“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people.” (Luke 21.20-23)

Jesus spoke these words foretelling the days that would culminate in the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and they are very effective at creating a sense of fear and foreboding in us even today.  We live in a relatively safe and secure society, in which we generally trust that strangers have no interest in murdering us for our shoes.  We’re even more inclined to trust civil authorities, and we trust members of our own family perhaps most of all.  It hasn’t always been so prudent to assume all of that goodwill.  As Jesus said a few verses prior, “You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you will be put to death” (Lk 21.16).  The Bible tells us what was going to happen through these prophecies of Jesus, and if we know what to look for, assorted details of some later books confirm it for us, but it’s obscure, and we often get the wrong impression about how it looked when the time came.

The main problem is that we assume it was a sudden and unexpected occurrence.  Never mind that Jesus told his followers of many signs they could use to see its approach; since we focus on the simplest facts of the matter, we forget that soon-to-be-emperor Titus’ destruction of the city and temple in 70AD were part of a long series of events that led logically to that conclusion.  But Josephus—a Jewish leader who saw the signs and defected to the Romans while the getting was good—did record those events in detail.  We ought to take everything he says with a grain of salt, knowing that he has an interest in painting the Romans in the best possible light, that he has every reason to sanitize his own part in the story, and most importantly that he is not among those commissioned by the Holy Spirit to write the scriptures for us.  Nevertheless, a few details from his account are worth considering.  If they’re even half true, they teach us a lot.

While the Romans were besieging Jerusalem, a group of Idumeans about 20,000 strong was called to the city to help the Jews.  These were the people of king Herod, who reigned during Jesus’ ministry.  Far from helping, though, they simply took a side in the internal divisions, which quickly became violent on a massive scale.  These Idumeans 
vented their rage on the men who had shut them out, making no distinction between those who cried for mercy and those who fought. …The entire outer court of the Temple was deluged with blood, and 8,500 corpses greeted the rising sun. (Josephus, BJ IV.310-313)

Not content with attacking the assembled militia, they then 
plundered every house and killed anyone they met.  Then thinking the common people not worth bothering about they went after the high priests.  It was against them that the main rush was made, and they were soon caught and killed. (IV.314-316)

They committed many more atrocities before leaving the city, but even then the problems weren’t over.  After their departure, the Zealots—among whom Simon the apostle was formerly numbered—gained control of the city and began killing anyone suspected of defecting to the Romans outside the walls.

[A]nyone caught going out…was assumed to be on his way to the Romans and dispatched forthwith.  However, if he paid enough they let him go, and only if he failed to pay was he a traitor, so that the rich purchased their escape and only the poor were slaughtered.  Dead bodies along all the main roads were heaped up high.... (IV.378-380)

You can well imagine how difficult this sort of treatment made it for Christians to heed Jesus’ warning, “flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart” (Lk 21.21).  The really astonishing thing is that this occurred two full years before the final destruction of the city, and it’s not as if this was the beginning of the unrest, nor did life in Jerusalem improve much between these events and the end of the war.

These poor people lived day by day in a situation in which the Gentiles “trample the holy city for forty-two months” (Re 11.2), and yet it wasn’t until the bodies were literally piling up in the streets that many of them decided it might be time to consider going somewhere else to live.  There are implications from this on the state of our society right now, although we’re only in the early stages this kind of strife.  But more importantly, how often do we behave in this foolish and carefree manner toward sin?

Sin poses a much greater threat to us than enemies foreign or domestic—as Jesus said, “do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Mt 10.28).  Yet we allow this eternal danger to become normal and mundane, and we often don’t take it seriously, even while it is harming souls all around us, and perhaps even our own.  We must be on guard, ever watchful against our adversary, the devil.

“But stay awake at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” (Luke 21.36)

Everyone's got an opinion.  Most people have one for every issue.  Increasingly, we struggle to differentiate between our opinions and objective truth.  Nowhere is this more glaringly obvious than in the growing acceptance of the phrase, “my truth,” as if it not only makes sense, but is somehow nobler and more authentic than the alternative.  If my truth differs from your truth, then at least one of us is at odds with reality, which doesn’t take either of our opinions into consideration!

Yet members of our society usually assume that their opinion is the correct one, and have nothing but derision for any who disagree.  Look at the state of our politics, for abundant examples.  It’s also apparent in the absurd level of fragmentation in practically every religious movement today, so that it’s a fool’s errand to count all of the different flavors of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity.  By the time you finish tallying them up, the number will have increased noticeably over what it was when you began!  Disagreements lead to divisions, and both sides of each division are usually willing to reconcile, just as soon as the other side admits they were totally wrong about everything, and it was all their fault.  For a more mundane demonstration, just listen to the low-level employees at most businesses discussing how things really work, when the boss isn’t around.  The boss probably has a very different opinion.  Which side is right?  Is either?

We’re inclined to pass judgment about everything, at every opportunity.  Jesus warns us, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Mt 7.1).  On the other hand, he tells us to “judge with right judgment” (Jn 7.24).  Which is it?  Well, the prohibition was followed with an assumption that we will, in fact, judge: “For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you” (Mt 7.2).  He’s not saying that every act of judgment is a sin—he’s warning us that God will take our standard of judgment into account, and throw it right back at us.  “Judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment” (Ja 2.13).  We’re not going to make it through life without passing a few judgments, but we’d better be careful to use God’s standards, not our own—to judge with “right judgment.”  How does God’s judgment look?

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. (Romans 2.1-5)

Now we’ve got another problem.  It’s easy to protest: “I condemn murderers, and I’ve never murdered anyone!  I condemn adulterers, and I’ve never committed adultery!  I condemn those who swear falsely, and I’ve never done that, either!”  Jesus covered all of those, and more, saying:

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment...” (Matthew 5.21-22)

And again:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5.27-28)

And finally: 

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all...” (Matthew 5.33-34)

From our own perspective, we sure seemed innocent; but God sees the heart, and in our hearts we have done “the very same things” we judge in others.  God’s wrath is stored up for us.  But that’s not the whole story.  The only man who didn’t deserve God’s wrath already paid the penalty for the sins the rest of us have committed.  Mercy triumphs over judgment, and he offers it to all who will to take it.  In light of this, we should be a little more grateful to him for shielding us from the consequences of our sin.  Be a little less harsh and certain of the judgments we pass on others, and more merciful, regardless of what they deserve.  Consider withholding judgment more often, and busy yourself encouraging repentance and salvation, not perfect earthly justice.  And finally, we should be a little more concerned with cleaning up our own hearts and behaviors.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other.” (Luke 18.10-14)

Be the tax collector, not the Pharisee.

Jeremy Nettles

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. (Revelation 21.1)

Here is another among many confusing statements in the book of Revelation, subject to several different interpretations.  Most of them rely to some degree on the meaning of the “thousand years” in the previous chapter, and some involve a very sophisticated set of expectations built on the language of many prophecies in the Old and New Testament alike.  We can simplify all of this considerably, by focusing just on the topic at hand, and tracing the new heaven and new earth through the Bible.

Revelation is not the only place we find this phrase in the New Testament.  2 Peter 3 describes the destruction of the earth and heavens, and then says, “But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3.13).  The same elements as in Revelation appear here, along with the indication that this is in line with God’s promise.  If Peter was already able to say we await the fulfillment, it’s clear that the promise had already been announced to his people.  But where, and when?  

In the final two chapters of Isaiah, God lists the sins of his people Israel, and passes judgment.  He promises that the punishment will be followed by restoration of the faithful remnant, saying, “my servants shall eat, but you shall be hungry,” and many more such things (v13ff).  Then, he explains how this will occur: “behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind” (v17).  We could interpret this as pertaining to something still to come in the distant future, but as with nearly everything in Isaiah, there’s an appropriate fulfillment of the prophecy within a reasonable period after Isaiah prophesied in the 8th century BC.  The people of Judah were soon to go into exile, in punishment for their sins.  Then, a remnant would return and rebuild a Jewish kingdom in their ancestral lands, with God’s help.  It remains a mere shadow of its former glory, and so it’s a rather underwhelming fulfillment, but nevertheless, there it is.

But it doesn’t stop there.  In chapter 66, God describes bringing his people together from the corners of the earth, and opening up the priesthood to them.
“For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord, so shall your offspring and your name remain. From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the Lord. And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.” (Isaiah 66.22-24)

That’s the end of the book, and Jesus quotes the last verse in Mark 9.48, explicitly describing hell in the final judgment.  Sure, this could be construed as simply a prediction of the restoration of Israel’s nationhood, but by this point it’s pretty clear that there’s more to this.  Perhaps the “brothers” mentioned in verse 20 aren’t brothers in the sense of sharing a common physical ancestry, so much as brothers because of a shared spiritual heritage, as Paul describes in Galatians 3.7, “it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.”  Perhaps the eternal priesthood isn’t the one established by Moses, but the one established by Christ.  Perhaps the coming judgment isn’t confined to suffering and death in this life, but an eternal consequence.  If that’s the case, then the new heavens and new earth aren’t just a disappointing fulfillment of a grandiose promise, but reason to expect something far greater in the age of Christ.  Maybe it’s about a reinvented earth, to be Jesus’ kingdom while the Father reigns in heaven; maybe we’d remain in this creation as Christ’s physical, earthly kingdom, forever.  That’s the route some interpreters have gone.  But we haven’t traced this idea all the way back to its source, yet.

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Ge 1.1).  These are the original new heavens and new earth.  From the very start, God and his servants have described the entirety of his physical creation by the terms, heaven and earth.  We tend to think of heaven as God’s home, and often that’s how the term is used.  But here in Genesis 1, as it very often does, it just means the sky.  “The heavens and the earth” is just a straightforward way of expressing the entirety of creation.  What God is promising, when he says he’ll create new heavens and a new earth, is a new creation.

There are shades of this in the restoration of Israel’s nationhood; there’s a much greater fulfillment in the spiritual kingdom established by Christ; and we still look forward to the greatest fulfillment of all, a new creation in which we may dwell with God forever after this vain world is dead and gone.  We’ve messed this creation up, with our sin.  But Jesus has redeemed the creation through his perfect self-sacrifice, and begun to re-create his chosen people, the church, as we were originally intended to be: innocent and faithful, walking with God.  In the church, we have the firstfruits of this new creation, but we’re still stuck living in the tainted, fallen world.  We await a final transformation, and the final re-creation, when Christ returns.  Be ready.  Be one of his people.  Be remade in Christ’s image.

Jeremy Nettles

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them... (Romans 2.14-15)

In this passage, Paul points out that even the Gentiles throughout the ages, who did not have access to “the oracles of God,” as he calls them in verse 2 of the next chapter, still basically adhered to the same moral code of conduct as the one God gave to the Israelites.  The ritual stuff concerning the priesthood and tabernacle/temple worship wasn’t exactly mirrored among the widely dispersed peoples of the earth, but it was pretty much accepted that murder, theft, adultery, fraud, and other such things were to be avoided, and punished.  Individuals may disagree and engage in all of these sins and more, but broadly speaking, societies accept God’s basic law by nature, and when a society fails to uphold it, it implodes, often with the aid of a foreign invader seizing the opportunity to expand its power.

Why is this?  Even among people who didn’t recognize the Lord God Almighty, there was an assumption that some divine order existed, and that some things were right and others wrong.  As Paul says in the passage quoted above, “the work of the law is written on their hearts.”  This law is so obvious that even idolatrous people will attribute their morals to the commandments of whatever god they worship; but what about those who simply reject the idea of God altogether?  There are many attempts from the atheist perspective to uphold the basic moral code, but if you ask “why?” at each step, you quickly reach a point where there is no coherent atheistic answer.  If there’s no God to tell us what to do, then right and wrong mean about as much to us as they do to a hyena in the Serengeti.  

Yet, most people aren’t hung up on this, because they’re perfectly happy to admit that there is a God.  As Paul says earlier in the letter,
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. (Romans 1.19-20)

He’s not the first to make this observation.  Another example is found in Psalm 19, which begins, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.”  Since his existence is self-evident, it’s easy to account for morality by pointing to God.  But of course, he didn’t only write laws on hearts—sometimes, he simply tells people what he expects of them.

In establishing God’s covenant with Abraham, he tells him: “I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless” (Ge 17.1).  To be fair, God gives him other instructions from time to time, but over the course of this decades-long relationship, we don’t see a comprehensive law passed from God to Abraham, just this very basic appeal to standard moral uprightness: “be blameless.”  In fact, even after giving an extremely detailed set of rules to the Israelites, he gives them a similar, although slightly more detailed summary of his expectations, asking in Micah 6.8, “what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”  This rhetorical question is presented as a simpler and easier alternative to the overboard and even immoral sacrificial offerings his people consider bringing in order to seek God’s favor.  It’s as if he’s telling them, “look guys, this isn’t that complicated.”

Of course, figuring out the details in any given circumstances will be more difficult—for example, how do we determine what is just, in a given case?  Fortunately, God has given us a lot of commentary on these general principles, found throughout the rest of the Bible.  But what God was telling the Israelites through Micah, and what he was telling Abraham, and what he silently has told all of mankind forever, is simple: focus on justice, mercy, humility, blamelessness, love for God and neighbor.  

Yes, there are fine details to work out, and some counterintuitive conclusions and obligations.  But in general, if we’ll just focus on living our lives in accordance with these basic principles, we’ll have God’s moral expectations of us pretty much under control.  These rules are so obvious that even the pagans—sinful as they were—could easily recognize that they were real, and right.  There’s not much overt paganism today, but it is just as astonishing that so many atheists believe in a moral law, although not the lawgiver.  

None of this is enough to secure salvation for ourselves, of course.  Jesus is the only way, and his atoning sacrifice is the only reason that we can escape the eternal punishment we deserve, and be sent to heaven, instead.  But Jesus’ expectations of how his followers are to behave in their fleshly lives aren’t all that different from his expectations before the new and living way was opened for us.  This is what Jeremiah prophesied centuries beforehand: 
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
(Jeremiah 31.33)

Jeremy Nettles

...our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3.15-17)

After 2,000 years, we should not be surprised that there are many divisions, factions, sects, or denominations all claiming to be “the Church.”  Most of these arose as a result of doctrinal disagreements.  Either a teaching was not well-formed or articulated, leading to confusion and conflict, or (more often) someone did what Peter was warning against in the passage above—came up with his own idea, presented it as the truth backed by a mishandling of the Scriptures, and thus led others astray.  

The New Testament is full of warnings this sort of thing would happen.  In addition to the passage in 2 Peter 3 quoted above, Paul spends the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians addressing just such a problem springing up already in the church at Corinth.  He also predicts a departure from the faith in 1 Timothy 4, and warns against wolves in sheep’s clothing in Acts 20, as did Jesus himself in Matthew 7.  2 Peter 2 predicts that false prophets will preach heresies, and Jude points out that it’s already happening toward the late 1st century.

After that, a stroll through later church history scares up a long list of terms for such divisions in the church: Valentinianism, dualism, adoptionism, doceticism, trinitarianism, antinomianism, Montanism, Arianism, Marcionism, Arminianism, Pelagianism, catholicism, Calvinism, protestantism, and many, many more.  Half of these have names that roughly describe the doctrine in question (in Greek or Latin), but the other half are tied instead to an individual’s name.  Paul warned us about this: 

For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human?  What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. (1 Corinthians 3.4-5)

Today, when Christians study, ponder, and discuss spiritual matters—as well they should!—they’ll often reach a conclusion, or at least entertain a notion, tied to one of these -isms debated and bickered over in centuries past.  Often, someone with a smug disposition will see the connection and assign the idea its accepted label: “oh, that’s Arianism.”  This is usually intended to stop the discussion, on the grounds that this heresy was debunked long ago, and is now off limits.  Most of the time it is, in fact, a false doctrine; but shouldn’t we address the substance of the argument, demonstrating from the Scriptures why it is false?  And if we can’t do that, do we have any business dismissing it on the basis of its name?

On the other side, and even more alarming is that so many people are quite happy to label themselves by such terms—a Baptist, a Lutheran, an Episcopalian, a Presbyterian, a Methodist, a Pentecostal, an Anabaptist, and so on.  Sure this is a convenient way to categorize the ridiculous variety of beliefs, doctrines, and practices; but isn’t it also a tacit admission to following the teachings of someone other than Christ?

Why do people do this?  And why is there so much more variety in the western world, than anywhere else?  The situation is quite similar to what Paul found at Athens: “the city was full of idols” (Ac 17.16).  In his speech, he generously calls the people of Athens “very religious” (v22), but the reason behind that characterization is that the city was a melting pot of cultures and ideas, and as each new religious idea entered the scene, it found a handful of people with whom it resonated, and so in the absence of real problems, or anything of tangible value to do, the people of this washed-up, has-been, decaying former military, economic, and cultural superpower reveled in their open-mindedness.  As Luke tells us, “all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new” (Ac 17.21).  Over the centuries, our society has followed Athens’ example, and has gutted the radical teachings of Christ, then parceled them out according to philosophical preference.  There is little regard for truth or authority, and much for subjective feeling and novelty.

It all comes down to the rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees—one of the competing philosophical factions at the time: 

“Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’” (Mark 7.6-7)

Let the labels fall where they may; and “Let God be true though every one were a liar” (Ro 3.3).  The true Christian isn’t too concerned with the teachings of Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jacobus Arminius, or Alexander Campbell.  These men all said good and true things, as well as bad and false things.  They were fallible men (some more fallible than others).  Do you know who’s not fallible?  Jesus.  As the voice from heaven told Peter, James, and John: “listen to him” (Mt 17.5).  Let us be followers of Christ.

Jeremy Nettles