Why Revelation isn’t “the end of the story”

In Rev. 21:1-8 (Concordant Literal New Testament) we read the following:

And I perceived a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth pass away, and the sea is no more. And I perceived the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. And I hear a loud voice out of the throne saying, “Lo! the tabernacle of God is with mankind, and He will be tabernacling with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them. And He will be brushing away every tear from their eyes. And death will be no more, nor mourning, nor clamor, nor misery; they will be no more, for the former things passed away.”

And He Who is sitting on the throne said, “Lo! New am I making all!” And He is saying, “Write, for these sayings are faithful and true.” And He said to me, “I have become the Alpha and the Omega, the Origin and the Consummation. To him who is thirsting I shall be giving of the spring of the water of life gratuitously. He who is conquering shall be enjoying this allotment, and I shall be a God to him and he shall be a son to Me. Yet the timid, and unbelievers, and the abominable, and murderers, and paramours, and enchanters, and idolaters, and all the false–their part is in the lake burning with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.”

Although this earth has been a place of death, mourning and misery for almost as long as humans have been in existence, what we read in this passage makes it clear that all such evils will be absent from the new earth. We can thus conclude that life on the new earth will be far superior to anything mankind has ever experienced (or ever will experience) on this earth. But is the future state of affairs described in this passage the ultimate goal toward which God is working with regard to mankind's salvation?

Most Christians believe that it is. According to this view, the last two chapters of Revelation reveal the “final state” of mankind. For example, in a recently-given sermon on the subject of “heaven,” Christian pastor Dr. Jeff Schreve declared that “the book of Revelation ends in what theologians call ‘the eternal state.’” He went on to say that, during this future time, time will “be no more,” and that “those who have given their lives to Christ will live forever with him in an eternal state, in an eternal home known as heaven.”

Like many Christians, Jeff Schreve is deeply confused about what we find revealed in Rev. 21-22. Although he refers to the new earth as “an eternal home known as heaven,” Scripture – including the book of Revelation itself – makes a clear and consistent distinction between heaven and earth. Even in the chapters from Revelation to which Dr. Schreve refers, heaven and earth are clearly distinguished from each other, and are referred to as two different locations:

“And I perceived a new heaven and a new earth, for the former heaven and the former earth pass away, and the sea is no more. And I perceived the holy city, new Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God...” 

Since it is “out of heaven” that new Jerusalem will be descending after the new earth has been created, neither the new earth (to which new Jerusalem will be descending) nor new Jerusalem itself (which will be in heaven before it descends) can be identified with heaven. And this means that the dwelling place of those who will be enjoying the blessings referred to throughout Rev. 21-22 is not “heaven” (and should not be “known as heaven”).

Moreover, although certain theologians consider the future time period described in Revelation 21-22 as an “eternal state” where “time is no more,” Scripture does not. Instead, the future events described in the last two chapters of Revelation will be occurring during a future period of time (i.e., during the last age, or eon, of “the oncoming eons” referred to by Paul in Ephesians 2:7-9). 

Of course, some Christians may object that, even though the new earth won’t actually be “heaven,” it’s still going to be perfect. And even if the future period of time that’s described in Rev. 21-22 isn’t actually going to be “timeless,” it’s still going to be endless. However, the position for which I’m going to be arguing in this article is that the future state of affairs described in Revelation 21-22 will be neither perfect nor permanent. 

Israel and the nations on the new earth

One of the ways in which we can know that Revelation 21-22 doesn’t reveal a perfect and permanent state of affairs involves what these chapters reveal concerning Israel and the nations on the new earth.

The distinction that exists between the nations and God’s covenant people, Israel (i.e., the twelve-tribed people whose identity is based on their particular ethnicity/lineage and covenantal relationship with God) is one of the clearest truths we find affirmed in Scripture. For example, shortly after the birth of Christ, Simeon referred to Jesus in his prayer to God as “a Light for the revelation of nations, and the Glory of Thy people Israel” (Luke 2:32; cf. Zechariah’s prophecy in 1:67-79).

Christ himself affirmed this divinely-created distinction between Israel and the nations when he instructed his disciples as follows: 

“Into a road of the nations you may not pass forth, and into a city of the Samaritans you may not be entering. Yet be going rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). 

In accord with these instructions (where it’s clear that Christ understood God’s covenant people to have precedence over the nations), Christ later declared, “I was not commissioned except for the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24; cf. Mark 7:27). Hence, we’re told by Paul that Christ became “the Servant of the Circumcision, for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the patriarchal promises” (Rom. 15:8).

Moreover, according to the Hebrew Scriptures, it's evident that God is going to continue to make a distinction between Israel and the nations on the earth during the coming eon (Ezek. 28:25; 37:21-28; Joel 2:15-19, 23-27; 3:1-2; etc.). It’s further evident that, during this future time, Israel will have a preeminent, favored status on the earth and be especially blessed by God, while the nations will be subordinate to Israel and receive their blessings through the mediation of Israel (Isaiah 14:1-2; 45:14-17; 49:22-23; 60:1-16; 61:5; Jeremiah 33:7-9; Zechariah 8:14-15, 20-23; 14:16-18; Micah 4:1-3; Amos 9:11-15). But will this distinction (and inequality) between Israel and the nations continue on the new earth as well? Yes.

In Rev. 21:10-14 we read the following:

And he carries me away, in spirit, on a mountain, huge and high, and shows me the holy city, Jerusalem, as it is descending out of heaven from God, having the glory from God. Her luminosity is like a stone most precious, as a crystalline jasper gem, having a wall, huge and high, having twelve portals, and at the portals twelve messengers, and their names inscribed, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel. From the east are three portals, and from the north three portals, and from the south three portals, and from the west three portals. And the wall of the city has twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin.

The very fact that “the holy city” referred to in this passage is named “Jerusalem” is significant. Ever since the city of Jerusalem was conquered by David and made the capital of the Jewish kingdom in 1000 BC, the name “Jerusalem” has been inseparably connected with the people of Israel and their prophesied destiny. Notice, also, that the portals of the wall surrounding new Jerusalem will have inscribed on them “the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel” (this will also be the case with the gates of Israel’s capital city during the next eon as well, as Ezekiel 48:30-35 makes clear). This is not an insignificant detail; as is the case with the name of the city itself, the names that are inscribed on the twelve portals of the wall of the city tell us who the city was designed for, and who will be residing within it.

We further read that the wall of new Jerusalem has twelve foundations, and that “the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lambkin” are on these twelve foundations. As should be evident from the fact that the “apostles of the Lamb” referred to here are twelve in number, these apostles are inseparably associated with the twelve-tribed nation to which they belong. Thus we read that the kingdom for which these apostles longed is that which Christ shall be restoring to Israel (Acts 1:3, 6), and in which they shall be “sitting on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt. 19:28; Luke 22:28-30; cf. Rev. 20:4).[1]

Lest there be any question concerning the ethnic/national identity of those for whom new Jerusalem has been built by God (and who thus will be dwelling within this city), we go on to read the following concerning "the nations" in Rev. 21:23-26:

“And the city has no need of the sun nor of the moon, that they should be appearing in it, for the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lambkin. And the nations shall be walking by means of its light, and the kings of the earth are carrying their glory into it. And its portals should under no circumstances be locked by day; for there shall be no night there. And they shall be carrying the glory and the honor of the nations into it, and under no circumstances may anything contaminating, or one who is making an abomination and a lie be entering into it, except those written in the Lambkin’s scroll of life.”

As is the case throughout the rest of Scripture (including the rest of Revelation), the people referred to as “the nations” in this passage should be understood as those among mankind who do not belong to the twelve-tribed people of Israel. That is, those who constitute “the nations” in view here are Gentiles. And according to what we read above, the nations on the new earth will be paying tribute to those within the city (as is indicated by the words, “and [the kings of the earth] shall be carrying the glory and the honor of the nations into it”).

Moreover, the fact that the “glory and honor of the nations” is something that “the kings of the earth” will be bringing “into” new Jerusalem indicates that what was previously said concerning the nations (i.e., that “the nations shall be walking by means of its light”) refers to the nations’ activity and experience outside of the holy city (for it is while the nations are “walking by means of its light” that the kings of the earth will be “carrying their glory into it”). This implies that the nations on the new earth will be living outside of the city. This is in accord with what will be the case during the next future eon as well (for example, in Rev. 20:7-9 we find that the nations will be living outside of “the beloved city” – i.e., Jerusalem – during the future thousand years).

Thus, although the nations on the new earth will be included among “[God’s] peoples” during this time (for “God Himself will be with them” and blessing them), they will not be residing within the city of Jerusalem. Instead, those dwelling within new Jerusalem will be the saints among the twelve tribes of Israel.

Further evidence that the future state of affairs described in the closing chapters of Revelation will not be perfect is found in Rev. 22:1-2. In these verses we read the following:

“And he shows me a river of water of life, resplendent as crystal, issuing out of the throne of God and the Lambkin. In the center of its square, and on either side of the river, is the tree of life, producing twelve fruits, rendering its fruit in accord with each month. And the leaves of the tree are for the cure of the nations.”

Just as the leaves of the trees referred to in Ezekiel 37:12 will be used for “medicine” in the eon to come, so the leaves of the tree of life referred to in Rev. 22:2 will be “for the cure [therapeian] of the nations” on the new earth. Apparently, the curative properties of these leaves will preserve the health of the gentiles living on the new earth during this time (and will provide healing, if necessary). However, the very fact that the nations on the new earth will be in need of these leaves at all indicates that they will not inherently possess perfect health during this future time. That is, those who will be among “the nations” during this future time will not yet enjoy what is referred to in Hebrews 7:17 as “the power of an indissoluble life” (which, although currently enjoyed by Christ alone, will be possessed by all who will have a part in “the former resurrection” referred to in Rev. 20:4-6; cf. Luke 20:34-36).

Finally, in Rev. 22:5, we’re told that the saints – i.e., those who will be dwelling within new Jerusalem – shall be reigning “for the eons of the eons.” The first of these future eons will commence when Christ returns to earth at the end of this present eon, and – after the events referred to in Rev. 20:4-10 have transpired – will be succeeded by yet another eon. But over whom will the saints be reigning during these future eons?

Based on what we read in Rev. 2:26-27, it’s evident that, during the first of the future eons, the saints will be reigning over the nations:

“And to the one who is conquering and keeping My acts until the consummation, to him will I be giving authority over the nations; and he shall be shepherding them with an iron club, as vessels of pottery are being crushed, as I also have obtained from My Father.”

And since the reign of the saints on the new earth will simply be a continuation of the reign that will begin in the next eon (and since the only other people who will be living on the new earth will be those referred to as “the nations”), we can conclude that the nations are the people over whom the saints of new Jerusalem will be reigning during the last eon.

The fact that those within new Jerusalem will be reigning over the nations accounts for why there will be a wall around the city. We know that the purpose of the wall won’t be for protection, for there will be no enemies on the new earth to threaten the inhabitants of the city (thus, we read in v. 25 that the portals of the city will never be closed). Rather than being for protection, the wall will be a boundary marker that will serve as a visible, tangible reminder of the sovereign status of the city, and its dominion over those who will be living outside of the city.

Revelation 21-22 and the reign of Christ

The above considerations involving Israel and the nations should, at the very least, lead one to seriously question the commonly-held view that Revelation 21-22 reveals the “final state” of mankind. However, there is a more fundamental reason as to why the future state of affairs described in the last two chapters of Revelation should be understood as neither perfect nor permanent. And this reason has to do with what Paul revealed concerning the duration and outcome of Christ’s reign.

As noted earlier, we’re told in Rev. 22:5 that the saints in new Jerusalem “shall be reigning for the eons of the eons.” If the saints are reigning during this time, it follows that Christ will be reigning as well (for the reign of the saints is going to coincide with, and not continue beyond, the reign of Christ). That Christ will be reigning during this time period is confirmed by the fact that, according to Rev. 22:1-3, the throne of Christ (“the Lambkin”) is going to be present in the city. 

Thus, the time during which those who are “conquering” will be “enjoying the allotment” of which we read in Rev. 21:1-8 will coincide with the reign of Christ and the saints. Moreover – and as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (see A defense of the expression “for the eons of the eons”) – the “eons of the eons” for which we’re told the saints shall be reigning in Rev. 22:5 are the future eons of Christ’s reign (Rev. 11:15). We can, therefore, conclude that the future state of affairs described in Revelation 21-22 will coincide with Christ’s future reign.

But this fact means that the state of affairs described in Rev. 21-22 cannot be permanent. For according to what we read in 1 Cor. 15:20-28, Christ is not going to be reigning for an endless duration of time. In these verses we read the following:

“Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the Firstfruit of those who are reposing. For since, in fact, through a man came death, through a Man, also, comes the resurrection of the dead. For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified. Yet each in his own class: the Firstfruit, Christ; thereupon those who are Christ's in His presence; thereafter the consummation, whenever He may be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, whenever He should be nullifying all sovereignty and all authority and power. For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy is being abolished: death. For He subjects all under His feet. Now whenever He may be saying that all is subject, it is evident that it is outside of Him Who subjects all to Him. Now, whenever all may be subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him, that God may be All in all.

In the context, the “consummation” of which we read in v. 24 likely refers to the consummation of Christ’s vivifying work (i.e., the vivification of all mankind and consequent abolishment of death, “the last enemy”). In any case, the consummation of which Paul wrote here is inseparably connected with the abolishing of death. And as Paul makes clear, this event (the abolishing of death) will coincide with the “giving up the kingdom to [Christ's] God and Father.” Since Christ is ultimately going to be giving up the kingdom to His God and Father, it necessarily follows that he will not be reigning for an endless duration of time (for Christ cannot continue to reign over a kingdom that he has given up to God; to give up the kingdom is to cease reigning over it). 

That Christ’s future reign will not be endless is further confirmed by the words, ”For He must be reigning until He should be placing all His enemies under His feet.” Paul is here revealing the goal of Christ’s reign. When this goal is reached – i.e., when all of Christ’s enemies have been subjected to him (and the last enemy, death, has been abolished) – there will no longer be any need for Christ to continue reigning, and Christ will thus give up the kingdom to his God and Father. This idea is also being expressed in the words, “then the Son Himself also shall be subjected to Him Who subjects all to Him…”

Now, we know that being subjected to Christ will involve becoming a subject of the kingdom that he’ll be giving up to God after he has abolished death, for the same term translated “subjected” is used in reference to both the “all” who are to be subjected to Christ and to Christ himself (and when it’s used in reference to Christ, we know that it refers to his becoming a subject of the kingdom after he gives up the kingdom to God, for Christ is already completely submitted to God’s will). Thus, when the kingdom over which Christ will be reigning is given up to God, God alone will reign as King over this then-universal kingdom, and all created, intelligent beings – including Christ himself – will be his subjects.

Moreover, we also know that the kingdom that will be given up to God will continue without end beyond the duration of the eons of Christ’s reign. It is for this reason that we’re told in Luke 1:33 that “there shall be no consummation” of Christ’s kingdom. For, although Christ’s reign over the kingdom will end when he gives up the kingdom to his God and Father, the kingdom itself will have no end (or “consummation”) after it has been delivered to God.

Since Christ’s reign is only “until” a certain point (at which point he will give up the kingdom to his God and Father), it follows that the duration of time for which Christ and the saints are going to be reigning (i.e., “for the eons of the eons”) is not endless or “eternal”; rather, it will end when Christ’s reign ends, and he gives up the kingdom to his God and Father. Consider the following argument:

1. The state of affairs described in Rev. 22:3-5 will not extend beyond the duration of Christ’s reign.

2. According to what is revealed in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, Christ is not going to reign for an endless duration of time (for it is only “until” a certain point).

3. Thus, the state of affairs described in Rev. 22:3-5 cannot be endless in duration.

It therefore follows that the state of affairs described in Rev. 21-22 (which coincides with the reign of Christ and the saints) will end when Christ’s reign ends. 

We also know from Rev. 21:8 that some humans will be dead during the time period that’s in view in Rev. 21-22. In this verse we find that, when the saints on the new earth are enjoying the “allotment” referred to in the previous verses, there will be some humans whose “part” will be “in the lake burning with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” And as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere, the second death is a judgment that will involve certain people (i.e., those whose names aren’t written in the scroll of life, and who will therefore be cast into the lake of fire) being dead during the final eon of Christ’s reign. But according to Paul, death is “the last enemy” of Christ’s reign, and is going to be “abolished” by Christ at the end of his reign. And the only way that death can be abolished is if everyone who is either dead or dying is vivified (i.e., made immortal). Thus we read the following in 1 Cor. 15:22:

“For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified.”

Despite the efforts by some to deny the obvious meaning of what Paul was affirming in this verse, we can conclude that, when death is abolished by Christ at the end of his reign, the same individuals who are included within the first “all” (i.e., all who, in Adam, are dying) will be vivified in Christ. And this means that all mankind will ultimately receive the same “power of an indissoluble life” which, in Heb. 7:16, is said to be possessed by Christ. And this must include those over whom the “second death” will be having jurisdiction during the final eon of Christ’s reign (for these will be the only people who will still be dead when the consummation arrives). 

In light of these considerations, we can conclude that the time during which “the second death” will be in effect will be prior to “the consummation” referred to by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:24 (i.e., when death is abolished and Christ delivers up the kingdom to God). Thus, what we read in Rev. 21-22 necessarily pertains to a time that is prior to the time when, according to 1 Cor. 15:22-28, Christ delivers up the kingdom to his God and Father so that God may be “All in all.”

At this point it would be worth responding to an objection that some opponents of the position being defended in this article have raised against it. A commonly-held view among Christians is that what we read in Rev. 21:1-4 refers to the time after God has become “All in all.” Since the future time that’s in view in this passage will coincide with the result of the “second death” judgment referred to in Rev. 20:14-15 (cf. 21:8), it’s believed that the second death will therefore be “eternal” in duration (for the words, “death will be no more” clearly don’t have reference to the second death). However, the very fact that those who will have to undergo the “second death” will still be dead during the time when the state of affairs described in Rev. 21:2-4 are taking place means that death will not be abolished during this time. And as long as death has dominion over any of the sinners for whose sins Christ died, death will remain an enemy that needs to be abolished. We can thus conclude that the words “death will be no more” refer exclusively to the state of affairs on the new earth (for no one on the new earth will be dying). Although death will be absent from the new earth, it will continue to be an enemy that needs to be abolished by Christ so that “God may be All in all.”.

Moreover, we know that the state of affairs described in Rev. 21:2-4 (see also verses 5-8) will be taking place during the final eon of Christ’s reign. Thus, the time during which those who are to be cast into the lake of fire (and thus “injured by the second death”) will remain dead will be during the final eon of the reign of Christ and the saints. And since this state of affairs will be during the final eon of Christ’s reign, it will necessarily be prior to the time when Christ delivers up the kingdom to his God and Father so that God may be All in all. And since death is the “last enemy” (and is going to be abolished at the end of Christ’s reign), it follows that all who are going to be cast into the lake of fire and “injured by the second death” will be vivified in Christ. For the death resulting from this judgment will, during the final eon of Christ’s reign, be the only instance of death that will remain and need to be abolished.

Why Paul (and not John) reveals “the end of the story”

Most Christians will find the idea that Revelation 21-22 doesn’t reveal the “final state” of mankind both surprising and deeply perplexing. For according to the understanding of most Christians, the final chapters of John’s prophetic work contain the penultimate revelation of what the final state of affairs will be, and is precisely where one should go if one wants to know how God’s story of redemption ends. However, as has been demonstrated in this study, it’s not through the apostle John but rather through the apostle Paul that God has chosen to reveal “the end of the story.”

The fact is that John wrote down only what was revealed to him in the visions he received from God. And the fact that the visions given to John don’t reveal anything beyond the state of affairs we find described in Rev. 21-22 doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything beyond it. A similar point can be made concerning what we find revealed in the book of Ezekiel. This prophetic work contains a great deal of information concerning future events that will be taking place on the earth during the next eon (John reveals additional information concerning this time period in Rev. 20:1-9). However, the visions given to Ezekiel don’t reveal anything beyond this future time. The most distant event prophesied in Ezekiel's work (see chapters 38-39) will take place before this present earth is replaced by a new earth. But the lack of prophetic information concerning the new earth in Ezekiel’s work doesn’t mean that there won’t be a new earth. Similarly, the fact that Ezekiel’s final visions (see chapters 40-48) provide us with a remarkable preview of (and detailed information concerning) Israel’s future temple doesn’t mean that redeemed Israel will always have a temple (for in Rev. 21:22, we read that there will be no literal temple in which the saints will worship God on the new earth).

Just as John saw further into the future than did Ezekiel (and revealed more in his prophetic work than Ezekiel did in his), so the apostle Paul saw further into the future than did John. Paul was given revelation concerning what will be occurring beyond the most distant period of time that John was blessed to see in his visions. But why would this be the case? That is, why did God choose to reveal “the end of the story” through Paul (as opposed to John, or some other apostle)? 

The answer, I believe, has to do with Paul’s unique apostleship, and the unique administration that was given to Paul for the nations. This administration – which Paul referred to as “the administration of the grace of God” and “the administration of the secret” (Eph. 3:1-2) – is the administration to which Paul’s evangel (or “gospel”) – i.e., “the evangel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) – belongs. Both the administration of the grace of God and the evangel that pertains to it are completely distinct from any administration that began (or from any evangel that was heralded) before Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations began. 

Before the administration of the grace of God began, the only evangel that was being heralded was the evangel that Paul referred to in Gal. 2:7 as “the evangel of the Circumcision” (which Paul said was entrusted to the apostle Peter). It is this evangel that was heralded by the twelve apostles (among whom was John, the writer of Revelation). As is evident from Paul’s use of the term “Circumcision,” this evangel pertains to God’s covenant people, Israel. And as verses such as Matt. 16:16 and John 20:31 make clear, this evangel essentially involves the truth “that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” The evangel of the Circumcision is, in other words, concerned with the identity of the One through whom the kingdom is going to be restored to Israel (in accord with what we read in Acts 1:6).

After Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations began, however, a new evangel – i.e., “the evangel of the Uncircumcision” – began to be heralded. But what, exactly, is the truth that constitutes the evangel of the grace of God with which Paul was entrusted to herald among the nations? Answer: the evangel entrusted to Paul to herald among the nations makes known the truth that Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and was roused the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-4; cf. 1 Tim. 2:4-6). This is an evangel that pertains to the ultimate destiny of all mankind (and not just believers), for the fact that Christ died for our sins means that all mankind is ultimately going to be saved (which is, of course, in accord with the fact that God is “the Savior of all mankind,” as we read in 1 Tim. 4:10). Christ’s death for our sins and subsequent resurrection guarantees the ultimate salvation of everyone for whom he died (which, according to Paul, includes all mankind).

Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that Paul – and not John – would be the apostle through whom God would reveal what is going to occur at the end of Christ’s reign (for the evangel of the grace of God that was entrusted to Paul is concerned with what Christ did for all mankind, and it is not until the end Christ’s reign – when death is abolished – that everyone for whose sins Christ died will be saved). However, because the evangel of the Circumcision is an evangel that is concerned with Israel’s Messiah and kingdom, it also shouldn’t be surprising that the future seen by John (and revealed in Revelation) doesn’t take us any further than the duration of Christ’s reign “over the house of Jacob” (Luke 1:33). 

---

[1] The fact that the names of the twelve apostles are on the twelve foundations of the city means that the name of the apostle Paul is not on one of the foundations. The exclusion of Paul’s name from the foundation of the city would be inexplicable if Paul shared the same eonian destiny as that of the twelve apostles, and the fruit of his labors as “the apostle of the nations” involved people being called to the same expectation (and coming to enjoy the same allotment) as those who will be dwelling within new Jerusalem during the future time with which Rev. 21-22 is concerned. However, as I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (see Did Paul teach that the body of Christ will be reigning on the earth?), God has something different in store for Paul and the company of saints to which he belongs.

“Therefore they could not believe”

Introduction 

In John 3:16-18 (Concordant Literal New Testament) we read the following: 

“For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him. He who is believing in Him is not being judged; yet he who is not believing has been judged already, for he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” 

As I’ve argued in greater depth elsewhere (see, for example, the following two-part article), the expression that’s translated “life eonian” in this passage (and which is erroneously translated as “eternal life” in most English Bibles) denotes a blessing that will be enjoyed by believers during the future ages, or eons, of Christ’s reign – i.e., the eons that Paul referred to as “the oncoming eons” in Ephesians 2:7-9. This future blessing will involve being alive throughout the duration of these future eons, and enjoying an allotment in the kingdom of God. It is this future blessing that Paul had in mind when, after affirming that God is “the Savior of all mankind,” he then added, “especially of believers” (1 Tim. 4:10). Although all mankind is ultimately going to be saved by God (for Christ’s death for our sins guarantees it), believers are being saved first.

Now, most Christians assume that the words “everyone who is believing in Him” mean, “everyone who is believing that Christ died for our sins and was raised the third day” (which is the truth that constitutes the evangel or “gospel” that was entrusted to the apostle Paul to herald among the nations; see 1 Cor. 15:3-4; cf. Gal. 2:2, 7). However, this understanding is mistaken. Although the truth of Christ’s resurrection was proclaimed by the twelve apostles after the events of Pentecost (Acts 2:24-32; 3:15; 4:2), the specific fact that “Christ died for our sins” – i.e., the fact that Christ died so that the sins of all mankind would be forgiven – is unique to Paul’s evangel, and was not publicly heralded until after Paul’s apostolic ministry among the nations began. Rather than referring to the truth that Christ died for our sins, the truth in view in John 3:16-18 is simply that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.

To an Israelite, Jesus’ being the “the Christ” and “the Son of God” meant that he is the prophesied “Messiah” (or “Anointed One”) destined to reign as king on “the throne of his father David,” and to rule over the house of Jacob – and indeed the entire earth – for the coming eons (2 Sam. 7:1-16; Psalm 2:1-12; Isaiah 9:6-7; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 2:30-31; cf. Heb. 1:5, 8-9). Jesus’ Lordship is also inseparably linked to his identity as the Christ, the Son of God (Matt. 22:41-46; Luke 2:11; Acts 2:34-36).

Earlier, Christ had told Nicodemus that an Israelite had to be “begotten anew” (i.e., begotten of God) in order to “perceive” and “be entering” the kingdom of God (John 3:3-8). And in John’s first letter we read the following: 

“Everyone who is believing that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God…Now who is he who is conquering the world if not he who is believing that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:1, 5) 

John went on to write in v. 13, “These things I write to you that you who are believing in the name of the Son of God may be perceiving that you have life eonian.”

That believing “in the name of the only-begotten Son of God” meant believing the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity (i.e., that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God), is further confirmed by what John wrote towards the end of his account:

“Indeed then, many other signs also Jesus does, in the sight of His disciples, which are not written in this scroll. Yet these are written that you should be believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life eonian in His name.” John 20:30-31 

This truth concerning Jesus’ identity – that he is the Christ, the Son of God – is the “evangel of the Circumcision” with which Peter, John and the rest of the twelve apostles were entrusted (Gal. 2:7). The first time we read of the content of this evangel being made known to Peter is in Matthew 16:15-17:

“He is saying to them, ‘Now you, who are you saying that I am?’ Now answering, Simon Peter said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Now, answering, Jesus said to him, ‘Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens.’”

In addition to the above verses, we find that the central theme of Peter’s speeches (as recorded in Acts 2 and 3) also concerns the Messianic identity of Jesus. Peter even concludes and summarizes his first speech (delivered on Pentecost) with the following declaration:

“Let all the house of Israel know certainly, then, that God makes Him Lord as well as Christ — this Jesus Whom you crucify!”

Peter’s goal in speaking was quite clear: to make known to his Jewish audience the truth concerning the Messianic identity of Jesus, the man whom Israel had crucified. For those Israelites who believed this gospel, the next step on the path leading to salvation – i.e., eonian life in the kingdom of God – was repenting of their (Israel’s) national sin of crucifying Christ and getting baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ for the pardon of [their] sins,” in order to obtain the “gratuity of the holy spirit” (Acts 2:37-40).

Why didn’t all Israel believe the truth of who Jesus is?

Having considered what the people of Israel had to believe in order to receive eonian life in the kingdom of God, let’s now consider the following question: Why didn’t everyone in Israel who witnessed what Jesus said and did during his earthly ministry believe that the truth concerning his Messianic identity (i.e., that he is “the Christ, the Son of God”)? 

Christ himself provides us with the answer to this question in Matthew 16:15-17:

“[Jesus] is saying to them, ‘Now you, who are you saying that I am?’ Now answering, Simon Peter said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Now, answering, Jesus said to him, ‘Happy are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood does not reveal it to you, but My Father Who is in the heavens.’”

According to Christ, God himself had revealed the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity to Peter. This means that, had God not chosen to reveal this key truth to Peter, Peter wouldn’t have believed it. And what was true in the case of Peter was also true in the case of every other Israelite who lived during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. 

What Christ declared in John 6:35-40 and 44-45 further confirms this fact. Here is how these verses read in the Concordant Literal New Testament:

I am the Bread of life. He who is coming to Me should under no circumstances be hungering, and he who is believing in Me will under no circumstances ever be thirsting. But I said to you that you have also seen Me and you are not believing Me. All that which the Father is giving to Me shall be arriving to Me, and he who is coming to Me I should under no circumstances be casting out, for I have descended from heaven, not that I should be doing My will, but the will of Him Who sends Me. Now this is the will of Him Who sends Me, that all which He has given to Me, of it I should be losing nothing, but I shall be raising it in the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who is beholding the Son and believing in Him may have life eonian, and I shall be raising him in the last day.

No one can come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing him. And I shall be raising him in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Everyone, then, who hears from the Father and is learning the truth, is coming to Me.

When reading the above verses, it becomes clear that the expressions “believing in me,” “believing me,” “coming to me” and “arriving to me” were used interchangeably by Christ, and are essentially equivalent in meaning. In other words, the expressions “can come to me” and “is coming to me” in John 6:44-45 mean, “can believe in me” and “is believing in me.”

It’s further evident from what Christ declared that believing in him was the inevitable result of having been given to him by the Father. Since those to whom Christ was speaking didn’t believe in him, we can therefore conclude that they hadn’t been given to him by the Father. The limited scope of those whom the Father was giving to Christ is confirmed by the fact that the same individuals whom the Father was giving to Christ will have life eonian and (therefore) be raised by Christ in the last day (as is evident from the words, ”…that all which He has given to Me, of it I should be losing nothing, but I shall be raising it in the last day”). That is, there will not be anyone who was given to Christ by the Father who won’t have life eonian and be raised by Christ in the last day.

Moreover, just as verses 37-39 indicate that all who were being given to Christ by the Father inevitably believed in him, so verses 44-45 make it clear that no one was able to believe in Christ during his earthly ministry except those whom the Father was “drawing”:

“No one can come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing him. And I shall be raising him in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Everyone, then, who hears from the Father and is learning the truth, is coming to Me.”

In light of what Christ had declared previously, being “drawn” by the Father should be understood as the means through which the Father was giving certain people to Christ. And since everyone whom the Father was giving to Christ ended up believing in him, it follows that God was not drawing all (or even most) people. This is further confirmed by Christ’s explanation in v. 45 of what it meant to be “drawn” by the Father. According to Christ, to be “drawn” by the Father was to be “taught” of him. That is, being drawn by the Father involved hearing from the Father and learning the truth. And since everyone who was taught of God ended up believing in Christ, it follows that the drawing of which Christ spoke was an effectual act of God that resulted in those drawn inevitably believing in Christ.

The limited number of those who comprised the Father’s gift to his Son (and the limited scope of those who were being drawn by the Father) is further confirmed by what Christ went on to declare in John 6:64-65. In these verses we read the following:

“There are some of you who do not believe.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

The words of Christ in v. 65 (”…no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”) echo Christ’s earlier words in v. 44 (”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him”). As in the earlier verses, we find in these verses the explanation for why those to whom Christ was referring did not believe in him. And that explanation is this: It had not been granted them by the Father to believe in him. According to Christ, then, all who were believing in him during his earthly ministry were doing so because it had been granted them by the Father to do so. It was these – and these alone – who were being “drawn” by the Father.

The clear implication of everything said by Christ in these passages is that it was not possible for anyone to believe in him unless it had been granted them by the Father to believe. However, everyone to whom the Father did grant the ability to believe in Christ was consequently drawn by the Father and given to Christ (and thus believed in Christ). 

An objection answered

Christ’s words in John 6 provide us with the explanation for why so many Jews in his day did not believe in him despite having witnessed so much of what he said and did during his earthly ministry. However, the explanation Christ gives is difficult for many Christians to accept. For according to what most Christians believe, God does not determine who will (and who won’t) believe in Christ in this lifetime. Instead, it's believed that, although God wants everyone to believe in Christ before they die (and is “doing his best” to bring this about), he has given his human creatures the self-determining power and freedom to decide their own destiny. According to this view, it's not God who determines whether or not any particular individual will be among those who receive the salvation that’s promised to believers. Instead, it is ultimately the individual himself who determines this.

Among those who hold to this view is Christian theologian, pastor and author, Greg Boyd. In an attempt to explain how Christ’s words in John 6:44 are consistent with his position that God does not determine who, exactly, will (or won’t) believe in Christ, Boyd has provided the following remarks on his ministry website:

Calvinists sometimes argue that this passage teaches that the Father chooses and then “draws” certain people to Christ. Those who are “drawn” certainly come to Christ (John 6:37) while all who are not drawn remain in their sin. In short, this passage is interpreted to teach “particular election” (that is, God chooses to save some and not to save others).

It is true that the “drawing” Jesus speaks of is not universal, as some Arminians suggest, since Jesus is here contrasting those who are “drawn” with those who are not. But neither this or any other passage requires us to believe that the Father simply decides who will and will not be drawn. The Father “draws” people (or not) in response to their hearts.

God wants all to be saved and is working in every human heart to get each person to accept the Gospel. But people can and do resist God’s influence and thwart his will for their lives (see e.g. Lk 7:30). When a heart has been successfully opened, however, God goes further and “draws” that person to Jesus Christ.[1]

The only verse referenced by Boyd in support of his view that ”people can and do resist God’s influence and thwart his will for their lives” is Luke 7:30. Here is how this verse reads in the CLNT:

“Yet the Pharisees and those learned in the law repudiate the counsel of God for themselves, not being baptized by him.”

The word translated “counsel” in this verse (boulēn) means “mutual consultation or advice.” It does not mean “influence,” and is a different word than that which means “will” in Scripture (which is the word “theléma”). In the immediate context, the “counsel of God” of which Christ spoke refers to the admonition by John to be baptized (which was in accord with John’s God-given commission and prophetic ministry). Thus, when we’re told that certain Jews “repudiated the counsel of God,” it doesn’t mean that they thwarted God’s purpose or intention regarding their life and eonian destiny. Rather, it simply means that they repudiated John’s admonition to be baptized. However, as we’ll see, their repudiation of “the counsel of God” was in accord with (and an expression of) God’s intention and purpose.

Now, according to Boyd’s view, God’s choice to draw some Jews but not others was based on (and in response to) their own openness to being “drawn” by God. In this way, Boyd is able to affirm that the “drawing” of which Christ spoke in John 6:44 was “not universal” (which is true) while also affirming the commonly-held Christian view that it was God’s plan that all Israelites believe in Christ. What Boyd’s more “nuanced” view implies is that God would’ve drawn all Israelites to himself if only they had yielded to “God’s influence” and allowed him to “open their hearts” so that they could be taught by him. But because the majority of Jews resisted God’s influence, God was prevented from drawing them. Thus, God’s intention to draw all Israelites during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry was thwarted.

The problem with this understanding of why God was only drawing relatively few Jews during Christ’s earthly ministry (as well as afterwards) is that it’s not consistent with the actual explanation with which we’re provided in Scripture. Here, again, are Jesus' words in John 6:44-45:

“No one can come to Me if ever the Father Who sends Me should not be drawing him. And I shall be raising him in the last day. It is written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Everyone, then, who hears from the Father and is learning the truth, is coming to Me.”

As noted earlier, Christ equated being “drawn” by the Father with being “taught” of him. That is, being drawn by the Father involved hearing from the Father and learning the truth. And it is those who were being taught of God who ended up believing in Christ. But according to what Christ declared elsewhere, it's evident that one had to be “of God” in order to hear from the Father and thus be taught of God. In John 8:43-44 and 47 we read the following:

“Wherefore do you not know My speech? Seeing that you can not hear My word. You are of your father, the Adversary, and the desires of your father you are wanting to do.”

“He who is of God is hearing God’s declarations. Therefore you are not hearing, seeing that you are not of God.”

Because the unbelieving Jews to whom Christ was speaking were “of the Adversary” (rather than “of God”), they could not hear Jesus’ “word” (which consisted of “God’s declarations”). Had they been “of God,” they would’ve been able to hear him. But how does one cease to be “of the Adversary” and become “of God?” Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:24-26:

Now a slave of the Lord must not be fighting, but be gentle toward all, apt to teach, bearing with evil, with meekness training those who are antagonizing, seeing whether God may be giving them repentance to come into a realization of the truth, and they will be sobering up out of the trap of the Adversary, having been caught alive by him, for that one’s will.

As Paul makes clear in these verses, it is God who must give someone “repentance to come into a realization of the truth” so that they will cease to a slave of “the Adversary.” Since the unbelieving Jews to whom Christ was speaking were “of the Adversary” (rather than “of God”), it’s evident that God had not given them “repentance to come into a realization of the truth.”  

In John 12:37-40 the reader is provided with additional insight as to why the majority of Israelites in Christ’s day didn’t believe in him:

Yet, after His having done so many signs in front of them, they believed not in Him, that the word of Isaiah the prophet, which he said, may be being fulfilled, “Lord, who believes our tidings? And the arm of the Lord, to whom was it revealed?” Therefore they could not believe, seeing that Isaiah said again that He has blinded their eyes and callouses their heart, lest they may be perceiving with their eyes, and should be apprehending with their heart, and may be turning about, and I shall be healing them.

According to what we read in the above passage, it wasn’t just the case that the majority of Israelites didn’t believe in Christ; rather, it was that they “could not believe” (cf. John 8:43). We can, therefore, conclude that every Israelite in Christ’s day belonged to one of two groups:

1. Those whom the Father was drawing and giving to Christ (and who, as a result of being drawn by the Father and given to Christ, ended up believing in Christ)

2. Those whose eyes had been “blinded” and whose hearts had been “calloused” (and who, consequently, “could not believe”)

We can further conclude from the above passage that the unbelief of those Israelites who didn’t believe in Christ was in accord with God’s purpose concerning them. This is evident from the use of the following expressions:

1. “…that the word of Isaiah…may be being fulfilled…”

2. “Therefore they could not believe, seeing that Isaiah said again…”

3. “…lest they may be perceiving with their eyes…”

The very fact that the unbelief of most Israelites in Christ’s day fulfilled prophecy proves that their unbelief was something that was planned by God (and that it was, therefore, necessary). We can thus conclude that it was not God’s will that all (or even most) Israelites in Christ’s day believe in Christ.

In Romans 9-11 we find further confirmation of the fact that the “calloused” or “hardened” state of the unbelieving Israelites who were not being drawn by God was in accord with God’s plan. For example, in 11:11-15 we read the following:

What then? What Israel is seeking for, this she did not encounter, yet the chosen encountered it. Now the rest were calloused, even as it is written, God gives them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.

And David is saying, “Let their table become a trap and a mesh, And a snare and a repayment to them: Darkened be their eyes, not to be observing, And their backs bow together continually.”

From the immediate and larger context it’s evident that the calloused condition of the majority of Israelites in Paul’s day was one in which they had been made insensitive and unreceptive to the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity (which, it should be noted, constituted the evangel or “gospel” through which a member of God’s covenant people could be saved). But notice that it is God who made Israel “calloused.” He is the one who gave the majority of Israelites “a spirit of stupor, eyes not to be observing, and ears not to be hearing, till this very day.” This means that the calloused state of the majority of Israelites is in accord with God’s plan. But why would God do this? One reason is provided in Romans 11:11-15. In these verses we read the following:

I am saying, then, Do they not trip that they should be falling? May it not be coming to that! But in their offense is salvation to the nations, to provoke them to jealousy.

Now if their offense is the world’s riches and their discomfiture the nations’ riches, how much rather that which fills them! Now to you am I saying, to the nations, in as much as, indeed, then, I am the apostle of the nations, I am glorifying my dispensation, if somehow I should be provoking those of my flesh to jealousy and should be saving some of them. For if their casting away is the conciliation of the world, what will the taking back be if not life from among the dead?

When Paul wrote of “their offence” and “their casting away” he had in view the majority of Israelites that constituted the nation of Israel in his day. Thus, by the time Paul wrote to the believers in Rome, the majority of Israelites had been “cast away” by God. And we know from verses 7-9 that the “casting away” of Israel is equivalent to God’s bringing “callousness, in part” on the nation – i.e., God’s giving Israel a “spirit of stupor” so that they could not (and still cannot) believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. God “cast away” the nation of Israel when he gave the majority of Israelites a “spirit of stupor” and made them insensitive and unreceptive to the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity. It was this operation of God that made it possible for salvation to go to the nations (i.e., through the heralding of Paul’s evangel among the nations), and which resulted in the state of affairs that Paul referred to as “the conciliation of the world.”

Moreover – and as I’ve written about in greater depth elsewhere (see my study on Paul’s Olive Tree Parable)[2] – the coinciding states of affairs that Paul referred to in the above passage as the “casting away” of Israel and “the conciliation of the world” are not permanent. Both are going to come to an end at some future time (and this time may be much nearer than many people realize). In Rom. 11:25-32 we read the following:

For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering. And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written,

Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them Whenever I should be eliminating their sins.

As to the evangel, indeed, they are enemies because of you, yet, as to choice, they are beloved because of the fathers.

For unregretted are the graces and the calling of God. For even as you once were stubborn toward God, yet now were shown mercy at their stubbornness, thus these also are now stubborn to this mercy of yours, that now they also may be shown mercy. For God locks up all together in stubbornness, that He should be merciful to all.

Although Paul referred to the majority of Israelites in his day as “enemies because of you” (for their calloused condition is what has made it possible for divine mercy to be shown to the nations), they are nevertheless said to be, “as to choice…beloved because of the fathers.” Thus, the unbelief and “stubbornness” of Israel as a nation is only temporary. After the entering in of “the complement of the nations,” God will “take back” his chosen people (i.e., by removing the “callousness” and “spirit of stupor” that is presently on the nation so that Israel becomes more sensitive and receptive to the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity). When this takes place, Israel will ultimately become a nation comprised of believing Israelites, and will be saved from their sins at Christ’s return.

We can thus conclude that it was God’s plan all along that the majority of Israelites in Christ’s day remain in unbelief with regard to the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity. And not only this, but this state of affairs involving Israel is to continue until the future time referred to by Paul in Romans 11:15 and 25-27 (i.e., when the “taking back” of Israel occurs, and God removes the “callousness” that is currently on the nation). Until this future time comes, only a chosen remnant within Israel is being saved (Rom. 11:1-8). Thus, contrary to Boyd’s assertion, it is simply not true that God has been ”working in every human heart” to get as many people (including Israelites) as possible to believe the truth about Jesus or to ”accept the Gospel.”

The fact that it’s not God’s purpose that all (or even most) people believe the truth through which believers are saved does not, however, mean that God doesn’t want everyone to be saved. It simply means that God doesn’t want everyone to be saved at the same time, and in the same way. That God does will the salvation of all mankind is clear from what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 2:4. There, we read that God “wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth.”

The Greek verb translated “wills” in this verse is theló, and – in contrast with the word boulēn in Luke 7:30 – means to decide, intend or purpose something. In Romans 9:16 (cf. v. 22), the word was used by Paul to refer to man’s volitional activity:

“Consequently, then, it is not of him who is willing, nor of him who is racing, but of God, the Merciful.”

In verse 18, however, it refers to the volitional activity of God:

“Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening.”

Notice that, when God’s will is in view, Paul used the word to refer to something that will necessarily occur. In fact, every other time that Paul used this word in his letters to refer to God’s volitional activity, he had in mind something that, by virtue of being willed by God, would certainly take place, or had already taken place (1 Cor. 4:19; 12:18; 15:38; Col. 1:25-26). In no instance did Paul ever use this word to refer to something that God would like to occur (or that God “wishes” would occur), but which will not ultimately take place. The will of the Creator will ultimately prevail over the will of the creature; whatever God intends to happen will happen. As Paul’s imaginary objector correctly affirms in Rom. 9:19, no one can successfully resist God when it’s his intention that something occur.

God’s ability to save anyone whom he wills to save is completely unlimited. In accord with this fact, God is just as capable of saving people in the future as he is capable of saving people in the present. And since, according to what we read in 1 Timothy 2:4, God wills that all mankind be saved and come into a realization of the truth, we can conclude that all mankind shall be saved and come into a realization of the truth.

---

[1] How do you respond to John 6:44? - Greg Boyd - ReKnew

[2] See also part two of my study on the timing of the snatching away in relation to the 70^th “week” prophesied in Daniel 9 (The Timing of the Snatching Away in Relation to the 70th Week).