Book Review: "Reading Revelation Responsibly" by Michael J. Gorman

There is a lot of good here, but not enough nuance.

It is good to draw out and emphasize the overarching, timeless message and theological principles from Revelation, and not to get lost in the details and miss the forest for the trees. But this can be done whether one interprets the details as being past or future.

It is also good to beware of idolizing one's nation, thinking it is the kingdom of God on earth. But his critique of American civil religion, I felt, was simplistic. On the one hand, completely de-sacralizing government is a thoroughly modern idea, and Gorman fails to recognize the ways in which modern, secularized views of government lend themselves to divinizing and worshiping the state. The Bible in fact instructs us to see and treat government, in all its forms, as sacred, because it is from God. This view of sacred government in fact resists idolizing the state, since God remains in the picture, and because a distinction is maintained between God and human government. The authority and honor government possesses is derived from God as a stewardship, is not at all ultimate, and comes with responsibilities and limitations.

Gorman's pacifism is built upon an interpretation of Revelation 5 and 19 that does not follow, finding more there than is allowed. The subject of violence is too large to tackle here. But Gorman's view, I think, is naïve and is certainly not demanded by the texts he appeals to. One of the weaknesses of this book is that Gorman hardly lets Revelation interact with other books in the canon, even though he does call for just that at the end of his monograph. But a responsible reading of Revelation would surely demand this.

18 Great Films that Illustrate Truth about Life and God

I am often on the lookout for good film recommendations, because I know the power of the medium, and the impact that stories have on our lives. Stories have a way of illustrating truth to us, memorably and imaginatively, in a manner abstract thinking cannot. They, of course, have their limitations, too, and need to be balanced by careful thinking and teaching. If you are a movie watcher, as most of us are today, you already are no doubt aware of the influence the films you've watched have had on your soul.

If you have any good recommends for me, I would love to hear them. Here are some films that I've found particularly noteworthy, and which I regularly commend. These are chosen because they are well-made, thought-provoking, historically interesting, and/or truth-illuminating.


Antwone Fisher (2002)
One of the most powerful films I've ever seen. A true story about a man who found healing from a broken, abusive, and destructive past. It demonstrates humanity's crucial need for community, love, truth, structure, discipline, and companionship. This is a film for everyone, because we are all broken, in need of wholeness.

Good (2008)
A film about how evil triumphs when good men do nothing, or perhaps, how seemingly good people end up doing horrible things, not because they actively pursue evil, but are just too passive and cowardly to go against the grain.

Anne of Green Gables (1985, 1987)
A TV series based on Lucy Maud Montgomery's bestselling novels, it follows the touching story of a bright and lively orphan who is adopted by an unpretentious, rural pair of elderly siblings in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The story is a celebration of the beauties and joys of life, filled with humor and love, and reminds us that life really is best lived simply, connected to family, home, and friends.

Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005)
This German film tells the heroic true story of Sophie Scholl, a Nazi-resistor who was executed at the tender age of 21. Sophie was a Christian, and this film explores her faith in God which motivated her to stand against an evil regime, even at the cost of her own life.

Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)
This wonderful film, based on a true story, is about the discovery of child chess-prodigy Josh Waitzkin, and the temptations associated with human giftedness and talent. It reminds us all of the ugliness of pride, and that the beauty of art is not worth sacrificing our relationships and compassion for others.

A Simple Plan (1998)
A very sobering exploration of sin, which exists in every heart underneath the veneer of normalcy and decency. A little giving in to sin--something we all do--leads humans into tangled webs of deceit, which in turn makes us to do even worse things we would not have dreamed of to begin with. The film eloquently illustrates the subtlety, ubiquity, and destructive results of sin, helping us reflect on the evil within us all.

The Hiding Place (1975)
Based on the true story of the Ten Boom family who hid Jews in their home during the Nazi occupation of Holland, and who were eventually arrested and sent to concentration camps. The film highlights the deep Christian faith that compelled the Ten Booms to love their Jewish neighbors even to the point of sacrificing their lives for them. I can't watch this film without tearing up. An inspiring true story of faith and love, skillfully acted and directed.

O.J.: Made In America (2016)
This documentary retells the life and times of football superstar O.J. Simpson, who was infamously on trial for the murder of his wife in the 1990s. Dubbed the trial of the century, the entire debacle provides us an important and instructive window into American society, with crucial lessons about race. The film complicates the simplistic narratives about racial strife in America which we often hear. It shows us how seeing everything through the lens of race can actually skew our view of reality and can, ironically, cause the miscarriage of justice.

Poverty, Inc. (2014)
A documentary which explores the negative impact of charitable organizations upon developing nations. Economics is a complicated thing, and although it seems like giving always equals helping, we don't often foresee the unintended consequences of our actions. There are crucial lessons to be learned here about how to love. When we love our neighbors, we must engage both our hearts and our minds.

Captains Courageous (1937)
Don't let the age of this film fool you. This is one of the great films of cinematic history. Based on the novel by Rudyard Kipling, the film tells the story of a spoiled young boy who falls off his father's ocean-liner and is rescued out of the sea by a fisherman. He must spend the next several months on board a fishing boat, and learns about hard work, respecting others, and what it means to be a man. Beautifully filmed and acted, this coming-of-age story is perfect for young and old alike.

The War (1994)
I grew up watching this film, and still love it for its potent and sensitive story. The film follows a poor family in Mississippi whose father, a Vietnam vet, suffers from PTSD which prevents him from holding down a job. An even poorer family, destitute of love, harasses the children, pressing them into conflict and hatred. The story teaches us about the power of grace, forgiveness, and love, and has one of the most powerful scenes demonstrating these that I've ever seen.

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
This is a remarkable film which illustrates how the love of money is the root of all evil. When a pair of penniless drifters discover a fortune in the mountains of Mexico, their presumed good morals are put to the ultimate test. The story depicts how sin warps us, distorts our vision, leads us to do things we might never have dreamed, sears our conscience, and finally brings about our ruin, unless we repent and are guided by a love set on something greater than ourselves.

Leave No Trace (2018)
This thoughtful drama is about a father and daughter who try to live off the grid, out of the sight and influence of society. The reason they do this, however, is because the father tragically suffers from PTSD. The film is a celebration of civilization and society. God created people to live together in society, and this film reminds us of the goodness of that arrangement, and that there's something wrong when we flee it. Nature alone, despite its beauty, is not sufficient for the human soul.

M (1931)
This chilling German film is a thought-provoking look at evil and justice. When a serial killer who targets children terrorizes a city, the police must turn to the criminal underworld to help them stop the culprit. But is sin just a result of poor upbringing and mental derangement, alleviating culpability and making sinners the victims, or is sin truly evil, worthy of punishment? This is the question the film confronts us with.

Flash of Genius (2008)
Based on the true of story of Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper whose invention was stolen by the Ford Motor Company in the 1960s, this film illustrates well humanity's craving for justice, while also making us ponder the limitations of our quest for justice. It helpfully demonstrates that justice is not simply a matter of pecuniary reimbursement, but that real justice involves the restoration of truth and honor.

Darkest Hour (2017)
This is my favorite of the Winston Churchill biopics. Churchill was the man the world needed in its darkest hour, during its crisis with Nazi tyranny, whose adamant convictions, courage, wit, common sense, and eloquence inspired the West to never surrender to evil. The film does a great job showing what he was up against, both from within and without. Churchill was a rare breed who understood that evil exists, and that you cannot compromise with it.

Gifted Hands (2009)
Biopic of Ben Carson, the distinguished neurosurgeon and politician. It follows his life from his humble beginnings, to his becoming a world-respected doctor, to his famous surgery separating conjoined twins. Carson's story is an inspiration, reminding us that through faith, a loving home, hard work, and God's grace, people can overcome obstacles and become blessings to the world.

States of Grace (2005)
This film, by Richard Dutcher, is an exceptional, gut-wrenching exploration of the concept of divine grace. It is actually a Mormon film, made while Dutcher was still a Mormon (he no longer is one), but I don't think that should deter Christians from seeing it. The view of grace which the film offers is not the typical Mormon view I've encountered, but is more of a cry of desperation for the reality of grace sounding from within Mormonism. Dutcher later left Mormonism, and I believe this film portrays part of the struggle he had with his former religion and with legalism. The film follows the lives of several characters, who come to realize in the midst of their failures that what they really need is not more effort on their part, not more rules, not more striving, but the pure grace of God found in Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 3:18-22 and 4:6 - Did Christ Preach in Hell?

Hello L---,

It was great to hear from you, and thanks for the good question. These passages don't yield their meaning so easily, and thus Bible readers have long wrestled with them. This means we must proceed without haste and with caution, remembering always that basic interpretive principle, that what is unclear must ever be understood in the light of what is clear.

We might wish that Peter had said more, but his very brevity actually holds the clue to its meaning. Peter's speech reveals that he expects his readers to know what he's talking about. He doesn't appear to be sharing a new thing with them for the first time, but is simply pointing their attention to things they already know. This means either that the background to these texts is already in the Bible somewhere, or that it is in their culture. If today we are slow in getting the point, it's because we either don't sufficiently see what is in the Bible, or we don't share the cultural context of those 1st century readers. Possibly both.

So let's not approach this passage as if Peter, like Joseph Smith, were sharing with them some "new revelation" about heavenly mysteries. Peter is appealing to a common and shared pool of knowledge. There's nothing esoteric here.

Let's begin with 3:18. "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit". There's nothing difficult about this verse, as Peter is simply stating something all Christians know, including us today. Christ died for our sins to accomplish our salvation, and rose from the dead. It's possible that this verse is an early Christian hymn, which would confirm the fact of it being public knowledge. One important thing to notice about this verse: the English translation above correctly reflects the Greek, when it says that Christ was put to death "in the flesh" but made alive "in the Spirit." This contrast emphasizes that Christ once lived in the flesh--which means the fallen, material realm of this creation--and died in the flesh, and yet when He rose, He rose no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit--that is, His body, while still His same real body, now partakes of the newness, power, and incorruptibility of the Spirit. Christ now is in a new state of being; He rose, not merely to exist again in this old world in the same way, but to a mode of existence that transcends what was before. He is free from death and decay, able to access both this world and the heavenly world, and He bodily ascended into heaven. This has relevance for what follows.

3:19: "in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison". Verse 19 confirms the point I just made, that through the resurrection Christ is now in the Spirit, and it is in this new state that He went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison. This is the crucial point. There are many who have thought that Peter is talking about Christ descending into hell when He died, and that the time in view here is between the crucifixion and the resurrection, i.e., while Jesus was dead. That is, they think Peter is saying that after Christ died, He went to hell and preached to the spirits there, and then rose. But I believe the text indicates that His going to the spirits in prison was a result of, and followed from, His resurrection: "...but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went..." After Jesus rose from the dead He preached to the spirits in prison. By identifying when this occurred, we will be greatly helped in understanding what it means.

At the risk of getting too technical, the Greek word translated here "he went" is πορευθεὶς. I mention this because this very word, and even its exact function, is found again in v. 22: "who is at the right hand of God, having gone ( πορευθεὶς) into heaven, with angels and authorities and powers having been subjected to Him." Both verses refer to the same "going." Peter repeats his point about Christ's going, and speaks about it from different angles. In v. 19 he says Christ "went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison"; in v. 22 he says He went "into heaven, with angels and authorities and powers having been subjected to Him." The two verses are speaking about the same thing.

Therefore most scholars today think that Peter is talking about Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven, after He atoned for our sins and accomplished redemption. He entered heaven in victory, as a returning conqueror, and announced His victory and rule over the evil spirits.

In a nutshell:

-When does this going and preaching occur? After the resurrection and ascension.
-Where does this occur? In heaven (the heavenly realm).
-What is the preaching? Not the offer of salvation, but the announcement of Christ's victory and rule over His enemies.
-To whom does this preaching occur? The evil spirits.

Let's examine what else Peter says about these spirits and their imprisonment.

3:20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." This verse describes who these spirits are. Peter is speaking of those evil spirits who rebelled against God during the antediluvian period (the age before the flood), who we read about in Genesis 6:1-6. According to the common interpretation of this passage in Peter's day, these were angelic beings who left their own realm, wickedly mixed with the human race, and incurred judgment upon themselves. The flood happened, in large part, because of them and their evil influence on human beings. It is interesting that Peter refers to them again in 2 Peter 2:4 (which speaks of their disobedience and subsequent imprisonment), and so does Jude in Jude 1:6. Although this story is less familiar today, it was widely known in Peter's day, and his readers would not have struggled to recognize who he was talking about. Once again, we see there is no esoteric knowledge here. Peter is working with stories and concepts that his readers already knew from the Bible.

Since we know who these spirits are, it is plain that Jesus's proclamation to them was not for the purpose of salvation. 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 1:6 tell us these beings are being kept in prison for judgment. Why then did Jesus preach to them? We aren't given the content of the preaching, but it is easy to imagine a declaration of victory or a proclamation of His rule. The hosts of hell were not only defeated by Christ, but they were told that they were defeated. One is reminded of Colossians 2:15: "When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." The entire letter of 1 Peter was written to encourage struggling, persecuted believers who find themselves as strangers and outcasts in the world. They are misunderstood and mistreated, thought of as worthless nobodies. But the truth is, they are a holy nation and royal priesthood, a people for God's own possession. They are precious to God. In the context around 3:18-22, Peter is encouraging his readers to look to and follow the example of Christ, who was Himself despised and rejected, although precious to God. And just as Jesus suffered greatly, yet ultimately was vindicated, rising from the dead and triumphing over His enemies, so Christians should take heart, because they too will experience victory over their enemies in the future. The function of 3:18-22, therefore, is to encourage Christians by emphasizing that Jesus defeated the Satanic hosts who meant evil for God and God's people. Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is now sitting at the right hand of God, having humiliated His enemies. The hearts of Christians should be strengthened by this, and see in Jesus the pattern of their own experience.

Thus far 3:18-22. What then of 4:6?

The simple answer is that 4:6 is not related to 3:18-22. Peter isn't returning to his previous point, but has moved on, and makes a fresh point in 4:6. In 4:6, the preaching to those who are dead is not the same as the preaching of Jesus to the evil spirits in prison in 3:19. Note that in 4:6 Peter does not say that Jesus did the preaching, and does not say that the dead are spirits in prison. He identifies the content of the preaching as "the gospel," and makes it clear that "the dead" are human beings ("that though they are judged in the flesh as men"). We are therefore talking about two very different things.

The preaching of the gospel to the dead in 4:6 means, not that the gospel was preached to people after they died, but before they died. That is, at the time of the writing of the letter they were dead, and so Peter calls them "the dead," because they were then dead; yet those dead people had the gospel preached to them during their lives. Peter's point is that the gospel is relevant not only for living people, but also for people who have died, because, as he says in 4:5, Christ will judge "the living and the dead." Jesus Christ is going to judge the entire world, not only those who remain alive when He returns, but absolutely everyone; and that is why the gospel was preached beforehand to people now dead, because all need the gospel, and our need for the gospel continues beyond our deaths. This idea contrasts the biblical worldview with the pagan worldview, because pagans believed a dead person was gone forever. You only live once, they say. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and for this reason they pursue all kinds of debauchery (1 Peter 4:2-4). But according to the Bible, no one dead is gone forever, for all will one day be raised again to be judged. That's why we preach the gospel to people even though they die. And those who believe the gospel, although they die and so appear condemned in the flesh, are in fact accepted by God and will live in the spirit. This recalls John 11:25: "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies." Read 4:6 again with perspective, and it should click.

Thanks so much for the great question, L---. It's one that many people have, and our difficulty in comprehending these texts is because we think they're way more mysterious than they really are. We just need to notice at the outset that Peter assumes his readers know what he's talking about.

Please let me know if you have any questions about what I've said.

The Lord bless you and strengthen your faith in His Son.
With love in Christ,
-Eli

Matthew 24:34 - This Generation Shall Not Pass Away...

Hello brother T---,

I'm finally writing a response to your now grey-haired question. Please forgive my slowness. A good answer needed time, and that was something I have not had thus far this semester, but as I'm now on Springbreak (praise the Lord!), I've come up for air, and hopefully the long wait won't disappoint, and you'll find here some helpful things to chew on.

Your question is an important one. Matthew 24:34 is a crossroads of interpretation (fancily called a crux interpretum), because it is greatly disputed. How one understands these words of Jesus basically affects one's whole eschatology, and eschatology shapes one's understanding of the entire flow of Scripture. Many think eschatology is a relatively unimportant appendix to theology, but it actually is the capstone, and as such it is influenced by, and influences, everything else we believe about the broad story line of the Bible. And this verse does much by way of determining our eschatology.

Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 all contain this saying. Together these make up what's been called the Olivet Discourse, which is Jesus's instruction to his disciples while they were on the Mount of Olives one evening as they walked from Jerusalem to Bethany. It deals with the destruction of Herod's temple, the end of the age, and was prompted by some questions the disciples had for Jesus after He predicted the razing of the temple. This context is all crucial for understanding the "this generation" saying, as I hope to show.

You probably know this already, but it's helpful to state the common interpretations of the saying. These fall under the categories of Preterist (past) and Futurist (future).

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."  (Matthew 24:34)

Preterist Interpretation: In the generation of Jesus, during that particular interval of time, all the things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse (the birth pangs, the persecutions, false prophets, abomination of desolation, and coming of Jesus on the clouds, etc.) took place. All was fulfilled in AD 70 when the temple was destroyed.

• "This generation" = the time of Jesus's contemporaries.
• "All these things" = everything spoken of in the Olivet Discourse.
• Status: the prophecy is fulfilled.
• Advantages: a plain interpretation of the words of Jesus. Everything in the verse is taken straightforwardly.
• Disadvantages: it is not obvious how all things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled in the 1st century.

Futurist Interpretation 1: The "generation" spoken of by Jesus is not a reference to time, but to posterity or seed (like in Acts 8:33, or Matt. 23:33). The seed is usually taken as the Jewish people, and therefore Jesus is understood to be saying that the Jewish people will not pass away until all things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse are fulfilled.

• "This generation" = the seed of the Jewish people.
• "All these things" = everything spoken of in the Olivet Discourse.
• Status: the prophecy is still in process (all things haven't happened yet, and the Jewish people haven't passed away).
• Advantages: it accounts for the obvious fact that not everything in the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled.
• Disadvantages: this interpretation of generation is not very convincing, contextually nor semantically ("generation" almost always is a time reference, and there is nothing in the context that would indicate this is an exception).

Futurist Interpretation 2: The "generation" spoken of by Jesus is a time reference, but it refers not to the generation of Jesus's day, but to the generation at the end of the age, i.e., this generation, the one that will go through all the things detailed in the Olivet Discourse, will come and will certainly not pass until everything prophesied happens. Basically a statement of the certainty of the fulfillment of the discourse.

• "This generation" = the last generation/time before the end
• "All these things" =  everything spoken of in the Olivet Discourse.
• Status: the prophecy is still in process  (all things haven't happened yet, but the last generation hasn't passed away).
• Advantages: it accounts for the obvious fact that not everything in the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled. It also retains the idea of time in "generation."
• Disadvantages: it is not an obvious interpretation of "generation" (not a plain reading), and is not supported by the context.

Of course, there's also the infidel interpretation, which thinks that Jesus was simply wrong (because everything spoken of in the Olivet Discourse didn't happen during that generation; a variation of the Preterist view), but these are the main Christian interpretations, and needless to say, I like none of them. Desirably, our interpretation should be a plain reading of the text, but should also deal fairly with history and prophecy without tortuous gymnastics. The Preterist view satisfies the plain reading of Matt. 24:34 but fails badly attempting to fit history with the prophecy. The two Futurist views stumble at the plain reading of the text, but their strength is that the details of the Olivet Discourse have not yet been fulfilled. Most Futurists (and I am one of them) are certain that the Olivet Discourse hasn't been fulfilled yet, and so while they might not know what to do with Matthew 24:34, and might offer some weak explanation, they know it doesn't mean what the Preterists say it means!

Preterists must explain how the gospel has been preached to all nations, how the end has come, how the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel (and all the attendant prophecies recorded there), how the great tribulation, the shaking of the powers of heaven, the lightning-like coming of Christ, the mourning of the nations, and the angelic gathering of the elect, all took place in AD 70. To be sure, they attempt to, but I find them utterly unconvincing. And so do most Christians, as they should.

Despite the Preterist's real advantage of reading the verse plainly, Futurists have the stronger position, since their big picture makes more sense, and all they have to do is explain the verse in a reasonable and plain manner. I don't think the two Futurist interpretations above succeed in explaining the verse, but there's another Futurist option, though it is not common. Let's call it,

Futurist Interpretation 3: In the generation of Jesus, during that particular interval of time, the temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed. The phrase "all these things" is limited to Christ's prophecy concerning the destruction of the temple and the judgment on Israel spoken of in Matthew 23:34-39 and Matthew 24:1-2. It does not refer to all things spoken of in the Olivet Discourse.

• "This generation" = the time of Jesus's contemporaries.
• "All these things" = the destruction of the temple and judgment on Israel.
• Status: the prophecy is fulfilled.
• Advantages: with the Preterists it reads "this generation" plainly as being a reference to Jesus's time,  and with the Futurists, it accounts for the obvious fact that not everything in the Olivet Discourse has been fulfilled.
• Disadvantages: it isn't immediately obvious that Jesus limits the meaning of "all these things."

This view possesses the strengths of both sides, and while it has its own unique disadvantage, this disadvantage is by no means fatal. It just requires us to think a bit harder about the verse in context. I am convinced that once you understand the verse in context, it becomes more obvious that Jesus limits the meaning of "all these things."

First, we need to notice that Matt. 24:34 is not the first time Jesus makes this prophecy! He actually first makes it in Matthew 23. After excoriating the scribes and the Pharisees for their corruption and hardness of heart, Jesus pronounces a series of woes upon them and prophesies their judgment: "Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation" (Matt. 23:34-36).

In the verses immediately following, Jesus weeps over Jerusalem and predicts the destruction of the temple:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’" (Matt. 23:37-39).

And again in the very next verses that start chapter 24:

"Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down" (Matt. 24:1-2).

Matthew 23 and 24 are one narrative, not to be disconnected. When Jesus pronounced the woes and judgment against Israel, He was referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, and this in fact happened in that generation, during the time of Jesus's contemporaries! In AD 70 the Romans destroyed the city and the sanctuary, and Israel was sent into exile. It came to pass during that generation, the very same generation that Jesus predicted it would. Jesus uttered this prophecy before He uttered the Olivet Discourse! He even used the same phrase, "all these things" in Matt. 23:36! If, in Matthew 24:34, Jesus is simply repeating this prophecy (as I think he is), then the content of "all these things" has already been fixed before the Olivet Discourse had been given.

Second, note that the Olivet Discourse was a response by Jesus to some questions asked by the disciples. After hearing Jesus predict the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:2), they came to Him when they were on the Mount of Olives and asked, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age" (Matt. 24:3)? I believe there are two questions here. And I think these two questions can be discerned not only by the disciples' words, but also by the answers that Jesus proceeds to give. Question one is: "When will these things be?" That is, "When will the destruction of the temple, and judgment on Israel, be?" It must mean this in context. And notice the plural, "these things," which I think corresponds to "all these things" in Matt. 23:36 and Matt. 24:34. The Olivet Discourse has not yet been spoken, and the disciples are asking about when (a time question) these things (plural: referring to the destruction of the temple and judgment on Israel which Jesus predicted in Matt. 23:34-24:2) will be. Thus, in Jesus's answer we should expect a timing answer to this question.

Their second question is: "And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" I take this as one question. This is clear from the Greek, where Granville Sharp's rule applies (two nouns being subordinated under one article), and it is also clear from the disciple's theology, because they would have understood Christ's coming as the end of the age. The disciples want to know what they are to look for in order to discern the end of the age. To understand the Olivet Discourse, the reader has to keep in mind that the disciples have asked two questions: The first is a time question: "When will these things (the destruction of the temple, and judgment on Israel) be?" And the second is a sign question: "What will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" These are two very different questions, and Jesus will give two very different answers. The entire discourse is an answer to their questions ("And Jesus answered them..." Matt. 24:4). The reader now needs to detect where in the text Jesus answers them.

As we begin to read the Olivet Discourse, the careful reader will notice that Jesus proceeds to answer the second question first, and that He takes a long time answering it. Here, I think, is His entire answer to the second question. Notice the connections with the second question concerning the sign of Christ's coming and of the end of the age:

Mat 24:4  And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray.
Mat 24:5  For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.
Mat 24:6  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.
Mat 24:7  For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
Mat 24:8  All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.
Mat 24:9  “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.
Mat 24:10  And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.
Mat 24:11  And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.
Mat 24:12  And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold.
Mat 24:13  But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mat 24:14  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.
Mat 24:15  “So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Mat 24:16  then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
Mat 24:17  Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house,
Mat 24:18  and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak.
Mat 24:19  And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days!
Mat 24:20  Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.
Mat 24:21  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.
Mat 24:22  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.
Mat 24:23  Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 
Mat 24:24  For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.
Mat 24:25  See, I have told you beforehand.
Mat 24:26  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. 
Mat 24:27  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. 
Mat 24:28  Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
Mat 24:29  “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
Mat 24:30  Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31  And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Mat 24:32  “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mat 24:33  So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates.

In this lengthy passage, Jesus is clearly instructing them on what signs to look for (and not to look for) regarding His coming and the end of the age. This is a direct answer to their second question. He says: "Don't be deceived by false signs pointing to false Christ's and to false ends. Wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, and even persecutions, are not the signs of the end (it is fascinating that Jesus says this, because it is precisely these things that tend to stir up expectation of the end, and false prophets are always pointing to them). Rather, the disciples are to watch for: 1) the gospel being preached to all nations, which ushers in 2) the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel, which ushers in 3) the great tribulation, and immediately following that 4) the glorious, unmistakable coming of Christ. Jesus then illustrates his point with the lesson of the fig tree. When you see "all these things" (just mentioned above), then you know the end is about to happen.

The very next thing Jesus says is, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (Matt. 24:34). I believe that Jesus finished answering question two at Matt. 24:33, and then, having finished, proceeded to answer the first question in Matt. 24:34, by simply repeating (with slight variation) what He had already said in Matt. 23:36. Yup. It is abrupt, and I understand why people get tripped up and think v. 34 belongs to the section that goes beforehand. After all, v. 33 has the phrase "all these things," and so does v. 34. However, as sympathetic as I am of this, I am convinced it's an inattentive and hasty interpretation. We are not without precedence for this kind of abrupt shifting of the foci of conversation, in which Jesus, without warning, suddenly picks up from an earlier point, and says something that is not directly connected to the verse immediately prior (e.g., Mark 3:28-30, John 6:47, and John 13:20). Even when the same word or phrase appears in verses near each other, we are warranted to understand them differently if we have good contextual reasons for doing so, and here, I'm convinced, we do. I have already mentioned the greater context of Matthew 23. Consider now the following.

The verse following Matt. 24:34 is: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). This sounds like a concluding statement. It sounds, in essence, like Jesus is saying: "I have answered your questions and have made known to you hidden things about the future. My words are true and will certainly not fail." It signals that Jesus has finished answering their questions.

The remaining part of the chapter, Matt. 24:36-51, adds interesting light on our investigation. Jesus returns to discuss the sign of His coming and the end of the age, i.e., the second question. Only this time He isn't talking about what the signs are that they should watch for (since He already answered that in vs. 4-33). Rather, here He emphasizes that no one knows the day or the hour of His coming (not even the Son knows when the time will be!), and therefore exhorts His disciples to be alert and watch at all times (for the signs He has given). This is a development within the discourse, but it's not answering either of their questions, since He has already answered them. He's simply adding: "Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming" (Matt. 24:42).

This raises two problems. First, if the phrase "all these things" in the saying "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"  (Matthew 24:34) applies to Jesus's second answer (i.e., the sign of Christ's coming and the end of age), then it appears to contradict the idea that no one knows when the coming of Christ will be. Jesus would be simultaneously saying: "My coming will be in this generation. Actually, no one knows when the coming of Christ will be, not even me." Jesus both knows and does not know when He will return? This, I think, is a problem.

The other problem with taking the saying, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," and including it in Jesus's second answer is that, in that case, nowhere in the Olivet Discourse does Jesus answer the first question! In that case, the entire Olivet Discourse, from v. 4 to v. 51, is devoted entirely to the second question, and the first question is ignored. This is a problem, since Matthew distinguishes two questions. Where does Jesus answer each question? If Matt. 24:34 is not the answer to the first question, there is no answer anywhere.

Therefore, Matt. 24:34 must be the answer to the disciples' first question because:

1. If it is not, Jesus gives no answer to it in the Olivet Discourse.
2. It is the only verse that could be the answer.
3. It matches the statement Jesus made in Matthew 23:36 concerning the timing of the destruction of the temple.
4. It takes the language of "this generation" in its plain sense, and avoids saying that everything in the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the 1st century.
5. It avoids the contradiction of saying that Jesus both knows and does know when He will return.

I think this interpretation of Matt. 24:34 makes good sense of the entire context and flow of thought, and while admittedly not immediately obvious, neither is it forced. It's the fruit of careful attention to the function of the verse in context, and when due attention is given, I think it is actually quite natural. It is clear that Jesus answers the second question first, wrapping it up in v. 33. Verse 35 is a concluding statement, underscoring the authority and truthfulness of Jesus's answers, and vs. 36-51 is a final, supplementary exhortation about how no one knows when the end will be. What is v. 34 doing, then? It is repeating Matt. 23:36 and answering the first question. It is not the focus of the discourse. Jesus is clearly more interested in their second question than their first.

The beauty of this interpretation is that it maintains the advantages of both the Preterist and the Futurist views, avoids their disadvantages, and is able to overcome its own immediate disadvantage. It alone makes best sense of all the data (the plain sense, history and prophecy, and literary context).

There's lots more to say. For example, I only dealt with Matthew, and didn't discuss Mark and Luke. But this is a good start. Read the passage over several times, with my structure in mind, and see if it makes sense to you. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

May the Lord bless you, brother.
-Eli

"Five Steps for Racial Reconciliation on Sunday at 11 a.m." by D.A. Carson

Sane. Hopeful. Helpful.

https://www.9marks.org/article/five-steps-racial-reconciliation-sunday-11-am/

Universalism: Is it Biblical?

C-- and M---, let me start by saying that I am appreciative of the fact that my position seems illogical, or hard if not impossible to fit the pieces together. As M--- said, the New Testament clearly teaches that God desires the salvation of everyone (let's register this glorious fact together. We agree on this!), for Jesus died on the cross to save the world, even every man (we also agree on this. Even Calvinists can). How then can this truth fit with the idea of eternal damnation? It seems eminently reasonable that God, who doesn't want anyone to perish, would therefore not allow anyone to perish. I get it that the idea of universal salvation, where everyone is saved in the end, appears to make sense of at least that truth in Scripture (it makes sense to me). I understand that the view is simple and elegant and attractive at one level, and that my view is not so. I got that.

But nota bene that the universalist position is an inference. It is posited by the human mind as it seeks to reconcile certain truths. It is nowhere taught in Scripture in any kind of clear and unambiguous way (all statements about Jesus being the savior of the world, etc., notwithstanding). What I must emphasize is that when we go about seeking to fit together the "disparate parts" of Scripture we have to reckon with all the parts. The truth that God wants all to be saved is not the only part to reckon with. My position is that the Bible also teaches plainly that not all are saved. Thus the biblical theologian has to do justice to all biblical truth, including both the truth that God wants all to be saved, without minimizing that in the least, and also the truth that not all will be saved.

The biblical theologian's foremost concern is to be biblical, even more than to be simple, elegant, and reasonable. When C-- says that my view is incongruous, because "how can God, who desires the salvation of all, send people to eternal damnation?," that argument isn't weighty enough for me. That's just the reasoning of men. Reality may be more complicated. What matters to me is not primarily, "Is it reasonable to men" but "Is it biblical?" Exegesis is key for me. If the Bible teaches that God desires the salvation of all, and that not all are saved, I must accept that, since it is God's word, even if it's hard if not impossible for me to understand. I hope we all have that attitude, that if God declares a thing we should believe it and not think ourselves wiser. Not that reason doesn't have a say: If the Bible taught an unmistakable logical contradiction I believe that would be a problem. But in this case I don't see A., God desires all to be saved, and B., not all will be saved, as an unmistakable logical contradiction. Actually, I think there is loads of room for resolving factors, even if we cannot at the present wrap our minds around them or conceive them. It is conceivable that there is some good reason (or many good reasons) that God permits the damnation of the ungodly even though He doesn't desire it. There's a difference between contradiction and paradox, as you are well aware; paradoxes being things that appear contradictory but are not actually. It is entirely possible that God's desire for the salvation of all, and the eternal damnation of unbelievers is a paradox. But the key for me is exegesis. If C-- wants to convince me of universalism (or convince the world responsibly), he has to do it by Scripture and not by human reason primarily. Like the Bereans in Acts 17, our mandate is to examine the Scriptures diligently to see if it is so.

And it's precisely in the Scriptures that universalism falls short. There's no clear case for it, but there is a pretty clear case for eternal damnation. I will keep insisting on this until C-- can prove me wrong (and I welcome the discussion). Just consider the Book of Revelation. If any book in the Bible should teach universal salvation, this book, which is all about eschatology and the final state, and which gives us the definitive picture of the consummation, would. And yet what do we see? We see the theme of judgment throughout, continuing right on to, and into, the very end. We hear some of the most frightful pronouncements of judgment ("If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone 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; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name"). Its final picture of the consummation does not in the slightest give the impression of universal redemption, but of separation and exclusion of the ungodly ("He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death"). Any honest juryman here has to admit that the Book of Revelation is not on the side of the universalist, and that it is at least very understandable why a person would think that B., not all will be saved, is a part of the biblical data that must be reckoned with.

I really appreciate you guys discussing this with me. Thanks to all.

On the Book of Enoch and New Revelations

A reply to a question about the Book of Enoch, the canon, and new revelation.

Thank you for sending me this. I must confess, I've been reading over them and still have been unable to see any reference to the Book of Enoch in Jesus's words, though I freely admit that there is a lot in common with the world of the Book of Enoch in Jesus's words--that is, Jesus lived in a context that shared much of the ideology of that document. That much is clear, and so to see a shared way of thinking and speaking is unsurprising. But I can't see direct reference. All the sayings are conventional enough to make a claim of dependence unwarranted. Example: to say that Enoch's "all the thirsty drank, and were filled with wisdom" is the background to Jesus's "the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life" is quite a stretch, considering how ubiquitous water/thirst language is in all religion, let alone Judaism. So, I don't buy it!

As for Jude's quote of Enoch, that is definitely more compelling. I am much more intrigued by the Book of Enoch on account of this piece of evidence. Jude clearly thinks the saying came from Enoch the seventh from Adam. My conviction, therefore, is that the pseudopigraphical Book of Enoch preserves the true words of Enoch in that passage. Does this mean we ought to accept the entire Book of Enoch? Not necessarily. There are various things to consider. Perhaps the pseudopigraphical book was constructed upon that genuine prophetic saying (it is found in the first part of the book). Perhaps Jude and earlier Israelites had access to a document or tradition that we no longer possess, which they were confident preserved the saying of Enoch. Through this connection the saying may have ended up in the pseudopigraphical book. I don't know. But I don't think it is wise to jump at the entire Book of Enoch with unquestioned acceptance simply on account of Jude 1:14-15.

Your question about the canon in class was a good and important one, and I'm sorry we had no time and that I wasn't prepared to discuss it. I would recommend for your study Michael Kruger's works on the canon. That being said, I do sense that you are antsy about this issue of the canon, and you want to be open to more revelation than what is found in the Bible. I get this strong vibe from Mormons and people affected by Mormonism--it's one of the defining marks of Mormonism, I think, one of the keys to understanding the religion and what makes LDS people tick. They don't want to feel limited (bounded, straitjacketed, confined?) by ancient Scripture; they fear there's more truth out there and an exclusive reliance upon the Bible keeps us from knowing that truth. Better to be open then closed lest we miss the way, right?

Well... yes and no. I don't believe the Bible is anywhere against new revelations, the idea that God can speak to us now and can say new things. But it is everywhere against tampering with, ignoring, or nullifying old revelations. You don't mess with holy Scripture. Period. I say again, you don't mess with holy Scripture. God is a God truth, and always speaks the truth. The apostolic Christians were at pains to show that what they were teaching about the Christ and the law was in accordance with the Scriptures, not against them (Acts 17:2, 11, 24:13-14, 28:23, Romans 1:2, 3:21, 16:26, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, et al. See especially Acts 24:13-14). They never dared suggest that the Scriptures had somehow been corrupted. In Christianity, all is in accordance with the Scriptures, or else it is not true Christianity nor of God (Isaiah 8:20, Matthew 5;17-19). If an apparent new revelation contradicts or undermines what is written, that revelation is not and cannot be holy. Thus, from where I sit, Joseph Smith's prophesies were false, not because prophesying per se is false, but because his prophecies patronizingly patted Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul on the head while throwing their words into the shredder. A bad man, and one for whom the solemn curse of Revelation 22:18-29 justly applies. "I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." If this doesn't apply to Joseph Smith, it has no meaning and can apply to no one. And let me be clear and answer a common objection: I don't believe this verse is referring to the whole Bible, nor to adding to the canon (as it is sometimes interpreted to mean). It's talking only about the Book of Revelation. It is saying that you don't tamper with the prophecies in the Book of Revelation. Why? Because they are the very words of God (Revelation 1:1-3). And behold! Joseph Smith fiddled with the prophecies of the Book of Revelation (there's JST surgery). He is guilty and therefore cursed. Yet the greater point is that the principle of this curse applies to all of the Bible (to all the words that came to down from heaven in the manner of Revelation 1:1-3), for the one who tampers with any holy Scripture is tampering with the inspired, holy words of God. The principle of the thing is present everywhere; it is simply made explicit here in Revelation 22 (a fitting place, too, no doubt).

Thus, I think we should be open to new revelation, sure. But we should be more concerned about past revelation, revelation that we know is revelation, making sure that we hear and obey it. Isn't that the flavor of the Old and the New Testaments: hearing and obeying? God has spoken. Shouldn't we be heeding what has been spoken more than searching for more? If we aren't taking seriously and obeying past revelation, our lust for new revelation will be dangerous, and will probably contribute to our damnation.

Spoken in love. I hope to see you again soon!

Francis Schaeffer on Doctrinal Over-Reaction

An all-important lesson that we ever need to hear.

--------------------------

"It is interesting to see how heresies function and how the devil wins out. Let us say that the complete body of Christian teaching consists of points 1-100. Now, then, we must realize that this Christian teaching is not just dogmatic but meets the needs of man as God has made him and as man now is since the Fall. So, in order for the whole man to find fulfillment, he must have teaching from points 1-100. If you study church history, I think you will find that heresies arise like this: the church begins to fail to preach, or preaches very weakly, say, points 40-50. Of course, we live in a fallen world and none of us hold our Christianity in a perfectly balanced form, but we must help each other to try to do so.

Let us say, therefore, that points 40-50 are unstressed. Two things follow. First, the situation is unbiblical. True Christianity is a balanced whole. Second, Satan takes points 40-50 out of the total Christian framework and encourages someone to over-emphasize them. And this becomes heresy. In other words, points 40-50, instead of being kept in line and in relationship to the rest of Christian doctrine, are moved out and away from the whole system. Being out of place, they somehow become inverted or reversed.

But why does Satan win? He wins because there is a longing and a need in the human heart and mind; points 40-50 are needed because the whole of Christian teaching is needed, not only to give one the right Christian system, but to meet the needs of total man as he is in the fallen world. Satan wins because, when people recognize the weakness and the lack of points 40-50 and suddenly see someone overstressing them, they are caught in a net. One group is stressing points 40-50, but in an over-emphasized way, out of relationship to the whole of Christian doctrine. Another group, on the other hand, tends to see this over-emphasis on points 40-50 as a heresy and so they retreat in the opposite direction. They preach points 40-50 even less than they did before in order to be safe, in order to be seen clearly as not being a part of a heresy or wrong teaching. Satan fishes equally on both sides and he wins on both sides.

The proper Christian response to such wrong teaching is not to avoid the doctrine but to see it in the proper Christian framework. The real Christian within the form of Scripture and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit has to restore the proper balance, even if it would at first seem to bring the church closer to heresy. When a group of people begin to over-emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit at the expense of the full content of Scripture or to under-emphasize the status of the intellect or cultural responsibility, the danger is to talk less and less about the Holy Spirit for fear someone will confuse us with this other group. Instead, a Christian must have the courage to say that we have not sufficiently stressed points 40-50 (whatever those points may be) and to begin to stress them in their proper relationship to the whole of Scripture."

-- Francis Schaeffer, The New Super-Spirituality (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973), pp. 41-43.

Hell and Annihilationism

The following is a response to a friend about the idea of annihilationism.

Thank you R----, I appreciate your thoughts. You argued your points very well.

I have heard many of these arguments before (not everything you raised, but I've gotten the idea). It is true that many, if not most, of the verses in the Bible about the punishment of the afterlife can be interpreted as annihilation, but they can also be interpreted as eternal conscious punishment. In the last analysis, many of the passages are ambiguous and can go either way. I think both sides should admit this.

What keeps me believing in the traditional view of hell are the following considerations:

1) Clear evidence that the Jewish people in Jesus' day believed in eternal conscious punishment, and Jesus doesn't go out of His way to correct them. They would have interpreted His words as eternal conscious punishment. To this I would again add the witness of the early church (see here).

2) Annihilation arguments tend to make the Scripture contradictory. There are statements that a thing will be forever, yet it is argued that a later verse shows this is not the case. For example, "the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched." You argue this is referring solely to the corpses of the ungodly. But you also believe the earth will be renewed and perfected. Are we to believe that these corpses will continue to burn forever in the new Jerusalem? I don't think anyone would say that. But then "forever" is controverted.

3) I think we can all concede that the lake of fire exists forever, and the devil, the man of sin, and the false prophet will be tormented in it forever (to this we can also add those who take the mark of the beast, Rev. 14:11). Therefore even annihilationists believe in eternal conscious punishment and have to reckon with it theologically like the rest of us. But Revelation 20 says that all the unrighteous dead are thrown into the lake of fire where these are, and the natural implication is that they will suffer the same eternal punishment there with them. It seems forced and unnatural to say that they are thrown in to join those who are there, but then are annihilated while the others are not. Why the disparity? Is one group made up of worse sinners than the other? On the contrary, I think when sin is rightly understood, it will be seen that the sin of the devil, the angels, the man of sin, and the false prophet is all of a piece with the sin of the whole world (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8, 5:19). The most natural reading of Revelation 20 is eternal conscious punishment.

4) The theological point that there is such a crime that merits the traditional punishment of hell: hatred of God (see here). There is a being in the world who is that worthy. Minimize the punishment, minimize God.

5) The personal experience of people throughout history and today. Many believers can say that God brought them to Christ by opening their eyes to the fact they were heading to hell, in the traditional sense. And such Christians find Christ and His love exceedingly precious because of it. Also, there are unbelievers who have experienced terror thinking about the wrath of God that is coming. As they should (Ps. 90:11). I believe all of this is of God. Because the wages of sin is death, when you get a sense of sin, as the old theologians used to call it, you also get a sense of dread regarding what it deserves.

In any group you will always find a variety of views, the Jews notwithstanding. You're always going to find people everywhere on the spectrum. This can be said of Evangelical Christianity... the fact that some evangelicals believe in annihilation (ex. John Stott) doesn't affect the fact that Evangelicalism as a whole does not. The Sadducees certainly represented an important 1st century Jewish group that didn't believe in an afterlife at all. But they were a tiny minority. What's important is that mainstream Judaism, as represented by the Pharisees, believed in a traditional form of hell. That was Jewish orthodoxy at the time of Jesus.

Josephus wrote this about the Pharisees:

"Now for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the contract of reason: and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do: and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years: nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced. And when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit: since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament; whereby what he wills is done; but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them: and that under the earth there will be rewards, or punishments; according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life: and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison; but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. On account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people: and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction. Insomuch, that the cities give great attestations to them, on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves. For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them." (Antiquities, Book 18.1.3-4)

This shows clearly that the Pharisees 1) were traditionalists, 2) were followed by the majority of people in Israel, 3) believed in the immortality of the soul, 4) believed in the eternal imprisonment of the wicked.

Thanks for sharing that article. Instone-Brewer's comments on Yohanan ben Zakkai confirm Josephus's account, that eternal conscious punishment was the view of the Jews in Jesus' day. He wrote, "...though before 70 CE (i.e. during Yohanan's earlier career) it [eternal conscious punishment] was an acceptable point of view that would have been regarded as traditional or already old fashioned by most hearers."

I grant that the Jewish view is not identical to the Christian view. Unlike Evangelicals, the Jews believe there are generally three categories of mankind, the good, the bad, and those in the middle. So they believed those in the middle will suffer for a time and then attain eternal life. But the bad go to hell forever, which is the traditional idea of eternal conscious punishment. The only difference is that Evangelicals don't believe there are three groups, but only two, the good and the bad. So the idea of hell is the same, but the anthropology is different. Actually, the Jewish view is very similar to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but we wouldn't say these don't believe in eternal punishment.

I would add to my above reasons that the concept of annihilation is actually a comforting doctrine for many sinners. They can snub God now and face a RIP eternity. It's a shortcut to nirvana. It's the same disturbing logic of suicide... to die and end it all is better than to continue in pain. Annihilation can thus be seen as a refuge from the wrath of God. In fact, that's the very impression I get from Isaiah 2, Luke 23 and the Book of Revelation.

"Men will go into caves of the rocks and into holes of the ground before the terror of the LORD and the splendor of His majesty, when He arises to make the earth tremble." (Is. 2:19)

"Then they will say to the mountains, "Cover us!" And to the hills, "Fall on us!"" (Hosea 10:8, Luke 23:30)

"Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" (Rev. 6:15-17)

"And in those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, and death flees from them." (Rev. 9:6)

When people face the wrath of God, and see what God does to Satan, the man of sin, the false prophet, and all those who follow him, annihilation will seem like a gospel!

But there's only one gospel and one refuge from the wrath of God, that is Jesus, "who delivers us from the wrath to come." (1 Thess. 1:10)

Of course, I understand that the punishment of limited torment and then annihilation is both horrific and "eternal" (...in the sense of irreversible). It's not a good thing, and people are rightly repulsed by it. My point is not that annihilation is good; it isn't. My point is that compared to the traditional view of hell (or, compared to the fate of Satan, the man of sin, the false prophet, and those that followed them) it is a dream come true. On its own, an enemy. Relative to that, it becomes a friend. and that's a biblical strike against annihilationism.

In Defense of the Doctrine of Justification Through Faith Alone

I wrote this for a group of Roman Catholics who were discussing Martin Luther and his translation of Romans 3:28.

--------------

Hello everyone,

I am a Protestant, a believer in justification through faith alone. I believe Luther and Protestants are getting unfair treatment here. Please bear with me as I seek to explain our view.

When Martin Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, he wasn’t corrupting the text, but emphasizing it. The Protestant conviction that justification is by faith alone doesn’t come from Luther inserting his own idea into the Bible, but it comes from the whole teaching of Romans 1-5 and many other places in Scripture. Luther came to this conviction regarding justification while studying Romans–when he realized that God provides the righteousness He requires of us (as Augustine taught), and that this gift of righteousness is received by faith apart from works, i.e., by faith alone.

In order to understand Luther and Protestants you must understand that to them faith and works are different principles, they aren’t just things among other things to do. Faith is a principle that is by nature different than the principle of works. Faith (pistis) means believing and trusting, while work (ergon) means expending energy to accomplish or procure results. These two principles encompass all things, and when the Bible rejects one category as the means of justification (as is explicitly done in the Book of Romans and elsewhere–works are excluded), that necessarily leaves “faith alone.” Thus faith alone is taught in Romans, and Luther simply was making explicit what is there in order to help others see. I don’t support adding additional words in your translation if your objective is to provide a word-for-word translation of the Bible, but if your translation is seeking to convey thought-for-thought–what is often called the “Dynamic Equivalent”–then doing so is more than legitimate. We have lots of paraphrase, thought-for-thought Bibles today which do the same thing.

By way of example, here’s Romans 4:4-5. Notice the two principles:

“Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.”

It’s all about the principle of the thing. If you work for X and get X on the basis of the work, X is not given to you by grace. If work must be done for justification, and having done work you receive justification, justification is not by grace (compare Romans 11:6). If work is anywhere in the condition, and that condition is met by you, the “reward” is owed to you by way of obligation, not grace. However, St. Paul states here that this is not how justification with God works at all. On the contrary, to the one who “worketh not yet believeth”–notice, faith is not a work, for we do not work but instead believe–God justifies that believer; and notice, even though that believer is “ungodly!” This, friends, is the very essence of the Protestant doctrine of justification. Even though we are sinners and are not godly, without work we believe in Christ and are justified. Apart from work. Work is not part of the condition, otherwise it wouldn’t be by grace. This, as Taylor mentioned in his video, is exciting and liberating for so many people (particularly those who feel themselves to be hopeless moral failures), and I believe God meant it to be such a glorious word of encouragement and hope for them. And as Paul says elsewhere, “saved by grace through faith… not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8, 9). A careful reading of Romans 3 confirms what I’m saying, and shows that works are not a part of the condition of justification, otherwise 1) justification wouldn’t be by grace, and 2) we would be able to boast.

Because it’s a matter of two principles, they can’t be mixed. Protestants seldom object to anyone preaching “works alone”, but they object to anyone mixing works and faith, because once you mix them the principle of works destroys the principle of grace. Thus, we are justified through faith alone, or, apart from works.

And what do we do with James? It’s true that Luther and many Protestants struggled with James, but to their credit they all in the end opted to keep James, believing the contradiction to be only apparent, not real (and indeed there is no contradiction). Their struggle with James is only due to their firm conviction that the Bible teaches we are justified by faith apart from works, as indeed we just saw that it does. In fact, whoever doesn’t at first struggle with James has probably not firmly grasped and digested the Scripture’s teaching on “faith without works”. James’s language of course leads to what seems a contradiction–let’s be fair.

But Protestants do have an answer, and have had one for a long time: it is that our faith in Christ cannot but produce works, or to put it another way, what we believe inevitably affects how we behave. I don’t think anyone will disagree with that. If you claim to believe something but your alleged faith does not produce the necessary and inevitable actions that corresponds to such a faith, then you really don’t have faith. James illustrates his doctrine so we cannot misunderstand: Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac and Rahab (the harlot) hiding the spies demonstrated that they believed God. And since they believed God they were justified. Their works still didn’t justify them, their faith did. The presence of works signaled the presence of faith, and the presence of faith justified. Luther and Protestants have never seen faith as static: “Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith,” said Luther. The classic Protestant dictum is “We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone”; it produces works. And of course it does: how can a person believe that God loves him so much to save him by grace as a gift through faith, and not fall in love with such a beautiful God? That is the constant witness I hear from Protestant people. The grace of God, so understood, deeply affects them.

“Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee."

Most importantly, however (and let this not be missed), the works that are produced do not demonstrate that the person is good and moral, but that the person believes. Rahab’s action of hiding the spies didn’t make God say, “My what a good and moral person you are, Rahab”, but “You believe in Me”, and as an ungodly sinner she was therefore justified. This, I believe, is the clear teaching of James, and the only way Paul and James are reconciled. And it reconciles them nicely. If we were instead to say that works were in fact a condition of justification, alongside faith (rather than simply the evidence of faith), then we would have an unmistakable contradiction between Paul and James. Thank God we do not!

Thank you for listening and considering my words.
Humbly,
-Eli

Living Life According to How God Made Us To Be

This letter is in response to a question about the place of leisure in the Christian life, and how to glorify God in all that we do.

Hello A--------,

I wrestle with this very same question, and I know most Christians do as well. It can be confusing to know what it really means to glorify God in all that we do, when there are so many different ways we could conceive of that. A Muslim would think very differently about what that means than a Christian, and among Christians there are different conceptions of what this should look like. On top of that, we have our own life experiences, and we all have a sense of what is "normal" and "not normal", which differs person to person and culture to culture. It's a tricky question.

It's been helpful to me to recognize that God made humans a certain way, and part of being human includes the desire and need for recreation and leisure. That is, God didn't just create humans to do nothing except work. Nor did He create humans to do nothing but sing hymns in church, or read the Bible. He created humans to do all sorts of things--to learn, to play, to enjoy, to laugh, to experience relationships, etc. So our Christian lives need to be lived in the fullness of all that God made us to be. By enjoying every aspect of the way God made us, we can give God glory by simply giving Him thanks for the things we do and enjoy.

In other words, you can go rollerblading and give God glory simply by recognizing that God created you to enjoy rollerblading. Go rollerblading, have a wonderful time, and thank God for it. This brings God pleasure. In fact, I am sure that gives God more pleasure than if you spent all your time witnessing to the lost but without any joy. It's not that we can't witness with joy, but if all we ever did was witness to the lost, I don't think we would have joy because we would not actually be living according to how God made us. We would feel restricted, awkward and uncomfortable.

Does this mean that the apostle Paul played games? Probably he did. I don't rule it out. I'm sure he enjoyed food very much, and lived a thankful life for more than just his salvation.

The balance, of course, is that there is a mission for the church. If we spend all our time rollerblading, we will be unfaithful to God. But I also think we wouldn't be joyful rollerblading all the time either, since we weren't made to only have leisure, but were also made to work, and to fulfill the mission God has given us. So living is the art of knowing when to do this and when to do that; how much to do this and how much to do that.

Ecc 3:1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
Ecc 3:2  A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
Ecc 3:3  A time to kill and a time to heal; A time to tear down and a time to build up.
Ecc 3:4  A time to weep and a time to laugh; A time to mourn and a time to dance.
Ecc 3:5  A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; A time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
Ecc 3:6  A time to search and a time to give up as lost; A time to keep and a time to throw away.
Ecc 3:7  A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; A time to be silent and a time to speak.
Ecc 3:8  A time to love and a time to hate; A time for war and a time for peace.

Life is supposed to be multifaceted and multidimensional, not flat and uniform. The trick is knowing what time it is. This changes constantly even throughout one day. It really isn't always time to witness to the lost. It isn't always time to give money to the poor. It isn't always time to play games. But all these things should have a place in our lives--since that is how God made life to be.

I'd encourage you to listen to this sermon that I preached at Christmastime a couple years ago.

Also, you should check out the book Leisure and Spirituality by Paul Heintzman, who has spent a lifetime thinking about this question.

I hope this is helpful. Thanks for asking, A--------.
God bless,
-Eli

Thinking About Hell

Hi L----! It's so good to hear from you.

That's a really good question. And I really appreciate your struggle. I can honestly only imagine how incredibly difficult it would be to move away from the religion you were raised in and which means so much to you and your family. That's not easy at all. There is much about Mormonism that I respect, and I hope you understand that by believing that Mormonism is a false religion I do not mean that everything it teaches is wrong. But I do think that is precisely what makes false religions like Mormonism so... treacherous. It's the mixture, and that mixture is calculated by Satan to deceive people. But when a person leaves Mormonism (or any false religion) they don't have to leave behind their beliefs and practices that are actually true and good. They need to learn how to think about those things in a new way--in accordance with reality and truth.

The question about hell is undoubtedly a hard one. Really hard. But for me what's hard about it isn't in trying to see what the Bible teaches regarding hell. What can be hard is understanding why it teaches it. Hell can seem a harsh, over-the-top punishment without the promise of rehabilitation. It can seem below the God of love to send someone there. It's hard to see how the concept of hell fits with other beautiful concepts given in Scripture. But, there it is in Scripture. If I'm to maintain with myself any intellectual integrity, I can see no other way to look at Scripture than to acknowledge the doctrine of hell. Attempts to see Scripture otherwise always seem to me to mishandle Scripture, cutting corners and evading the straightforward. I know why people do that. One way to look at it is that they are trying to be intellectually coherent regarding everything else the Scriptures teach. The Scriptures teach God is a God of love. It follows, they argue, that a God of love wouldn't send anyone to hell. Therefore it follows that the Scriptures do not teach that God sends anyone to hell. How else can we make sense of Scripture? Yet by arguing this way they must evade clear Scriptural teaching, and say: "I don't know what those Scriptures mean... or, I shall here suspend my judgment on what they mean... or perhaps they mean this far-fetched meaning... I only know they don't teach the traditional doctrine of hell." So a mystery is embraced: we understand a loving God wouldn't send someone to hell, therefore we don't really understand those verses.

I've learned that in whatever system of belief there is, one will always run up against mystery somewhere. There will always be something you don't understand, or at least have great difficulty in understanding. The question is, where do I run into it? Where do I feel comfortable running into mystery? That is, where is it most reasonable to run into mystery?

There is a different way of approaching those verses about hell. This way says: "I know the Bible clearly teaches that God is a God of love. I also know the Bible clearly teaches that God sends unbelievers to hell. I don't understand how that can be, but I trust in the greater wisdom of God who knows all things. In other words, I don't know exactly how God sending people to hell fits with His love, but I do know the Scriptures teach both things, therefore I know the answer cannot be that He doesn't send people to hell." Like the other approach, this approach also acknowledges mystery, but the mystery is not located in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear. The mystery is located in the divine nature, in the nature of love and in the nature of sending someone to hell. Which is right? To find the mystery/difficulty in God and in the nature of how love works, or to find the mystery/difficulty in Scripture?

I believe the right thing to do is to accept that the mystery/difficulty is in God and in the nature of love, rather than in the Scriptures. The Scriptures were given to humans by God, in human language, in order to teach and instruct. God hasn't communicated to us in a way that is impossible, or is even that difficult to decipher.  The words and manner of speech in the Bible are decipherable, and are intended by God to be believed. It is much more credible to locate the mystery in the nature of God and in love and to confess that our human understanding of these things fall short. It seems right to me (doesn't it seem to you?) to accept whatever God has revealed plainly, even if it is hard to understand, and to submit our finite human wisdom to God's infinite wisdom, rather than to say that what God has plainly revealed is undecipherable because it isn't easily understandable to human finite minds.

Now I'm not saying that there is no way for us to understand these things. I'm only recognizing that they are difficult to understand. This difficultly arises because we don't think like God does. We humans tend to think very differently than God about God, ourselves, the nature of sin, the nature of justice, concepts of love, questions of value, chief ends, good and evil, and so forth. I think if we are honest, we humans are terrible judges of sin. We do not see sin the way God does. We downplay it, or are numb to it, or are enraged about its presence in others but not its presence in ourselves, or are selectively enraged, or are partial to people we like, or all of the above. Likewise we humans are terrible worshipers of God. We are idolaters, experts at ignoring truth, numb or apathetic to the existence of our Creator, clueless about the worth of His glory, and are self-centered rather than God-centered. In other words, we neither "get" God nor do we "get" ourselves. Is it any wonder, then, that we hardly "get" hell? Couldn't our failure to come to terms with the concept of hell lie, not in hell per se, but in our failure to come to terms with the very concepts--the other concepts, of God and man and sin--that make hell intelligible?

L----, I know in my own life that I often fail to grasp the reality and worth of God. I also often fail to grasp the evil of my sin--the sin which sent Christ the Son of God to that horrific death which was required to make atonement for my sins. That tells me something. I am, as a human, generally clueless. It should not therefore surprise me that I find hell so difficult. My view of God, humanity, and sin is skewed.

It's when I'm allowing my mind to be instructed by the Word of God concerning God, humanity, and sin that hell makes perfect sense to me. When Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up (Isaiah 6), he cried out "Woe is me!" Grasping God enabled Isaiah to grasp himself, and in light of these two things he grasped his woe. I find the same thing in my own life. And when I'm struggling with hell, I remind myself... "Eli, you're struggling to see God and man, too. You aren't seeing things as God sees them." So I accept hell as a Christian, not because it always makes sense to me, but because I know that God has revealed it, and I know that God knows better than I do, and I know that I'm usually not the best judge of these matters. Therefore I accept the Scriptural teaching about hell.

While this is not always easy, it does, however, bring with it further important outcomes. Accepting the doctrine of hell means accepting the unspeakable and enormous evil of sin, which in turn means accepting the even more incomprehensible and astounding love of God for sinners (Eph. 3:19). If you think sin is little, then the love of God for sinners is little. If you see sin for what it is (enormous, hell-deserving), you see the love of God for what is (prodigiously gracious, altogether surprising). This has been the experience of Christians throughout the centuries: the love of God is felt to be extraordinary when you realize He has saved you from His real and dreadful eternal wrath (Rom. 5:5-11). It leaves you speechless. Thus, curiously, to get rid of hell in our thinking is in the end to get rid of the unspeakable love of God in our thinking.

Does one have to believe in hell in order to be a Christian?

I believe the answer is yes. I don't mean that a person has to understand all the ins and outs of it, or that they have to have a perfect conception of what hell is (does anyone?). But I do believe that a person--in order to even understand the saving work of Jesus--must understand something about what God is, what man is, what sin is, what the problem is, what Jesus did to solve the problem, and that He is the only way for the problem to be solved. A person puts his faith in Christ for salvation because he know that without faith in Christ he is damned. Because he understands something of the issues, he also knows that Christ is the only way, and that whoever does not believe in Him will--as Jesus taught--perish. If you don't see that God is a God of wrath against sin, how can you understand your sin, and your need for Christ's atoning sacrifice, and your need to put your faith in Him? Being a Christian is not something a Christian sees as optional.

The things we believe reveal more things we believe. Being a Christian means believing in the truth about Christ, as God has revealed it.

Thanks for asking me, L----. I'm humbled that you'd do so. Feel free to share your thoughts.

Your friend, Eli