Lamentations and the Identity of the Whore of the Revelation

In his Revelation, the Apostle John gave us this description: "One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, 'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.' And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations.' And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly" (Revelation 17:1-6). 

This woman is identified in various ways, according to the interpretive system of the interpreter. Futurists may take the reference to Babylon literally, and claim that it refers to a future restoration of the city of Babylon. Others take it as a coded reference to Rome, and claim that there will be a future restoration of the Roman Empire. And yet others believe it refers to Rome, but in her ecclesiastical manifestation, rather than political. Even the Westminster Confession, to which I hold, identifies the Papacy as the Anti-Christ, and head of the great Whore. 

In contrast, those who hold that the Revelation refers to events in John's time, either in part, as I do, or in its whole. We hold that Babylon is used as a code word, not for Rome, but for unbelieving Jerusalem. And in this post, I wish to point the reader to an Old Testament parallel which supports that interpretation. 

Let us look at a series on verses in the Book of lamentations, which was written by the Prophet Jeremiah to mourn the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. 

"How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave!...Jerusalem sinned grievously; therefore, she became filthy; all who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she herself groans and turns her face away. Her uncleanness was in her skirts; she took no thought of her future; therefore, her fall is terrible; she has no comforter. 'O Lord, behold my affliction , for the enemy has triumphed!'... Zion stretches out her hands, but there is none to comfort her; the Lord has commanded against Jacob that his neighbors should be his foes; Jerusalem has become a filthy thing among them...'I called to my lovers, but they deceived me; my priests and elders perished in the city, while they sought food to revive their strength'... All who pass along the way clap their hands at you; they hiss and wag their heads at the daughter of Jerusalem: 'Is this the city that was called the perfection of beauty, the joy of all the earth?'" (Lamentations 1:1, 8-9, 17, 19; 2:15). 

Read the rest of the passages to get proper context. However, what I have quoted here is plainly parallel. The Holy Spirit inspired John to see the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians as a preview of the soon-coming destruction by the Romans in 70AD. He even mentioned Babylon in the passage to reinforce the parallel! 

David's Sense of God's Inspiration

In giving his final charge to Solomon regarding the building of the Temple, King David included this statement: "All this He made clear to me in writing from the hand of the Lord, all the work to be done according to the plan" (I Chronicles 28:19). 

There is a lot of substance in this one sentence. 

First, David is explicit about the source of his plans for the Temple, i. e., God. He says, "He made clear to me." The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews develops this statement in Hebrews 8:5: "They [the levitical priests] serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For, when Moses was about to raise the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, 'See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.'" That writer was referring to statements that are found in Exodus 25:9, 25:40, 26:30, and 27:8. What Moses was shown regarding the construction of the tabernacle, David also received when the tabernacle was replaced by the Temple. 

Second, David tells us that he received God's words  by the mediatorial hand of the Lord, i. e., Yahweh, the preincarnate Son. This, too, is a pattern we see elsewhere: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His servants" (Revelation 1:1). What God would inspire to be recorded in the Scriptures had its origin in the triune God, and was then mediated through the Son to the human writer. This is probably what Peter meant when he mentioned that the prophets were taught by the Spirit of Christ when they predicted His "sufferings and subsequent glories" (I Peter 1:11). 

This refutes some neo-orthodox teachers who claim that the writers of the Bible had no concept of divine inspiration when they wrote (compare II Timothy 3:16). While some may not have had such a concept, some did, as we see in the words of David recorded here. 

Aught of Ours Is to Insult the Sufficiency of Jesus

"Do but consider how it is: Jesus Christ calls you, because you are blind, to come to Him for eye-salve, and you will not go until you can see better. You are naked, and He calls you to come and receive change of raiment, and you will not go until better arrayed. He offers you gold, for He knows your poverty, and you will not take it until you have something of your own to give for it. Look over it again, and see if this be handsome dealing either with yourselves or Him. It is free grace in redemption that is to be glorified, but something of your own would lessen your need of Christ and lower your esteem of His grace. nay, it would be a means to keep you from Him, as farms and oxen did the invited guests from the wedding supper. Consider further: no man was ever accepted of Christ for what he brought to Him. They are best welcome that bring nothing, and yet expect all things." -Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

Revelation 3:17-18: "You say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing,' not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see." 

Salvation Is Too Easy for Most Men

"The truth of justification by faith alone is contrary to depraved human nature, which always supposes and insists that the way to be righteous is by exerting oneself to attain this status, since righteousness makes one worthy of salvation and of every blessing. The truth of justification is truly amazing since faith is not a work that makes one worthy of righteousness, but merely a means, an instrument, by which God gives - by imputation - and the sinner passively receives righteousness as a gift. Indeed, the faith itself by which the sinner is justified is God's gift to the sinner." -Rev. David Engelsma, "Gospel truth of Justification," p. 191. 

In most things, we expect a person to choose the easiest way to attain his goals. To choose the hardest way is considered irrational. Yet we all exempt salvation from that plain rule. 

Recall the reactions of Adam and Eve immediately after their Fall into sin: "Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, 'Where are you?' And he [i. e., Adam] said, 'I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.' He [i. e., the Lord] said, 'Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?' The man said, 'The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.' Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent deceived me, and I ate'" (Genesis 3:7-13). 

First, let us notice who is speaking. This is the Lord, the tetragrammaton, Yahweh. This is the covenantal name of the preincarnate Son. Where the Father could have come in proper wrath and justice, instead, the Son comes in the first instance of His mediatorial role. He is present with the now-sinful Adam and Eve, giving them an immediate opportunity to plead His mediatorial mercy and forgiveness. That would have been the easy solution. 

Instead, what did they do? Immediately they covered their nakedness with fig leaves. The consciousness of their nakedness is an indication of their loss of their pre-Fall innocence. So, they attempted to work out their own solution to their guilt: cover it up. Next, they hide themselves among the trees. They have hidden their sin from their own eyes with the leaves, and then they add hiding themselves from the eyes of God. After all, he cannot judge them if He doesn't know where they are, right? Or so they reasoned. Yet, when He finds them, as was inevitable, they resort to pointing fingers. It was the woman, Adam claims, and You gave her to me. So it is God's fault. Even in her place passed the blame to the serpent, that ancient Tempter, whom we know as Satan. For Adam and Eve, their defense boiled down to, No one here but us innocent little chickens! 

And to this day, the posterity of our first parents respond the same way. We always strive to avoid responsibility for our wickedness. It is someone else's fault, not mine. Or I will fix myself, and God can just go on about His business with those other wicked people. 

And while we scramble to make all of these efforts to hide or fix our sin, the only mediator between the just God and sinful men is Jesus Christ. How simple it is to turn to Him alone by faith alone. Then we need not make garments for ourselves, because He gives us His own white robe of righteousness: "I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see" (Revelation 3:18; compare Zechariah 3:3-4). We need not hide or fix our sin. Indeed, we cannot. But He can, and does. How easy salvation in Christ is!

The Marital Faithfulness of Jesus to His Church

"I will betroth you to Me forever. I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and in justice, in steadfast love and in mercy. I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord." 

- Hosea 2:19-20 

This is a sweet promise. If you have read the rest of Hosea, then you know that much of it is about the unfaithfulness of Israel, the covenant community. Yet God takes it upon Himself to describe a time in which He will abolish the unfaithfulness of that community. 

First, I want to point to the last word in that passage: Lord. That English word is used as a gloss for the tetragrammaton, Yahweh, or Jehovah, the name used by by the preincarnate Christ whenever He acted in His mediatorial role. It is Jesus, His cross work, and His resurrection that have purchased the Church, faithful Israel in the Old Testament and the united Jews and Gentiles in the New Testament. His purchase, being effectual in all for whom it was intended (John 6:37-39), cannot fail to make every true believer, not just a believer, but a faithful servant. 

He uses marital imagery, a common theme in both testaments (such as Isaiah 54:5-6, Jeremiah 3:14, and Revelation 19:6-9). This is why our own marriage ceremony includes the vow to be faithful "until death do us part." Granted, that vow has become a mere anachronism among us, but it is not an anachronism to God. His vows are eternal and unfailing, even though we, who call ourselves by His name, are certainly not. "If we are faithless, He remains faithful - for He cannot deny Himself" (II Timothy 2:13).  

This is why I believe so passionately in the perseverance of the saints. I don't use the phrase "once saved always saved," because of its antinomian implications. Rather, God's faithfulness works in His blood-bought people by keeping them faithful, both in the sense of having faith and in the sense of faithful obedience to His word. 

The Father Certifies the Son's Atoning Work

"Between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And He went and took the scroll from the right hand of Him who was seated on the throne. And when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, 'Worthy are You to take the scroll and to open its seals, for You were slain, and by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and You have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth'" (Revelation 5:6-10). 

The passage above is one of the most beautiful in the New Testament. It parallels a similar scene in Daniel 7:9-14. I think that both passages describe the same event, Daniel prophetically in advance and John by vision after the event: the entry of Jesus into the heavenly throne room after His ascension. He receives His commission from the hand of the Father, a diploma, if you will. The Father acknowledges the Son's successful completion of the work of redemption, and rewards Him with the glory of a church, consisting of men from every culture, just as the Father had promised Him in Psalm 2:6-8: "As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill. I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession.'" Compare this promise to the declaration of Jesus in the Great Commission: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 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 28:18-20).

While there are many things that we can take out of this series of verses, my intent now is to turn from Who achieved it, to for whom He achieved it. 

Look again at Revelation 5, especially verse 9: "by Your blood You ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation." The common view of the redemptive work of Jesus is that He performed it for every person in the world throughout history. That is the view of Arminianism. That is, the Arminian reads John's words as, "by Your blood You ransomed all people for God." However, that isn't what the verse says. It says, "people from every tribe, etc." The difference is the assumption of a universal atonement in the Arminian version, but a particularization to certain men in John's actual words. 

This passage teaches the doctrine of particular atonement, also sometimes called definite or limited atonement, usually associated with the Calvinist system of doctrine. It does not permit the universal atonement advocated by the Arminian system.

The Intolerance of Jesus

"Tolerance" has become the theme of our age. Even among professing Christians, the phrase "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced by "you shall not judge." Judging is defined as denying the validity of anything the other person wants to believe or say or do. It is never tolerance for the person who advocates values or morality or the Bible. The only absolute truth, now, is that there is no absolute truth. 

Yeah, that is a self-refuting worldview, which is why we also see irrationalism's enthronement as our cultural guiding principle. 

The Christians who proudly quote Jesus, "You shall not judge" (Matthew 7:1, out of context), snarl in response if anyone quotes something else that Jesus said about judgment: "Judge with right judgment" (John 7:24). That is because the first quote, ignoring its context, seems to support the spirit of the age which has been imbibed by these Christians, while the second exposes it as a pagan intrusion. That exposure cannot be tolerated by today's tolerant Christians. 

We have other intolerant teachings from Jesus, as well. 

For example, in the Epistle to the Church in Ephesus found in the Revelation (Rev. 2:1-7), Jesus praises that church: "I know your works, your toil, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves 'apostles' and are not, and found them to be false" (Revelation 2:2). This church is praised by Jesus for their intolerance of evil men! That is totally opposite the milquetoast Jesus of today's post-modern tolerant Christian.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the Epistle to the Church in Pergamum (Rev. 2:12-17). Jesus actually chastises that congregation: "I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality. So also you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Therefore repent. If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of My mouth" (Revelation 2:14-16). This congregation is noted for its tolerance! The Christians here are noted for their tolerance of those who teach the doctrines of Balaam and the Nicolaitans. We may not know exactly what those doctrines were, but the wrath of Jesus is apparent. Wrath against what? Against the toleration in the church for heretical teaching! 

It is apparent that the Word of God teaches nothing like the doctrine of tolerance advocated by so many of today's professing Christians. Instead, they have adopted the attitude of the humanist, and baptized it by quoting ad infinitum, "You shall not judge." In contrast, the consistent message of the biblical Jesus is that we shall judge, or we shall be judged, and harshly! 

Ancient Pergamum

 

What Happens to Children When They Die?

This is a hard topic on which to write. I anticipate some negative reaction. However, it is a question I have been asked repeatedly by anti-Calvinists.

First, let us look at the confessional standard: "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word" (Westminster Confession of Faith X:3). The divines described what happens to elect infants who die. Of course, since they are elect, that would be God's plan for them. What about non-elect infants? On that the divines were silent. Charles Hodge and his son, A. A. Hodge, took that to mean that all infants who die are elect. I think that is presumptuous, taking an argument from silence where it does not lead.

For the Christian, there is extensive biblical justification to believe that his dead child is in Heaven. First, God claims the children of believers for Himself in Ezekiel 16:20-21: "You took your sons and daughters, whom you had borne to Me, and these you sacrificed to them [i. e., idols] to be devoured. Were your whorings so small a matter that you slaughtered My children and delivered them up as an offering by fire to them?" When the Israelites had become so given over to idolatry that they even practiced human sacrifice, God's anger was directed at the theft of what belonged to Him by covenant.

And second, what does God promise to these children who are His? "Your children shall be taught by the LORD, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Also in Acts 2:39: "The promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to Himself." So, in both Testaments, we have a promise from God to be covenantally faithful to the children of believers. Is this a promise that every child of believers will be saved? No, it isn't, as we know both from personal experience and from the biblical examples of Esau and Ishmael.

However, we also have a biblical example of the comfort that covenantal promise is to the believer. When David's first son with Bathsheba died (II Samuel 12:15-23), David took comfort in his assurance that his son would be waiting for him is Heaven: "I shall go to him, but he will not return to me" (verse 23).

I think that the most-important verse on this issue is I Corinthians 7:14: "The unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Paul tells us that the children of at least one Christian parent are holy. He doesn't say saved. Rather, he speaks of the covenantal connection between the believing parent and the child, such that the child is federally holy on the basis of the parent's faith.

However, we should notice his exact words. Paul speaks negatively. He doesn't just say, "The child with a believing parent is holy." Instead, he adds, that the child would otherwise be "unclean." And this is logical because we know there is no neutral moral state. But what are the consequences to the unbelieving parents regarding their own children?

"Nothing unclean will ever enter it [i. e., the New Jerusalem, v. 10], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life" (Revelation 21:27). Here is where the unbeliever must consider his standing with God, because it affects not just himself but also his children. If he decides that the pleasures of this life outweigh the eternal consequences, can he also say that they outweigh the eternal consequences for his child? Of course, this doesn't mean that every child of an unbeliever will himself be an unbeliever. We know from experience that the Holy Spirit often breaks into the families of unbelievers to bring one to Himself. I myself was such a convert. But the generality can be predicted, just as above with the children of believers.

This is my personal interpretation. Though I consider it a rational conclusion from the relevant Scriptures, I am aware that it goes beyond the confession. Therefore, other Calvinists should not be blamed for my personal opinion. I am especially conscious that I am going against some theological giants when I disagree with the Hodges. All I can say is that the Scriptures compel me.

Annihilationism, Eternity, and the Consequences of Truth

In our day, there is a growing movement to deny that the Bible teaches an eternal judgment in Hell. Rather, these people say, the spirit of the wicked is destroyed. This doctrine, annihilationism, was formerly limited to the cults, namely the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. However, it is now becoming increasingly popular among professing evangelicals, at least in America.

In contrast, Scripture describes the suffering of the wicked in this way: "The fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit. He opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any green plant or any tree, but only those people who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads. They were allowed to torment them for five months, but not to kill them, and their torment was like the torment of a scorpion when it stings someone. And in those days people will seek death and will not find it. They will long to die, but death will flee from them" (Revelation 9:1-6).

What John reveals here is that the wicked, in the face of their just suffering for that wickedness, will seek escape from their suffering through death, but death will be denied to them.

Annihilationists will often portray themselves as morally superior to those of us who hold the traditional view of Hell. In addition, they claim that unbelievers are more open to the "Gospel" if they remove the stumblingblock of eternal Hell. It is supposedly contrary to modern sentiments.

I have several problems with that perspective. For one thing, one doesn't tailor truth to suit the preferences of an enemy of that truth. Reformulating Christianity to suit unbelievers - the same problem I have with many megachurches - is to move it from suiting the preferences of God to suiting His enemies. How can that be considered  a good thing? Furthermore, by failing to give the unbeliever the biblical judgment on his unbelief, you deny that unbeliever the necessary information for weighing his situation. Many unbelievers are perfectly content to live as heathens now, just to puff into smoke at death. And that is exactly the pseudo-Gospel that the annihilationist gives him. If he never learns better, then that unbeliever will spend eternity in Hell, but his blood will be on the hands of the annihilationist (Ezekiel 3:18).

Jesus, The Prince of Peace Bears a Bloody Sword

There are some traditional biblical texts that are used whenever the Christmas story is retold (I am writing this the day after Christmas). One of those is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That is the King James Version of the verse, which is what is usually used. Why? Look at it in the ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" The second phrase of the two is strikingly different! And other modern translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and CSB, are the same as the ESV here. That second phrase is necessary to a correct understanding of the coming of Jesus. 

In the same book, the writer quotes this comment from Jesus: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" (Luke 12:51; "sword" in Matthew 10:34). If you compared those words to the KJV version of the verse above, you would have a conflict. Did He come to bring peace to the world or not? The KJV of this second verse is the same as the ESV. In either case, we see that it is to one class of men that Jesus brought peace, but to another He brought conflict. 

Look at these words from the Apostle Paul: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Ah, here was have the distinction explained. Where the unbeliever is in conflict with God (Ephesians 2:3), the believer has been brought into a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:10). Jesus becomes his Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) by grace alone through faith alone.

In apocalyptic language, the Apostle John also tells us about this conflict: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations" (Revelation 19:15; cp. Isaiah 49:2 and Hebrews 4:12). This is the distinguishing between the sheep and goats, of which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:32ff), achieved by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:8-15), which further distinguishes between men who will believe and men who will not (II Corinthians 2:16). With the former, it is a message of peace; but to the latter it is a message of war.

"The kingdom which He came to establish consists in joy and peace, and the great blessing which He communicates to all who are sprinkled with His blood is that peace which passeth all understanding, and which abides unshaken amid the agitations and tumults, the glooms and convulsions of the world. ThroughHim, God becomes the God of peace, the Gospel the message of peace, preachers of righteousness the heralds of peace, and the two great results of His work, according to the rapturous song of the angels, are glory to God in the highest and peace on earth" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

Who Was the Whore of Babylon?

A strange description occurs near the end of the Bible: "'Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.' And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: 'Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations.' And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus^'" (Revelation 17:1-6).

The account continues to verse 18, which tells us, "And the woman that you saw is the great city that has dominion over the kings of the earth." The woman is traditionally called the Whore of Babylon, from the King James Version of this passage. Her identity has been variously interpreted. The majority view is that she is a symbol of Rome. I, however, join with the minority in identifying her with apostate Israel, represented by Jerusalem, i. e., those Jews who rejected her Messiah and joined in crucifying Him 

I am going to speak to that here.

One of the challenges I have gotten from dispensationalists regarding this passage is that, supposedly, Jerusalem didn't rule the nations; rather, Rome did. However, the usage of Scripture does, actually, make Jerusalem the ruler of the nations: "How lonely sits the city that was full of people! How like a widow has she become, she who was great among the nations! She who was a princess among the provinces has become a slave. She weeps bitterly in the night, with tears on her cheeks; among all her lovers she has none to comfort her; all her friends have dealt treacherously with her; they have become her enemies" (Lamentations 1:1-2). Does this passage not echo John's words? It is a description of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BC.

In fact, I think that this is a prominent flaw of dispensational interpretation: it consistently ignores Old testament usages in dealing with New Testament prophecy. the Bible is a whole, with the later revelations building on the earlier. While dispensationalists talk about "rightly dividing the word of truth," their practice is better described as "wrongly dividing" it. Their hermeneutic is built on presuppositions outside of Scripture.

The Deity of Christ and the Inadequacy of Watchtower Doctrine

After His resurrection, Jesus appeared to a succession of people, first to the women at the tomb, then to Peter and Cleopas on the road to Emmaus, and then to the disciples locked, hiding, in a secret chamber. Somehow, the Apostle Thomas was absent at each of these occasions, and expressed doubt of their authenticity: "Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord.' But he said to them, 'Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into His side, I will never believe'" (John 20:24-25). It took a week for Thomas's desire to be fulfilled: "Eight days later, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you.' Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here, and see My hands; and put out your hand, and place it in My side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' Thomas answered Him, 'My Lord and my God!' Jesus said to him, 'Have you believed because you have seen Me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:26-29). 

We see a couple of things in the interaction between Jesus and Thomas here. For one thing, Jesus gives no rebuke to Thomas for his doubting. However, more importantly, He makes no rebuke for Thomas's addressing Him as Lord and God. Surely if a mere creature were to receive such adulation, it would be great sin not to object. Yet Jesus receives Thomas's words without refusal or rebuke! 

In dealing with this passage, Jehovah's Witnesses claim that Thomas was just making an emotional outburst, as a person today might exclaim, "Oh, my God," upon receiving some shocking news. However, they offer no proof that there was any such custom among First-Century Jews. Moreover, they cannot explain why Jesus makes no objection, given the Watchtower's claim that He was but an incarnate angel. In other biblical occasions, angels made very vocal objections to any such intimations: "I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God'" (Revelation 22:8-9). On the contrary, John explicitly tells us that the comment was to Jesus, not just an exclamation to no one in particular.

Why the difference? The Jehovah's Witness has no rational answer. But the Christian does.

"The death of Jesus was glorious, not because it was His death, but because it could be the death of no other. A [mere] creature might as well have undertaken to create us as to save a world. The work itself demands the interposition of God; and any theory  which fails to represent the death of Christ as an event which, in its own nature, as clearly proclaims His divinity as His superintending care and preservation of all things, cannot be the Gospel which Paul preached at Rome, at Corinth, at Athens, and which extorted from Thomas, upon beholding the risen Savior, the memorable confession, 'My Lord and my God'!"(James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity", emphasis in the original).

The Dual Judgment as a Refutation of Annihilationism

In interactions with annihilationists, I always insist that the Christian at death is immediately ushered into the presence of Jesus in Heaven (see II Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:21-23), and the wicked are immediately delivered to Hell (II Peter 2:9). Their usual response is, "Then what is the Judgment for?" And I can see why they ask.

In John 3:18-21, we have these words from Jesus: "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. 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. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. But

Apostle John

whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God." Notice His words: "Whoever does not believe is condemned already." In other words, the judgment for sin occurs in life, unless atoned by the blood of Christ through faith. Judgment is not waiting for the end of history when Jesus returns. 

Does that mean that there won't be a great Judgment at the end of history? Not at all. As Paul tells us in II Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." See also II Timothy 4:1 and Revelation 20:12.

Is there a contradiction here? Of course not. Rather, the two passages are talking about two separate things. We are truly judged at death: "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Then what happens at the final judgment is told to us in John 3:21, quoted above: "Whoever practices the truth comes into the Light, so that it may be seen clearly that what he has done has been accomplished in God." The final Judgment is public, unlike the judgment that occurs at each person's death. In it, the works of each person are revealed, so that the justice of God is revealed to all, whether men, angels, or demons. The wicked are revealed in their wickedness, so that the glory of God's justice is displayed. At the same time, the wicked acts of the godly are also revealed, so that the glory of His grace is also displayed. 

The Sinfulness of Sins: Are They All Worthy of Death?

The subject often comes up of whether some sins are worse than others. And the answer must be, "It depends." Depends on what? Are you talking about God's justice or man's? For example, God's law condemns theft in the Eighth Commandment and coveting in the Tenth Commandment. We would say that coveting my neighbor's car is not as bad as stealing his car.

And that is because we are talking about sin here as the actions of one sinful creature against another.

However, when we consider that question from God's perspective, it takes on a very different character. Then we are talking about the sins of a creature against his perfectly holy Creator. From that perspective, every sin becomes not merely an act of theft or coveting, etc., but rather an act of treason.

And that consideration makes every sin equally one act, the act of treason. And what is the judgment for treason against our rightful King? "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. 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 1:28-32). Look at some of the sins listed here. We see murder, and nod in agreement. Yeah, capital punishment is appropriate for murder. But what about gossips? What about those who disobey their parents? The foolish? Most people would be backing off now.

Yet, what does God say? "Those who practice such things deserve to die" (verse 32). Paul doesn't even say, "God says that they should die," though that would be sufficient reason. Rather, Paul says just that they deserve to die. That is, Paul recognized this fact, and believed that every spiritually-aware person would also believe so.

How far we have fallen from Paul's time that we question the justice of God, which consigns every sin, no matter how small in the sinner's eye, to final death, which is Hell (Revelation 20:14-15).

The Physical Resurrection: One Event or Two?

The predominant eschatology among American evangelicals is premillennialism (which has different forms, but that isn't the issue here). One particular way in which premillennialism differs from other schools is in making literal the description of two resurrections (Revelation 20:5-6). According to the premillennial interpretation, the godly dead will be resurrected, then a period of a thousand years will elapse, at the end of which the wicked dead will be raised. Then the premillennialist denies the literal interpretation of other passages that point to a single resurrection.

As I describe here, comparing scripture to scripture gives us good grounds for taking the First Resurrection in a non-literal sense, to refer to regeneration of believers.

So, what of the references to a single, general resurrection?

We can start with Job 14:11-12: "As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep." Without distinguishing between the types of people, he places resurrection at the end of this physical creation, not a thousand years before the end.

And what of the words of Jesus in John 6:40: "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." Not only does Jesus place the resurrection at the end of history, not a thousand years before the end, but He explicitly tells us that this is the resurrection of the godly, whom the premillennialist claims will have been resurrected for a thousand years by that time.

The premillennialist view in general, and specifically regarding the resurrection, depends on a literal interpretation of a highly-figurative passage, and then forces that interpretation on other, clearer, not-at-all figurative passages in order to maintain its peculiar doctrine. That is just bad hermeneutics, which depends on the clearer passage to interpret the more obscure.

The Bible as Our Apologetic

I have a real problem with classical apologetics. That is for two main reasons. One is that they lead to a generic deity, not necessarily the God of the Bible. Arguing, for example, from a supposed "first cause" could as easily be fulfilled by Allah or Zeus. The other reason is that they concede, as a starting point, that God does not necessarily exist. That concession is supposedly to establish a common ground with the unbeliever. Common ground with unbelief? What does that Bible say about that? "What portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?" (II Corinthians 6:15). The starting point of the Christian apologist is with something that Scripture denies! And I have even seen R. C. Sproul, a man whom I otherwise respect, go though his apologetics system in order to determine, not that God is necessarily who the Bible says He is, but rather that God probably exists. "Probably exists" means "maybe doesn't exist." How is that a God-honoring apologetic? I don't believe that it is. And that is probably why you never see the Apostles use such an approach. 

What is the biblical apologetic? "I shall have an answer for him who taunts me, for I trust in Your word" (Psalm 119:42). Do you recall the answers that Jesus made to Satan during His temptation (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4)? Did He try to find common ground with Satan? Of course not! Rather, He rebuked the Devil with Scripture! 

In apologetics, we must remember one thing: the unbeliever, regardless of his claims, does not really believe that God does not exist. On the contrary, he knows perfectly well that God exists, but is suppressing that knowledge (Romans 1:18-22). Thus, there is no need to establish a common ground. The believer and the unbeliever share a common belief in God. The difference is that one is living according to that belief, while the other is living contrary to it. That is why unbelief is inherently irrational and unstable. And exposing that irrationality was Paul's methodology when he preached at the Areopagus (Acts 17:16-34).

In His word, God has given us the most-powerful weapon possible for our spiritual conflict: "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12; see also Revelation 1:16 and 2:16). And He guarantees its success: "So shall My word be that goes out from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isaiah 55:11).

Is the Church Teaching the Lie of Satan?

We often talk about Europe as a "post-Christian culture." Then the conversation often moves to America, which is already "post-modern," and moving in the same direction as Europe. The so-called "nones," those who say they have no religion, are increasing as a proportion of the American population. The church has less and less influence in social issues.

Why is that?

In Europe, we see portions that have never known the biblical Gospel, because they were controlled by the Catholic Church. As that organization, not truly a church, lost political power, people were freed from its power, but had no spiritual reality to take its place. In the areas that had known the Gospel because of the Reformation, its influence had been undermined by the influence of higher criticism, and the failure of the

churches to exercise discipline in the face of  bald unbelief. As state churches, they were expected to include the entire population in their membership, and depended on state subsidies for their finances. They simply surrendered to the spirit of unbelief.

Here in America, evangelicalism has always been stronger than in Europe. The separation from the state and a voluntary membership has enabled the churches to exercise discipline - when they chose. While some church organizations have given in to the same higher criticism that conquered Europe, others have maintained their faithfulness to the Gospel and our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

However, now that evangelical remnant is decaying from the inside out. Prominent place has been given to mysticism, mainly through the Pentecostal movement, so that faith has become subjective rather than a faith in objective historical truths and events. A pietistic mentality has taken over, in which one's private spiritual experience takes precedence over the objective facts of the historic Christian faith. And a growing Prosperity movement has come to equate faith with personal success.

In other words, we witness with our eyes the professing evangelical movement's giving itself over to the very promise with which Satan brought down Adam and Eve: "God knows that when you eat of it [i. e., the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil] your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3:5). The deception of Satan was his promise to Adam and Even that betraying the God who made them would make them autonomous, with the authority to decide good and evil for themselves, rather than receiving their definitions from God.

And this is what has deprived the American evangelical movement of influence and effect. If personal prosperity and sovereignty are valid, then the truth of God is just an optional alternative. There can be no grounds for calling to account either individuals or officials who stand for wickedness. Wickedness and righteousness become equally valid. The salt has lost its savor: "You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet" (Matthew 5:13).

My message of warning is less to the apostates in American society than it is to the remnants of the church: "I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see. Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent" (Revelation 3:15-19).

A Scriptural Refutation of "Soul Sleep"

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists deny that the Christian goes to Heaven upon death. The former claim that the spirit is destroyed at death, to be recreated at the Judgment. The latter claim that the spirit remains, unconscious, with the body, often referred to as "soul sleep." Though their doctrines are different, they both derive from the earlier Millerite movement.

While both groups claim to be Bible-cased, this doctrine is certainly not Bible-based. And it is very easy to demonstrate that assertion.

"When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. They cried out with a loud voice, 'O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before You will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' Then they were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brothers should be complete, who were to be killed as they themselves had been" (Revelation 6:9-11).

We see several things about these martyrs which are inconsistent with the JW and SDA claims. First, we can see that they are dead, because it explicitly states that they were slain. Yet, they are crying and speaking, so they are neither annihilated nor unconscious. Then they are given heavenly garments and commanded to wait. Not to sleep. That is, they are to be conscious of the accumulation around them of the spirits of Christians down through the ages, until the end of mortal existence.

The Revelation versus Manmade Eschatology

I have noticed that, in popular, "Left Behind"-style eschatology, there is always an immediate rush past the first chapter of the Revelation to offer hair-raising interpretations of the symbols in the rest of the book. I don't want that to be taken to mean that I don't understand that rush. Studying the first chapter would shut down the exciting interpretations that make some men, such as Hal Lindsey, a lot of money.

Notice first verse 3: "Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near" (emphasis added). The events in the book, or, at least, the majority of them, are explicitly stated to be in the near future when John was writing these words. Not two-thousand years and counting afterward!

In particular I want to direct your attention to verse 9: "I, John, your brother and partner in the tribulation and the kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus." The two important words here are "tribulation" and "kingdom." Dispensationalists love to make up new theories about a future tribulation, mostly involving the modern State of Israel. And the Kingdom, i. e., of God, they put off until some future millennium that supposedly occurs after the return of Christ. Yet, John tells us that he was sharing in both at the time he was writing (which I believe to be about 68 AD, shortly after the beginning of the Roman campaign against Israel and Jerusalem).

Any sober reading of the Revelation must, therefore, conclude that most of the feverish teaching that is so popular today is merely manmade (un)science fiction, not biblical exegesis.

Hope and the Great Commission

At the end of His earthly ministry, Jesus gave this assignment to His church: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 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 28:18-20). This is not a project He gives us to do on our own power. In fact, He was at such pains to say otherwise that He placed both at the beginning and the end of the command that our work is built on His authority and presence.

But notice, too, what the command is. Dispensationalists claim that Christians proclaim the Gospel as a witness to a world that is headed for Hell. To expect success in that program would be contrary to the whole hermeneutic of dispensationalism. They quote the Great Commission from, for example, Acts 1:8: "You will be My witnesses." Then they add that the witness will be unsuccessful.

But that is certainly contrary to what Jesus says in the passage from Matthew. The Gospel isn't proclaimed merely as a witness against unchecked unbelief. Rather, He gives it with the expectation that, not merely individuals, but entire nations will become His disciples, and will, thus, need to be trained in His Word. We see the repetition of this promise in Revelation: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). The Great Commission in Matthew is the command to go, while Revelation records the result of that commission.

Though he wasn't addressing eschatology when he wrote it, this comment from Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell makes the point very well: "If the Church could be aroused to a deeper sense of the glory that awaits her, she would enter with a warmer spirit into the struggles that are before her. Hope would inspire ardor. She would, even now, rise from the dust, and, like an eagle, plume her pinions for loftier flights than she has yet taken. What she wants [lacks], and what every individual Christian wants, is faith - faith in her sublime vocation, in her divine resources, in the presence and efficacy of the Spirit that dwells in her - faith in the truth, faith in Jesus, and faith in God. With such a faith, there would be no need to speculate about her future. That would speedily reveal itself" ("Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church").

The unbiblical pessimism of dispensationalism has the opposite effect, to turn the eyes from Jesus to the inadequacy of her native resources, deflating her hope, and undermining her faith.