meet.8

Townsend and Cloud also say that it's important for us to

initiate responsible caretaking for ourselves—as opposed to placing the burden on someone else.9

In fact,

God intends for us to know when we're hungry, lonely, in trouble, overwhelmed, or in need of a break—and then to take initiative to get what we need.10

So sometimes, our limits/boundaries can look like taking time for self-care. And when we do, I believe that self-care is also a way of loving others.

For example, when I'm feeling down, I try to remind myself that if I did give in to the temptation to end my life early, then not only would Satan win, but all the people who love me would also lose.

I know that my loved ones would rather see me take a nap, eat a bowl of oatmeal, watch a movie, work on hobbies, or whatever I need to do to feel better, rather than take myself out of their lives. And I would want the same for anyone who was also struggling with the temptation to commit suicide, even if it meant that temporarily, they weren't available to help me out or contribute anything to the world.

But this is true even in less drastic cases, too.

For example, I can't be a benefit to anyone I love if I'm crying on my bed feeling awful about myself or my future, and wishing I was in heaven instead. And likely, my loved ones wouldn't be happy if I was in this state, either. So in this situation, if I want to love others, the most loving thing I can do is to get up, eat that bowl of oatmeal, and watch some silly cat videos on the internet until I regain a more objective perspective on my situation.

Self-care can also be done proactively, before I find myself falling into that situation where I just want to go cry, and it's still just as loving of an action.

For example, if I can keep myself feeling positive by taking some time off to do something fun and creative for a few hours or a day on a weekend, then those around me benefit from me being at my best, rather than if I were moping around feeling stressed and unhappy. It's more loving to do what I need to so that I can bring the best of myself into my relationships, than to neglect myself until I'm unpleasant to be around and make others worry about me.

Plus, if I'm doing alright both emotionally and physically, then I'm also more able to potentially help others, rather than needing to be helped by others. And then I'm happier. And my spouse is happier. And a happier Christian is a better witness to others than an unhappy or grumpy Christian.

Therefore, I need to remember that self-care is a loving action, and that I shouldn't feel guilty when I take time out for myself. In so doing, I'm loving myself, loving others, and also thwarting Satan's desires to make me miserable and useless to God and to others.

Conclusion

I hope this post has been helpful or encouraging to you if you also experience times when it feels like you're barely holding on.

Maybe you're even feeling this way right now. If this is where you're at, then just keep holding on, because keeping your faith and not giving in to temptations to prematurely end your mission will be rewarded. And there's nothing you should be ashamed of for just holding on, even if you can't do anything else at the moment.

Jesus encourages Christians who live before the Rapture that,

Because you have obeyed my command to persevere, I will protect you from the great time of testing that will come upon the whole world to test those who belong to this world. I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take away your crown. (Revelation 3:10-11, NLT)

And we're encouraged that if we hold on in the meantime, even if we have to endure suffering, it will all be so worth it in the end:

This 'light momentary affliction' might not seem so light or momentary in the moment. But this verse promises us that it will seem this way when we look back on our suffering in heaven in comparison to our heavenly rewards which will far outweigh it.

If you want to read more on this theme of suffering and heavenly rewards, check out my post on how suffering is useful for Christians.

And if you would like more encouragement to keep going and doing your best for God, maybe you would like my post about how Christians are superheros.

Footnotes:

1. Luna Greenstein, "Tips For Managing The Holiday Blues", National Alliance on Mental Illness, November 19, 2015.
2. National Alliance on Mental Health, "Mental Health and the Holiday Blues", November 19, 2014.
3. Geoffrey Grider, "The NTEB House Church Sunday Service: 4th Quarter Christian, Or Finishing Strong As The Last Days Game Clock Runs Out," October 22, 2022.
4. This quote is often attributed to C.S. Lewis, however, it might actually have come from C. T. Studd. See https://essentialcslewis.com/2017/01/07/ccslq-31-hell-rejoices/.
5. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 107.
6. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 290.
7. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 290.
8. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 256.
9. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 185.
10. Henry Cloud and John Townsend, Boundaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 184.

Will 'Good' People Be Eternally Saved?

2022-11-22T00:00:00+00:00

In several of my past blog posts, I have been building a case for why I believe that some sort of theory of Christian inclusivism is necessary if Christians want to believe everything the Bible says about which individuals will be eternally saved.

As a reminder, Christian inclusivism is the idea that although Christianity is the only true religion/faith, people who were not Christians and who never heard the gospel can still be eternally saved, because God truly wants to save all people.

However, despite this, not everyone will be saved, and so universalism isn't a Biblical option. Inclusivism also denies that all religions lead to the same God or the same heaven, and thus, it is not the same as religious pluralism.

I believe there are three main possibilities for how God will judge people who never heard the gospel (or who died before they had the ability to understand and personally respond to the gospel) that could lead to at least some of those people being eternally saved:

Each person has an encounter with God/Jesus after death, giving individuals who have not previously had a chance to accept or reject the gospel the opportunity to make their final decision regarding God's offer of salvation then.
God judges people based on what their earthly actions revealed about their hearts being oriented either toward God or away from God.
God judges people based on how they responded to the truths about God that they did have access to during their lives through nature, or maybe, through otherwise false religions.

I have already examined the first option in my previous post.

In the rest of this post, I will explore the second possibility in more detail, and make a case for why it could be a compelling, Biblical option.

Before that, though, I need to explain that this second possibility is certainly not the same as saying people can be good enough to be worthy of heaven.

Will God Accept All 'Good' People Into Heaven?

If you stop people on the street here in North America, and probably also Europe, and ask them whether they think they will go to heaven when they die, probably many people would say yes. But if you ask them why they think this, I suspect that most would say it is because they are a 'good' person.

If you ask them what being a 'good' person means, they'll probably say it means they haven't murdered anyone, they haven't been arrested for any (major) crimes, they don't cheat on their taxes or on their spouses, they go to church, they try to be kind and helpful to others, and so on.

Especially self-aware individuals might admit that they aren't perfect and have made some mistakes in life. But even they might argue that on the whole, they've done more good than bad in their lives, and so God should be happy enough with their efforts to let them into heaven.

Unfortunately, even some Christians endorse such an idea.

For example, a few years ago, Pope Francis supposedly said that even atheists can go to heaven.

This occurred when the Pope greeted a child who was grieving the loss of his father who was an atheist. The child hugged the Pope and cried while sharing that he was worried his father might be in hell.

As a result, the Pope told the child that his father was a "good man" because his father had his four children baptized, and so God was proud of his father.

Then Pope Francis said, "God has the heart of a father, your father was a good man, he is in heaven with Him, be sure. God has a father's heart and would God ever abandon a non-believing father who baptized his children?"1

This is an extremely disappointing statement to be made by someone who is supposedly Christ's most well-known representative on earth, and who should be the most theologically-informed Christian on the planet. But as seen in my previous post on other religions, such a statement seems to be in line with a number of Pope Francis's other statements which are theologically questionable.

Unfortunately, it appears that over one third of senior Christian pastors in the United States also believe that "a person who is generally good, or does enough good things for others, can earn a place in Heaven"!2

I'm completely shocked by this.

According to the same survey, associate pastors, teaching pastors, and children's pastors tended to have even fewer Biblical beliefs than senior pastors did, although there were no specific statistics given on how they would answer that question. But I presume the numbers would be at least the same as for the senior pastors, if not worse.

So that's really quite scary.

I would very much like to sit down and ask these pastors how they could believe that anyone could be good enough to earn a place in heaven, because it's clearly not what is taught in the Bible.

A Serious Problem: The Bible Says No One Is Good Enough

The first problem with the claim that it's possible for someone to be good enough to earn a place in heaven is that it's unclear how many good works or what kind of good works are necessary to be considered a 'good' person.

If individuals keep the Ten Commandments, would they be considered to be 'good' people and worthy of eternal salvation? Or is that too tough, and so a lesser standard is needed, like, say, just trying to be kind and nice to most people, most of the time?

And then, if individuals commit any particularly 'bad' sins, does that outweigh all the rest of the 'good' they might have done in their lives and automatically condemn them to hell?

Fortunately, the Bible clearly answers these questions. According to God's standards, no one is good enough to be worthy of eternal life:

"No one is righteous—not even one. No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God. All have turned away; all have become useless. No one does good, not a single one" (Romans 3:10-12, NLT).
"For all of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment" (Isaiah 64:6, NASB).
"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way" (Isaiah 53:6, NRSVA).
"If we say we have not sinned, we make him [God] a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 John 1:10).
"No one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19).

In fact, the only human who has ever been 'good' enough for God was Jesus Christ, because he is the only person who never sinned (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15) and that's because Jesus is God incarnate (John 10:30).

So if God will judge everyone according to God's standard of perfection, then the only human who would qualify for heaven is Jesus.

As a result, because all the rest of us are all sinners, good works will never be enough for us to earn eternal life:

"For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his [God's] sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).
"Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (Romans 4:4-5).
"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard. Yet God, in his grace, freely makes us right in his sight. He did this through Christ Jesus when he freed us from the penalty for our sins. For God presented Jesus as the sacrifice for sin. People are made right with God when they believe that Jesus sacrificed his life, shedding his blood" (Romans 3:23-25, NLT).

These verses above make it clear that no good works could ever make a sinner worthy of heaven. Instead, everyone who will ever be saved is saved only because they believe that Jesus died for their sins, so that they could have eternal life.

An Even More Serious Problem: Why Did Jesus Die If People Can Earn Heaven?

But perhaps the most serious theological problem with the theory that people can get to heaven simply by being 'good people' is that it would mean there is no need for Jesus to have died on the cross!

When Jesus was praying to God the Father before he was arrested, Jesus asked if there were any way it might be possible for him to avoid going through with his upcoming crucifixion (Mark 14:36, Matthew 26:39-42).

Jesus was so anxious about it that he sweat blood—a rare medical condition called, which is occasionally experienced during extreme stress.3

I think this is enough evidence to say that if there were any other way that God could have solved the problem of all humans being sinners without Jesus having to die for the sins of the world on the cross (1 John 2:2, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 10:12), then God would have chosen that option.

If there were any way for us to earn our own way into heaven by being good enough or doing enough good works, then Jesus's death would have been completely unnecessary, and I believe he wouldn't have gone through with it.

And we know that Jesus's death wasn't an accident or a senseless tragedy, because Jesus said that he could have prevented his own arrest by calling down angels to protect himself (Matthew 26:53-54). Therefore, Jesus willingly went to the cross because it was the only way to make humanity's salvation possible.

So the Bible is clear that there is absolutely no way to be saved except by having faith in Jesus Christ as your personal Savior (John 14:6, John 3:16-18, Acts 4:12).

Yet this brings us back to the main question of the post. Since not everyone in all of history has been able to know about Jesus and so believe in him, then how can those people be saved?

The first possibility I explored was whether some people might have a chance to believe in Jesus after death. There do seem to be some situations where this possibility seems necessary. But as I noted in that post, there are also some weaknesses with that theory.

So this brings us to the second possibility listed at the start of this post.

In this next section, I'll make a case for why it could be possible for God to judge people for eternal salvation based on their good works, yet without those works being seen as the reason these people are saved.

Possibility 2: Good Works Reveal People's Faith in God

Despite the point made in the previous section that the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus's death for our sins, there are some Bible verses which seem to say that God will judge people based on their works.

These verses also suggest that if people do what is right, it will lead to heavenly rewards and/or eternal life. For example:

"He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Romans 2:6-11).
"Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him" (Acts 10:34-35).
"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29).
"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done" (Revelation 20:11-13).

However, since the other verses we examined earlier clearly deny the possibility that anyone can do enough good works to earn their way into heaven, how do we make sense of these verses?

The most pessimistic interpretation would say that the only reason God will judge people's works is to prove that everyone is a sinner who needs Jesus as their savior.

So in this view, everyone would end up on the 'unworthy' side of the above judgments, and the 'good' outcome would be only a theoretical possibility that is never actually fulfilled by anyone but Jesus (e.g. see again Luke 18:19).

This would be one way to make these verses fully compatible with the earlier verses that there is no way to be eternally saved besides having faith that Jesus died for our sins.

But I don't think we should be so pessimistic, because there is an interesting hint that maybe during this divine judgment of people's works, God might be merciful to them:

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Romans 2:14-16)

Did you catch that? It seems that at the final judgment some people may actually be excused for their sins, depending on what was going on in their heart and/or conscience at the time.

No details are given regarding the criteria God will use to determine what sorts of sins might be excused in this way. But this verse wouldn't be in the Bible if it weren't true, since all Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16), and God never lies (Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18).

I also don't think we should assume that everyone who will be judged at the final judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) will be automatically condemned to hell (despite what the most pessimistic Bible interpreters say).

That's because even though people's works will be judged, as per Revelation 20:11-13, John goes on to say "And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire" (Revelation 20:15, NLT).

So what really matters isn't ultimately people's works—it's whether their names are written in the Book of Life.

The Book of Life is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, such as Philippians 4:3 and Revelation 3:5. In these contexts, it seems that the people whose names are written in it (or not blotted out from it) are people who have faith in God/Jesus.

Therefore, one attempt to solve this conundrum of how God will judge people by their works, but people are saved only by faith in Jesus, would be to argue that people's works reveal whether they have truly had faith in Jesus.

But again, what about those who never heard about Jesus? One passage suggests there may be a way for people's names to be written in the Book of Life even though they do not seem to have known of Jesus during their earthly lives.

In Matthew 25, Jesus said,

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." Then the righteous will answer him, saying, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?" And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:31-40)

Alternatively, for those who never did these good works, Jesus will say,

Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. (Matthew 25:41)

The end result is "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:46).

Now it's true that Matthew 25 is a different judgment than Revelation 20, because Matthew 25 occurs at the end of the Tribulation rather than at the end of the Millennial Kingdom like Revelation 20.4

However, it wouldn't be fair for God to judge the group of Tribulation survivors for eternal life or death by using a different standard than he will use to judge many other people at the final judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), which will include people who never heard about Jesus.

So in order to reconcile this passage of Scripture with other Bible verses which clearly say that only those who have faith in Jesus will be eternally saved (e.g. John 3:16-18, John 11:25-26), and with the verses that say no one can do enough good works to be saved (as seen earlier), then one potential solution could be to say that everyone who has faith in Jesus will do these sorts of good works.

Or conversely, according to that interpretation, if individuals are not doing enough of these sort of good works, it could imply that they don't really have faith in Jesus.

Such an interpretation might also imply that people who who did these good works but didn't know who Jesus was could still be saved because their works demonstrate some sort of implicit faith in Jesus or God.5

If so, then this could potentially be a way for people who never specifically heard about Jesus or God to still be saved.

God would judge their works, and those who did enough good works or some types of good works would be regarded as effectively having had faith in Jesus, even though they didn't know about him during their earthly lives.

However, there are several potential problems with this interpretation that must be examined before we accepted it as a viable theory.

Problem 1: How Many Good Works Are Needed To Prove Faith?

This theory that good works can prove whether a person has faith in God has a similar problem to the theory that good works on their own can earn eternal salvation. That is: how many good works and what sort of good works do individuals need to do to prove that they truly have faith?

In one place, Jesus said,

If you receive a prophet as one who speaks for God, you will be given the same reward as a prophet. And if you receive righteous people because of their righteousness, you will be given a reward like theirs. And if you give even a cup of cold water to one of the least of my followers, you will surely be rewarded. (Matthew 10:41-42, NLT)

Does this mean that as long as someone does one good deed as small as offering someone a cup of water, it's enough to demonstrate his or her faith in God and guarantee that he or she will be eternally saved and rewarded?

(After all, people can't be eternally annihilated while simultaneously receiving eternal heavenly rewards.)

So, if only one small good work is the minimum requirement for demonstrating one's faith in God, then we might imagine that most people would meet this requirement at some point in their lives.

But we need to be careful about what works we say are 'good'.

Remember that Jesus said that even tax collectors (i.e. people who were considered to be traitors and thieves) love those who love them (Matthew 5:46). And parents give good things to their children (Matthew 7:11) regardless of whether the parents are believers in God or not. However, in these instances, Jesus doesn't seem to think these actions are particularly praiseworthy.

Jonathan Edwards explains this by arguing that loving others only because they are our friends or family, or because we benefit from their love in some way, is actually selfish because it is not truly loving others for their own sake. Therefore, it shouldn't be seen as truly virtuous.6

By extension, these forms of love shouldn't be seen as a good indicator of a person's faith.

And most likely, Christians who claim that good works are necessary to prove that someone's faith is genuine would want to set the bar a bit higher than simply loving our friends and family, or giving a single cup of cold water to someone.

But then we're back to the same problem as at the start: where is the list that specifies exactly what kind of good works or how many good works must be done to prove that someone truly has faith in God?

This brings us to the second problem.

Problem 2: Where Is The Assurance of Salvation?

Unfortunately, it's common for Christians to claim that the only way for individuals to know that they are really saved is for them to look at their own lives and see if their good works show evidence that they really do believe in Jesus.7

Yet that ends up throwing people onto that awful treadmill of constant performance in order to have assurance that they are truly eternally saved.

For example, just read this poor guy's story of how much stress he was under when he tried to rely on good works to prove to himself that he was saved.8

I can personally say that I was told to follow this approach for many years in the past, and I also discovered it only leads to constant stress. When I felt like I was doing well, then it led to pride. When I wasn't doing well, it led to despair, depression, and fear that I might end up going to hell.

So either way, it doesn't lead to anything good. It also certainly doesn't lead to peace or joy, which should be the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Never mind that the idea that we have to constantly keep doing good works in order to keep or prove our eternal salvation is contrary to a number of very clear Bible verses that show we are eternally saved the moment we first believe in Jesus, such as:

In him [Christ] you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:13-14)

I make a longer argument and bring up more verses to argue that it is possible for Christians to have assurance of their personal eternal salvation the moment we believe in Jesus in my post here.

So however we relate good works and faith, we should never say that people have to keep doing good works in order to prove that their faith is genuine or to have assurance of their eternal salvation.

Problem 3: Good Works Aren't the Same As Believing in Jesus

Another problem is that elsewhere in the Bible, Jesus warns that doing good works is not the same as believing in him!

Jesus warns that at the final judgment,

On that day many will say to me, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?" And then will I declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." (Matthew 7:22-23)

So that's kind of confusing then, isn't it? In Matthew 25, Jesus is apparently judging people's good works in regard to their eternal salvation, but in this passage here in Matthew 7, these other apparently 'good' works don't count?

And we also know that elsewhere in Scripture, only one 'work' is necessary to be saved:

People asked Jesus, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent" (John 6:28-29).

After all, the thief on the cross certainly didn't have time to perform any good works after he believed in Jesus, and Jesus still told him "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43).

Therefore, these two verses would again mean that ultimately only faith in Christ is what matters for eternal salvation.

But then we're back to the initial problem: what about people who never had a chance to hear about Jesus during their earthly lives?

A Possible Solution: What If A Person Loves Love?

So in the end, it appears that the Biblical evidence makes it difficult to determine exactly what actions could count as a demonstration of a person's faith, and which actions don't.

There also seem to be a number of conflicting verses regarding the relationship between belief in God/Jesus and good works, and how both of these are related to a person having eternal life.

Now you might be tempted to say that this is a contradiction in the Bible, and throw up your hands and stop reading this post.

Before you do, I want to reassure you that this is not a contradiction.

Once again, remember that the Bible was fully inspired by the Holy Spirit who is God and never lies (2 Peter 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18). So we can't say that some of these verses we've seen in this post are wrong and others are right. They must all be true.

So how can that be possible?

I think there may be a way for people who never heard the gospel to be judged by their works as a way of demonstrating whether their hearts are oriented toward God or away from God, which is effectively the same as having faith in Jesus.

As I've examined in a different post, there are some interesting verses that make connections between our love for Jesus/God and our obedience to him. I'll recap some of these here:

Jesus said, "You are my friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:14).
Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3).

So what does God command? There are many commandments in Scripture, but they can all be summed up as:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40, see also parallels in Mark 12:29-31, Luke 10:26-28)

So we might say that even if people don't know about Jesus/God, but they still value love as demonstrated by how they try to do what is loving, then in a way, they are still loving God, because God is Love (1 John 4:8).

And since ultimately, heaven will be a world of love between all saved people, holy angels, and the Triune God,9 then anyone who loves Love would be welcome there, because loving Love is loving God.

Yet because the human heart is sinful, (Jeremiah 17:9, Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Genesis 8:21, Job 25:4), anyone who loves Love would only do so because they are responding to the Holy Spirit's work in their hearts, who has been drawing them toward God/Love (John 6:44-45, John 12:32, John 1:9). See more about this in my post here.

However, if individuals have been drawn to love Love by the work of the Holy Spirit, then this love will show up in their actions when they try to act in loving ways, or in their consciences when they feel guilt over how they have not acted in loving ways.

Conversely, if someone does apparently 'good' works without loving Love, then their works are useless to save them or earn eternal rewards:

Thus, I think that this connection between good works, love, and God, could be the basis for a Biblically-sound theory of inclusivism which makes salvation open to all people, in a way that doesn't downplay the need for Jesus to die for our sins and for every person to believe in Jesus in order to have eternal life.

Here's a short outline of my theory, which I want to go into more detail about in a future post:

At the final judgment (Revelation 20:11-15), everyone who did not have a chance to know about or believe in Jesus during their lifetimes will have their works and consciences judged by Jesus himself (Romans 2:14-16, Acts 17:30-31).
BUT, is not these people's works that save them or make them worthy of heaven, since all people are sinners who are predisposed to acting in ways that are unloving, and if we have lived long enough, we will all have personally acted in unloving ways at times.
Those who have loved Love during their earthly lives, will, once they meet Jesus face to face and have any remaining misconceptions about God cleared up, also love Jesus, because God is Love, and Jesus is Love incarnate.
Anyone who truly loves Love will also agree with Jesus's negative assessment of their unloving actions. They will agree that God's penalty for sin is just, and that they are personally worthy of eternal death (Romans 6:23).
BUT, those who love Jesus and agree that their sins are worthy of eternal death will love Jesus even more once they hear about how he died for their sins so they can have eternal life (John 3:16). Then, they will believe in Jesus, and so will have their names written into or not blotted out of the Book of Life (Revelation 3:5, Revelation 20:15), and will be eternally saved.
If a person is eternally saved, then God will reward whatever good actions were done out of love.

Now, I think points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 of my theory outlined above have some decent Biblical support, based on the verses I've mentioned in this post.

Point 5 is also partly proven, because there are many verses which clearly say that say that a specific belief in Jesus Christ is necessary for eternal salvation (John 3:18, John 3:36, and 2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

The only part that is speculative is my suggestion that after death, after each person's works are judged and shown to be unworthy of heaven and deserving of eternal destruction, each person gets a final chance to hear the gospel and accept Jesus as their eternal Lord and Savior.

However, based on my previous post, I don't think such an opportunity is so far-fetched.

And if we trust that God really does want everyone to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9), then I don't see why he wouldn't give everyone every possible opportunity to believe in Jesus, even if it comes at the final judgment.

Therefore, in the end, everyone who is eternally saved will have believed in Jesus, and it will be true that,

There is salvation in no one else! God has given no other name under heaven by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12, NLT)

So if you haven't personally believed in Jesus yet, I would highly recommend it. His offer of eternal life is totally free, and once you believe, you're guaranteed to be eternally saved.

Conclusion

I hope my post has shown that there does seem to be a way to reconcile apparently-conflicting verses regarding how people will be eternally saved.

It's not our works that save us, because we're all sinners. That's why Jesus had to die for us, and there is no other way to be eternally saved but to believe in him. Yet at the same time, our works will be judged in order to determine our heavenly rewards.

As I've argued here, another potential purpose of the final judgment could be as a way for God to determine the orientation of people's hearts who never heard the gospel, as a precursor for giving the people whose actions and consciences have demonstrated that they love Love a chance to hear the gospel and accept Jesus as their Savior.

In this way, all the above verses I mentioned in this post can be simultaneously true, without conflicting, and without throwing people onto a treadmill of constant performance in order to maintain or prove our faith, or think that we can earn our way into heaven by being 'good' enough.

In upcoming posts in this series on inclusivism, I still plan to address option number 3, and show why although it might have some potential, I think it is inferior to this second possibility I've put forward in this post.

I also plan to give a more detailed version of my argument that I outlined in this post, and explain why evangelism and becoming a Christian in this life is still important. Stay tuned!

Footnotes:

1. Domenico Agasso Jr., "A child cries for the death of his father. The Pope, 'he was a good man, he is with God'", La Stampa, Vatican Insider, April 16, 2018.
2. Ian M. Gatti, "Third of senior pastors believe 'good people' can earn their way to heaven: survey", The Christian Post, Sept. 3, 2022. The survey was done by the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, and a .pdf of the results be found here
3. Valencia Higuera, "Hematidrosis: Is Sweating Blood Real?", Healthline.com, March 14, 2017.
4. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959), 271, 285-288.
5. "The works of mercy and compassion of these Gentiles toward Christ will demonstrate that they are believers. Their deeds wll evidence the righteous character of their regenerated nature (v 27; 1 John 3:10)". Hal M. Haller Jr., "Matthew", in The Grace New Testament Commentary Vol. 1, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 121. However, an alternative reading is that the reason everyone who is eternally saved at the Matthew 25 judgment also did good works is because they are all believers in Jesus who lived during the Tribulation, who did good works to care for the persecuted Jews during this time. It is argued that the reason there are only two groups of people at this judgment (believers who did good works, and non-believers who didn't do good works) is because God allowed all believers who didn't do good works to be killed by one of the judgments during the Tribulation (John Clayes, "Matthew 25:31-46: Salvation by Works?", Grace Evangelical Society, September 1, 2017.)
6. Jonathan Edwards, "Dissertation II: The Nature of True Virtue", in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online Vol. 8, Ethical Writings, edited by Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University, 2008), 555-556, 579, 583-584. He says this is so because if we only love our friends/family but not others, it will actually lead us to being opposed to others when there is a conflict between others' good and our family/friends' good (584). E.g. we can imagine how in a desperate situation, someone might murder another person in order to provide food for their own child.
7. "In this book I have tried to show that God wants us to know that we are secure with Him, just as we want our beloved to know they are secure with us. That assurance is not found by remembering a prayer that you prayed, however, but by continuing in the posture of repentance and faith that you began at your conversion. Jesus said that those who repent and believe will be saved. Repentance and faith are postures you begin in moment but maintain for a lifetime. Those who persist in that posture can be assured that they are saved, and their lives will bear spiritual fruits that further prove their regeneration." J. D. Greear, Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart: How To Know For Sure You Are Saved (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2013), 109. Elsewhere, Greear says "Perhaps you have only undergone some religious ritual like 'asking Jesus into your heart,' without ever really repenting and believing. The lack of change in your life proves you have not experienced him, and these doubts are God's way of waking you up to bring you to a living faith" (Greear, 110-111). Obviously, I think Greear is confused and is saying two different things at the same time, and I wouldn't recommend his book. For a more 'scholarly' book that argues that good works are an essential component of true faith, see Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, The Five Solas Series, ed. Matthew Barrett (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2015), 191-206, but again, I can't recommend it.
8. Paul Carpenter, "Assurance by Works: My Road to Ruin", Grace Evangelical Society Blog, January 1, 2016.
9. Jonathan Edwards, "Heaven Is A World of Love", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 366-397.

Can People Choose To Believe In Jesus After Death?

2022-11-09T00:00:00+00:00

In my past several posts, I have been building a case for why I believe that some sort of theory of Christian inclusivism is necessary if Christians want to believe everything the Bible says about which individuals will be eternally saved.

I believe that a theologically sound theory of inclusivism could be an option for Christians who might otherwise be tempted to endorse universalism. It could also resolve the negative consequences for God's character that can be implied by exclusivism.

Three Possibilities For Christian Inclusivism

There may be historical precedent for Christian inclusivism, as demonstrated by the behavior of the earliest Christians.

So although I'm convinced that some form of Christian inclusivism seems to be biblically necessary, and it might even have historical precedent, the challenge is to explain how it works.

There are several possibilities I have heard Christians propose, including:

Each person has an encounter with God/Jesus after death, giving individuals who have not previously had a chance to accept or reject the gospel the opportunity to make their final decision regarding God's offer of salvation then.
God judges people based on what their earthly actions revealed about their hearts being oriented either toward God or away from God.
God judges people based on how they responded to the truths about God that they did have access to during their lives through nature, or maybe, through otherwise false religions.

In the rest of this post, I will explore the first possibility in more detail, and discuss some potential benefits it may have, and also some difficulties for it.

Future posts will address the second and third possibilities.

Possibility 1: Some People Can Make Their Final Choice After Death

Probably the easiest answer for inclusivism would be to say that no matter who someone was or when they lived, after every person dies, he or she meets Jesus/God face to face.

There, they will have to make a final choice for or against Jesus/God if they have not believed in Jesus/God during their lifetime.

Gregory Boyd thinks that something like this must be a possibility because of the nature of love. He writes:

But if love indeed requires choice, and if heaven is defined as participating in God's love, then it follows by logical necessity that people who never made a choice for love cannot participate in heaven, regardless of why it is that they did not or could not make that choice. Nor can such individuals participate in hell, for the state of rejecting love also must be chosen.2

Therefore, he says that although it's speculative,

I argue that those who hold to the free-will defense should logically consider the possibility that those who were unable responsibly and decisively to choose for or against God's Kingdom before death must somehow be given an opportunity to do so after death.3

Boyd uses his proposal to lead into his argument for why he believes there is a need for a place like purgatory, where people can mature and grow until they can make such a choice.

However, I disagree with and refute Boyd's argument regarding purgatory on the basis of Boyd's own logic of sanctification in my post here.

Yet I can agree with Boyd that love requires a free choice. That is why I reject both double predestination and universalism. In both theories, no one has any real free will to say yes or no to God's love, because God has pre-chosen what each person's response will be.

And I do somewhat agree with Thomas Talbott when he suggests that individuals can't properly make a choice for or against God until they have a correct knowledge of God:

In this life, of course, we rarely, if ever, choose in a context of full clarity. We all emerge and start making choices in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and illusion, where God remains at least partly hidden from us. But that merely makes matters worse.... For insofar as God remains hidden from us and we do not fully understand the true nature of God or the consequences of separating ourselves from him, we are in no position to reject the true God at all. We may reject a caricature of God, as frequently happens in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception; but we are in no position to reject the true God until our ignorance has been removed and our misjudgments have been corrected.4

Although I don't believe that having our misperceptions of God corrected will guarantee that everyone will choose to love God in the end. After all, Satan and the fallen angels were formerly in the full presence of God in heaven, yet somehow, they still rejected God. (I want to write about how this rejection may be possible in a future post).

But if everyone must make a personal choice either to love God or not, in order to avoid the negative implications of both universalism and double predestination, then I agree that logically, if that choice can't be made in this life, it has to be made after death.

However, there are some potential difficulties with this theory about a post-mortem opportunity for personal choices for or against God.

Problem 1: Would Deceased Children Also Need A Choice?

One of the first questions that might come to mind is whether this post-mortem opportunity also applies to people who died as infants or children.

Let's imagine that a child of Christian parents dies before being able to make a personal choice to believe in Jesus as his or her Savior.

A common pastoral response to this situation is to reassure the parents that their child is now with God in heaven. The pastor might even quote 2 Samuel 12:23 as support for this idea. In this way, the Christian parents can mourn their loss while looking forward to seeing their child again someday.

Randy Alcorn, the author of the popular Christian book titled Heaven, hopes for such a possibility.

Alcorn speculates that perhaps when children are resurrected, they will be at the same age as they were when they died (or maybe just a little older, for those who died before birth). Then, their resurrected, glorified bodies will still 'grow up' as God intended, and so children who die prematurely would not miss out on childhood or the necessary process of maturing.

Its not clear whether Alcorn pictures these resurrected children growing up during the earthly Millennial kingdom that Jesus will establish after the Tribulation, or only later in the New Heaven and New Earth.

But in either case, if these children's parents are saved, then Alcorn suggests the resurrected parents could be a major part of raising their own resurrected children as they grow up.5 Alcorn proposes that the above could also apply to children who died through miscarriages or abortions.6

Alcorn's theory is attractive, because then children who die prematurely ultimately do not lose out on anything. In fact, they may be more blessed to get to grow up in a world free of sin.

Parents who are grieving can then have hope that they will be reunited with their children in heaven and won't miss out on the joys of being a parent. People who never got the opportunity to become parents in this life might also get a chance to help raise some of these children, too.

This all sounds nice, and I agree it fits well with God's loving character, and how God likes to redeem and restore what is lost (e.g. Joel 2:25). It also fits with how Jesus demonstrated a special love for parents with deceased children by raising these children from the dead (e.g. Luke 7:11-17, Luke 8:49-56).

However there are both ethical issues and theological issues to consider before we affirm this possibility.

Salvation of Children and Infants: Ethical Issues To Consider

Sometimes Christians make use of the idea that all children who die instantly go to heaven as a way to defend God's goodness despite how children experience suffering and death in this fallen world.

For example, John Piper (a Calvinist) presumes that all children who suffer horribly and/or die prematurely are elect (i.e., they are predestined to heaven apart from their personal beliefs or actions). In heaven, he asserts these children will be repaid "ten-thousand fold" for their suffering.7

Piper justifies this claim by appealing to 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, Romans 8:18, and Matthew 5:11-12, which all talk about how suffering earns eternal rewards.8

I don't find Piper's interpretation completely convincing, though, and that's not only because I disagree with him on predestination. I also question his supporting Bible verses, because in their contexts, these verses refer to rewards that are given to Christians in exchange for suffering persecution.

Although it is true that, for everyone who ends up being eternally saved, God will wipe away all our tears and we will never experience any suffering ever again (Revelation 21:4).

Sometimes, the idea that all children who die go instantly to heaven is used to justify the instances in the Bible when children are killed due to God bringing divine judgment on their societies.

We might think of the children who were alive during Noah's flood, or who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah when these cities were destroyed. It seems like a loving thing to say that all these children are now with God.

In his book Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan highlights God's command to the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites. This included instructions to kill Canaanite children, such as when God said to slaughter everything that lives in Jericho (Joshua 6:17-21). One way to deal with this apparent problem for God's goodness is to argue that God has the right to determine how long anyone lives, and that any children who were killed immediately went to be with God in heaven.9

However, there are potentially negative ethical consequences that could arise from the idea that all children instantly go to heaven when they die. I touched on this idea slightly in my previous post on exclusivism here. However, it's worth considering again now in more detail.

Alcorn fears that this view that all children who die automatically go to heaven could be used to justify abortion. He wonders if God intentionally didn't tell us in the Bible what happens to babies or children who die, because in our twisted logic, we would end up thinking we are doing these children a favor by killing them.10 Indeed, some emotionally troubled people have thought this way in the past, with tragic consequences.11

Alcorn also worries that such a belief might reduce the concern that Christians should feel for children who are dying from malnutrition in non-Christian cultures around the world. The idea might seem to imply that if we try to save these children's lives, they might grow up to reject God and end up in hell, and so it's better for them to die young because then they will go to heaven.12

But beyond the moral issues involved, there are also some difficult theological issues with the claim that all children who die go to heaven.

Salvation of Children and Infants: Theological Issues To Consider

Many theories that claim all children who die prematurely automatically go to be with Jesus rely on the concept of an 'age of accountability'. Supposedly, after children reach this age, they become personally responsible to believe in Jesus for salvation.

However, there is disagreement over what this age is. Some think it could vary depending on the child, as some children might hear the gospel before others and be able to make a choice at a younger age, while others remain unaccountable for longer.13

By extension, some people with mental disabilities might never reach an age when they could be held properly 'accountable' by God for their personal beliefs.

However, as much as Alcorn wants to say that all deceased children go to heaven, he admits that,

Scripture makes no reference to an age of accountability, nor does it even seem to imply one. (It is an assumption based on the premise that children are born saved and the attempt to then explain how and when they could become lost.)14

Alternatively, I've heard some speculation that the idea the age of accountability could be as high as twenty years old!

This claim is made on the basis of Numbers 14:29, when the Israelites grumbled against God and feared to enter the land God wanted to give them. As a punishment, only Israelites who were twenty years and younger (plus Joshua and Caleb) would be left alive to enter the promised land after forty years of wandering in the wilderness.

But effectively, Alcorn is right that we can't know for sure what the age of accountability is, or if there is one. The twenty year limit in Numbers 14:29 might have been just for that particular biblical event. It was also related to entering the promised land, which isn't the same as eternal salvation.

So, if pastors want to reassure Christian parents that their children are in heaven, it seems these pastors need to have some sort of insight into the child's personal age of accountability. But since that insight is impossible, pastors shouldn't honestly be able to make such a promise to the child's grieving parents.

However, there is an additional and even more significant theological issue with the idea that all deceased children automatically go to heaven.

It involves the inconsistent claim that some people receive eternal life without ever having personal faith in Jesus, while other people who reach a certain age or level of ability do need to make such a choice to have personal faith in Jesus.

Theologically, the Bible says that despite being made in the image of God, ever since Adam and Eve sinned, all humans are born sinners (Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Genesis 8:21, Job 25:4). That is except for Jesus, who is a special case since he is also fully divine.

We see in Genesis 2:16-17, Romans 5:12-14, Romans 6:23, and James 1:15 that death is God's righteous punishment for sin. Thus, if infants and children die, they must be sinners, or it would be unjust for God to let them experience death.

And if even infants and children are sinners, then, Alcorn is correct when he says:

If children are saved, it cannot be because of innocence, because while they are cute and adorable and a pleasure, they are not innocent. For any person to be saved, it must be through the work of Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Unless someone is born again he can’t enter the kingdom of God (John 3:3). How can a child be born again without consciously choosing Christ?15

Despite this, Alcorn says he still hopes that God's special love for children means that all children who die will be eternally saved, even if he doesn't understand how it might work.

In the rest of his article, Alcorn wrestles with some additional verses and discusses some other possible problems with this idea which you may want to read. Yet in the end, he admits that he can't prove his idea with Scripture.16

So if we want a sound, theologically and biblically persuasive answer to this question, we need to be more rigorous.

One attempt to theologically support the theory that all children and infants who die before some 'age of accountability' (despite the problems with that idea), is made by F. Leroy Forlines.17 Here's my summary of his argument:

There is a difference between 'personal guilt' which we gain when we personally sin, and 'racial guilt' that we all inherit from Adam and Eve, although we didn't sin like they did (Romans 5:12-14).
Children before the age of accountability only have 'racial guilt', although children's inherited sinfulness still manifests in their behavior (temper tantrums, selfishness, etc.).
Children are not yet fully-developed persons capable of assuming all rights, privileges, and responsibilities of being a person. Therefore, it is not a negation of their free will for God to save them by atoning for their 'racial guilt' before they can personally consent to it.
Jesus atoned for humanity's 'racial guilt' by identifying with humanity and Adam's sin, which meant that Jesus could pay the penalty for it, and now, God transfers Jesus's righteousness to all people to cover their 'racial guilt'.
Thus, children who die before they reach their age of accountability have already had their 'racial guilt' paid for on the basis of Jesus' death on the cross. Since they never personally sinned, they have no 'personal guilt', and thus, there is no reason for God to not accept these children into heaven.
Once a child reaches the age of accountability in this life, then they are responsible for their personal sins, and must place faith in Jesus as their personal savior to be eternally saved.

Now I'm not fully convinced by Forlines' explanation, but it's the best one I've come across if someone does want to argue that all children and infants who die always go to heaven.

My Case For The Salvation of Children and Infants

Personally, though, I think it's easier and simpler to agree with Gregory Boyd that all individuals must make their own free choices to respond to God's love either positively or negatively, including people who die as infants and children.

That avoids any of the questionable interpretations and speculations that Christians like Forlines and Alcorn make to justify their position. It also means that children and infants are not a special case who get treated differently from all other sinful humans.

Yet I admit that this position is perhaps less comforting to the parents of these deceased children.

After all, if the deceased child has free will in order to make the child's love of Jesus/God real and valuable, then there must be the possibility that the child could choose to freely reject God's love and offer of salvation.

And if this is the case, there would be no way for a pastor to know what the child personally chose the moment the child came face to face with Jesus, in order to reassure the child's parents.

So if each deceased child will have to make their own choice to love God or not, then what do we say regarding the pastoral desire to comfort grieving parents?

First, I think we should be honest with them. Now, I'm not a pastor (and you might think that's a good thing), but if I were, I would say something like:

"I'm so sorry you lost your child. Because I believe that our love for God is only valuable to God if we freely choose to give it, I believe that your child will have the opportunity to make his or her own choice to respond to God's love and accept his free offer of eternal life, or reject God and face eternal destruction. So if you have believed in Jesus, there is a possibility that you will see your child again, but it isn't guaranteed."

Despite this, I think we can still reassure Christian parents that there is a high possibility that their deceased child will be eternally saved.

That is because I suspect that the number of deceased children and infants who would freely choose to reject God's love is very, very small.

Here is my argument:

Because humans are made in the image of God, it means we are made for the purpose of participating in loving relationships with God and with others.
Yet we all develop mistrust, selfishness, cynicism, and skepticism about God's love due to our negative experiences with other sinful people, which become ingrained in our physical brains, and impact how we think and behave. (If you want more details about this idea, check out my post here.)
Adam and Eve first developed these traits when they chose to doubt God's love and goodness when they believed the serpent's lie and ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden (Genesis 3). After this, their new traits were passed down to all the rest of us, and can lead us to struggle with trusting God and loving God and others.
However, a deceased child or infant will have had much less experience of this fallen world, and thus, less time for these traits to develop and become ingrained in their personalities. Therefore, I doubt that the souls of deceased children or infants would have much or even any motivation to reject God's perfect love for them, especially since they would surely feel this love and want to accept it when they meet Jesus face-to-face.
Yet there still has to be the theoretical possibility that even the soul of a deceased infant could choose to reject God, if the infant truly has free will, which is necessary or else their love for God would become meaningless.

That's not something we like to think about, but I think it is a compelling reason to believe that an after-death encounter with Jesus is a possibility for deceased children and infants, if we don't want to say (for the various reasons given earlier) that children and infants who die automatically go to heaven.

And if deceased children and infants need to have the opportunity to accept or reject God in the afterlife, then this would also be true for people who were not mentally capable of making that choice in this life.

By extension, I think it's reasonable to propose that everyone who didn't get the chance to make that choice in this life will get it after death.

But there are some potential problems with this theory, which I'll explain in the next two sections.

Problem 2: Where is the Biblical Evidence?

A major problem for this theory that at least some people will get to make their final choice about God's offer of salvation after death is that there's no blatantly clear evidence for it in the Bible.

Yes, there are verses that talk about the final judgment and of judgment for heavenly rewards which both take place after this life is over. But there is no verse that directly says that people can choose to believe in God/Jesus after they die.

Yet there are a few small portions of the Bible that might still be relevant.

The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) is often cited as evidence that after death, there is no chance for anyone to change their mind and repent of their sins. Because if the rich man was in fiery torment and could have repented to get out of it and go to be with Abraham in paradise instead, then why didn't he do so?

However, there is debate over how literally we should take the details of Jesus' parables.

As an annihilationist, Edward Fudge argues that this parable was Jesus' modification of a common rabbinical tale, and so it shouldn't be read as if it provides literal details about the afterlife.

Instead, Fudge argues that Jesus told this story in order to prove a point to the Pharisees about their current rejection of God's word, and to prophesy about their upcoming rejection of Jesus's claim to be the Messiah after Jesus would die and come back to life.18

Like Fudge, I would prefer to say that the main point of the parable is stated in Luke 16:31, which is that if people have an attitude that is hostile to or dismissive of God's word in this life, then even if they saw Jesus's death and resurrection first-hand, it wouldn't convince them to change their minds.

So at worst, this parable could be evidence that at the moment of death, the orientation of people's hearts becomes set and unchangeable, so that those who rejected God during their earthly lives will not change their minds even if they experience unpleasant consequences in the afterlife.

However, this parable is not much use when it comes to answering the question of what happens to people who never had a chance to learn about God in their lives, because both the rich man and his family did have that opportunity.

So as far as a theory of Christian inclusivism goes, this parable doesn't really relate to the question.

Jesus Preaching to Spirits in Prison

On the other hand, there are two rather obscure and difficult verses that may hint at the possibility of believing the gospel after death:

"For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water" (1 Peter 3:18-20).
"For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as people, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God" (1 Peter 4:6, NASB).

Taken together, if these are referring to the same event, it could imply that after Jesus died and before he was resurrected, Jesus may have gone to preach to the spirits of dead people who were not yet in heaven proper (John 3:13).

And I can't help but wonder: is there any reason for Jesus to preach to the spirits of dead people who Jesus knows can't or won't ever change their minds?

So this might be the tiniest clue that maybe, maybe, people can hear the gospel and change their minds after death.

However, I've heard some interpreters claim that a better approach to these verses is to say that Jesus simply proclaimed his victory to the demonic spirits that have been in supernatural jail since the time of Noah. Presumably, these demonic spirits would be the ones referred to as 'sons of God' who may have married human women and produced the Nephilim/giants (Genesis 6:1-4, Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4).19

And it seems that other demons do fear being condemned to "the abyss" ahead of their time (Luke 8:31), which could correspond with this same concept of supernatural prison for demonic spirits in 1 Peter 3:18-20.

In this interpretation, after Jesus's death, he might have gone to tell these disobedient spirits about his victory over sin, death, and the devil, and rubbed it in their faces. Then he left them there to continue rotting away in dread of the final judgment, where they will be condemned to the lake of fire that God prepared for them (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:10, James 2:19).

I'd say, though, that this interpretation doesn't really seem like the sort of thing that the Jesus I know would do. Never mind that it also seems rather pointless, since the demons already know who Jesus is (Luke 4:41, Acts 16:16-17). The demons also know that they have lost and that divine judgment will come to them, because they lived in fear of this even before Jesus died on the cross (Luke 8:28-31).

But the idea of Jesus going to preach the good news of his victory over sin and death, and offering the spirits of deceased people a final chance to believe and go to paradise with him (Luke 23:43) would be much more in line with Jesus's character and God's grace and mercy.

However, I don't feel comfortable claiming that this is definitely what these verses mean, because there are many different interpretations that commentators give to these verses.

In the end, these verses might have made more sense to the early church and the first recipients of this letter. Peter could have been referring to something he taught these Christians in person, or perhaps he was making reference to a common cultural or religious belief that has since been lost.

At best, I'll say that these are the only Bible verses I can think of that someone could use to claim that it is possible for people to hear the gospel and believe in Jesus after death. But these verses might not mean this, and there isn't enough evidence elsewhere in Scripture to back up this interpretation.

Problem 3: It Could Discourage People From Accepting The Gospel Now

Another reason why Christians might not want to promote the idea that it is possible for people to believe in Jesus after death is because it could give unbelievers the impression that they can put off accepting Jesus's free offer of eternal life until later.

However, there are some important Biblical warnings to consider on this topic.

First, there are no guarantees about how long we have before we will die:

Look here, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we are going to a certain town and will stay there a year. We will do business there and make a profit." How do you know what your life will be like tomorrow? Your life is like the morning fog—it's here a little while, then it's gone. What you ought to say is, "If the Lord wants us to, we will live and do this or that." (James 4:13-15, NLT)

Jesus also told a parable that says it's foolish to presume how long we will live, and so we shouldn't become so wrapped up in earthly concerns that we neglect God (Luke 12:16-21).

Therefore, if we do hear the gospel in this life, it's very important to seriously consider it and respond as soon as possible:

Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:6-7)

That is why the Holy Spirit says, "Today when you hear his voice, don’t harden your hearts as Israel did when they rebelled, when they tested me in the wilderness." (Hebrews 3:7-8, NLT)

Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Corinthians 6:2)

We can also recall the earlier discussion about Jesus's parable about the rich man, who seems to have had clear knowledge about God in his life and rejected it until it was too late, leading to an unpleasant and apparently unchangeable outcome in the afterlife (Luke 16:19-31).

Therefore, while I have made an argument that everyone will get a chance to personally believe in Jesus either in this life or the next, it doesn't diminish the importance of believing the gospel if we hear it in this life.

Thus, a good theory of inclusivism should never say that evangelism is unnecessary. It also shouldn't let people think they are safe when they intentionally put off the decision to believe in Jesus after they do hear the gospel.

Yet as I discussed in my previous post on exclusivism, I don't think that God writes people off after they hear the gospel the very first time and don't respond to it right then and there.

Instead, I believe the Holy Spirit is continually at work in every person's heart, trying to draw us closer to God throughout our entire lives. Sometimes it takes a long time and repeated attempts of sharing the gospel with someone to break through misconceptions about God, or undo the negative impressions that still-sinful Christians may have made on these people.

This final decision could only be made after each individual has a chance for all their misunderstandings about God to be clarified, which if it doesn't occur in this life, would need to take place in a face-to-face encounter with Jesus/God after death.

Thus, in the end, however it works out, I believe it will be only those people who intentionally and knowingly opt-out of salvation who will face the second death.

Conclusion

In this post, I believe I have shown that there is a case to be made for the possibility that at least some people will get an opportunity to believe in Jesus and accept his offer of salvation after death.

In particular, I believe this must be true for people who die as infants or children, or who were mentally incapacitated, and so didn't get a chance to believe in this life.

And if that possibility exists, then I don't see why God couldn't also give this opportunity to people who never had a chance to hear the gospel during their lives, since God truly wants everyone to be saved.

And because God wants everyone to be saved, I also think that an after-death encounter with Jesus could make sense as one final chance to correct misunderstandings and misperceptions of God that kept people from believing the gospel during their earthly lives.

However, I admit there is no clear evidence in Scripture to support the idea that people do meet Jesus after death and get one last chance to believe in him.

Therefore, I don't want to have to rely only on this possibility of after-death repentance to support an entire theory of Christian inclusivism.

Yet because I'm convinced that love requires free will, I still think that to avoid the pitfalls of universalism or exclusivism, we must affirm what C.S. Lewis wrote:

All that are in hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.20

Logically, such a choice must be made either before death, or after death.

Yet perhaps there are ways that people can make this choice in this life even without directly hearing the gospel. This would be the case in the other two possibilities for Christian inclusivism that I listed at the start of this post.

I will explore both of these other possibilities in future posts, before combining all three of these possibilities in my own theory of Christian inclusivism.

Footnotes:

1. Clark Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 36-37, referring to George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), 58.
2. Gregory A. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2001), 381.
3. Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil, 381.
4. Thomas B. Talbott, "Response by Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 144.
5. Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), 298.
6. Alcorn, Heaven, 356.
7. John Piper and Justin Taylor, eds. Suffering and the Sovereignty of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), 231-232.
8. Piper and Taylor, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God, 93-95.
9. Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster? Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 189. Copan then has to make it clear that this is not an excuse for killing children in order to make sure they make it to heaven, as such actions would go against God's command not to murder, and is therefore a sin (Copan, 194).
10. Alcorn, Heaven, 356. See also Randy Alcorn, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?", Eternal Perspective Ministries, January 5, 2010, and Randy Alcorn, "If an Unborn Baby Is Better off in God's Presence, Why Do Christians Consider Abortion a Crime Against the Unborn?", Eternal Perspective Ministries, March 26, 2010.
11. Cynthia Mcfadden, "Yates: I'm Saving My Kids From Hell", ABC News, June 14, 2002. See a fuller background on Andrea Yates and her issues that led to this sad incident in Suzanne O'Malley, "A Cry in the Dark," O, The Oprah Magazine, February, 2002.
12. Randy Alcorn, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?", Eternal Perspective Ministries, January 5, 2010.
13. F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publishers, 2011), 240-241.
14. Alcorn, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?".
15. Alcorn, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?".
16. Alcorn, "Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?".
17. F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publishers, 2011), 236-246. For the use of Romans 5:14, see Oliver D. Crisp, The Word Enfleshed: Exploring the Person and Work of Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 137.
18. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes, Third Edition, (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011), 149-152.
19. Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle, Erasing Hell: What God Said About Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2011), 161.
20. C.S. Lewis, "The Great Divorce," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 506.

But Don't All Religions Lead to Heaven?

2022-08-29T00:00:00+00:00

In my previous two posts, I've focused on answering the question of who will ultimately experience eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth (Revelation 21:1).

Already, two options have been eliminated:

That only those few people who specifically heard and believed in Jesus during their earthly lives will be saved (i.e., exclusivism).
That everyone will be saved, eventually (i.e., universalism).

So if I don't want to affirm either of the above points, then it seems I must accept the idea that at least some people who never heard the gospel during their earthly lives will end up having eternal life.

The only question then is how does this happen.

Is Religious Pluralism A Good Answer?

John, who wrote the book of Revelation, was given a vision of heaven by God:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10. See also Revelation 5:9-10)

If we take the words "all" and "every" in the above verse literally (and I see no reason not to), then this group of people who John sees standing in heaven before God, praising God for saving them, must include at least one person from each tribe and nation that has ever existed.

This must include people from tribes and nations that disappeared before Jesus was born, and before Christian or Jewish missionaries were able to cross the oceans to other continents to tell the people there about God.

It must also include people who are living today who are isolated from the rest of the world, such as the people on North Sentinel Island.

Therefore, one answer to the question of how some people from every tribe and nation will be saved might be religious pluralism.

Advocates for religious pluralism say that all religions teach the same truths and can lead people to the same God and/or the same heaven. So there can be pluralists in many different religions. Pluralists might also argue that all religions teach the same core values, and so the differences between them don't really matter.

Today in Western cultures, religious pluralism is common. Even way back in 2008, a study by the Pew Research Center discovered that 7 out of 10 religious Americans believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. And this includes Christians:

A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.1

Religious pluralism is even being endorsed by some influential Christian leaders. Thus, it's worth considering whether religious pluralism is true, and if it's not, then Christians should know how to refute it.

It also means that if religious pluralism isn't a Biblically persuasive answer to my question, then we'll need another solution, such as inclusivism. But I'll talk more about that later, after we look at religious pluralism.

The Appeal of Religious Pluralism

On the surface, religious pluralists can appear to be tolerant and open-minded. In contrast, those who reject religious pluralism might be seen as narrow-minded or judgmental.

For example, some people might say:

Belief in Jesus Christ as the only Savior of sinners is not fair or equal treatment. It is prejudicial and promotes intolerance to believe in a God like that. It is not politically correct.2

In this climate any diversity of choice is tolerable except one: the mentality that some choices are right and others wrong, some beliefs true and others false. That cannot be tolerated.3

Thus, because our Western culture claims to strongly value tolerance, religious pluralism could seem like an attractive position to endorse.

Religious pluralism could be especially appealing in contrast to the negative portrayals of God's character that can be found in exclusivism, especially those versions of exclusivism that rely on double predestination.

And no wonder! I don't see how anyone who believes in a perfectly good and loving God could accept the idea that God has eternally chosen to condemn most of humanity to eternal suffering in hell, without considering any individual's free choice in the matter.

It's even worse when these proponents of double predestination argue that God acts this way because God needs most people to suffer eternally in hell in order to fully reveal God's glory to the few lucky people that God chooses to save.

So I totally agree with the late Baptist theologian Clark Pinnock, who said:

This negative control belief is what drives certain Christians straight into theological pluralism. They are led to extremes in their revising of Christian doctrine chiefly because they cannot accept God, as revealed by Jesus, as one who would consign most people to hell and deny them access to salvation. Theological liberalism reacts sharply and correctly to such a cruel and incoherent reading of the gospel that has all too often marred the orthodox tradition and assassinated God's character. Speaking boldly, pluralists are right on this point; insofar as certain of its representatives have presented God as a cruel and arbitrary deity, orthodox theology badly needs revision and correction.4

Religious pluralism might also appear to be supported by instances of interfaith cooperation and dialogue.

For example, the Abrahamic Family House that's being built in the United Arab Emirates will open in late 2022.5 It includes a church, a mosque, and a synagogue, as well as an educational center. In Berlin, Germany, there is also a project underway called the House of One, which will include a church, mosque, and synagogue, all under one roof.6

By having three religious institutions on one site, it could appear to people who don't know much about Christianity, Islam, and Judaism that there really isn't much difference between them, or that they all worship the same God.

This impression is strengthened when influential religious figures like Pope Francis say things like:

We are all children of God, all, even the unbaptized ones, yes, even those who believe in other religions, or those who have idols.7

On February 4, 2019, Pope Francis and The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, co-signed a statement titled "A Document On Human Fraternity For World Peace And Living Together". One line of the statement says:

The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.8

This line in the statement was theologically criticized by Thomas Weinandy, an influential Catholic scholar, who wrote that:

By implication, it [this statement] not only devalues the person of Jesus, but it also, and more so, strikes at the very heart of God the Father’s eternal will. Thus, such studied ambiguity undermines the very Gospel itself.9

Unfortunately, even after this criticism, and as recently as 2021, Pope Francis said:

If in the past, our [religious] differences set us at odds, nowadays we see in them the richness of different ways of coming to God and of educating young people for peaceful coexistence in mutual respect.10

So to summarize, in only the past few years, Pope Francis has said that all religions are just "different ways of coming to God", that the diversity of religions is actually willed by God, and that every person is a "child of God" regardless of what he or she believes.

It certainly seems like Pope Francis is endorsing religious pluralism, rather than upholding the uniqueness of Christianity. I don't see how he could say these things and still believe what the Bible teaches about the need for everyone to come to faith in Jesus Christ for eternal salvation, as I'll explain later in this post.

But, if anyone wants to get nit-picky, perhaps there are ways that faithful Christians could endorse the Pope's statements in a qualified way.

Because yes, all humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27, 9:6) whether they believe in God or not.

But this is not the same as being a child of God, since the Bible says that only those people who believe in Jesus and thus receive the Holy Spirit are born again and become children of God (John 1:12-13, Romans 8:16-17, John 3:5-8, 1 Peter 1:3). So I couldn't agree that all people are "children of God" in this proper, Biblical sense, because doing so would endorse universalism, which has several theological problems as I've discussed here.

And it's true that everything that God allows to occur in the world is willed in some way by him, including the existence of other religions, just as God allows evil, sin, and suffering to also exist in the world. If God truly didn't will that these things temporarily exist, they wouldn't, because God would eliminate them.

But the fact that God allows other religions to exist temporarily in this sinful world doesn't mean that God approves of every religion equally.

God certainly disliked many past religions that involved the worship of idols, temple prostitution, and sacrificing of children. The Old Testament is full of God's condemnation for these activities and for the worship of false gods. God also criticized the Israelites when they turned their own God-given religion into a system of legalistic rules that promoted self-righteousness (e.g., Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13, Luke 11:42, Micah 6:8).

And as will be discussed in my next blog post, I would agree that there may be some hints of divine truth in other religions which the Holy Spirit can make use of to draw people toward God.

But that doesn't mean the truth about God is equally clear in every religion, or that truth itself is relative and subjective. The Bible says that while in the past, God allowed people to follow false religions,

The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:30-31)

The man referred to in the verse above is obviously Jesus. This is why, after Christ's resurrection, God gave the great commission to the Church to go to all nations and teach the gospel and baptize people into faith in Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).

So I don't believe that Christians should endorse religious pluralism, or get involved with other religions in ways that make it appear that we all worship the same God or that other religions can also lead to eternal life.

However, it shouldn't only be Christians who have problems with religious pluralism. Anyone who truly values tolerance should also have a problem with the claims of religious pluralists, because religious pluralism is actually an intolerant ideology!

Problem 1: Religious Pluralism Is An Intolerant Ideology

Yes, you read that correctly. But why is this the case?

As Clark Pinnock notes, the problem with religious pluralism is that

It rules out people's most precious beliefs in things normative. It asks Muslims, in effect, to deny that the Koran is central to God's purpose. It asks Jews to deny that God spoke definitively through Moses. It asks Christians to deny that Jesus is the Incarnation of God in history. Is that a reasonable or even a practical thing to ask people to do? Obviously, it is not.11

And it's not just unreasonable to expect religious believers to deny the most central and distinctive features of their own belief systems, but it's also intolerant:

The suggestion that Christians or Buddhists [or people of any faith] should give up their most precious beliefs for the sake of politeness is a form of intolerance on the part of the people who claim to be so tolerant. No one is in the position to refuse religious communities the right to hold distinctive convictions.12

After all,

Religions do not simply say the same things as one another about God, humanity, salvation, and hope. To say that they do is intellectual dishonesty. There are intractable differences of doctrine, and therefore choices to be made. To wave a wand over religions and declare that they are saying the same thing is nonsense. This is sloppy pluralism, false tolerance, and indifference to truth.13

How ironic, then, that religious pluralism can't tolerate the claim that not all religions lead to the same God.

It's like how some people claim they value tolerance for all sorts of different ideologies and lifestyles, but then these same people often become extremely intolerant of anyone who they judge to not be as 'tolerant' as they themselves claim to be!

But what's the origin of the claim that it's intolerant for religious believers to believe that their own religion is true while other religions are false?

Pinnock traces religious pluralism to the modern, Enlightenment-era claim that "it would be unfair for truth not to be equally and simultaneously present to everyone."14

In the 1700s, philosophers reacted against the idea that the truth about God that was necessary for salvation was found only through Scripture or the Christian tradition, because then many other people would not have had access to it. In response, many philosophers turned to look for what they could learn about God from reason or nature, because they thought that both reason and nature were universally accessible sources of knowledge about God.15

Yet again, I wonder if this accusation that it's unfair for truth to not be equally available to all people was partly a reaction to traditional Christian theories of exclusivism and double predestination. Because even Christians might wonder how it could be fair for God to send some people to hell, just because these people lived at a time or in a place where they didn't have access to the truth.

Perhaps, then, a good, solid, Biblical theory of inclusivism could help reduce the appeal of religious pluralism, at least, for those who want to uphold the truth of Christianity.

However, there will always remain people who don't want to accept the idea that one religion is more true than others. For these people, I suspect their religious pluralism might just be a way for them to reject the clear, Biblical claim that faith in Jesus is the only way to have eternal life, as we'll see in the next section.

Problem 2 : Jesus Is The Only Way to Salvation

Among evangelical Christians, I've sometimes heard people say that we should emphasize the common ground with people of other religions as a starting point for evangelism.

For example, a Christian talking to a Muslim might mention the idea that there is only one true God, or compare the Koran to the Bible. Or, Christians might emphasize similarities regarding Christian and Islamic concepts of the afterlife. Or perhaps try to find some agreement in areas of ethics, or the importance of prayer, charity, modesty, fasting, etc. Islam even mentions Biblical figures such as Jesus, Mary, Abraham, and Ishmael, and so there is some overlap there.

This isn't quite religious pluralism, but I think it's the same logic that paves the way for pluralism. What we should be emphasizing is the differences between Christianity and other religions we encounter, rather than the similarities.

Sure, Muslims believe in one God, but that's not enough for salvation (James 2:19). There are also Bible verses that say that the gods and idols of other faiths are actually demons (Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:36-38, Revelation 9:20, 1 Corinthians 10:19-20). Thus, it's difficult if not dangerous to say that all religions worship the same God.

There is also one major point that makes Christianity and Islam completely incompatible:

The Koran says that God has no Son, in a number of verses.16 That means that to Muslims, Jesus was just a human prophet, and not God's Son incarnate. So worshipping Jesus would be a major sin, according to Islam.

Similarly, non-Messianic Judaism denies the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. (The doctrine of the Trinity is that there are three distinct divine persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—within the single being of God). The Old Testament clearly says there is only one God, and that it is a sin to worship anyone or anything that isn't God (Exodus 20:3-5, Deuteronomy 5:7-8).

This would mean that to non-Messianic Jews, Christians are idolaters and blasphemers when we worship Jesus, who we believe was the second person of the Trinity incarnate. This is what the Apostle Paul thought about Christians before his conversion, and it was why he passionately pursued Christians to have them arrested (Acts 8:1-3).

But as I've talked about here, if Jesus wasn't truly the Son of God incarnate and fully divine, then there is no way for Jesus to fully reveal God to humanity, or reconcile humanity with God.

If Jesus wasn't the Son of God incarnate, it would also make Jesus a liar, because he claimed to be God (e.g., John 10:30). If Jesus weren't God, it would make his disciples idolaters, because they worshipped Jesus, and the early church prayed to Jesus and in the name of Jesus.

But because of who Jesus was and how he died on the cross for the world's sins (Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 10:12, 1 John 2:2), the New Testament is incredibly clear that there is no way to have eternal life other than believing in Jesus:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6).
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God" (John 3:16-18).
"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him" (John 3:36).
"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
"For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith" (Romans 3:22-25, NRSVA).
Jesus, "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:6-11).

All of these verses are a significant challenge to the claims of religious pluralism. They will also be very important to address in any Biblically-sound theory of Christian inclusivism.

How Christians Can Respond to Religious Pluralists

So, how can Christians respond to someone who claims that all religious truth is relative or subjective?

Ask them what basis they have for that belief. Because if they truly believe in relativism, then even their belief in relativism must itself be relative. Their belief in relativism is also ultimately a form of religious faith, since there can be no evidence given to definitively support it.

What if they claim that "all religions are varied responses to ineffable divine reality?" Then we can ask them "if in fact the divine is so ineffable and unknowable, how does one know any path is valid?"17

We can ask these people to think about what if their belief is wrong and objective truth actually exists? Would they want to know it? And how would they know when they have found it?

Once again, I agree with Clark Pinnock when he writes:

Truth claims in religion... must be viewed like claims in science or philosophy or medicine. In those areas, [ideally] there is no leveling down, no denial of real differences, no overlooking of bad mistakes. Instead, there is a concern for truth and a willingness to search it out in the midst of disagreements.18

Thus, the way to be truly respectful of different religions would be to take all of the world's different religious claims seriously, then admit that many of these claims are are mutually incompatible, and attempt to discern which religious claims are actually true, and which are false.

That's why it's great to spend some time reading theology to learn what we believe and why we believe it, while being open to changing our minds if, in the process of searching for truth, we come across a better argument.

Because ultimately, all truth will lead to Jesus, who is the Truth (John 14:6).

Conclusion

As a result of the reasons I've laid out here and in my two previous blog posts, I'm convinced that none of the options we have examined so far (exclusivism, universalism, or religious pluralism) are fully compatible with the Biblical evidence regarding the question of who will ultimately have eternal life.

That means the only theological position left which can be compatible with all the different verses that we've examined thus far is some sort of Christian inclusivism.

In my next post, I will examine a few different proposals for how Christian inclusivism might work, and some concerns I have with some of them.

This will be the set-up for the final article in this series, where I'll lay out my own theory of Christian inclusivism.

I hope to explain how these difficult verses above about salvation depending on faith in Christ alone can be compatible with saying that eternal salvation is truly open to all people, even those who didn't hear the gospel in this life, or who died before they were capable of having personal belief in Jesus Christ as their Savior.

Footnotes:

1. Pew Research Forum, "Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life", December 18, 2008.
2. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 11. See also 69-70.
3. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 9-10.
4. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 19.
5. "About the Abrahamic Family House", Abrahamic Family House
6. House of One
7. Leonardo De Chirico, "Do Atheists go to Heaven? Pope Francis says yes", Evangelical Focus, May 1, 2018.
8. Pope Francis and Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, "A Document On Human Fraternity For World Peace And Living Together", The Vatican, February 2, 2019.
9. Thomas G. Weinandy, "Pope Francis, the uniqueness of Christ, and the will of the Father", Catholic World Report, June 2, 2019.
10. Thomas D. Williams, "Pope Francis: Religions Are All ‘Different Ways of Coming to God’", Breitbart News, October 5, 2021.
11. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 70.
12. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 71.
13. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 70-71, see more on 72.
14. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 70.
15. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, Sixth Ed. (Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2017), 59-60, 128-129.
16. Some relevant verses can be seen in English translations of the Quran, "Chapter (17) sūrat l-isrā (The Night Journey)". More verse are listed by Matt Slick, "Islam by topic: Son of God", CARM.org, June 10, 2016.
17. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 72-73.
18. Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992), 71, also see more on 134-136.

Will God Save Everyone?

2022-06-29T00:00:00+00:00

In my previous blog post, I explained why I think that God truly wants to save everyone.

Yet the fact that the Bible says that God clearly wants to save everyone doesn't necessarily mean that God actually will save everyone.

But why not? If God truly loves everyone, and if God is all-powerful, then it seems like God should save everyone, right?

It seems like a nice thought, at first. But not only do I believe that the Bible warns again and again about the very real possibility of people being eternally destroyed, but I'm also convinced that the exact reason why God specifically won't save everyone is precisely because God is Love.

Now, that seems like a funny answer. In this post, I'll explain why actually, the most loving thing for God to do is to let people reject him if they want to, thus leading to their own eternal destruction.

Or in other words, I don't think that universalism is true, and I'm glad that it isn't. I hope by the end of this post, you'll also be glad that universalism isn't true.

And if universalism isn't true, but God still wants to save everyone—including people who have never heard about Jesus or the gospel—then it seems there are only two options remaining:

Some sort of religious pluralism that says all religions ultimately lead to the same God.
A theory of Christian inclusivism where somehow, sooner or later, everyone will get the chance to accept or reject the gospel.

I'll talk about these two options in upcoming blog posts. But before we get to those, I need to explain the problems that I see with universalism, and why I reject it.

The Argument for Universalism

Universalists believe that everyone will be saved, eventually. So this idea is called universalism, as in, the whole universe and every creature or person in it will one day be reconciled to God, and will live forever with God in the new heaven and new earth.

The most optimistic universalists would say that even Satan and his demons will finally change their minds, repent, and be reconciled with God.

Some universalists say this final reconciliation with God might happen for some people after they undergo some sort of experience like a temporary hell that is effectively a sort of purgatory.

For example, Thomas Talbott argues that, based on 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, everyone will eventually voluntarily submit their wills to God's will, although God allows people to temporarily rebel.1

As a result of this temporary rebellion, we suffer in this life from the misery that sin always causes, and we might also suffer in the afterlife. This is because, Talbott claims,

that is how God works with us as created rational agents. He permits us to chose in the ambiguous contexts in which we first emerge as self-aware beings, and he then requires us to learn from experience the hard lessons we sometimes need to learn. So in that way the consequences of our free choices, both the good choices and the bad ones, are a source of revelation; they sooner or later reveal—in the next life if not in this one—both the horror of separation from God and the bliss of union with him. And that is why the end is foreordained: all paths finally lead to the same destination, the end of reconciliation, though some are longer and a lot more painful than others.2

But as Jack W. Cottrell argues, this would mean that in the opinion of universalists like Talbott,

Salvation thus is a process of purification accomplished by the "consuming fire" of God's "purifying love," "when God finally perfects our love for others." This view falls far short of the biblical teaching of the cross as a work of redemption and propitiation (Romans 3:24-26).3

Basically, if we can get to heaven by having ourselves be purified of sin in hell/purgatory, then why did we need Jesus to die on the cross for our sins?

Additionally, in Talbott's view, as Cottrell points out, our free choices

affect the way we get to heaven, but "all paths finally lead to the same destination...though some are longer and a lot more painful than others." But if this is the case, we may legitimately question the nature of the "love" that Talbott says determines everything God does. If we are all destined for the same end, why does God give us just enough "freedom" to make the journey miserable?....[And why does God] subject some of his elect to an undefined, indeterminate post-mortem gauntlet before the end is finally achieved[?].4

So there are some theological problems with the concept of universalism right from the start, even for universalists like Talbott who try to allow for some amount of human free will in the process of universal salvation.

However, some Bible verses seem like they could endorse universalism. For example:

Jesus "is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world" (1 John 2:2, NLT).
Jesus is also called "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29), by offering his own blood as the perfect payment for all sin (Hebrews 7:27 and 10:12-13).
"Therefore just as one man’s [Adam's] trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s [Jesus Christ's] act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all" (Romans 5:18, NRSV). See also 1 Corinthians 1:30, 15:22, and Romans 11:32 for similar verses.
"For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, and through him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of Christ’s blood on the cross" (Colossians 1:19-20, NLT).
"In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them" (2 Corinthians 5:19).
Jesus is described as "The true light, which gives light to everyone" (John 1:9).
Jesus said "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself" (John 12:32).

Taken together, these verses could imply that if Jesus has died for everyone's sins, then everyone is forgiven, and Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, will eventually draw everyone into the light of his truth that they are now reconciled with God.

Universalists would likely read this sort of interpretation into Philippians 2:6-11, which says that Jesus,

Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue declare that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (NLT)

Another fancy theological name for universalism is apocatastasis, or 'universal reconciliation'. It is claimed that a few early Christian theologians argued for this idea, possibly including Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa. I haven't read these theologians on this issue, so I won't comment directly on their theology.

But I have spent some time studying Karl Barth, who is an example of a famous Christian theologian who admitted to at least hoping for universalism, even if at times he warned against presuming upon it.5 Barth has also been called the "greatest Protestant theologian of the 20th century",6 and his modification to the Reformed doctrine of predestination has been very influential in Reformed circles of thought.

However, when I read Barth's understanding of predestination, it seems to imply universalism. Then, when I read sections of his Church Dogmatics volume 4.1, I'm convinced that Barth is outright arguing for universalism.

There are several other major scholars who also think that Barth leaned toward universalism, even if Barth might have made a few statements here and there that could make it appear like he denied it.7

Yet because Barth is very hard to read, right now, I'll only summarize what I interpret him to be saying. If you want to read my more detailed interpretation along with supporting quotations from Barth, then check out the Appendix at the bottom of this post.

What I believe Barth argued regarding predestination and universalism goes something like this:

God doesn't predestine individuals to heaven or hell. Instead, the only person who was predestined was Jesus, who was both elected by God to be the Messiah, and rejected by God when he died on the cross for everyone's sins.
Jesus really did die for everyone who has ever lived. Jesus also had faith in God on behalf of everyone. Therefore, everyone who has ever lived is already forgiven of their sins, and are in a right relationship with God.
The old, sinful, unbelieving people that everyone used to be are now effectively destroyed, so the only possible future that remains for everyone is to become people who believe in Jesus and live in a loving relationship with God and others.
The only difference between non-Christians and Christians are that Christians recognize what God has done for us, and we get to witness to God's grace and love to the rest of the world. We also get to enjoy the peace and joy that comes from knowing that God loves us and has reconciled us with himself, and we participate in the loving community of all other Christians (a.k.a, the Church).
But eventually, at some point in the future, God will reveal the truth of what Jesus has accomplished for everyone to everyone, and everyone will then believe in Jesus and love God.

Such an interpretation might even seem to be suggested in the Bible, when Paul writes:

And all of this is a gift from God, who brought us back to himself through Christ. And God has given us this task of reconciling people to him. For God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, no longer counting people’s sins against them. And he gave us this wonderful message of reconciliation. So we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us. We speak for Christ when we plead, "Come back to God!". (2 Corinthians 5:18-20, NLT)

What I don't understand in Barth's theory, though—maybe because I haven't come across the section where he talked about it—is why then God bothers prolonging human history and all the misery that unbelief and sin cause in this world, when God could simply reveal to everyone the truth about themselves, and bring everyone to faith?

Or in other words, what did Barth think God is waiting for? Why wouldn't God just turn everyone on the planet into Christians right now, and then continue history without all the sin and the suffering that sin causes?

Furthermore, there are two major problems with Barth's theory, which are also the same problems with any theory of universalism—even those that claim to allow for some amount of human free will.

Problem 1: The Bible Says Not Everyone Will Be Saved

As I've talked about elsewhere, Jonathan Edwards' theology could actually have fit quite nicely with a theory of universalism.

As a short recap, Edwards said that God created the world so that people could know God and love God, and knowing God and loving God makes people truly happy and holy and glorifies God, which makes God happy.8

Therefore, Edwards said that heaven will be a world of love between God, angels, and those people that God eternally chose to save. These 'elect' individuals will rejoice in God and be truly happy, and they will also rejoice over anyone else who is also holy and happy.9

Edwards also affirmed that God has the ability to save whoever God wants to, because God can simply choose to give any individual the Holy Spirit, which will illuminate this person's mind and cause him or her to love God and believe the gospel.10

Therefore, it seems that logically, Edwards should have said that, in order to maximize God's glory and the eternal happiness of the elect in heaven, God should save everyone.

However, Edwards was convinced by his reading of Scripture that the majority of people throughout history will end up in hell. This forced him to explain why God would predestine only a small number of people to heaven while everyone else is predestined to hell (a.k.a, double predestination).

But when Edwards tried fit double predestination into the rest of his theological system, it led to a number of major problems and contradictions. I explored and analyzed these issues in my dissertation, which you can download for free as a .pdf by clicking here.

Yet I would agree with Edwards that the Bible says quite clearly that not everyone is going to be eternally saved. There are far too many warnings about eternal death/destruction/annihilation throughout Scripture for me to think that it is only a theoretical possibility that won't actually happen for at least some people.

Furthermore, God even told his prophets that at least some people will be eternally destroyed:

Isaiah says that in the new heavens and new earth, everyone will worship God (Isaiah 66:23). But these people will also be able to go out and look on the dead bodies of other people who were eternally destroyed for rebelling against God (Isaiah 66:24).

The book of Revelation also contains a prophecy that after the final judgment, everyone whose name isn't written in God's Book of Life will be thrown into the lake of fire and eternally destroyed (Revelation 20:12-15).

Now, this verse doesn't clearly specify an exact number of people that this will happen to, and I am hopeful that that number will be small. But I don't think it's zero, since we know that at least Satan, his demons, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet all end up being condemned to the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10). So are those who take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 14:9-11).

I also deny that Satan or the demons will ever be reconciled with God, because they are not human and so Christ did not die for their sins, as I talk about in this post here. Jesus even said that the lake of fire/eternal destruction is the final destiny for Satan and his fallen angels (Matthew 25:41).

Therefore, I think even this small sample of verses is clear enough to show that not everyone will finally be redeemed and reconciled to God. That in itself should be enough to disprove universalism.

I also think these verses are enough to disprove the idea that God will eternally extend the offer of repenting and coming to heaven to people who are in hell, as suggested in in C.S. Lewis's story The Great Divorce.11

Thus, although I appreciate Lewis's story as an interesting theological thought-experiment, due to how it explores a number of possibilities for why people might reject God's mercy, I would caution that Christians shouldn't take it as a literal description of how the afterlife actually operates.

Problem 2: Love Can't Be Forced

What I find interesting is that universalism and double predestination actually share the same problem: irresistible grace.

Irresistible grace is the idea that God, through the Holy Spirit, can work in a person's heart so effectively that a person is guaranteed to believe in Jesus and be saved. The only difference between double predestination and universalism is the number of people that God decides to give this irresistible grace to.

Karl Barth clearly endorsed the idea of irresistible grace when he wrote, "He [God] proves Himself to be the stronger by the irresistible awakening power of His Holy Spirit. In the strength and in this proof he calls them [sinners] to faith".12

And if everyone will be brought to faith by the irresistible power of the Holy Spirit, then Barth said that the Holy Spirit will also irresistibly cause everyone to love God, because faith is always inseparable from love for God.13

So basically, the only freedom that Barth said anyone has, is the freedom to eventually choose "what has already been chosen and actualized for him [or her]" by God, which is to believe in Jesus, obey God, and love God.14

However, this is precisely the biggest problem with universalism, because universalists deny that people have the possibility to ultimately reject God.

Universalists argue that although people might fight it for a time, God effectively says to everyone: "You will love me. You have no choice. I've chosen for you. Resistance is futile—you will be assimilated."

(Oops, sorry, some Star Trek crept into my theology there).

But if love can be forced, is it really love? C.S. Lewis famously wrote:

Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata—of creatures that worked like machines—would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for his higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.15

For example, let's imagine if a scientist were able to covertly insert a microchip into the brain of a man who she had a crush on, which allowed the scientist to make the man act in a loving way towards the scientist. Even if the microchip made the man feel like he was voluntarily loving the scientist, he would not actually be doing so, for he is fully controlled by the scientist. In effect, the scientist would simply be loving herself by manipulating the man like a puppet, and the man’s love for the scientist would not be genuine.16

So we can see why, at worst, and in line with Lewis's quote above, at least one theologian has compared the idea of irresistible grace to divine rape. Yet, "God is love. True love never forces itself on anyone. Forced love is rape, and God is not a divine rapist!"17

Again, C.S. Lewis puts it nicely:

The Irresistible and Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of His scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His felt presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo.18

Thus, because we need the ability to say 'no' to God in order to protect God's truly loving character, I also reject the idea that God's glory is so amazing or beautiful that everyone who truly sees it will be compelled to 'freely' love God. After all, Satan had a full view of God's glory, and Satan still rebelled, and managed to convince a third of the angels to rebel also (Revelation 12:1-5).

So as strange as it might seem, God must give us the freedom that we can actually say no to him in the end, if we so choose. This is even though God knows that some people that he loves so much that he would die for them will exercise their freedom to reject him and opt out of eternal life, and so they will finally be eternally destroyed. Because having the ability to freely say no to God's love is necessary for the genuine love of God to be a possibility.

This idea is also supported by Scripture, because Jesus also says that no matter how much he wants to draw people to himself, people are free to resist his desires for them (Matthew 23:37, Luke 7:30, Luke 13:34, Acts 7:51, and the parable of the wedding in Matthew 22:1-14).

So while it's alright to hope that many or even most people will finally be persuaded and wooed by God's love, God absolutely can't force anyone to love him. Therefore, I must agree with C.S. Lewis once again:

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in hell, choose it.19

Conclusion

However, you might still be wondering about all those verses I listed near the beginning of this post. If Jesus really did die for everyone, then shouldn't that mean that everyone will be saved?

I'll have to write more about how I interpret these verses in a future post. But at this point, I believe I've been able to plausibly argue two main points:

It's not true that Jesus only died for a specific group of people—either those that God predestined to be saved, or those that God perfectly foreknew will be saved. This is because I reject double predestination and exclusivism, since these positions are incompatible with the idea that God actually wants to save everyone.
I've also shown in this post why I can't believe that any theory of double predestination or universalism is true, because the idea that God's grace is irresistible is incompatible with God's desire for people to freely love him, and the Bible seems to clearly say that not everyone will be saved.

These two points mean that however I interpret the verses at the start of this post, I have to say that at the very least, they mean that Jesus's death was enough (in theory) to atone for the sins of every single person who has ever lived, but that not everyone will actually choose to take Jesus up on his offer to believe in him to have eternal life.

So if both exclusivism and universalism are eliminated, then it comes down to the choice between religious pluralism and inclusivism.

In my next post, I'll aim to show why I don't think pluralism is the best option, and so that means we need some sort of Biblically-supported theory of Christian inclusivism.

Appendix: My Argument For Why Karl Barth Was A Universalist

A Disclaimer About Interpreting Karl Barth

At the start, I need to give a disclaimer: interpreting Karl Barth is a rather difficult task.

He wrote in German, which was translated by others into English, which adds a layer of potential misunderstanding for people who aren't reading his original words in German. His major work Church Dogmatics is also extremely long, at over nine thousand pages and six million words, split into thirteen different books, and it was still unfinished when he died.20

On top of this, Barth's writing style is notoriously difficult to read. This is partly due to his love of long sentences, but it's also because:

Barth tends to argue in a somewhat circular manner. He takes an idea, text, or question. He offers a proposal. He chews on it, unpacks it, argues it. He considers objections and counterproposals. He then circles back round to the proposal, extending it somewhat. Again he wrestles, re-engages, reconceptualizes. Over and over he extends his initial statement until he has come finally at the issue from every side. Thus Barth cannot be interpreted as if he writes in strictly linear fashion.21

Additionally,

Rather than a strict logic that moves from point A to point B and then a conclusion, Barth believed deeper truth always stood in a dialectic. One example: Jesus is God and man. Another: God is both judge and savior. These truths are not easily reconciled but are better understood as existing in some tension. Barth used this method fruitfully to explore many mysteries of the Christian faith.22

Thus, it's recommended to read Barth in long sections to get the gist of what he argued, and to compare what he said in one place with what he wrote elsewhere.

Unfortunately, many people don't have the time or patience to read everything that Barth wrote, and I admit, I'm one of them. I also think that, given the volume of his writings, it's not unexpected that there would likely be some contradictions here and there.

In fact,

There is a very famous story — I don’t know if it is apocryphal or not — in which somebody wrote to Barth and said: Professor Barth, I have discovered the following contradictions in your writings, what do you say about these contradictions? And Barth ostensibly wrote back and said: Well, here are some others. And lists a few more contradictions. Yours faithfully.23

So it's hard to know what Barth actually thought about some things, or if he even fully knew what he thought about some things! This keeps scholars busy interpreting his writings and arguing with other scholars about what Barth really meant.

Personally, I'd prefer to invest my limited time in studying and interpreting God's inerrant words that are found in the Bible, rather than studying a fallible human expert like Barth who didn't appear to put logical consistency high on his list of priorities.

However, I did read enough of Barth's work for my doctoral comprehensive exams that I think I get what Barth is trying to say, at least on this topic. So I don't think my interpretation of his theology is unwarranted, and as I noted earlier (see footnote 7), there are other very well-respected scholars who also think Barth was arguing for universalism.

Also, I just wanted to briefly note that in the quotations I'll use from Barth, the terms "man" and "men" generally refer to each individual person and all humanity, respectively.

Karl Barth's Modification of the Doctrine of Predestination

Barth is quite famous for his rejection of the traditional scheme of double predestination, and I do appreciate Barth's criticisms of it.

If you're not familiar with it, the traditional doctrine of double predestination teaches that before God created anything, God chose (or "elected") that only some people ("the elect") would end up having eternal life in heaven, while most people would be condemned for their sins and eternally destroyed in hell.

In this view, people don't have any free will to change their eternal destinies, and the purpose of sending most people to hell is so that God's justice and wrath are demonstrated and can be eternally praised by God's elect people.

I've talked more about this view in my blog posts here, here, and here in relation to Jonathan Edwards' view of predestination, which I studied for my dissertation.

Barth argued that the traditional doctrine of double predestination (as put forth by Jonathan Edwards and others) ends up being a "mixed message of joy and terror, salvation and damnation".24

Therefore, double predestination has very negative consequences for God's character. If predestination is interpreted as God saying Yes to some people but No to others, then,

it will be hard to distinguish His [God's] freedom from caprice or His mystery from the blindness of such caprice. It will be no less hard to maintain His righteousness in any form except that of mere assertion. It will then be difficult to make it clear that God is not merely a tyrant living by His whims, that He is not merely blind fate, that He is something other than the essential inscrutability of all being.25

Basically, Barth thought that proponents of double predestination depict God as an arbitrary tyrant who says Yes to some people, but No to others, for no clear reason. But then these proponents claim that God is still righteous and just when God predestines people to hell, even though the people who are predestined to end up there can't do anything to avoid it.

The problem is that if God does say both Yes and No to different groups of humanity, then "the No should become much the stronger and ultimately the exclusive note," which is the opposite of the gospel, and so Barth said this idea "should be repudiated with horror".26 I totally agree.

Barth also believed that the traditional interpretation of predestination was un-Biblical.

For example, as Roger E. Olson notes,

In light of New Testament passages such as John 1:9, 1:29, 3:17, 8:12, 9:5, 11:9, and 12:46, [Barth said] 'We cannot follow the classical [Reformed] doctrine and make the open number of those who are elect in Jesus Christ into a closed number to which all other men are opposed as if they were rejected. Such an assumption is shattered by the unity of the real and revealed will of God in Jesus Christ'.27

As an alternative, Barth said that the doctrine of predestination must be put forth in a way that the grace of God stands out as the entire message, or else predestination should not be preached. Thus, Barth argued that "we must not seek the ground of this election anywhere but in the love of God".28

Barth is well known for how he put forth a revised doctrine of double predestination which portrays Jesus as simultaneously both elected by God (to be the Messiah) and rejected by God (by going to the cross to die for humanity's sin), which Barth argued for on the basis of Scripture.29

Thus, Barth said that God’s loving election/predestination of Jesus to be the savior of the world is the gospel:

He [God] is for this man Jesus, and in Him for the whole race, and therefore for the world. That God wills neither to be without the world nor against it can never be stated more clearly or forcibly than when we speak of His election. At bottom, then, to speak of the election means necessarily to speak of the Gospel.30

I admit that his approach is a huge improvement over the traditional view of double predestination, and many Reformed Christians find Barth's approach quite attractive.

However, Barth’s view of predestination has been criticized as leading to universalism.

I'll summarize why I think Barth is arguing for universalism the next section, and then I'll explain why I think the problem with Barth's theory of universalism demonstrates the problem with universalism in general.

Barth's Theology of Predestination Implies Universalism

Given the difficulties noted earlier in interpreting Barth, some scholars claim that it is not entirely clear whether in Barth’s view, all humanity is therefore elect "in Christ," which could imply universalism, or whether at other times Barth argued for "conditional election whereby humans are elect-in-Christ until or unless they opt out of this elect status".31

If the latter is all that Barth argued, then I think this idea has a lot of potential, and I've argued for something similar here.

Elsewhere, Barth argued that after the election of Christ, it was the community of Israel and the Church who are elect "in Christ," instead of individual believers. Individual believers are elect only by inclusion in this elect community, whether in some sort of opt-in or opt-out fashion.32

If so, this would also be something I could go along with.

However, when I read what Barth writes in his Church Dogmatics volume 4.1, I'm convinced that Barth is making a case for deterministic universalism, which means that no one will ultimately be able to opt-out of experiencing eternal life with God. And that's a major problem.

For example, Barth said that "in Jesus Christ God has demonstrated... that He loves the world, that He did not will to be God without it, without all men, without each individual man in particular".33

As a result, Barth frequently speaks about the "necessity" of faith, and not just in the sense that having faith in Jesus Christ is necessary if we want to have eternal life, which is what the Bible teaches.

Instead, Barth seems to imply that everyone will necessarily come to faith in Jesus as their savior, and thus, there is no possibility that anyone will not have faith in Jesus:

It is not for man to choose first whether he himself will decide (what an illusion!) for faith or for unbelief. Faith makes the solid actuality of unbelief an impossibility. It sweeps it away. It replaces it by itself. It does not build a bridge over the gulf. It closes it. It has already closed it. This takes place in the necessity of faith in the strength of which the only act which remains for a man is the genuinely free act of faith.34

So if the decision to have faith in Jesus isn't up to individual people to decide, then who does make this decision?

But this necessity of faith does not lie in man. It does not lie even in the good nature of man as created for God, let alone in his being as the sinner who in denial and perversion of his good nature has turned away from God and in so doing deprived himself already of the possibility of faith It does not even lie in faith in itself and as such. It is to be found rather in the object of faith. It is this object which forces itself necessarily on man and is in that way the basis of his faith. This object is the living Lord Jesus Christ, in whom it took place, in whom it has taken place for every man, in whom it confronts man as an absolutely superior actuality, that his sin, and he himself as the actual sinner he is, and with his sin the possibility of his unbelief, is rejected, destroyed and set aside, that he is born again as a new man of obedience, who now has the freedom for faith, and only in that faith his future. In this destroying and renewing of man as it took place in Jesus Christ there consists the necessity of faith, because beyond this destroying and renewing there remains for sinful man only faith in the One in whom it has taken place. In the death of Jesus Christ both the destroying and the renewing have been revealed as valid for all men in His resurrection from the dead. Therefore, objectively, really, ontologically, there is a necessity of faith for them all.35

In summary, Barth argues that Jesus has effectively had faith in God on behalf each and every individual person. This means that the possibility of unbelief has been destroyed, and all people are now born again as new people who only have the freedom to believe in Christ and obey God. The old, unbelieving, sinful person has effectively been destroyed and renewed, just as Jesus died and was resurrected on the sinner's behalf.

So because of Jesus's death for all people, it is now impossible for any person to choose to not come to faith.

And this is not a one-off statement by Barth, either. According to another shorter summary of the same idea, Barth argues that God has acted "without us and against us and for us," such that

what He [God] has done is not just something which applies to us and is intended for us, a proffered opportunity and possibility. In it He has actually taken us, embraced us, as it were surrounded us, seized us from behind and turned us back again to Himself.36

Basically, God has decided that everyone has been reconciled to God, and God has turned everyone back to a right relationship with God, whether they recognize it or not, whether they choose it or not, and whether they even currently want it or not. Their old selves who rejected God or were hostile to God are effectively destroyed as much as if they were annihilated:

In and with the man who [died on the cross and] was taken down dead on Golgotha [i.e., Jesus], man the covenant-breaker [i.e., the sinner] is buried and destroyed. He has ceased to be. The wrath of God which is the fire of His love has taken him [i.e. the sinner] away and all his transgressions and offences and errors and follies and lies and faults and crimes against God and his fellowmen and himself, just as a whole burnt offering is consumed on the altar with the flesh and skin and bones and hoofs and horns, rising up as fire to heaven and disappearing. That is how God has dealt with the man who broke covenant with Himself.37

So since all people have died with Christ and been destroyed, then

the existence of man as a sinner and all his transgressions are now behind him. Whatever else he may be, he will no longer be this man, the transgressor.... The being of the new man reconciled with God in Jesus Christ is one in which man has no more future as sinful man.38

But then, why doesn't everyone currently believe in Jesus? Barth says it's not because they aren't justified or sanctified by God, because Barth claims:

Jesus Christ was born and died and rose again for all. The work of atonement, the conversion of man to God, was done for all. The Word of God is spoken to all. God’s verdict and direction and promise have been pronounced over all. To that extent, objectively, all are justified, sanctified, and called [by God].39

In this above quotation Barth is alluding to Romans 8:30. So it seems to Barth that the reason everyone isn't currently a Christian is only because they lack awareness of what God has done for them, and so they can't confess the gospel or be obedient to the Holy Spirit:

It is not that they lack Jesus Christ and in Him the being of man reconciled to God. What they lack is obedience to his Holy Spirit, eyes and ears and hearts which are open to Him, experience and knowledge of the conversion of man to God which took place in Him, the new direction which must correspond to the new being given to them in Him, life in and with His community, a part in its ministry, the confession of Him and witness to Him as its Lord and as the Head of all men. For that reason the being of man reconciled to God in Jesus Christ is not—yet—reflected in them.40

Although in the meantime a person "can still rebel and lie and fear, but only in conflict, in impotent conflict, with his most proper being".41

But if so, then what benefit does Barth think it is to be a Christian?

[Christians] have over the rest of the world the one inestimable advantage that God the Reconciler and the event of reconciliation can be to them a matter of recognition and confession, until the day when He and it will be the subject of His revelation to all eyes and ears and hearts, and therefore of the recognition and confession of all men.42

So it seems Barth thinks that at some point, God will reveal the truth to all people that they are already justified, sanctified, called, and reconciled to God.

Yet right now,

[Christians exist] as examples, as the representatives and predecessors of all other men, of whom so long as their ears and eyes and hearts are not opened we can only say definitely that the same being in Jesus Christ is granted to them and belongs to them in Him. But Christians know and can declare what it is that belongs to them and all other men in Jesus Christ. And by the existence of the Christian we can make this clear. The being of man reconciled with God in Jesus Christ is reflected in the existence of the Christian. That is something we cannot say of others.43

Therefore, in my reading of Barth, it seems the only difference he sees between Christians and non-Christians is that Christians recognize what God has done for us, and so we get the benefit of experiencing God's love, joy, peace, and so forth in our lives now. We also have the privilege of serving God as ambassadors to share this good news with others who don't know it yet (2 Corinthians 5:20).

I could have chosen to reference dozens more quotes from Barth that say basically the same things as these ones, because he repeats these ideas over and over in different ways throughout his Church Dogmatics 4.1 §58. These are just some of the clearest and most concise examples that I found while reading for my comprehensive exams.

So as much as some fans of Barth might want to deny that Barth wasn't a universalist, I can't read Barth's doctrine of predestination and this very long section of his Church Dogmatics and not come to the conclusion that Barth was arguing for universalism. I don't think it's the case that myself or the other scholars who think likewise are only misinterpreting one or two unclear sentences of his.

Footnotes:

1. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 252-254.
2. Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 258-260, quote from 259.
3. Jack. W. Cottrell, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 276-277.
4. Jack. W. Cottrell, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 277.
5. Wyatt Houtz, "Karl Barth’s Rejection of Universalism," The PostBarthian, August 8, 2018.
6. Mark Galli, "What to Make of Karl Barth's Steadfast Adultery," Christianity Today, October 20, 2017.
7. Some of the scholars who argue that Barth's doctrine of election implies universalism include Paul K. Jewett, Election and Predestination (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 51-54; Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 97; Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed. (Hoboken: Wiley, 2016), 348–349, citing Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God: Dogmatics, Vol. 1, trans. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth Press, 1949), 346–351.
8. Jonathan Edwards, "Dissertation 1: Concerning the End for Which God Created the World", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 443 and 533–536.
9. Jonathan Edwards, "Heaven Is A World of Love", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 366-397.
10. Jonathan Edwards, "A Divine and Supernatural Light", The Works of Jonathan Edwards Vol. 17, ed. Mark Valeri (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 408-425.
11. C.S. Lewis, “The Great Divorce,” in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 498-506.
12. "He [God] proves Himself to be the stronger by the irresistible awakening power of His Holy Spirit. In the strength and in this proof he calls them [sinners] to faith. And in so doing He creates the presupposition on the basis of which the sinful man can and actually does believe.... When it is this One who closes the circle around him, a man can and must do that which he does in faith." Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 752-753.
13. "The obedience of faith is followed by the obedience of love — in practice, of course, it may sometimes precede, but it always accompanies it as a second form of the particular being of the Christian in Jesus Christ, which cannot be separated from the first but is quite distinct from it." Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 102.
14. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 100.
15. C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 48. Clark Pinnock said something similar: "God desires us to reciprocate his love and gives us freedom to make this possible. But with free will comes the possibility that humans may fail to receive God's grace but instead reject it. Because love cannot be forced, it is possible that some will reject it—even ultimately and finally." (Clark Pinnock, "Response to Thomas B. Talbott," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 261.)
16. Gregory A. Boyd, "God Limits His Control," in Four Views on Divine Providence, eds. Stanley N.Gundry and Dennis W. Jowers (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 188-189.
17. Norman Geisler, "God Knows All Things," in Predestination & Free Will: Four Views of Divine Sovereignty & Human Freedom (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1986), 69.
18. C.S. Lewis. "The Screwtape Letters," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), letter 8, 207.
19. C.S. Lewis, "The Great Divorce," in The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 506.
20. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 9.
21. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 10.
22. Mark Galli, "What to Make of Karl Barth's Steadfast Adultery," Christianity Today, October 20, 2017.
23. Justin Taylor, "What Should Evangelicals Make of Karl Barth?", The Gospel Coalition, February 22, 2016. Taylor attributes this quote to D.A. Carson. Another source also appears to validate this story.
24. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1957), 13.
25. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 25.
26. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 18.
27. Roger E. Olson, "Was Karl Barth a Universalist? A New Look at an Old Question", Patheos.com, March 10, 2013. He cites several passages from Barth's Church Dogmatics 2.2, and this quote is from p.422, but Olson doesn't provide the publication info of the particular edition he was using.
28. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 18, 25.
29. R. Michael Allen, Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics: An Introduction and Reader (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2012), 71.
30. Barth, Church Dogmatics 2.2, 26.
31. Oliver D. Crisp, "The Election of Jesus Christ," Journal of Reformed Theology 2, no. 2 (2008): 148.
32. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Introduction to the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979) 91.
33. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 2004), §58, section 2, 103.
34. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 746.
35. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §63 section 1, 747. See also page 748, where he says again, "And it is the awakening power of the Holy Spirit that this impossibility as such and this necessity as such so confront a man and illuminate him that he does the only objective, real and ontological thing which he can do, not omitting or suppressing or withholding but necessarily speaking the Yes of the free act which corresponds to it, choosing that for which he is already chosen by the divine decision, and beside which he has no other choice, that is to say, faith."
36. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 1, 88-89.
37. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 94. Thomas Talbott argues something similar when he says, in reference to Romans 9:22-23, that "a vessel of wrath just is the old person, even as a vessel of mercy just is the new creation in Christ....just as a new creation in Christ requires the absolute destruction of the old person, so every vessel of mercy represents the absolute destruction of some vessel of wrath."(Thomas B. Talbott, "Universal Reconciliation and the Inclusive Nature of Election," in Perspectives On Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 245.)
38. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 94.
39. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 4, 148. See also page 101 where he cites 1 Corinthians 1:30 as support for this idea that all people are justified and sanctified in Christ.
40. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 92-93.
41. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 1, 91.
42. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 4, 149.
43. Barth, Church Dogmatics 4.1, §58 section 2, 92-93.

Does God Really Want To Save Everyone?

2022-06-20T00:00:00+00:00

If you have ever attended a Christian church, I hope that you would have heard things like:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16).
"God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Romans 5:8).
"God showed how much he loved us by sending his one and only Son into the world so that we might have eternal life through him. This is real love—not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to take away our sins" (1 John 4:9-10, NLT).

These are some of the clearest verses in the Bible that say that God's offer of eternal life is open to everyone and is free to accept, simply by believing that these verses are actually true. This is the core message of Christianity, also called the gospel, a.k.a. the "good news".

But does God really want to save everyone? If we say yes, then does that mean that everyone will be saved? Or if not everyone will be saved, is there something that prevents God from saving everyone? And what happens to people who never heard the gospel before they died?

These are challenging questions. If you are a Christian, you have probably either wondered about them, or been asked about them by someone else.

These questions have important implications for how Christians understand the gospel and how we share the gospel with others. Our answers to them will both affect and reflect our understanding of God's good and perfect character, and thus, this topic is related to the question of theodicy, which has been something I've been focused on studying for the past eight years of my theological education.

After writing my PhD dissertation on Jonathan Edwards' understanding of predestination, I think I've finally solidified my answer to these questions. In my next few blog posts I will try to explain my answer in more detail.

I hope you'll find my answer to be encouraging, Biblically-sound, theologically persuasive, and that it will give you a passion to share the gospel with others, while still having hope for those who never heard it in their lifetimes.

My Answer: Christian Inclusivism

To get right down to business, I'll give you my shortest answers to the four questions I asked earlier:

Does God want to save everyone? Yes, the Bible says so.
Will God save everyone? Not according to Scripture.
Why can't God save everyone? Because God is Love.
What about people who never heard the gospel before they died? They will get an opportunity to hear it and believe it at some point.

In essence, this means I want to advocate for a position called Christian inclusivism. Inclusivism is only one of several possible answers that Christians may give to these questions. The alternatives to inclusivism are exclusivism, universalism, and pluralism.

Here's how I would briefly describe each of these positions:

Exclusivism: only people who believed in Jesus and/or the only true God during their earthly lives will be eternally saved.
Inclusivism: Christianity is the only true faith, but non-Christians can still be saved even if they didn't know about Jesus or believe in him during their earthly lives.
Pluralism: all religions lead people to the same God and teach the same core values, so any religious person can be saved.
Universalism: everyone will be saved, eventually.

The Bible teaches that after death, people will only experience one of two possible outcomes: eternal life in a resurrected body, or eternal destruction that causes them to cease to exist. Thus, Christians should care very much about the destiny of our friends and family members.

Regarding the question of whether God will save everyone, I believe that Christians end up taking one of the above four positions, whether we're fully aware of it or not. Yet as I will explain over the next few blog posts, I think that exclusivism, universalism, and pluralism all have more significant theological problems than inclusivism does.

Accepting some form of inclusivism can also give Christians a sense of hope and peace as we continue to witness to and pray for our loved ones who have not yet believed in Jesus. Furthermore, in order for Christians to take all the verses in the Bible seriously and to uphold God's perfectly good and loving character, I think we actually need to have some sort of theory of inclusivism.

For now, in the rest of this post I want to explain why I reject exclusivism due to a number of practical and theological problems. In my next post, I'll take on universalism, and after that, I'll discuss pluralism. Finally, in a future post I'll give an outline of my own theory of Christian inclusivism.

Does God Want To Save Everyone?

The first question we need to answer is whether God truly wants everyone to have the possibility of being eternally saved. How we answer this question will significantly influence our theology, and the range of possible answers effectively divides Christians into two main groups:

Those who say yes, God does want to save everyone and so everyone truly has the opportunity to be saved. The only reason that anyone comes to believe in Jesus is due to the continual working of the Holy Spirit in their hearts to draw all people to Jesus, but people can choose to resist this supernatural influence, thus rejecting God's offer of salvation.
Those who say no, God does not want to save everyone. Instead, God only wants to save a special group of people (a.k.a. "the elect"), and usually, it is claimed that this special group of people is only a small group when compared to all people who have ever lived. Supposedly, Jesus only died for the sins of this special group of people. God then makes sure that these special people will hear the gospel and believe it through the work of the Holy Spirit, who will guarantee that these people come to believe in Jesus at some point in their lives. People who are not specially chosen by God will never believe the gospel, and so they will face the eternal consequences for their lack of faith.

Generally, Christians who agree with point number 1 tend to uphold the role of human free will as being the deciding factor in why some people are saved and others are not. Often, these Christians identify as Arminians or open theists, but they may also be Catholics, Wesleyans, Methodists, Baptists, and Pentecostals.

Alternatively, Christians who agree with point number 2 will strongly emphasize God's sovereign choice as being the deciding factor for why some people are saved and others are not. This idea is called double predestination, and Christians who uphold this idea often identify as followers of John Calvin, Martin Luther, or the early church theologian Augustine, and are often found in the Reformed and Lutheran branches of Christianity, but also among some groups of Baptists.

As I've talked about in a few past blog posts here and here, I believe that there are too many problems with the theory of double predestination for me to accept it as the reason for why some people will be eternally saved while others are not.

Additionally, if we go back to the original question of whether God really wants to save everyone, I think the Bible provides an incredibly clear answer:

God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:3-4). God "does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent" (2 Peter 3:9, NLT).

But surely, everyone doesn't include extremely bad people, right?

"Do you think that I like to see wicked people die? says the Sovereign Lord. Of course not! I want them to turn from their wicked ways and live" (Ezekiel 18:23, NLT).

Can we confirm this?

"As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live" (Ezekiel 33:11, NLT).

How much more clear does God have to be that he definitely does not want anyone to be eternally destroyed?

Unfortunately, some Christian theologians like Jonathan Edwards have taught that God wants to send most sinners to hell, which is the exact opposite of what these verses above say.

Jonathan Edwards Rejected The Idea That God Wants to Save Everyone

At the end of his book Freedom of the Will, Edwards concluded that although,

Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in his proper, absolute design, and of a certain number only.1

Yet in my research on Edwards, I couldn't find any instances where he attempted to explain or reinterpret any of the verses like the ones above that blatantly contradict his statement.

This is particularly strange given that Edwards has been called “the most formidable defender of Calvinism in the history of North America”.2 Is the best defender of Calvinism in North America really unable or unwilling to explain how he understood these verses? That seems to be a major red flag that there's a serious problem with his theology, and by extension, with Calvinism itself.

Edwards certainly was aware of these verses, since he cited 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 a few times in some of his writings.3 Yet in these instances he didn't attempt to explain these verses in any further detail. Thus it is unclear what Edwards actually thought these verses meant.

Of course, I've seen various other Calvinistic authors attempt to explain these verses in ways that are compatible with double predestination. However, the only way they can do this is by reinterpreting "all," "everyone," and "anyone" to actually mean only "some people," or even "only a few people". However, I don't see any justification for these interpretations in these verses themselves.

An example of such an unusual interpretation is found when Edwards tried to refute John Taylor’s universalistic interpretations of Romans 5:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–22 which seem to say that Christ died for everyone. To do this, Edwards said that the word "all" in these verses doesn't really mean all. Instead, Edwards made a distinction between "all" who are "in Adam" (i.e., every human) and "all" who are "in Christ" (i.e., only those people who are saved).4

Yet Edwards' approach is ironic, because elsewhere Edwards protested when Taylor suddenly interprets a word in a different sense than he interpreted it earlier in the same verse, although this is precisely what Edwards just did here.5

Edwards also flip-flopped on the issue of whether Christ truly died for everyone within a single sermon!

In "The Many Mansions," Edwards first said that,

There is mercy enough in God to admit an innumerable multitude into heaven: there is mercy enough for all. And there is merit enough in Christ to purchase heavenly happiness for millions of millions, for all men that ever were, are, or shall be. And there is a sufficiency in the fountain of heaven’s happiness to supply, and fill, and satisfy all: and there is in all respects enough for the happiness of all.6

Sounds good, right? But then suddenly, a few paragraphs later, he said that "when heaven was made, it was intended and prepared for all those particular persons that God had from eternity designed to save."7 I.e., not everyone.

Then at the end of his sermon, Edwards evangelistically appealed to sinners to "seek heaven" for "there is suitable provision there for you." He argued that because God invites sinners to believe in the gospel, then each person is actually so invited, for God cannot lie.8

Yet if double predestination is true, then God actually hasn't genuinely invited everyone to believe the gospel, because advocates of double predestination claim that God only gives the ability to believe and accept his offer to the elect people that God wants to save.

Or at best, God's offer of salvation to the non-elect would be as genuine as a party host who silently displays an invitation to a blind man who cannot read it, yet the host still claims that the blind man was properly 'invited' to the party.9

Edwards' sermon here shows the contradictions that preachers who believe in double predestination face when they try to be evangelists.

Ultimately, I believe that Edwards' statement that God only wants to save a certain number of people was based not on Scripture, but on his philosophical assumptions about God's sovereignty and God's foreknowledge. From these assumptions, Edwards thought that God controls absolutely everything, and so there is no room for human free will to explain why some people are saved and others aren't.

Thus, Edwards reasoned that if not everyone is saved, that's because God doesn't want to save them, since "we may justly infer what God intends by what he actually does, because he does nothing inadvertently, or without design."10

Based on the extremely clear Bible verses that we looked at earlier, though, I am not convinced that Edwards' view is Biblically accurate. I also think his claim that God wants to send most people to hell is the biggest contradiction in his theology, which I discuss here.

However, the problem that Jonathan Edwards faced about whether God truly wants to save everyone is also faced by Christians who identify as exclusivists. That's because even if exclusivists don't overtly claim to believe in double predestination, I think it is actually implied in their theology, as I'll explain in the next section.

The Problem With Exclusivism

If inclusivists say that non-Christians can still be saved even if they didn't know about Jesus or believe in him during their earthly lives, then exclusivism is the exact opposite. Christian exclusivists say that everyone who never believed in Jesus during their lifetimes are automatically destined for hell.

A short case for exclusivism could be made by appealing to the Biblical statement that "each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, NLT).

Jesus' parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31) might also appear to be evidence for this position if it is taken literally. In this parable, once once the rich man died, there was no way out of the fire he found himself stuck in, and all he cared about was that his living family members would change their minds so they wouldn't end up in the same place.

Other instances where the Bible talks about individuals facing God's final judgment and hell are often read similarly by exclusivists to imply that after death there is no chance for anyone to repent or change their eternal destinies.

The strictest proponents of exclusivism would also say that individuals who accept the gospel in their lifetimes have to continue believing in Jesus until they die. If they fall away from faith, they will also end up in hell. (I would strongly disagree, though.)

Exclusivists do make exceptions for people who died before Jesus was resurrected, provided that these people knew something about the only true God and had faith in him. Some of these people are listed in Hebrews 11, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. Job is another example, because even though he didn't know all the details, he confessed that "For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God" (Job 19:25-26).

Many exclusivists also make exceptions for children who died before they were able to make a personal decision to believe in Jesus. Exceptions are also usually made for people who never had the mental capacity to understand and respond to the gospel. However, exclusivists' arguments for why God can make exceptions for these sorts of people are not always theologically persuasive.11

For example, when talking about the salvation of children, some Christians argue that as long as children die before they reach the 'age of accountability', these children will be saved.12

But this raises questions about exactly at what age someone reaches this age of accountability, or how much mental capacity is necessary to understand and believe the gospel. Some exclusivists might argue that only God knows these things for certain, since they could be different for each person.

The practical problem with this idea is that if a Christian's child dies, it would be difficult for a pastor to reassure the parent that they will see their child again in heaven, since no one but God can know if the child was past his or her personal 'age of accountability' or had the mental capacity to believe in Jesus.

Even worse, this idea could lead to the mistaken belief that it could be a loving thing to kill a child before they reach the age of accountability in order to ensure that the child will go to heaven.13

So already, it seems there are some major questions and difficulties for Christian exclusivism.

One possible benefit of exclusivism is that it can strongly encourage evangelism. If we truly believe that every person who doesn't personally profess belief in Christ in this life is going to face eternal destruction, then it seems that Christians should be constantly preaching to every non-Christian we come across that they need to believe in Jesus. Otherwise, aren't we all horrible people who don't care that someone might drop dead at any moment without having had a chance to accept the gospel?

I used to think this way, and I often felt guilty because I wasn't sharing the gospel with everyone I knew. I felt I was selfish because I usually cared too much about what someone might think of me to risk ruining their impression of me by sharing the gospel with them. I worried that if my friend, unbelieving family member, or even a random person I passed on the street would die without ever hearing the message that I could have shared with them, then God would hold me accountable for why that person ended up in hell. I thought this way of thinking was supported by verses like Ezekiel 33:8-9.

However, an even more serious problem for exclusivism is that if it were true, then everyone who lived in times or places where they weren't able to know anything about the only true God or the gospel would seem to be automatically condemned to hell.

If so, then it seems that we're back to double predestination, because it is God who chooses when and where groups of people will live (Acts 17:26). Yet how could God justly eternally destroy such people for not believing in Jesus, when they never had a chance to hear about him?

Exclusivists often reply to this question by claiming that all people have had access to 'general revelation', which is the knowledge about God that everyone should be able to gain from looking at nature, as Paul says:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. (Romans 1:19-21)

Based on this verse, exclusivists argue that general revelation is only enough to condemn people and not enough to save them, because nature can't teach anything about Jesus or the gospel (a.k.a. 'special revelation').14

But the problem for exclusivists is even more difficult, because they also need to account for everyone who might have heard the gospel but who didn't understand it or who rejected it prematurely. For example, Thomas B. Talbott argues,

I think Talbott raises a good point here. Many Christians know of people who have been turned away from Christianity by seeing negative Christian examples in the world, or who might have been personally hurt by someone who identified as a Christian. Some of these people's negative impressions of the gospel or of Christians could be so strong that it permanently turns them away from ever reconsidering their need for Jesus and his amazing free offer of eternal life.

How could it be fair for a Christian who hurt someone or presented the gospel badly to be eternally saved, but the person who they hurt or turned away from Jesus is eternally destroyed?

We might also picture the scenario of a woman who has never heard the gospel. She arrives in Toronto, and happens to walk by a street preacher in a busy downtown square. Over the megaphone, she hears John 3:16. Yet as she steps out onto Yonge street, she is hit by a city bus and is killed instantly. Would it be right for God to eternally destroy her because she didn't immediately respond to the gospel the very first time she heard it?

Thus, exclusivism not only puts a lot of pressure on Christians to share the gospel, but also pressures us to make sure we share the gospel perfectly, and also live perfect lives in order to make sure we never do anything that might turn someone against Christianity or the gospel.

But since Christians will always still be imperfect in this life (Romans 7:14-25), and nobody has all of their theology perfectly straightened out (1 Corinthians 13:12), then it seems that God is expecting perfect performance from imperfect people. Our failures then lead Christians to worry that we might be the reason why someone who God wants to save will be eternally destroyed.

An easy way to get around all this guilt and fear would be to say that if God truly wants these people to be saved, then he'll get through to them somehow before they die. If not, then maybe God doesn't want to save them after all, and they really are predestined to be eternally destroyed in hell?

Yet because of the verses shown earlier, we know this conclusion can't possibly be true.

A Critique of William Lane Craig's Appeal to Middle Knowledge

Unfortunately, double predestination is implied even by exclusivists like William Lane Craig who advocate for free will, unlike Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, and Martin Luther who rejected the idea of free will and argued for double predestination.

When Craig attempts to explain why it is that not everyone will be saved by appealing to the concept of God's middle knowledge, Craig also ends up advocating for a theory of double predestination.

Middle knowledge is the idea that God knows exactly what each of us would freely do in any situation we might be placed in. So Craig asks:

Why God, if he desires all people to be saved, should create a world in which so many people are lost and eternally damned. For by his middle knowledge, God knew under what circumstances any person he might create would freely receive Christ. So why did he not plan his creation of persons and circumstances in such a way that everyone would freely be saved?16

Craig's answer is that perhaps it is impossible for God to create a world where everyone freely believes in Jesus, because there might be some people who would never freely receive Christ in any circumstance.

Basically, he says that in any world God could create, "some people, no matter how much the Spirit of God worked on their hearts, no matter how favorable their upbringing, no matter how many times or ways they heard the gospel, would still refuse to bow the knee and give their lives to Christ."17

But if God truly wants everyone to be saved, then why would God create these people that God knows will never accept the gospel? Craig argues that it might be impossible for God to create a world where no one would reject God's offer of salvation. Or, if God could create such a world, there might be very few people in it.

So Craig theorizes that God might have decided that it's better to create a lot of people, in order to maximize the number of people who God knows will be saved, even if it means that God also has to create many people who God knows will never accept Christ in any circumstance.18

However, if God really knows through his middle knowledge who will freely accept him and who won't, then if God chooses to create people that God knows will never accept him, God is effectively predestining them to hell. Thus, Craig ends up indirectly arguing for double predestination. this is why I think the idea of middle knowledge is ultimately deterministic even if it acknowledges free will, as I've talked about here.

(A a side note, Arminians who believe in God's perfect foreknowledge of everyone's free choices also have a similar problem, because if God perfectly foreknows that some people definitely will never accept the gospel, but God creates them anyway, then God is effectively predestining those people to hell.)

But as difficult as Craig's theory already is, Craig goes on to make things even worse. This happens when he suggests that:

It is possible that God in his providence so arranged the world that those who never in fact hear the gospel are persons who would not respond to it if they did hear it. God brings the gospel to all those who he knows will respond to it if they hear it. Thus the motivation for the missionary enterprise is to be God's ambassadors in bringing the gospel to those whom God has arranged to freely receive it when they hear it. No one who would respond if he [or she] heard it will be lost.19

This part of Craig's argument is troubling, because for large portions of history the gospel was mostly limited to certain parts of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe.

Does Craig really think that the Incas, Australian Aborigines, and the ancient Chinese, among others, were entirely composed of people who would have rejected the gospel in any possible circumstance? What about people living today on North Sentinel Island—an extremely isolated tribe of people who are hostile to all outsiders?

Yet the Bible says that in the new heavens and new Earth, there will be people from every tribe, nation, language, and people group (Revelation 5:9-10, 7:9). This must include people who lived in times or places where Christians or Jews had not yet sent missionaries, and who had no access to the Bible.

Exclusivism seems to deny that such a situation is possible, and so it fails because it cannot handle all the Biblical evidence. Craig's theory about middle knowledge fails for the exact same reason.

Conclusion

Therefore, as much as I love the passion that exclusivists often feel to share the gospel with others, I think exclusivism isn't the best position for Christians to take. It has too many practical problems, and isn't compatible with the Biblical truths that God wants to save all people, and that at least one person from every single tribe, nation, language, and people group will be eternally saved.

The only alternatives to exclusivism are either universalism, pluralism, or inclusivism. For this reason, Christians who believe that God truly wants to save everyone might be drawn to these options.

However, both universalism and pluralism have their own problems, as I will talk about in future blog posts. As a result, I think that Christians need to have some sort of Biblically-supported and theologically-sound theory of inclusivism. This is a challenge which I hope to make an attempt at in a future blog post.

Footnotes:

1. Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 1, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 435. In the rest of these footnotes I will refer to The Works of Jonathan Edwards as WJE, followed by the volume number and omitting the editors, for brevity. All of these sources can be found online at Yale's Jonathan Edwards Center website.
2. Mark A. Noll, “Edwards, Jonathan,” in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister E. McGrath et al. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993) 145.
3. These are found in Jonathan Edwards' sermon "The Dreadful Silence of the Lord," in WJE 19: 111. He also mentions 2 Peter 3:9 in passing in "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 504 and “Miscellanies,” no. 669 in WJE 18: 214.
4. Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, in WJE 3: 322–325.
5. Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, in WJE 3: 331.
6. Jonathan Edwards, "The Many Mansions," in WJE 19: 739.
7. Jonathan Edwards, "The Many Mansions," in WJE 19: 740.
8. Jonathan Edwards, "The Many Mansions," in WJE 19: 742–743.
9. Jerry L. Walls, Does God Love Everyone?: The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2016), 19.
10. Jonathan Edwards, "End of Creation," in WJE 8: 427.
11. Randy Alcorn, “Do Infants Go to Heaven When They Die?” Eternal Perspective Ministries, January 5, 2010.
12. F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House Publishers, 2011), 236-246.
13. If we think no parent would act like this, it actually happened in the sad example of Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children because she believed it would save them from going to hell. Cynthia Mcfadden, "Yates: I'm Saving My Kids From Hell", ABC News, June 14, 2002.
14. Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle, Erasing Hell (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2011), 158-161.
15. Thomas B. Talbott, "Response by Thomas B. Talbott" in Perspectives on Election: 5 Views, ed. Chad Owen Brand (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 144.
16. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 145.
17. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 147.
18. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 147-150.
19. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2000), 151.

Have the Courage To Be Disliked

2022-01-25T00:00:00+00:00

If there's one trait that I think we need in order to be strong Christians in our world today, it's the courage to be disliked. At worst, we might even need the courage to be outright hated.

Of course, no one wants to be disliked or hated. That's why peer pressure is so strong. But if we always go along with the crowd just so that others will like us or accept us, then there's a chance that we'll end up in places we don't want to be.

For example, you might be familiar with a poem that was written by Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor who lived in Nazi Germany:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.1

The same idea is effectively summed up in the saying that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing."

However, the easiest thing to do is to speak out against evil before it reaches the point where greater action becomes necessary. In this post, I hope to encourage you to speak out against evil, even if it means that you might face criticism, rejection, or even persecution for it.

Christians Need To Speak Out Against Evil

Today, we look back with admiration at people like Niemoller and others who stood up against evil, even if they suffered for doing so. But just because some forms of evil were overcome in the past doesn't mean that we no longer need to be on our guard.

Indeed, some astute observers of politics and history worry that a majority of people in our supposedly-tolerant Western societies are being psychologically formed and indoctrinated right now, to get them to go along with yet-another scheme of persecution against a new minority of people. These commentators worry that government-backed persecution of this new minority group could be right around the corner, and the indoctrinated majority will go along with it, possibly leading to new atrocities.

This possibility is certainly worrying, but it shouldn't be surprising.

Satan still wants to do what he has always wanted to do: steal, kill, and destroy (John 10:10). Our sinful human nature also means that we're all inclined to act in selfish ways, even at the expense of others.

Additionally, Paul warns us that as time goes on, "evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived" (2 Timothy 3:13). Increasing deception is thus a sign of the approaching end-times.

After all, Paul warns us about the "man of lawlessness" (a.k.a, the Antichrist) who will rise to power during the future Tribulation, after the Rapture occurs. This man will deceive the world by declaring himself to be God in the rebuilt temple in Jerusalem (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). His powerful religious supporter will convince most people to worship an image of the Antichrist, and to take the Mark of the Beast that will allow those who do take it to buy and sell (Revelation 13:11-17). Then, persecution of Christians and others who refuse the Mark will become so severe that many will be beheaded (Revelation 20:4).

But Paul says that currently, someone is restraining the Antichrist from making his appearance on the world stage (2 Thessalonians 2:7-8). Many Biblical end-times commentators speculate about who this "restrainer" could be. Two frequent suggestions I've read are that the restrainer could be the Holy Spirit, or maybe, the Church. Maybe both are correct, since, in this age, the Holy Spirit is especially at work in the world through the Church, comprised of all true believers in Jesus who are indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation fits well with how Jesus says that Christians act like salt and light in the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Through our actions and prayers, we preserve the world from decaying faster into sin than it already is (like how salt preserves raw meat), and our witness to the truth helps God hold off the spiritual darkness that wants to overcome it (like how light banishes darkness). Supporting verses for this interpretation could include John 1:4-5 and Luke 22:53. Thus, it seems clear that Christians have a role to play in helping God promote righteousness and resist evil in the world.

But once the Church is removed from this world in the Rapture, then evil will quickly reach its ultimate peak. It will result in the Tribulation, which is described in the Bible as seven years of suffering that will be so bad that if Jesus didn't shorten it, no one on earth would survive (Matthew 24:22).

So as Christians, we need to be on the lookout for evil so that we can stand against it. Otherwise, evil will only grow worse and worse. Therefore, there will come times when we must speak out, even though doing so won't be popular, easy, or even safe. When that time comes, we'll need courage.

In the rest of this post, I want to highlight some Bible verses that can encourage us all to do what's right and speak out on behalf of the truth and for righteousness, even if some people dislike us for it, and even if it makes us potential targets for criticism, rejection, or persecution.

Following Jesus Won't Make People Like You

It's important to remember that as Christians, our goal isn't to make everyone like us. Our calling is to follow Jesus, and to fulfill the great commission (Matthew 28:19-20) by telling everyone that they can have eternal life only by believing in Jesus. So if we're following Jesus, then all we have to do is to look at how people treated Jesus, and we'll know what sort of treatment we should expect.

Jesus said "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it" (Luke 9:23-24, NRSV).

Back in Jesus' time, death by crucifixion wasn't just extremely painful, but it was also humiliating, and so it was reserved for the worst criminals. So when Jesus tells us that we'll have to take up our own crosses in order to follow him, we shouldn't expect it to be easy, and we shouldn't think that we'll never be criticized, disliked, or hated for it.

In fact, Jesus told his followers "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:19).

Thus, Christians shouldn't expect any better treatment from the world than the world gave to Jesus when he was here. Jesus said he was hated for no good reason (John 15:25), and so he consoles us with the reminder that "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you" (John 15:18).

The world's hatred of Christ will overflow into outright persecution of Christians, for Jesus said "If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:20). Note how Jesus says here that they will persecute us, not that they only might persecute us.

Therefore, I am very suspicious when the world seems to celebrate and revere certain Christian leaders today (e.g., the Pope). I think that if these influential Christians were really doing their job and were preaching the true gospel, the world wouldn't love them nearly as much as it seems to.

After all, Jesus warns: "Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets" (Luke 6:26).

The world loves to hear things that make it feel good, as Paul warned Timothy: "The time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths" (2 Timothy 4:2-4).

That's just a little encouragement to look carefully at any Christian that the world seems to celebrate. Pay attention to what they're teaching, and be discerning about whether it lines up with the Bible or not. Because if we're preaching the real gospel, history tells us that we should expect to face opposition.

Biblical Examples of Persecution For Preaching The Gospel

So if Jesus said that his followers would be persecuted and hated, how did that work out for the early church?

Well, pretty much right away after Jesus ascended to heaven, the disciples started getting in trouble with the religious authorities in Jerusalem.

In one incident in Acts chapter 5, the High Priest had a bunch of the disciples arrested and put in jail. But God sent an angel to free them, and told them to go back to preaching in the temple like they had been doing.

When the High Priest found out about their miraculous escape, he wasn't happy, and so he had the disciples arrested again and brought in front of the Sanhedrin. The High Priest asked them why they were continuing to preach when they had been told not to.

Peter simply replied "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

As a result, the Sanhedrin

beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they [the disciples] left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus. (Acts 5:40-42)

It definitely took courage for the disciples to disobey the most important religious leaders in their country, and go right back to doing what had gotten them in trouble in the first place. Like Peter said, the only reason they had the courage to do this was because they knew that obeying God is more important than pleasing people.

Paul also was persecuted as he went around preaching and founding new churches across the Roman Empire. Yet he said something very similar: "just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts" (1 Thessalonians 2:4).

Even back in the Old Testament times, people who preached God's true word and called out society on its sin were persecuted for it.

Stephen asked the Pharisees, "Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it" (Acts 7:51-53).

Of course, saying this certainly didn't make the Pharisees happy, and they stoned Stephen to death (Acts 7:54-60). Ironically, their doing do only proved Stephen's point.

This incident with Stephen might remind us of how the author of Hebrews discusses some of the great 'heroes of the faith' in Hebrews chapter 11. This list ends with a summary of many others who were persecuted because of their faith:

One of the most famous examples of such a person was the prophet Elijah. At the end of Elijah's ministry he felt like a failure because he had to flee through the desert and hide in a cave, in order to save himself from being killed for the things he said to the evil king and queen.

He complained to God that "I have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts. For the people of Israel have forsaken your covenant, thrown down your altars, and killed your prophets with the sword, and I, even I only, am left, and they seek my life, to take it away" (1 Kings 19:10).

Another example was John the Baptist, who was executed as a result of how he spoke out against the immorality of how Herod married the wife of Herod's own brother (Mark 6:17-28).

So all these examples show us that in general, people who speak God's word accurately to the world and who condemn sin won't be popular. At worst, speaking truth to those in power can result in torture and/or death, as it did for many people who followed God in the past.

However, it's worth standing up for God's truth and for righteousness, not only because doing so can help push back against evil, but because God promises us that we'll be rewarded if we suffer for His cause.

You'll Be Blessed If You Suffer For Doing What's Right

The apostle Peter has a reminder for Christians when we're afraid of speaking out because of what others might say about us:

Do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. (1 Peter 4:12-14)

So Christians shouldn't be surprised when we face opposition and persecution. And yes, that does mean when we face persecution, not if, even though the persecution we face may be as minor as having someone dislike us because of something we said in defense of the truth.

Also, in the above verse, Peter actually says that we should rejoice when we suffer for Christ by being insulted by others, because of how we know we'll be rewarded when Jesus finally appears.

Paul showed a similar attitude, when he said, "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Corinthians 12:10).

Jesus himself said that when we're called names or slandered or misrepresented for his cause, we can trust that we'll be eternally rewarded for it:

Or, to the same effect,

Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23)

Who would've thought that we could earn eternal rewards by simply being disliked for speaking the truth? Maybe we should want this to happen a little more frequently! However, that's provided that we're treating those who disagree with us rightly, so that we don't give them a legitimate reason to dislike us.

How Should Christians Treat Those Who Dislike Us?

Just because we will face persecution by some people, though, doesn't mean that we have an excuse to mistreat the people who dislike us. Thus, as we speak out for truth and righteousness, let's remember to keep in mind what the Bible says about how we should treat those who persecute us:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:43-45).
"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them" (Romans 12:14).
"But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame" (1 Peter 3:15-16).
"Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless" (1 Peter 3:8).
"A servant of the Lord must not quarrel but must be kind to everyone, be able to teach, and be patient with difficult people. Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. Then they will come to their senses and escape from the devil’s trap" (2 Timothy 2:24-26, NLT).

So, by acting in these ways, we're not only earning heavenly rewards and demonstrating God's love to those who are persecuting us, but we might also win over our opponents and gain an ally. In all three of these ways, then, we win.

What Practical Things Can We Do?

Are you feeling encouraged after reading these verses? I hope so.

Of course, it might also seem scary to stand up and speak out on important issues of our times, since there's a chance that we might become the target for someone's anger or hatred. But the only other option is to stay quiet and let evil continue to grow in our society, until it gets so bad that it does break out into full-out persecution of some group of people or another. Let's not make the same mistake that Martin Niemoller did, and stay quiet when we should be speaking out.

Not only that, but if we never stand up for anything, then effectively, we'll be no one and we'll never do anything important, out of fear of possibly offending someone. But then we'll end up like the servant in Jesus's parable who never made use of the resources that he was given to serve his Lord, and who was then criticized for his inaction when his Lord returned (Matthew 25:24-30).

So while we might face a little temporary discomfort, if we're insulted for holding on to solid Biblical truths or for speaking out about what's right, we're in good company. Many prophets were disliked. Jesus was disliked. Paul and the disciples were disliked. It's okay to be disliked, even if it feels like we're all alone.

However, what's helpful to remember is that if many people speak out together, then we're no longer alone.

For example, let's return to the story of Elijah. He complained that he was the only one left in Israel who hadn't given in to evil. Yet God told him that that no, he wasn't alone. In fact, there were seven thousand other people left in Israel who also hadn't given in to evil (1 Kings 19:18).

So although Elijah felt alone, he wasn't. If Elijah had only known about all these other people who agreed with him, then how much easier might it have been for him to endure his persecution?

In our world today, the silence of Christians and other good people who don't want to offend anyone helps make it appear that the small groups of very vocal people who denigrate Biblical truth and righteousness have far greater support than they actually do.

This effect is even more pronounced when the media takes these vocal groups' side and amplifies their voices, while silencing their critics. Thus, I think it's helpful to follow both mainstream media and alternative media, and to intentionally go out of our way to read both sides of important issues. In this way, I hope we can avoid letting ourselves be bullied into thinking that only one view is acceptable to hold, based only on how loud one side is.

Furthermore, the right response to the vocal people who criticize Biblical truth or morality isn't to stay quiet in hope that they won't insult us, because they dislike us anyway just for believing what we do. Instead, we should stand together with others who also value Biblical truth and righteousness, and let our voices be heard.

By making our voices heard, we'll also encourage others who agree with us that they're not alone, which will give them greater courage to speak out, too. Perhaps, then, immorality and deception can be restrained just a little longer, and we can prevent evil from gaining more power in our societies, thus warding off injustice and the atrocities that will occur if evil goes unchecked.

Conclusion

So, if you see something happening in the news or in your community that you disagree with, then say something!

As a start, talk to your family and friends about it, and let your opinion be known. Write to your politicians and your school-board representatives. Send in letters to the editors of news organizations to tell them your opinion on the positions they're pushing, even if your feedback is never published. Comment on online news articles, and share articles you agree with on social media. But if you do get into a discussion with others who disagree with you, remember to love them and treat them with respect.

Because if you say nothing, no one will be able to say that they agree with you. And that will make it harder for people who do agree with you to feel comfortable speaking out. And then that leads into a downward spiral where everyone is too afraid to say anything, and evil gains the upper hand. When actually, if we just spoke out, we might realize that there are more people who agree with us than we expected, and together, we could make a difference in our society for good.

But remember: even if you're insulted by some people, or the worst happens and you do have to stand alone against the world, you're in the very good company of the prophets, disciples, the early church, and Jesus himself. Then, when you finally stand before Jesus, he'll tell you "Well done, good and faithful servant" (Matthew 25:21), which is of infinitely more value than any other person's opinion of you.

Footnotes:

1. Martin Niemoller, "First They Came For The Socialists," Holocaust Encyclopedia. Accessed January 24, 2022.

Why I Wrote My Dissertation on Predestination

2022-01-05T00:00:00+00:00

As part of my preparation for my dissertation defence in August 2021, I was asked to think about why my doctoral research matters to the church.

At first glance, I admit that my investigation into why the eighteenth-century Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards believed that God predestines most people to hell doesn't appear all that relevant to Christians today.

Sure, there's a few die-hard Edwards fans out there who would probably be interested in the topic. It's also an interesting question for historical theologians, since there's no consensus about why Edwards affirmed double predestination (i.e., the idea that God has chosen, from eternity past, who will be saved and who will be condemned to hell, and people have no influence over God's eternal decision).

A few theologians have also noted some inconsistencies and contradictions in Edwards' theology surrounding the issue of predestination, but no one has analyzed his work in-depth on the topic. So I've made a useful contribution to scholarship on Jonathan Edwards.

But to answer the initial question, here are four main reasons I believe my research is useful for the Church today:

Because theologians are concerned about speaking correctly and accurately about God, because what we say about God matters to both those inside and outside of the Church. Thus, it's important to examine Edwards' arguments for why he believed that God predestines people to hell, in order to determine whether his ideas might be true or not.
The idea that God might predestine people to hell is the most significant challenge to God's love and goodness. Since Edwards is seen as such a great theologian and supposedly one of the best defenders of Calvinism, I wanted to examine Edwards' arguments for double predestination to see whether he can manage to uphold God's loving goodness while justifying why God would predestine anyone to hell. If he can't do this, then perhaps it's a clue that his interpretation of predestination is not the best one.
Regardless of whether Edwards' position on predestination is true or the best one, it's useful to learn why a significant theologian such as Edwards believed as he did, since this might give us greater insight into how he did theology. By extension, such a study can help us reflect on why we believe what we do, in order to be more thoughtful about how we do theology. And yes, that means I do think we're all theologians, in one way or another.
Because learning about why we believe what we do, and why others may believe differently, should lead us to have greater grace for others with whom we disagree.

I'll expand on each of these reasons below. First, though, I'll explain why Jonathan Edwards is a relevant and interesting theologian to study on the issue of predestination.

But Why Study Jonathan Edwards?

What's most interesting to me about Edwards in regard to predestination is that as a youth, he thought the idea that God predestines anyone to hell was a "horrible" doctrine. Yet at some point as a young adult, he said he had a "wonderful" change of mind. From then on, he never again questioned the justice of God's absolute sovereignty over individuals' eternal destinies.1

As someone who very much agrees with Edwards' first opinion, I wanted to discover what caused Edwards' change of mind. Unfortunately, he never clearly explained it.

His change of mind on the issue is especially interesting because Edwards is often seen as one of the greatest theologians in North American history. He is even called "the most formidable defender of Calvinism in the history of North America" for how he attempted to defend double predestination against critics of it.2

Near the end of his life, Edwards wrote two major works titled Freedom of the Will and Original Sin. In these books, Edwards attempted to argue that people don't have control over their own choices, and that all people are rightfully held guilty of the first sin of Adam and Eve. Taken together, these books make a case that God is just when God predestines anyone to hell, and that God is merciful and gracious when God chooses to save anyone, which Edwards claimed God does by irresistibly sending the Holy Spirit to indwell a person's heart.

So as someone who strongly disagrees with Edwards' final position, the goal of my dissertation was to go through Edwards' writings and find every argument that he makes in favor of double predestination and against his opponents' views on predestination. By doing this, I hoped to find out why he changed his mind on this issue, and why he argued so strongly in favor of double predestination for the rest of his life.

Edwards is also still widely read by many theologians today, especially by evangelicals. His perspective on predestination is also often appealed to by influential Calvinist pastors and scholars. I hoped that by studying his perspective, I could understand more about why Calvinists today still want to believe in double predestination.

I also wanted to put my own views to the test to see whether Edwards might be able to convince me of his position, or if I would find problems in his reasoning that would reinforce my current view that double predestination isn't the best way to understand how God saves people who believe in Jesus.

So that explains my personal interest in Edwards and the topic. But again, why does any of this matter to the Church?

1. Theology Is Concerned With Seeking Truth About God

One definition of theology is "a religious belief system about God or ultimate reality".3 However, the word theology comes from two different Greek words: theos meaning "God" and logos meaning "word" or "speech". So theology can also mean something like "speech about God" or "speaking about God".

I agree with Jonathan Edwards when he proposes that the reason God created the world is so that God reveal himself to intelligent creatures, who can then know God and love God.4

However, that means it is important to know God truthfully and accurately. If we misrepresent God by saying false things about who God is or how God acts, then we don't really know him. It would also be insulting to God, and we would be doing bad theology.

What we say we know about God will also affect how much we love God, and will influence how we portray God to non-Christians we are attempting to witness to.

I believe that theodicy (i.e., defending God's goodness despite the existence of sin, evil, and suffering in the world) is a key issue that Christians need to address in order to help both Christians and non-Christians come to love God more. I also argue here that theodicy could be a helpful criteria to use when choosing between theological systems, such as between Calvinism, Arminianism, and open theism.

As predestination is one of the major areas of debate between Calvinists, Arminians, and open theists, how well Calvinists can defend their perspective on predestination is a very relevant issue that needs to be addressed, as I explain in my next point below.

2. Predestination is a Serious Challenge for Theodicy

Predestination is a word that's used a few times in the Bible to refer to events that God decided will happen even before they actually occurred or will occur (e.g. Acts 4:28, Ephesians 1:5, 1:11, Romans 8:29-30, 1 Corinthians 2:7).5 These sorts of predestined events are usually seen as being specifically willed by God, who is the ultimate cause behind why these events happened exactly as they did.

So predestination is a Biblical concept. However, ever since the early church theologian Augustine argued that God has ultimate control over who will be eternally saved and who will not, there have been heated debates and disagreements among Christians over what predestination means in these verses, and how it relates to human free will.

This debate has been especially fierce because predestination is the most significant challenge for God's goodness. Christians who believe in predestination must not only attempt to explain why a perfectly good and loving God might allow or even ordain the existence of sin, evil, and suffering in this world, but they must also explain why a perfectly good and loving God might predestine individuals to an eternity of suffering far more intense than anything they ever experienced in their earthly lives.

Such a task is very difficult. Clark Pinnock argued that

the idea of everlasting torment (especially if it is linked to soteriological predestination) raises the problem of evil to impossible dimensions... if Christians want to hold that God created some people to be tortured in hell forever, then the apologetic task in relation to theodicy is just hopeless.6

Even if someone prefers to understand hell as annihilation in contrast to eternal torment, the same question arises if we ask why a good and loving God would predestine anyone to be eternally destroyed.

Many Christians might answer that people are predestined to hell on the basis of God's foreknowledge of these individuals' future free actions, such as their personal sins combined with their lack of personal faith in Christ. But why would God create people who God knows will never believe in him, if God really wants all people to be saved (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9)?

To avoid this question, some Christians argue that God doesn't actually predestine individuals to either heaven or hell. Instead, God predestines the Church as a whole, leaving individuals to freely opt into the Church through faith in Christ (or opt-out, by not believing in Christ, as I'd prefer to say). This is called corporate election,7 and I think there's some merit to it.

Alternatively, Christians might opt for Karl Barth's idea that the only person who was predestined was Jesus. In this view, Jesus was both chosen/elected to be the Messiah, and also rejected/reprobated by God to suffer the punishment for our sins when he died on the cross. Yet I believe Barth's view is problematic because it logically leads to universalism, which has problems of its own.

As another option, a few Christians argue that predestination has nothing to do with eternal life, and so predestination is only about people being chosen by God for earthly service to Him.8 I think this view also has some good potential.

Yet the problem for theodicy is worst for Christians who believe that God actually causes some people to not believe in Jesus, so that God can guarantee that these people will be condemned to hell.

Usually, proponents of this view claim that God acts in this way in order to demonstrate God's justice, wrath at sin, and power, without which, God wouldn't be fully glorified. This idea is often called double predestination, and this is what Jonathan Edwards believed. So did other major Christian theologians such as Augustine, Martin Luther, and perhaps most famously, John Calvin.

In response to the above idea, some theologians rejected the idea of double predestination.

For example, John Wesley said he believed that double predestination is blasphemous because it would mean that God's offer of salvation to all people as found in verses such as John 3:16 is a lie, and so would make God worse than Satan!9 Arminius argued that double predestination is contrary to God’s wisdom, justice, and goodness, among other issues.10

More recent critics have argued that if double predestination is true, then God would be worse than the worst human tyrants,11 and God would be as sadistic as a child who takes pleasure in torturing a cat in a microwave.12 I agree with Clark Pinnock that if God does predestine people to hell, then God would be a bully "to which I could submit but which would not inspire admiration in me and certainly not love".13

So if double predestination makes it harder for some people to see God as attractive and worthy of worship, obedience, and love, then churches and pastors who affirm it may have a more difficult time with evangelism. I believe these churches and pastors also risk producing less passionate and less committed Christians who may grudgingly obey God out of fear, but who might not fully trust God's goodness in their personal lives or be motivated to tell about God's love to others.

Some people are able to love God despite believing in double predestination, as Edwards did. However, even the staunch Calvinist John Piper says that people should not believe in double predestination if it would cause them to question God’s justice, righteousness, goodness, or love.14

I've argued here that theodicy (i.e., defending God's goodness despite the existence of sin, evil, and suffering in the world) is a useful criteria when choosing between competing theological perspectives. So if even Jonathan Edwards can't sufficiently defend God's goodness regarding double predestination, then perhaps that is a clue that his understanding of predestination is not the best one, and we should consider alternatives that do a better job of upholding God's goodness.

Yet if Christians are called to seek truth about God, then we shouldn't believe things about God just because they make us feel good, or because these beliefs attract people to our churches. Thus, we need to consider other criteria that may indicate whether our belief is true or not.

This brings us to the question of how we should do theology. What sources should we use when going theology, and which sources should have priority over others?

3. Learning How Edwards Did Theology

In my dissertation, I sort Edwards' arguments for double predestination into the categories of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience.

Although I'm not a Wesleyan, I think that these categories comprise every possible source that Christians might appeal to when making theological arguments. I believe that if a doctrine is able to be supported by all four sources, there is a a good chance it is theologically sound, and is more likely to be true than if it were to lack support from one or more of these sources.

Primarily, I used these categories only as a general way to organize Edwards' arguments for double predestination, and there was cross-over between them. Discussions of Scripture, for example, appeared in multiple chapters, as did Edwards' philosophy of causality. But by organizing Edwards' arguments into these categories, I hoped I could see how Edwards made use of these four sources, and which ones he tended to prioritize in his arguments about predestination. I hoped that perhaps this would give a clue as to the reason he chose to affirm double predestination.

Using a process of elimination, and by considering alternative approaches that Edwards could have used, I narrowed down what I believed were the most important source(s) behind Edwards' belief in double predestination.

In the end, I believe that the most significant factor behind Edwards' affirmation of double predestination was Tradition. Specifically, it was his desire to defend the core traditional Protestant conviction that salvation is by faith alone and God’s grace alone, against what he perceived as the threat of "Arminian" moralism or legalism in New England.

What's interesting is that Edwards' theology could nearly have led him to universalism. Some theologians today even argue that Edwards was a closet universalist, or at least, an inclusivist.15 Yet I think what kept Edwards from affirming that all people will be saved is how his reading of Scripture convinced him that most people will end up in hell.

This forced Edwards to find a place in his system for his understanding of hell, despite all the contradictions it causes in his philosophy and larger overarching worldview, which he used to try to defend what he saw as critical Biblical doctrines.

But by looking at Edwards as a case-study of how one intelligent, thoughtful Christian came to affirm a certain position on a controversial topic where there is no Christian consensus, I hope my dissertation can help us understand why Christians can disagree on many different topics, leading to all the diversity of Christian belief and practices we see in the world today.

If we could break down all the reasons we believe as we do on any particular issue and discern which reason seems to be most central, then perhaps greater insight could be gained as to why Christians choose to affirm one perspective over another, even though we're all working with the same Bible.

This sort of self-analysis of our own theology would hopefully lead to having greater grace for Christians who come to differing conclusions, without demonizing them or questioning their salvation.

4. Having Grace for Those Who Disagree

After having finished my study of Edwards' view on predestination, I'm even more convinced that double predestination is not the best Biblical understanding of predestination. I would personally opt for understanding predestination as either corporate election of the Church as a whole, or election of individuals to earthly service.

However, I do appreciate what Edwards was attempting to do by standing up for the idea of salvation by faith alone, which is a gift based on God's grace and was purchased by Jesus' death on the cross.

Although Edwards has harsh words for the "Arminians" of his time, it must be noted that the people he called by this name were not teaching what is usually thought of today as Arminianism, if Arminianism is best defined by the beliefs of its originator, James Arminius.

Instead, these "Arminians" in Edwards' day were basically teaching moralism or legalism, and so claimed that people could be saved by doing good works and avoiding sin. This understanding of salvation is strikingly similar to the ancient teachings of Pelagius, which were condemned as heretical.

Augustine was rightly concerned about Pelagius's teachings, and used double predestination to argue against them. Double predestination also gained popularity during later times in church history when the gospel was being threatened by distortions that put undue emphasis on good works as being necessary for salvation, such as in the Reformation.

It seems that for theologians such as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Jonathan Edwards, allowing any room for human free will was seen as risky and as possibly supporting the idea that people could earn their salvation, or at least, people could deserve some credit for their salvation.

As a result, I can respect what these theologians were attempting to do. It's just too bad they felt the need to rely on double predestination in order to do it, when it has such negative implications for God's character. But I would prefer for people to be Calvinists if the only other option is to think that it's possible to earn salvation by doing good works, avoiding sin, or being a good person.

However, I think it is possible to affirm that salvation is by God's grace alone through faith alone, yet while still preserving room for human free will in salvation. This is because God allows people to freely choose whether they want to resist the work of the Holy Spirit in their hearts, as I've talked about here.

In my view, people who come to have faith in Christ need to give all the credit and glory to God and not to themselves, because all they did was choose to not resist the Holy Spirit. This could be an improvement on the usual way that Arminians describe people freely saying "yes" to God's offer of salvation, which could make it appear to Calvinists and others that people are actively doing something to be saved.

Thus, it can be useful to engage with the concerns of those on the "other side" of theological debates, in order to understand what their core concerns are, and then try to find ways to improve our own theology in an attempt at perhaps bridging the gap between the two. It can also force us to face the difficult verses that challenge our Biblical interpretation, rather than ignoring them like Edwards often did.

Conclusion

Yet I can't be too hard on Edwards. Through my study of Edwards' childhood and upbringing, I can relate to what it's like to grow up being worried about whether I was saved or not, and whether God is truly good and loving.

I can see how if Edwards had a spiritual experience that convinced him he was elect, it would likely have brought him great comfort and a conviction that God is good and loving (at least, toward Edwards himself and other 'elect' Christians). Perhaps Edwards' spiritual experience truly was a movement of God in his heart, which helped him get over these fears and enabled him to love God.

Fortunately for Edwards, his change of mind came just in time for him to graduate from his Master's degree, since back then in New England, it was necessary to affirm double predestination in order to become a respectable pastor. Perhaps God wanted to make sure Edwards could become a pastor, so that God could use him to preach the gospel to many people during the Great Awakening revivals.

Since no one's theology is perfect in this life (1 Corinthians 13:12), I can accept that it was better for Edwards to become a pastor than the alternative. There are also some very helpful and good things in his theology that I can appreciate and want to make use of in my future work.

I can also appreciate how Edwards stood up for the true gospel in the face of growing legalism and moralism. Maybe at that time, in that culture, Edwards' defense of the gospel using double predestination was the best that could be given?

So I can have grace for Edwards, and even for other Calvinists, even though I still think that double predestination has horrible implications for God's loving character. Personally, I believe that God really does want to save all people, but that people can freely reject God's offer of salvation, and that once anyone believes, they're eternally secure due to the indwelling Holy Spirit, as per Ephesians 1:13-14.

Yet I hope that though ongoing dialogue and by criticizing and challenging each other's theology, Calvinists and Arminians and open theists can all work at improving our own theology, while having grace for those who disagree.

If you would like to read my dissertation which gets into everything I've spoken about in this post in much more detail, you can download it as a .pdf by clicking here.

Footnotes:

1. Edwards, "Personal Narrative," in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 16, Letters and Personal Writings, ed. George S. Claghorn (Jonathan Edwards Center: Yale University, 2008), 792.
2. Mark A. Noll, "Edwards, Jonathan," in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought, ed. Alister E. McGrath et al. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 145.
3. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 113.
4. Jonathan Edwards, "Dissertation 2: Concerning the End for which God Created the World," in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Vol. 8, ed. Paul Ramsey (Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University, 2008), 441-443.
5. William D. Mounce, "Predestination," in Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), 533-534.
6. Clark H. Pinnock, "The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent," Criswell Theological Review 4, no. 2 [1990]: 253–254.
7. William W. Klein, The New Chosen People: A Corporate View of Election, Revised and Expanded Version (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2015).
8. Shawn Lazar, Chosen to Serve: Why Divine Election Is To Service, Not To Eternal Life (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2017).
9. John Wesley, "Free Grace," in The Works of John Wesley, Volume 3: Sermons, ed. Albert Outler and Frank Baker (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 554–557.
10. James Arminius, Arminius Speaks: Essential Writings on Predestination, Free Will, and the Nature of God, ed. John D. Wagner (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 40–41.
11. Susan Neiman, Evil in Modern Thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 19–20, 125.
12. Clark Pinnock, "The Conditional View" in Four Views on Hell, ed. Stanley N. Gundry and William Crockett (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 140.
13. Clark H. Pinnock, "Response to Part 1," in Reconstructing Theology: A Critical Assessment of the Theology of Clark Pinnock, ed. Tony J. Gray and Christopher Sinkinson (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2000), 84.
14.John Piper, "Does God Predestine People to Hell?" on YouTube Desiring God, November 19, 2017.
15. Some proponents of Edwards as a universalist or inclusivist include Anri Moromoto and Gerald McDermott. For more on this debate, see John J. Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 255-257, or Michael J.McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 589-598.

Are We In The End Times?

2021-12-06T00:00:00+00:00

If you've heard a little about what Christianity teaches about the future, and have been paying attention to what's going on in the world over the last little while, you might be asking questions like:

Are we approaching the end of the world?
Are we currently in the Tribulation?
What even is the Tribulation?
What are the signs of the end-times?
Does everything that's happening now mean that Jesus coming back soon?

If so, then congratulations: these are exactly the sorts of questions that I'd hope people today would be asking. Asking these questions shows you recognize that something isn't right in the world, and indicates you have the courage to ask tough questions, even if the topic of the end-times makes you nervous, anxious, or even downright terrified.

I hope this blog post is able to answer some of these questions, and also will also reassure you that as of the date of writing, we are not in the Tribulation. However, we are certainly in the end times, and yes, this does mean that Jesus is coming back soon.

If you have believed in Jesus as your Savior, then you can rightly feel excited and have peace, and know that soon you'll get to experience the Rapture. On the other hand, if you haven't yet believed in Jesus, then I'd truly encourage you to take him up on his offer of free eternal life before you miss out and have to face the upcoming Tribulation.

What is the Tribulation?

So first of all, what do I mean by the term "the Tribulation"? Generally, the Tribulation is a term used by Christians who hold to a pre-Millennial perspective on the end-times to describe the last seven years before Jesus' second coming, based on the use of the word in Mark 13:19, Mark 13:24, Matthew 24:21, and Revelation 7:14. In Biblical Greek the word "tribulation" (thlipsis) means "to be squeezed or put in a narrow place." It is very similar to other Greek words that mean trouble, affliction, distress, and persecution.1

The Tribulation includes all the events that occur from Revelation chapters 4 to 19, ending with the return of Jesus with his heavenly armies of saints and angels to destroy the armies of the Antichrist and False Prophet (Revelation 19:11-21).

We know the Tribulation lasts for seven years thanks to the Old Testament prophet Daniel. In Daniel chapter 9, he was given a message by the angel Gabriel which outlined a timeline for God's purposes for the Jewish people.

Gabriel said "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy" (Daniel 9:24, KJV).

I agree with Bible prophecy commentators who say that this overview takes us right up to the point in history when Jesus will finally be recognized by the Jewish people as their Messiah and Jesus sets up his millennial kingdom. (The Millennium is the thousand year period of time after Jesus' second coming when Jesus will personally rule the world along with his saints, and things will be much better than they have been for most of human history. I talk about it a little in this post here).

In Daniel's prophecy, the term "week" is used as a way of saying a period of seven years. So this prophecy given to Daniel is an outline for a period of about 490 years. However, these 490 years are split into two main divisions:

7 weeks plus 62 weeks, which makes 69 'weeks' (483 years). This period began with the command to rebuild Jerusalem (444 BC, see Nehemiah 2:1) and lasted until the Messiah came (Daniel 9:25). After this, the Messiah was "cut off, but not for himself" and "the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary" (Daniel 9:26). This part of the prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus was crucified in 33 AD.2 Later, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70 AD.
1 more 'week' (7 years). This period begins with the confirmation of a covenant between the people of Israel and "many" (Daniel 9:27), likely thanks to the negotiations of the Antichrist. This event is the official starting point of the Tribulation.3

Technically, though, we have to remember that the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, which means it has only 360 days per year. So actually, the Tribulation will be 2520 days long.

The Tribulation itself is also divided into two periods. About halfway through the Tribulation the Antichrist will break the covenant with Israel and will declare himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish temple, according to Daniel 9:27, Daniel 12:11, Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, and Revelation 13:5.4

How will we know when the Tribulation is getting close? There are some general signs we can look for, but we can also look into the conditions that we'll see during the Tribulation itself. Using these criteria, we can recognize that the Tribulation is approaching. However, by examining several clear signs of what occurs in the Tribulation, we'll be able to know for sure whether we are in it or not.

Signs of the Approaching End Times

There are some general signs of the approaching end-times which have actually been around for thousands of years. Ever since the early church began spreading across the Roman Empire slightly under two-thousand years ago, Christians can technically count ourselves as being in the "last days" (Acts 2:15-18, Hebrews 1:1-2).

There are some signs that the Bible says will characterize the end-times. These have always been present since the early church, but as we get closer to the start of the Tribulation, we'll see these signs increasing. Jesus compares these signs to "birth pains" (Matthew 24:8), which will get stronger and more frequent as we approach the end times. These signs will all reach their peak and ultimate fulfillment during the Tribulation itself.

Increasing Doubt About Jesus's Soon Return

Ironically, one of the signs to look for is when people (especially Christians) deny that we are approaching the Tribulation or deny that Jesus is coming back soon.

Peter warns us that scoffers will say things like, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation" (2 Peter 3:4).

I've seen this attitude expressed by Christians who say things like:

No, there's no way Jesus is coming back soon. Look, the early church thought he was coming back in their lifetimes. Every generation of Christians since then also thought they were living in the end times. But history just keeps going on, and so no matter how much we think we see the signs of the end times coming, we just have to keep enduring no matter how hard it gets. After all, Jesus didn't save the early church from Roman persecution, or save the Protestants from Catholic persecution, so we'd better hunker down and toughen up to prepare to face what's coming.

In my experience, people with this attitude often deny that there will be a Rapture. Some even seem to downright hate the teaching of the Rapture, and accuse those who teach it of being false prophets who are leading people astray, because they aren't teaching people to prepare to survive the Tribulation.

But as I've argued elsewhere, there are at least five good reasons that prove the Rapture must occur before the Tribulation. A major one is that the Rapture is meant to be an encouraging doctrine (1 Thessalonians 4:18). The scoffers destroy this encouragement by denying that Jesus could come to catch up the Church to heaven at any time.

So if you're a Christian who believes in the Rapture, don't let these sorts of skeptics and scoffers get to you. Don't let them take away the heavenly reward of an eternal crown that you can earn just by continually looking forward to Jesus' return at the Rapture (2 Timothy 4:8, Revelation 3:11).

Increasing Sinfulness

There are a couple different lists of sins and sinful attitudes that the Bible warns people will show more of as we get closer to the Tribulation:

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:29-32)

It's easy to skip over these long lists, but if you go one-by-one and think about our society, you'll probably see all of these signs are present in one way or another. If you think back to how things used to be even a decade or two ago, you'll probably agree that these things are getting worse:

Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13).

Jesus says that when he comes at the Rapture, the world will be like it was in the times of Noah and Lot. While in some ways the world was going on like normal (Matthew 24:37-39, Luke 17:26-29), the Bible also gives these two times as instances when societal evil and sinfulness had reached a level that brought on God's destruction.

In Lot's case, there weren't even ten righteous people left in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:32), and the people seem to have been consumed with inappropriate sexual lust and violence (Genesis 19:4-11). Peter says that Lot suffered because he was "greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard)" (2 Peter 2:7-8).

All sin can be described as lawlessness (1 John 3:4, Matthew 7:23). Jesus warns that in the end times "And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold" (Matthew 24:12). When times get tough, people start looking out for themselves and their families at the expense of others. As a mild example, just consider the sort of things that happen in stores on Black Friday sales. And that's not even when these people's own lives and the lives of their families are at risk!

In Noah's case, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5), such that only Noah and his family were spared.

During the Tribulation we're told that even though God sends terrible disasters on the world to try to wake people up and get them to turn to Him, people won't repent. What won't they repent of? Things like worshiping idols and demons, murder (especially of Christians), sorcery, sexual immorality, theft, and deception (Revelation 9:20, 18:23).

Antichrists and False Prophets

The first sign that Jesus gives in his final speech to his disciples about the end-times is about being careful to not be deceived by false Christs and false prophets:

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray." (Matthew 24:3-4).

Some people will claim that they are Jesus, or that Jesus has returned already:

And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. (Mark 13:21-22, see also Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:23-27, 1 John 2:18)

Alternatively, more people will deny that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2:22). This is also expected, because Paul warns:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared. (1 Timothy 4:1-2)

Jesus' prophecy will be ultimately fulfilled by the appearance of the final Antichrist/the Beast and False Prophet, who both work for the Dragon (a.k.a Satan) (Revelation 13:1-8, 13:11-18).

I believe the Antichrist will attempt to impersonate Jesus, and so together, these three (Satan, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet) form a sort of false imitation of the Trinity (God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit). Together, this false trinity will deceive the world:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:7-12)

So as seen here and in the last section, lawlessness/sinfulness and deception seem to go together. Both will peak during the Tribulation when the world is under the rule of the Antichrist.

Increasing Wars and Natural Disasters

Jesus's second sign of the approaching end involves wars and natural disasters:

And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. (Mark 13:7-8, see also Matthew 24:6-7)

All these wars and disasters will get far worse in the Tribulation. The second, third, and fourth Seal judgments in Revelation 6:3-8 follow Jesus' outline quite well.

There will be a worldwide outbreak of war, followed by something which raises the prices of food significantly, and then death due to all these things: war, famine, and pestilence. We're told that over a quarter of the earth's population at that time will die (Revelation 6:8).

There are also several major earthquakes predicted in Revelation 6:12-14, 8:5, 11:13, 11:19, and culminating with the worst earthquake the world has ever seen in Revelation 16:18-19.

Increasing Divisions Between People and Persecution of Christians

Division between people and persecution of those who believe in Jesus began during Jesus' first coming. He said,

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. (Matthew 10:34-36)

Jesus gave several different warnings about division and persecution being a sign of the end times:

"And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death" (Mark 13:12).
"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another" (Matthew 24:9-10).
"But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them" (Mark 13:9).

These things certainly happened to the Apostles, 11 out of 12 of whom were killed for their faith (John was just tortured and exiled several times). This persecution also happened to the early church Christians, and still happens today in places around the world.

Throughout church history, families have been divided between those who chose to believe in Jesus and those who didn't. Unfortunately, this division has happened even among Christians who have turned against family or friends who became part of different Christian movements, whether Protestants, Catholics, Anabaptists, etc. who were persecuted and killed at different points in time.

Ultimately we'll probably see these prophecies fulfilled in the Tribulation when people will likely turn each other in for not worshiping the Antichrist or taking the Mark of the Beast.

Worldwide Evangelism

Jesus said, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come" (Matthew 24:14).

This is the completion of the Great Commission given to the church:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

The Joshua Project tracks unreached people groups.5 According to their downloadable .pdf report, in 2021, there are still approximately 2.18 billion people on the planet who haven't heard the gospel.6

However, this worldwide evangelism won't be finished by the Church. It will be finished in the Tribulation by the Tribulation saints, two witnesses (Revelation 11:3), and even an angel/messenger who flies around the world preaching the gospel (Revelation 14:6).

Economic Distortions

Finally, one minor sign of the end is economic distortions and drastic wealth imbalances.

James says that in the last days, the world's rich people will hoard wealth and will commit injustices against the working poor, such as by not paying their workers their fair wages, and even by murdering righteous people. Yet these rich people's wealth will be corroded (inflated?) away (James 5:1-6).

In the Tribulation, some loss of wealth might happen during the Third Seal judgment, where either famine, economic collapse, or runaway inflation will mean people can buy "A quart of wheat for a denarius [a day's wage],and three quarts of barley for a denarius, and do not harm the oil and wine!" (Revelation 6:6).

However, as hinted at in the above verse, it seems the rich will still be able to afford luxuries like oil and wine. Also, in the Tribulation there will still be buying and selling, at least for those who take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-17).

Some people will even make a lot of money as a result of the end-times entity called "Babylon," which seems to have both religious and economic components and may be tied to a specific city (Revelation chapter 17). We're told "the merchants of the earth have grown rich from the power of her [Babylon's] luxurious living" (Revelation 18:3). Then all the merchants of the world will mourn when Babylon is finally destroyed and no one will be able to buy their luxury goods (Revelation 18).

Indisputable Signs of the Tribulation

There are a few key signs that can confirm beyond a doubt whether we're in the Tribulation or not. If we don't see all these signs, then we're definitely NOT in the Tribulation. If you see or have seen them all, then you definitely ARE in the Tribulation:

The Rapture

As I've argued elsewhere, the Rapture must happen before the Tribulation, for a number of theological and Biblical reasons.

At the Rapture, everyone who died after having believed in Jesus for eternal life will be resurrected, and all true Christians around the world will be instantly changed from mortal to immortal and caught up to heaven to be with Jesus forever (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18).

So if millions of people around the world have suddenly disappeared, and there's a lot of empty graves in cemetaries, that will be the evidence of the Rapture having happened.

One thing I haven't talked about much is the issue of children and the Rapture. Will all kids under the age of accountability also be Raptured? It's hard to say for sure. We do know that Jesus has a special love for children (Matthew 18:1-6), but God also allowed many children to suffer the destruction that came on their sinful societies that rejected God in the Old Testament, too. I've looked at this conundrum of why a good and loving God might allow children to suffer and die here.

However, I'm convinced that God's loving character means he won't leave behind any kids who are under the age of accountability who have a Christian parent, and this could potentially be argued from 1 Corinthians 7:14. Maybe if God is extra merciful, all the world's kids will be Raptured too, but it's not certain.

Also, it's not clear in the Bible how long it will be between the Rapture happening and the Tribulation officially starting. Some argue that the Tribulation begins immediately after the Rapture, where others say there could be months or even years between the Tribulation and the Rapture.

Personally, I think the chaos that follows the Rapture will be the final catalyst that allows for the appearance of the Antichrist and the formation of a worldwide government led by ten 'kings', as will be discussed next.

The Ten Kings

The Bible prophesies in several places about the emergence of a worldwide government controlled by ten leaders (Daniel 2:40-43, 7:7-9, 7:19-27, Revelation 17:12) who will give their power to the Antichrist (Revelation 17:13). In these Bible passages, the government led by these ten 'kings' is described as being partly strong and partly weak, but also being terrible, trampling the whole world, and having iron teeth.

There's a lot of speculation among Bible prophecy scholars about what this prophecy means.

Will the world be divided up into ten regions like a European Union, a North American Union, an African Union, and so forth, each led by one top person? Or is it referring to a shrunken European Union with only ten countries which dominates the post-Rapture politics of the world? Will it be the recently-mentioned group of ten most powerful democratic countries who will act like a new G7?7 Will it be "multilateralism with teeth," as was said recently by UN Secretary Antonio Guterrez?8

I don't know. All I'm willing to say is that I think, if these ten king-like rulers don't appear before the Rapture, they'll appear quite quickly after the Rapture.

Mystery Babylon Religious System

During the Tribulation, there will be a major worldwide religious system that matches the characteristics of "Mystery Babylon" in Revelation 17. This is a very difficult and confusing passage of Scripture, but I believe it will make perfect sense to those who are alive in the Tribulation.

Yet there are at least a few hints that we can make sense of now.

Initially, the false religion is portrayed as a prostitute (a Biblical symbol for idolatry) who sits on the Beast/the Antichrist (Revelation 17:1-5). It will persecute/kill the Tribulation Saints (Revelation 17:6) and may have killed Christians in the past, if it comes out of a religion that is already on earth today. The religion is also associated with a city with seven hills/mountains that dominates the world (Revelation 17:9, 17:18). The religion is also associated with the colors of scarlet and purple and is very rich (Revelation 17:4).

These traits lead some to speculate that Mystery Babylon is the corrupted remnants of Catholicism that will be left behind on earth after the Rapture. Or perhaps some coalition between Catholicism and Islam or other religions.

Thus, it is interesting how much effort is being put forth in the last few years by Pope Francis to reconcile Catholicism and Islam and Judaism. These efforts are culminating in the creation of the Abrahamic Family House being built in the UAE, which will be a complex with a church, a mosque, and a synagogue, as well as an educational center.9

Yet at some point, this false religion will be destroyed by the Antichrist/the Beast and the ten kings (Revelation 17:15-17). Perhaps this will correspond with the half-way point of the Tribulation when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt Jewish temple and stops their sacrifices (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11, Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14).

Thus, at some point before the Antichrist can do this, Israel must rebuild their temple. Preparations are already quite far along, and there is an organization called The Temple Institute who is working toward this goal.10 I suspect that Israel will be able to rebuild the temple quite quickly when the time is right, perhaps, after the covenant between Israel and the "many" is signed by the Antichrist (Daniel 9:27).

The Two Witnesses

At some point in the Tribulation, two powerful prophets called the two witnesses will show up. They will prophesy for 1260 days (Revelation 11:3), or about half the length of the Tribulation.

These two prophets will be famous worldwide. Why?

they can destroy anyone who wants to harm them by shooting out fire from their mouths (Revelation 11:5).
they can stop the rain from falling and inflict plagues on the world (Revelation 11:6).

After the 1260 days are up, they will be killed by the Antichrist (Revelation 11:7). Their bodies will lie in the street of Jerusalem for three and a half days, where people from all around the world will see them (Revelation 11:8-9).

It seems perhaps their deaths and dead bodies will be worldwide breaking news, maybe even with live footage of them lying dead for three and a half days. People around the world will be so happy the witnesses are dead that they will celebrate and give gifts to each other, as if it were Christmas (Revelation 11:10).

But after the three and a half days, the two witnesses will be resurrected and taken up to heaven, while an earthquake destroys part of the city of Jerusalem (Revelation 11:11-13).

It's not completely clear at what point the two witnesses appear during the Tribulation. Many Bible prophecy commentators I've read argue that they will be killed halfway through the Tribulation at the same time when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in Israel's rebuilt temple. But it's not totally clear here in Revelation, so I'm not willing to say for sure.

Either way, if two people show up who match the above traits, then you definitely know you're in the Tribulation.

Other Signs

There are a few other interesting signs of the approaching Tribulation.

One of them is that the world needs to have the technology to control all buying and selling so that no one without the Mark of the Beast can buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-17).

This seems to be a worldwide system, and thus, I suspect there will be more to it than just a tattoo that everyone has to show before they're allowed to buy or sell. Otherwise shop owners could just ignore it in order to make more money by selling their goods illegally to people without the Mark.

I've heard tons of speculation that the Mark of the Beast might be based on a one-world digital currency, block-chain crypto-currency technology, central bank digital currencies, social credit scores, worldwide ESG ratings, vaccine passports, or some sort of global digital identification system. But again, it's hard to say for sure. All we need is some system that is so pervasive and controlling that no one can buy or sell without taking the Mark of the Beast.

Yet somehow, some people will survive the Tribulation without it, or else there would be no one left to repopulate the world during Jesus' millennial kingdom (Revelation 20), since anyone who takes the Mark of the Beast will face eternal consequences (Revelation 14:9-11) including being thrown into the lake of fire along with the Antichrist and False Prophet (Revelation 19:20).

Another interesting technological aspect of life in the Tribulation is that somehow, the False Prophet will be "allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain" (Revelation 13:15).

With all the innovation going on these days with robotics and artificial intelligence, or CGI and virtual reality, who knows what combination of technology will be used to pull this off. But however it works, God says it will happen.

Conclusion

So hopefully after reading this post, you've gotten a fairly good idea of what life will be like during the Tribulation. You should also know what signs to watch out for that show how close we are getting to the Tribulation, and how to know if the Tribulation has begun or not.

If you're worried by what you're seeing, the good news is that if the Rapture hasn't yet happened, there's still time for you to believe in Jesus as your Savior. Then you will "be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man" (Luke 21:36, KJV).

Or, in the event that the Rapture has occurred, it's still not too late for you to believe in Jesus and be guaranteed that you'll have eternal life. You may face martyrdom for your faith and for not worshipping the image of the Antichrist or taking the Mark of the Beast, but if that happens, don't worry: you'll be resurrected and will rule with Jesus for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4).

Regardless of where we are on God's prophetic timeline, we can know that everything God has said will come true one day. I also believe that even if we can't figure out all the details ahead of time, when the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation start being fulfilled, it will be very clear to the people who are on earth at the time.

But what's really exciting is that Jesus said "Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (Luke 21:28).

If you're interested in following current events as they may relate to the approaching end-times, I'd recommend sources such as:

Pastor JD Farag (jdfarag.org). He offers weekly Bible Prophecy Updates. On his site, under the category of "Prophecy Vids" you can watch past updates or download .pdf transcripts to read. I appreciate his approach and think that he is quite on-target and demonstrates a good Christian attitude that is encouraging, even if at times his sources are slightly questionable.
'Watchman River' Tom Cote's YouTube channel, where he provides daily news updates and always shares the gospel message. I do disagree with his traditional perspective on hell, but otherwise I find he is quite insightful and shares relevant and interesting news articles.
the authors at Rapture Ready (https://www.raptureready.com). Some authors here are better than others, in my opinion, but the weekly "Nearing Midnight" and "Israel Watch" columns are well-done.

A few other good books on the end-times are listed on my Recommended Resources page.

However, as always, you should pray for discernment regarding what you read and are told by others, including by myself. No one has everything figured out 100% (1 Corinthians 13:12) especially on difficult issues like Bible prophecy, and so you should always pray for help from the Holy Spirit and investigate whether what you're told lines up with Scripture, as the Berean Christians did (Acts 17:11).

Let's remember that no matter how close it seems we might be to the Tribulation, or how intimidating current events might be, the Rapture could happen anytime. Let's hold on to our hope of eternal life through faith in Christ, and share our hope with others who might also be wondering what's going on and where the world is headed.

Footnotes:

1. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2006), 743-745.
2. Rick Larson, "Daniel's Prophecy", BethlehemStar.net. Also see John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, Moody: 2012), 274-284.
3. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, Moody: 2012), 284-290.
4. John F. Walvoord, Daniel, The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentaries, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Philip E. Rawley (Chicago, Moody: 2012), 288-290.
5. Joshua Project, joshuaproject.net
6. Clicking the following link will allow you to view Joshua Project's .pdf titled "Status of World Evangelization 2022", joshuaproject.net
7. James Rogers, "Time for the D10 to replace the G7?", The Strategist, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, June 16, 2020.
8. Edith M. Lederer, "UN chief: World is at 'pivotal moment' and must avert crises", AP News, September 11, 2021.
9. "About the Abrahamic Family House", Abrahamic Family House.
10. The Temple Institute, TempleInstitute.org

Christians Should Not Fear Death

2021-11-01T00:00:00+00:00

If there's anything obvious about the world in 2020 and 2021, it's that fear of death is everywhere (especially in the media).

Incredible precautions are taken against an illness that kills only a very small percentage of people who get it, many of whom were already ill with other conditions. The true chance of dying from this illness is reduced even further once we consider that the official statistics do not include unreported cases which could be many times greater than the recorded ones.

To me, it seems the fear of death has increased almost to the point that it seems our society has become convinced that no one should die from anything, anywhere, for any reason. Leaders are willing to shut down economies, schools, and international travel, destroy individuals' social lives and finances, and even deny people their basic human rights, all to avoid the small chance of someone somewhere dying from a generally mild illness.

As a Christian, all of this makes no sense to me. Christians are not supposed to be afraid of death, and large percentages of people in many countries around the world identify as Christian.1 In Canada and the USA, about 65-70% of people are supposedly Christian. However, if you were go out and survey people in these countries to see if they're afraid of death, I'm sure almost everyone would say that they are.

The only answer I can think of to explain why this situation exists is that, apparently, many Christians have forgotten that we should not fear death.

So by way of reminder, I've written this post to encourage Christians that while we should not intentionally seek death, death is no longer to be feared because Christ has conquered death for us.

Additionally, Christians have many incredible promises from God to look forward to regarding resurrection and eternal life. These promises should give us confidence even if the worst comes and we have to face martyrdom for our faith.

Physical Death Is (Mostly) Unavoidable

Because our first parents Adam and Eve sinned, all humanity has become subject to physical death (Romans 5:12), because death is the penalty for sin (Romans 6:23, James 1:15) and all have sinned (Romans 3:23, Isaiah 53:6).

As a result, as I've written about here in more detail, God is just when he chooses to kill any person. Ultimately, eternal death is what individuals are destined for if they finally refuse to accept Jesus' death for their sins.

Unless Christians today are fortunate enough to be alive when Jesus returns at the Rapture, sooner or later, every one of us will die. Historically, there were only two people recorded in the Bible who did not die and were taken up directly to heaven: Enoch (Genesis 5:24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11).

Thus, except for the above exceptions, every single person will die sometime from something.

We might have the time to see death coming, get our affairs in order, and say our goodbyes to our loved ones, or it could happen with no warning at all. It's hard to say which option I'd pick, if I could choose. (Personally, though, I'm hoping for option 3: the Rapture).

But the reality is that, unless we receive personal direct revelation from God about how long we'll live—like Hezekiah and Simeon did (Isaiah 38:5, Luke 2:26)—we have no idea whether we'll even take our next breath or have another heartbeat (e.g. Luke 12:19-20). Just look at Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:5, 5:10), or Herod (Acts 12:23) as examples of people who had no idea that in the next instant they would be dead.

However the Christian hope has always been about bodily resurrection.

Thus, like Job, all Christians should be able to confidently say:

This is because Jesus has already defeated death for us, and one day he will finally destroy death once and for all.

Jesus Has Defeated Death, and Will Destroy Death

The Bible tells us that Jesus has ultimately defeated death for us, to set us free from the power of death:

We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. (Romans 6:9-10)

In Christianity, the symbolic act of water baptism that is highly encouraged (but not required) for all Christians (Matthew 28:19) represents the spiritual death of the old person we were before and the spiritual birth of the new person we became the moment we believed in Jesus as our savior (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 1:13-14). The first moment of belief is when the Holy Spirit came to indwell us (Acts 10:44-48, Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16, Ephesians 1:13-14).

Through the spiritual union we now have with Jesus through the indwelling Holy Spirit, we share in Christ's death, and thus, because of his resurrection, our bodily resurrection is also guaranteed:

"If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you" (Romans 8:11).
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Romans 6:3-5).
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).
Jesus came so that "through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery" (Hebrews 2:14-15). Note here that fear of death leads to lifelong slavery, but Jesus has come to deliver us from it.

Death and hell will finally be destroyed after the final judgment of all people who have ever lived (Revelation 20:14). Then, everyone throughout history who is saved will have either been resurrected and/or changed from mortal to immortal in the twinkling of an eye:

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Corinthians 15:53-56)

All that will be left for God's redeemed people is an eternity in the New Heaven and New Earth where God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

Therefore, death's days are numbered.

For Christians, Death is Far Better than Temporal Life

In addition to knowing that death is not the ultimate end for God's people, there are some surprising verses that talk about the benefits we get if we die.

The moment any Christian dies, even though our bodies stay here until being resurrected at the same time as the Rapture occurs (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), at the moment of death our spirits go to be with Jesus in heaven:

So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, not by sight. Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

Did you catch that? Paul says Christians should actually prefer to be away from our bodies and at home with the Lord!

This was not a one-time comment by Paul. When he was being held in prison and wasn't sure whether he would be released or would be executed, he wrote:

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. (Philippians 1:21-24)

So yes, dying and being with Christ is FAR BETTER than remaining in this world, at least, for the individual Christian who dies.

However, this certainly doesn't endorse suicide. Our death is not better for those we leave behind who will miss the contributions that we could make to the community of faith. Since Christians are called to love others, we should emulate Paul and remain here to serve others with the time we have, for which we'll be rewarded eternally (1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

But let's return to Paul's argument that for individual Christians, dying and being with Christ is far better than staying alive on earth. These are some pretty bold claims. What basis does Paul have for these statements?

In 2 Corinthians chapter 12, Paul says that fourteen years ago he knew a man who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. Here, "he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter." Paul repeats that he's not sure whether this experience happened while the man was still in his body, or out of it. (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

Yet we know this man was Paul, because only a few sentences later he says God gave him a "thorn in the flesh" after this experience in order to keep him humble, due to the "surpassing greatness of the revelations" he had during this time (2 Corinthians 12:7).

So it appears that Paul either had a near-death experience or else a vision where he saw things in heaven that were far too amazing for him to describe, which were so great that he felt he couldn't talk about them.

Because of the hope he gained from this vision, he wrote "For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities" (2 Corinthians 12:10). A similar statement is made when he writes "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" (Romans 8:18).

Elsewhere, Paul writes "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man the things which God has prepared for those who love Him," (1 Corinthians 2:9, NKJV). Yet "God has revealed them to us through His Spirit" (1 Corinthians 2:10, NKJV).

Here's just a few things God has promised to you if you have believed in Jesus as your savior:

A spiritual body that is imperishable/immortal, strong, glorious (1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 52-53), and similar to Jesus' glorified body (1 Corinthians 15:49) which we get a glimpse of in Revelation 1:14-16. Our glorified bodies will be so much better than our current bodies that Paul says our current bodies are like flimsy tents, while in comparison our eternal bodies will be like durable buildings (2 Corinthians 5:1-4).
A place/room/mansion (depending on the Bible translation you use) in the Father's house which is being prepared for us by Jesus (John 14:2-3). John later reveals that this will be somewhere in the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:10-27. This city is described as being made of clear gold and built on foundations of many precious jewels. God himself will live in the city with us, and thus the city will not need any sun or light because God will be its light. The footnote to Revelation 21:16 in the ESV says the length of one of the city's sides is about 1330 miles (2140 km) and the city will be the same height as it is wide. So there will be more than enough space for everyone to have their perfect eternal home that God has created for each of us who believe in Jesus.
Heavenly rewards for all the good things we've done in our lives or how we served Christ. These rewards will be as valuable as gold and precious jewels (1 Corinthians 3:11-14, Colossians 3:23-24) and are referred to as an inheritance that is "imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you" (1 Peter 1:3-5, see also Matthew 6:19-20, Romans 8:16-17, Ephesians 1:18). Even the smallest good work like giving a cup of water to someone in Jesus' name will be rewarded (Matthew 10:42).
Faithful Christians who have served God in this life will be rewarded by ruling with Christ over cities in the Millennium and/or eternity on the New Earth. We'll also have authority to judge the world and even judge angels (Luke 19:17-19, 2 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 6:2-3, Revelation 2:26-27, 5:10, 20:4).
The Church made up of all true Christians will be somehow even further united with Jesus, similar to how a man and woman are united in marriage (Ephesians 5:31-32, Revelation 19:6-10, 21:2). Jesus promises that everyone who is resurrected or raptured will be with Jesus forever (1 Thessalonians 4:17), and God will dwell with us in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3).

One of my favourite books that I recommend if anyone wants to get excited about what our eternal life on the New Earth will be like is called Heaven by Randy Alcorn. It's easy to find and is still very popular.

While his book is occasionally a little speculative, on the whole I think it's useful to clear away any fears we might have that eternal life will be boring or bland, or at worst, so unimaginable and different that we would rather hang onto this life here at all costs. Probably heaven will be even better than what Alcorn pictures, but it's a good starting point for Christians to begin getting excited about what our eternity will be like.

Christians Can Face Martyrdom With Joy

Because of all these amazing promises that we have to look forward to, Christians in the past have been able to face death courageously and without fear. Jesus said:

I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:4-5)

So basically, the thing that everyone (especially unsaved people) should really take seriously is the possibility of God's judgment, not physical death.

Christians in the early church had to start facing death for their beliefs on a regular basis. The first Christian martyr was Stephen, as recorded in Acts 7:54-60. The term "martyr" in Biblical Greek actually means witness,2 and was used to describe people who witnessed to Christ through being put to death for not giving up on their faith. Eventually, all of the Apostles except for John died martyrs deaths,3 although John was also tortured and exiled at various points in his life.

One of the early records of martyrdom faced by early church Christians is a document called "The Martyrdom of Perepetua." It tells about the last days of several young people in Carthage, North Africa who became Christians and were killed in 202 or 203 AD.4

They were arrested at a time when it was illegal to become Christian and were held in jail while they were put on trial. Yet they refused to renounce their faith, and so they were sentenced to death. Eventually they were taken to be executed in a Colosseum-like arena where they fought wild animals including a leopard and a mad cow, and were finally killed by gladiators.5

During their time in prison, the brand-new Christians were given several visions of heaven which gave them the courage to hold onto their faith, even though they knew it would lead to their deaths. However, they weren't afraid at all. In fact, when they were finally taken into the arena they were singing songs of victory.6

This is just one historical example of how Christians in the past were not afraid of facing even a violent and painful death. Other possibly historical examples of Christians who were tortured or killed for their faith in Christ can be found in Foxe's Book of Martyrs.

Can you believe that Christians in the past could have such courage, but many Christians alive today are afraid of dying from a bad cold? How embarrassing!

Where has our confidence in the truths of resurrection and eternal life gone? No wonder non-Christians today don't seem to think Christianity is something worth taking seriously, and Christians don't think the gospel is something worth sharing with everyone we know!

Ever since the early church, martyrdom of Christians has been ongoing and even increasing. Recently, a study revealed that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world, and estimated that in 2016 one Christian died for his or her faith every six minutes!7 This is especially true in Afghanistan today where Christians are facing strong persecution from the Taliban after the disorderly US military withdrawal.8

Yet the greatest number of Christian martyrs is still to come. After the Rapture happens, many people are going to change their minds about the truth of Christianity, but then it will be too late. These new Christians will unfortunately be left behind on earth to undergo the terrible seven-year Tribulation described in Revelation chapters 6 to 19.

Already by the fifth seal judgment, John describes the souls of martyrs arriving in heaven (Revelation 6:9-11).

More martyrs are described in Revelation 7, where John sees

a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10)

We know this group are martyrs because John is told that "These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Revelation 7:14).

This mass slaughter of Christians only gets worse as the Tribulation goes on. The Antichrist makes war on the saints (Revelation 13:7) so that they are forced to choose whether to worship the image of the Antichrist and take the Mark of the Beast or be beheaded (Revelation 13:15-18, 20:4). Yet these martyrs will be resurrected at the end of the Tribulation and will rule with Jesus in his Millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4).

If the Rapture hasn't happened yet and you want to escape having to make such a decision, it's super easy. All you need to do is believe in Jesus as your savior and you can have eternal life for free!

Conclusion

In the end, everyone will have to give an answer to Jesus, who said, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25-26).

If you have indeed believed in Jesus as your savior, then like Job and Paul, you should be able to confidently answer "YES" to Jesus' question above.

If so, then there is nothing you need to fear,

for I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

Not only that, but we have an incredible eternal future to look forward to which will be better than anything we can imagine now.

If you're a Christian, I would challenge you to think about these promises and absorb them deep into your heart, because this will give you the courage you need to overcome the fear of death that is paralyzing our world today, and will let you give answers to others about the reason for your hope (1 Peter 3:15).

If it becomes necessary, pray that God would give you the courage to stand firm in your faith even unto death, so that you can receive an eternal crown (Revelation 2:10). And if you're reading this after the Rapture has happened, then avoid taking the Mark of the Beast at all costs.

Footnotes:

1. "Christianity By Country", Wikipedia.org
2. 3144. Martus, Biblehub.com
3. Josh and Sean McDowell, Evidence for the Resurrection (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2009), 216-218.
4. Alan Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 AD (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 60.
5. Alan Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 AD (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 61-72.
6. Alan Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 AD (Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 70.
7. Barbara Kay, "Barbara Kay: Our politicians may not care, but Christians are under siege across the world", The National Post, May 7, 2019.
8. "Christians in Afghanistan Call for Help as New Reports of Persecution Surface", Persecution.org, August 23, 2021.

Christians Must Evangelize Or Churches Will Die

2021-10-17T00:00:00+00:00

Many people have noted the decline of Christianity in Western countries over the last few hundred years, which has become even more obvious in the last fifty to seventy years. The reasons for this decline are attributed to many different things.

Some say it's just 'post-Christendom,' where Western societies as a whole are becoming resistant and indifferent to Christianity after being influenced by it for so long. Others say Christians are just not having as many children as they used to, in contrast to growing religions like Mormonism and Islam. Some say it's simply a demographic and cultural shift in Western cultures which means that churches should downsize and merge with one another.1

All these arguments seem to say that there's nothing that can be done to slow down or reverse the decline of Christianity in Western countries. It seems to lead to an attitude that Christians should just get used to this new reality.

But I think another major reason behind this decline is that, on the whole, Christians are failing to share our faith with others. The theological term for this activity is evangelism. I worry that many Christians no longer know how to explain the gospel in an understandable way, so that non-Christians can believe it and want to believe it. This may be because many Christians today feel unequipped in their own understanding of the gospel.

Therefore, in this post I will argue that Christians (and church leaders especially) should make evangelism their number-one priority, as well as training up of current Christians in theology and apologetics.

Evangelism is a Necessary Activity of the Church

Consider the early church. They started from nothing, with no knowledge of Christianity that pre-existed in their Greco-Roman culture. And they rapidly spread the message of the gospel and started house churches in city after city after city. Paul and other Apostles would go and preach the gospel even in the marketplaces or other public areas. Some people would reject them, but others would be convinced and would join them.

New communities of Christians sprang up quickly when people heard the gospel and joined together to encourage each other, to study the Bible, to pray together, to build up their faith, to train and educate new converts or children, and to share the gospel with others around them. Similar things happened when missionaries brought the gospel to new cultures who had never heard it before.

The success of these new Christian communities depended on having enough numerical growth to sustain their existence. They were training up their children in the faith, appointing new leaders to take over when older ones passed on, and reaching out to the people around them to bring in new converts.

Evangelism is ultimately the activity that sustains churches. If evangelism is neglected, then a church will eventually die out. It's a simple fact.

After all, even though we usually don't like to think about it, each of us will eventually die (unless Jesus returns before then at the Rapture). The only reason the churches we attend currently are still in existence is because previous generations of Christians evangelized.

They took their children to church. They invited friends to church. They held revival meetings. They passed out tracts. They preached on the street-corners. They held Bible studies in their homes. They formed student organizations to preach and teach on campuses. And on and on.

And yes, they did good works too. They founded orphanages, shelters, soup kitchens, and hospitals. They advocated for abolishing slavery and opposed other injustices. They tried to change their societies to be ones that supported Christian values. These are all excellent things, and God is certainly pleased when we help others.

However, if all those good works are not inspiring people to become Christians and join churches, then unfortunately, the truth is that these churches will shrink and eventually die regardless of how much excellent work they are doing in their communities.

Even if a church closes its doors, sells its building, and becomes a small group or house church, eventually that too will die off if it fails to evangelize and bring in or raise up new Christians.

People move away due to school, work, marriage, etc. Elderly people will pass on. And if no one new is coming in to replace these people who leave, then slowly the group will dwindle until it is forced to cease altogether or merges with another group. If that new group also does not bring in new people, then it too will sooner or later decline and die out. And on and on.

You Can't Help Someone If You're Dead

Some might say that the church also needs to do good works. They argue that the church can do a lot of good, such as by filling gaps in government social programs or saving people from dying on the streets or living in poverty or being hungry. But if the church doesn't exist, then it cannot do any of that!

The current state of Christianity in our culture today reminds me of the emergency instructions they give you when you travel on an airplane: "put on your own oxygen mask before helping others". Unless churches are growing, soon they will not exist, and will not be able to do these excellent good works. And the only way churches grow is through evangelism.

So those who are the most enthusiastic for all the social programs that churches are involved in should also be the ones most encouraging evangelism! Because without evangelism, churches cannot sustain these programs for the long-term.

Therefore, if faced with a declining church, the answer is not to continue to do things the same way as they have been. Because doing things the same way is going to lead to the same results.

If resources of money or volunteers are dwindling, it is unreasonable to ask fewer and fewer people to do more and more, to sustain things and keep the church going the way it was in the 'good old days'. If a church does that, then soon, the work will be too burdensome for anyone to want to take it on. After all, people's lives are busy and complicated, and it does the church no good if a person who was willing to step up and volunteer burns out.

And the evangelism needs to happen before a church becomes so small that any newcomers are seen only as new "human resources" to put to work right away to keep the church's programs going. Desperation and clinginess will scare people away from joining churches just as these same things drive people away from romantic relationships.

Proposed Solution: Focus on Evangelism and Training Up Current Christians

So I think the solution is for churches to put more of their limited resources and energy into outreach to non-Christians. Or perhaps, outreach to those who are nominally Christian but who feel no need to get involved in a local church. Or to Christians who are satisfied watching Youtube sermons but are not part of local church communities.

Accordingly, another critical area of focus should be on discipleship programs which can instruct and mentor people in their Christian faith. This is critical to train Christians to know what they believe and to enable them to share their beliefs clearly with their friends, family, coworkers, and others.

After all, Paul says we should always be ready prepared to "make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15).

But my experience is that many Christians in church are not ready to do this. They might be happy to talk about what God has done in their lives in Bible studies or among Christian friends. But if asked a tough question by a non-Christian, they might freeze.

They might say that having answers doesn't matter because it's all about faith. They might tell someone to just read the Bible and pray, and it will becomes obvious that Christianity is true.

They might, if they're especially daring, invite that person to church, or forward them a Youtube video where they can hear explanations from an expert. They might buy someone a Bible, or a good book by a well-loved Christian author. This is alright, and certainly better than nothing, but not ideal.

The issue is that in all these approaches Christians are essentially passing off their responsibility to give an answer to someone else, whether to the person who is interested in Christianity themselves, or to another Christian expert.

While there might be times to refer to experts, I think what we really need in order to keep Christianity going in places where it is declining is to train every individual Christian to:

be more familiar with the basics of Christianity (a.k.a the gospel).
explain the gospel in ways that are clear and understandable to people in our culture which is rapidly losing familiarity with the Bible and Christian terminology.
explain the gospel in such a way that non-Christians realize they need Jesus as their savior.
know some answers to the most common "tough questions" that unbelievers might throw at us.
demonstrate in our lives the difference that our faith makes to how we act and how we think about the world.

We need preaching and teaching which enables the average pew-sitting Christian to do these things. We also need more people to be involved in Bible studies, or even for churches to offer full-blown catechetical courses, like they still do in some Christian traditions.

We need to preach the gospel clearly in every single sermon, or at least, it needs to be said clearly at least sometime during every church service. We can't just assume that everyone in church knows what it is. What if someone attends your church for the first time, and they go home having heard nothing about the hope of eternal life and the love of God for sinners shown to us in Christ's life and death for us? How sad would that be! And what a lost opportunity.

In summary, let's put the focus back on Jesus' command to "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28:19-20).

If you've made it this far into my argument and agree with me, then I'm glad, and I hope you take up my challenge to prioritize evangelism and discipleship, whether personally or in your churches.

In the rest of this post I'm going to argue why I think that the gospel needs to be churches' priority rather than good works, if we're facing a situation of declining numbers, or if we have to choose where to spend our limited resources.

But what about the people who need our help?

The above question is what I imagine some especially compassionate and caring Christians might say in response to my above argument. Maybe they will dismiss me as a cold-hearted rational theologian. However, I believe that prioritizing evangelism and discipleship is actually the best long-term answer to enabling our churches to help more people.

If a church is facing dwindling numbers or limited resources, then I know it might be hard for some to stomach, but it might be necessary to cut back on other social programs the church is running, if there are not enough people or resources to continue to run them. Or at least, put the social programs on hold until the church is growing and sustainable again.

In the worst case scenario, maybe churches should downsize and find a new way of existing that is sustainable, even if it means they can no longer offer the social programs they used to, or if they have to sell their building.

After all, those people who are relying on the social services that a church provides will go elsewhere or will find other ways of surviving if the church goes under. But churches cannot sacrifice their own existence by focusing so much on these good things and serving others that they neglect evangelism. For doing so is to neglect their own future existence. Then no one gets helped.

Plus, there are many organizations out there that do offer various social programs and are not associated with churches. Why are churches duplicating these things which other organizations probably do them better, more efficiently, and more effectively, while churches neglect Jesus' commands to go and preach and make disciples?

Spreading the gospel is the only thing the church does that all the other organizations out there do not do. Personally, I would rather put my limited time, effort, and money into that task, rather than supporting other charities or organizations that don't directly share the gospel.

Some might say that the church being involved in offering social programs might inspire the people that benefit from them to attend church by demonstrating God's love to them. Or maybe the programs can attract non-Christians who are interested in serving others by working for common goals.

But in my experience, while this may be true for a small minority of people, on the whole, it seems that this approach does not lead to the boost in church attendance or commitment or conversions that churches need to become sustainable again. The number of new, consistent, and committed church attendees I've seen as a result of my small church's totally amazing service to many different communities over the years has led to no significant increase in our church size.

Yes, all this serving might be having an impact on some people's souls, such as introducing children to Jesus in summer camps, or chatting with homeless and poor individuals about God during the nights when they eat and sleep in the church's basement.

But ultimately, if our church is not growing, demographics will overtake it very quickly, and all these wonderful things my church does will cease anyway.

It reminds me of people who are so giving of themselves that they neglect their own health, sanity, and financial stability.

They give and give and give until they are unhealthy, burnt out, and penniless. Then those who have depended on their enabling and provision will either go elsewhere to get what they need, or, they will simply end up in the same situation that they would have ended up in anyway.

Plus, the individuals who were being cared for have, in all likelihood, still not learned the skills or made the changes that they would need to in order to get themselves out of the cycle of neediness and dependency that caused them to need help in the first place.

Jesus did say that we would always have the poor with us (Matthew 26:11). The church is never going to be able to solve that problem (nor, will the government, for that matter).

Some might say "Well, we just need to pray, and trust that God will sustain us to continue doing His work."

But again, let's remember what is the most important work the church does. That's where the church's priorities must be, in order to be faithful to Jesus.

Jesus' instructions to the church is not "go out and solve world hunger." It is not "go out and solve homelessness." It is not "go out and heal the sick." It is not "go out and adopt all the unwanted children out there to end abortion." It is not "go and advocate for all the minorities and oppressed peoples of the world." It is not "go out and reconcile all divisions between all people groups". Or whatever other socially good task we can imagine.

Of course these are all good things which individual Christians can be involved in according to our gifts and callings. And God is pleased when Christians do good, and promises us heavenly rewards for our personal involvement in these things (1 Corinthians 3:11-15). But these things are not our primary duty as Christians. We are commanded to go preach, teach, make disciples.

We might have these specific spiritual gifts. But if we don't, then building up the church, a.k.a the body of Christ, is the goal of all the spiritual gifts which the Holy Spirit gives to each Christian:

The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11-12, NRSV)

Spiritual gifts and Christian leadership roles are not given by God for the purpose of going out to fix the world. To think that Christians will save the world through our good works is as heretical as the idea that our good works can get us into heaven. Only Jesus saves the world. Our job is to tell the world about Jesus.

The Gospel Is Needed To Sustain Western Ethics

However, for anyone who is unconvinced by my argument so far and who still thinks the church needs to save the world through good works, I will argue here that society as a whole benefits directly from Christians sharing the gospel.

Historically, it is because of the widespread influence of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs over the last two-thousand years that Western culture has come to believe in caring for the poor and disadvantaged members of our society.

And it is the gospel which teaches us to overcome biases against people based on superficial characteristics. For example, the belief that God loves everyone equally means we should also love each person equally (Romans 13:8, John 13:34, 15:12).

In other societies people are often valued only based on their class, their race, their gender, their beauty, their wealth, or some other standard. In other societies things like murder, theft, torture, enslavement, or abuse are excused or overlooked if done against certain types of people. These are things that Christianity teaches are sinful.

So if Christianity dies out in Western countries due to a lack of evangelism, then in the long term, if Jesus doesn't return quickly enough, our society will lose these values. These values may persist for a few generations in the 'afterglow' of the gospel, when people still believe that being an ethical person is important.

However, sooner or later people with no religious background will begin asking themselves why they bother being good and loving people if, in the end, everything and everyone they love and care about will die.

For example, in a debate involving Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and psychologist Jordan Peterson, Peterson argued that the purpose of life is doing good, alleviating suffering, and fighting evil. Craig argued that if there is no God who gives people eternal life which makes our moral choices eternally significant, then doing good, alleviating suffering, and fighting evil makes no ultimate difference.2

For example, some might say that it is our families that gives our lives meaning. We want the world to be a good place for our children, and their children, and on and on. But from an atheistic perspective, why would it matter if our families continue, or if people in the future have good lives, if everything will ultimately be destroyed either in a nuclear war, a deadly pandemic, an asteroid impact, runaway climate change, a solar flare hitting Earth, the sun going supernova, or the final heat death of the universe?

The end result would be the same as if humanity had never existed. Whether we as individuals had happy lives or miserable lives would not matter or change anything.

And thus, if there is no eternal afterlife and no eternal impact we may make on someone's life, then why not just live for ourselves and our own pleasure?

The song "Imagine" by John Lennon would seem to say that's a good thing. One line goes "Imagine all the people living for today." But just imagine how terrifying that would be: rates of murder, rape, and theft would skyrocket!

Some might say that such a situation would not happen because people are inherently good, and people feel good when we do good for others, and so altruism would win out and prevent societal decline. People would still love their children, care for elderly parents, feed the poor, and so forth, because of the inherent goodness of their hearts, or their consciences, or their 'selfish' genes that program them to do such things to ensure humanity's continued existence.

As a Christian, I would say that yes, due to God's common grace, God preserves some sense of selflessness and good in humanity at large so that humanity does not self destruct in an apocalypse of individualistic selfishness before the end-times comes (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:7). Scripture also hints that our consciences can act as a sort of "law" unto themselves if necessary (Romans 2:14-16).

Thus, many human cultures have managed to not self-destruct without Judeo-Christian values because of people's God-given and common-grace-preserved consciences. But many societies have also fallen into human sacrifice, mass murder, slavery, and other extreme evils despite having consciences. Conscience is not infallible.

The Christian philosopher Kierkegaard, in his book Purity of Heart Is To Will One Thing, argued that each person should live in a way that we would be at peace if we were eternally trapped with our own consciences in the afterlife. He believes we do this by living for only "one thing", which is what he calls "the good" (i.e. God). Ancient Greek philosophers came to similar conclusions.3

But it is Christianity and not philosophy which made the incredible impact upon Western culture that has shaped our society as a whole such that individuals in Western cultures generally value doing good towards others.

I've even heard a contemporary philosopher say that if you can't teach your children philosophy, then take them to church, because there they will learn the same morals and ethics that the best philosophy can teach.

More importantly, though, you should take your children to church because they might just gain eternal life, if they believe in Jesus as their savior from the eternal death that their sins deserve.

Because philosophy has no solution to what each of us feels deep inside about our failure, our guilt, our inadequacy, and our mistakes and errors when we have failed to live up to what we know we should have done.

Yes, we can learn from our past, and try to live better. But because humanity has fallen into sin, it is impossible to rid ourselves of our selfishness, our greed, our pride, or our hatred by our own efforts. Philosophy, atheistic ethics, and our consciences cannot save us from sin. They can't give us ultimate meaning and purpose despite the suffering we all experience.

It is only Christianity which can relieve our guilty consciences. It is only in Jesus that we can have the promise of eternal life, which gives meaning to all of our lives and to the lives of everyone else in the world whom Christians desire to help.

This offer of free eternal life through faith in Christ is what Jesus has called Christians to share with the world. This must be our priority.

Those who want to focus on ethics and good works instead of the gospel should realize that by sharing the gospel, we are also sharing the values and ethics which can help improve the world. However, we can't just skip over the gospel and go straight to ethics, because without the gospel there is no foundation for Christian ethics.

Conclusion

If you want your church to continue to exist, the only solution is to evangelize. And that means training up average Christians through teaching doctrine and studying the Bible so that they can effectively share their beliefs and give compelling answers to questions they will face in the process.

Sharing the gospel is the essential mission and calling of the church, and of all Christians. It cannot be neglected for the sake of doing good works. Yet indirectly, sharing the gospel provides the only enduring foundation for the ethics which will improve the world. So those who want to do the most good in the world should also focus on evangelism.

Because a church which fails to reach out to others with the gospel and fails to train Christians to share the gospel will eventually die out. Regardless of how much good we do for others, or how much we love our services and worship and community, if our church does not spread the message of eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, then I would argue that it is not truly a church and Christians should not weep if it ceases to exist.

Fortunately, God has given us reassurance that the Church as a whole will not die out in this world, because not even the gates of hell will be able to overcome it (Matthew 16:17-19). However, we still have a job to do, and the future of our local churches and of Christianity in our city or country depends on Christians stepping out in faith to engage in evangelism and discipleship.

Footnotes:

1. Erik Parker, "Closing 9000 Churches In Canada – Why Decline Might Still Be A Good Thing In 2019", The Millennial Pastor, May 29, 2019.
2. "Is There Meaning to Life? | William Lane Craig, Rebecca Goldstein, Jordan Peterson - Toronto 2018" on *YouTube*, ReasonableFaithOrg, January 26, 2018.
3. "Form of the Good", Wikipedia.org

Do You Trust the Experts?

2021-09-29T00:01:00+00:00

Now that I've successfully defended my PhD, some people might consider me an 'expert' on at least some topics.

However, as I've progressed through my theological studies, I've become much less willing to trust someone just because they call themselves an expert, or even because they're recognized by others as an expert.

So in this post I want to encourage you to not just trust the experts, but to think for yourself. I'll also suggest some ways that I think you can go about the process of thinking for yourself.

And don't think for yourself just because I said so! Instead, I'd like you to read my argument for why I think you should think for yourself, and then decide for yourself whether you agree or disagree.

The Problem of Trusting Experts

Too many times in discussions on many different topics, I've seen someone offer some expert's conclusion as if that is enough to settle the argument or prove a point. Or, alternatively, I've seen people dismiss a person's arguments simply because that person is not deemed to be enough of an expert.

But either way, if you argue that an idea or fact is true or false based only on someone else's opinion that the idea or fact is true or false, this is to commit what's called the genetic fallacy.1 Fallacies are faulty ways of reasoning, and thus, if someone commits a fallacy, it makes their argument invalid. An invalid argument means that the argument can't contribute one way or the other to determining the truth of the issue being debated.

Now, I'm not saying that all experts are inherently untrustworthy, or that you should just ignore all the experts and go with your own first impression or gut instinct. Expert opinions are useful, because often experts have specialized training and knowledge that we don't have.

However, I think most people today can look around at the world and realize that just because some expert says something, it doesn't necessarily make it true.

This is even more clear when we consider that equally-qualified experts often disagree!

I've been in numerous debates where neither I nor my debate partner were personally experts on the details of a topic. Then each of us pulls out our favourite experts, and we each argue for why our expert should be trusted over the other person's expert. But in the end, neither of us is convinced by the other, and the debate has to end in an agreement to disagree. In particular, this happens when the evidence referred to by these experts is so specialized that it can't easily be understood or interpreted by the average person.

So then what do we do? How can we make decisions if the experts disagree, and if we don't have enough expertise to judge the evidence for ourselves?

The Problem of Vetting Experts

Some might say that we should look at people's certifications and degrees to determine who to trust. If an expert has degrees from a university that's deemed reputable, or if the expert has been certified by some organization, it can make it seem like the expert should be trustworthy.

However, this is just to push the problem back one step. Because who says that those people who judge a university to be reputable or not reputable, or who hand out the degrees or the certificates, or who do the peer-reviewed studies are themselves to be trusted? They're just other experts!

It's the same problem with people who claim to have the authority to fact-check information and judge whether an expert is telling the truth or not. Who says that the fact-checkers who are vetting these experts are correct? Other fact-checkers? Other experts? And the problem just begins all over again.

Even if you get a lot of experts together who all agree, it still doesn't necessarily mean something is true.

For example, all the experts back in Galileo's day would have said that the sun orbits around the earth. Just because they said so, though, has absolutely no power to determine what is reality. Even if every single person on the planet agreed that the sun orbits around the earth, it still wouldn't be true.

Conversely, to argue that someone is not enough of an expert on a subject is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the potential truthfulness of the arguments or evidence that this person may present.

For example, again, back in Galileo's time, the most uneducated or even completely insane person could have argued that the earth orbits around the sun, and it would have been true!

Today, an even dumber version of this problem of vetting experts occurs when people criticize not just the credentials of who is making an argument, but also what platform is being used to host or distribute this argument.

Just because something is on Youtube or Facebook or Twitter doesn't automatically make it true or reliable, and just because something is on Bitchute or Gab or other alternative platforms also doesn't make it automatically true or reliable. Just because something is in a published book sold at major retailers doesn't make it true, and just because something is posted on an obscure, very 1990s-looking text-only website doesn't make it true, either.

So then what do we do? If neither being an expert, being recognized by others as an expert, or having large numbers of experts agreeing on a fact or idea has anything to do with determining the truthfulness of that fact or idea, do we just give up on ever hoping to know what is true? Or is there some way that we can perhaps sort through the mess and try to figure out what is more likely to be true?

The Solution: Think for Yourself, Keep an Open Mind, and be Humble

In this life no-one is ever completely objective. We're all influenced by our past experiences, our culture, our family and friends, and the people that we've learned from.

However, when it comes to important issues, it's important to try to become as objective as possible. The way to do this is to look at all sides of an issue for ourselves, and to give experts on each side a fair chance to present their evidence and make a good case.

This requires humility, because we can't just assume that whatever position we initially prefer is necessarily true. We also can't assume that whatever we currently believe is automatically true. I've had the experience several times in my life of changing my mind on an issue after I allowed myself to read the opposing point of view and carefully consider their evidence with an open mind.

Of course, how long and how carefully you choose to do your own research depends on how important you think the issue is. That will depend on how serious you judge the potential consequences of choosing a position to be.

For example, I'm not going to spend time carefully considering the arguments of Flat-Earthers. That's not just because I think there's overwhelming evidence that the earth is round, but because ultimately, it doesn't really matter to me. People got through their lives just fine when they thought the world was flat, so it's not a life-or-death issue. I think people who argue on the topic could probably be using their time in better ways.

But when it comes to much more important issues that could have a significant impact on me, such as questions about personal medical treatments, or important theological questions that affect my understanding of God and his offer of eternal life, I'm more likely to take the time to try to research it by reading multiple points of view and considering their evidence carefully.

The Problem of Censorship

However, the procedure of carefully weighing the arguments for multiple sides of an issue can only occur provided that all sides of the issue and their supporting evidence are available to be fairly examined.

Unfortunately, there have always been people who think they have the right to determine what information other people should have access to. They also think they can decide which experts are credible and which experts should be discredited, slandered, de-platformed, have their books burned, be fired from their jobs, be arrested, or even be killed.

This problem is complicated by the fact that if you're a Christian, you likely agree with the idea that all people are sinful (Romans 3:10-12, 3:23, Ecclesiastes 7:20, Isaiah 53:6). That means all people have the potential to be selfish, to put our own interests ahead of the best interests of others, and to lie or mislead others out of that selfishness.

Yes, ALL PEOPLE. That includes me, you, strangers on the internet, our friends, our family, our teachers, our professors, our politicians (especially politicians), the media, the alternative media, scientists, doctors, judges, clergy, theologians, even the Pope! If someone is human, they're sinful (except for Jesus, who is also fully divine).

And, just in case anyone is inclined towards science fiction, any AI programmed by sinful humans is also going to be sinful, since those who program it will program it to behave and put out results in accord with their own sinful biases.

There's no possibility of avoiding sinful people on this planet other than the single person who committed no sin, who said he was the truth (John 14:6). And that's because Jesus is God, and God never lies (Titus 1:2). (Yes, these statements are obviously based on my belief that these verses are telling the truth, which you may disagree with, but we'll get to that later.)

Added to all of this is the problem that Satan is prowling around on the planet like a roaring lion (1 Peter 5:8), seeking to kill, steal, and destroy (John 10:10), and Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44). Satan hates the truth because Jesus is the truth, so Satan and his demonic minions will do anything and everything they can to suppress, distort, demean, slander, oppress, and deny the truth.

In a way, then, one criteria I find very interesting to use to determine what might be true, is to see what views are currently being persecuted, oppressed, silenced, etc. This doesn't always work, but it can be one piece of evidence to add on top of others, especially if there are good reasons why people might want to silence or persecute such views.

For example, why does our culture allow Christianity to be frequently criticized, while criticizing other popular monotheistic religions is seen as taboo? Maybe it's because there's something true about Christianity after all! Indirectly, then, persecution and censorship of Christianity can act as a sort of negative confirmation of the gospel's truth.

However, some people might object to my argument thus far. They might say, "But we can't let everyone run around and spread whatever ideas and information they want without anyone vetting the information! Someone might believe something that's untrue!"

And yes, that's a real possibility. But the benefit of allowing people to say what they want is that we can have an open, honest, and transparent debate where each side is free to bring their best evidence and try to refute the other side(s).

This process encourages further study that helps us sort through complex ideas, refine our arguments and do better research, and might result in us learning new things. Whereas if we preemptively decide which side is right and censor the others, we don't get any of that.

Even worse, because none of us are perfect, there's always the risk that the side we've preemptively decided is 'right' is actually wrong, and we become the bad guys who persecute those who are advocating for the truth. Do you want to take that risk? I don't.

Plus, I don't want to risk having the means of censorship fall into the hands of people with ulterior motives, who could then use it to censor me.

On top of all this, I think that if anyone moves toward censorship to promote their view rather than relying on honest and open debate based on reason and evidence, such a person is basically admitting that their preferred view has lost the argument, and the only tool left in their toolbox is the blatant use of power to oppress their opponent.

Therefore, even if there is a risk that some people will believe things that aren't true, we must allow people the right to disagree and to share their opinions openly without censorship. The alternative is too dangerous, and those who censor information risk ending up on the wrong side of history, and risk facing God's judgment, too.

What scares me even more than simple censorship though is that, once someone becomes convinced that their view is correct and then wants to censor other contrary views, it's not hard to imagine that they might want to stop people from sharing alternative views altogether. In the past, people who thought they were in the right killed the Old Testament prophets, they killed Jesus, they killed the early church Christians, they killed Protestants, they killed Catholics, they killed Jews, and more.

So even though I totally believe that Christianity is true, I would never want to have the power to block all non-Christian views from the internet or burn all books that advocate for other religions, even if doing so might be for people's spiritual benefit. Instead, I think it's better to let people debate, see the evidence for each side, and trust people to work it out for themselves, because then their belief will be stronger than if it is merely dictated from the top-down by "fact-checkers" or "experts".

Never mind that controlling people's beliefs through censorship never works, anyway. If people don't want to believe the fact-checkers or experts, they won't. No one can force people to believe something they don't want to believe, no matter how much solid evidence and good arguments exist for it. (This is why Flat-Earthers are still around).

Even after a thousand years of Jesus' personal direct rule on Earth during his future Millennial kingdom, the Bible says there will be so many people who reject Jesus that their "number is like the sand of the sea" (Revelation 20:8). So people can't be forced to believe anything, no matter how strong the evidence is or how censored the alternatives are.

So whenever someone comes along who wants to control what information you're allowed to access by trying to discredit particular experts or label certain ideas as 'fake news' or 'disinformation', don't necessarily trust them. Look things up for yourself, read all sides of the debate, and weigh the consequences of believing one side or another carefully before making your decision about who to trust.

And of course, you can always pray about it, because God says that one role of the Holy Spirit is to guide us to the truth (John 16:13). But this brings me to my last point.

It All Comes Down to Faith

There is something called confirmation bias, where we tend to believe the experts who say the same thing as what we already believed or what we want to believe, and we will tend to ignore or discount experts who disagree with our pre-existing viewpoints.2

Of course, whether confirmation bias is true could itself be debated. However, I think it's useful to remember that our judgments about who we choose to trust are personal choices, and each of us will come to different conclusions based on how we judge the evidence, and this judgment may be influenced what we want to believe.

For example, a notable atheist named Thomas Nagel has admitted that he simply doesn't want to believe in God. He wrote:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.3

How many other atheists out there are like him, but aren't willing to openly admit it?

Whereas for myself and many other Christians, we would admit that the atheistic idea that the universe has no ultimate meaning or purpose, or that there is no God who is perfect love who will one day bring justice and truth and righteousness to the world is extremely unappealing to us. Therefore, we will inherently trust experts who confirm our beliefs, because we want to support what we already believe, and we'll distrust experts who disagree with us.

Thus, in the end, I think confirmation bias is unavoidable. Even if we try the above method of being open minded and humble while investigating multiple sides of an issue, everyone still has to choose what they want to believe.

Some very noble and courageous people may simply want to believe the truth, no matter what that truth is. That's perhaps the best desire of all, since I'm convinced that honestly and diligently seeking truth will ultimately lead people to The Truth, which is Jesus Christ. But again, this requires that certain ideas are not being artificially suppressed and censored.

So please, let's learn how to agree to disagree, and to accept that there will always be a broad diversity of opinions in this fallen, sinful world. The only other option is to go back to holy wars where people kill each other over differences of belief, or we end up in oppressive societies where authorities censor, imprison, or execute those who dissent from their pre-selected views.

Conclusion

I believe that many things that each of us believe about the world are not actually facts, but are acts of faith.

For example, I have never personally done the observations and calculations to determine whether the sun orbits around the earth, or if the earth orbits around the sun. I trust the astronomical experts have got that one figured out. But I do recognize that although many people would consider the idea of the earth orbiting around the sun as a fact, the fact is, unless they've repeated the experiments for themselves, they're choosing to place their trust in the experts, and they have faith that what they are told by these experts is actually the truth.

This is just one obvious example, but it goes for many other things that we think are 'facts' but that we haven't personally proven. We choose people to trust and have faith in their expertise, and so we accept that what they say is a fact.

So, in many areas of life, we are in the same position as Adam and Eve, having to choose who to trust. In their case, they had a choice between trusting God, or listening to Satan. Unfortunately for us all, they chose the wrong 'expert' to trust, and it had devastating consequences that required the death of God's own Son to solve.

Many of our daily choices over who to trust won't ever be this serious. I've written elsewhere about these issues regarding our choice to believe whether the Bible is fully accurate or not. Our choice of what to believe about Jesus' offer of salvation to anyone who believes in him (John 3:16) is an even more important issue that, if you haven't made your mind up about it yet, you should seriously consider spending the time to investigate it carefully.

But regardless of whether you believe in Jesus or not, I would appeal to you to allow people to have the right to disagree with you, and not advocate for censorship of ideas that you find distasteful. Because the alternative is much worse.

Footnotes:

1. "Academic Writing: How to Avoid the Genetic Fallacy", Proofed.com, September 10, 2020.
2. Shahram Heshmat, "What Is Confirmation Bias?", Psychology Today, April 23, 2015.
3. Annie Holmquist, "An Atheist Explains the True Reason Religion Terrifies Him", Intellectual Takeout, June 14, 2018.

Mistaking the Antichrist for Jesus

2021-09-29T00:00:00+00:00

One thing I've wondered about over the years is why most people who will be alive during the future seven-year Tribulation will worship the Antichrist.

We have many warnings in the Bible about false Christs, false prophets, and false teachers. We also have very specific details in the books of Daniel and Revelation about the Antichrist. So why would anyone willingly follow him? Won't it be obvious to everyone that he's the prophesied evil Antichrist?

In various end-times movies and books, the Antichrist is portrayed as a powerful, charming, and good-looking politician or world leader who rises up during the chaos that follows the Rapture, and eventually gains control of the entire world. But would that really be enough to persuade most people to worship him?

I think the answer is found in how the prefix "anti-" in the term "Antichrist" can also mean that he will not just be "against" or "opposed to" Christ, but he will also come "instead of" or "in place of" Christ.1

So I think one reason why so many people will follow the Antichrist is because they will have mistaken him for Jesus, because the Antichrist will try to impersonate Jesus.

In this post I'll compare and contrast Jesus and the Antichrist, and I'll also propose one major reason for why many people during the Tribulation will be deceived by the Antichrist.

I hope this post will encourage Christians today that no matter how dark the world seems to be getting, we're not yet in the Tribulation. Also, since the Antichrist has not yet appeared, we are not yet facing the choice of taking the Mark of the Beast.

Major Traits of the Antichrist

Here's some of the most identifiable traits of the Antichrist, in roughly the same chronological order that they will appear:

he first appears on a white horse and goes out to conquer at the start of the Tribulation (Revelation 6:2), after the Rapture.
he is somehow associated with the number 666 (Revelation 13:18).
he will have no respect for laws or the rule of law (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 2:8).
he will make or confirm a peace deal between Israel and "many" that will last for seven years (Daniel 9:27). This deal will allow Israel to rebuild their temple and restart their Old-Testament sacrificial system.
ten leaders will give him power to rule the whole world (Revelation 17:12-13, 13:7-8).
he will blaspheme God (Revelation 13:5-6).
he will kill the two witnesses who will prophesy in Jerusalem for 1260 days (Revelation 11:7-8).
he may receive a deadly/fatal wound with a sword/knife of some sort, but this wound will be healed (Revelation 13:3-4, 13:12-14). This apparent miracle will cause people to marvel and worship him.
halfway through the seven-year Tribulation, he will declare himself to be God in Israel's temple and end their sacrifices (2 Thessalonians 2:4, Daniel 9:27, Daniel 11:31, Daniel 12:11, Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14).
he will demand that everyone worship an image of the Antichrist or die (Revelation 13:15).
he will be endorsed by a religious leader who does impressive miracles for him (Revelation 13:11-14).
this religious leader will demand that everyone take the Mark of the Beast in/on their right hands or foreheads to be able to buy and sell (Revelation 13:16-17).
he will persecute the Tribulation saints and overcome them (Revelation 13:7).
he will be captured and thrown into the lake of fire at Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:20).

There are possibly several more obscure traits of the Antichrist than just these listed here, but I think the above are the clearest and least debateable. For more on this topic, I recommend Mark Hitchcock's book Who Is The Antichrist? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2011).

What's important to note is that there has not yet been anyone in world history who has matched all of these characteristics. There have been people in the past who acted in somewhat similar ways, but these people were only a foreshadowing of the Antichrist who will appear and rule during the Tribulation.

Given all the above, it should be quite easy for anyone who will believe in Jesus after the Rapture to identify the Antichrist, and thus, to avoid worshiping him or taking his Mark of the Beast either accidentally or unknowingly.

So why will most people still worship him? Why would they risk suffering the punishment that the Bible warns will happen to those who take the Antichrist's Mark:

If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:9-11)

I think it's because they will be convinced that the Antichrist actually is God, because he'll impersonate Jesus.

How the Antichrist Will Impersonate Jesus

What I've noticed in my reading of the book of Revelation is that there are some notable similarities between what the Antichrist will do when he appears, and what God does or what Jesus will do at his second coming. This leads me to suspect that some of the Antichrist's actions during the Tribulation will be intended to trick people into believing that he is Jesus (or at least, that he is the Jews' real messiah).

For example:

both the Antichrist and Jesus will make their appearances on a white horse (Revelation 6:2, 19:11). I think that because Jesus' appearance on a white horse will be visible to the whole world, the Antichrist will also probably have a nice photo-op of himself sitting on a white horse at some point early on in his rise to power.
the Antichrist might very well proclaim to have come back from the dead like Jesus did, if he does somehow recover from a deadly wound (Revelation 13:3-4, 13:12-14).
both the Antichrist and Jesus will require that people worship them or die (Revelation 13:15, 20:15, Matthew 25:41).
both the Antichrist and Jesus will wipe out their enemies in battle (Revelation 13:7, 19:14-15).
both the Antichrist and Jesus will rule the entire world (Revelation 13:7-8, 19:15).
both the Antichrist and Jesus/God place marks on their followers' foreheads (Revelation 13:16, 7:3, 9:4, 14:1, 22:4).

These similarities shouldn't be surprising, because not only does Satan hate God, but Satan actually also wants to be worshipped as God (Matthew 4:8-10). By having the Antichrist impersonate Jesus in these ways, Satan tries to impersonate God, and during the Tribulation he will try to receive humanity's worship which is meant only for God (Revelation 13:4).

Differences Between Jesus and the Antichrist

But, obviously, there are some major differences between Jesus and the Antichrist:

Jesus never demands that people worship an image of him, and throughout the Bible, idolatry is always a sin.
the followers of Jesus are willing to die (Revelation 20:4), whereas the followers of the Antichrist are willing to kill (Revelation 13:7, John 16:2).
God marked his people spiritually on their foreheads during times of divine judgment (Ezekiel 9:4, Revelation 7:3), but the Antichrist marks his followers physically on the hand or forehead (Revelation 13:16).
Jesus' kingdom will last for 1000+ years (Revelation 20:1-3), where the Antichrist technically rules the world only for three-and-a-half years (Revelation 13:5).
Jesus' rule will be characterized by justice, righteousness and peace (Jeremiah 23:5-6), where the Antichrist's rule will be characterized by worldwide destruction, war, and violence (Revelation 13:7, 16:13-14, 20:4).

Why People Will Mistake The Antichrist For Jesus

So although we've looked at some ways that the Antichrist is similar and dissimilar to Jesus, we still haven't necessarily answered the question of why so many people will be deceived into thinking the Antichrist is Jesus.

I think the answer is to be found in versions of Christian eschatology (i.e. teachings about the end-times) that do not anticipate a yet-future Tribulation. That is, they don't teach that there will be a future seven-year period of God's wrath being poured out on earth before Jesus returns to rule the world at his Second Coming.

These systems of eschatology confuse the Rapture and the Second Coming, and make the two distinct events identical when actually the conditions at the Rapture and the Second Coming are very different, like I've talked about here.

This mistaken eschatological understanding will likely lead many otherwise Biblically-informed people to believe that the Antichrist is actually the second-coming of Jesus (or at least, the Jews' Messiah).

This deception will be helped by how the Antichrist will probably portray himself as the saviour of humanity. He'll probably promise that if people just do what he says, he'll save the world from climate change, from nuclear destruction, from financial collapse, or from anything else that furthers his agenda and attracts people's support.

If the Antichrist happens to have a well-known Biblical name that's also attributed to Jesus, like, say, "Emmanuel" which means "God with us" (Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14), the deception would be even more convincing.

This is why Jesus gives very clear warnings to prevent people from being deceived by false Christs/Messiahs, especially during the Tribulation:

For many will come in my name, saying, "I am the Christ," and they will lead many astray. (Matthew 24:5. See also Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8)

Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There he is!" do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, "Look, he is in the wilderness," do not go out. If they say, "Look, he is in the inner rooms," do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (Matthew 24:23-27)

Unfortunately, there will probably be a large number of people who call themselves Christians who will be left behind after the Rapture. These left-behind Christians-in-name-only will probably deny that the Rapture just happened. This is because these people won't want to admit they were left behind for never having had personal faith in Jesus as their savior.

These people will easily fall for the deception and believe that the Antichrist is actually the second coming of Jesus Christ, or maybe that he's a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, or he's the "real" Jesus Christ (versus that fake impostor whose lying disciples misled people 2000 years ago).

We're warned that the Antichrist's deception will be very powerful indeed:

The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-12)

These deceived people will also eagerly accept whatever lie the Antichrist invents to explain away the Rapture.

Maybe the Antichrist will claim that those millions of people who disappeared were removed by God for being horrible, hateful, judgmental, and divisive people who were holding humanity back from the wonderful future of worldwide love, tolerance, peace, and unity that God wants to set up through the Antichrist.

Or maybe he'll say that those who disappeared at the Rapture were left behind in an alternative dimension or reality until they learn their lessons and are ready to join the rest of humanity who have 'evolved' or 'ascended' into a new superior level of consciousness or spiritual reality.

Or maybe he'll say that those who were raptured were actually abducted by aliens that only the Antichrist can save the world from? Or maybe he'll claim that the aliens are actually angels who took away or killed all those awful, evil people for the good of the rest of humanity?

Who knows. But whatever the Antichrist's false explanation for the Rapture will be, it will probably be insulting to those who were raptured, since Revelation 13:6 warns that the Antichrist will blaspheme God, heaven, and also "those who dwell in heaven" (i.e. raptured and resurrected Christians).

This lie that slanders God and true Christians will likely be part of why the world as a whole won't have a problem with the Antichrist persecuting and killing people who do believe in Jesus after the Rapture. Jesus warns us that

Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God. And they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me. (John 16:2-3)

Many of those who insist on staying faithful to God during this time will be beheaded (Revelation 20:4). But these people will be resurrected shortly after Jesus' second coming, and they'll be rewarded by ruling the world with Jesus for the next thousand years. So that's not so bad, and it's far better than what the followers of the Antichrist will receive (Revelation 14:9-11).

Conclusion

So in addition to the various warnings we've been given in the Bible about the characteristics of the Antichrist, the Bible's teachings about the pre-Tribulation Rapture and a future seven-year Tribulation before the second coming of Christ are important to help identify the Antichrist.

In contrast, any systems of doctrine that don't teach about the yet-future Tribulation or the Rapture are potentially setting people up to fall for the Antichrist's deception.

But this can all be summarized into one major point that I've made before:

However, on the flip side, if we don't yet see anyone who fulfills the above characteristics of the Antichrist, then we can trust that the Antichrist is not currently in power, and therefore, the Mark of the Beast also is not currently available (no matter how similar some ideas being proposed and enforced by our governments might appear right now).

This isn't meant to scare anyone. I'm confident that even if Christians who are paying attention today can see that the Tribulation is approaching fast, we'll be raptured before the Antichrist will be revealed, and before we have to make any choices about whether to take the Mark of the Beast. So I hope this article can comfort you if you have believed in Jesus as your savior, if you're worried about the way things are going in the world.

To anyone who finds this blog post after the Rapture has happened, I hope it can help counteract whatever the mainstream narrative will be at that time, help you identify the Antichrist, and encourage you to give your life to Jesus now, so that you can rule with Jesus during his millennial kingdom that's only seven years away.

Footnotes:

1. Mark Hitchcock, Who Is The Antichrist? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2011), 41.

My Top 5 Reasons For The Pre-Tribulation Rapture

2021-09-17T00:00:00+00:00

Given all that we're seeing in the world today, I suspect that at least some Christians are wondering if we're in the Tribulation: the period of seven years characterized by many divinely-sent disasters upon the Earth before Jesus returns to set up his Millennial kingdom.

My answer is no, we're not yet in the Tribulation. And the reason we know we're not in the Tribulation is because the Church (i.e., all true Christians) will be suddenly removed from this world and taken to heaven at some point before the Tribulation begins.

This sudden event is often called "the Rapture" among English-speaking Christians.

One frequent but lazy objection to this doctrine is that the word "Rapture" isn't found in the Bible. That's because the term comes from the Latin word rapere meaning "caught up" as it's translated in 1 Thessalonians 4:17.1 The original Greek word here is derived from the verb harpazo, also meaning "to catch up".2 Specifically, the verb harpazo has the nuance of "to snatch" in the sense of "a forceful or violent seizing".3

Unfortunately, the idea of the Rapture is disputed and sometimes even mocked by some Christians.

So in this article I want to present my top five reasons for why I believe the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation Rapture is correct, and why Christians should be comforted by this hope as we consider where the world seems to be rapidly headed, as I have here and here.

Reason 1: Jesus Returns for His Church When Life is Normal

Jesus teaches his disciples that when he returns, life will be going on mostly like normal for most people in the world, and the people left behind on earth after the Rapture will be surprised and caught off guard by the sudden arrival of God's judgment:

But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left. Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. (Matthew 24:36-42)

A similar passage is found in Luke:

If you read the stories of Noah in Genesis 7 and Lot in Genesis 19, you'll see that in both cases, Noah's and Lot's societies were going on just like normal until Noah entered the ark and rain started to fall, or until Lot was dragged out of Sodom by the angels.

There is debate over whether these verses in Matthew and Luke are talking about the Rapture or not. However, I'm convinced they must refer to the Rapture which leads to the beginning of the Tribulation. This is because I can't accept that the description of "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" or working in fields, milling grain, planting, building, etc. will be happening on a worldwide scale at the end of the Tribulation.

Just take a quick skim through Revelation chapters 6 to 19, and you'll clearly see that life will be anything but 'normal' for people living on earth during the Tribulation.

For starters, in the Second Seal judgment there is worldwide war or violence (Revelation 6:4), and in the Third Seal judgment there is some sort of economic crisis that makes the basic food staples cost an entire day's wages (Revelation 6:5-6). Next, twenty-five percent of the world's population dies in the Fourth Seal judgment (Revelation 6:8).

In the Sixth Seal judgment something happens that reminds me of those asteroid-impact movies that came out back in the 1990s:

The sun goes dark, the moon turns red, and the stars fall to earth (meteorites?). There's an earthquake that moves every island and mountain from their places, and then

the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?" (Revelation 6:15-17)

And it only gets worse from there.

Later judgments burn up a third of the earth and all grass (Revelation 8:7), turn the sea to blood and kill sea creatures (Revelation 8:8-9, 16:3), and poison a large portion of the world's fresh water (Revelation 8:10-11, 16:4). Another third of the surviving population are killed by angels released from the Euphrates river (Revelation 9:15). Many large earthquakes and other judgments will happen on top of the deadly persecution unleashed by the Antichrist against those who believe in Jesus during the Tribulation period (Revelation 13:7, 13:15).

Jesus says that the Tribulation will be the most awful time that humanity has ever experienced:

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. (Matthew 24:21-22, also Mark 13:19-20)

So can we really imagine that after all of that, at Jesus' second coming in Revelation 19:11-16, life will be going on as usual? Buying, selling, planting, marrying? Probably not so much. It will probably be more like those post-apocalyptic movies where people are just trying to dodge one disaster after another (Amos 5:18-19).

In fact, if we examine Revelation chapter 18, it says that at the judgment of the end-times entity called "Babylon," the merchants of the world will weep because there is no one who can buy their goods (Revelation 18:11-13), and there won't be anyone playing music, or building, or milling grain, or getting married (Revelation 18:21-24). This is before Jesus returns at the Second Coming in Revelation 19.

But if Matthew 24:36-42 and Luke 17:26-30 refer to the Rapture which happens before the Tribulation, then these verses are much more compatible with the detailed outline of future events given in the book of Revelation.

The Rapture happening before the Tribulation also matches with a shorter chronological outline of the end times given by Paul. He says:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15:21-26)

See how Christ is resurrected first, and when Christ comes (at the Rapture) all Christians are resurrected/transformed. Then the 'end' comes (the Tribulation), which results in the destruction of the Antichrist and all rebellious people who oppose Jesus (Revelation 19:19-21), and finally, death itself is destroyed (Revelation 20:14).

Elsewhere, Jesus also warns that the Tribulation will come on the world like a "snare" or "trap" (Luke 21:34-35), so it will be sudden, without warning or most people being able to see it or avoid it.

Paul repeats this warning and adds details:

For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'There is peace and security,' then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. (1 Thessalonians 5:2-6)

So even if the world won't see the Rapture and the start of the Tribulation coming, and it will be a sudden, surprising event to them, Christians who are paying attention should be able to know when the Rapture is getting close, even if we won't be able to pinpoint the exact day or hour.

Reason 2: The Freaked-Out Thessalonians

Considering the details about the Tribulation that I've just described above, the doctrine of the Rapture is really, really good news to Christians living today.

It's not as good of news as Jesus' offer of eternal life to anyone who believes in him (John 3:16), but the Rapture is definitely some of the best news we're given in the Bible. Titus even calls it the "blessed hope" (Titus 2:13). Because who in their right mind would want to endure all of the judgments in the book of Revelation if there were a way to avoid them?

We just have to look at how the Thessalonian Christians reacted when someone misled them into thinking they had entered the Tribulation (a.k.a. the Day of the Lord).

Paul writes to them and says:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-4)

Paul is trying to reassure these Christians that they didn't miss the Rapture ("the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him" in v.1), and so they are not in the Tribulation. He does this by reminding them that there's certain signs they would have seen if indeed they were in the Tribulation.

The main sign is that the Antichrist will be revealed. Many commentators argue this is the figure on the white horse seen in the First Seal judgment (Revelation 6:2). Halfway through the Tribulation the Antichrist will enter the rebuilt Jewish temple and declare himself to be God (Matthew 24:15-16, Mark 13:14, Daniel 9:27), and will demand that everyone worship him as God or be killed (Revelation 13:5, 13:15, Daniel 7:21). Since the Antichrist had not yet been revealed, the Thessalonians were not in the Tribulation.

Another sign Paul mentions is that "the rebellion" comes before the Antichrist appears. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the original Greek word apostasia is translated often into English as "rebellion," "falling away," or "apostasy".4

Some argue that the "rebellion" or "apostasy" is some sort of widespread falling away from Christianity. Unfortunately, it's hard to say if such a falling away has already happened, is happening, or is still in the future.

If Paul is just describing what he goes on to say in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 that God will bring delusion on people who have refused to believe the truth, so that they will believe the Antichrist's deception, I don't see how this is helpful for the Thessalonians. The Antichrist has to be around before he can deceive people to make them fall away from faith, but then the apostasy would happen after the Antichrist appears, not before it.

It is true that we are told that in the "later times" some people will fall away from faith and believe the "teachings of demons" (1 Timothy 4:1). Specifically, these false teachers will forbid marriage and prohibit the eating of certain foods/meats (1 Timothy 4:3). But there's no mention of the Antichrist in this verse, or the deception of false Christs that Jesus warns about in relation to the Tribulation (Matthew 24:23-27).

Forbidding marriage and prohibiting eating certain foods are not teachings that the Bible associates with the Antichrist, but they were problems in the early church. The issue of whether Christians should eat meat was dealt with by Paul in Romans 14, and the question of whether Christians should marry or not was addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. So I'm not convinced that 1 Timothy 4:1 is referring to some general falling away from Christian faith before the Rapture.

Alternatively, a few scholars have argued that the term apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 can be translated as "the departure".5 If so, this would be an explicit statement by Paul that the Rapture happens before the Antichrist is revealed. And the Antichrist will be revealed at the very start of the Tribulation (Revelation 6:2) when he confirms some sort of covenant/agreement with "many" which is supposed to last for seven years (Daniel 9:27).

If apostasia in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 does mean "the departure" (of Christians to heaven where we'll wait out the seven-year Tribulation), then Paul's teaching to the Thessalonians would line up exactly with what Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 24 and Luke 17, as we looked at already, and it would be a much more identifiable event than some undefined falling away from Christian faith. To me, this is the most convincing reason why I'd opt to translate apostasia as "the departure," in which case, this verse would mean that Paul is clearly reminding the Thessalonians to not worry because they will be raptured before the Tribulation begins.

But even if this particular verse does not teach the Rapture, in an earlier letter, Paul reminded the Thessalonians to serve God and "to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come" (1 Thessalonians 1:10). To me, this sounds like the Rapture. If so, then we can say for sure that Paul did teach the Thessalonians about the Rapture, and it can explain why the Thessalonians were so concerned that they had missed the Rapture and were going to face God's worldwide outpouring of wrath in the Tribulation.

We can reach the same conclusion that Paul was reminding the Thessalonians that they were not yet in the Tribulation in another way.

Let's imagine that Paul had never taught the Thessalonians about the Rapture, and instead he had told them to watch for the appearance of the Antichrist and had taught them they would have to endure through the Tribulation. If this were true, then why would they be alarmed? Shouldn't they have been excited, if they knew that those things had to happen before Jesus returned?6

Therefore, I think the most plausible reason that the Thessalonians were freaked-out when they falsely heard that the Tribulation had begun was because they were expecting to be raptured beforehand, as Paul had taught them.

Reason 3: The Rapture is A Comforting Doctrine

Building on these earlier two reasons, we can see that the Rapture is meant to be a comforting, encouraging doctrine. This is confirmed in one of the major passages that describes the Rapture:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words. (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18)

Paul specifically says that this teaching should be encouraging. I don't believe the Rapture would be as encouraging if Christians had to endure all the terrible things that will happen in the Tribulation beforehand.

Elsewhere, Paul repeats that the Rapture will involve the resurrection of all deceased Christians, and then the bodies of all Christians who are currently alive will be instantly changed from mortal to immortal:

Combining these two passages gives us the clearest understanding of what happens at the Rapture: all Christians who have died since the time of the early church will be instantly resurrected, followed shortly or even instantly by the transformation of all living Christians' bodies into our glorified eternal ones. All of us will then be "caught up" to be with Jesus forever.

If this isn't enough, there's a third similar passage:

For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build one another up, just as you are doing. (1 Thessalonians 5:9-10)

Note that in this verse "awake" means "alive" and "asleep" means "dead", similar to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 above.

So when it happens, all Christians, whether dead or alive, will be raptured and given their final immortal glorified bodies, escaping the wrath of God that falls on the world during the Tribulation, and will be united with Jesus forever. That's definitely an encouraging, comforting promise.

Reason 4: God Promises to Protect Faithful People From His Wrath

But we don't have to look just at these passages to trust that God will rapture us before the Tribulation. We can also look at how God acted in the past. There is good precedent for the Rapture in how we see that historically, God always removes his faithful people before he brings his judgment or wrath on a society.

We've already seen in Reason 1 how Jesus refers to both Noah and Lot as examples of what it will be like when Jesus returns at the Rapture. Noah was considered righteous (Genesis 6:9, 7:1) and so he and his family were spared the judgment that fell on everyone else.

When Abraham bargains with God over the fate of Sodom, Abraham bases it on the fact that God doesn't destroy the righteous along with the wicked (Genesis 18:25). Unfortunately, Lot and his family were the only ones rescued.

In other incidents in the Old Testament, God also protects faithful believers from God's widespread judgment (e.g. Exodus 9:5-7, 9:25-26, 10:22-23, 12:12-13, Joshua 6:25, Ezekiel 9:4-6).

We've also mentioned Paul's statement that Jesus will return from heaven to deliver Christians from the "wrath to come" (1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Jesus himself promises the Philadelphian church that

Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. (Revelation 3:10)

We're not just kept from the wrath or judgments that will come on the world during the Tribulation, but from the entire time of the Tribulation.

So where will the Philadelphian church (along with all other Christians) be during the Tribulation?

Jesus told his disciples:

This promise matches well with Paul's descriptions of the Rapture discussed in Reason 3. It also fits better with the description of Rapture than with the description of Jesus' second-coming at the end of the Tribulation. This is because in this verse Jesus says he'll take us to where he is (the Father's house, i.e. heaven) where he has been preparing places for us, not that he will come to where we are (earth) and only then prepare places for us. And again, Jesus says this promise should keep his disciples' hearts from being troubled.

Reason 5: The Difference Between the Church and the Tribulation Saints

If the Tribulation comes on the entire world, this also implies that the Church can't be on earth when the Tribulation happens.

Confirmation of this is seen in how throughout the book of Revelation chapters 6 to 19, there is not a single instance of the word "church". There are saints, but the term "church" is used only in chapters 1-3. If the Church were on earth during the Tribulation, why wouldn't we be mentioned throughout chapters 6 to 19 also?

I think the answer is that the Christians of the Tribulation period are not the same group as the Christians who have made up the Church for the last 2000 years. This fact seems confirmed when we note that Jesus promises that the gates of hell won't overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18), but Satan will overcome the saints who are on earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 13:7).

When Jesus returns for the battle of Armageddon, he comes with the "armies of heaven" who are on white horses (Revelation 19:14). As Jude notes, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness'" (Jude 1:14-15). This army will include the raptured, resurrected Christians who have been in heaven for the previous seven years of the Tribulation.

Why? Because Paul says once we're raptured, "so we will always be with the Lord" (1 Thessalonians 4:17). If Jesus is coming back to earth to set up his Millennial kingdom, we'll be with him.

In contrast, these Tribulation saints who were beheaded for not taking the Mark of the Beast are resurrected only after the battle of Armageddon and are rewarded with ruling privileges during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4). The differences between these two groups shows that the saints who are killed during the Tribulation are not the same as the Christians who were raptured before the Tribulation.

More evidence can be found if we look at John as a 'type' of Christians who will be raptured. After the seven letters to the churches in Revelation chapters 2-3, John suddenly sees a "door" open in heaven, a voice like a trumpet that says "come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this" (Revelation 4:1). This seems very similar to Paul's description of the Rapture that happens with a shout and a trumpet (1 Thessalonians 4:16), and it happens in the right place in the book of Revelation in terms of chronology (i.e., the Rapture happens at the end of the Church age and the start of the Tribulation).

Instantly, John is in heaven, and he sees twenty-four thrones with elders sitting on them, wearing white robes and crowns. Angels are never described as wearing crowns or sitting on thrones, so these elders can't be angels. But it would make sense that, if John saw a preview of the Rapture, the next thing he would see is a vision of the Church, made up of all Christians whose works have been judged by Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11-15), and rewarded with the ruling privileges that Christ has promised to faithful Christians (Luke 19:17, 2 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 6:3, Revelation 2:26-27, etc.).

So there are clearly two different groups of saints who rule and reign with Christ:

The Church, made up of Christians beginning from the early church until the Rapture. After we're raptured we'll be rewarded, and will wait out the Tribulation in heaven, in the 'rooms' that Christ is preparing for us, and will return with Jesus in the clouds at the battle of Armageddon to help rule in the Millennial kingdom.
Tribulation saints who are Christians who convert after the Rapture, who remain on earth during the Tribulation, and many of whom will be killed by the Antichrist for not taking the Mark of the Beast. They will be resurrected and rewarded after the battle of Armageddon, and will also help rule in the Millennial kingdom.

If you're reading this before the Rapture happens, and you believe that Jesus died for your sins so that you can have eternal life, then congratulations, you're part of group #1. You can have the peace and comfort of knowing that no matter how bad things get now, you won't have to experience the Tribulation. No matter what persecution we might face before the Rapture happens, it's not the wrath of God, and we can look forward to Jesus returning soon to take us to be with him forever.

If you're reading this after millions of people all around the world have suddenly disappeared, and out of this chaos some person has risen to sudden prominence and power who seems to have all the answers, who confirms a covenant with "many", and who is supported by a powerful religious leader, then if you believe that Jesus died for your sins so you can have eternal life, you're potentially part of group #2. Hold on to your faith, don't take the Mark of the Beast, and if you're beheaded for refusing to worship the Antichrist as God, you can look forward to being resurrected and rewarded after Jesus returns.

Bonus Reason 6: The Sheep and Goats Judgment

There is a further strong argument for why the Rapture cannot happen at the end of the Tribulation.

Once Jesus returns and wins the Battle of Armageddon, he will judge the Tribulation survivors at the Sheep and Goats Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). Based on its setting, who is judged, and the criteria used to judge people, we know this is a different judgment than the ultimate "final judgment" in Revelation 20:11-15.7

In the Sheep and Goats Judgment, people are judged by their works to determine whether they will be allowed to enter Jesus' Millennial Kingdom (Matthew 25:34), which will last for a thousand years on earth (Revelation 20:4).

If people helped those who were hungry, thirsty, took in strangers who needed shelter, or visited those who were sick or in prison, Jesus will count these actions as if they were done toward himself (Matthew 25:35-40). These people will be allowed to enter Jesus' kingdom.

During the Tribulation, the main groups of people who will be hungry, thirsty, in need of shelter, and may be in prison will be Christians and Jews who refuse to take the Mark of the Beast. As a result, they will have been cut off from the global financial system and will have no ability to buy or sell anything (Revelation 13:16-18). The Antichrist will also be making war against them, and will be winning (Revelation 13:7).

For anyone in such a situation to share their resources with others, or visit someone who has been thrown in jail and risk being discovered themselves, it will require great faith that God will provide for them and protect them. Visiting someone who is sick when the visitor also doesn't have access to medical care would similarly require faith that God will not let them also become infected.

So it seems these people's actions toward others who are being persecuted will demonstrate that these "sheep" have faith in Jesus, even if they didn't fully realize it at the time. As a result, the "sheep" will also be counted as righteous, and will be eternally saved. In contrast, the "goats" will be those Tribulation survivors who did not do any of these things, which will demonstrate their lack of faith in Christ. As a result, they will be thrown into the lake of fire to be eternally destroyed (Matthew 25:41-46).8

We also know that anyone who takes the Mark of the Beast will be tormented in and eventually destroyed by the Lake of Fire (Revelation 14:9-11), just like the Antichrist and False Prophet will be after they are defeated at Jesus' second coming (Revelation 19:20). So we can be sure that no one who took the Mark will be allowed into Jesus' Millennial Kingdom.

So it is only the "sheep" who will survive this judgment and be able to enter Jesus' Millennial Kingdom in their mortal bodies. They will marry and have children in order to help repopulate the world during the next thousand years.

Now let us consider this Sheep and Goats Judgment in relation to the Rapture.

If the Rapture happened at the second coming at the end of the Tribulation, then there would be no "sheep" at this judgment, because everyone who fit the criteria to be such "sheep" would all have been raptured, as they would be believers. They would rise up into the clouds to meet Jesus, and then immediately return with Jesus as his armies of heaven in their immortal, glorified bodies (Revelation 19:14).

Yet Jesus said that those who are resurrected/raptured will no longer marry or be given in marriage, but will be like the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30). So no one who is resurrected and/or instantly changed from mortal to immortal at the Rapture will ever get married again. Since God's design is for sex to be only within a context of marriage, we can say that immortal people will not be having children, either.

But if all the righteous people at the end of the Tribulation are raptured and changed to immortal, and all the unbelievers and those who took the Mark of the Beast are thrown into the Lake of Fire, then no one would be left alive in their mortal bodies who could enter Jesus' Millennial Kingdom to marry and repopulate the world.

Furthermore, there would not even be a reason to have the Sheep and Goats judgment, because everyone who was not raptured would automatically be a "goat" who would be doomed to face eternal destruction.

Thus, the only way the Sheep and Goats judgment makes any sense is if the Rapture happens before the Tribulation, which would allow more people to believe in Jesus during the Tribulation as the Bible says they will (Revelation 7:9-11).

Although many of these new believers will die during the Tribulation, those who are killed for their faith by refusing to worship the Antichrist or take his Mark of the Beast will be resurrected at the end of the Tribulation, and they will help Jesus and the raptured CHristians rule the world during the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20:4). For those who survive, they will go into Jesus' Millennial Kingdom in their regular human bodies, and will repopulate the world during this blessed thousand years.

Conclusion

So there you have it: my top reasons why I'm convinced the Rapture has to happen before the Tribulation. Hopefully this has been an encouraging plunge into pre-millennial eschatology.

To me, the above reasons are so persuasive that I simply cannot believe anyone who argues that the Rapture will happen halfway through or at the end of the Tribulation. All of the above verses only fit together consistently with themselves and the rest of Scripture if the Rapture occurs before the Tribulation.

Of course, there are many other websites out there that have articles about the Rapture and the Tribulation. Some are good, some are misleading, and some try to refute the idea altogether. Even on the good sites, there will be a mixed bag of truth and more questionable ideas.

Maybe I've even gotten some things wrong here. I hope not, and I've tried to be careful, but if you're interested in the topic and want even more details and arguments for the pre-Tribulation Rapture and pre-Millennial return of Christ, I would recommend that you read:

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979).
John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959).

Footnotes:

1. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 12.
2. The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibegesellschaft, 1993/2001), 536.
3. William D. Mounce, Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 100.
4. The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader's Edition (Stuttgart: Deutche Bibegesellschaft, 1993/2001), 539.
5. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 239-240.
6. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 240-241, 244.
7. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1959), 271, 285-288.
8. "The works of mercy and compassion of these Gentiles toward Christ will demonstrate that they are believers. Their deeds wll evidence the righteous character of their regenerated nature (v 27; 1 John 3:10)". Hal M. Haller Jr., "Matthew", in The Grace New Testament Commentary Vol. 1, ed. Robert N. Wilkin (Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010), 121.

Important: Regarding Buying and Selling

2021-09-01T00:00:00+00:00

Because of current events happening in the world lately, I thought a reminder regarding buying and selling is in order.

Revelation 13 describes two future world leaders, the "Beast" (a.k.a. the Antichrist) and the "False Prophet" religious leader who will endorse and support the Beast.

At some point during the future seven-year-long Tribulation period, John says the False Prophet

causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom: let the one who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man, and his number is 666. (Revelation 13:16-18).

We are warned that

if anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:9-11)

Regardless of whether this passage supports eternal conscious torment or not, it does say that there will be very serious negative eternal consequences for people who accept the Mark of the Beast. I don't see any hint in the wording of the verse that this sin is forgivable or that the eternal consequences will be cancelled for anyone.

So in case you don't have time to read my whole post, I'll give you my conclusion now:

Yeah, that sounds scary, I know. But it's where God has told us that this world is going. At the speed things are happening regarding current events today, it seems possible that such a system could be implemented sooner rather than later.

But if you're a Christian who has trusted in Jesus as your savior, it means we should be looking forward to the Rapture, and shouldn't be afraid at all.

Why I Felt the Need to Write

Certain rules being implemented by governments in many countries and regions around the world are having an impact on who can do what or go where, depending on whether a person has a certain slip of paper or a government-issued QR code.

Now, I need to be very clear. The Covid vaccines are not the Mark of the Beast. Also, none of these health or Covid passports are the Mark of the Beast.

Yet, at least, since neither of these match the description in Revelation 13:16-18 about receiving a "mark" (Greek: charagma meaning "an imprinted mark" 1) in/on (Greek: epi meaning either "in" or "on" 2) people's right hands or foreheads.

Although these current systems are being set up to control who has access to some forms of travel and to other specific locations or activities, as of yet, the systems are not being used to totally control everyone's ability to buy or sell (i.e., purchase goods or services, operate a business, or be financially compensated for one's work).

However, I believe that the time may be coming, perhaps sooner than we think, when such functions could be easily added to these systems.

For example, Europe is proposing a "digital wallet" that would hold all of a person's identification documents, and could be used for many different things, including:

applying for loans
opening bank accounts
filing taxes
applying for universities
renting cars
proving a person's personal identity to authorities across the EU

All as part of one standardized system.3 If Covid is still around, vaccine passports would likely be part of this mix of critical personal documents stored in such a digital wallet.

As a side-note, such an all-encompassing system would surely require a very high level of security in order to avoid identity-theft, and it would have to be available to everyone, not just people who have cellphones or printers. Something that can't be lost, stolen, duplicated, or hacked would be necessary, like a personal ID number linked to an implantable microchip, a quantum-dot tattoo, or an RFID ink tattoo, maybe.

But I'm not going to say exactly in what form the Mark will appear, since it could be different than these things. All I know is what the Bible says about the Mark of the Beast being in/on the forehead or right hand and being related to controlling all buying and selling. I'm also not offering any advice on how to 'calculate' the number of the Beast, since that is pure speculation until the system rolls out.

I'm also convinced that whenever the Mark of the Beast appears and in whatever form it appears, it will be so obvious that no one will be able to accept it accidentally or unknowingly. I believe God couldn't justly impose severe negative eternal consequences if it were possible for people to take the Mark of the Beast mistakenly or accidentally without people clearly knowing what the consequences will be.

So don't worry, the Mark of the Beast is not your social security number, credit cards, bar codes, QR codes, or anything else that people currently use as of this date of writing.

Current Psychological Preparation for the Mark of the Beast

Already, in many countries and regions of the world people are lining up to receive the new Covid vaccines in order to get back to normal life, including all the things they were used to doing before lockdowns and Covid. Things like eating at restaurants, travelling, shopping, attending sporting events or concerts, and more. Those who didn't receive the vaccines or negative tests are unable to participate in these activities.

So far, none of these restrictions are completely preventing people's ability to buy or sell, and so as currently implemented, these systems are not the Mark of the Beast.

However, I do think the vaccine passports are preparing the people of the world for the mindset that will lead many people to accept the Mark of the Beast at some point in the not-too-distant future.

Why do I think this? Because in my opinion, the average person is too addicted to the things of the world. If an authority figure or government comes and says "I'm not going to let you do [insert thing here] unless you take this Mark" (in whatever form it will be), how many people will rush out to get it?

We just saw a million people in France rush to sign up to be vaccinated after the French president Emmanuel Macron announced the implementation of Covid passes in order for people to have access to things like restaurants, shopping malls, and travel on trains or airplanes.4

This does restrict who is allowed to buy or sell in these very specific contexts. People are also being limited in what they can buy, or at least how and where they can buy the things they want or need, if they are not allowed access to particular stores.

Once the government has the power to control people's physical movement and economic activity, it's not difficult to predict that this control could escalate to the level of denying people the ability to buy or sell altogether, if people do not do what the government wants them to do.

In a way, the promises being made now that if people do what their governments are trying to pressure them to do, people will then be allowed to go certain places and do certain things reminds me of when Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, to try to tempt him.

Satan said to Jesus, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours" (Luke 4:6-7).

I imagine the Antichrist's offer to people in the Tribulation will be something like: "To you I will give access to all the pleasures of the world, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it all to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours."

So I suspect people will be told that if they'll only accept the Mark of the Beast and worship the Antichrist, they'll have full access to anything and everything they could ever want. Access to travel, nightclubs, bars, concerts, spas, gyms, maybe a universal basic income, free healthcare, free university tuition, free daycare for their children, free doughnuts, and on and on.

Most people are currently so absorbed with all these things they enjoy that likely, they won't be able to imagine living without them. Once the threat of not being able to buy or sell anything is added on top of this, for most Biblically-uninformed people, taking the Mark of the Beast will be a no-brainer. Especially if they don't believe in an afterlife where there could be eternal consequences for their choices.

We can see creeping shadows of the Mark of the Beast in how some industries in countries around the world are pressuring their employees with threats of being fired if they don't line up and get their Covid vaccinations.

For these people, it might come down to not being able to work, at least, until they can find a new job. So it's true that currently the vaccines aren't "mandatory". But if these people are in very specialized industries and don't have many transferrable skills or the financial means to move to find a new job or retrain, it could be a very difficult choice to make.

If these people fear that the current Covid vaccines are a greater risk to their health than remaining unvaccinated, given the current lack of long-term testing and reports of serious side-effects from these vaccines, then their employers are effectively forcing these people to choose between their personal health and their ability to earn a living, to buy the things they need to survive. This is highly ethically questionable.

If people are currently willing to accept a risk of potential short-term or long-term health consequences in exchange for access to jobs, shopping, travel, and cultural events, it's not such a stretch to think that in the Tribulation, people will be willing to accept the possibility of eternal death in exchange for access to their money and all the things that money can buy, in addition to whatever other incentives might be thrown at them.

In a way, then, perhaps the lockdowns and restrictions that many people around the world have been subject to over the last year can be useful. Personally, they've taught me that I don't need all the things that I was used to having.

Not that I'm the sort of person who has a desperate craving to go out to nightclubs or bars in the first place. But I've learned to get by without professional haircuts, eating in restaurants or getting takeout, going to movies or concerts, shopping for fun, taking transit, going to the gym, going to libraries, and travelling to other cities.

Now if Satan or one of his human lackeys tells me that I need to worship the Antichrist in order to get access to all these things again, I could easily say "Nope, not interested." I don't need any of that.

If the consequences were more severe, such as having my degrees revoked, being unable to work, having my savings confiscated, being put under permanent house-arrest, taken off to an internment camp, or even being executed, I trust that the indwelling Holy Spirit would help me be able to say "No."

Since, after all, once you believe in Jesus as your Saviour, your eternal salvation is guaranteed due to the indwelling Holy Spirit, as God has promised in Ephesians 1:13-14. Thus, no true Spirit-indwelled Christian will ever be able to take the Mark of the Beast, since God warns that taking the Mark leads to guaranteed eternal death in Revelation 14:9-11. If it were possible for true Christians to take the Mark of the Beast, it would lead to a paradox for their eternal destinies.

But if it ever came down to giving up on Jesus or being executed, as many Christians have experienced ever since the early church, then why should I try to save my life?

For what does it benefit a person to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul? (Mark 8:36, NASB)

If someone wants to kill me for not worshiping someone other than Jesus, then I just get to heaven a little sooner than I expected. But being in heaven is far better than staying in this fallen world, even if we should want to stay to serve God as best we can (Philippians 1:21-24).

So it's a question that's worth thinking about: is there anything in this world that you desire so much that you would worship Satan instead of Jesus in order to have it? I hope not.

If you worry that there might be something you would deny Jesus for, try thinking about how great heaven is going to be instead. We're going to get new perfect bodies that will never get sick or age (1 Corinthians 15:51-53, 2 Corinthians 5:1-4), homes in the New Jerusalem (John 14:2, Revelation 21), a wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-10), and much more. How could anything in this world ever outdo that?

Maybe it would help to practice denying yourself the things you love the most, so that you won't be tempted if it comes down to having to choose between that and your faith.

Mmmmm... doughnuts... or Jesus... doughnuts... or Jesus... Hmmm, tough choice (just kidding). As if Jesus can't give you an endless supply of doughnuts after you're resurrected and living on the New Earth, if that's really what it comes down to. Maybe he'll even be able to make doughnuts that won't make us gain weight!

I don't think there is anything that is truly good in this world that won't be even better on the New Earth. After all, God is the source of all good things in this world (James 1:17). In the New Jerusalem we'll have full access to everything because we will all be full citizens of heaven (Philippians 3:20) and co-heirs along with Christ (Romans 8:17).

If that means missing out on a few years of this world which can never fully satisfy and is getting rapidly darker, in exchange for an eternity that is going to be better than we can ever imagine, then it's worth it.

If all you worry about losing is your relationships with loved ones who are unsaved, then maybe it's a good time to share the gospel with them.

In conclusion, if, for any reason, someone says that you can't buy or sell without opting into some system that requires a mark in/on your right hand or forehead, and/or someone tells you to worship someone who isn't Jesus returning in the clouds wearing a robe dipped in blood, sitting on a white horse, surrounded by the armies of heaven (Revelation 19:11-14), in a display that will be like lightning flashing from the east to the west (Matthew 24:27, Luke 17:24), DON'T DO IT. Even if it costs you your life.

Maybe I'm wrong about the vaccine passports, and they'll disappear in a year or two when the world gets over the fear of Covid. I hope so.

But the Mark of the Beast will happen someday, because that's what God tells us in the Bible. The only questions that remain are about how fast the world going to get there, and minor details about the technology or method that will be used to implement the Mark of the Beast.

The good news is that I think all this means that Christians should be getting rather excited. Jesus promises that the gates of hell won't overcome the Church (Matthew 16:18), but Satan will overcome the saints who are on earth during the Tribulation (Revelation 13:7). So that's one very good argument (among several others) that the Church (i.e., all true Christians) must be raptured out of this world and taken to heaven before the Tribulation begins.

If we're seeing all of this beginning now, we should expect Jesus to come get us anytime (John 14:1-3, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. (Luke 21:28)

September 20, 2023 Update:

Although the vaccine passports have thankfully been put on the back burner for most countries, there is still a strong interest in developing both digital IDs and digital currency by several powerful global organizations. Check out these recent news articles:

Aaron Kheriaty, "The WHO Treaty Is Tied to a Global Digital Passport and ID System", Brownstone Institute, May 24, 2022.
"United Nations Proposes Digital ID System Tied to Bank Accounts and Mobile Payment Platforms", The Daily Hodl: News and Insight for the Digital Economy, June 24, 2023.
Bryan Jung, "G20 Announces Plan to Impose Digital Currencies and IDs Worldwide", NTD News, September 12, 2023.

So the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the G20 countries are all on board with creating something that could very well turn into the Mark of the Beast system in the future.

Personally, I could see a global digital ID being rolled out after the Rapture, in order for the authorities to determine who is still left on Earth.

A new digital currency linked to these IDs might be a way that world governments will deal with the Third Seal judgment, where food prices skyrocket (Revelation 6:5-6). It could act like a basic income or a welfare program to make sure people can buy food, in order to try to keep hungry people from rioting or looting stores.

Yet a digital ID and/or a digital currency are not the Mark of the Beast unless they are associated with a mark in/on a person's right hand or forehead. Countries could theoretically create these systems ahead of time, earlier on in the Tribulation or even before the Tribulation begins, so that it would make implementing the Mark of the Beast much simpler at the halfway point of the seven-year Tribulation period.

So this is still something to keep an eye on in relation to Bible prophecy. However it works out, we know Bible prophecy will be completely fulfilled.

Footnotes:

1. William D. Mounce, "5916" in Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 1309.
2. William D. Mounce, "2093" in Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 1150.
3. "European Digital Identity", European Commission.
4. Constantin Gouvy and Angela Charlton, "French rush to get vaccinated after president's warning", CTV News, July 13, 2021.

The Benefits of Daily Devotions

2020-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

If you're around Christians often, you'll likely hear them talk about their daily devotional time, scripture reading time, and/or prayer time. It's usually one of the first things pastors recommend for Christians to incorporate into your schedule if you want to be spiritually healthy.

However, it's very easy to ignore this time because we're busy, too tired, or it's just boring. Then we feel guilty for missing it. Then whenever we look at our Bible on the table it just makes us feel guilty again.

It's easy for devotional time to start feeling like a legalistic burden—something we check off on our list of things to do in order to feel like good Christians, but not something we actually look forward to.

There's something I've been thinking about which has helped motivate me to try to make sure I take the time each day to spend reading scripture and praying, in a way that avoids the problem of devotions becoming boring or legalistic.

This might just be me writing for myself, but hopefully you will also find it helpful and encourage you to spend time with God in daily devotional time as well.

My Personal Experience of Beginning Devotions

For a long time I neglected to take some special time every day to pray.

While I would say a short prayer before falling asleep, often, I would fall asleep before I finished. Or I would just say a quick prayer that covered all my bases, and again, fall asleep. My bible sat unopened on my nightstand, as a show of good intentions, but it collected dust.

Prayer seemed like one-way communication. Like sending off a letter to a distant pen-pal, who never writes back. Or leaving a voicemail message for God. I heard some people say that God speaks to them through Scripture, and sometimes I would try flopping open a Bible to read some small portion of it and see if anything stood out. But usually nothing did.

I had tried different little devotional guides or books that promised to make it more fulfilling. My grandma would mail me the "Our Daily Bread" devotional. But they were boring. Or I would get a Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul book, and try to read those, but again, I didn't seem to get much out of it.

This disappointing experience with devotions meant that I didn't really look forward to it.

As part of one course at Tyndale for my Masters' degree, I was required to do daily devotions for a month. I resented it at first, because the exercises the textbook required us to do sometimes felt awkward or forced. But of course, I wanted full marks, and I wasn't going to lie about it. So I did it.

What I found was that spending time doing devotions every day became progressively easier. I also found I could start to hear what I thought was maybe the Holy Spirit speaking to me. (Even though I secretly worried maybe I was just telling myself what I wanted to hear.)

Since daily devotional time seemed to be making a slight difference, I tried to continue and make it a regular habit to spend 10-15 minutes in prayer before going to bed.

What I noticed was that, when I could get in the pattern of doing this for several days in a row, I would feel closer to God, and it was easier to hear that tiny, hardly-a-whisper voice of what seemed to be God providing encouragement, love, and other insights.

But then on other nights I would forget or I would get busy doing something else, and wouldn't take the time for devotions. When I would return to devotions, then it seemed like God was more distant, and it was not as easy to hear anything from the Holy Spirit in response to my concerns or prayers.

I couldn't figure out why this would be the case. After all, I figured, God loves me the same amount whether I do devotions or not. And nothing changed in terms of my commitment to God. So why would God seem to pull away and be more distant than usual, just because I forgot a day or two of devotions?

God Gives Us As Much of Him As We Desire

I can't remember clearly when it was that I had this insight, or what caused it. But it occurred to me that the reason why God seemed more distant and it was harder to hear anything from the Holy Spirit when I skipped devotions for a few nights in a row was because there is no secret formula of how to hear the Holy Spirit more easily.

Instead, it's about a relationship with God. And most relationships are built on proximity.

The people we get to know the best are those that we spend the most time with. It's very difficult to have an intimate long-distance relationship because there isn't regular contact. It's harder to feel close to someone when you only go for coffee once a year, or call once a month.

That's why when a friend moves away, no matter how well-intentioned we might be about continuing to be in contact with them, the reality is that usually the relationship fades away. We might still be interested in seeing their Facebook photos and updates, but it's not the same as seeing them at church every week, or at small group, or at work or school.

So similarly, regular contact with God will help us grow closer to God.

But there is also another factor which I think plays into this dynamic between us and God. That factor is that God wants to be desired.

I think that women may relate to this slightly more than men. Often women like to be the ones who are pursued by men. We want to be the ones who are asked out on dates, or who are proposed to. We like it when guys initiate romantic activities. Because it's just not the same if we have to be the ones always initiating it.

If the guy is not interested in talking with us or spending time with us, then for us to go out and ask for his attention comes across as desperate. It also makes his attention less meaningful when it is given in response to a request for time or attention. We worry that it's a chore, or that he would rather be doing something else, and that we're just being an annoyance.

Even though God the "Father" is described with male pronouns in Scripture, the reality is that God is not male or female, for God is Spirit (John 4:24). Yes, Jesus is a man, and there's various reasons why that was the most appropriate theologically and culturally that I don't want to get into here. But God is the source of all the traits of both men and women because God created both men and women. So I think that this relational dynamic that women can relate to explains why if we don't spend regular time with God or seek out God, God will become more and more distant from us.

It's not some divine quid-pro-quo, where God legalistically tallies up the time we spend in prayer or reading Scripture and only gives us as much as we've put in. But there is truth to the idea that God is thrilled when we want to spend time with Him. If we don't want to spend time with God, then God doesn't arrogantly demand our attention. Instead, he lovingly, gently gives us what we want — time away from him.

Conversely, God promises us that if we seek him intentionally, we will find him:

Deuteronomy 4:29: "You will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul."
Jeremiah 29:13: "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."
Proverbs 8:17: "I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me."

David also said "Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart" (Psalm 37:4). If our desire is for more of God, God will certainly grant this desire.

But I think the converse is also true. If we want less of God, then God will give us less of Himself. If we don't do daily devotional time in prayer with God or reading His word in Scripture, then our priorities are shown to be elsewhere, and God responds accordingly.

There is an image in Revelation of Jesus standing at the door of the Laodicean church, asking if they would let Him into their lives:

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.(Revelation 3:20)

Free Grace theologian Zane Hodges comments on this verse, saying

He [Jesus] stood, therefore, on the threshold of their lives. With His rebukes He spoke to them, and with His discipline He knocked on the door of their hearts. But it was up to them to respond. It was for them to open the door to Him. And if they did, He would dine with them and they would dine with him. The choice was theirs. He would not break down the door.1

This verse is not just talking about salvation, because every Christian has the Holy Spirit indwelling their hearts the moment they believe (Ephesians 1:13-14).

But as Hodges argues, there is an extra-special level of personal relationship that Christians can have with Jesus.

This is shown when Jesus said

"Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, "Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?" Jesus answered him, "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John 14:21-23)

So as Hodges says, "Yes, our bodies are the temple of God (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). But our lives—our earthly experiences—can likewise become His place of residence: 'We will make Our home with him'!"2

Hodges continues:

The Lord Jesus Christ, therefore, offers Himself to individual believers as a divine Guest. If they will respond to Him, if they will love and obey Him, He will make their hearts and lives His personal habitation so that their experience will be like having supper with their Savior. Across the common 'table' which they share, they can communicate freely and He can make Himself known to them. He can manifest Himself to them.3

This would be an amazing privilege. Can you imagine if Jesus came and said to you "I want to come to your house for dinner tonight"? Well, it turns out you can have this level of personal communication with Jesus every night, through personal prayer and devotional time, if you want it.

But as in Revelation 3:20, even for Christians, Jesus will not intrude into our lives if we don't want Him there. He won't break down the door.

How Much Of God Do You Want?

So the question of why we don't experience more of God in our personal lives does not seem to be a lack of willingness on God's part. Instead, it depends on how much we want God in our lives.

Can we say with David that "As a deer pants for flowing streams, so pants my soul for you, O God. My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God?" (Psalm 42:1-2)

If not, then why not?

As a way to test how much we want God, let's do a thought experiment and imagine how we might spend our time in heaven.

It's fun to think of all the activities that we might want to do in heaven that we never got a chance to do in our lives now, or that we want to do more of but can only do in small amounts here. Or all the people we could meet and talk to. All the adventures, mansions, fashion, and whatever else we imagine heaven will be like.

But can we imagine that we're in heaven, and we only get as much of God as we asked for in this life? Would that be satisfying to us?

Would we want to spend only 5 minutes with Jesus every day for all eternity? Would we want to see Him only for an hour each week, like many Christians do now when they attend church and then go about their week without giving God a second thought?

I think most Christians expect that we will spend much more time with God in heaven. Maybe even all our time with God. But then, why does it seem that we often don't make any time for God in our lives now?

Of course, one answer is that we are busy and we have many things to do, some of which are even good things that we're doing for God. We have responsibilities for work and taking care of ourselves and our families which requires lots of time. Unless we're a monk or nun, we can't spend all day in prayer, and I think God knows this. In some ways, we are in a long-distance relationship with God in this life, which are never as close as relationships when we are with someone in person.

But there's an interesting analogy I found for my relationship with God, when I compare it to when I go home to my parents' house for Christmas, as I did this year.

Often, my husband does not come with me for various logistical reasons, including the expense of flights and hotels. When I am at home I get busy doing Christmas shopping, dinners, watching movies, and other fun activities. It's easy to fall into the pattern of sending one text-message to my husband at night to wish him good-night, and then, nothing the rest of the day.

Yes, I know my husband loves me still, and that he knows I'm busy with family events and other things. But it was nicer on the days when I took a longer period of time to phone him and chat about my day. After some time spent on the phone, he didn't seem so far away, and we seemed closer than on the days when we only traded good-night text messages.

My goal then for this year is to incorporate the pattern of spending some time each night "on the phone" with God, rather than sending only a quick spiritual 'text-message' before I fall asleep. It's also a reminder to try to think of God more often or pray occasionally throughout the day, because ideally I want to spend every minute I can with God.

So if I'm tempted to put off devotional time, I will remind myself that God gives us as much of Himself as we want. If I want more of God, I need to spend more time with God, by reading His word in Scripture, and in personal prayer.

Having a Two-Way Relationship With God

One reason why I found devotional times often unsatisfying in the past was because, as mentioned earlier, it seemed like it was only one-way communication.

The key to satisfying devotions then, is to learn how to hear God speaking back to you.

I know some people might be suspicious of my claim that through regular devotions I could start to hear God speaking more clearly in a tiny unheard whisper. But I've heard other Christians say something similar.

Plus, it matches with Elijah's experience in 1 Kings 19:12, which describes God's voice as a "low whisper". We should expect to be able to hear God's voice; Jesus says his sheep will hear and know his voice (John 10:3-4, 16, 27).

Skeptical Christians might say "Well, God only speaks through Scripture, and there's nothing for God to say to you beyond that! If that's not good enough for you, then you're in trouble." Some are skeptical of the idea of personally experiencing God, or fear that they will be led astray into mysticism and other dubious practices.

But does God just hand us a book and tell us "That's all you get of me. Have fun for eternity"? What sort of a relationship is that?

I think maybe this claim that all we need is Scripture is why some Christians don't have passion for their relationship with Jesus, or seem to fall into strict legalism and judgment instead of having love, grace, and mercy for others. If they don't experience God's love for them in their personal prayer times, then how can they pass it on to others?

When I thought that I should be satisfied with just reading Scripture, it made me extremely jealous of those in Scripture who did hear God speak directly to them. For example, like when Samuel heard God so clearly he thought he was hearing his human mentor Eli speak (1 Samuel 3:4-5).

I thought "Why does Samuel get that direct and clear relationship with God, and all I get is a book?". If the Church is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:27), and the bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:28-32, Revelation 19:7), then why shouldn't we have just as close of a relationship with Jesus?

I longed to hear Jesus' voice, and so I would read the gospels, but I still didn't hear him really speaking to me. And so, my passion for devotional time faded when I expected only a one-way relationship. Why spend time on the phone talking to someone who never answers back?

Of course, knowing Scripture is extremely important, because the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture (2 Peter 1:21), and so in our personal prayer time the Holy Spirit will never tell us anything that contradicts Scripture.

Scripture is also how we learn more about what God is like, and how God often interacts with people, which helps us discern whether something we hear is from God or not.

Some people claim that God makes certain passages of Scripture stand out to them during their time reading the Bible, which God may certainly do. And it is true that God might bring passages to mind as ways of speaking to you, if you have them memorized (another good reason to be familiar with Scripture). But for me, trying to force God to speak to me through Scripture through practices like Lectio Divina don't work.

What works better for me is to sit down in my room in private, and pray about things that are on my mind or heart. When I'm done, I ask God "Is there anything you want to say to me? Or anything you want to talk about?"

Sometimes that little voice appears or something comes to mind. Sometimes I'll 'hear' encouraging phrases like "You're doing well, keep going" or "I love you", or even a few sentences about an issue I'm facing in my life. Sometimes I'll get sudden insights into things to write about or investigate, or ideas for how to solve a problem or what course of action to do.

Now, I am a 'logical' personality type, and so I've always been somewhat suspicious of personal subjective experiences of God. I worry "what if I'm only telling myself what I want to hear?"

As an experiment, I tested two alternatives: trusting that little voice, or being skeptical of it.

When I trusted it, I was often reassured, encouraged, comforted, and felt God's love and close to God. When I was skeptical of it, then I felt despair, loneliness, anxiety, and discouragement.

Of these, which result seems more like it is from God, who is love (1 John 4:8), who wants a loving relationship with me, and cares for me (1 Peter 5:7)? And which one seems like it is from Satan? John writes "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." (John 10:10).

So I've discovered that my criteria for judging whether something comes from God is whether it leads to abundant life. If it leads to hope, joy, love, and peace for me, then I presume it must be from God (Galatians 5:22).

Sometimes that includes convictions of sin, or critique of my ways of thinking. But it's never in a way that is harsh, unloving, hateful, or accusatory. The little voice never insults me, demeans me, or tells me I'm not good enough or that I'm a failure. Usually, that's my own inner critic or doubts and fears, perhaps played up by Satan.

In some ways, I think my skepticism about hearing God speak to me in prayer was replicating the exact problem that Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden.

Although all their experiences with God were positive up to that point, Satan was able to plant a little bit of doubt into their minds about what God was like. Satan suggested that God maybe God was holding back some good from them (Genesis 3:4-5). He made them doubt whether God had actually said what God had told them (Genesis 3:1).

When I am tempted to doubt whether the little voice I hear is from God, I remember that I've never had any experiences with God which should lead me to doubt His goodness and love for me. And so there is no reason to be skeptical, and no reason to ask myself, like the serpent asked Adam and Eve "Did God really say that?"

As someone who prefers to judge things based on logic, evidence, and reason, and not 'feelings' or subjective experience, this is a new way of reasoning which at times feels uncomfortable. I do still sometimes fear that I'm just telling myself what I want to hear. But there's really no other option for me, based on my experimental results described above.

I also trust that if my goals are in alignment with God's, then I can trust that God wants me to succeed, and doesn't want to hurt me. How would that help God's purposes? If a kingdom is divided against itself it won't do well (Matthew 12:25).

Plus, even though the human heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), I remember that I also have the Holy Spirit in me, and the Holy Spirit is more powerful than my sinfulness. So I should expect that the Holy Spirit can actually speak accurately to me, despite my sinful, deceptive heart.

Perhaps there are still some sort of trust issues from some things I read or heard in the past about God which were wrong. Or maybe I have some issues from my childhood (and who doesn't, in one way or another?). But I think the solution to this is to read more Scripture, and to keep up my devotional time, in order to gain further personal experience that God is fully good, loving, and trustworthy.

Maybe you've never struggled with this issue, and if so, then I'm glad for you. But if you have wondered these things, I hope my experience can be helpful to you.

Conclusion

So if you find that you're wanting more of God than you're currently getting, the place to start is by spending more time with God in prayer.

Also, try to find time to read Scripture daily, because that will provide the discernment and source material for the Holy Spirit to speak more clearly to you, and can help you discern God's voice from other thoughts when you pray.

I still forget sometimes to stop working late at night and go pray. But occasionally I hear that little reminder of "Come, spend time with me" or "Why not read some of my Word?". Usually when that happens it's a good idea just to drop everything and go do that right away.

But it would help to be more consistent and schedule time in the morning or evening. I schedule time to call my parents each week. So why shouldn't I do the same for God? It doesn't make it fake, it makes it intentional, and God rewards those who seek him by helping them find Him.

That's my new year's resolution this year. Maybe it could be yours also?

Footnotes:

1. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, Second ed. (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014), 114.
2. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, Second ed. (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014), 116.
3. Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation, Second ed. (Corinth, TX: Grace Evangelical Society, 2014), 116.

Advent and Politics

2019-12-15T00:00:00+00:00

Advent is the season of the church calendar leading up to Christmas. During this time, Christians remember when the divine Son of God became a fully human man named Jesus, about two thousand years ago.

Jesus was born to the virgin Mary, in order for Jesus to grow up, live a perfect human life, and die on the cross as the final sacrifice for humanity's sin. As a result, Jesus can give eternal life to everyone who has ever put their faith in him.

Yet after his death, Jesus miraculously came back to life three days later, and several weeks after that, he ascended into heaven. This is the series of events that took place during Jesus' first coming. Therefore, Christmas is paired with Easter as the two most important Christian celebrations which remember Jesus' earthly life and ministry.

However, these four weeks of Advent should not be only about remembering the time when God's people looked forward to Jesus' first coming. Advent should also be about anticipating Jesus' yet-future second coming, and all that will take place then, when Jesus will leave heaven and return to defeat God's enemies and set up his worldwide thousand-year kingdom.

I think it is good for Christians to dedicate a certain period of time each year to think about the future and the subject of biblical eschatology (the last things), which is usually a very neglected topic. This is in contrast to the topic of politics, which it seems is constantly in the news and on many people's minds.

As I will explain in this post, I believe the themes of the season of Advent can give us some much-needed perspective on politics, which can reduce the stress that Christians may feel when we read the news and give us hope for the future, regardless of what happens in politics.

Corruption in Politics

If you follow politics, or even skim the news headlines, you will notice that the topic of corruption appears regularly. Regardless of which party you support, or which country you are in, it is likely that there is someone accusing some politician of being corrupt.

It seems that the longer that politicians are in government, the less they care about doing what is good for the people who elected them. They begin to focus on their own ambitions or interests, such as voting themselves more power or money. Sometimes they even forget about trying to fulfill the promises they made while running for election.

We might think to ourselves "Well, if only my favourite party, or leader, could get into power, then we could fix this!"

But when we think this way, we're forgetting an important theological truth: every system of government is run by humans. And as it stands now, every single human on this planet is sinful. Even Christians still struggle with our sinful inclinations, and can give in to selfishness.

Selfishness has been one definition of sin that Christians have used throughout history. The term incurvatus in se (or "turned in on oneself") has been used by several theologians to explain what sin does to humans. We become self-focused and selfish, caring only about ourselves and not others, or caring about others only insofar as they are useful or beneficial to ourselves. At worst, we may even care about ourselves at the expense of others!

This is the exact opposite of what Jesus said is the summary of all God's laws:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself. (Luke 10:27, repeated elsewhere like Romans 13:9-10)

Because of human selfishness, politicians are easily tempted to do things that benefit themselves instead of their people. We've all heard of politicians who vote themselves raises. Or politicians who take donations from people that they should not, and as a result, become far more wealthy by the time they leave office than when they entered it. Or politicians who give contracts to companies who they or their family are associated with. And on and on. The forms of corruption seem to be endless.

Perhaps some political systems can restrain corruption better than others. Democracy is probably better than monarchy or totalitarianism, because at least in a democracy if there's an especially bad politician the people can vote them out—assuming that the election is fair and has not itself been tainted by corruption, that is.

But even in democracy, the problem is that the voters themselves are selfish! They are often uninformed about politics, foreign affairs, or economics, and don't realize the long-term implications of these issues. When a politician appears who promises to give the people more government handouts, the people enthusiastically vote for it—not realizing that future consequences will likely hurt both them and their society in the long run.

Even judges who are meant to uphold the law can become corrupt. Corrupt judges will not prosecute politicians accused of various unlawful activities, or will give a light sentence which does nothing to discourage others from doing the same thing.

If society as a whole has strong ethical convictions, perhaps some systems will last longer without being compromised by corruption.

But sooner or later, every system will become fully corrupt, and it will no longer operate in the best interests of the country or people. Decisions will be made that ultimately undermine the stability of the society and will lead to its decline.

And so eventually, every political system will fail. We can see this if we look at history. Monarchies fall to revolutions. Totalitarian leaders are taken out by military coups. Democracies vote in dictators. Empires fall due to invasions or internal decay.

In the past, sometimes groups of people could leave old countries and go establish new countries with new political systems to escape oppression or corruption in their countries of origin. But as we see in the USA, even a country built on semi-Christian principles and morality (although not without its own dark periods due to sin) ends up with the sorts of scandals and dishonesty and problems that we see today, which are seemingly bringing it to a point of political and economic crisis.

But we can also guarantee that every political system will fail simply because of the principle of human sinfulness. It is impossible for sinful humans to design a perfect system which can restrain human sin. Even a system of checks and balances assumes that at least one of those checks or balances can correct the others. But if each is infiltrated and corrupted one way or another, then that system will also fail.

Some say the solution is better education, or better parenting, or more ethical or religious instruction. But there is no system or philosophy that can totally eliminate sinfulness in humans. Sinful humans cannot eradicate sin, regardless of what we try. It has been sinful human attempts to impose morality upon people by force which produces the most awful results, whether that morality was Christian or Communist.

What then is the solution? Keep reading to the end of the article...

Dispensational Biblical History

The fact that sin corrupts all human systems and societies is also proven when we look at the history of the world as described in the Bible.

One way of understanding biblical history is to divide it into different periods of time called dispensations. In each dispensation, God deals with humanity in a slightly different way. The way to obtaining eternal life is the same in every one (i.e. acceptance of God's grace through faith—Ephesians 2:8), but how that faith or obedience to God is to be expressed varies. Some examples of how individuals have expressed their faith in God in different dispensations are seen in Hebrews 11:1-40.

In each dispensation there is a recurring pattern. God inaugurates a new dispensation by giving new instructions to a particular group of people about what he wants them to do or how he wants them to live. But each dispensation ends with human failure due to sin, and God's judgment comes as a result. God then starts over with a remnant of his still-faithful people, and a new dispensation begins. (A great book on this topic is Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded by Charles C. Ryrie).

The number of dispensations and their names may change depending on which author you read.1 I categorize them like this (roughly in line with C.I. Scofield and Issac Watts):

1. Innocence/Garden of Eden

When Adam and Eve were in Eden, God only had one rule for them, which was to not eat fruit from one tree (Genesis 2:16-17). But they sinned, and were kicked out of the garden of Eden as judgment. Outside of Eden, humanity had to work for their food, and nature was less hospitable and cooperative. From that point on, humanity experienced diseases, painful childbirth, and eventually, death (Genesis 3).

2. Conscience

This dispensation was from the time when Adam and Eve left Eden in Genesis chapter 3, up to the worldwide flood in Genesis chapter 9. During this time, God let people follow their own consciences. There were no real instructions or rules that were given for people to follow, although people seemed to have had some idea of sacrificing animals to please God (Genesis 4:3-4, 8:20). But eventually the world became so full of violence that God sent the flood (Genesis 6:5-6), which started humanity over beginning with only eight obedient individuals.

3. Human Government

After the flood, God allowed humanity to enforce the death penalty against murderers as an attempt to keep evil in check (Genesis 9:6). But humans banded together and spoke one language which enabled their cooperation. They built the Tower of Babel which might have been an attempt to either save themselves from another flood, or raise themselves into the heavens to become gods, or maybe something else.

Whatever they were trying to do, God judged humanity by confusing their single language so that people now spoke many different languages. This made human cooperation much more difficult, slowed down the progress of technological innovation (Genesis 11:6), and forced humanity to split up based on who could understand one another, and these language-based groups spread out over the world (Genesis 11:7-9). These groups of people eventually grew into tribes and nations, where each ruled themselves and also came into conflict with other groups.

This was the scenario for most of human history:

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. (Acts 17:26-27)

4. Law

But God did not abandon these nations entirely. God chose Abraham to be the ancestor of a special people through whom God would reveal himself and his laws to the rest of the world (Genesis 12:1-3). After multiplying Abraham's descendants in Egypt, God brought the Israelites and others who went with them out into the desert (Exodus 12:37-38). There, God gave them his law through Moses, so that they could be a holy people who would serve God as a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:5-6).

These divinely-inspired laws should ideally have led to a good society, especially when compared to how other nations lived at the time. The Israelites pledged their faithfulness to God and promised to follow God's laws, but they almost instantly fell into sin. The history of Israel was not any better, since the Israelites repeatedly fell into idolatry, injustice, and various evil practices such as sacrificing children to false gods. Even when the people asked for a king to be chosen to rule over them, it didn't solve the problem, because the kings were also mostly evil, except for a few good ones.

During this time, God judged the nation of Israel repeatedly, which ended by allowing the country to be invaded by foreign armies who sent the Israelites into exile in foreign countries. Only a remnant of faithful people were brought back from these countries when the time of judgment was over, to begin and re-establish the country of Israel. But even then, there were challenges and difficulties, and Israel was frequently ruled by larger and more powerful countries or empires.

The most recent instance of this sort of divine judgment of the people of Israel occurred in 70 AD when the Romans invaded and destroyed Jerusalem, leaving the Jews to flee and live in various places around the world since then, where they have continued to face much persecution.

I agree with those who say that the reestablishment of the modern State of Israel in 1948 is for the purpose of leading up to the final seven years promised to Israel under the dispensation of Law. These final seven years of the Tribulation will prepare the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah at Jesus' second coming (e.g. Daniel 9:26-27, Jeremiah 30-31, Ezekiel 38-39, Isaiah 65-66).

5. Grace

Once the nation of Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah and crucified Him, God turned to working in the world primarily through the Church, composed of all true Christians everywhere, which continues Christ's mission to the world. Christians are not limited to only one particular country or race or language, but we go out spreading God's message and teachings to all people (Matthew 28:19-20).

But of course, Christians are still imperfect people, and so we have caused problems also through persecuting one another, persecuting non-Christians, and trying to rule the world. This history proves that the Church on its own is not going to be able to reform society or bring in God's kingdom on earth through social justice or charity or activism, no matter how hard we try.

Christians have also become divided into many denominations that argue with one another about theology and about how Christians should live and worship. This division makes the Church's mission even more complex and unlikely to succeed.

Additionally, as we see now in western countries, societies that were formerly strongly influenced by Christianity eventually become resistant to the gospel and to Christian ethics, and people want to start doing things their own way again. In many other countries where other religions and ideologies are dominant, Christians are often persecuted for our faith.

Thus, the world does not seem to be getting any better under this dispensation, and Christianity, too, seems to now be on the decline, even though there are still some areas around the world where Christianity is spreading and growing.

Some people might think that this outline of history given so far is overly pessimistic. They might say things like: "Doesn't the world generally tend to get better and better? Surely, with God's help, Christians will be able to improve the world until Jesus finally returns and congratulates us for all of our success. Like, just compare life now to how awful it was during the middle ages, right?"

Unfortunately, I'm convinced that the Bible teaches that things will get far worse before they get better, because there is simply no other way to deal with all the details of the Book of Revelation in a serious way (that is, without allegorizing them or ignoring them), as I explain in my post here.

The details in Scripture matter; otherwise God wouldn't have included them. Therefore, it is not faithful Biblical interpretation to gloss over the details of Scripture. Taking all of the Bible seriously, believing it to be fully inspired by the same Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21) who is God and never lies (Titus 1:2), means that we should attempt to harmonize all the prophecies that still remain to be fulfilled.

When we do put all these pieces together in a way that takes the details seriously, we see that the dispensation of grace does not end with the world getting better and better until Jesus' Millennial Kingdom suddenly appears. Instead, this current dispensation of grace will end with the future seven-year Tribulation as described in the Book of Revelation.

Jesus says the Tribulation will be the worst time in the entire history of the world (Matthew 24:21). The Book of Revelation describes twenty-one divine judgments in which God will pour out his wrath on the God-rejecting people of the world who will be left behind after all true Christians are taken to heaven in the pretribulation Rapture, since we are not destined to face God's wrath in the Tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4:18, 5:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4).

In addition to these terrible divine judgments, during the Tribulation, the one-world government of the Antichrist will persecute and kill many of the new Christians who will only come to believe in Jesus after the Rapture happens (Revelation 13:7). Some of these new Christians will survive the full seven years, but they will need to refuse to take the Mark of the Beast, which means they will be unable to buy or sell anything, which will make survival very difficult.

The Tribulation will end with the second coming of Jesus Christ, who will destroy the Antichrist's one-world government and defeat all of God's enemies (Revelation 19:11-21). Jesus will rescue his faithful remnant of Christians and any Jews who will finally accept Jesus as their Messiah (Zechariah 12:10, 13:8-9, Revelation 1:7).

Additionally, after the Tribulation, Satan and his demons will be locked in the bottomless pit, so they can't deceive and tempt anyone (Revelation 20:1-3).

Jesus's return will lead to the establishment of a new dispensation, his Millennial Kingdom.

6. The Millennial Reign of Jesus

This dispensation will be unlike anything we've seen before.

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem, through his incorruptible government composed of resurrected and perfected Christians. His kingdom will last for at least a thousand years. Finally, the world will be under the control of the only perfectly-wise, completely-good, and non-corruptible leader who can enforce world peace and solve everyone's problems.

Some key Bible verses that support this future reality of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom are:

Revelation 20:1-6, which describes the setting up of the Millennial Kingdom and the binding of Satan for a thousand years.
Revelation 19:15: "From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.". This theme is also seen in Revelation 12:5 and Psalm 2:9. A similar idea is in Daniel 2:44-45.
Isaiah 2:2-4, which describes Jerusalem becoming the center of Christ's government for the entire world, leading to worldwide peace.
Isaiah 11:1-10, which describes Jesus as a ruler who will judge in perfect righteousness and wisdom.
Jeremiah 23:5-6: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: 'The Lord is our righteousness.'"
Daniel 7:13-14: "Behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed."
Daniel 7:27: "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; his kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him."
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 says that Jesus will destroy every other ruling power, and he will reign over everything until his enemies are conquered.
Jude 1:14-15 refers to a prophecy by Enoch about God coming with his saints to bring justice to a sinful world, similar to Revelation 19:11-16.
Hebrews 1:8-9: "But of the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions'."
Jeremiah 30:3, 8-11, and Ezekiel 39:25-29 describe Israel being restored as a nation in peace and security under the rule of Jesus.

Jesus' perfect government will be composed of two different groups of people:

Christians who lived and/or died before the Tribulation. They will be resurrected and made immortal at the Rapture (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 1 Corinthians 15:51-53).
Christians who die during the Tribulation but who will be resurrected after Jesus' second coming (Revelation 20:4-6).

Evidence for the above is found in all the promises given to Christians about our faithfulness being rewarded with ruling privileges:

Revelation 20:6: "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (Perhaps echoing Daniel 7:18 and 7:22).
Revelation 2:26: "The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father."
Revelation 3:21: "The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."
2 Timothy 2:12: "if we endure, we will also reign with him."
Luke 19:16-19 shows Jesus rewarding faithful Christians with rule over cities. Matthew 25:21-23 is the parallel, and promises faithful Christians will be "set over much", in terms of responsibility. This echoes Matthew 24:45-47 where the faithful servant is "set over" all the master's possessions.
1 Corinthians 6:2-3 says the saints will judge the world, and will even judge angels!
Luke 22:28-30 shows that the 12 apostles will have a special role ruling over Israel in the Millennium and perhaps eternity.

If you're interested in this topic, a much more detailed book on all of this is titled The Millennial Kingdom by John F. Walvoord (1959).

The Sheep and Goats Judgment

When Jesus returns at his second coming, the first step to setting up his kingdom will be to judge all individuals who remain alive after the Tribulation:

This passage is not about the final judgment, because the Sheep and Goats Judgment is based on works (Matthew 25:34-36), whereas eternal salvation is based only on faith in God/Christ, and so they are different things. This is clear when we remember that eternal life depends on only faith:

"What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." (John 6:28-29)

There are different judgments in Scripture, and it's important to distinguish them correctly, or we will get confused and think our eternal salvation depends on works, when it actually depends only on faith in Christ (e.g. John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8). Whether a person is given eternal life or not is different from being allowed into Christ's Millennial Kingdom. Don't confuse the two.

As a result of the Sheep and Goats Judgment at the end of the Tribulation, anyone who showed mercy to the persecuted Jews and Christians during the Tribulation (i.e. Jesus' "brothers" in Matthew 25:40), and who did not take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:16-18, 14:9-11) will be allowed to live in the Millennial Kingdom.

These people will still be in their mortal bodies, and so they will repopulate the world. Their lives will be much easier due to the removal of the curse of nature which I discussed in my post about climate change and the end times.

But these people who repopulate the world will still have a sinful human nature. This detail explains why Jesus will have to rule with a "rod of iron" as mentioned in several of the verses listed above, in order for him to ensure that human sinfulness will be kept in check so that it does not get out of control and ruin things for everyone yet again.

What Life Will Be Like in Jesus' Millennial Kingdom

The Bible gives many hints about what the conditions of the world will be like during the Millennial Kingdom, including:

Nature will be far more fruitful and productive than it is now (Isaiah 30:23-24, 35:1-2, 35:6-7, Amos 9:13).
Human lifespans will be extended back to what they were before the Flood (Isaiah 65:20, 22).
Disabilities will be healed (Isaiah 35:5-6).
Nature will be re-ordered so that animals will no longer be dangerous and will not eat one another (Isaiah 11:6-8, 65:25).
Satan will be confined and not allowed to tempt people as he does now (Revelation 20:2-3).

This view of the Millennial Kingdom is the only view of the end-times which can explain why we have verses that describe people having children and growing old in Christ's kingdom, such as Isaiah 11:6 and Isaiah 65:20-22. This shows that Christ's Millennial Kingdom is not identical to the future New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21) that God will create after the final judgment, since then everyone who is eternally saved will be immortal and there will be no more procreation (as per Matthew 22:30, Mark 12:25).

So while the Millennial Kingdom still won't be perfect, it is definitely going to be much better than our world as it is right now.

The Theme of The Millennial Kingdom in Christmas Songs

The Millennial Kingdom is my favourite theme in Christmas carols. This idea might seem strange, since we typically think of Christmas carols as being about Jesus' first coming, but if we examine the lyrics closely, we can see many references to Jesus' second coming and his thousand-year kingdom afterward.

For example, "Joy to the World", is actually about Jesus' second coming and Millennial Kingdom:

Joy to the world! The Lord is come:
let earth receive her King!
Let every heart prepare him room
and heaven and nature sing.

Joy to the earth! the Saviour reigns:
let men their songs employ
while fields and floods rocks hills and plains
repeat the sounding joy.

No more let sins and sorrows grow,
nor thorns infest the ground:
he comes to make his blessings flow
far as the curse is found.

He rules the earth with truth and grace,
and makes the nations prove
the glories of his righteousness
and wonders of his love.

There is also the famous "For Unto Us A Child is Born" by Handel, which is basically Isaiah 9:6:

For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given,
and the government shall be upon His shoulder;
and his name shall be called Wonderful Counsellor,
the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.

Along with Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus," with lines like:

Hallelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth;
and He shall reign forever and ever;
the Kingdom of this world is become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ!

There are a few modern songs also that I really like with this theme.

In "He Shall Reign Forevermore" by Chris Tomlin, the chorus is:

And He shall reign forevermore, forevermore
Unto us a child is born
The King of kings and Lord of lords
And He shall reign forevermore, forevermore

The song "Mary Did You Know?" also includes some of these themes, where it says:

The blind will see, the deaf will hear
The dead will live again
The lame will leap, the dumb will speak
The praises of the lamb!
Mary, did you know that your baby boy is lord of all creation?
Mary, did you know that your baby boy would one day rule the nations?

So when you sing these songs at Christmas, remember that you're not singing only about Jesus' first coming, but also about his second coming. I really look forward to when Jesus will finally come and fix all the mess that the world is in currently.

The End of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom

Unfortunately, not even Jesus' direct rule over the world for a thousand years will solve the problem of human sinfulness. Thus, the Millennial Kingdom will also end in human failure.

At the end of the thousand years, God will allow Satan back out of the bottomless pit for a short time, to incite those still-sinful mortal people who want to rebel against Jesus' rule to get up the courage to openly revolt. They will gather into a large army and will surround Jerusalem, but God will judge them for their rebellion by sending down fire from heaven to destroy them (Revelation 20:7-10).

At this point, there are no further dispensations. The history of this fallen world will end with the final judgment of everyone who has ever lived (minus the already-perfected raptured Christians and resurrected Tribulation saints) (Revelation 20:11-15). Following this judgment, God will create the eternal New Heaven and New Earth, which will never be tainted by any sin, sadness, death, or pain (Revelation 21:1-4).

The Value of Dispensationalism

As explained above, the theory of dispensationalism shows us that by the end of Jesus' Millennial Kingdom, God will have tested humanity under every possible method of government, both human and divine. It will be proven to everyone that there is no perfect system which can solve the problem of sin. For even when the world is under the perfect, incorruptible government ruled by Jesus himself with a rod of iron to ensure that righteousness and justice is done, sinful people will still rebel against God.

There will be nothing left to blame except for humanity's sinful hearts. This will prove that fallen humanity's problem truly is sin—not politics, political systems, political parties, particular leaders, electoral colleges, proportional or first-past-the-post systems, human judges, constitutions, bills of rights, border walls (or lack thereof), or whatever else we might think the problem is now.

Of course, in the meantime, Christians should do what we can to restrain evil in our societies, such as by engaging in politics in various ways. But I'm not optimistic about the results.

My opinion is that this fallen world is like the Titanic after it hit the iceberg; it's sinking, and nothing will stop it. Maybe we could take some measures to slow it down, but its fate is ultimately certain. This means that arguing over politics is basically the same as arguing over who should be captain of the doomed Titanic, and what the captain should do.

Although there is perhaps some value in engaging in politics to help restrain evil, I believe that Christians' main priority should be on getting people into the eternal lifeboat, by preaching that anyone who puts their faith in Jesus as their Savior will have eternal life. Unlike on the Titanic, there is enough room for everyone on this lifeboat.

Conclusion

So I'm sorry to disappoint you if you thought that somehow sinful humans could bring in a utopia upon earth. The Bible clearly says this will never happen.

Instead of putting our hopes and dreams in the hands of corrupt human politicians, let's recognize that what the world needs is Jesus. Let's not put our hope in the next election, but in Jesus' second coming.

In the meantime, let's eagerly look forward to Jesus' coming to rescue all true Christians at the Rapture and encourage each other with this fact (1 Thessalonians 4:18, 5:11, Hebrews 10:25, 2 Timothy 4:8). While we keep on watching for Jesus' return at the Rapture, we should also remember to be busy faithfully engaging in Christ's business of loving others and spreading the gospel message (Luke 19:13).

We need to remember that as Christians, our home is not this world. We're in the world, but our citizenship is in heaven, and we're waiting for Jesus to return from there to rescue us (Philippians 3:20-21). Let's not get so wrapped up in worldly politics and concerns that we stress ourselves out about the future. Our eternal future is secure, and it will be wonderful and will infinitely outweigh anything negative we experience now, regardless of how things go in this temporal life (Romans 8:18).

Jesus is indeed our Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6). Let's trust him as the source of our personal peace this advent season, and into the new year.

Footnotes:

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2007), 72-81.

Climate Change and the End Times

2019-11-07T00:00:00+00:00

With the rise of Greta Thunberg as a public figure it seems that many more people are paying attention to news about climate change. However, Christians should not look only to the news media or to scientists to inform our thinking on this issue. Instead, we should consider how climate change fits within a Biblical worldview.

In this post I want to share a few things that I think can help Christians take a more Biblical position on environmentalism and climate change. I hope that it will give some perspective and help Christians avoid unnecessary anxiety or fear about the future of the planet.

Caring for the Environment Is Good

First of all, I want to say that yes, Christians should care for the environment. God originally gave Adam and Eve the mandate to "have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:28). In Eden, they were tasked with working and keeping the garden (Genesis 2:15).

Some people accuse Christians of thinking we can do whatever we want to the world because of verses like Genesis 1:28. But exploitation and abuse is never a model of Christian leadership. God didn't give Adam and Eve free reign to use creation in destructive ways for their own selfish benefit.

Instead, Christian leadership is about serving (Luke 22:26-27). It's hard to say exactly what Adam and Eve's duties in caring for the garden involved before there were weeds and thistles (these appeared only after the first sin as per Genesis 3:18). But we can probably say it involved being caretakers, stewards, and managers of the garden and its resources for their benefit and the benefit of all God's creatures.

God also cares for the environment and nature. The Bible says God pays attention to and cares for even the tiniest birds (Luke 12:6-7, Matthew 10:29-31).

So yes, Christians should try to care for creation. We should try reduce the amount of waste we produce, to save energy and water within reason, and try to protect and care for God's creation and animals. But, humans are also allowed to use nature wisely for our benefit. We are not a 'plague' on the world—the world is made for us. But not only us.

Unfortunately, in this sinful world, humans are selfish and we think more of ourselves than the rest of creation. We bring suffering to creation rather than acting as wise caretakers, stewards, and managers of it. This is sad, and is not the way it should be.

I've heard it said that leaving sinful humanity to care for the planet is like telling a two-year-old to clean up a closet; really, it's only going to make things worse, not better. But Christians and people in general should still try to do what we can.

It is true that many aspects of our world today should be questioned and challenged by Christians who care about the planet.

Planned obsolescence of items is an extremely wasteful practice, even if it keeps companies profitable. We should encourage moving toward a more sustainable economy which pollutes less by making things last longer and be easily recyclable when they wear out, rather than throwing things into landfills. Corporations' pursuit of unlimited profit, and profit at all costs, is certainly harmful and not sustainable. It is true that we cannot have infinite economic growth or unlimited profit on a finite planet with finite resources.

We should move toward more natural farming methods that are better for animals and for the food we eventually eat. We should try to prevent oil spills, and reduce fertilizer run-off, reduce antibiotic use and pesticide use in farming, and clean up the garbage patches in the ocean. These are just a few things that Christians can support and advocate for.

Christians can also be examples of how to spend money wisely on products which are more sustainable or eco-friendly, to reduce our waste, and be energy-efficient.

Of course, technology is a good thing, and so we don't have to go back to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Bringing clean water and electricity to poorer countries saves lives, reduces suffering, and reduces pollution.

Using fertilizers and mass-farming techniques are likely necessary to feed all the people of the world. It has been predicted that if something suddenly knocked out all our technology, many people would starve to death because our food production and distribution methods are massively dependent on electricity and fossil-fuels. There's no easy or quick way to change that.

Unfortunately, I think one by-product of the Fall into sin is that now there is no way for humans to live without something else suffering or dying. Some waste and pollution is unavoidable. Ancient people's garbage dumps are now sites for archeological exploration. Our landfills may be sources that future humanity will mine for resources.

Just as we can't avoid all sin, so we can't avoid all pollution, and I don't think that will ever be remedied until we're on the eternal New Earth.

Can Humans Truly Affect the World's Climate?

However, it seems that lately that the anxiety is not about all these obvious environmental concerns, but about a tiny amount of gas in the atmosphere, and the projected effects that gas might have on the temperature of the planet.

I don't want to get into all the debates here about whether human-caused climate change is true or not. I have read enough to say that perhaps the science is not as 'settled' as many make it out to be.

We could debate all day long about which sources on these things are the most credible and legitimate, and which are 'fake science.' I would encourage any interested Christian to read both sides of the argument with an open mind.

After all, scientists are sinful people too, like we all are. Scientists on all sides of the debate have their own agendas, biases, and can make mistakes. They might even outright lie, if it is in their interest. Thus, we shouldn't just blindly trust the experts.

Scientists depend on funding; if the government guarantees them a constant stream of income to study climate change, it's in the scientists' interest to make it sound like an urgent, dangerous topic in order to get more funding. If the scientists discover it's not really a problem, or not something we can control, then the government might withdraw their funding. This should make us consider the scientific hype around climate change with at least some suspicion.

I am not willing to put all my eggs in one basket as to whether humans are affecting the world's climate. It seems this is still up for debate. And it should be! This is the way science should work.

New observations and studies are always being done and should be done, and new theories should be made. Some of those theories may contradict what is considered the 'established' view right now. But so did Galileo's theory that the earth revolves around the sun, when back then the "science was settled" that it was the opposite!

If the scientists really want to pursue truth, and not just funding or political power, then they should be willing to go wherever the best and most accurate evidence leads. Cutting short the debate, or excluding people for not being 'real scientists' or for presenting conflicting data doesn't help anyone except those who are not interested in truth and only want power.

Climate Change Is Not The End of the World

But I can confidently say that the truth is that climate change is not going to be the end of the world. Maybe Greta would be less fearful about climate change if she knew what Scripture had to say about the future?

Taking a Biblical view of the future helps us say that no, we are not facing the end of human existence in the next 10 years. Not even the next 100 years.

Jesus promises that he will return to earth at the end of the yet-future seven-year period of time that prophecy experts call the Tribulation, and he will set up a kingdom where he will rule from Jerusalem for 1000 years! (Revelation 20:4).

During Jesus' Millennial Kingdom, nature is going to be even better than it is now!

God prophesies that the environment will be so conducive to farming and produce so much food that the people who are harvesting the crops will not have enough time to collect it all before it is time to plant again for the next season (Amos 9:13). There are prophecies of people living in cities, having vineyards, and growing fruit (Amos 9:14, Micah 4:4).

There are promises that there will be lots of rain for crops, and plenty of food:

"And he will give rain for the seed with which you sow the ground, and bread, the produce of the ground, which will be rich and plenteous. In that day your livestock will graze in large pastures, and the oxen and the donkeys that work the ground will eat seasoned fodder, which has been winnowed with shovel and fork" (Isaiah 30:23-24).

Nature will flourish. Isaiah says "The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad; the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus; it shall blossom abundantly and rejoice with joy and singing" (Isaiah 35:1-2).

Futhermore, "For waters break forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert; the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water" (Isaiah 35:6-7).

Perhaps this will be the fulfillment of what nature has been longing for from the time it was cursed after the fall of humanity, as described in Romans 8:19-23 (NRSV):

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

So we don't have to worry about the world permanently turning into a barren, dry, overheated place. God has promised it won't, and instead, God has promised that the planet's best days seem to be ahead of us.

If carbon dioxide is plant food, perhaps higher concentrations of it in the atmosphere would actually enable such a future time of lush vegetation and plentiful crops as described by Scripture?

Some researchers say more carbon dioxide in the air and higher temperatures might be beneficial for plant growth.1 For example, NASA did a study that showed that higher carbon dioxide in the air has contributed to about 70% to the increase in plant growth on the planet over the last 35 years! The earth now has 25% to 50% more green plants on it than it did 35 years ago.2

Climate change may indeed be occurring, even if humans have no effect on the climate. But the climate is always changing, because in the past it has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, with sea levels higher and lower, and humans have adapted to it. Why should now be any different?

Climate Change Is a Convenient Excuse for World Government

The excessive urgency and hype around climate change makes me wonder if there's not something more behind it.

After all, if it is true that people are having an impact on the climate, then why don't we see environmentalist leaders actually changing their lifestyles in order to be examples for others to follow?

But no, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Elizabeth May, etc. still have mansions, private jets, and SUVs. Barack Obama recently bought beachfront property,3 which is a pretty silly thing to buy if global warming is really going to increase the sea level and make coastal areas uninhabitable.

So the elites who cry so much about climate change being the end of the world are happy to fly around the world to climate conferences in their private jets, drinking out of non-reusable coffee cups,4 and living fossil-fuel dependent lifestyles.

At least Greta lives out her conviction to not fly in airplanes, which has now left her stuck in North America after the UN suddenly moved its important climate conference in December from Chile to Spain.5

Clearly these other hypocritical leaders are not so afraid of climate change that they feel the need to change their lifestyles. They just seem to want the power to tell others how to live.

For example, in 2019, Prince Charles has claimed that if we're going to save the planet so that humanity doesn't become extinct, then major changes need to be made to our society in just 18 months.6

The UN also wants to bring in its Agenda 2030 by 2030.7 On the surface these goals seem noble, such as sustainable economic development and environmental protection. Yet "These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike." Many similar statements about "all countries" echo throughout the document. They specifically say they want "all States to work for an ambitious and universal climate agreement."

What better excuse is there for giving government unlimited control over everyone's lives on the planet than with the claim that if they don't, then the planet will become uninhabitable?

After all, to "save the planet" from that awful carbon dioxide, the government would have to have absolute control over things like:

How much food and what sort of food everyone eats.
How you travel around your city (transit/bike/walk/car-share).
How large of a home you're allowed to have.
How many children each family is allowed to have (to avoid overpopulation).8
What sort of vehicles you're allowed to have (electric or hybrid?).
What sort of appliances you're allowed to buy or that you must buy (solar panels?).
How much you are allowed fly or travel long-distance.
What sort of products you have access to in your local stores (international shipping produces lots of carbon dioxide).

It would require them to have total control over the economies of the entire world, to determine what is allowed to be produced, by who, where, in what quantity, and using which sources of energy. But when has that level of government control over the economy ever worked out to anyone's benefit? (Hint: see the horrific history of 'centrally planned' economies).

It would probably lead to some sort of global carbon-credit system, which would turn into a rationing system of carbon credits where you only get so many credits per month. If you run out, you have to pay more, but if you use less, then you can sell them. This sort of system is already being used in countries around the world for large businesses.

So I think that the hype is probably an attempt to implement global government using people's fear of climate change. And of course, God tells us where global government leads:

And authority was given it over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all who dwell on earth will worship it. (Revelation 13:7)

This is referring to the "Beast" of Revelation. Satan claims to already have power over the nations of the world and to give them to whoever he wants (Matthew 4:8-9). But can we imagine how much more convenient it would be for him if there were a one-world government?

No more pesky democracy to worry about getting in the way of his ultimate plans for the world. All Satan would have to control would be the leader of this world-government, who is usually referred to by Bible-prophecy scholars as the "Antichrist".

Daniel metaphorically describes such an authoritarian world-wide government as a beast which is "exceedingly terrifying, with its teeth of iron and claws of bronze, and which devoured and broke in pieces and stamped what was left with its feet" (Daniel 7:19). Basically, this future government will crush all resistance and dominate the world.

Jesus says this situation will come as a "snare" or a "trap" upon the whole world (Luke 21:34-35). With a one-world government, you are indeed trapped—there's no place you can run to escape it. This is the government which will make war on God's saints and overcome them (Daniel 7:21, Revelation 13:7). This would be a truly terrifying situation for Christians on earth during the Tribulation.

But it gets even worse. The "false prophet" in league with the Antichrist will then set up an economic system where "it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the Mark of the Beast, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name" (Revelation 13:16-17).

To me, this sounds like exactly the sort of economic control that could be implemented through a mandatory worldwide carbon-credit exchange system, which would track every purchase or exchange of credits anyone anywhere makes. Without the Mark of the Beast that enables your access to such a system, you can't buy or sell anything. But if you do take the Mark of the Beast, then you get to face God's eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11).

The prefix "anti-" in the term "Antichrist" can also mean this person is not just "against" or "opposed to" Christ but comes "instead of" or "in place of" Christ.9 The "anti-Christ" will want to be worshipped by everyone as if he were God: he "opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

If people are scared enough of climate change, they may very well look to world-government to save us from our environmental "sins" if it promises "salvation" to us if only we will do whatever it demands. The one-world government would become a sort of savior, replacing Christ as the one in whom all people should place their hope for their future and to whom they owe our ultimate allegiance.

Those who follow and worship the Antichrist and take his Mark of the Beast will realize too late that they have sacrificed their eternal future for their temporal future when Jesus returns and they are eternally destroyed in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15).

It's Not God's Judgment, It's Just Climate Change!

Conveniently, many of the natural disasters in the book of Revelation that are a result of God's end-times judgment on the world could perhaps be explained away as catastrophic results of climate change. See:

people being killed by "famine and with pestilence and by wild beasts of the earth" (Revelation 6:8).
a third of the trees and all the grass being burnt up (Revelation 8:7).
a third of the sea turning into blood, and a third of the creatures in it dying (Revelation 8:8-9).
a third of the fresh water turning 'bitter' (Revelation 8:10-11).
every living thing in the sea dying (Revelation 16:3).
rivers and springs becoming like blood (Revelation 16:4).
people being scorched by the sun's "fierce heat" (Revelation 16:8-9).
the Euphrates river drying up (Revelation 16:12).
extremely large hailstones (Revelation 16:21).

And these are only some of God's judgments that will be poured out on the Christ-rejecting, rebellious world during the Tribulation.

God warns us that nature is under His control, and can be used as judgment on sinful people in Hosea 4:1-3:

Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel,for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea are taken away.

If we're seeing nature become uncooperative and inhabitable, and we see animals becoming extinct at faster rates, we should consider that maybe this is a form of God's judgment on a sinful world. Unfortunately, the book of Revelation seems to say it will get much worse before it gets better.

So yes, perhaps Greta should be afraid after all. But not because of climate change.

Christians Today Should Have No Fear

Yet for Christians today, we can be comforted by Jesus' words:

Jesus' return for Christians can happen anytime in the event called the Rapture. Paul describes this event in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18:

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

We are guaranteed that this will happen before any of the judgments in Revelation occur, because of God's promises in Scripture.

For example, Paul says Christians shouldn't worry about the end-times because "God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

In contrast, Jesus describes the Tribulation as the worst time in the history of the world (Matthew 24:21), and it is called "the wrath of the Lamb" (Revelation 6:16-17).

In Revelation 3:10 God promises the faithful church that "Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth."

There is no reason for God to keep faithful Christians on earth during that time.

There will be some people who convert to Christianity after the Rapture, but it will be too late for them to escape and they will be the ones who will be persecuted and probably killed by the Antichrist. But they will be resurrected at the end and rewarded for their faith (Revelation 20:4).

There are other good arguments for why the Rapture will be before the Tribulation begins. But right now that's not the point.

My point right now is that the Tribulation is what non-Christians today should actually be worried about, far more than climate change. The signs that the Tribulation is near are so numerous that someone who is paying attention can see them everywhere.

And that means the Rapture is even nearer, and so Christians today shouldn't be scared about climate change or the Tribulation. Instead, what we can do is share with our friends and family the good news of Jesus' death for our sins, so that others can believe and have eternal life. Then they can also look forward to the Rapture, and have peace about their eternal future, no matter what happens in their temporal lives.

Conclusion

So if you meet someone who is overly fearful about climate change, perhaps sharing with them these points can help. Remind them that God is in control of nature, and that God has promised that humans will be around on earth for a long time to come.

And share the gospel with them, because despite all the signs of the approaching Tribulation, each individual may face God sooner than that since we are never promised our next breath (Luke 12:20). Eternal life is infinitely more important than temporary life on this planet.

But if you have trusted in Christ, then be at peace. The world is in God's hands, and your future is safe. You will get to see nature restored and flourishing during the millennial kingdom of Jesus, and forever on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1). It's going to be amazing. In comparison, the most beautiful sunset or nature scene that you've seen in your life will seem like a dull, half-dead thing.

So encourage one another with our Biblical hope of the soon return of Christ for the Church, and look forward to Christ's coming kingdom where all things will be set straight—including nature.

Footnotes:

1. S.B. Idso, B.A. Kimball, M.G. Anderson, J.R. Mauney, "Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature", Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Vol 20, Issue 1 (November, 1987). Available at ScienceDirect.com.
2. Karl B. Hille, "Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds", NASA.gov, April 26, 2016.
3. WND Staff, "Rush Limbaugh: Why would Obama buy 'doomed' beach house?", WND, August 23, 2019.
4. Matt Gurney, "Matt Gurney: Elizabeth May's faked cup is a perfect symbol of climate hysteria", The National Post, September 25, 2019.
5. Aylin Woodward, "Greta Thunberg is stuck on the wrong continent after the year's most important UN climate change summit got moved from Chile to Spain", Business Insider India, November 2, 2019.
6. Marc Morano, "Prince Charles at it again: Issues new 18-month climate tipping point after previous ‘100 month’ deadline expires", Climate Depot, July 16, 2019.
7. "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development", United Nations Department of Social and Economic Affairs,
8. Eric Roston, Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say, Bloomberg.com, November 5, 2019.
9. Mark Hitchcock, Who Is The Antichrist? (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2011), 41.

Why Doesn't God Prevent More Evil?

2019-09-01T00:00:00+00:00

In a previous post I talked about the 'problem' of believing that God is fully good and loving while accepting that sometimes God punishes people with death because of their sins, and how I make sense of that.

Another frequent accusation against God's goodness is that if God was really totally good and all-powerful, then God should prevent more evil. Skeptics say the only reason why there is evil is that either God doesn't exist, God is not all-powerful, or at worst, God is not all-good or all-loving.

I've seen this problem referred to in numerous accounts of why some people have left Christianity. They might have experienced an incident of evil that they thought God should have prevented. Or they might consider all the suffering they see on the news all around the world, and feel outrage that God doesn't do more to stop it.

So here I will present the best arguments I've found which can explain why an all-powerful, perfectly loving God might not prevent all evil in the world. I hope this will help Christians make sense of this difficult topic, as well as understand some possible reasons behind their own experiences of being afflicted by evil or suffering.

Why Not Just Say God Isn't Omnipotent?

It would seem that the easiest solution to the problem would be to say that God is not omnipotent. That is, God is not all-powerful, because God gave away some power to humans and fallen angels, who misuse their power to do evil.

This is the approach taken by Thomas J. Oord in his book The Uncontrolling Love of God (2015). He says it is more comforting to believe that God is always doing everything God can to prevent and restrain evil, and that God never chooses to allow any evil to occur that God could prevent.

So for example, Oord tells the story of a woman who was horribly raped by gangs and suffered severe injuries that caused pain for the rest of her life. He thinks it is better for Christians to say that God did not want this to happen but God could not prevent it, because a God of pure love would never allow any evil that He could prevent.1

Oord argues that it's better to say God gives all creation real, irrevocable freedom and never takes it away, even when free creatures use it to do evil, or when the freedom inherent in creation leads to negative consequences like natural disasters.2

And because God is spirit and does not have a body, Oord says, God literally cannot override all evil since God can't physically intervene in the world, but must influence others to intervene on God's behalf, if they so freely choose.3 So if people disobey God, there's nothing God can really do about it.

But to me, this position is actually terrifying, because it means that there is some force out there that is actually more powerful than God! And not only that, but this force is not fully loving or good!

Whether that force is sinful human free will, evil demons, or the chaotic nature of fallen creation, in any case, God would seem to be stuck in an eternal struggle against this force, and there would be no guarantee that God would be able to overcome it in order to vanquish evil once and for all.

I'd rather live in a world where, for some reason, God temporarily allows evil, even if God could wipe it out at any time.

So what are some reasons why an omnipotent and loving God would allow evil to exist temporarily?

Everyone Is A Sinner

One of the easiest solutions we might imagine for how God could prevent evil is for God to simply kill someone who is about to do evil, or who has sinned more than what God wants to allow.

Therefore, the simplest argument for why God allows evil to exist temporarily is because if he did not, he would have to wipe out all humanity, since everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23-24, 5:12, 3:10-19).

God certainly can choose when any sinful individual dies, such when Herod died on the spot due to his pride (Acts 12:21-23), or when God judged Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11). At other times, God has intervened to prevent evil even more dramatically, such as by sending an angel to kill 185,000 soldiers of the Assyrian army before they could attack Jerusalem (2 Kings 19:35).

There are times when God destroys sinners on a large scale by sending judgments such as the worldwide flood (Genesis 6:5-7, 7:17-23), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-29), or the divine judgments during the Tribulation (Revelation chapters 6-18).

In these instances, we should again remember that whenever God judges someone with death, it is not God doing evil but is an instance of God carrying out his good and righteous justice.

Yet if God simply killed every sinful person whenever they were about to do evil of any sort, the world would quickly become depopulated. So it seems that God must allow individuals a certain level of freedom to do some evil as a result of God's choice to give humans free will.

This is what Clark Pinnock argues when he says that God voluntarily makes himself vulnerable by limiting God's own power in order to share power with his free creatures (i.e., humans, angels, and fallen angels/demons). This limitation on God's power gives creatures room to rebel against God. Therefore, God must also allow creatures to act out this rebellion by using their freedom to perform actions that go against God’s will.

Admittedly, it appears to be temporarily risky for God to allow the world to be affected by creaturely power in ways that God does not approve of, but God allows it because creaturely freedom is what allows God to have genuine relationships with his free creatures.4

The same issue of human free will arises if we ask why God doesn't prevent what we think of as the 'worst' evils.

Why Doesn't God Prevent The 'Worst' Evils?

One easy answer for why God doesn't prevent more evil, is that if God were to prevent the 'worst' evils, then eventually, it would lead us to demand that God prevent all evil.

Let's imagine that God does intervene to prevent the 'worst' moral evils. Things like the holocaust, genocide, and the massacres under communist dictators like Stalin and Mao do not occur because God prevented them.

Then, since we would be unaware of these 'worst' evils that God prevented, we would demand that He also prevent the next-worst moral evils that we do see occurring. For example, now we would demand that God stop all murder, all rape, all drunk driving, all instances of bullying of children, and all divorce. After all, a loving God surely doesn't want these things to happen either, right?

So let's imagine that God prevents these incidents of moral evil also. Now the worst moral evils in the world are things like prank calls, shoplifting, gossiping, and graffiti. But, if we were totally unaware of all the other evils God has already prevented, we would again insist that God stop these things also, for these would be considered as leading to unacceptable levels of suffering. We would complain "Why would a good and loving God allow some punk to spray-paint my garage door? Doesn't God love me?"

So as you can see, if God were to prevent every instance of evil because we find it intolerable, it would mean God would have to override all human free will, so that no moral choices would be possible. Therefore, it is understandable that God does not prevent all moral evil, because to prevent all evil would override all free will.5

Why Is Free Will Important to God?

However, this raises the question of why God values free will.

Some people make the mistake of saying that God values free will in itself, as if God is a sort of libertarian who values freedom above everything else, and would never take away or limit anyone's freedom to act however they want.

For example, the open theist John Sanders was asked if he would want God to override his daughter's free will if she were wandering down a rail track with a train approaching and force her to move off the track. He replied that taking away her free will is not God's only option to prevent a tragedy, but, if God did warn her to move, he believed his daughter would retain the freedom to ignore God's Holy Spirit warning her to move off the track.6

From this, I get the impression that Sanders thinks free will is 'untouchable' by God, because it would be unacceptable for God to override or restrain someone's free will even if their lives were in danger.

I sometimes see this same idea that God would never restrain free will because God values free will in itself made by Arminian apologists who are debating with Calvinists. But if this was true, and God loves and honors free will for free will's sake, then it doesn't make any sense why God would get angry at sin or punish sinners. After all—sin is just someone using their free will!

And why should God restrain any evil, if what God loves most is free will? It would seem that if God truly loved freedom for freedom's sake, then God would back off completely and avoid intervening in our world at all, and leave everything entirely up to our free will. But then God could not guarantee that evil would one day be defeated, or that God's prophecies would ever be fulfilled, as we already saw in my critique of Oord's view at the start of this post.

Free Will Necessary for Love

So God does not value free will for free will's sake. Free will is only good insofar as it serves God's higher purposes, which is the existence of truly loving relationships.

The Bible says God IS love (1 John 4:8), and therefore God's reason for creating the universe is to create more loving relationships for God to participate in and enjoy, and so love is what God loves most.

Now, loving relationships are not possible without free will. If God forced anyone to love him, that love would not mean anything to God. It would be as meaningful as if you programmed you computer to say "I love you" each morning—which is to say—not meaningful at all! I talk about this idea in greater detail in my argument against universalism, and even more detail in my post about why God lets people reject him.

But, this raises the question of how much free will we really need to fulfill God's purposes. And I believe that amount is much less than we typically assume.

After all, no one has absolutely unimpeded free will. We do not choose many things about ourselves. We don't choose when or where we are born, our parents, or our DNA. We don't choose our intellectual capabilities, our personalities, or our gifts. We can't change past history. We don't even have total control over our own bodies and whether we face illnesses. And clearly, we don't have control over the choices of others, which can have significant impact on our lives.

So when it comes to God's ultimate purpose for humanity, I think we really only need one absolutely free choice, which is: do we choose to love God or not. This is what I argue in my theory of Christian inclusivism.

And if this one choice is made wrongly, it will naturally and necessarily lead to sin and evil.

For if anything is truly good and in alignment with our purpose of loving God and loving others, then God allows it (Matthew 22:37-40, Romans 13:9-10). The only reason God does not allow some things, and labels those things as sin and evil, are because they are inherently bad for us, and therefore, they automatically lead to suffering sooner or later. That's exactly why sin angers God, and why God instructs us to avoid sinning!

By choosing to not love God, who is pure Love, and hence, who is also pure Goodness, humans are effectively choosing not-love, and not-goodness: that is, sin, evil, and suffering. We are saying to God "I do not want to act in ways that align with perfect Love and perfect Goodness". For if we truly loved God, who is Love, then we would also love to act in ways that are perfectly loving, for all God's commands are summed up as love. When we sin, we do not love God, we do not love others, and we do not even love ourselves, and instead we act in ways that hurt others and hurt ourselves.

Therefore, choosing to not love God, is by default choosing what is sinful and evil, which inherently leads to suffering.

But Why Must God Allow So Much Sin and Evil?

So we've seen that because God loves loving relationships, God allows each human enough free will to love God or not. And if humans choose not to love God, because God's nature is perfect love and perfect goodness, by not loving God, we are sinning, which leads automatically to evil and suffering.

And therefore, God must allow at least enough free will for each person to potentially sin at least once in their lives. And Scripture says that all humans sin (Romans 3:23), and every sin is worthy of eternal death.

One sin per person would be the absolute minimum of sin and evil that God would theoretically have to allow in the world.

So why can't God just give us just enough freedom so that each person only sins once? Even if it would lead to some suffering, it would surely be much better than this world, right?

But I think the problem is that humans as a species are really dumb. We're also really good at trying to justify ourselves in our own eyes and in the eyes of others and make excuses for ourselves (e.g. Genesis 3:12-13).

Let's say we each only sinned once. We would say to God "Well, it was just an accident! I'm actually still a very good person—I don't have a problem with sin in my heart. It was just bad judgment. I was too curious for my own good. In fact, I was deceived - just like how Eve was deceived (Genesis 3:13). It's not my fault! If you punish me for this one accidental sin, without giving me a second chance, then you're being unfair! In fact, you would be totally unloving!"

And we would make the same excuse the next time also.

So I think God allows enough human free will, and enough sin and evil (and thus, enough suffering) to exist in the world to prove it to us that we really have a major problem in our hearts.7

It's not that we slip up once and accidentally sin, despite being otherwise good people. Instead, history and our own consciences prove to us that the human heart is continually evil and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9, Genesis 6:5), and that there's nothing we can do on our own to solve the problem ourselves.

History shows us that the solution to sin is not better education, better parenting techniques, more welfare, more 'tolerance' for differences, more 'reconciliation' between people groups, excluding/eliminating some people groups, less pollution, more organic food, more democracy, more socialism, more laws, less laws, banning guns or nuclear weapons, the uniting of all religions into one, the banning of all religion, or even better technology.

The history of humanity as described in the Bible shows that humans fail again and again, under every circumstance imaginable:

We fail when we're left to live according to our own consciences, as humanity was before the Flood, ending up in a world full of violence where most people's thoughts were continually evil (Genesis 6:5).
We fail even when God starts over with only relatively 'good' people like Noah and his family, and even when Noah is given the authority to restrain evil by putting murderers to death (Genesis 9:6).
We fail when God chooses one guy to start a new nation by which God will reveal Himself to humanity (Israel) by giving them God's laws (the Torah) which, if followed, would have led to a relatively good society, and gave them the authority to punish those who broke these laws. On top of this, God threatened the entire nation with various punishments for mass rebellion which should have encouraged obedience. But they repeatedly turn away to idolatry and sinful practices, leading to repeated judgments and finally, to rejection of their Messiah.
We fail even after God comes to us in the human form of Jesus and teaches us in person what God wants us to do, and demonstrates it to us in His own actions. But, we decide we'd rather torture and kill Him, and actually do so.
We fail even after the Church is created, and Christians with the Holy Spirit indwelling us take God's love into the world as salt and light (Matthew 5:13-16). But Christians remain imperfect and act in hypocritical and sinful ways, leading to much suffering and evil committed by various Christian leaders and denominations. Most of the world continues to reject the Church's testimony about Christ and persecutes Christians.
Even the Millennium, when Jesus reigns over the world personally from Jerusalem (Isaiah 9:6-7), with the incorruptible government of resurrected Christians (Revelation 20:4), when Satan is bound in the pit (Revelation 20:1-3), and starting over with only a population of people who love God (Matthew 25:31-34), will end in another rebellion of sinful humanity (Revelation 20:7-9).

So I think God lets us sin enough to prove to us that we have no excuses left. Under every system of government, under every situation of divine law or lack thereof, in every country and culture around the world, and despite the huge variation we see in personal circumstances, every single human sins, and probably sins at least once every day, if not more.

Now, you think this should get humanity to wake up and realize we've got a sin problem in our hearts which cannot be blamed on anyone or anything besides ourselves, and that we can't do anything to fix it on our own. This should help us see that we need God to step in, to save us from ourselves, and from the situation we created by rebelling against God and God's desires for ourselves. This should make us see that we deserve God's judgment and wrath, and need Jesus as our savior.

God allows sin to still be present in even Christians' earthly lives, so that we do things that our regenerated inner selves do not want to do (Romans 7:14-23), in order to keep reminding us that our only hope is in Jesus and not ourselves (Romans 7:24-25), to keep our pride in check (1 John 1:8-10, Luke 18:9-14).

But Can't God Negate the Negative Consequences of Sin?

Someone might argue that God should allow us to make free choices but also miraculously prevent the negative results of our sinful choices. But I believe Millard Erickson got it right when he says:

Libertarian freedom must include the power of actions to carry to their consequences. If not it is a rather spurious form of freedom...This would seem to be a denial of freedom, not in the sense of precluding the action, but of negating its intended effect.8

Richard Rice agrees, and says,

So if God interrupts a person’s thought to shoot a gun at someone, for example, it is denying that person the ability to use their free will to have a real effect in the world.

Even if God let them go through with it but then miraculously diverted all the bullets from hitting anyone, it would still be overriding the shooter’s free will. Not in the sense of controlling their will, but by denying them the ability for their actions to make any difference in the world.

We do occasionally hear stories of things like a mass-murderer's gun getting jammed, or other similar events where an evil person's intention is thwarted by something outside of their control. So God does not have to allow all instances of sinful intention to always carry through to sinful action.

But these quotes show that God cannot prevent all negative consequences of sin, or then God really would be effectively denying all freedom to make sinful choices, which as we've already seen, would thwart God's purposes for the world.10 The reasons why God may allow or prevent any particular instance of evil will be discussed later in this article.

Additionally, it could be that God often allows the consequences of sin to occur, because otherwise, if God prevented us from seeing the suffering that sin naturally will lead to, then we would start to wonder if sin is really as bad as God says it is. The horrible consequences of sin should persuade us and others that sin should be avoided for our own good, thus, confirming the earlier argument that sin is forbidden by God because it leads to suffering.

But Why Not Prevent More Natural Evil?

So, let's say my argument is valid up to this point and we can see why God allows some moral evil to exist. An objector might say, well, what about natural evil, such as disease, accidents, natural disasters, predation, and so forth? Why doesn't God just kill all those mosquitos, to spare us from their bites? Why not prevent all earthquakes, tornadoes, and cancer?

These natural evils are all explainable as the byproducts of a fallen world, which goes back to the first sin of Adam and Eve.

God said that as a result of their sin, nature would no longer be as idyllic as it first was. Now, things like thorns appear in the ground (Genesis 3:17-18). And although it's not stated explicitly, we can say that all other natural evils also began at this time, because these things are surely not God's desire for his people or his creatures. When God finished creating the world, God said it was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).

But the suffering caused by disease or deformities are never seen as being 'good' in Scripture. The death and destruction caused by natural disasters is not good. Animals did not originally eat one another (Genesis 1:29-30), and so carnivory must have been a result of the change of nature which occurred after the first sin.

Even some forms of entropy and decay may be results of the first sin, such as rust and the wearing out of clothes (Matthew 6:19), and the suffering caused by ageing which is really just the gradual death of our bodily cells as a reminder of our approaching death, which is a punishment for sin.

All of this makes total sense. For when Adam and Eve sinned, they basically said to God "We don't need you—now we're going to be like gods! Go away, we can take care of ourselves."

So, it seems God effectively said "Ok, you don't want me around? You don't want my influence in the world, even though I'm the source of everything that is good in it? Let me show you a small sample of what a world without me is like..." And so God withdrew some of his sustaining influence over the world, which meant that things started going awry.

Now, there are times in Scripture where God chooses to override these things. For example, God does cure disease (e.g. 2 Kings 5:14), does heal deformities and disabilities (e.g. Acts 3:7-8), and can even prevent clothes from wearing out (Nehemiah 9:21). So God clearly can override natural evil if God wants to.

But I think if God got rid of all natural evil, then God would basically be undoing the curse of nature placed on the world as a result of Adam and Eve's sin. And since each of us descended from these first two humans also inherited their sinful, rebellious tendency (Romans 5:12, 5:19), we also deserve to live in such a world where God's sustaining power and presence is reduced. God doesn't owe rebels a perfect life in a perfect world. Technically, the fact that we're even still alive and the world is as good as it is is a testament to God's mercy and grace!

In the future Millennial kingdom which Jesus will establish after his return to earth after the Tribulation (Isaiah 9:6-7), God will bring back some of God's sustaining power to creation.

This means we will get things like wolves who no longer eat lambs (Isaiah 11:6, 65:25), and infants who can play with poisonous snakes without being hurt (Isaiah 11:8), and the ground will produce food much more easily than it does now (Amos 9:13). But this won't be absolute paradise, for there will still be sin (Isaiah 65:20), and sin will still lead to negative consequences for people.

Temporarily Allowing Evil and Sin is Necessary for Redemption

Of course, God could have justly chosen to kill Adam and Eve on the spot after they sinned, since death is the penalty for sin (Genesis 2:16-17). And God could justly choose to withdraw more of God's influence over nature, which would mean there would be even more disasters and diseases in the world.

But God loved Adam and Eve so much that God did not instantly kill them, and instead promised to redeem them (Genesis 3:15) by providing a way so that they and all their descendants could be saved from the punishment of eternal death for sin (John 3:16). This is why Jesus came to earth, to die on the cross, absorbing God's wrath at sin on behalf of sinners, so that God can forgive us, if we accept God's offer of eternal life by believing that Jesus died for our sins.

Therefore, if God wants to redeem humanity, God must temporarily allow sin and evil to exist. Because again, without taking away all human free will or wiping out all humanity, there is no way to avoid all human sin or evil, and at least some minimal level of free will is necessary for the possibility of loving relationships which are God's goal, as discussed above.

God Does Place Limits on Evil In General

Despite all of the above, there is still a whole lot of evil that I believe God does prevent.

We can see this when we look at several conditions that are necessary in order for God's promises and purposes to be fulfilled:

God must prevent the total self-destruction of humanity.
God must prevent the ultimate victory of Satan.
God must prevent the complete overthrow of the Church, thus, ensuring the gates of hell will never prevail (Matthew 16:18).
God must prevent the total destruction of his people Israel and the Jews (in fulfillment of OT promises like Joel 3:20, and for future prophecies regarding Israel like Romans 11:25 to be fulfilled).
God must allow generally enough stability and goodness in the world that people can usually live without being in a constant state of minute-to-minute survival. For it's hard to have time to think about abstract ideas like God or do good works when under constant imminent threats of injury or death.
God must prevent enough evil and suffering that most people's lives are tolerable enough that they do not want to kill themselves on a day-to-day basis, and that people generally live long enough so that humanity as a whole will continue to procreate and raise children. (Even though this is sort of just a variation on point #1).

But Why Does God Allow Any Particular Instance of Evil?

However, ultimately, I agree with Gregory Boyd that we cannot know exactly why God allows or prevents any particular instance of evil, because we do not know all the different factors that affect God's decision.11 We don't know why God heals one person but not another, or why God saves one person from experiencing evil but not someone else.

It might be that we have some responsibility to try to make wise choices for our lives, and if we make poor choices, then there's a greater chance we will experience negative consequences, which God allows to teach us wisdom, to develop our character, and to learn to avoid sin.

It might be that our free decisions can also play a part in preventing evil. Thus, it is both smart and right for us to do what we can within reason to protect ourselves and others from being victimized by evil people.12

It might be explained by spiritual warfare in the invisible parts of reality.

It might depend on how many people choose to obey God, how many people pray for something, or how strong the faith of various people who pray is.13

And some of it depends on God's wisdom and providential plan regarding how He is currently working in history to fulfill His prophecies, to convict people of sin and their need for repentance, to judge or restrain evil, or whatever else falls within God's good purposes.

The exact method behind how God may allow or restrain evil is the topic for another post, but at least we can say that since God is fully good, evil and sin is never ever caused by God's positive action or inspiration. God can withdraw and let evil happen, but the source of evil is always the misuse of the free will of God's created beings, whether human or demonic.

Conclusion

I hope this post has shown that there are indeed answers to the difficult question of why a loving God would not prevent all evil, and why God allows there to be as much evil in the world as there is. But we may not know at least in this life all the reasons why God allowed any particular instance of sin or evil.

The topic of theodicy is a difficult one, but it is one that I believe Christians need to have answers to, not only for when we personally are afflicted with evil and ask God why it happened, but to have answers ready for skeptics, or for Christians to help them not give up on faith when they see evil in the world or experience suffering.

And Christians can have confidence that regardless of how dark the world gets, or how powerful evil seems to be, God will one day utterly destroy it, and all that will be left for eternity will be the New Heaven and New Earth, where every tear will be wiped away, and there will be no more pain or evil at all (Revelation 21:1-4). Furthermore, we can be comforted that Christians will be eternally compensated for every instance of suffering we experience in this world (Romans 8:16-18).

Thus, we must humbly accept that God has the right to decide which instances of evil he chooses to allow and which to not allow, depending on all the complexities of this world and creaturely free will that only God can fully know.

In the meantime, let's do all we can to do good, and to pray for God to restrain evil in our world. Let's try to overcome sin in our personal lives, and encourage others also, while spreading the good news that Jesus has died for our sins so we can have eternal life for free!

Footnotes:

1. Thomas J. Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 140-143.
2. Thomas J. Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 169-175.
3. Thomas J. Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 176-180.
4. Clark Pinnock, "Systematic Theology," in The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 115.
5. Bruce Reichenbach, "God Limits His Power," in Predestination & Free Will eds. David and Randall Basinger (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 122.
6. Christopher A. Hall and John Sanders, Does God Have A Future? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 38 and 42.
7. "What would lead God to stand by and watch such suffering? If there isn't something of infinite importance going on, if there isn't something of profound, even eternal, significance going on in and through all this, is there not a good reason to protest against heaven? God stands by because we have a need greater than unbroken happiness, greater than unending health and prosperity — we need redemption!" Jim McGuiggan, Celebrating the Wrath of God: Reflections on the Agony and the Ecstasy of His Relentless Love (Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbook Press, 2001), 100.
8. Millard Erickson, What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003), 194-195.
9. Richard Rice, Suffering and the Search for Meaning (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 2014), 100.
10. "The almighty God could veto any specific act, but if he made a habit of it then he would turn the beloved into an automaton and thus find himself alone, which is not the sort of relationship he wants. God cannot prevent all the evil in the world and still maintain the conditions of fellowship intended by his overarching purpose in creation." John Sanders, The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence Revised Ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2007), 269.
11. Gregory Boyd, Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 369.
12. Gregory Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 123-139.
13. Gregory Boyd, Is God to Blame? (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 79-80, 119-124.