Part of this written dialogue is below:

At this point, I think it would be helpful to clarify where our approaches agree and disagree, so I will summarize from my perspective, and you can comment on anything you think I got wrong. This will be a long post, so I have broken it up. Here is the outline

1. WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?
   1. Summary: God showing up would not be enough. “Empiricism” alone will not tell you whether or not God exists.
2. WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?
   1. Summary: We agree that there is an all-powerful, all-creative, infinite non-contingent cause
3. WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THE CAUSE WAS PERSONAL?
   1. Summary: A personal non-contingent cause must also be relational for us to know him.
4. SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN ASSUMPTIONS
   1. Summary: Because we have flawed brains, we should not bring our assumptions into the question of God’s existence.
5. WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS
   1. Summary: God’s goal is not for us to believe, but instead to have a relationship with him through the Gospel.
6. GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS
   1. Summary: God has given us a means to test the veracity of his existence – the Bible. And this is the pivotal point where we disagree.
7. WHAT ARE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS FOR GOD FOR ME
   1. Summary: At the moment, atheist arguments are the strongest proof for me that God exists
8. YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS
   1. Summary: Blind skepticism will not accept evidence, but seeks a way to not have to deal with the evidence. Christian scholars because of the eternal consequences work hard to face the strongman arguments atheists have.
9. BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE
   1. Summary: The Christian God is the best explanation given the evidence that when all are added together approaches 100%.

WHAT IF QUETZALCOATL WROTE, “I AM GOD IN THE STARS”?

I appreciate your understanding that we cannot trust our brains alone. Although I do not hold to solipsism, where we agree is that our brains are severely flawed and that we are often faulty interpreters of the world around us. I think this is why you hold “empiricism” in such a high esteem. The scientific method is something outside of ourselves though not independent of the brain that helps to hold us accountable and helps to mitigate these flaws. Though not perfect it provides checks and balances and helps us to get a better foundation on what is true. Because of this we both believe that the scientific method is a reliable means of finding truth. But “empiricism” alone has its limits. You asked, “What if the stars read, ‘I am Quetzalcoatl, the flying serpent, creator of all’? would you accept this?” No, I would not. I have told you that I understand this skepticism that atheists have. My point in presenting this example of atheists saying that even if God showed up they would not believe was not to show that a certain amount of skepticism here is inappropriate, but that “empiricism” alone could not tell you the difference between whether or not this being was God or just a vastly superior being with greater technology or whether you have gone mad or not (although mass hallucinations like this don’t happen, so this really is not possible). The “Three Body Problem” fictional story even posits that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to alter our ability to do science. So, regardless of what “miracles” were performed or what great physical feats were presented “empiricism” will always allow for a means to not believe in God. Or in other words the “science in the gaps” will always allow for another possible explanation. If you have the perspective that as long as one can provide a “science in the gaps” argument, that that one should not believe in God, then “empiricism” will always lead to atheism. This kind of criterion is not an open-minded query, nor does it allow for the best explanation based on the data. We have both demonstrated this weakness of “empiricism”. Given this fact, it would be unwise to hold onto only “empiricism”, for it can only lead to one closed conclusion. It is clear that we need to look to more than “empiricism” to fully explore this question. In order to explore a question, one must allow for the full range of possibilities. I do believe that science provides evidence that is consistent with and points to the Christian God. But I would also argue that scholarly arguments outside of science but are well established and accepted lines of inquiry and evidence in academia provide sound evidence that the Christian God exists and give us a fuller picture of what that might mean and is a fuller explanation of the data we find, without having to appeal to an “in the gaps”.

WHAT DOES SCIENCE TELL US?

What can we know with science? I think it would be helpful to qualify what we both agree we can know through science about the creation or eternal existence of our universe. The more we learn about our universe, the more we discover that our universe has fine-tuning and design. Despite that this has been used to bolster the argument for God, an argument that has its beginnings long before we knew what we know today in science, but has grown stronger the more and more we do learn about science, because of the repeatable and measurable evidence for fine-tuning it is something that is generally agreed on within the scientific community, though the terminology may be different. This growing evidence for fine-tuning has forced atheists to address this issue and grapple with what it means. Saying fine-tuning exists doesn’t establish a cause and obviously the atheist and theist have come to different conclusions.  But both atheists and theists would agree that there must either be an eternal non-contingent cause or an eternal cyclical cause and effect. And this is where the atheists and theists look to try to explain fine-tuning. Another condition that must be met is that this non-contingent cause must be able to explain the probability that we see within the fine-tuning and design within our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. This gets into a more complicated argument than we have room for here, but all this is without calculating the probabilities needed for evolution to occur or for the information found within the universe, which from what we can tell most likely cannot be preloaded into the universe at the beginning and so would be outside of the physics and cosmological constants that existed at the beginning of the universe. Here is a summary of the probabilities that must be overcome:

• Must be able to explain fine-tuning at every step.
• Must be able to overcome the gambler’s fallacy.
• Must be able to explain the directive nature of evolution and information, which from what we can tell cannot be pre-loaded into the universe at the beginning.
• Must be able to explain the information found in our universe.
• Must be able to explain design or apparent design at every step.
• Must be able to explain either the beginning or eternal aspect of nature

But to put it simply there are a lot of odds to overcome that go beyond the beginning of our universe without falling into the gambler’s fallacy. But here we come to another point where both atheists and theists agree. In order to overcome this, the non-contingent cause must be all-powerful, capable of creating infinite universes, but not only infinite universes but be able to generate a full spectrum of universes in sufficient amounts to overcome the probabilities. This can be done by either having a full spectrum infinite multi-universe generator or using a process that weeds out all other possibilities but our own before creating our universe. Currently with what we know the first option could be both impersonal or personal. The second option is most likely personal. But let’s pause on where we do agree for a moment. We both agree that our universe was created by an invisible, eternal, all-powerful force. Interestingly, this conclusion reminds me of a quote from the agnostic Robert Jastrow, “He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. God and the Astronomers” (1978), p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition). What we can agree on and what we know to be true reminds me of the verse that says, “By faith we understand that the world has been created by the word of God so that what is seen has not been made out of things that are visible” (Hebrews 11:3). Neither the atheists nor theologians have specific 100% proof within science for their positions here. We just don’t know enough about science yet. But despite not having 100% proof both the scientist and the theologian believe or have faith that something eternal, all-powerful, and invisible created our universe. We agree that our universe “has not been made out things that are visible”. And we both believe that our universe was made out of something eternal and infinite. Science shows us that there is an all-powerful, eternal, invisible cause to our universe, but we still have to ask ourselves whether or not there is a personal cause behind this. Atheists believe that evidence will come to show that a self-existing multi-universe generator is possible. A directive force or a specific beginning is not something that atheists at this time support. Theists are open to either a self-existing multi-universe generator or a directive force behind our universe. I do think there are good arguments that show that science does point to God and has stronger explanatory power than that the atheist’s position, but I feel that I am not yet equipped to argue these points yet. I am still in the middle of my research, so I would rather leave the argument here, where I feel like we both have agreement. Regardless, the question remains whether or not the initial non-contingent cause of our universe is impersonal or personal. We cannot prove a non-personal or a non-relational personal cause, but if the cause is not only personal, but is also relational, we would suspect that this non-contingent cause could be found and known. But then we must ask how would this personal and relational non-contingent cause reveal himself?

WHAT WOULD WE EXPECT IF THERE IS A PERSONAL GOD?

If the non-contingent cause is personal, we would only know this if that non-contingent cause chose to reveal himself. An all-powerful being could make a universe purely using science. Therefore, for us to know God, one of the things we could expect is that this God is both personal and relational. If this personal non-contingent cause were not relational, it would also probably be a moot point, since neither the atheist nor theist could have a relationship with this kind of god. So, I would argue that if there is a God, for us to have a relationship with this god, it would be important that this god be relational. And if the cause of the universe is relational, we have to ask ourselves, how would we come to know this creator? Afterall, we have both concluded that if God showed up “empiricism” would invalidate such an attempt. Though showing up would be a means of revealing himself, we would want more, since we are dealing with our flawed brains. So how would we come to know God given our flawed brains?

SHOULD WE BRING OUR OWN PRESUMPTIONS?

One certain way to not know this God is to trust our flawed brains. Since a non-contingent cause is powerful enough to create a universe that is so far beyond us, that we are just getting started in exploring its depths, we cannot assume we can fully understand this God on our own power with our flawed brains. We would need this God to condescend and reveal to us who he is. One of the flaws of the atheist is that they bring in their own presumptions to this question. They trust their flawed brains and determine for themselves what this God ought to be like. You will often here questions phrased in the format of

1. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving etc., then he would . . . (fill in the blank)
2. Since God has not done . . . (fill in the blank), God does not exist.

Some examples are (fill in the blank) God would . . .:

• not be hidden.
• God would be clear in his revelation of himself
• would reveal himself in such and such a way.
• want me to believe.
• find a way to get me to believe.
• Prove himself 100% through empirical means.
• provide one definitive argument for God.
• not allow . . .
• not allow for suffering or evil
• not have done this.
• has not made the church I believe he said he would.
• have perfect church without disagreements on theology.
• conform to my interpretation of scripture.
• fit my expectations of what a god ought to be.
• Etc.

Like “empiricism” this approach presumes or forces a conclusion rather than performing an objective and open query. God must meet these made-up arbitrary requirements in order to exist. This is a deeply troubling approach for a group that states that they have a scientific approach and who state that we cannot trust our brains because they are flawed. These presumptions are flawed because they start with what our flawed brains assume God would be like. In my communication on the topic of the hiddenness of God I demonstrated that these presumptions are flawed and cannot stand up to scrutiny (for more go here). A scientific approach would not presume that we could bring our presumptions into this query. An all-powerful, all-creative, infinite relational being is not a “one-dimensional” being that we can presume to understand either what he is like or how this being would reveal himself. We are having enough difficulty understanding the physical universe or relationships in our lives. These are flawed arguments from flawed brains. As in science we can’t start with pre-conceived criteria or have an unmovable conclusion and expect to get anywhere. Because we have such flawed brains in order to know God, we would need something outside ourselves which like the scientific method would allow for accountability, evaluation, and testing.

WE CANNOT ASSUME GOD’S GOAL IS FOR US TO BELIEVE HE EXISTS

We will get back to the question on how God has revealed himself, but first we need to address one of the errors atheists make first. They assume the goal God has for humanity is for them to believe that he exists. Or that there ought to be some definitive absolute evidence they can look to. This is a fallacious assumption. Atheists argue that God would know how to prove that he exists, with no effort. I agree, but that is not his goal. Atheists also argue that the Bible ought to be clearer. Again, you assume God’s purpose is to be clear. It is not. His goal is not for us to believe he exists or for the church to have perfect doctrine. His goal is to bring a people into relationship with himself through the power of the gospel. In our dialogue earlier on the “hiddenness of God”, I demonstrated that these assumptions atheists make would not be the goal of a perfectly loving God. I won’t go into it and rehash those arguments here. You can reread what I sent you (or go here). But for God to be both perfectly loving to those who come to him and to those who reject him, he must be “hidden”. And this fact in itself, his “hiddenness”, is evidence for God’s existence, for only a perfectly loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God could accomplish this.

 GOD IS RELATIONAL AND SPEAKS

If God is relational, we can assume he would reveal himself. And I would argue he has in many sundry ways, some of which includes science, logic, philosophy, beauty, and personal experience. And for many this revelation is so extraordinary that it is enough for them to believe. But though he has revealed himself in these ways, these things alone can only tell us so much. For us to know God in a relational way, God must reveal himself in a relational way and in a way that does not violate his “hiddenness” which protects us. We intuitively know this in our own relationships with others. “Empiricism” is not relational. Even though we would not expect science to be inconsistent with God, if God were to reveal himself, certainly it would not be through “empiricism”, for as shown earlier “empiricism” would not be an effective means. We have both agreed that just showing up and even writing in the stars would not work. But we have also agreed that because of our flawed brains, we would want something outside of ourselves, something that can be evaluated, scrutinized, and tested. I have talked with my children on how personal experiences or hearing a “voice from heaven” would not be a valid means in of itself for God to reveal himself, since it is limited in the ways it could be evaluated or tested. People are flawed. There are conditions where people here voices that are not real. Many have “heard god”, only for it to be clear that they had not, whether from madness, selfishness manipulation, or from other voices. And our feelings and experiences as well can skew our thinking. And from these experiences there are many religions in the world. How do we know which one is true?

We must be careful not to take this too far and on the other side to say things like science and experience are not useful in coming to know God. Like science, experiences can point us to God, and we would expect these things to be consistent with God, but also like science because of our flawed brains we would need to be cautious. For example, the fine-tuning, design, and information arguments are extremely powerful arguments for God that have only grown stronger the more we have learned about science. But I think for the both of us, we would like to something more, we want something that takes into account our flawed brains, something that is subject to scrutiny and rigorous analysis and evaluation, after all how would we distinguish it from all the other religions as the true religion. Thankfully, God does not intend for us to rely on our flawed brains. The most powerful means by which God has revealed himself to us is through the Bible. The Bible is something that can be scrutinized, evaluated, and tested to see if its claims hold up and are true. It can be evaluated against other religions. It can be evaluated against science, logic, philosophy, and academia. It is something that can be evaluated outside our flawed brains. The reason I would not believe in Quetzalcoatl in the scenario above is because there is no such evidence. If Jesus showed up on the other hand I would already have enough vast and extraordinary evidence to believe.

And here is the pivotal point where we disagree. You do not believe that the Bible holds up to scrutiny. I believe it does. You don’t believe that the Bible conforms with the world you see around you, with science, or even is consistent with itself. I on the other hand do believe that the Bible is consistent with the world I see around me, with science, and is consistent with itself.

WHAT IS MY STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR GOD – ATHIEST ARGUMENTS

You asked me what my strongest argument for God is. For me it is the integrity of the Bible. A follow up question might be what for me is the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible. At this moment, for me, the strongest argument for the integrity of the Bible are atheist arguments. I have mentioned to you before that I believe in putting the strong men in the ring and letting them fight to the death. Atheist arguments rather than doing this stick a strawman in the ring and fight against that. Within this group though I have not read everything posted, from what I have read, I have not seen one argument that actually attacks the Christian faith or the Bible. We have both determined that the brain is flawed and is often not a reliable interpreter of the data. There are both atheists and theists who believe in a “flat earth” and they claim to have science to back them up. You will say that they are not using science correctly. Bingo! This is my point. When atheists make claims against the veracity of the Bible, they fail to use the Bible correctly, just as flat earthers fail to use science correctly. This is why when coming to the scriptures we must rely on proper hermeneutics and rigorous scholarship and an open mind. It is clear when atheists talk about the Bible, they have no clue what they are talking about, nor does it seem that they are willing to do the arduous work to understand. You state that there are 1000s of inconsistencies in the Bible. Let’s be honest, we both know that there are only a handful worth talking about, and of those none of them touch doctrine or faith. What I have found in atheists’ arguments is a very narrow understanding of the Christian faith and a lack of engagement with the robust scholarship within Christian community to the point where most of the arguments I have come across can only be described as slander. Sure, perusing the internet or social media you will find poor Christian answers, but I am talking about the well-studied, professionally researched, scholastic work that has been done. The stuff that requires more than a casual engagement and requires years and years of challenging work. When I sent you a link to videos, you said there were a lot. The reality is you will probably not do the hard work. And I understand the challenge and the difficulty of what I ask, you are a busy person. And what I sent was basic stuff, it would only begin to touch the work done to answer atheists’ questions. But this is the type of scholastic work that atheists fail to address against the Christian faith, because they don’t have the inclination to do this kind of work. Because you have not done the work, you have not been able to present a legitimate argument against the Bible or the Christian faith.

And this is why I believe the Bible; it has been tested. It has been tested by the harshest critics, the strongest strongmen atheists have to offer, and it has stood up to that test. You have not been able to provide not even one valid argument against the Christian faith but insist on believing that you do have a good argument. On the other hand, Atheist arguments have consistently demonstrated errors in logic and scholarship. Here are a few.

Places where Atheists violate proper literary textual analysis

• Authorial intent errors
• Cultural
• Wooden literalism
• Assumption of presentism
• Genre Fallacy
• Contextual analysis error
• Etymology error
• Synchronic meaning error
• Syntactic Fallacy
• Symantec range Fallacy
• Argument of Silence Fallacy
• Description is not prescription
• Assume a different definition
• Assume a static scene
• False dilemma
• Fallacy of false equivocation
• Elephant hurling
• Species fallacy
• Sweeping generalization fallacy
• Subset fallacy
• Genetic Fallacy

YOU MUST PROVE GOD EXISTS

You will say, “Well it is on you to prove to me that God exists. I have a lack of belief, It should not be hard to prove your case”. Have you ever tried to reason with someone who believes in a “flat earth”? The reason people believe in the “flat earth” is not because they are stupid. The problem is actually the opposite. The problem is that our flawed brains are quite intelligent and able to come up with arguments to support what we believe. Despite the evidence you give “flat earthers”, and despite the fact that it is common sense evidence, they are smart enough are able to come up with an answer to why that evidence is irrelevant, without having to actually address the evidence itself. And this is often how blind skepticism works. Most of the arguments you have given me are reasons why you don’t have to evaluate the evidence. If skepticism is your foundation, evidence becomes a lot less relevant in the discussion. Whatever evidence is produced, blind skepticism can explain it away or ignore it, without facing and addressing the actual arguments or evidence.

You might ask, “How do I know that I have not done the same with my arguments for God?” Because I and other Christian scholars work hard to try to understand the depths of atheists’ arguments and represent them fairly. If I have misunderstood one of your arguments, I want to know. Remember we have stronger eternal motives in wanting to convince atheists to believe in God. We cannot do this well if we don’t understand what atheists believe and actually address the questions they are having. Good Christian scholars work hard to put the strongest man for the atheists in the ring. Not only do they try to fully address atheist strong man arguments, but they also try to make atheist arguments even stronger. Christian scholars work hard to allow atheists to put the strong man into the ring. I don’t see the same rigor among atheists. Again, I have not seen one post in this group that actually attacks the Christian faith. After seeing the Bible time and time again put these strongman arguments to death, you start to develop a trust in its veracity. When time and time again you see atheists putting strawman and fallacious reasoning into the ring, the less and less you feel like you can take their arguments seriously. I believe the Bible because there are objective means outside my brain that allow me to test its veracity. Christianity is probably the most scrutinized religion and the Bible the most scrutinized book. Both have held against that scrutiny. And I am not talking about the fact that Christianity still exists. I am talking about the fact that Christianity actually addresses strong man arguments put up against it. Take our conversations, I have been able to demonstrate several points of fallacious reasoning within your arguments. I don’t think my arguments are perfect either, but you have not been able to do the same with my arguments.

BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE EVIDENCE

Why do I believe in God. I believe in God because given the evidence in the science, in philosophy, in psychology, in history, in art, the presence of evil, morality, ethics, personal experience and the experience of others, and in the Bible, the Christian God has the fullest and best explanatory power for what I see in this world. I can’t give you one definitive proof that God exists, but all these things put together the probability that God exists approaches 100%.

How would I convince you that there is a God? I don’t know. I am not naive, just as “flat earthers” have their answers to evidence presented to them, so too atheists have their answers. The reality is I am not going to be able to provide you a one fits all definitive argument to suddenly convince you that God exists. This is not how our flawed brains work. This is not how you would convince a “flat earther” even though we both know that the evidence for the globe is overwhelming and is absolutely right. I think these things just happen over time as we dialogue.  But I suppose this is not surprising if God cares more about relationship than belief.

The Word and the Spirit conquers

Regardless of the myriads of eschatological positions and arguments that are out there, there are things we can know with certainty. We can know that his covenant love for his people will not fail. We can know that Christ is our conquering King, and he will put all his enemies under his feet. We also know that whether spiritually or corporally the means by which Jesus conquers his enemies is by the Word of God.

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (ESV) (Revelation 19:11-16, ESV, bold added)

In this passage whether symbolic or not, it is only the Word of God that conquers and destroys the enemies of God, although we are brought alongside Jesus as he accomplishes this. The sword in Revelation and in other scriptures are associated with the words of Jesus.

The Word of God conquers through the Gospel

When Jesus spoke of the end times, he said, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14, ESV). When speaking with Pilate,

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” (John 18:36–37, ESV)

And how did Jesus say this Kingdom would conquer. On his ascension, Jesus spoke to those around him and said,

 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Paul in Romans 10, states that it is through the proclamation of the Gospel, that the word of Christ is heard, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (vs 7). What Paul is saying here is not that they are hearing us speak the Gospel, but they are hearing Christ, himself, as we proclaim the Gospel. As we proclaim the Gospel the sword of the Lord goes out to conquer his enemies, and thankfully the hearts of those who have come to trust in Jesus and call upon the name of the LORD. It is through the proclamation of the Gospel that the Kingdom of God conquers the kingdoms of this world and Jesus puts his enemies under his feet.

The first proclamation of the church

Though we might find apprehension in speaking about apocalyptic scriptures, this was not the case with Peter. Peter understood the power of the Gospel both to save and put its enemies under its feet. And so, as he stepped out and preach the first message of the church. he knew the world would not be the same. And because of this, he begins his sermon by quoting of all things apocalyptic scriptures. Is it not interesting, with all the hubbub and confusion we have over these writings today, that the first words spoken in proclamation by the church were apocalyptic scriptures? And they were spoken with surety.

“‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares,

              that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,

and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,

                             and your young men shall see visions,

                             and your old men shall dream dreams;

even on my male servants and female servants

                             in those days I will pour out my Spirit,

and they shall prophesy.

And I will show wonders in the heavens above

                             and signs on the earth below,

                             blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;

        the sun shall be turned to darkness

                             and the moon to blood,

                             before the day of the Lord comes,

the great and magnificent day.

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

(Acts 2:17–21, ESV)

Peter was bold, announcing that these scriptures were being fulfilled in the midst of them both in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and in the proclamation of the Gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit, who had been poured out on them in the wind and fire. For it had been so from after the fall when the sound of the LORD came in the spirit of the day, that it is through the power of the Word of God and the Spirit of the Lord that God both reveals himself and invades this world to conquer it. Peter understood, that as the Gospel is spoken to the world, just as the fire consumed the enemies of God in Revelation 20, the fire of the Holy Spirit conquers our own hearts and as the Gospel is preached the world is turned upside down.

Total Destruction of God’s enemies

When an army came in devastating force to utterly destroy a city, they would raise it and set it on fire. The dense smoke would fill the air billowing as a scroll being rolled up. As it spread the dense darkness would come over the land darkening the sun, the darkness being penetrated by falling ash with the appearance of falling stars. In the filter of this smoke the moon would appear blood red. This imagery made an indelible mark on the culture of the Biblical world. When the Bible uses this imagery within eschatology, it is speaking whether literally or symbolically of the total destruction of the kingdom of this world. The Gospel has not come to play nice with the kingdom of this world. The Gospel seeks out the utter destruction of the kingdom of this world. Peter in his proclamation of the Gospel was declaring no quarter no hope for those who continued to reject the message and hold on to the kingdom of this world. Paul does the same,

But thanks be to God, who in Christ always leads us in triumphal procession, and through us spreads the fragrance of the knowledge of him everywhere. For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? For we are not, like so many, peddlers of God’s word, but as men of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God we speak in Christ. (2 Corinthians 2:14–17, ESV)

The Gospel message both brings forth the Kingdom of God in the hearts of those who hear and obey the Gospel, but also tramples under the feet of Jesus those who refuse to hear the gracious call and insist on holding to their own kingdom.

Enemies under His feet

In a letter to Hiram king of Tyre, Solomon describes the transition of the kingdom of Israel from David to Solomon and the building of the house for the name of the LORD.

“You know that David my father could not build a house for the name of the LORD his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side. There is neither adversary nor misfortune. And so I intend to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD said to David my father, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, shall build the house for my name.’ (1 Kings 5:3–5, ESV)

Paul gives a similar description of Jesus,

[22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. [24] Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. [25] For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. [26] The last enemy to be destroyed is death. [27] For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. [28] When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:22–28, ESV, see also Hebrews 2:5–18)

Before the consummation of the Kingdom of God, Jesus who sits on the throne of David as our human representative (see more on this here) must put all his enemies under his feet. But also, as Peter says the purpose is also to bring the people of God into the Kingdom for “the Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9, ESV). Isaiah echoes this sentiment, “Therefore the LORD waits to be gracious to you, and therefore he exalts himself to show mercy to you. For the LORD is a God of justice; blessed are all those who wait for him.”

Two kingdoms

              When Jesus told to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world,” he was making clear that we are currently in a time of two worlds or two kingdoms and that the Kingdom of God would conquer as Christ speaks and bears witness to the truth. We spoke of how Paul in Romans 10 talks about how when we proclaim the Gospel it is Christ himself speaking. Luke confirms this. He starts of in Acts saying, “In my first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach . . . (Acts 1:1, ESV). In other words, the works of Christ are still active in our world both in Acts and in our world today.  When Peter stood before the crowd during the first proclamation of the church, he predicated all that he said on this fact, “The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Acts 2:34, ESV) This comes from Psalm 110:1 which is the most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament. Peter and the apostles had a boldness to proclaim the Gospel because they understood that Jesus sat on the right hand of God on the throne of David as the rightful king of God’s people. Christ is ruling over his Kingdom here and now and is turning the kingdom of this world upside down through the proclamation of the Gospel. So yes, we live in a world where there are two kingdoms that are at war with each other. God is both building his Kingdom and calling a people to himself and treading underfoot the kingdom of this world through the Word of God. And despite appearances at times, the war is not one sided, Jesus is both bringing people to himself through his word and through his word putting his enemies under his feet. Jesus only suffers his enemies long enough to bring us into his Kingdom.

What is the practical application?

There was a bible study on the end times, and when I heard of one approach they were going to take, I asked the person leading if it in if I could come in one of the days and present the alternative view and he agreed. As I was preparing for this study, God humbled me and completely changed my plans. He pointed me to those who were faithful when Jesus came to earth the first time as a baby and contrasted them with the leaders at this time. When the magi were brought before Herod, Herod “was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him; and assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea, for so it is written by the prophet: “’And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel’”’” (Matthew 2:3-5). The chief priests and scribes understood what scripture had to say on this topic and got it right! They understood the prophesy but missed the coming of their Messiah all the same. But there were two, who did not miss his coming, an old man named Simeon, and an old woman named Anna, who were described as faithful and waiting for the redemption and consolation of God’s people.

When Jesus spoke of the end times, he didn’t ask his disciples to have it all figured out, he called them to be faithful, to stand, to watch, to pray, and proclaim the gospel. In doing this we are the good and faithful servant, with whom Jesus will not be ashamed to call his own. Knowing the exact details of the end times will not get you closer to the Kingdom of God. Being a faithful servant with the treasure of the Gospel will. We must remember that the power of the Kingdom of God comes from the Word of God alone and the Word of God enters our world and the world around us through the proclamation of the Gospel. So, if we want to know what to do in this interim of two ages before the consummation, it is to be faithful to this and enter the work that Jesus is doing now in this world as our rightful king. And so, as we wait for Jesus’ coming, come close to Jesus, behold him, and walk with Jesus as he speaks to the world (for he is with us to the end of the age) through the proclamation of the Gospel.

 “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18–20, ESV)

Our king has told us what to do till the end of the age, so we don’t have to wonder. And more than that he has promised to be with us.

Does this mean we can’t talk about eschatology? As controversial as it is, it is when we can talk about our differences amiably that the love of Christ is shown. If we only talked as a church with those who agree with us, well even the pagans can do that. As we love each other in hardy disagreements the love of Christ is demonstrated to the world. But it is the solid commitment to the understanding that the Word of God alone conquers in the Gospel that can give us this stability to love one another, for this grand story is so bold and bright that all the different ideas on eschatology pale in comparison.

It is in our testimony that we conquer the devil, “And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death” (Revelation 12:11, ESV).

Finally, I will leave you with this, . . . in the Word of God, we will not be shaken. We are a part of a grand story of the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

[18] For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest [19] and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. [20] For they could not endure the order that was given, “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” [21] Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” [22] But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, [23] and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, [24] and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

[25] See that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less will we escape if we reject him who warns from heaven. [26] At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” [27] This phrase, “Yet once more,” indicates the removal of things that are shaken—that is, things that have been made—in order that the things that cannot be shaken may remain. [28] Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, [29] for our God is a consuming fire. (Hebrews 12:18–29, ESV)