Jesus Will Return Once, Not Twice

 Around the world today there are millions of Christians who agree with what is known as dispensational theology.

This way of thinking differs in a number of important respects from traditional Christian beliefs, including in ideas about what will happen in the future.

The usual dispensational understanding of Jesus’s return

According to usual dispensational thinking about the end times, the following sequence of events is supposed to happen as regards Jesus returning from heaven to the earth:

First, Jesus will return without warning from heaven to the air above the earth, without setting foot on the earth itself. At that time, all Christians then on earth (according to some) or most Christians then on earth (according to others) will be caught up into the air to meet Him in the so-called ‘rapture’. Then He and the Christians who have been caught up will go immediately to heaven.

Next, there will be a time of severe suffering on earth, which is known as ‘the tribulation’. This will last for seven years, during which many people on earth will come to faith in Christ.

Then, after the seven years are completed, Jesus will return from heaven to the earth again and this time set foot on it.

So in usual dispensational thinking, Jesus will actually return from heaven to earth twice, once coming as far as the air above the earth, and once actually setting foot on the earth.

It is true that there is a small minority of dispensationalists who believe that Jesus will return only once. But a large majority of them are expecting Him to return twice, and it is this group that I will be thinking about in what follows when I use the label ‘dispensationalists’.

Lack of evidence that anyone believed this before the 1830s

In many parts of the world today, this pattern of supposed future events is so well known that many believers seem to think that this is what faithful Christians have believed during most of the last 2000 years.

Actually, this could hardly be further from the truth. I don’t think there is any evidence that anyone believed this before the 1830s. And this is despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of Christian literature that exists from the late first century up until that time.

This idea of the church being raptured up and in this way escaping the tribulation seems to have come from a dream that a girl had in the 1830s. Somehow, a man called John Nelson Darby became convinced that this was true and then had great success in persuading others. And the rest is history.

The apostle Paul’s use of certain words

Like the vast majority of Christians down through the centuries, I am convinced that Jesus will return from heaven to earth once, not twice. The Christians on earth at that time will indeed be caught up to meet Him in the air (1 Thess 4:17), but then He and they will descend immediately onto the earth itself. And this will be the one and only time that He returns.

There are many lines of biblical evidence to support the idea of a single return. Here I would like to focus on just one of them, which is  the wording the apostle Paul uses to refer to Jesus returning.

In the New Testament Paul uses three different Greek words in connection with Christ returning:

First, the word ‘parousia’ means ‘coming’ or ‘presence’.

Second, ‘apokalupsis’ means ‘revelation’ or ‘unveiling’.

And third, ‘epiphaneia’ means ‘appearance’ or ‘manifestation’.

Importantly, Paul uses each of these words in passages that dispensationalists believe refer to Jesus’s first return and in passages that they believe refer to His second return. And when he uses these words in these passages, he never says whether he is talking about Jesus’s first or second return.

I would suggest that if Paul thought that Jesus would return twice, we wouldn’t expect him to have used the same words to refer to each return, while at the same time never taking the trouble to explain which return he had in mind. That would be too unclear and confusing for his readers.

Or to put it another way, because it makes little sense to think that Paul has been unclear and confusing, especially when we bear in mind that this is inspired Scripture, it is reasonable to conclude that he hasn’t been unclear and confusing and that he believed that Jesus will return only once.

So as not to let this article become too long, I will concentrate on how Paul uses just one of these words, ‘parousia’, in connection with Christ returning. And I will limit my references to Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians.

It is worth noting, however, that if I were to look at all three words and at all the New Testament books, the same conclusion would be reached.

Parousia in 1 Thessalonians

Let’s start with 1 Thessalonians.

Firstly, in 1 Thess 2:19 Paul writes:

‘For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming [Greek: at the parousia of him]?’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists typically think this refers to the first return of Jesus.

Then in 1 Thess 3:13 Paul writes:

‘…so that he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists think this refers to Christ’s second return.

Then in 1 Thess 4:15 Paul says:

‘For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming [parousia] of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists believe that this refers to Jesus’s first return.

Finally, in 1 Thess 5:23 Paul writes:

‘Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists generally think this refers to Christ’s first return.

Note that each of these verses refers to the coming/parousia of Christ rather than to a coming/parousia, which more naturally suggests one rather than two returns. And note too that there is not the slightest hint in any context that there will be more than one return.

Furthermore, because each of these verses is in the same letter, this means that these verses were designed, by Paul and of course also by God, to be read by readers while the preceding verses are still fresh in their minds. This makes it all the more unnatural for readers to switch back and forth between understanding Paul to be talking about a first and a second return of Christ.

In short, it seems more than a little strange for Paul to have written in this way if he expected Jesus to return twice. We would expect him to have explained himself more clearly.

Parousia in 2 Thessalonians

The same point can be made, but even more strongly, about 2 Thessalonians.

First, in 2 Thess 2:1 Paul writes:

‘Now concerning the coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him…’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists typically think this refers to the first return of Jesus.

Then in 2 Thess 2:8 Paul says:

‘And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming [parousia].’ (ESV)

Dispensationalists believe this refers to Jesus’s second return.

Importantly, these two uses of ‘parousia’, used to refer to Jesus returning, are found not just in the same letter but in the same passage, and without the slightest suggestion in the context that two different returns are in view.

It is very difficult to think that Paul expected his readers to understand him to be talking about two different returns. If that were the case, I think we would have to say that Paul has written very clumsily.

Instead, the far easier solution is to say that Paul hasn’t written clumsily and that he believed that Jesus will return from heaven to earth only once.

Summing up

A look at how Paul has used the word ‘parousia’ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians in connection with Christ returning from heaven to earth suggests that there will be one, not two, returns. And the rest of the Bible also points us in the same direction.

The idea that Jesus will return twice is a late development that doesn’t fit Scripture or historical Christian beliefs, and it should be abandoned.

 

See also:

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally

Beware of Interpreting Bible Prophecies Too Literally

Is the Church Spiritual Israel?

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple?

Does Isaiah 65 Really Refer to a Millennial Kingdom?

The 20th chapter of the book of Revelation is the focal point of a lot of debate among Christians. This chapter refers to a period of a thousand years (Rev 20:2-7) that is usually called ‘the millennium’.

Interpreters of Rev 20 divide into groups that are commonly known as premillennialists, postmillennialists and amillennialists.

Premillennialists believe that the millennium is a period of time that will occur after Christ returns to earth. They often refer to this period as the ‘millennial kingdom’. According to them, the new earth, referred to in Isa 65:17, 2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1, will not be created until after the millennial kingdom has ended.

Postmillennialists believe that the millennium will be a golden age of obedience to God on earth that will take place at some point before Christ returns. They believe that the new earth will be created almost immediately after Christ returns.

Most amillennialists believe that the millennium is symbolic of the whole era between the Day of Pentecost referred to in Acts 2 and the return of Christ. A small number of amillennialists believe instead that the millennium does not refer to any actual period of time on earth. Like postmillennialists, amillennialists also believe that the new earth will be created almost immediately after Christ returns.

I am firmly in the amillennial camp.

An argument used to support premillennialism

There are a huge number of biblical passages that are claimed as support for each position, and in this article I don’t intend to discuss this topic in any great depth, which would take tens of thousands of words at a bare minimum.

Instead, I want to limit my discussion to one argument that is commonly used by premillennialists as a proof text for their view. I am convinced that this argument doesn’t work, and I want to explain why.

The argument appeals to Isaiah 65:17-25, which reads as follows:

‘17 “For behold, I create new heavens
and a new earth,
and the former things shall not be remembered
or come into mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in that which I create;
for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy,
and her people to be a gladness.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem
and be glad in my people;
no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping
and the cry of distress.
20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.

23 They shall not labor in vain
or bear children for calamity,
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the LORD,
and their descendants with them.
24 Before they call I will answer;
while they are yet speaking I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall graze together;
the lion shall eat straw like the ox,
and dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt or destroy
in all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.’ (ESV)

The argument used by premillennialists goes along the following lines:

In this passage, Isaiah prophesies about a situation that doesn’t apply to the present state of affairs on earth and that can’t apply to the perfect state of affairs on the new earth.

For example, in v. 20 he says that a time is coming when people will not die in infancy and when those who die at 100 years old will be thought to have died young.

This can’t be referring to the world as we know it, because now and throughout known human history people have died in infancy. And it can’t be referring to the new earth, because there will be no human death there. Therefore, Isaiah must be prophesying about the millennial kingdom.

There are also other verses in this passage that premillennialists appeal to to make the same basic point, such as v. 23 and v. 25.

Responding to this argument

At first sight, this might look like a strong argument, but actually it isn’t, for a couple of reasons:

(1) We can see that this passage begins in v. 17 with a statement by God that he will create new heavens and a new earth.

It is not easy to take ‘a new earth’ loosely as a reference to the present earth upgraded in some way (as the earth would be in a supposed millennial kingdom), because of the reference to ‘new heavens’. If the new heavens really are new heavens, as they surely are, then it makes sense to think that ‘new earth’ really is referring to the new earth mentioned in 2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1.

Importantly too, verses 18-25 seem most naturally to be a description of what will happen on the new earth. To say that v. 17 is referring to the new earth but that the focus changes immediately in v. 18 to what will go on in the millennial kingdom before the new earth has even been created looks awkward, to say the least.

(2) The book of Revelation actually contains some remarkable similarities to what we find in Isa 65:17-25.

In Rev 21:1 John says:

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

Then in Rev 21:2-22:5 John uses highly symbolic language to talk at length about what things will be like on the new earth.

There is one section of this passage that is very relevant for our topic in this article, and that is Rev 22:1-2, where we read:

‘1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ (ESV)

Note the last sentence: ‘The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.’ The ESV translates with the past tense ‘were’ because this is what John saw in the past in his vision, but the sentence refers to what will happen in the future after the new earth is created.

Christians are agreed that when we are on the new earth, there will be no suffering of any kind. Everything will be perfect. There will be no illnesses that need literal healing, and there will be no other problems that need any sort of metaphorical healing.

So what is Rev 22:2 talking about when it says that on the new earth the leaves of the tree will be for the healing of the nations?

The answer is that there is a form of artistic licence going on here that involves talking about the future earth in terms drawn from positive things that take place on our present earth. Here on our earth, using leaves medicinally is a positive thing, so the new earth is described as if this positive thing will also happen on it, even though actually that won’t be the case.

I don’t pretend to know why the Holy Spirit inspired the text in this way. But it can hardly be denied that this is what he has done. Rev 22:2 is clearly referring to healing that will happen on the new earth, yet there will certainly be nothing to heal at that time. So there has to be artistic licence in play.

Turning back now to Isa 65:17-25, I would suggest that the same sort of artistic licence is also being used in this passage. The whole passage is referring to life on the new earth, and in some of the verses, such as v. 20, the new earth is described in terms that are drawn from positive things on our present earth. On our earth, long life and the avoidance of infant death are viewed as positive things when they occur, so the new earth is described in these terms, even though the new earth will not literally be like that.

We have no choice but to say that this sort of artistic licence has led to what we read in Rev 22, so why can’t we say that the same has happened in Isa 65?

Taking passages too literally

When premillennialists cite Isa 65:17-25 as a proof text that there will be a millennial kingdom, they tend to simply assume that the prophecy in this passage is supposed to be interpreted literally.

It is certainly true that most of the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally. But it is just as true that Scripture contains all sorts of figures of speech. Modern Western readers of the Bible often fail to realise this, and end up trying to force literal interpretations out of passages that were never intended to be read in that way.

Summing up

Despite the claims of many premillennialists that Isa 65:17-25 proves that it is God’s purpose for there to be a millennial kingdom at some point in the future, this passage doesn’t actually show this at all.

Rev 22:2 clearly uses artistic licence to describe the future, new earth in terms drawn from our present earth. So it is very easy to say that the same sort of artistic licence is in operation in Isa 65:17-25 too. And if we accept that Isa 65:18-25 is talking about the new earth, this allows us to keep a continuity of theme between v. 17, which explicitly mentions the new earth, and verses 18-25.

 

See also:

Beware of Taking Biblical End-Times Prophecies Too Literally

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally

Beware of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple?

Could Jesus Return at Any Moment?

The Bible teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ will return to earth, as many passages make clear. For example, in Acts 1:11 we read that on the day Jesus ascended to heaven, some angels told the 11 remaining apostles:

‘Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.’ (ESV)

So Jesus will come back. But when will this take place? Could he return at any moment, or are there things that still have to happen first?

Things still have to happen before Jesus returns

A good place to start on this topic is in the second chapter of Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians. It is worth setting out the first three verses of the chapter in full:

‘1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction . . .’ (ESV)

Verse 1 is clear that Paul is talking about the return of Jesus, and in v. 3 Paul says that his return will not happen until ‘the rebellion’ occurs and ‘the man of lawlessness is revealed’.

Importantly, there is no good reason for thinking that these things have happened yet. The rebellion, which must be some sort of specific rebellion against God, has apparently not yet taken place. And the man of lawlessness, sometimes referred to as ‘the antichrist’, is apparently a literal man who has still to appear on the scene and do his evil thing. (These events are spelled out in a bit more detail in the following verses.)

In seeking to answer the question we are asking in this article, therefore, this means that we can rule out the solution which says that Jesus could return at any moment and that things are as simple as that. The vast majority of Bible-believing Christians agree with this conclusion.

Passages which might seem to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment

What makes this issue a bit more complicated is that there are biblical passages which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment.

Matthew 24:37-44 provides a good example of this, and, again, it is worth setting out the passage in full:

‘37 As the days of Noah were, so the coming of the Son of Man will be. 38 For in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah boarded the ark. 39 They didn’t know until the flood came and swept them all away. This is the way the coming of the Son of Man will be. 40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding grain with a hand mill; one will be taken and one left. 42 Therefore be alert, since you don’t know what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this: If the homeowner had known what time the thief was coming, he would have stayed alert and not let his house be broken into. 44 This is why you are also to be ready, because the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.’ (CSB)

This passage tells us repeatedly that Jesus will return. And in verses 42 and 44 the disciples are told that they need to be alert and ready for this.

At first sight, the instructions here to be alert and ready for Jesus’ return seem to suggest that he could return at any moment. So at first glance, this seems to contradict passages like 2 Thess 2:1-3 that we looked at above.

We have a bit of work to do, then, figuring out what is going on with all this, because obviously the Bible isn’t going to contradict itself on this issue.

The dispensationalist solution

Christians who accept what is known as dispensational theology have come up with a novel solution to this conundrum, which is to say that Jesus will return twice – once to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth itself. They say that Jesus could return at any moment to the air above the earth, at which time the church will be caught up to meet him in the air (1 Thess 4:14-17), and then 7 years later he will return again and actually set foot on the earth.

In dispensational thinking, passages like Matt 24:37-44 and 1 Thess 4:14-17 are referring to Jesus’ first return, to the air above the earth, and passages like 2 Thess 2:1-3 are referring to his second return, when he sets foot on the earth.

Although this is a popular view today, no or almost no Christians believed this before the 1830s. Like the vast majority of believers down through the centuries, I am convinced that Jesus will return only once. Together with a large majority of Christians, I am sure that on the day Jesus returns, believers will be caught up to meet him in the air and then on the same day he and we will set foot on the earth.

Thinking more carefully about the passages which seem to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment

In this article I am not planning to give a long defence of the view that Jesus will return once. Rather, I want to focus on what is probably the main argument used by dispensationalists to support their idea that Jesus will return twice, which is the existence of passages that seem to teach that he could return at any moment.

Let’s think about this issue more carefully, using Matt 24:37-44 that I quoted above. And in this section let’s look at things from the point of view of dispensationalist theology, with its idea that Jesus will return twice, once to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth proper.

What I want to show is that, even according to dispensational ideas, it is not possible to say that Jesus could have returned at any moment to the air above the earth until decades after he first spoke the words in this passage.

The teaching in this passage is given to Jesus’ disciples (Matt 24:3), which certainly includes the 12 apostles. As I have noted, Jesus tells his disciples to be alert for his coming (v. 42) and ready for his coming (v. 44).

At first sight, these commands look as if they were applicable from the moment Jesus spoke them. See how he says ‘be alert’ for the Lord’s coming, not ‘a time will come in the future when you will need to be alert’ for the Lord’s coming. And note how he says ‘you are also to be ready’ for Jesus’ return, not ‘a time will come in the future when you will need to be ready’ for his return.

However, these commands cannot possibly have been applicable from the time Jesus spoke these words. His return was clearly not possible before he had even left! He needed to complete his earthly teaching ministry, die, rise from the dead and ascend to heaven first. So although at first glance Jesus seems in these verses to be referring to something that could have happened at any moment from the time he spoke these words, this cannot have been the case, as even dispensationalists have to agree.

But what about when Jesus had ascended to heaven? Could Jesus have returned to the air above the earth at any moment after that point?

No! Another 10 days were needed until the Holy Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), as even dispensationalists have to agree.

OK, but once the Spirit had been given on the Day of Pentecost, surely the point was reached when Jesus could return at any moment to the air above the earth, wasn’t it?

Again, no! In John 21:18-19 Jesus prophesies that Peter will grow old and be martyred, and there are very good reasons for believing that this happened in the 60s of the first century. So even after the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, which took place at some time between 30 AD and 33 AD, at least another three decades or so were needed before it would be possible for Jesus to return at any moment to the air above the earth.

And dispensationalists, if they are consistent with what else they believe, have to agree with this. Dispensationalists claim that when Jesus returns for the first time, to the air above the earth, the Christians on earth at that time will be caught up to meet him and then taken away to heaven. Before he died, Peter was obviously a Christian on earth. So, if Jesus had returned while Peter was still on earth, he would have been caught up to heaven and the prophecy of his martyrdom would never have been fulfilled. Therefore, even according to dispensational ideas, the Christians on earth couldn’t have been caught up to meet Jesus in the air until Jesus’ prophecy of Peter’s martyr death had been fulfilled sometime in the 60s of the first century.

My point is that, although in Matt 24:37-44, and other similar passages, Jesus seems at first sight to be saying that his return could happen at any moment, that wasn’t actually the case. In reality, there needed to be a delay of no less than some decades before he could return even to the air above the earth, as even dispensationalists have to agree.

Of course, I don’t agree with dispensationalists that there will be two returns of Jesus, first to the air above the earth and then 7 years later to the earth itself. But my point is that even if we were to think that Jesus will return twice, his first return wouldn’t have been possible until decades after Jesus spoke the words of Matt 24:37-44 and other similar prophecies.

A crucial point to consider

So there were at least some decades after Jesus spoke the prophecy in Matt 24:37-44 (and similar passages) before the return he was referring to in this passage could have happened. But crucially, why do we have to say that the point has been reached even today when it could happen at any moment? I would suggest that it hasn’t. There are still things that need to happen before the return of Jesus referred to in this passage can happen, including the rebellion and revelation of the man of lawlessness that we read about in 2 Thess 2.

Many dispensationalists criticise other Christians for supposedly not taking seriously enough the passages which seem to teach that Jesus could return at any moment. But what they often fail to recognise is that they themselves have to allow for a delay of some decades between the giving of the prophecies and their fulfillment. And if there has to be a delay of decades, then why could the delay not be as long as centuries, even up to the present day?

To put it another way, the approach of dispensationalists to the passages which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment is far too simplistic. They often look at these passages and just assume that these passages must be saying that today Jesus could return at any moment. But this is an unwarranted assumption. And if there is no good reason for thinking that today Jesus could return at any moment, this means there is no good reason for thinking that Jesus will return twice.

What is the point of these passages?

As we have seen, passages in the New Testament which seem at first sight to suggest that Jesus could return at any moment actually need to be qualified to some extent.

But this raises a question. What should we make of these passages? If they don’t actually teach that Jesus could return at any moment, what do they teach and what is their purpose?

There are a few points to make here:

(1) Even though at the present time there are still things that need to happen before Jesus returns, it is quite possible that end-times events could unfold very rapidly. So even though he couldn’t return today, he could return very soon. Exhortations to be watchful for his return are therefore still highly relevant.

(2) I think exhortations to be watchful for Jesus’ return actually encourage people to get ready for their deaths.

Each human being could die at any moment, and in terms of what the end result will be, death has the same outcome as Jesus’ return. When he returns, those on earth who are saved will then spend eternity with him and those who are unsaved will be expelled from his presence. Likewise, when people die, the saved will spend eternity with him and the unsaved will be expelled from his presence.

Exhortations to get ready for Jesus’ return, and therefore to be ready to meet him, remind us that we will also need to be ready to meet him if we die. These exhortations therefore encourage people to think about the need to be ready to meet Jesus, whether or not we do this by dying or by being on earth when he returns.

(3) A time will obviously be reached at some point in the future when all conditions for Jesus’ return have been met and he really could appear at any moment. So these passages will take on a special relevance at that time.

 

See also:

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple? 

Beware of Interpreting Bible Prophecies Too Literally 

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally 

The Importance of Being Cautious in End-Times Matters

Should Christians Evangelise Non-Christian Jews?

In 2015 the Roman Catholic pope made a proclamation telling Catholics not to actively seek to evangelise non-Christian Jews. Many Jews are becoming increasingly upset by the growing numbers of Jews who are turning to Christ, and this has led to hostility towards Christians. Apparently in an effort to reduce this hostility, the pope told Catholics not to evangelise Jews. And we can be sure that he would like all Christians to avoid doing this.

So did the pope get this right? Should Christians today avoid proclaiming the gospel to non-Christian Jews?

In a word, no. Non-Christian Jews today need to hear the good news of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ as much as anyone else. The fact that the pope could even say such a thing is a strong indicator – one among many – that he is in no way fit to be a Christian leader. What he said on this issue sharply contradicts the teaching of the New Testament.

Leaving aside the exceptional cases of those who die at a very young age or who suffer from severe mental disability, the NT knows nothing of people living in the Christian era who are saved from their sins without faith in Christ. Importantly too, the NT is full of clear indications that Jews need to believe in Jesus to be saved. Jews don’t cease to be Jews when they believe in Jesus and become Christians. But they do need to believe in Him if they are to be saved from sin and hell.

Any attempt to deal with all the relevant NT material on this topic would make this article far too long. In what follows I will therefore concentrate on two parts of the NT which show that only through faith in Christ will Jews receive salvation. These are the Gospel of John and Paul’s letter to the Romans.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

Let’s begin, then, with John’s Gospel. There are so many passages that are relevant for our purposes that I will cite just a few of them:

John 1:11-12

In John 1:11-12 John tells us: 

“11 He [Jesus] came to what was His own, but His own did not accept Him. 12 But as many as did accept Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, that is, to those who believed in His name.” 

In v. 11 “what was His own” refers to the Jewish people as a whole, who, generally speaking, didn’t accept Jesus as Messiah. Then v. 12 qualifies v. 11 by focusing on the minority of Jews who did accept Him (as well as Gentiles who accepted Him).

The passage implies that Jews who didn’t accept Jesus and believe in His name were not given the right to become God’s children, which surely means that they were not granted salvation.  

John 3:18

In John 3:18 John writes: 

“He who believes in Him [Jesus] is not judged. But he who does not believe has already been judged, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” 

This is clear that failing to believe in Jesus involves judgment, and this judgment surely involves missing out on salvation.

John 8:24

In John 8:24 Jesus, speaking to Jews, says: 

“For unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” 

This verse strongly implies that Jews who don’t believe in Christ will not be saved.

John 12:46

In John 12:46 Jesus teaches: 

“I have come as light into the world, so that everyone who believes in Me will not remain in darkness.” 

This implies that those who don’t believe in Jesus will remain in darkness, which surely means that they will not be saved from their sins.

John 14:6

In John 14:6 Jesus states: 

“I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

If someone doesn’t come to the Father, that implies that they are not in relationship with the Father, which in turn implies that they will not be saved.

John 15:6

In John 15:6 Jesus says: 

“If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown out like a branch and dries up, and they gather them and throw them into the fire and they are burned.” 

Being burned here is a reference to judgment in hell. So this verse implies that abiding in Christ by faith in Him is necessary for salvation.

John 20:31

In John 20:31 we are told that John’s Gospel was written for this reason: 

“. . . so that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that, believing, you may have life in His name.” 

The first thing to note here is that this verse clearly implies that without believing that Jesus is the Messiah, people will not have life.

Secondly, other passages in John’s Gospel make it clear that those without life will not be saved from their sins.

For example, in John 3:36 we read: 

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life. But he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the anger of God remains on him.” 

Note here how a person who doesn’t have life also has God’s anger remaining on them. This certainly implies that they are not saved from their sins.

So a person is not saved without life, and a person doesn’t have life without believing in Christ.

Summing up

In addition to the passages I have cited, others in John’s Gospel also point in the same direction. If we take what this Gospel teaches seriously, we are compelled to conclude that Jews who don’t believe in Jesus will not be saved from sin and hell.

Either the pope’s ability to interpret what John teaches is extremely poor or he thinks that he knows better. Either way, Christians today should reject his anti-biblical teaching and follow holy Scripture.

ROMANS

Let’s turn now to what the apostle Paul has to say on this subject in his letter to the Romans. Again, I will quote only some of the relevant passages:

Romans 1:16

 In Romans 1:16 Paul tells the Christians in Rome:

“For I am not ashamed of the good news, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” 

This quite strongly suggests that we can expect Jews and Greeks who don’t believe in Christ not to be granted salvation.

Romans 3:9-23

In Romans 3:9, referring back to what he has written in the first two chapters of his letter, Paul states: 

“. . . we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” 

“Greeks” here is a way of referring to Gentiles generally.

Then in 3:10-18 Paul lists some Old Testament texts to support this claim that every human being is a sinner.

And then in 3:21-23 he begins to outline the solution to the problem of sin: 

“21 But now, apart from the Law, the uprightness of God has been manifested, something that is testified to by the Law and the prophets, 22 the uprightness of God that is by faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God . . .” 

I have already noted how in v. 9 Paul says that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin. Therefore, when he refers in v. 22 to “the uprightness of God that is by faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” and follows this by “for there is no distinction,” he is surely implying that there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the way that they receive God’s uprightness. In other words, he is implying that both Jews and Gentiles need faith in Christ for salvation.

Romans 9-11

In Romans 9-11 Paul discusses at length how the rejection of Jesus by the majority of Jews in his day fits with the purposes of God.

In Romans 9:27 he says: 

“Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, ‘Although the number of the sons of Israel is like the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved.’” 

In the context, Paul clearly understands this remnant to be the minority of Jews who believe in Jesus. In saying that the remnant will be saved, he is strongly implying that those Jews who are not part of the remnant will not be saved.

In Romans 10:1 Paul states: 

“Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them [the Jewish people] is for their salvation.” 

Because the context of this verse is Jewish failure to believe in Jesus, by using these words Paul is clearly implying that Jews who don’t believe in Him are unsaved.

In Romans 10:9, still speaking in the context of Jewish rejection of Jesus, Paul writes: 

“. . . if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” 

Again, this implies that Jews who don’t believe in Jesus will not be saved.

In Romans 11:20-22 Paul warns his readers: 

“20 . . . they [unbelieving Jews] were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant but fear, 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you either. 22 See, then, the kindness and severity of God – to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in that kindness.” 

Jews who don’t believe in Christ are portrayed in this passage as having been broken off from the olive tree that represents the group of people who experience salvation.

Summing up

Other passages in Romans could be added to the list I have given. But the ones I have quoted make it clear that Jews need faith in Christ to be saved from sin and hell.

Again, the pope either doesn’t know what Romans has to say on this subject or he thinks that he knows better.

Nor is it just Romans and the Gospel of John which teach this. Numerous passages in other parts of the NT too, including large parts of Galatians, teach the same: Jews need faith in Jesus Christ to be saved.

SALVATION OF JEWS BEFORE THE TIME OF CHRIST

Before Jesus came to earth, Jewish people could be saved from their sins with a general faith in the God of Israel. Some Jews had that faith and were saved. Others didn’t have that faith and were not saved. Being Jewish in itself did not save anyone. Saving faith did.

In Romans 4:1-25 Paul explains how Abraham was saved by his faith. Abraham was not able to have faith in Jesus, because the existence and role of Jesus had not yet been revealed. But he nevertheless had a faith in God that pleased Him. And we can be sure that he would have believed in Jesus if he had been able.

A MORE SPECIFIC FOCUS FOR FAITH IS NOW NEEDED

Now that Jesus has come, in essence nothing has changed. Jews are still saved from their sins by faith. But this faith now needs to have a more specific focus. It needs to be faith in Christ.

Jesus’ coming to earth is the heart and soul of God’s dealings with the human race. Nothing else remotely compares to what God accomplished in and through Him, the God-Man. If a Jew today fails to believe in Christ, then he or she has utterly failed to recognise what God has done in our world. Today if a Jew (or Gentile) rejects Jesus as Messiah and Son of God, that person simply cannot have genuine, Abrahamic, saving faith.

Like all Gentiles, Jewish people today are sinners who desperately need to be saved from the impending punishment after death that their sins deserve. And in order to be saved, they need to believe in the Messiah, Jesus, who, as it happens, was sent first of all to the Jewish people.

JEWS TURNING TO CHRIST

Despite the efforts of the pope and others to hinder evangelism to Jews, it seems to be the case that at the present time Jews are turning to Christ in larger numbers than they ever have done. The number of Jewish Christians is growing noticeably not only in places like the United States but also in the land of Israel itself.

In Romans 11:26 Paul prophesies that “all Israel will be saved.” It seems highly likely that he is referring here to ethnic Israel, and that he is looking forward to a time when Jews will turn to Jesus en masse.

We should always be very cautious about claiming that present-day events are the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Nevertheless, I think it is not impossible that in our day we are beginning to see the fulfilment of this prophecy.

See also:

Can Anyone Who Has Not Heard the Gospel Be Saved?

What Is the Christian Faith Really All About?

Is the Church Spiritual Israel?

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple?

The Problems with Claiming to Interpret the Bible Literally

There are many Christians who claim that their method of interpreting the Bible is to take it literally.  They don’t qualify this in any way.  They just say that they interpret the Bible literally.

Those who make this claim usually mean well.  They want to stand by what Scripture is teaching.  And they are rightly opposed to unwarranted spiritualising interpretations that deny biblical truth.

However, there are two big problems with claiming to interpret the Bible literally without qualifying this.

A strange definition of ‘literal’

The first problem is that Christians who say they interpret Scripture literally are using the words ‘literal’ and ‘literally’ in a very strange way.

Like all believers, these Christians accept that the Bible contains many figures of speech, including numerous examples of metaphor.  A metaphor is a rhetorical figure of speech in which something is said to be a thing that in reality it is not.

For example, in Psalm 18:2 David says: 

‘The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer, my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation, my high tower.’ 

This verse is full of metaphors.  David metaphorically describes God as a rock, a fortress, a shield, a horn and a high tower.

Every Christian would agree that these are metaphors.  No believer would claim, for example, that David thought the LORD was actually made out of rock, whether limestone, granite or whatever.  Instead, every Christian would accept that this is a metaphor.

Christians who say that they take a literal interpretation of Scripture are including metaphors like those in Psalm 18:2 under the heading of what they mean by ‘literal’.  However, for English speakers generally, literal means that the thing in question really is what it is said to be, and that there is no figure of speech involved.  In other words, for the vast majority of English speakers, to use a metaphor is precisely not to speak literally, and to speak literally is precisely not to use a metaphor or other figure of speech. 

For Christians to use the words ‘literal’ and ‘literally’ in a very different way from how everyone else uses them is just going to lead to confusion.  It can also help make the Christian faith seem inaccessible to non-Christians.  We should therefore use these words in the same way that everyone else does. 

Those Christians who say that they take a literal interpretation of the Bible really mean that they take a plain-sense interpretation.  They mean that they don’t interpret passages symbolically if there is a more straightforward way of taking the words.  This plain sense will usually be literal (in the proper sense of ‘literal’), but at other times it will be metaphorical or will involve another figure of speech.

It would be a step in the right direction if everyone who says that they take a literal interpretation of Scripture said instead that they take a plain-sense interpretation of Scripture.

No one always interprets Scripture in the plain sense

A second problem with Christians saying that they interpret the Bible literally (by which they mean that they interpret it in the plain sense, as I have just explained) is that no Christian does in fact consistently take a plain-sense interpretation of Scripture.  There are biblical prophecies which are so obviously not supposed to be interpreted in the plain sense, that no one who knows of them would claim that they should be interpreted in the plain sense.

A good example of this can be found in John 2:19-21, where Jesus gives a prophecy while in the temple courts in Jerusalem: 

‘19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 

20 The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and are you going to raise it up in three days?” 

21 But He was speaking about the temple of His body.’ 

Note here that the Jews listening to Jesus take His prophecy in the plain sense.  They pour scorn on His supposed claim to be able to build such a magnificent structure as the temple in three days.  As v. 21 makes clear, however, Jesus’ prophecy was actually symbolic and had to do with His body.  By interpreting the prophecy in the plain sense, His hearers had misunderstood it.

It is true that Jesus’ words may have some kind of secondary level of meaning that refers to the actual temple, and scholars debate this.  Nevertheless, even if there is a secondary level to the saying, the primary level of meaning is still highly symbolic.  Furthermore, any secondary reference to the temple in the plain sense certainly does not include the plain sense of raising up in three days.

No Christian, therefore, interprets Jesus’ words in John 2:19 in the plain sense of the words.

Another example of a prophecy that cannot be interpreted in the plain sense is found in Matthew’s Gospel, in Matthew 12:40, where Jesus states: 

‘For just as Jonah was in the sea monster’s stomach for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.’ 

Being in the heart of the earth is a reference to the time between Jesus’ death and resurrection.  And the plain sense of three days and three nights is approximately 72 hours.  Yet this same Gospel portrays the time between Jesus’ death and resurrection as approximately 36 hours (Matthew 27:46-28:7)!

There is a remarkable lack of precision in Jesus’ words here that seems strange to modern Westerners but which would have been at home in first century Jewish culture. 

Jesus’ reference to being in the earth for three days and three nights in Matthew 12:40 is not symbolic in the way that His prophecy in John 2:19 is.  Nevertheless, it is clearly not supposed to be understood in the plain sense.

Summing up

For two reasons, then, those who say that they take a literal interpretation of the Bible are making a mistake.  When they say ‘literal’, they really mean ‘in the plain sense’.  And they have failed to recognise that no Christian does in fact consistently take a plain-sense interpretation of biblical prophecies.

End-times prophecies

There are many Christians who would readily accept the points I have made so far, but who nevertheless always insist that biblical end-times prophecies should be interpreted in the plain sense.  They don’t stop to consider if a more symbolic interpretation of an end-times prophecy might be the correct one.

Those who do this are motivated in part by their opposition to the wrongful spiritualising of biblical prophecies found in some heretical circles. 

For example, there are people who spiritualise the prophecies of Jesus’ return by saying that these prophecies really just symbolise His victory over evil.  They say that we should therefore not expect Him to visibly return to earth at some point in the future.

It is right to vigorously oppose illegitimate spiritualising interpretations like these.  However, it is a big over-reaction to insist, without further consideration, that all end-times prophecies must be interpreted in the plain sense.  This is a classic case of opposing one extreme by going to the other extreme.

When Scripture itself interprets its own prophecies, the interpretations range from the strictly literal to the highly symbolic.  As far as end-times prophecies are concerned, therefore, we would most probably expect the same to be true.  This means that unless it is immediately obvious that we should interpret a given prophecy in the plain sense, we should be cautious and open to either a plain-sense or non-plain-sense fulfilment.  Any other approach fails to do justice to what we find in the Bible itself.

See also:

Beware of Taking Genesis 1-3 Too Literally

Beware of Taking Biblical End-Times Prophecies Too Literally

Is It God’s Will for There to Be Another Jerusalem Temple?

Is the Church Spiritual Israel?