Two or Three Witnesses

Continuing our look at Hans LaRondelle’s understanding of Israel and the nations in the New Testament.

There is a memorable saying in the Old Testament: “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deut 19:15). We have seen in the “light . . . to the Gentiles” theme how the promise to Abraham (Gen 12:3) and the charge to Israel (Exod 19:5-6) were seen in the New Testament as fulfilled in Christ (Luke 2:32), and through Him the church (Acts 13:46-47). Israel was re-defined in spiritual and worldwide terms. This is confirmed in the way the early church applied Psalm 2 to the crucifixion (Acts 4:24-28). Before closing this book, I want to further confirm this approach to biblical interpretation with two more examples as additional witnesses.

Let’s compare Revelation 1:7 with Zechariah 12. “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen” (Rev 1:7). Who is this talking about in Revelation? This is talking about Jesus, the one who brings the vision to John (Rev 1:1-6). So the verse is saying, “Look, he [Jesus] is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him [Jesus].” When Jesus comes every eye, in other words, the whole world, will see Him. It is a universal coming. Everyone will see Him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him.

The author of Revelation did not invent these words. He is alluding to a passage in his Bible, the Old Testament, Zechariah 12:10-12: “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great. . . . The land will mourn, each clan by itself. . . .” In Zechariah 12 it is not Jesus speaking. Rather it is Yahweh who is speaking (Zech 12:1-9), it is Yahweh who comes, it is Yahweh who is to be pierced. In Zechariah it is the inhabitants of Jerusalem who mourn. So the actions and reactions in Zechariah 12 are limited in a literal and local sense.

In Revelation 1:7, however, John takes this Old Testament Yahweh text and applies it to Jesus and the situation of the world at the Second Coming. It is Jesus who comes, it is Jesus who was pierced. This is a spiritual re-definition of what happens in Zechariah 12. Likewise, it is the tribes of the whole earth who mourn, not just the tribes around Jerusalem. So Revelation 1 takes the literal and local things of Zechariah in a spiritual and worldwide sense. Like Acts 4, the inhabitants of Jerusalem are no longer the good guys, they are now classed with the enemies of Israel. To read Zechariah without reference to Jesus’ re-definition of Israel would be to misunderstand the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Those in relationship with Jesus are Israel. Those in opposition to Jesus are classed with the enemies of Israel, such as Sodom, Egypt and Babylon (Rev 11:8; 14:8—this attitude is consistent with Deuteronomy 13:12-17). To take Old Testament end-time prophecies as applying to literal and local nations in the Middle East today is to ignore Jesus’ own Christ-centered, typological hermeneutic.

Implications of the NT Re-definition of Israel

The implications of these two shifts (from ethnic to spiritual and localized to worldwide) in the definition of Israel are profound. If Israel is defined by relationship with the Jewish Messiah rather than one’s ethnic or geographical location, national, institutional Israel can now be classed with the Gentiles in terms of God’s original purpose. And Gentiles who follow Jesus are grafted in to Israel’s original mission in Christ (Rom 11:17-24). Hans LaRondelle brought the clearest evidence for these shifts to my attention in a class more than forty years ago.

LaRondelle’s demonstration of the above began in the book of Joel. In the latter part of Joel 2, the author moves from his present situation to the far future (Joel 2:28 – 3:21). “In those days” (Joel 3:1), God would pour out His prophetic Spirit on men and women of every age (Joel 2:28-29). There would be heavenly signs (2:30-31) and God would bring deliverance to the remnant in Jerusalem (2:32). The deliverance would be needed because the nations (same Hebrew word as Gentiles) would proclaim war against Jerusalem and gather in the valley nearby for a final attack (3:9-12). In the context of Joel, God’s people are described in ethnic (Joel 3:16-17) and geographical (Joel 2:32; 3:12, 16, 20-21) terms and the deliverance is at a specific location on earth (Joel 2:32). Here, and in other places in the Old Testament (Psalm 2:1-9; Ezek 39:1-8, 21-29; Dan 11:40-45; Zech 12:1-3; 14:1-3), the end-time battle is between the people of Israel/Judah and the Gentiles, and it occurs in literal Jerusalem and/or the surrounding hills.

It was with stunned surprise that I experienced what happened next. LaRondelle turned to Acts, chapter 4. That chapter tells the story of how Peter and John were imprisoned for healing a man and then preaching in the temple (Acts 3:1-26; 4:1-22). When the apostles were released, their fellow followers of Jesus rejoiced and lifted their voices in prayer, quoting one of these Old Testament battle texts (Psalm 2:1-2). “Why do the nations [Gentiles] rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord and against his Anointed One” (Acts 4:25-26).

In Psalm 2 the enemies of Israel’s king were Gentiles (Psa 2:1, 8—Hebrew: goyim) and they were attacking from outside Jerusalem (Psa 2:6). The Israel over which the Lord’s anointed rules is understood in literal, geographical terms in Psalm 2:2. While the deliverance the apostles had just experienced also happened in Jerusalem (Acts 4:27), they no longer understand the Israel of Psalm 2 in national or geographical terms. And there is an additional, even more surprising element: “Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed” (Acts 4:27). The “raging Gentiles” now include the leaders of national Israel (“the people of Israel”) who gave Jesus up to be crucified. The leadership of Israel, located in Jerusalem, are now classed with the Gentiles because of their opposition to Jesus. A new boundary has been drawn between Israel and the Gentiles, and that boundary is determined in relationship with Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. Those in relationship with Jesus, anywhere in the world, are part of the new Israel that He has established. Those who reject Jesus, who reject His spiritual definition of Israel, are now classed with the Gentiles of Bible prophecy, regardless of their ethnicity or location. This has profound implications for the interpretation of prophecy.

Before moving on, I want to make one thing clear. Classing institutional Israel with the Gentiles is not a rejection of the Jewish people as such or even the value of Judaism as a religious tradition. Paul is clear on this in Romans 11:1-2 (ESV): “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.” Judaism as a religion still bears witness to a glorious history of God’s mighty acts, the sacredness of the Sabbath, God’s gracious purposes in the Law, and the benefits of obedience to the one God. But Israel’s unique mission to the nations has been taken up by Judaism’s spiritual descendants, the church. Many Jews, who have grasped the power of Jesus’ vision for Israel, have joined in that mission over the centuries and, in Paul’s view, will play an increasing role in that mission as things move toward the End (Romans 11:11-16, 25-32).

The New Israel (The Church) II

What Jesus did was to expand the definition of Israel to all who are in relationship with Him, “first for the Jew, then for the Gentile” (Romans 1:16, see also Mark 7:27 and John 10:16; 12:20-24). The mission of Israel would now fall on the followers of Jesus, who would come “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9). When Paul and Barnabas read God’s Old Testament promises to Israel, they read those promises typologically in Jesus Christ. So they could apply Isaiah 49 also to themselves. “I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47, quoting Isaiah 49:6). As part of the new Israel in Christ, Paul and Barnabas applied Israel’s promises to their mission to the Gentiles. Since the church had taken up the mantle of Israel, all the promises of God to Israel now applied to the church, but in a spiritual, worldwide sense, as we will see.

Through this re-definition in Christ, two very important things happened to the meaning of Israel. First, Israel was no longer primarily defined as a civil, geographical entity. The followers of Jesus would come to include people from every nation, language, and tribe. Thus, Israel took on the spiritual tone that was intended for it from the beginning. It would now be made up of those who had a heart relationship with God in Jesus Christ. In Christ, Israel became a new community, with no ethnic limitations. The blessing that had now come to the Gentiles in Christ would go out to both Jew and Gentile from henceforth.

Second, institutional Israel was geographically centered around the temple in Jerusalem. No matter where a Jew might be displaced around the world, it was the goal to visit Jerusalem and the temple, if possible, three times a year. For Old Testament Israel, God’s Shekinah glory was housed in the temple. The emblems of God’s presence were localized in a specific geographic place. So national, institutional Israel was both ethnic and geographical in nature. By way of contrast, the new Israel was spiritual (grounded in a living relationship with the Jewish Messiah and unlimited in its ethnicity) and worldwide (Christ is equally available in any place through the Holy Spirit).

Jesus affirms the above in John, chapter 4. When the woman of Samaria sought to engage him in a discussion as to whether Mount Gerizim or Jerusalem was the right place to find God, Jesus responded, “. . . the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:23). The worship of the new Israel is spiritual and worldwide (as God had always intended OT worship to be) because it is based on the truth that is in Jesus. Jesus Himself is the true Israel and all who are in relationship with Him (regardless of their ethnicity or location in this world) are also part of that true Israel.

This is confirmed also in Revelation 5:9-10: “And they sang a new song: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.’”
The “kingdom and priests” of this text echos Exodus 19:5-6. But Israel in Revelation is no longer the literal descendants of Jacob being gathered into the promised land of Israel. Through the blood of the Lamb, God has gathered them out from every corner of the earth (anticipated in Isaiah 66:19-20). They are a spiritual kingdom, in relation to the Lamb. And they are a worldwide kingdom, drawn from every nation. Israel has been re-defined. In the hands of the New Testament writers, the literal and local things of Israel have become spiritual and worldwide.

The New Israel (The Church)

It is plain in the Bible that Jesus did not come to start a new religion. The mission of Jesus Christ was “first for the Jew” (Romans 1:16 and Mark 7:27). His mission was to “bring Jacob back to (God) and gather Israel to himself” (Isa 49:5). Or in the words of Simeon, He came “for glory to your people Israel.” (Luke 2:32). His first mission was to restore Israel to its role as a “light . . . to the Gentiles” (Isa 49:6; Luke 2:32), a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:5-6), and a blessing to all the families of the earth (Gen 12:3). As the new Israel, He called twelve disciples (Matt 10:1-4), but He also called seventy (Luke 10:1), the number of nations in the world after the Flood (Genesis 10). From the beginning, His mission was also with an eye to the Gentiles.

But the question that was not settled at the beginning was this: “Would national, institutional Israel; the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees, priests and scribes; embrace the Messiah and His spiritual vision for a restored Israel?” Jesus’ intention to include them is clear in His choice of twelve disciples and in His lament over Jerusalem (Matt 23:37—“How often I have longed to gather your children together. . .”). Even in Paul’s day it was still clear that “God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew” (Rom 11:1-2). But early on in Jesus’ ministry, the leaders of national Israel “rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Luke 7:30) and instead plotted with the civil authorities how they might destroy Him and His mission (Mark 3:6).

If the leaders of institutional Israel had embraced the Messiah and His spiritual vision for them, they could have been the means through which a restored Israel would become a “light
. . . to the Gentiles” and a “kingdom of priests”, as God had always intended (see also Jeremiah 31:31-34). After all, His re-definition of Israel was not something new, it was a restoration of the original mission of Israel. But the leaders of institutional Israel rejected Jesus and His spiritual mission. From now on, Israel would no longer be defined in relation to its institutional leadership, but in terms of relationship with Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. In rejecting a relationship with Jesus, national Israel rejected a role for itself in His restoration of the original mission of Israel. The disciples of Jesus, as a remnant of original Israel, would now take up the role that national Israel had refused to do (Matt 18:29-30; 21:43).

The New Israel (Jesus)

The mission of Israel as a nation was laid out in a nutshell in Exodus 19:5-6: “‘Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’” All the nations of the world belong to God, but God chose Israel to be “a kingdom of priests” to the other nations of the world. A priest is someone who stands between God and humanity, helping to make connections between the two. Israel was intended to be a “kingdom of priests” that would help restore what was lost in the Garden of Eden and re-unite the whole human family of God.

This pronouncement to Israel at Mount Sinai was consistent with God’s promise to Abraham that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3). It was God’s intention that all the peoples of the earth would be brought back into God’s family through the witness and faithfulness of the descendants of Abraham. This promise to Abraham was a down payment on God’s promise to undo the consequences of the Fall (Gen 3:15). So the promise to Israel in Exodus 19 was part of a larger plan.

Israel as a nation, however, embraced its privileged position but did not live out the purpose of that privilege. So in one of the mysterious servant songs of Isaiah, God addresses both Israel (Isa 49:3) and the Messiah (Isa 49:5) as follows: “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6). The promise to Israel remained. It was not too late for Israel to achieve its purpose, but already the notion of “Israel” was beginning to be re-defined. Israel’s mission would now be assisted by Yahweh’s servant, who would “bring Jacob back to (God)” (Isa 49:5).

At the very beginning, after all, Israel was not yet a national entity, it was a spiritual concept, designated by the name God gave Jacob after his wrestling with the “angel”: “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome” (Genesis 32:28). Israel’s mission was from the beginning a spiritual one, to restore lost humanity to God. But Israel as a nation largely failed in its mission (though there were some positive examples of mission success, such as Rahab, Ruth, the Queen of Sheba, Naaman, and Nebuchadnezzar II). So Isaiah 49 predicted that God’s Servant would intervene to restore Israel to its original mission.

When Simeon saw the baby Jesus in the temple, he was moved under inspiration (Luke 2:27) to repeat Isaiah 49, but in a way that pointed toward a re-definition of Israel. The messianic child would now play the role that Israel was intended to play. He would be “a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:32). The promise to Abraham and Israel would now be fulfilled through Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. He was a new Jacob, a faithful Israel, through whom God would bring light to the Gentiles and restore the human race to Himself.

The history, experience and mission of Israel would now be centered in the person of Jesus Christ. He would experience what Israel experienced, succeed where Israel failed, and reap the consequences of Israel’s failure. Jesus embraced His role as the new Israel by selecting, not eleven or thirteen, but exactly twelve disciples, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt 19:28). Like the original Israel, Jesus came up out of Egypt (Matt 2:13-15; Hos 11:1-9), passed through the waters of baptism (Matthew 3 and Luke 3), spent 40 days in desert (Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13; Num 14:33-34; 32:13; Deut 2:7, etc.), and then gave the new Torah for a new Israel on a mountain (Matthew 5-7, note especially Matthew 5:1-2). His death and resurrection would truly be a new Exodus for a new Israel (Luke 9:30-31). But Jesus was not to play the role of a new Israel by Himself. Israel would be re-defined in relation to Him. To be continued. . . .

Israel, Jesus and the Church

I apologize for a long period of silence on this blog. I have been involved in so many fresh writing and speaking project I just haven’t been able to dedicate time to one more thing that doesn’t have a deadline attached to it. With this blog today, I will share a summary of the revolutionary things I learned in Seminary from my favorite teacher, Hans LaRondelle (1973-1975, 1981-1987). His concept of Christ-Centered typological interpretation was like taking the blinders off in my reading of the Bible. Obscure prophetic texts suddenly made sense. There was a coherent unity to the Bible I had never seen before.

LaRondelle’s major contribution to my understanding had to do with the relationship between Israel and the church in New Testament interpretation. Many Christian scholars understanding that the unfulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament must be fulfilled in detail in the Middle East, exactly the way they are written up. This leads to conclusions related to what some call the Rapture theory. Larondelle pointed out that the writers of the New Testament did not read the Old Testament prophets in that way. Readers of Revelation should read the Old Testament the way the rest of the New Testament writers did. In this series of blogs, I will try to summary that perspective and its implications for my understanding of Revelation.

One of the great honors of my life was to have Dr. LaRondelle trust me enough to request from his death bed that I work with his final book manuscript and bring it to a conclusion. This was published electronically through the Logos software as The Bible Jesus Interpreted. It has since been updated and published in book form as Through Jesus’ Eyes (Safeliz, 2020). I will try to summarize the main insights of that book here.

Thoughtful Believer/Scholars and the Fate of Sinners (Rev 20)


Thoughtful believers live with a tension. On the one hand, believers, by definition, feel like they have enough evidence to make serious commitments regarding the Bible, theological positions, or a particular denomination. At the same time, thoughtful believers have a scholarly side that recognizes that they have a lot to learn and that on some points they could be wrong. It is very difficult to be true to both sides of this tension at one and the same time, yet I, for one, feel that a truth-based belief is never totally settled and that in eternity we will continue learning and growing (for those who appreciate Ellen White, the last chapter of the book Education is an instructive read on this). If that is true in eternity, why wouldn’t it be true now?

When it comes to the fate of sinners, there are three main options, universalism, annihilationism and eternal torment. The more carefully one examines these options, the more it seems clear that none of them is exegetically compelling in the sense that any honest reader would see that the biblical data is perfectly clear, no questions asked. The “slam dunk” texts offered up by each position, when examined with care, require choices and assumptions that adherents of the other two views will find far from compelling. On the other hand, all three approaches are exegetically defensible, in the sense that one can select and order texts in a way that the position could be claimed as the biblical one and garner adherents in large numbers. In such a context, the believer/scholar is free to make theological commitments, guided the by Holy Spirit (at least in one’s own perceptions). But it would be unwise to be so committed that one ignores evidence to the contrary. In the words of one of my mentors, Robert M. Johnston, “It isn’t hard to have strong opinions on any topic as long as you are willing to ignore some of the evidence.” So while I have my own theological commitments on this issue, I choose to treat those who disagree with respect and deference, sharing together in the hope that at least one of us might learn something. When minds close and neither side is learning, conversation is pointless.

When it comes to the issue before us, I am least attracted to the eternal torment position. To me, the concept of eternal torment, with or without literal flames, is repugnant and paints an awful picture of what God is like. I would never want to be the agent or eternal torment for my parents, my wife, or any of my kids or grandkids). Yet I am to believe that God has the capacity in His character to do exactly that to children of His that He knows far more deeply than we know each other. Am I more moral and gracious than God? I cannot believe that. And such a view does not seem compatible with Hosea 11:8-9, ESV: “How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? . . . . My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. 9 I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.” God’s compassion is far greater than mine. Far be it from Him to torture His own children for eternity (cf. Gen 18:25)! God, like us, must avoid the appearance of evil. At the same time, many of the Nursing students in my Christian Beliefs class this quarter have a rock-solid commitment to eternal torment, which they support by many texts. Shall I treat them as ignorant fools? Or shall I recognize that they and I are on a journey together where there is the wonderful possibility that at least one of us might learn something? What kind of conversation might leave open the possibility that any of us might learn something? For those who appreciate Ellen White, 6T 121-123 is very instructive. So is 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

I am much more attracted to universalism and very interested in an aspect of it that claims not to undermine free will. But I have not committed to that perspective for at least two reasons. First, I have difficulty getting my head around the idea of people having to deny who they have become in order to fit into a universe they never wanted. I would prefer that a God who loves me would allow me to determine my own future and accept the consequences of that choice. The idea of a free-will universalism is intriguing and I hope to study up on that option in the future. But at this point I find it hard to imagine that, given genuine freedom, everyone would end up choosing the same thing. But that’s just me. I’ll continue listening. Second, and much more important for me, is a practical issue. If we have three options and none of them is a slam dunk, which option has the least potential for damage. The eternal torment approach has driven many people away from God on the very face of it. Dangerous choice. Promoting universalism has many attractive features. But what if, in the end, it turns out to be wrong? What it cause some people to relax in their pursuit of holiness because in the end it won’t matter anyway? It would be tragic to arrive at St. Peter’s gate (or more likely the great, white throne—Rev 20:11) and discover only then that you had one chance and you blew it off because you were counting on having some fun first and then fixing it later. Perhaps this argument is more trivial than I realize, but that is where I am today.

This leaves me with the annihilation perspective, in which God desires earnestly that all be saved (2 Pet 3:9), and waits so that as many as possible might be saved. But when all are satisfied that God has done all He can to change minds, and yet many are hardened in their opposition and rebellion, God puts/allows them to sleep in a way that has no waking up. On that day He will weep and so will the saved. But for all it will be the best possible outcome under the circumstances. I do find some challenges in the annihilationist perspective, and I am working through some of them as I study Rev 20. But of the three options it seems to me the one with the least potential downside.

I don’t claim to be an expert in this particular issue, so I won’t mind if you take all of this with a grain of salt. But the crucial thing for me is not so much the outcome (we’ll know in the end anyway), but the way we go about studying the Word and sharing what we’ve learned so far. When people get too confident in their own view of things, even biblical things, they tend to stop leaning and growing and they may no longer be worth listening to.

Is God’s Wrath Active or Passive?

I apologize for the long silence. There has been so much going on I haven’t had the “bandwidth” to focus on the blog. But publishing the below is necessary as a background to discussion I am having with followers of the Facebook Commentary.

 

When Revelation speaks of the wrath of the nations (Rev 11:18) and the wrath of the dragon (Rev 12:12, 17), it is not a compliment. It represents irrational fury grounded in hatred and diabolical desire to destroy both lives and the environment. To then turn around and apply the same term to God can be unsettling (14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1, 19; 19:15). Can God be irrationally destructive too? Does God have a dark side? Why is the book of Revelation so full of divine wrath? How can we reconcile God’s wrath with the idea that God is love?

Regarding the wrath of God, I can think of at least six circumstances in which God’s wrath is invoked in the Bible, some of them actively and others passively. First, God sometimes speaks of destructive things Satan or the nations do as if He Himself had done them. In other words, He takes responsibility for actions that He simply allows to happen. A good example of this is the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchanezzar. God speaks of it as an active judgment, but then makes clear that He is simply allowing Nebuchanezzar to do what he wants to do. God withholds His protection from His people because of their rebellion against Him (Jer 20:4-5; 21:2-10; 25:1-11). Second, the “wrath of God” in the Bible is often His sadly turning away from people who don’t want Him, allowing them to reap the consequences of their own decisions and actions. This is illustrated in Romans 1:18-28 where the wrath of God against human rebellion (Rom 1:18) is explained as God “giving them up” to the consequences of their rebellion. Third, wrath is sometimes use to describe God’s aggressive action to deliver His people, as in the Exodus from Egypt (Exod 15:7). Fourth, God sometimes acts aggressively to restrain evil when it is in danger of getting out of control, as in the Flood story. Fifth, God sometimes acts aggressively in order to get people’s attention. Sixth, God sometimes acts or doesn’t act in order to reveal the characters of Satan or of Satan’s followers. The big question here is, which of these motivations lies behind the wrath of a loving God in Revelation 16? How do you reconcile the seven last plagues with the love of the God who is most clearly revealed in the gracious, forgiving and self-sacrificing actions of Jesus Christ?

The seven last bowl-plagues at first glance seem to be direct actions of judgment on God’s part. Each of the plagues results from an action that originates in the heavenly sanctuary. The Exodus background of the bowl-plagues reminds the reader of God’s direct intervention in Egypt. The purpose of that intervention was to deliver God’s people from slavery. Read in this way, the seven bowl-plagues would be interventions of God to deliver His people from end-time Babylon. Allusions to the ancient fall of Babylon in the sixth and seventh bowls would support the same theme. A loving God acts to deliver His faithful ones from their oppressors.

The bowl-plagues fall on the earth after the close of human probation (the empty temple in heaven—Rev 15:7-8). If they are, as the text seems on the surface to suggest, active interventions of God, what is the point of such plagues if human beings are no longer willing to repent? It would be to expose the reality of their characters. In spite of the final proclamation of the gospel (Rev 14:6-7), in spite of desperate threats (Rev 14:8-11), in spite of everything in their lives going wrong (the bowl-plagues), the wicked ones’ defiance toward God and stubborn refusal to repent only increases (Rev 16:9, 11, 21). The bowl-plagues demonstrate that the character of those who oppose God and His people has become hardened in unrepentence. No amount of time or effort will win them back. A loving God does not force people into relationship with Him. If they stubbornly refuse to repent, He eventually lets them go to reap the consequences of their choices.

Sigve Tonstad offers another way to read Revelation 16. He sees it as an end-time revelation of Satan’s character. Tonstad admits that at first glance Revelation 15:7 – 16:1 implies that God is about to do something terrible. But rather than simply accept a surface reading of the text, he suggests that in the seven bowls God is permitting Satan to take nearly total control of this earth and to thereby demonstrate what his government of the universe would be like if he achieved his goal to “be like the Most High” (Isa 14:14, KJV). He points to Revelation 16:13-14 as direct evidence that demonic activity lies behind the fearsome plagues of the chapter. The surface current of Revelation reads as if the seven bowls-plagues were active, punitive judgments of God on the unrighteous after the close of human probation. But the demonic undercurrent of the book may be more important in this chapter than most commentators have allowed in the past.

Tonstad points to the clear parallels between the seven bowls and the seven trumpets. The seven trumpets also read, at first glance, as active judgments of God. But there is abundant evidence in the seven trumpets that it is the operation of Satan that is the cause of the destruction, not God (Rev 8:10-11; 9:1-5, 11, 14-15). God releases His tight control over Satan to allow him to reveal his destructive character. Tonstad reasons, from the strong parallels between the trumpets and the bowls, that they also should be read in terms of divine permission for the “Destroyer” (Rev 9:11) to reveal his destructive character. Both the trumpets and the bowls are completing a process that begins with the crisis in the heavenly council over the character and government of God (Rev 15:2, 7, cf. 5:1-5). The deceptive and destructive character of the one who slanders the character of God must be exposed (Rev 16:14) that the true character of God may be revealed (Rev 15:3-4). In the larger scheme of things (the cosmic conflict), God loosens His restraint of Satan in the trumpets and bowls so that the character of Satan can be fully revealed. A loving God wants His creatures to know the character of their adversary, so they will not place their trust in his leadership or in the words that he speaks against God. The images of Revelation can be disturbing at times, but from the perspective of the cosmic conflict, they are consistent with the actions of a loving, other-centered God.

In conclusion, the love of God is essential to His character. It has been there from eternity past. Wrath is not essential to God’s character, it is a reactive force grounded in God’s love. As one who cares deeply about the welfare of His creatures, God is distressed when His creatures hurt each other and hurt themselves by their behavior. But He does not force constructive behavior, instead he persuades; sometimes by intervention and sometimes by allowing sin to take its course. But even his aggressive interventions are grounded in His other-centered character that desires what is best for His creatures, but does not force them to adopt His ways of thinking and acting. As we approach the close of earth’s history, the book of Revelation seeks to arrest the attention of the world by demonstrating the consequences of rebellion and self-centeredness. Whether one sees the seven last plagues as active or passive judgments, a loving purpose lies behind.

Summary: If Jesus Had Never Been Born, How Would Things Be Different Today? (What If—24)

Let me sum up the impact of Jesus on today’s world in a series of statements based on what has been said in the previous 23 blogs.

If Jesus had never been born:

There would be an 85-90% chance you wouldn’t be able to read. If you are a woman, there is a 99+% chance you couldn’t read this blog or anything else.

There would be no Harvard University, no Oxford University, and definitely no Loma Linda University, the place where faith and science are at home together.

There would be no science as we know it and no Scientific Revolution that has totally transformed daily life for most people.

There would be no civil rights for anyone but the elites of every society.

There would be no modern medicine with its amazing cures and preventives.

There would be no Mayo Clinic, no Johns Hopkins and no Loma Linda University Medical Center.

There would be no eyeglasses and no contact lenses.

There would be no antibiotics and no hospitals as we know them.

The defective, the ill, and the aged would likely be marginalized or terminated.

There would be no cell phones, no social media and no internet (maybe that would be a good thing).

There would be no electrical grid and no central heat or air conditioning.

There would be no hot, running water in your house.

At least one of your siblings would have died in childhood.

Most people over 40 years of age would be dead.

Most people over 35 would have no teeth.

There is a 40% chance you would be a slave, regardless of race or ethnicity.

You would routinely experience what it is like to be hungry and not be able to do anything about it.

If you are female, it is likely you wouldn’t be allowed to own land.

If you are female, your father would likely have sold you to your future husband and you would be regarded as his property.

Most people would make a living by working all day with their hands.

Most societies would be brutal and violent.

Sports like “The Hunger Games” would probably be a reality.

The most efficient form of transportation would be horses.

What’s the point? None of this proves that there is a God and that Jesus Himself is God made flesh, the greatest revelation of what God is like. Nor does it prove that everyone in the world should follow Jesus. But it does demonstrate that, purely as a human being, Jesus did more to influence subsequent history than any other person who ever lived. And He claimed that His revolutionary teaching came directly from God. If that is true, the decision you make about Jesus is the most important decision you will ever make. And if you have chosen to follow Jesus you are not a fool, you are simply following where the evidence leads.


What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? Jesus and Human Freedom III (What If—23)

The next main development on the way to the American experiment was The Great Awakening. The Great Awakening was a religious revival in the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. It was so successful that it seems to have united all the American colonies in a common spirit, regardless of denomination. The basis of that common spirit was a common authority, the Bible. The Great Awakening was opposed to tyranny in all forms and promoted liberty of conscience for all. This set the stage for the American Revolution, which was birthed by the pulpits of New England and, in many ways, led by Christian preachers.

There is a strong biblical foundation to the ideas articulated in the Declaration of Independence (AD 1776), which includes these famous words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Wide awareness of the principles of freedom, equality, fundamental rights, rule of law, and religious liberty were grounded in the Great Awakening and the Scriptures. Many signers of the Declaration, including John Adams, Patrick Henry and John Witherspoon were deeply committed Christians. Even those like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, whose Christian orthodoxy was questionable, were deeply influenced by the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

This was followed soon after by the American constitution, which was grounded in the above principles and also in the Presbyterian model of government. There are at least five biblical principles at the foundation of the American constitution. 1) Government is by law rather than the whim of a ruler, and that law must be grounded in the law of God. 2) All members of society are equal under the law. 3) Human rights are grounded in creation and in the ten commandments. Human rights derive from the fact that human beings were made in the image of God. 4) The protection of individual liberty was essential. 5) While humans are made in the image of God, they are also fallen and sinful, therefore humans cannot be trusted with power. This led to the principle of separation of powers which would provide checks and balances to prevent any one person from abusing their power or the majority from abusing the minority.

There is reason to believe that the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) were based, in part, on Isaiah 33:22: “For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.” In Israel, all three roles resided in the king, which did not turn out well. As outlined in the American Constitution, the executive (president and cabinet), legislative (Congress), and judicial (Supreme and lower courts) branches of government provide separation of powers, with each branch being checked and balanced by the other two.

I find it interesting for our situation today to contrast the American Revolution with the French Revolution, which happened shortly after. In American, while church and state were to be separate in terms of law, religion and liberty were not separable. Liberty was grounded in the principles of Scripture and the teachings of Jesus. In France, on the other hand, religion was seen as the adversary of liberty, human freedom would only be achieved in the absence of religion. In France, the end result of democracy in the absence of Christian morality was the tyranny of the Reign of Terror (AD 1793-1797). Democracy without restraint quickly led to the same kinds of abuses that resulted in the death of Socrates. As noted by Edmund Burke: AHuman behavior needs restraint, the less within, the more is needed without.@

With the waning of the Protestant foundation of American society today, a strong tension has arisen between equality and freedom (religious or otherwise). Equality of opportunity and freedom are very compatible. But when equality is expressed in terms of equality of outcome, it is in tension with freedom. Genuine freedom tends to result in inequality of outcome because some people are smarter than others and some people work harder than others. Given that reality, the only way you can achieve equality of outcome is by force, which is the antithesis of human freedom. It will be interesting to see if religious liberty can survive in a society moving away from the teaching of Jesus.

If Jesus had never been born, freedom as we know it would likely not exist. And if it did, it would probably be only for the elites. Genuine civil liberties today exist primarily in countries with a Protestant or a Jewish base. When it comes to religious liberty, Catholic, Orthodox and Muslim countries tend to be quite restrictive compared to the countries with Protestant and Jewish origins. Like Christianity, the American experiment is flawed. It has changed the world for the better, but it is still struggling to apply the principles to itself.