Paul and the Unknown God

There is a brief moment in Luke's Acts of the Apostles where the apostle Paul speaks to a group of pagan Athenians regarding their worship. The verses most commonly quoted from this episode are:

So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: "Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." [Acts 17:22-23; ESV]

Of all possible conclusions, this verse is often used to support either one of two things: 1) universalism, which says all religions are right, or 2) justification for saying that some of the other monotheistic faiths (such as Islam) worship the same God as Christians. Careful examination of the scriptural context, however, does not support this.

First, let's present some background. Paul, along with fellow apostles Timothy and Silas, has been traveling throughout Greece spreading the gospel and debating in various synagogues. The group meets some hostility at Thessalonica (17:1-9), but encounters greater success at Berea (17:10-12), where Paul continues on to Athens awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy (17:15).

Those who believe Acts 17 supports universalism or some form of it would be shocked to discover that, upon entering Athens, Paul's first reaction is not one of interest or open mindedness - but rather divine anger.

Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him... [Acts 17:16-18; ESV]

Paul feels his spirit "provoked within" by the copious amount of idols, and, without waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him, begins to reason with the people just as he did in the synagogues. Soon this spreads out, and he is not only debating the Jews but the pagan philosophers as well. This leads many to be interested in what he has to say:

And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean." [Acts 17:19-20; ESV]

The Areopagus, or "Rock of Ares," is a hill of rocky terrain overlooking Athens that in ancient times was used for criminal or civil cases, as well as important meetings in general. The nearby temple to the "Unknown God," which Paul will make mention of soon, is a historic reality: it served as a sort of "fill-in" position in addition to the twelve known gods of Greek mythology. Incidentally, the original Greek for "Unknown God" is Ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ - it's from the root word for Ἀγνώστῳ that we get the word "agnostic."

Now we have finally arrived at the passage quoted in the beginning of this blog post. Does it present universalism? It would seem that Paul's goal is the conversion of the people he is speaking to, in the hopes of bringing them into Christ's arms. Therefore the end of Paul's statement makes much more sense:

"Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown god.' What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you." [emphasis mine]

"What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you" - or rather: "This 'Unknown God' you worship has an identity, and I am making Him known to you now." In fact, the language Paul uses is very similar to what he uses at the very beginning of Acts 17, when speaking in the synagogues:

And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ." [Acts 17:2-3; ESV; emphasis mine]

It would be wrong to assume that Paul was telling the Jews they could simply ignore Jesus as the Messiah, for he announces that he is proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. Similarly in Athens, he announces that he is proclaiming Jesus as the Unknown God. Paul is doing in many ways what many missionaries today try to do: initiate conversation with a person of another faith by finding some similarity between the two groups. More importantly, however, he is destroying the ignorance of the Greeks, as we will soon see.

Paul continues from here. In full:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for, 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Acts 17:24-31; ESV]

This speech contradicted much of what the Athenians knew - in fact, Luke records that "some mocked" Paul for what he had said (Acts 17:32). Partially this was because he was telling them that Jesus died and rose again in a spiritually glorified body, whereas most pagan cultures of that time had the idea that the soul and body were separate (sadly, some Christians today believe this too). Partially this was also because Paul clearly mocks idolatry and its reliance on creation rather than the Creator, for he tells them:

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." [Acts 17:24-25; ESV]

Greeks worshiped creation: where there was thunder, there was Zeus; where there was dawn, there was Apollo; where there was forests, there was Athena; on and on it went. By contrast, Paul brings forward the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the one true God, from Whom all creation sprung forth. This God "made the world and everything in it," and is "Lord of heaven and earth." Likewise, the Greeks (and many pagans of that time) committed to worship of gods and goddess through material objects, which they worshiped as if the gods were there. Paul attacks this notion by pointing out that these same hands, breath and all matters of living supplied by mankind to idols are, in fact, source directly to God. He has no need of them - just as they exist, He exists.

Following this, he outlines the "religious" nature of the Athenians that he discussed earlier:

"And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, for, 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.'" [Acts 17:26-28; ESV]

The quotations supplied by Paul are believed to have come from two Greek poets, possibly Epimenides of Crete and Aratus’s "Phainomena."

Paul preaches here the "religious" nature of mankind. Every religion on earth seeks, in one way or another, to "feel their way" towards the Unknown God. One might think this supports the pro-universalism argument, but afterward Paul clearly states:

"Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." [Acts 17:29; ESV]

Idolatry and the use of idols, which the Greeks were doing, is clearly condemned. Remember that this "Unknown God" was not the only god which the Greeks worshiped, for, like Hindus of today, they went from temple to temple where giant statues dedicated to various gods and goddesses towered over the worshipers. If Paul were tolerant with what the Greeks were doing, as some argue, why then would he suddenly condemn the very method of worship a few sentences later? The Greeks were not agnostics (as one might suppose given the argumentation), but polytheists.

This is all, incidentally, very similar to the words Paul uses in his letter to the Romans, in which he also speaks of idolatry.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. [Romans 1:18-25; ESV]

It might be worthy to stop here and regard the "religious" nature of the Athenians: there is a wide difference between being "religious" and being "spiritual." A Muslim man in Syria who attends mosque regularly, engages in the Ramadan fast, and reads the Quran, then goes out and cheats on his wife - this man can be said to be "religious," but hardly "spiritual." To be fair, this is true even for Christians - a man who is godly in church and atrocious outside of church may be "religious," but not "spiritual." A religious nature, as Paul says the Athenians have, does not equal a complete faith. Even if we were to say, for the sake of argument, that there existed some Greeks who worshiped the Unknown God alone, that would not equal a complete faith, for as the apostle James said, "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe - and shudder" (James 2:19).

Returning to Acts, Paul finally states:

"The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead." [Acts 17:30-31; ESV]

The times of ignorance are over because God has finally made Himself known through the Incarnate Son, and has dispatched His Church throughout the world to preach the greatest message of all: that death is not the end, and that we may have life through Jesus Christ. He is no longer "the Unknown God" to be worshiped besides twelve more - He is the almighty God, the pantocrator, who is to be worshiped alone. The muddied window of paganism is washed clean, and the light of God shines through. No longer can men accept their error in worshiping creation, for the Creator has made Himself known throughout all of creation, for through creation He has reconciled them.

Paul had stated that man had been made to "seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him." While pagan faiths such as those held by the Athenians are man reaching up to God, the true God proclaimed by Paul is reaching down to man, and now "commands all people everywhere to repent." This Unknown God is unknown no longer. This is a direct attack against the wisdom which many of Paul's audience would have upheld. The greatest wisdom is not a philosophical outlook (as the Greeks treasured), but the knowledge of the true God through Jesus Christ, resurrected from the dead to give life to the dead. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians:

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [1 Cor 2:6-8; ESV]

The idea, therefore, that Paul is arguing, "Well, God is OK with you Athenians, because you have a religion that seeks after Him in your own special way," is eisegesis. Paul is seeking nothing more than the conversion of the Athenians to Christ. He not only condemns the idea that God can be found solely in a temple, but also idolatry and transforming God into images. He highlights that salvation is found only in Christ through the Resurrection. For this, he receives some mockery - a curious thing if he was supposedly preaching that the Athenian religious were in the right. How many times in history has a person been mocked by someone for agreeing with them?

Paul's focus here is, as with his other sermons and lessons found throughout Acts and his epistles, is Christ as Redeemer and Savior. To Paul, the apostles, and the great men of the Church, anything else is a distraction that keeps us from our goal of seeking union with God.

John Wesley's Resolutions

The following is from John Wesley's journal:

With regard to my own behavior, I now renewed and wrote down my former resolutions.

1. To use absolute openness and unreserve with all I should converse with.
2. To labor after continual seriousness, not willingly indulging myself in any the least levity of behavior, or in laughter; no, not for a moment.
3. To speak no word which does not tend to the glory of God; in particular, not to talk of worldly things. Others may, nay, must. But what is that to thee? And,
4. To take no pleasure which does not tend to the glory of God; thanking God every moment for all I do take, and therefore rejecting every sort and degree of it which I feel I cannot so thank Him in and for. [from the entry on Tuesday, February 28, 1738]

The Reformation

A few days ago was the anniversary of the famous "Here I Stand" speech delivered by Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, which led to the Reformation throughout Europe. In a belated celebratory post, here are three audio clips regarding the speech at Worms - its background, delivery, and aftermath (about 23 minutes in total).

John Wesley's Epiphany

For a short while, John Wesley, the future founder of Methodism, had a home in the young American city of Savannah. Due to conflict with the influential families of the area, Wesley was forced to flee on foot to the Carolinas where he took a ship back to England. While aboard, he reflected heavily on what he had experienced in the past, much of which he speaks of in his journal.

We spoke with two ships, outward bound, from whom we had the welcome news of our wanting but one hundred and sixty leagues of the Land’s End. My mind was now full of thought; part of which I wrote down as follows:

"I went to America, to convert the Indians; but oh! who shall convert me? who, what is he that will deliver me from this evil heart of mischief? I have a fair summer religion. I can talk well; nay, and believe myself, while no danger is near; but let death look me in the face, and my spirit is troubled. Nor can I say, 'To die is gain!' I have a sin of fear, that when I've spun My last thread, I shall perish on the shore!

"I think, verily, if the gospel be true, I am safe: for I not only have given, and do give, all my goods to feed the poor; I not only give my body to be burned, drowned, or whatever God shall appoint for me; but I follow after charity (though not as I ought, yet as I can), if haply I may attain it. I now believe the gospel is true. ‘I show my faith by my works’ by staking my all upon it. I would do so again and again a thousand times, if the choice were still to make.

"Whoever sees me, sees I would be a Christian. Therefore 'are my ways not like other men's ways.' Therefore I have been, I am, I am content to be, 'a by-word, a proverb of reproach.' But in a storm I think, 'What, if the gospel be not true? Then thou art of all men most foolish. For what hast thou given thy goods, thine ease, thy friends, thy reputation, thy country, thy life? For what art thou wandering over the face of the earth?--A dream! a cunningly devised fable!'

"Oh! who will deliver me from this fear of death? What shall I do? Where shall I fly from it? Should I fight against it by thinking, or by not thinking of it? A wise man advised me some time since, 'Be still and go on.’ Perhaps this is best, to look upon it as my cross; when it comes to let it humble me and quicken all my good resolutions, especially that of praying without ceasing; and at other times to take no thought about it, but quietly to go on ‘in the work of the Lord.’” [from the entry on Tuesday, January 24, 1738]

It is now two years and almost four months since I left my native country in order to teach the Georgian Indians the nature of Christianity. But what have I learned myself in the meantime? Why (what I the least of all suspected), that I who went to America to convert others was never myself converted to God. [from the entry on Sunday, January 29, 1738]

Does the Bible predict nuclear war?

Sometimes I find myself watching bad Christian television (such as TBN), either when curiosity sits in or boredom overcomes me. It is not that I necessarily support the people who run it, nor the shows displayed on it (although I have no idea why Charles Stanley is on TBN, given he's a thousand times more orthodox than Benny Hinn or Kenneth Copeland ever try to be). It is simply that I believe it is necessary to see what the various heretical teachers and groups are saying, so that we may know what the spiritually young are being fed and might be prepared to give a response.

One of the most "interesting" shows I've ever come across is Jack van Impe Presents. It's a combination of news reporting and punditry (a bit like Pat Robertson's 700 Club) that attempts to take headlines in the world today and apply it to a dispensationalist mindset. The style of presentation is noticeable, even on a one-time viewing: Rexella van Impe, Jack van Impe's wife, reads off headlines of recent news stories, all having to do with a similar subject, and then turns to her husband to ask some (obviously scripted) questions. Jack van Impe then launches into a storm of scripture citing, trying to convince the viewer that these events are leading up to the Rapture, followed by the Tribulation and then the Second Coming. I have read people praising Jack van Impe for his knowledge of scripture, calling him "the Walking Bible" (source). Given he's always looking at the camera when he does this, and given that most television cameras have teleprompters on them, I'm not certain how much praise is deserving for him.

In any case, I was watching the episode that aired on The Church Channel on April 14, 2010 at 11:30 PM EST. Two-thirds into the episode, the subject of nuclear weapons came up and this dialogue occurred:

Rexella: "Jack, nuclear warfare - in the Bible?"

Jack: "Very definitely! Psalm 97:3, Isaiah 66:15, Ezekiel 20:47, Joel 2:3 and 30, Zephaniah 1:18, Malachi 4:1, Revelation 8:7 and 9:18...over and over, it's coming!" [source; 18:01 mark]

Jack van Impe doesn't once, in the entire episode, bother to stop and quote or explain these passages, he simply throws them out there and essentially says, "Yup, there's nukes in the Bible! See? They're there!" Do these, in fact, predict nuclear weapons? Let's examine them one by one. All translations will come from the ESV, and I will put the passage cited by Jack van Impe in bold.

First, let's look at Psalm 97:3.

The LORD reigns, let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad! Clouds and thick darkness are all around him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne. Fire goes before him and burns up his adversaries all around. His lightnings light up the world; the earth sees and trembles. The mountains melt like wax before the LORD, before the Lord of all the earth. [Psalm 97:1-5]

Psalm 97 is actually speaking about the destruction of God's enemies. Besides fire, the following verse speaks of lightning destroying them - are we to assume that David, writing the psalm, predicted not only nukes but perhaps electronic weapons from satellites? I highly doubt that was on David's mind at the time. Furthermore, this psalm is simply reiterating language found throughout the psalms: Psalm 21:9 states, "The LORD will swallow them up in his wrath, and fire will consume them"; Psalm 50:3 states, "Our God comes; he does not keep silence; before him is a devouring fire, around him a mighty tempest." Fire is a representation in the psalms of God's power - not nuclear warfare.

Next, let's review Isaiah 66:15.

"For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many." [Isaiah 66:15-16]

The fact that Jack van Impe has taken this verse out of context is obvious - it states "the Lord will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury." It does not take a master theologian to know that the Lord is not going to come in nuclear weapons. These verses (and all those that follow) are talking about the coming judgment of God, going on to say: "the time is coming to gather all nations and tongue. And they shall come and shall see my glory" (Isa 66:18). They are not speaking of earthly weapons, but the fire of God's wrath and judgment. There is no possible way to take these to be nukes unless one commits eisegesis - which, unfortunately, Jack van Impe has done.

Now let's examine Ezekiel 20:47.

And the word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, set your face toward the southland; preach against the south, and prophesy against the forest land in the Negeb. Say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree. The blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. All flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it; it shall not be quenched." [Ezekiel 20:45-48]

As with Isaiah 66:15, we have to ask: is this fire caused by a man-made weapon, or is it the fire of the Lord? God answers that for us by telling Ezekiel, "I the Lord have kindled it" (20:48). The fire is the fire of the Lord, which is sourced directly to Him. Nuclear weapons are not used directly by the Lord. To paraphrase a popular line from Star Trek V: "What would God want with a nuke?"

Here we reach Joel 2:3 and 30; since these are two different passages separated by some 27 verses, so we'll look at each individually. Let's start with Joel 2:3.

Blow a trumpet in Zion; sound an alarm on my holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness! Like blackness there is spread upon the mountains a great and powerful people; their like has never been before, nor will be again after them through the years of all generations. Fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns. The land is like the garden of Eden before them, but behind them a desolate wilderness, and nothing escapes them. Their appearance is like the appearance of horses, and like war horses they run. As with the rumbling of chariots, they leap on the tops of the mountains, like the crackling of a flame of fire devouring the stubble, like a powerful army drawn up for battle. [Joel 2:1-5]

These passages are referring to a two-fold prophesy: the Day of the Lord, for it says "the day of the Lord is coming," as well as a destructive invasion of Israel (believed by some to be the Babylonians). The fire, in either case, is not caused by nuclear weapons, for it says that it is caused by a "great and powerful people," and that the "fire devours before them, and behind them a flame burns." If this were a nuclear blast, then it would put them in the middle of it - few people survive an atomic blast point blank. It is merely a description of great destruction caused by a massive army.

"And it shall come to pass afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. And I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls. [Ezekiel 2:28-32]

This is, again, not in the context of an earthly war with man-made weaponry. The Lord will show wonders "in the heavens and on the earth," which includes "blood and fire and columns of smoke." These are the signs spoken of in the end times, which Christ warned: "And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven" (Luke 21:11). Not only are these sourced to heaven (and there is little chance that God has a nuclear arsenal) but it is stated that there will be wonders in heaven and on earth - will nukes randomly blow up in the sky, or will someone attempt to nuke heaven?

We have gone halfway through the list of passages given by Mr. van Impe, and have already seen that the majority of them have been taken grossly out of context. Yet for the sake of discussion, let us continue now to Zephaniah 1:18.

The great day of the LORD is near, near and hastening fast; the sound of the day of the LORD is bitter; the mighty man cries aloud there. A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of trumpet blast and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the lofty battlements. I will bring distress on mankind, so that they shall walk like the blind, because they have sinned against the LORD; their blood shall be poured out like dust, and their flesh like dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire of his jealousy, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full and sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth. [Zephaniah 1:14-18]

As we can already see, the pattern seems to be that Jack van Impe searches for "fire" in the Bible and throws it out as a sign of prophesy for nuclear warfare. Is this the fire in this passage the fire of nuclear warfare? Clearly no, because the text says it is the "fire of his jealousy," meaning the jealousy of God. We must ask also ourselves, if this fire refers to nuclear warfare, then does that mean this is how everyone will die? Remember the passage states that in this fire "all the earth shall be consumed" - if nuclear blasts consumed the entire earth, we can expect a dead planet, for most of the inhabitants will be dead from the initial blasts and any one who survives will suffer in the massive fallout to follow. In any case, looking at the full context of this passage leads us to understand this is speaking about the return of the Lord, not a nuclear war.

Now let's review Malachi 4:1.

"For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in its wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall. And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the LORD of hosts. [Malachi 4:1-3]

This verse, as the passages explained before, is speaking in reference to the Day of the Lord. It states that "all the arrogant and all the evildoers" will be set "ablaze" by the fire, whereas those who fear the name of the Lord will see it as a "sun of righteousness" that will have "healing in its wings." What nuclear weapon in the world is able to burn up only bad people while leaving true believers unharmed?

Now let's do Revelation 8:7.

Now the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to blow them. The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and these were thrown upon the earth. And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. [Revelation 8:6-7]

The author of Revelation states that this "hail and fire, mixed with blood" was "thrown upon the earth." I am no master in nuclear physics, but I do not think "hail" nor "blood" are any part of the nuclear weapon itself. Certainly the splitting of the atom does not involve mixing blood with hail and fire. Someone might argue, "Ah! But it comes down like hail, causes the fire, and when people die they spill their blood!" That, however, is an interpretation separating the words from the text.

Now for the final piece of scripture, that dealing with Revelation 9:18.

Then the sixth angel blew his trumpet, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, "Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates." So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour, the day, the month, and the year, were released to kill a third of mankind. The number of mounted troops was twice ten thousand times ten thousand; I heard their number. And this is how I saw the horses in my vision and those who rode them: they wore breastplates the color of fire and of sapphire and of sulfur, and the heads of the horses were like lions’ heads, and fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths. By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed, by the fire and smoke and sulfur coming out of their mouths. For the power of the horses is in their mouths and in their tails, for their tails are like serpents with heads, and by means of them they wound. [Revelation 9:13-19]

This almost seems to be one of the few passages Jack van Impe has cited that could possibly be relevant to nuclear warfare. It might be interesting to note here that, before the dispensationalist beliefs which Jack van Impe attempts to push on his viewers, many learned Christian men and scholars believed that Revelation discussed early Christian history, or rather that which had already happened - not the distant future.

One example is John Wesley, who believed this passage was referring to the wars against Christian empires and the rise against Islam.

9:15 And the four angels were loosed, who were prepared - By loosing them, as well as by their strength and rage. To kill the third part of men - That is, an immense number of them. For the hour, and day, and month, and year - All this agrees with the slaughter which the Saracens made for a long time after Mahomet's death. And with the number of angels let loose agrees the number of their first and most eminent caliphs. [from John Wesley's Commentary on the Bible]

Legendary Bible commentator Matthew Henry, amazingly enough, did suggest that this passage spoke in an allegorical reference to weaponry, but that it was about cannons, not nukes. He likewise believed it to be a reference to a past war against Christian empires.

3. Their formidable equipage and appearance, v. 17. As the horses were fierce, like lions, and eager to rush into the battle, so those who sat upon them were clad in bright and costly armour, with all the ensigns of martial courage, zeal, and resolution. 4. The vast havoc and desolation that they made in the Roman empire, which had now become antichristian: A third part of them were killed; they went as far as their commission suffered them, and they could go no further. 5. Their artillery, by which they made such slaughter, described by fire, smoke, and brimstone, issuing out of the mouths of their horses, and the stings that were in their tails. It is Mr. Mede's opinion that this is a prediction of great guns, those instruments of cruelty which make such destruction: he observes, These were first used by the Turks at the siege of Constantinople, and, being new and strange, were very terrible, and did great execution. However, here seems to be an allusion to what is mentioned in the former vision, that, as antichrist had his forces of a spiritual nature, like scorpions poisoning the minds of men with error and idolatry, so the Turks, who were raised up to punish the antichristian apostasy, had their scorpions and their stings too, to hurt and kill the bodies of those who had been the murderers of so many souls. [Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible]

And, amazingly enough, Adam Clarke made the same conclusion.

Verse 17. Breastplates of fire-jacinth, and brimstone] That is, red, blue, and yellow; the first is the colour of fire, the second of jacinth, and the third of sulphur. And the heads of the horses] Is this an allegorical description of great ordnance? Cannons, on the mouths of which horses' heads were formed, or the mouth of the cannon cast in that form? Fire, smoke, and brimstone, is a good allegorical representation of gunpowder. The Ottomans made great use of heavy artillery in their wars with the Greeks of the lower empire.

Verse 18. By these three was the third part of men killed] That is, By these was great carnage made.

Verse 19. Their power is in their mouth] From these the destructive balls are projected; and in their tails, the breech where the charge of gunpowder is lodged. Their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads] If cannons are intended, the description, though allegorical, is plain enough; for brass ordnance especially are frequently thus ornamented, both at their muzzles and at their breech. [Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible]

My point, of course, is not to say John Wesley, Matthew Henry, nor Adam Clarke are infallible interpreters of the Bible, but only to show how Christians before Jack van Impe have interpreted this passage. In any case, the mere reference to "fire" in the passage is not sufficient enough to designate nuclear weapons.

Nine texts. Nine proven miscitations. Jack van Impe has shown that simply memorizing various scriptural passages is not enough - one must know and understand the context of those passages. Rapid-fire text citing is not sound exegesis, nor should it be considered a proper replacement. Or, if you are going to make reference to various texts, at least reference them within the context of which they are used. Do not break from the context of which they are said - doing so will either present you as ignorant of scripture or attempting to read a doctrine or belief into the scripture you so excitedly pontificate upon.

Most of all, it shows the need for biblical study, if not to understand what some passages mean, then at least to gain the habit of cross-referencing scriptures and making sure we are able to respond to rapid-fire text citation with serious exegesis.

Justification by Faith

The following is from John Calvin's Reply to Sadoleto.

You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men. Our books are filled with convincing proofs of this fact, and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill-founded. But you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that by attributing everything to faith, we leave no room for works...

First, we bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

What have you here, Sadoleto, to bite or carp at? Is it that we leave no room for works? Assuredly we do deny that in justifying a man they are worth one single straw. For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all are lost; and every man's own conscience bitterly accuses him. The same Scripture teaches that no hope is left bu int the mere goodness of God, by which sin is pardoned, and righteousness imputed to us. It declares both to be gratuitous, and finally concludes that a man is justified without works (Rom 4:7). But what notion, you ask, does the very term righteousness suggest to us if respect is not paid to good works? I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture, you would have no difficulty. For it does not refer to a man's own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which contrary to the sinner's deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness. Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul (2 Cor 5:19) that God hath reconciled us to Himself in Jesus Christ. The mode is afterwards subjoined - by not imputing sin. He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel. But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification. I answer that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works. Hence his familiar inference - if by faith, then not by works. On the other hand - if by works, then not by faith.

But, it seems, injury is done to Christ, if, under the pretense of His grace, good works are repudiated, He having come to prepare a people acceptable to God, zealous of good works, while to the same effect, are many similar passages which prove that Christ came in order that we, in doing good works, might, through Him, be accepted by God. This calumny, which our opponents have ever in their mouths, viz., that we take away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness, is too frivolous to give us much concern. We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ never is where His Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseperable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor 1:30) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in vigor, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ Himself; and wherever Christ is not, there is no righteousness, nay there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification.

"I will constrain no man by force..."

The following is from the second of Martin Luther's Invocavit sermons.

Now if I should rush in and abolish it [the Latin mass] by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know where they stand, whether it is right or wrong, and they would say: I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority. And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool's play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints, and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. But that is done when I teach only the word of God, preach the gospel, and say: Dear lords and pastors, abandon the Mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it; I cannot refrain from telling you this. But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law. He who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain outside. In the latter case the word would sink into the heart and do its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the Mass; tomorrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with His word than if you and I were to merge all our power into one heap. So when you have won the heart, you have won the man - and thus the thing must finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of all are agreed and united, abolish it. But if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment - leave it in God's hands, I beseech you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not that I would again set up the Mass; I let it lie in God's name. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you will not be able to carry out your plans. And if you should carry them out with such general laws, then I will recant everything that I have written and preached and I will not support you. This I am telling you now. What harm can it do you? You still have your faith in God, pure and strong so that this thing cannot hurt you.

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens (Acts 17), a mighty city, he found in the temple many ancient altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but he did not kick down a single one of them with his foot. Rather he stood up in the middle of the market place and said they were nothing but idolatrous things and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook them of their own accord, and in consequence the thing fell of itself. Likewise, if I had seen them holding Mass, I would have preached to them and admonished them. Had they heeded my admonition, I would have won them; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the word to act and prayed for them. For the word created heaven and earth and all things [Psalm 33:6]; the word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.

In short, I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I opposed indulgences and all the papists, but never with force. I simply taught, preached, and wrote God's word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philipp and Amsdorf, the word so greatly weakened the papacy that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such losses upon it. I did nothing; the word did everything. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany; indeed, I could have started such a game that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? Mere fool's play. I did nothing; I let the word do its work. What do you suppose is Satan's thought when one tries to do the thing by kicking up a row? He sits back in hell and thinks: Oh, what a fine game the poor fools are up to now! But when we spread the word alone and let it alone do the work, that distresses him. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and when the hearts are captured the work will fall of itself.

Out of the Mouths of Babes...

Some months ago I was watching The Mummy (1999) with my younger sister (I say "younger," even though it's only by two years). For those who don't know, the beginning of the film shows the High Priest Imhotep and his lover, the royal Anck Su Namun, killing the pharaoh. As the palace guards arrive, Namun tells Imhotep to escape and remember to resurrect her.

My sister immediately went, "You know you have faith when you believe someone will resurrect you."

A great smile came to my lips. This is the precise faith that so many Christian martyrs gave their lives, and upon which so many Christian faithful pass away with to this very day.

Resurrection Sunday

Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. [Romans 6:8-11; NKJV]

The Foolishness of God

Good Friday. The Day of the Crucifixion. The day our Lord surrendered Himself to the cross, loyal to the Father even unto death. These things are simply accepted these days, and are so often talked about both in season and out that it simply becomes a matter-of-fact affair for us. Imagine for a moment, however, the idea of a crucified messiah in those days. The Jews had expected a great leader who would lead massive armies, and many were expecting him to defeat the Romans - what appeal would there be in a man accused of being a criminal by religious and secular courts and then executed in the most heinous manner imaginable at the time? The Greeks, likewise, would have found it ridiculous, as they did not believe in a bodily resurrection and had vague notions of "God" to begin with. Much of this is greatly expounded upon by the apostle Paul in his first known letter to the Corinthians.

Paul opens this epistle by addressing the divisions within the Corinthian Church and their allegiances to various apostles. After stating he is happy he did not baptize many so that the factions wouldn't be larger, the apostle states, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect" (1:17). He then writes the following:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God — and righteousness and sanctification and redemption — that, as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the LORD." [1 Corinthians 1:18-31; NKJV]

He begins by stating "the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1:18). He elucidates this with a quote from the prophet Isaiah, and I think it would be edifying if we looked at the fullness of this quote:

Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work among this people, a marvelous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden. [Isaiah 29:14]

What was this "marvelous work"? It is the cross and its message, the very thing Paul is addressing.

It is said that God will destroy the wisdom of the wise. Paul asks, "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" (1:20) God did this with Divine Wisdom, which took flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), ultimately sacrificing Himself on the cross. The "wisdom of God" was not recognized by the wisdom of the world (1:21), for it is written that "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him" (John 1:10). The world, always seeking to understand creation, did not recognize its Creator even when He appeared to them, and this will be the judgment of the supposed wise ones and scribes. Yet this "foolishness," which the world perceives the message of the cross to be, is used by the pleasure of God to "save those who believe" (1:21), for "those who believe in His name" will "become children of God" (John 1:12).

The Jews seek signs (Matt 16:1), the Greeks worldly wisdom (Acts 17:21), yet the Christians preach only a crucified savior who rose from the dead (1:22-23). This is a stumbling block for the Jews, who believe an executed man to be cursed (Deut 21:23), as well as the Greeks, who mock such ideas (Acts 17:32). However, it is "to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1:24). This is because "the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1:25). That which man considers foolishness is the Holy Wisdom of God, and that which man considers weak is the power of God in extending His sovereignty throughout salvation. The world creates its own standards and attempts to judge God by them, and yet it is He through whom all things came into being (John 1:3), and the universe turns only by the standards He has set.

When Paul first came to Corinth, there were not many who were strong, influential nor of noble status (1:26). Yet it is exactly among these people, these "foolish" and "weak" and "base things of the world" and "the things which are despised" by worldly standards, that God will use to "put to shame the wise" and "the things which are mighty" and to "bring to nothing the things that are" (1:27-28). As Paul asked at the beginning of this section, "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age?" (1:20), for the majority of them have rejected this message. Indeed, one needn't review the gospels to know that the scribes and "wise" ones of society (the Pharisees) rejected who Christ was, and His glory was given instead through simple fishermen, tax collectors, and sinners. Those which society considered true theologians rejected the reality of the resurrection, yet it was the sinners and lowly members of society who embraced it. Paul will write a little later in this epistle:

However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. [1 Corinthians 2:6-8]

Why did God choose this to begin the ministry of His gospel? Paul states plainly: "that no flesh should glory in His presence" (1:29). The Corinthian Christians have, by the message of the cross, "been saved through faith," not by themselves for "it is the gift of God," and most definitely not by works "lest anyone should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). Paul emphasizes this with, "But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God — and righteousness and sanctification and redemption — that, as it is written, 'He who glories, let him glory in the LORD'" (1:30-31). The quotation he uses is from the prophet Jeremiah, the full context of which reads:

Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, let not the mighty man glory in his might, nor let the rich man glory in his riches; but let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the LORD. [Jeremiah 9:23-24]

The scribes and philosophers revel in their wisdom, the strong in their might, and the rich in their wealth, but none of these are what God sees - indeed, they mean nothing to Him. That which the world considers great God considers to be nothing. What matters to the Lord is that a man "understands and knows" Him. We do this through Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of Wisdom (1:30) and who, through His death and resurrection, paid for our righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1:31). Nowhere did Paul exhort this better than in his letter to the Philippians:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2:5-11]

This is the message of the cross: God coming down to earth so that He may bring those who believe up to paradise. We are "reconciled to God through the death of His Son," and having been reconciled "shall be saved by His life" (Rom 5:10). He has restored a new Israel, not bound by circumcision but faith, for "if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:29).

Even today, this is a stumbling block. Atheists scoff at the very notion of God, and even secularists emphasize a more man-centered gospel which dumbs down the actions of God in our salvation. Groups such as Islam deny the crucifixion and mock the very notion that God would have any interest entering into His creation. This is always even more obvious around the Easter season, as the world resists that little reminder of what they should be. It is of no matter for us - all is in God's hands, and He will reward those to whom the message is receive. As the prophet Isaiah said, and which Paul will quote later on in the same epistle: "For since the beginning of the world men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, nor has the eye seen any God besides You, Who acts for the one who waits for Him" (Isa 64:4).

Two Betrayals; One Forgiveness

During the week leading up to Easter, Wednesday has traditionally been the day where we remember the betrayal of Judas Iscariot. Judas was one of the twelve main disciples (Matt 10:4; Mark 3:19; Luke 6:16; John 6:71) who was in charge of the group's money box, from which he regularly stole money for himself (John 12:6). His love of money grew so large that when the Pharisees asked for information on when Christ could be far away from the crowds (John 11:57) and the disciples had arrived in Gethsemane, Judas went immediately to the Pharisees and received a payment in thirty pieces of silver (Matt 26:14-15). He therefore became a perfect embodiment of the warning from Christ which said: "You cannot serve both God and money" (Matt 6:24).

Of course, as is often the case in addiction, Judas feels guilt after seeing the results of his deed, and it leads ultimately to his suicide, which is referred to in Matthew's gospel:

Then Judas, His betrayer, seeing that He had been condemned, was remorseful and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” And they said, “What is that to us? You see to it!” Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself. [Matthew 27:3-5]

However, Judas was not the only one to betray Christ, for Peter also denied Christ three times at the trial. Christ had predicted Peter's denial in the garden (Matt 26:34; Mark 14:30; Luke 22:34; John 13:38), and it came to fruition (Matt 26:69-74; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:54-61; John 18:15-17, 25-26). Luke even records in his gospel that "the Lord turned and looked at Peter" (22:61) signifying that, in addition to the omnipotence of His deity, Christ was within hearing space of Peter's denial, and the disciple was well aware of it.

Here we have two situations during the Passion of our Lord in which He is betrayed by close disciples. Yet, what makes them different? The biggest reason is that Peter, unlike Judas, truly felt repentant. It is interesting to note that while there is no record of Judas crying over his deed, all three of the Synoptic writers record that immediately after betraying Christ, Peter went out and wept (Matt 26:75; Mark 14:72; Luke 22:62). Although John does not record Peter's lamenting, he goes on to narrate Christ's own forgiveness of Peter by a thrice confession (John 21:15-19), emphasizing Peter's redemption in another fashion.

The tears shed by Peter were known by many Church Fathers as a "baptism of tears" - not because the tears served the same purpose as our baptism, but that they were a sign of true repentance. Our sins were forgiven because our repentance was sincere - not an empty "I'm sorry" that so many say when they get in trouble, but a true sign that the person had realized what they had done. Sin separates a man from God, and in that separation we become subject to the wrath spoken of so much. As David famously wrote:

Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight — that You may be found just when You speak, and blameless when You judge. [Psalm 51:4]

The man of God (the man who knows in his heart what this means) feels truly remorseful at the realization of his sin, and it brings him to tears. Peter was a true man of God - indeed, he was the first one to fully identify Christ for who He was (Matt 16:16; John 6:69) - and upon realizing that he had betrayed his Lord and Master, he is moved to tears. Nothing, in his mind, could have been worse than what he had just done.

Judas, on the other hand, was far from a man of God. He was regularly engaging in sin, and in the end allowed the sin to overcome him. When Luke states "Satan entered Judas" (Luke 22:3), he did not speak of a possession, as if Judas was no longer in control of his actions, but rather that Judas had fully embraced the sin he was to commit. John clarifies in his gospel that "the devil having already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray Him" (John 13:2), signifying that Satan had laid the temptation; later on John repeats the words of Luke, stating "Satan entered him" (13:27), signifying Judas had decided to do this sin. It is only then that Christ says, in the same verse, "What you do, do quickly." Sin is not hidden from God, for "the LORD searches all hearts and understands all the intent of the thoughts" (1 Chr 28:9). Christ knew that the heart of Judas had been resolved to evil, and He permitted him the will to bring about his self-destruction.

Later on, when Judas realizes his error, he does the most incorrect thing for a sinner to do: he does not turn to God. He tries to fix the error his own way, by giving the money back to the Sanhedrin. This of course fails, so what is he left with? Fulton Sheen, on his television show Life is Worth Living, once discussed the loneliness of a person who only focuses on themselves. They are drawn deeper and deeper into their psyche, until all that is left is their ego crammed into a tiny space. When this fails, they are desperate. There is nothing left. All is lost. Therefore, they take their own life. This is what Judas does. He has sinned, and knows there is no turning back.

How foolish it was for him, and how great a crime his suicide was. I say crime because in his suicide he denied the very thing left for him: the love of God. Imagine if Judas had turned and gone to Christ and begged forgiveness. Imagine how the Passion story would be if, along with the epiphany of doubting Thomas, there was the redemption of Judas. There is no doubt that our Lord would have forgiven Judas, if he had sincerely sought forgiveness. Regarding this, some compassion can be shown towards Judas; on the other hand, we must remember it was all by his action and his decision-making alone. Although Christ knew that Judas would betray Him (John 13:11), our Lord did not compel Judas to do it.

Therefore, Judas and Peter became two great lessons regarding repentance: Judas the error; Peter the righteousness, and the strength of Peter as an apostle was from this experience. Christ had told him that fateful night, "I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:32). The apostle did indeed become a great brother at Pentecost and beyond, living the words of the previously quoted David: "Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, and uphold me by Your generous Spirit. Then I will teach transgressors Your ways, and sinners shall be converted to You" (Psalm 51:12-13).

We all make mistakes. There "is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins" (Ecc 7:20), and that is simply the result of the sinful nature we are conceived in (Psalm 51:5). However, just as "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," so have many been "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 3:23-24) The apostle James wrote of this in his epistle:

Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up. [James 4:7-10]

The apostle John wrote, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9).

It might be noted, however, that it is not merely the act of confession and forgiveness through which we are cleansed of our sins, but of our faith in Him who forgives. Regarding confession, the apostle James wrote that "the effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much" (James 5:16; emphasis mine). The apostle Paul similarly wrote: "To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom 4:5). This righteousness is "of God," and "through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe" (Rom 3:22).

It is quite often that we forget that when, when our Lord says, "every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:17), that it is not the fruits that make a good tree but the good tree that makes good fruits. Peter and Judas were examples of this. They both fell into error, but: because Peter was a man of faith in his God, he knew what consequences he faced and presented a sincere repentance; because Judas was a man of no faith and only cared for himself, he first presents a false repentance (through returning the money) and ultimately dies in his sin.

Let us use this as a lesson from these two events in the Passion of our Lord. Let us remember what he said through the prophet Amos to Israel, "Seek Me and live" (Amos 5:4), as well as the prophet Isaiah, "Seek the LORD while he may be found; call upon him while he is near" (Isa 55:6), and the Psalmist, "Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to you at a time when you may be found" (Psalm 32:6). Let us turn to him with a repentant heart before we expect forgiveness, for if we "walk in the light as He is in the light," then "the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7). He is a God of love, and "by this we know love, because He laid down His life for us" (1 John 3:16). This was the love that would be discovered on Good Friday and realized on Easter Sunday. It would be the forgiveness Peter sought and Judas rejected. It would be the forgiveness God offers to us now, through the love of His Son to us.