Will the end times judgments be like Noah’s flood but harsher?

The return of Jesus will be preceded by a seven year period of time called the Tribulation. The book of Revelation gives significant detail about the events of that time. The tribulation is a time of God’s judgment on the world. Aside from the flood, the tribulation is the single greatest outpouring of God’s judgment on mankind for sin. The tribulation is the last great judgment of the nations of the earth. God promised in Gensis 9:11 that He would never again destroy the earth with a flood. Of all the horrible things that happen during the tribulation catastrophic flooding is never mentioned. Is the judgment of the tribulation like the judgment of the flood?

During the flood in Noah’s day, God destroyed every breathing thing on the earth except those in the ark. The flood began with 40 days of violent rains and the breaking up of the earths crust to release the fountains of the deep. The waters continued to rise for about six months until they covered the whole world. A little over a year after the beginning of the flood the earth was sufficiently dried and recovered for those on the ark to come out onto a transformed world.

Unlike the flood, the tribulation will last for seven years and none will be escape the horrors of that day. Unlike the flood, the tribulation will be made up of many different kinds of terrors. Some of the terrors will be natural, some economic and some demonic. Some will involve massive war, some will be men persecuting men, all will be the supernatural judgment of God. Revelation describes the catastrophes of the tribulation in such a way that it appears they will be a series of horrible events, some overlapping the others. The judgments of the tribulation will move the world forward to the final world war that will immediately precede the return of Jesus.

The troubles of the tribulation will be varied. They will include horrible famine, extensive war, earthquakes that overthrow mountains and rearrange geography, hundred pound hailstones that fall and fire that destroys a third of the trees and all grass on earth. One third of the ocean will be turned to blood, killing a third of the sea creatures and destroying a third of the ships on the seas. One third of the fresh water will become poisonous killing a third of humanity and later all the water in the oceans and rivers will be turned to blood. Men will be afflicted with horrible sores, burned by extreme heat from the sun and then terrified by the fall of sudden, painful darkness. The destruction will be celestial. The stars will fall from the sky, the sun will be blotted out, the moon turned red as blood, The horrors of that day will be so great men will hide themselves in caves and mountains to try to escape the destruction. God will release demons from their imprisonment to bring torments upon men and to lead massive armies into battle.

Estimates of the death tolls during the tribulation reach as high as 85% of humanity. Like the flood God’s wrath will wreak havoc on the world. As in the days of Noah God’s judgment on sin will be unleashed on humanity. The tribulation will be very different from the flood in its disasters, but most importantly it will be different in its purpose. The tribulation will not just be the execution of God’s wrath. The tribulation will bring about the restoration and repentance of the nation of Israel. The tribulation will prepare the world for the kingdom of Jesus and the final fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. The flood was the second great earthly judgment on mankind, and the tribulation is the last. They share many similarities but have some very important differences that makes the tribulation a unique event in human history.

Does Christianity promote violence and hatred?

The recent upswing of Islamic terrorism has brought violence in the name of Allah to the front of many people’s minds. For some this is also a time to resurrect claims that Christianity is a religion of violence and hatred. Some do this out of a general hatred of all religions asserting that religion is the greatest cause of war and violence. Some do this in an attempt to defend Islam by pointing out that Christianity has some infamous events in its own history. Does Christianity promote hatred and violence? Is the Bible full of hate and genocide?

The Bible does not lack wars, violence, murder and many other despicable evils. However, a description of violence is not the same as a prescription for violence. If this were the case one could argue that history books promote violence and hatred. To argue Christianity causes violence one has to show that Christianity either commands hatred between men, that the commands are based in hatred for people, or that the teachings will inevitably result in hatred. One can not simply point to violent passages in the Bible and say that Christianity is hateful. One must show that the Bible promotes violence. This is no easy claim to make.

The Bible includes many examples of wretched behavior. Even more, throughout Christian history men have done evil things in the name of Christianity. Yet these historic examples do not prove Christianity is hateful. Such examples prove a very different claim. The examples of violence in the Bible and history support a central tenet of Biblical teaching: humanity is hatefilled because man has rebelled against His Creator.

The teaching of the Bible is that the heart of man is the source of all hatred and violence. Titus 3 says, “For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient . . . living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.” The Bible also teaches the worst wickedness of man is not only the result of his own natural bent toward sin, but it is also the result of rebellion against God. When man rejects the God of the Bible for a god of his own creation, the result is that God lets man go into all manner of great wickedness (Rom 1). The claim of the Bible is that man apart from God turns to great violence and all manner of acts of hatred. Religion is not the root of anger and violence among men. The rejection of the God of the Bible aggravates the violent heart of men.

The Bible teaches an ethic that is contrary to violence. Those who have committed violent acts in the name of God have done son despite clear Bible teaching to the contrary. The Bible commands over and over again to love one another. In the book of Genesis God repeatedly condemns the violence of men. In the law to Israel God commands they are to love one another. The importance of love for one another is a major theme throughout the Old and New Testaments. The moral principles of the Bible are built on the basic principle of love, love for God and love for others. The Bible does not promote war, violence, hatred or racism. All such evils are the result of man’s sinful nature, not the teaching of Scripture.

Is it judging to call someone a sinner?

“Judge not that you be not judged.” Matthew 7:1 is possibly America’s favorite verse. Almost every disapproving statement is greeted with rebuke as being judging. Declaring something is sinful is considered by some as the height of judgmental behavior. This is an important issue for Christians who are attempting to preach the gospel. The gospel message requires an understanding of personal guilt. How can anyone turn to Jesus for forgiveness of sin if he does not realize he is a sinner? Why would anyone turn to Jesus for salvation if he has done nothing deserving condemnation?

Yes, calling someone a sinner and identifying behavior as sinful is condemning. From a Christian perspective the declaration that something is a sin is the same as saying something is bad and should not be done. How does this apply to a person? Is the statement that someone is a sinner a declaration that the person is to be avoided? To be clear, saying someone is a sinner is a statement of condemnation. It is as pleasant as being told you have terminal cancer. It is a declaration that the person is not fit to stand before God and deserves eternal punishment. The statement that a person is a sinner is a statement of condemnation but it does not mean the sinner is to be avoided.

Sinful behavior must be rejected, but not sinful people. Christians have not been sufficiently clear on this distinction. Sinful people are not to be avoided, except in special circumstances. Calling someone a sinner is a socially loaded and theologically significant allegation. When a Christian declares a person is a sinner, he is doing so after having already come to grips with the reality of his own personal sinfulness. Like most others, the Christian realizes he has done bad things. However, the Christian’s recognition goes further. The Christian has recognized he deserves eternal punishment in hell because of his sin. The Christian has recognized the Son of God suffered a horrible death and endured the wrath of God because of his sin. When a Christian says you have sinned, he has already included himself in that assessment, confessed his guilt and grief and plead with God for forgiveness.

Though calling someone a sinner is a hard statement, it is not a declaration of hopeless condemnation. It is in fact much like being told you have cancer. The avowal that one is a sinner is a dire diagnosis of a disease that will end in suffering and death. Like many cancer diagnoses calling someone a sinner is the first step in treating the disease. All are sinners and if left untreated the disease will be eternally fatal. The diagnosis of guilt prepares the way to present the cure. As Jesus said, “They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.” Yes, calling someone a sinner is a hard statement that will agitate many. When it is said as it ought, it is not a statement of condemnation but one of compassion.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

The political turmoil in the world has brought to the forefront many questions about Islam. Some of these questions stem from curiosity about the beliefs of Muslims. Some of these questions stem from declarations made on the news or other pundits. One particular declaration demands careful consideration. A few weeks ago Pope Francis weighed in and repeated the common assertion that Allah is really the same as Jehovah. Is this claim true? Is the God of Quran the same as the God of the Bible?

Certainly Allah and Jehovah have much in common. They are both creator gods who rule supreme over all creation. They are both almighty, compassionate and just. They both offer eternal bliss to those who worship them. Neither shares worship with other gods, but declares himself to be the only true God. Even their common names seem to hint that these gods may be one and the same. In the Old Testament, God is identified as El and Elohim. Both words are generic Hebrew names for deities. The name Allah is rooted in the generic Arabic word for a deity. The similarity between the two terms even carries across in their English transliterations. Many have used these linguistic similarities to argue that El and Allah are just different names for the same God.

On the surface, these sound like reasonable arguments. With a little bit deeper digging it soon becomes evident that, despite some similiarities, the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are nothing alike. Consider three major differences. Allah is a single God, no deities are equal with him and his person is single. Jehovah is a triune God. No deities are equal with him and His person is triune. The Quran distinctly teaches that Allah has no parts, nor persons. The Bible distinctly teaches that Jehovah is one God who consists of three persons. Allah is not a Triune God, Jehovah is. Closely related to the first difference is the difference in their relationship to Jesus. Allah has no Son and none are equal with him. Jesus is not the Son of Allah. Jesus is not Allah made flesh. Jehovah has a Son who is fully God. Jesus is God made flesh, the second person of the Trinity. Jehovah is Jesus. Jesus is not Allah, Jesus is Jehovah. A third example is that of the grace of god. Allah saves according to his grace. His salvation is given to those who earned his grace by their submission to him. Allah’s grace is granted to those who deserve it. Jehovah saves according to His grace. His grace is given to those who do not try to earn it. The Bible presents God’s grace as something that cannot be merited. As Paul says in Romans 11:6, if grace is earned it is not grace. Though many similarities exist between Allah and Jehovah, even a brief comparison reveals the differences make it impossible for the two gods to be the same.

Consider someone who claims to have met your wife. As he talks about her he has some basic details correct. She is female, lives in your house, cooks meals for the family and likes to watch TV with you. As the conversation continues it becomes apparent that the other also believes your wife to be an 8 foot tall, green skinned ogress who rips the heads off small dogs. If you were protest that your wife is not actually a violent, green monster it would be ludicrous for the speaker to insist you are both talking about the same person. The similarities between the character being spoken of and the actual spouse in question do not outweigh the monumental differences. Though there are many similarities between Jehovah and Allah, the monumental differences render it impossible for them to be the same. Only one conclusion is possible, Christians and Muslims worship very different Gods.

What does the Bible say about gun control?

It seems that many consider mass shootings an opportunity to voice again a particular political agenda on gun rights and gun controls. This is a sad response to tragedy, but not unexpected. Recently a president of a Christian university gained media attention because he strongly encouraged the students to take a concealed carry class. As usual, some observers responded with praise and others with derision. Christian opinion is divided on the issue of guns. Some insist that Christian love demands believers do all they can to help bring about tighter restrictions on gun ownership. Others insist that Christians have a duty to protect the innocents by arming themselves against the attacks of violent people. What does the Bible say about this matter?

To get the obvious out of the way, the Bible does not say anything specific about guns because guns were not invented until centuries after the Bible was written. However, the Bible does say a little about the possession of weapons of violence. Because the situation of Israel was unique, Old Testament descriptions of warfare and self defense are not particularly applicable to Christians in America today. A few New Testament events offer some insight into how to think about this matter.

Jesus was not opposed to the ownership of personal weapons. In Luke 22 Jesus gives the disciples instructions for continuing ministry after His death. He specifically tells them, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Before going into the garden of Gethsemane the disciples told Jesus they had two swords. He does not rebuke them for having the but tells them, “It is enough.” When the guards came to the garden of Gethsemane to capture Jesus, Peter pulled out his sword and started swinging. Jesus rebuked Peter, but His earlier words indicate the rebuke was because Jesus’ arrest was necessary. The suggestion that Jesus rebuked Peter for using a sword seems to contradict the earlier instructions to carry a sword. One must be careful with applying these passage to gun control or weapons ownership because that is not their purpose. However, these passages do show that Jesus permitted, and in at least one case commanded, His followers to carry weapons.

Aside from Peter’s flailing in the garden, we have no Biblical example of Christian’s using the sword in self-defense. The silence of Scriptures leaves the possession of guns in the arena of Christian liberty. Really the only other thing that can be definitively said is that carrying firearms should not be a matter of division among believers. Those who want to own and carry handguns should be fully convinced in their own minds that they have the Biblical freedom to do so. They should not demean other Christians who are convinced it is wrong to own or carry guns. Those Christian’s who are opposed to gun ownership must also be fully convinced in their own mind about the matter. They must hold that position without despising those who carry firearms This should not be a matter of division or strife between Christians.

This issues raised by mass shootings and terrorist threats are not easily answered. Christian’s must give a well reasoned, Biblically based response to the problems. Every believer has a political opinion, but we must be careful to not confuse political ideologies with Biblical truths.

Does Jesus base a person’s salvation on his helping the needy?

I really wish those who take it upon themselves to lecture Christians on how they should behave would take the time to correctly understand what the Bible really says about how Christians are to live. The latest example of Biblical misapplication has come in the aftermath of the Syrian refugee crisis. As thousands have flooded into Europe fleeing intense persecution in Syria the pressure on America to take in these refugees has increased exponentially. Many have taken it upon themselves to declare that Christians have an obligation to welcome in the refugees. The passage I have heard used most to press home this duty is Matthew 25:35-46.

The pertinent passage in Matthew 25 teaches that when Jesus returns He will judge mankind. Those who are given eternal life are the ones who took in the stranger, fed the hungry and gave drink to the thirsty. Those who are sent to eternal judgment are the ones who refused to take in the stranger, feed the hungry and give drink to the thirsty. The application is obvious. Since Jesus will judge men based upon their treatment of the needy, then those who claim to be followers of Jesus have a duty to care for those in need. Is this what Jesus is saying in Matthew 25?

A simple reading of the passage makes it immediately obvious that Jesus is not giving a blanket commandment for every Christian to provide for every needy person he meets. When Jesus grants eternal life to the righteous He tells them “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it (cared for the needy) unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.” Jesus is teaching that how His children treat their fellow Christians is how they treat Him. What is done for other believers is done for Jesus. He makes this same point in Mark 9:41. He tells His disciples, “For whosoever shall give you a cup of water in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you he shall not lose his reward.” When Jesus returns He will judge those who profess to be His followers based upon how they have served needy Christians.

When Matthew 25 is compared with the rest of the Bible one realizes this passage cannot be teaching that any one is saved by doing good deeds for others. Versees like Ephesians 2:8 declare salvation is only by God’s grace and is only received by faith without any works to merit salvation. 1 John 3:14 says, “We know that we have passed from life unto death, because we love the brethren.” A man’s love of his fellow believer does not make him righteous, it is one of the proof’s he has been made righteous. Salvation is always and only the free gift of grace. The deeds of a man in this life are evidences of salvation.

The situation in Syria is serious. Tens of thousands of refugees are in serious need. Every Christian should be deeply concerned about those needs, especially the needs of the Syrian Christians. There is a clear New Testament example of Christian’s caring for the needs of believers across the world in distress. The Christian’s love for others will compel him to do what he can to provide real help those in need. This help cannot be defined based upon a visceral or political reaction, but must be built upon Biblical wisdom. Misusing a Biblical passage to make a point may make good rhetoric, but properly applied Biblical truth is always more powerful and transformative than any sound bite.

Is Satan Real?

Surveys in America have revealed that a majority of Americans believe in Satan. When questioned further it seems that most Americans believe Satan to be an evil force and not a personal being. Is Satan a real, personal being or is he a symbol that personifies evil in this world?

Evil exists. Even the most die hard of atheists would be reluctant to deny the reality of evil in this world. The question regarding Satan is not if evil exists, nor even is it if evil people exists. The question is if there is a spiritual being actively working to accomplish his evil purposes in this world? The existence of Satan cannot be proven based upon any empirical evidence. That is, Satan has not been and cannot be video taped, recorded, interviewed or subjected to lab tests. The Bible presents Satan as an angelic creature. Because he is a spiritual being, we do not expect Satan to be perceptible to the physical senses.

What does the Bible say that leads us to conclude Satan is a real being, not just an evil force? Ezekiel 28 describes Satan as the anointed cherub. A cherub is a type of angel. Satan was at one time a powerful angel entrusted with great responsibility in the worship of God. In the book of Job, Satan stands before the throne of God and has a conversation with God about the man Job. The Old Testament describes Satan in very personal terms, presenting him as much more than just a force. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke describe the temptation of Jesus. After Jesus spent forty days fasting in the wilderness, Satan appeared to Him and tempted Him. The account of this temptation is clearly the account of a personal being engaged in conversation with another personal being. If Satan was merely a force of evil, one would have to conclude that Jesus was having some kind of hallucination in which He carried on a conversation with a force. This would be as nonsensical as someone having a discussion with electricity about how lights work.

Other indications of Satan being a real being are found scattered throughout the Bible. In 2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan is the god of this world who actively works to prevent men from believing the gospel. In Ephesians 2:2 Satan is the “prince of the power of the air” who holds dominion over unsaved men and is actively at work in them. In John 8:44, Satan is described as a murdered and a liar that has spiritual descendants who follow in his footsteps. In the book Revelation Satan is described as coming under God’s judgment, being bound and then cast into imprisonment. Evil exists in this world, but Satan is not just a personification of evil. Satan is a real being, created by God. Satan rebelled against his Creator and is now bent on the spiritual and physical destruction of man. Satan is a mighty angelic creature who stands in rebellion against God and seeks to oppose the plan of God.

What is jihad?

With the current unrest in the world because of the recent attacks by the Islamic state and the refugee crisis it has spawned, it behooves us to consider the meaning of jihad. Jihad has no single meaning or application among Muslims. Several major teachings exist about jihad. These teachings are all valid expression of Islam and have a lineage of followers tracing back centuries. Even though the different groups of Islam disagree very strongly with one another, none can say the others teaching of jihad is not consistent with historical Islam. This article does not attempt to discuss which definition of jihad most accurately reflects the teachings of the Quran or of Muhammed. The issue of rightness and wrongness is necessarily left out of this discussion.

Most define jihad as a holy war, though some prefer to use other terms that do not have a violent undertone to them. It seems that the vast majority of Muslims understand jihad in terms of a personal battle against evil in one’s own life. For many Muslims, jihad is the war in oneself to do that which is acceptable to Allah. Jihad is the personal battle to walk in the way of Allah. This is by far the most common definition of jihad, and one that Muslim apologists are quick to cite as proof that jihad is not actually violent. Personal jihad against one’s own evil inclinations is not the only meaning of jihad. Some see jihad as a peaceful struggle against injustice and poverty. In this version of jihad, the battle is against societal ills and the inequality of the world that results in poverty and unjust treatment of others. This version of jihad might also include the peaceful attempts to bring Sharia law into a community or nation. The third major understanding of jihad is the one most commonly associated with those who commit acts of terrorism. This understanding of jihad sees it as justified violence against non-Muslims for Allah’s sake. They see attacks upon infidels and non-Muslim nations as necessary for the spread of Islam and as preemptive strikes to defend Muslim countries against the encroachment of the nations. Not every Muslim accepts a violent interpretation of jihad, nor do only the terrorists group accept the violent definition. In all three cases jihad is a holy war against the forces of evil in this world. The differences lie in understanding who the enemy is and how to best combat that enemy.

Some Muslims hearing this range of definitions would protest that one or more are not right. Many Muslims deny the validity of one or more common expression of jihad. This should not be surprising. Most major religions have disagreements regarding the right understanding of particular teachings. Among Christians there is widespread disagreement about baptism. Baptism is understood to be sprinkling water on a person, pouring water on a person or immersing a person in water. Some groups accept all three modes as valid and some groups accept only one mode as valid. Baptism is believed by some to be an act of dedication performed upon an infant, an act which brings a baby into the family of God, an act which testifies of salvation received or an act which brings salvation. The varied beliefs about baptism come from different interpretations of what the Bible teaches, but they are all mainstream beliefs among Christianity. One can argue that a particular group’s belief about baptism is not Biblical. One can argue that a particular belief about baptism is contrary to the message of Christianity, but one cannot legitimately argue that a particular belief about baptism is not a historical expression of Christianity. In similar fashion, no consensus Islamic teaching about jihad exists. Many groups hold and teach different meanings about jihad and would argue very strongly against certain other teachings of jihad. All of the major teachings of jihad find strong support within Islam. The violent and non-violent applications of jihad are legitimate, historical Islamic interpretations that have existed for centuries.

Jihad has a range of meanings, all based upon different interpretations of the Quran. Not all who practice jihad are bent on the destruction of western society. Many Muslims who practice jihad vigorously condemn the Islamic kamikaze who perpetrate terrorist attacks. But not all. When jihad is discussed it is always wisest to ask what the speaker means and not assume a definition based upon the peaceful protests of one group or the violent denunciations of another.

What is ISIS?

ISIS is the name given to a movement within Islam that is seeking to establish Islamic rule and help bring about the end times. ISIS is short for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The group is also called ISIL, Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (Levant being an ancient name for the region along the eastern shores of the Meditteranean, including Turkey and Egypt) and the Islamic State. ISIS broke away from al-Qaeda over ideological difference and a couple months ago al-Qaeda declared war on ISIS. ISIS follows the teachings of the Quran and believes the world of infidels, those who reject Islam, must be brought under Islamic domination. ISIS believes violent means to coerce men to submit to Allah are the means prescribed in the Quran for the spread of Islam.

ISIS has as its goal a revival of ancient Islam under a caliph. Abu Bakr al-Baghadi is the caliph, a ruler who claims to be spiritual successor to Muhammad. Under Baghadi’s direction ISIS is seeking to expand throughout Syria and Iraq and then into the outlying nations. To accomplish this goal, warfare, terror and brutality are believed to be required of them by the Quran. Diplomacy and negotation with foreign power is considered apostasy. It appears that the Islamic State’s focus on expansion is limited right now to its closest neighbors. Unlike al-Qaeda, ISIS is not likely to attempt a massive attack on America. Their ideology requires them to spread outward from Syria and only when the nearby countries have been conquered can it then turn its attention to a major terror assault on America. (Though some individuals with ties to ISIS may attempt attacks on American targets)

ISIS believes its caliphate is the only righteous government on earth. ISIS is serious about obeying the Quran, following a very literal and narrow reading of the Quran. The Islamic State is attempting to return Islam to the religion it was in its earliest days and to bring the rest of the Islamic world under its control. ISIS also sees itself as playing an important role in the end times. They believe the Quran prophecies of the role ISIS will play in the end. To accomplish these apocalyptic purposes, ISIS is seeking military expansion in preparation for the great battles that will surround the end times.

It is important to highlight two things. First, ISIS is not representative of all Islam. Not every Muslim believes it is acceptable to force others to convert. Some groups loudly condemn the destruction of groups like ISIS and base their disagreements in the Quran. Some verses in the Quran condemn killing and advocate tolerance. “You have your religion and I have mine.” (Surah 109:6) “There is no compulsion in relgion.” (Surah 2:256) Second, groups that condone coercion and violence also do so based upon the teachings of the Quran. The one who dies in the cause of Allah is assured forgiveness and a place in Paradise. Groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are offering a historically valid understanding of the Quran that has been promoted and supported from Islam’s own scholars throughout the centuries. Though some, possibly the majority, of Muslims disagree with the Islamic State’s interpretation of the Quran, the jihadists and the moderates are both historically legitimate expressions of Islam. ISIS is radical and terroristic, but none can honestly say that it is not an orthodox expression of Islamic teaching.

Tune in to 92.7 FM this Sunday morning at 9 AM to hear our pastors further discuss the question of Islam.