What Happens to Us Right After We Die? Scripture Has a Surprising Answer

Perhaps the most important question of all time, whether we want to think about it, is, What happens after we die?  Is there life after death?   This question has puzzled mankind since Adam, and there are many different theories suggested.   And God is rather clear in the Bible on this subject, as He would be, since Scripture claims in various places that He loves His children—so He would tell us “where we’re moving to.”  

So, let’s study what the Word says on the “moving” issue.  Let’s promise ourselves that what the Scripture says is more important than what our church says.  It looks like the correct doctrine includes an intermediate state, which has either been warped or lost.  But it’s definitely in Scripture.  Studying that is the ultimate focus of this blog.

The most detailed explanation of life just beyond the grave is found in Jesus’ account of the rich man and Lazarus.  See Luke 16:22-31, where Jesus says: 

²² So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³ And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. ²⁴ “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. ²⁶ And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’  ²⁷ “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, ²⁸ for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ ²⁹ Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ ³⁰ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ ³¹ But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

What do we see?  

1)      The previously poor man is in “Abraham’s bosom,” v.22.  He is “comforted.” The rich man is “afar off”—a “great gulf fixed”-- in hades, Scripture says. Yet they’re both in the same area, since they can talk to one another. Abraham's bosom is the good part of this place, but the "hot" section (see "in this flame") is the bad part.  But they're communicating, so they're in the same place. They are spirits, not bodies, but they can feel.  We conclude "hades" is the proper name for the whole place, since the word is used several times in Scripture (beware--some Bible versions goof this up).  So hades had two parts, separated from one another by a great gulf, presumably alluding to its depth.   

2)     The rich man in the suffering region then becomes the focus.  He is “in torments.”  He “cries out” in agony.  Thirst is a serious problem, since a flame is nearby. 

3)    He has a memory--he is well aware of his previous life, since he remembered his brothers and now wants to see them saved.  This adds to his mental anxiety while there.

4)    As vv 27-31 show, there is no way that someone in the lower region can warn those still alive.  Thus, seances would be meaningless, today as well as then.  

5)    Jesus, as the designer of hades,  is tough on this man:   

a.  Through Abraham, He is willing to let him suffer, acknowledging “you are tormented” --without relieving him.   

b.  When the man complains of his suffering, Jesus through Abraham even taunts him, reminding him of the reversal of roles for the two of them—and telling him, too bad, he can’t change his fate 

For those who want to cast the doctrine in these verses aside, calling it uncompassionate, only a parable:  I don't think it is a parable, since it has named Lazarus, and parables don’t give names.  This is God’s truth for the intermediate state, what happens right after we die. Even if it were a parable, would Jesus set forth a myth about what happens when we die--would He express an untruth on such an important issue?  Would He say, "Hah!  I got you.  This was just pretending, to get you off the track. I have another solution elsewhere, so I am deliberately unclear as your destination just so you could worry about it or consider it unsolvable so you would ignore it."  I think not.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a truth is the related backup Scriptures, below.  Another reason is that it was universally believed by the earliest church fathers; they were brilliant men in their knowledge of Scripture, and believed it was truth.  They knew their Greek backward and forward, they knew the culture, they could have asked questions of the apostles, or someone only a generation from them--and that church was the most dynamic and godly church in history; so I believe their theology was accurate, and God blessed them accordingly.    

Now here are other supporting Scriptures for this particular intermediate state: 

1. Luke 23:43 records Jesus’ words on the Cross to the dying and just-saved thief alongside:  

  And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.”

What's Paradise?  Think with me: if the saved poor man’s first stopover after death, from Luke 16, is “Abraham’s bosom,” as we saw above, and if the first stopover for the just-saved thief is in “paradise,” we have to conclude that paradise is another name for Abraham’s bosom--which, as we showed before, has two parts. So paradise is not heaven (which is only for the saved), nor is it hell (which is for the unsaved only).  Neither person we're talking about goes directly to their final destination; they stopover in this hades. They both go to hades, the intermediate state. 

2. Jesus went to hades too, NOT HELL when He died, as proved by Matthew 12:40;

 and parts of Acts 2:22-27, IF your version of the Bible has the correct word, hades, there.  These are from the New King James.  :  

For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

From Peter: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; ²⁴ whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. ²⁵ For David says concerning Him:  Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.²⁷ For You will not leave my soul in hades, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

So Jesus did not die and go straight to heaven; nor did He go to hell, called “gehenna” in Greek, the lake of fire, a different Greek word.  Jesus told the thief he was going to paradise--yet these verses combined, clearly show, He went to hades; again, this proves paradise is not heaven, but is in the good part of hades.  “In the heart of the earth” doesn't sound like heaven, right?  Hades is presumably located deep in earth.   His soul did not remain in hades long—three days and nights. 

Perhaps your Bible uses "hell" when it should be called "hades."  Unfortunately, that Bible also uses "hell" for Greek "gehenna" and "tartarus."  Those, however, are three separate places, so the English words should be different, rather than combining them all as "hell."  Blame William Tyndale.  He took three Greek words, meaning different things, and translated them all "hell" in English.  A proper modern translation would catch this. 

These truths about the intermediate state were so universally believed by the earliest Christians that it became part of the original Apostles’ Creed:  I believe in God the Father Almighty…and in Jesus Christ…was crucified, dead and buried.  He descended to hades (the Greek word); on the third day rose from the dead…Jesus did not go to hell, but hades.

3. John 14:1-3:  

“Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. ² In My Father’s house are many mansions;  if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. ³ And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also.

Note the underlined phrase.  This proves that when the righteous die, they do not go immediately to heaven to be with Jesus.  Why?  Well, He has to “come again” (His second coming) and pick us up, and then we go to heaven.  If we were already in heaven (i.e., by rapture, so called), He would not have to “come again” to get us.  No, we are in the heart of the earth, in hades, waiting for “pick up.” The pick up will be better than ziplining, better than being an Amazon drone.  

4. John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice ²⁹ and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Thus, both groups will “come forth” (at the second coming) to the Judgment at the same time (your denomination may not believe this "judgement at the same time" idea--even though it seems explicit here--and elsewhere).  So hades will be emptied all at once.  If we’re already in heaven, as often taught, the resurrection would be no big deal--since we're "already there," in spirit. It would be just picking up the body.  But the important thing is being with Jesus in heaven--but this has already been going on, according to them, in spirit. But they are wrong.  It will be a total resurrection, body and soul--a big deal, as Scripture points out excitedly.  It gets us, soul and body, from hades to heaven, not from heaven to heaven with a body. 

    5. I Corinthians 15:22-23:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.  

When Jesus comes again, we are "alive," not at time of death.  The immediate heaven folks place our spirit immediately in heaven, with Christ--the definition of "made alive," is it not?  But Jesus says that we're not "made alive" until the resurrection.  In the intermediate theory, we are not really With Christ until the resurrection.   

6.  I Thessalonians 4:16-17:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive (alive on earth) and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

The first verse indicates the Second Coming (not the 3rd coming, as rapturists believe).  Note that "the dead in Christ" will rise.  It doesn't specify only their bodies, but simply says "the dead" will rise.  Also note that verse 17 says we will "meet the Lord in the air."  Many modern commentaries say our spirit goes immediately to heaven when we die; and say that when Jesus comes down, He comes with the spirits of His saved people to pick up their bodies.  They "prove" it by giving a verse that says He will bring, the proper Greek word defined, "a host."  But he host is referred to in most cases as angels.  Also, consider the phrase we will "meet the Lord in the air."  "Meet" here, as a careful Greek study suggests, is "first time I've seen you," since its definition in Vine's Expository Dictionary says "the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary." We, as body and soul get together, greet our Lord for the first time.

     8. Finally, I Peter 5:4:

and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away

It does not make sense that when we die,  Jesus just greets our spirit, and says "now wait several hundred years, I've got some cool rewards for you." That's what the immediate heaven group is bound to.  It makes more sense that "when the Chief Shepherd appears," at His Second Coming, He takes us up to heaven, and a big gigantic celebration occurs, with worship, song, and rewards. 

Hopefully these many Scriptures will be convincing.  But, you ask, "I don't think anyone teaches this, so how can it be correct?"  Well, many Mennonites, some Brethren, some Amish, some in the Restoration movement, some conservative Anglicans still teach this. 

Well--so we've had it wrong for centuries?  How could that be?

Actually, teaching on the intermediate state has gotten dropped because the Reformation tried to get as far away from the Catholics’ false teaching on purgatory.  Purgatory teaches that (a) the Intermediate State can cleanse your sins and can change final status. False.  Scripture shows that hades (the real Intermediate State) does not change final status, as we saw in Luke.  The sincere pleadings of the rich man were greeted coldly. The rich man encountered Jesus not as merciful, but as Judge.  Remember, few are saved (Matthew 7:14).  We are shocked and sometimes uncomfortable about seeing this "negative side" of God.  But He doesn't think as we do.  We cannot imagine, for instance, how deep is God’s hatred about sin.  If you’re unsaved when you go into hades, you’re unsaved when you go out. That's what the Word says. Period.  There is no Scriptural basis for “cleansing from sin” in that state either.  The idea that you can purge your own sin is completely false and anti-Biblical, as Scriptural points out, and I point out in many blogs. Jesus has done that cleansing from sin for us. The “works vs faith” argument was what kick-started the Reformation—a just movement in its beginning, but it went to wrong theology on some points to get away from looking Catholic. 

Catholicism also teaches that there is a special status for those classified as “saints”—they get to go straight to heaven.  Everybody else has to go to purgatory to “work off” their sins.  False.  Scripture is clear that everyone saved is a saint.  There are no “status” Christians.  Philippians 1:1 says:   

Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops  and deacons. 

 If saints are only the “status” Christians, why is Paul calling every Christian a “saint,” and, oh yes, let’s not forget the bishops and deacons.  How do you explain that?  

John Calvin, who formulated many Protestant doctrines (not my favorite person, as I have a blog on him), dropped the intermediate state doctrine.  Luther, the same.  So both Catholics and most Protestants have it wrong.  You’ve got to read Scripture for yourselves, folks. 

Now let us deal with verses the "straight to heaven" folks love:  Start with I Thessalonians 4:14,which I'd like to add context by adding verses 13, 16 and 17: 

But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Note that Paul is answering their concerns about what happens to those who "sleep," or who have already died.  Some Thessalonians believed those who have died may "miss the boat" at His coming return.  So he explains what happens to dead people by saying they haven't missed anything, they get to be with Him by resurrection, same as those alive at the same time, and same as what happened after He died---ie, be resurrected. If there were ever a good time for Paul to tell them the "truth" that their spirits and bodies are separated, one goes up early, the other goes up later--that was the time.  But he doesn't cater to that idea.  His emphasis is on when we meet the Lord our precious Savior, (what we should all want to know), so he says it is at the same time for dead folks and alive folks.  None of this idea that "your spirit will meet Him earlier, THEN your body meets him later."

Here' something that will open your eyes:  Let's look at "bring with Him;" some say those who died and whose spirits went to heaven are "riding with Him."  The surprise I have for you is the Greek "bring" is a future derivative of their word pronounced "ago."  It means, per the reliable Vine's Expository Dictionary, "to lead along"  The visual image you get is Jesus coming to earth, leading ALL of us along in a resurrection, and going "home."  Will the saints "riding with Him" be leading?  Not hardly--that glorious job is His alone.  Do these "ride along" saints call out for the rest of the "split up" alive saved folks to join them?  No.  

PS.  This explanation is simple and uncomplicated, and it helps if you don't believe in a separate Rapture.  Note that if you believe in a rapture, He has three comings.  And all the commentaries are lying about His coming in judgment being His second coming.  You would have to believe it's His third coming. (First was His Incarnation; second, His "rapture;" third, His coming in judgment.)  I have a separate series of blogs on this.  If you DO believe in a Rapture, the explanation for how who goes to heaven, and when, twists Scripture around like a pretzel to figure out. I won't even try, feeling that God would make it simple to figure out the important question of "where do we go when we die?" Many people have too much riding on their un-Greek definition of "bring with Him."  Why couldn't Paul, who is on the subject of dead people, first give an introductory sentence by saying, God will resurrect them too?  Both, He will ultimately "bring with Him," at the second coming.      
Another favorite Scripture of "straight to heavens":  Ephesians 4:8-10:

Therefore He says: “When He ascended on high He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.”  9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

"Captivity captive" is confusing for even the experts to figure out.  It could mean either the enemy captured, or the rescue of our own held captive by the enemy. So, flip a coin.  If you choose the latter, Jesus is bringing out of hades His children, taking them to heaven. If you choose the former, Jesus is making a show of enemy forces His triumph over them bought by His death.  Who are those enemy forces?  That idea is probably best interpreted by Colossians 2:15, where it is said of the "principalities and powers"--the powers of sin and death--that "He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in the cross." 

The fact is, this event is not normative, that is, there were unusual things at His resurrection that we can't expect to build a theology of to answer "where do we go when we die?" around.  Look at Matthew 27:52-53, when Jesus died:

and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

Was that a repeatable event?  Can we form a theology around Matthew 27:52 about when our bodies are raised from the dead? I'm saying these verses, Ephesians 4:8-10, could also have been a strange, non-theologically-based event too.  In any event, since I suggested "flip a coin," I'm saying this is not a proof for either side, and is not relevant to forming a doctrine on for our deaths. Another verse loved by "straight to heavens:"  Philippians 1:23:

For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.

Paul is just wondering which is better--to live and support Christians, or to die and ultimately be with Christ. It does Not say that Paul expects immediately to be with Christ.   Paul is not thinking doctrinally. So this verse does not lock the case for the "straight to heaven" group either.

Another favorite of theirs is Act 7:56, 59, at the martyrdom of Stephen:

and (Stephen) said, “Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Well, this too could be a special case: Stephen is the first New Testament martyr; plus, he has given a severe admonishment to the Jews about their history defying God, and Jesus confirms him by showing up in a vision.  Naturally, a man would react by saying, "Jesus, receive my spirit."  Keep in mind, that's what a man is quoting, and doesn't have to be doctrine God can approve of for everyone.  Think of the musings of Job; they're not all correct.     

Finally, II Corinthians 5:8:

We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

This is clearly the "straight to heaven" folks' favorite verse. But...when there are abundant verses telling us differently, should we believe that God changes the rules and only indicated the change clearly by this one verse?  Would God do that on such an important teaching as "where we go when we die?"  So we should consider opening our mind to a different definition of this verse.  We really ought to consider the phrase doesn't really say that "one leads immediately to the other." 

So what I see is, none of these verses lock down the "straight to heaven" idea. My eight verses on the intermediate state logically string together a solid case for the good side of hades, then later heaven at His second coming.    

It's not a new idea. After all, it was believed by the Jews for a thousand years, then believed by the young church for another 600 years, then the Catholic church perverted it.  

If you want to know more about what Scripture really says on How Do You Get Saved for Heaven, so you can graduate from earth eventually to heaven, you need to know that Catholics and many Protestants have that wrong too.   I have a blog just on salvation, and another on initial and final salvation.  Smarter, though, would be to read the Gospels over and over, noting what Jesus says on that very subject.  He is quite clear.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, CD, “Life After Death.” Scroll Publishing

Let Us Give Thanks

  In 1863, President Lincoln set Thanksgiving as an Official Day of Thanksgiving for the Nation.  Yet this was right in the middle of the Civil War.  This speech was written by Secretary of State William Seward:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity… no human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.

But he wasn’t the first president to call for a day of thanksgiving to God. Here is George Washington’s speech in 1789, right after the Constitution was ratified, and while we were a fledgling strip of 13 states:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness…for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us. And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…to render our national government a blessing to all the People, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and Us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Of course, there are many great verses thanking God in His Word. Here are a few: Say these to yourself, even every morning.  Pray them with your family on Thanksgiving morning.  Let us be grateful for what our nation has (left): 

• Psalm 95:2-3

Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. For the LORD is the great God, the great King above all gods.

1 Corinthians 1:4-5

I always thank God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus. For in him you have been enriched in every way--in all your speaking and in all your knowledge--

• Ephesians 1:15-16

For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.

• 1 Timothy 4:4-5

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

• 1 Chronicles 16:34

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.

• Psalm 7:17

I will give thanks to the LORD because of his righteousness and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High.

• Psalm 28:7

The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song.

• Psalm 100:4

Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name.

• Isaiah 12:4

In that day you will say: "Give thanks to the LORD, call on his name; make known among the nations what he has done, and proclaim that his name is exalted.

• Jeremiah 33:11

the sounds of joy and gladness, the voices of bride and bridegroom, and the voices of those who bring thank offerings to the house of the LORD, saying, "Give thanks to the LORD Almighty, for the LORD is good; his love endures forever." For I will restore the fortunes of the land as they were before,' says the LORD.

• Colossians 3:17

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

• 1 Thessalonians 5:18

give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

Things You Need to Know About John Calvin

Calvin is classified as a great theologian.  Let's see what he is, as a man, and we may question his theology when we are through.  

John Calvin was born in 1509.  He had tremendous influence on the founding and growth of America, yet he never set foot here. In fact he was a Frenchman, living in Switzerland, and died 43 years before the founding of Jamestown, the first colony established here.  He is considered to be a great theologian, but he went to a famous French university and took courses to be a lawyer.  He never studied religion beyond the basics at the university. 

While there, he was fascinated with the Greco-Roman philosophy of Stoicism.  Stoicism was the dominant belief system of educated Romans at the peak of their empire.  It’s not a “religion,” per se, but it does teach anti-Christian values, and our earliest Church fathers debated against it frequently.  It teaches that everything in the universe is predestined, and each of us has been given a role to play by fate.    We had no choice in that determination.   According to them, our goal in life is:  don’t complain--just play our role well.  Regarding adversities, we should rise above excessive emotion, and accept with resignation what fate has assigned to us.  In 1532 Calvin put together a commentary on Seneca, the leading Stoic in Rome.  His commentary had a twist—he tied together (?) the philosophy of Stoicism and the teachings of Christ. 

In 1534 he became a French Protestant Reformer, at the peak of Luther’s popularity in Germany.  Because the Catholics were hunting down Reformers, Calvin fled to Geneva, Switzerland, which became ruled by Protestants.   The leaders of Geneva were impressed with Calvin’s keen mind and energy, and made him the leader of the Reformation there. 

He began "improving" on Luther's doctrine, and came to believe that he (Calvin)  was selected by God to bring God’s church back to his idea of “correct” doctrine. His greatest attribute was a singular confidence—and a massive ego.  To quote him:  "I know, beyond doubt, that what (he) says is coming from God.”  He was determined not to equivocate, or change, his doctrine as he had seen Luther do over the years.  We’ll see, later on, where that takes him.

Let’s discuss Calvin’s doctrine.   In 1536 he wrote the first edition of "The Institutes of Christian Religion."  He expanded it in later editions—but didn’t change what it taught.  Its most-publicized aspect was its teaching on predestination.  According to Calvin, before God ever created the earth, He predetermined that Adam would fall, and all of his descendants would inherit his sin and guilt. God placed all Adam’s descendants all through history in two categories:  He chose individuals, before they were even born, amounting to a very small portion of mankind, to be the elect, to be given eternal life in heaven.  And thereby He effectively chose everyone else to be tormented forever in hell.  This doctrine is also known as “double predestination,” since with only two groups on Judgement Day, automatically those who aren’t selected in one group fall into the other.  Now keep in mind two things:  (1) nobody can change these two elections (thus you can see the Stoic influence);  these were pre-ordained before you were born.  (2) God’s selection was completely arbitrary—done without regard to any works, good or bad, or how we live our lives.  That’s because we’re all totally depraved, and completely unable to come to God--unless He initiates.   Any faith in God that you have is only because He arbitrarily gave it to you.  A person’s lack of faith would be simply because God didn’t select that person to receive it—that person was thus predestined for hell. 

Does this doctrine sound like it reflects God's personality to you? 

You would think that few people would accept this philosophy, because it doesn’t line up with God’s personality in the Bible.  But people grabbed onto the nice collateral idea that he threw in: the elect can know beyond doubt that they are the elect; and as a result, you cannot possibly lose your salvation--you can be eternally secure.   He got a huge following—at least, from those who felt like “the elect.” Not so much from those who perceived themselves as non-elect. 

Another aspect of his theology was, he didn’t see the difference between Christ’s moral teachings and the Old Testament Law.  Thus, he felt that communities should be governed by theocratic law, like Israel. Old Testament Law should rule.  He decided infant baptism of all was mandatory, to keep the infant, if it died, from going to Hell (even though that was not a specific Biblical doctrine).  The Anabaptists, who believed in believer’s baptism only (as does Scripture), were thus heretical, to Calvin.  His approach to them?  Torture them, get them to recant.  They need to accept the truth.  (Luther had the same attitude in Germany, but less passionate about pursuing it).  In Calvin’s Institutes, it further spells out that every nation should be governed only by the elect.  The job of civic government was to protect the true faith, and regulate the lives of its citizens so they follow God’s law.  Even the non-elect had to “toe the line.”  If the nation does what was right, God would prosper it.  If the nation was experiencing military or economic decline, or natural disaster, it must be that God was punishing that nation for something they’re doing wrong.  The state mandated that church attendance was for all, and the city elders’ job includes observing carefully the private lives of all its attendees to make sure they’re living in bounds with God’s Law. They would even ask your neighbors about you to find out if you behaved as if in "the truth." The church could excommunicate those who strayed, and then the state also would punish them.  The worst punishment for the worst sins being hanging, burning, or even drawn and quartered. 

Membership on the church rolls was limited to the elect.   To keep non-elects out of membership, anyone who claimed they were the elect had to give a detailed testimony to the church demonstrating that they believed all of Calvin’s teaching, and that they had a conversion period in their lives—they usually related to the church how it took many years for that conversion to reach salvation levels.  A lot of their personal lives being known by all.  Keep in mind, the New Testament procedure in the book of Acts was, you had a conversion, it might be instantaneous upon preaching, and you repented—and you got baptized.  The baptism was the public announcement of your salvation—not a public detailed and verbal confession as Calvin demanded.   

Further, God has assigned you a vocation in life.  Your job is to excel in it, since you were serving God.  (This idea is one of the foundations of a very successful economic Capitalism.)  Wealth and prosperity were signs of God’s approval of your efforts.  Poverty is an indication of God’s judgment.  (How do you line this up with Jesus’ statement, “Blessed are the poor”?  And what about His scathing rebukes of the rich?) 

Geneva under Calvin was a dream come true for his followers—but a reign of terror for everybody else.  In one year after taking charge, he drew up a Genevan catechism, the accepted doctrine.  They had to promise to receive it as the one, the only true doctrine.  Anyone who failed to do so was banished from the city.  If that happened, the city’s fathers took over the homes that they were forced to leave behind.  Very profitable for them.  Thus, overall, they had a religious police-state.  Anybody guilty of even the smallest infraction would be reported. They even interrogated children about their parents.  Calvin made many enemies, but smashed every instance of dissent.  He was so confident in his correctness, that he didn’t believe in showing any mercy to “heretics”—defined as those who had a different item in their theology than his.  People were regularly tortured, imprisoned or exiled who dared to differ.  There were many executions.  In 1546, Jacques Gruet, not a threat to Calvin, who simply criticized him in private papers, was hideously tortured until he “confessed”—and then he was beheaded!    When it appeared, later, that Calvin had more opposition, he requested the city council to declare that only his Institutes were “the pure doctrine of the gospel” and “could not be criticized by any citizen.”      

 His huge ego reached its most grotesque result in the Michael Servetus case. Servetus was a gifted and well-known Spanish Renaissance man, but he questioned  the Trinity, the infant baptism, and predestination.  Calvin thought he would do Servetus a favor, he felt, by sending him a copy of the Institutes to straighten him out.  Servetus had the "audacity" to annotate his own critique of the Institutes, and sent it back.  This began a flurry of arrogant letter-writings back and forth.  Finally Calvin said in a letter to another friend, “If I consent, he (Servetus) will come here...if he comes here, and my authority is worth anything, I will never permit him to depart alive.”  There never was a doubt about Calvin’s authority—no imprisonment, no exile, no torture or beheading went without his consent.  He was called “the pope of Geneva.”  Servetus made the mistake of naively wandering in town.  He was arrested.  Calvin himself prepared the 38 criminal counts against Servetus, at least one of which was “insulting Calvin’s authority.”  Servetus did not have the right to an attorney, since as Calvin said, he could “lie without one.”  At trial he was not allowed to explain or defend any of his points.  He was sentenced to be burned at the stake alive.  He was chained to a stake.  The authorities then piled wood around him, half of which were green (which takes longer to burn, prolonging the agony of suffering).   The crowd watched in fascination.  Keep in mind: Calvin, by his position and by consenting, was guilty, in our courts, of conspiracy to murder.  This was similar to David’s crime (II Samuel 11:14-17)—yet in the Bible it was just as bad as murder--it was called murder in II Samuel 12:9. 

Unlike David, though, Calvin  was unrepentant.  Several months later he opined that he was “indifferent” to the hand-wringers who would want him to be apologetic.   Those who got weak when it comes to justice for blasphemers were guilty themselves, he wrote. 

In 1556 many in opposition had a demonstration against him.  They were arrested and sentenced to death.  This death sentence was the grisliest to date—they were drawn and quartered.  This was the epitome of the cruelest punishment possible.  Most countries of the time reserved it for the greatest crimes, like treason.  But to the Genevans, the worst crime was disagreeing with Calvin’s “words from God.”  They were first hung in such a way that their neck would not be broken.  They just hung there, strangling.  They were still alive when they would be cut down, then cut open at the waist and all their entrails pulled out and burned in front of their eyes.  Then they were finally beheaded.      

So, was the murderer Calvin (based on the Gruet and Servetus cases above) a believer in Christ?  Based on Scripture, as I point out in other blogs, that means, did he follow Christ’s commandments and abide in Him (I John 3:24)?  Unless he repented at the end, I think not; I believe he ended up unsaved.  No one could consent to these unimaginable things and claim they “love the brethren” and love God, which believers must do (I John 4:8).   
Now the big question:  Are you a follower of Calvin’s predestination theology?  Most Americans who call themselves "Christian" actually are--most don't know its details or the details of its founder.  I don't doubt that most are really Christian.  But when you think about it, do you really agree that people are predestined to hell by God, by random selection, not based on any of their works or faith? Is that what God is to you?

But, here’s the bigger question--can the theology of clearly an unsaved man be accurate?   Can the theology of an unsaved man get you to heaven?  Think about that.

Acknowledgements:  David Bercot, CD, “Geneva.”

The Honor Killing That Went Awry

 I used to think “honor killing” had to do with killing a Muslim daughter that committed a dreadful sin, like fornication or pregnancy, outside of marriage.  But an HBO Documentary Film, “A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness” changed my mind. Please read on for your own enlightenment. 

 

More than 1000 women are murdered in Pakistan each year by male relatives who believe the victims have dishonored their families.  Here is the story of a young Pakistani woman who was the target of one of these honor killings.

 

It happened three years ago in the province of Punjab, Pakistan. It’s not a backwoods or ignorant area, since five million people live there. The girl, Saba, is 19. She is very pretty—on the right side of her face. On the left, it’s a different story.  A gunshot blew away her cheek from eye to jaw.  The surgeon did a terrible job of sewing it back together, but at least she is alive. The eye and teeth were miraculously untouched.  She also suffered a defensive wound on her right arm.  

 

It all began when she fell in love with Qaiser, a young man.  As typical in Muslim culture, they only met a few times, but talked on the phone.  He was kind and didn’t get angry, and she was in love.  Her father, at first, was planning their wedding. The problem was, her uncle objected.  “They are not of our status. They are poorer than us.”  He suggested that she should marry his brother-in-law.  A much older man whom she knew little about.

 

Since her male relatives had the last word, she was desperate.  Upon Qaiser’s parents’ suggestion, she decided to run away to Qaiser’s house, and his parents would see to it that they marry in court.  Which they did.   But her relatives paid a surprise visit the wedding day, before she got any “alone” time with him, and kidnapped her.  Her parents told her “return home to uphold our family’s honor, then Qaiser can come and take you back honorably.” But she was fearful of what they might do to her.  Then her parents put their hand on the Quran and promised her they wouldn’t harm her.  That finally decreased her fear.  But that night her uncle and father put her in the car, took her to the river, and started slapping and beating her.  She begged them for mercy, but her father put a pistol right at her brain, clutched her neck to keep her still, but she was able to tilt her face at the time he shot her, which means the shot ripped through her cheek instead.  Assuming she was dead, they put her in a bag and threw her in the river, and left.  But she fought off shock and amazingly climbed out. And she was taken to a hospital.

Authorities have laws against this, so now her father and uncle were on the run. Qaiser rushed to the hospital.  In an interview with Qaiser at the hospital, he said “my love for her is very strong.  I’d die without her.”  He seemed like a level-thinking guy, and in love. 

 

Police were assigned to guard her at the hospital.  She believed, because her parents took an oath on the Quran, Allah saved her.  “It is a sin.  They broke that oath and now the wrath of God will fall upon them.  I will never forgive them, no matter what happens or who comes in the middle. Even if someone powerful asks me, I will not forgive them.”  Then she spoke of the big picture.  “The world should see this—brothers, sisters, parents…So this doesn’t happen again.  They should be shot in public in an open market. With God’s will, I am going to fight this case.”  The Sharia law in Pakistan, though supposedly modernized, has a "get out of jail free" card:  the court will release a killer if the family of the victim forgives him.  Cultural pressures usually saw to it that that was what happened.  And the local families were already beginning to lean heavily upon her to forgive her father and uncle in court.  If she did that, they won’t spend 20 years behind bars. This is for shooting her in the face, up-close and personal. So, forgiveness would let them off scot-free, of attempting to murder their own child because she wanted to live a quiet life in love with Qaiser her chosen husband.  Was her not wanting to marry upscale a reasonable excuse for killing your own daughter?  How perverse is that?  But there was more to it.  They accused her of rebelling against her parents.  The loss of honor to the parents was enough to make her worthy to die. (but it seems like they would lose honor, for shooting their daughter--evidently not so.) Family honor was more important than her life.  Also, the father and the uncle were the family breadwinners.  Taking them away would definitely make the family scrounge for a decent living.     

 

The investigative policeman, Ali Akbar, caught up with Saba’s father and uncle and jailed them awaiting trial.  He was also interviewed, and said, “In my opinion, Islam teaches nothing about “honor killing.”  It teaches that we should safeguard the rights of all human beings, be it a man or a woman.  God has given her the right to choose freely.  Yet on the simple matter of marrying the person she loved, she had to pay such a heavy price.  What happened here was totally against religious values."  Hey, a moral man in Pakistan.  I think he really believes that, since he went through the hassle of chasing and finding a dangerous criminal, who would most likely be released.   But the truth is, as I point out in another blog “Are the Christian God and Allah the Muslim God the Same?”  the Quran is all about hatred and revenge, with only a few phrases about tolerance.  It is also highly misogynistic, and clearly points out that women are not as valuable or trustworthy as men.  It is easy to see how a perversity like honor killing could arise out of a culture rooted in the Quran as a foundation.  I firmly believe that the real God cannot bless such a culture, and that is why Pakistan remains one of the poorest countries on the planet.

 

Saba got no support from her family for wanting justice. So she went to live with her husband’s family.  In the interview with her sister Aqsa, who is about 16 I would guess, I was shocked to hear how assertive she was backing up her parents.  There was no reticence at all, which is surprising considering how she watched while they deceived and tried to kill her very own sister: (Someday that could be her). “All our family did was to preserve their integrity and honor.  Who can tolerate such betrayal from a daughter who runs away and marries without their consent?  Our family was respected by the entire community.  People who feared us now taunt us.”  (The use of the word “feared” is a telltale statement).  “We’ve stopped going anywhere …because of the shame she has brought upon us.  People say my father neglected his kids.”  (One could only wish he had done so).  Her sister's thinking was totally corrupted, thinking that the daughter was the betrayer.

 

Mom chimed in: “I could have scolded, explained to her. This is what happens when honor is at stake. No woman should disrespect others.  No woman should ruin her parents’ reputation.  This girl here (pointing, lovingly I guess, to Aqsa), if she does this sort of thing, she will be beaten.  If she stays home, I will get her married in a good way.  I prayed to God, “My daughter has done this, make me die.”” So mom is unrepentant of her assistance to her murderous husband, and despite Aqsa’s loyalty to mom, her mom still threatened her too!  Mother love on display.

 

The interview with Maqsood, Saba’s father, and Muhammad, her uncle, in jail was the strangest of all.  Here are her uncle’s words, which clearly show resentment that Saba lived:  “What my brother did was absolutely right.  I guess she survived.  It was her destiny.”   Saba’s father was also totally unrepentant:  “Whatever we did, we were obliged to do it.  She took away our honor.  I am an honorable man.  So I said no, I will kill you myself.  You are my daughter, I will kill you myself.  Why did you leave home with an outsider?  I haven’t seen the boy yet.  If I had seen him, I would have killed him too.  He has brought such destruction upon our home.  Just look.  I’m behind bars right now.”  (His logic about why he is in jail is beyond me).  The interviewer couldn’t resist.  “You’re locked up because you tried to kill your daughter.”  His answer:  “Lady, Islam does not permit the girl to go out of the house.”  (A total lie).  “Was she dying of hunger?  She got everything.”  Interviewer:  “Does Islam permit murder?”  Reply:  “No…”(actually, he was wrong.) “but where is it written that a girl can run away with a stranger?”  Interviewer: “What did you say to your wife?”  Reply:  “I told her “I have gone and killed your daughter as per my desire.”  My wife cried.  What else could she do?   She is just my wife.”  About his family who he left potentially starving without a breadwinner:  “Allah will provide for my family too.” 

 

Saba, with her husband and family, is content, to use her word.  I tend to believe her.  Qaiser’s mother said, “She’s my daughter now.”  As to the question of them being poorer:  “We will live off what we have, and she can eat with us too.”  Saba says she’s heard that her father is asking for forgiveness.  Despite his brave words about honor earlier, he really doesn’t want to spend his life in jail--but he won’t condescend to speak with her.  At this point, she insists she still will not forgive him.  Her uncle did beg her forgiveness, but she told him to go away. 

 

Saba has a forward-thinking lawyer, who does many of his cases pro bono.  He feels that “honor killing” cases should be treated as any other murder/attempted murder case.  But Sharia law puts a misogynistic twist.  Most of the time the daughter is usually dead, so that makes it easy that the near relatives of the victim can get together and forgive the killer.  Her lawyer asserts:  “That is one more reason why honor killings are rising.  This is not just Saba’s cause; it’s society’s cause.”  He believes that the judicial system should be changed, not to allow such compromise.  But it will take time to change people’s mind.   “Seeking justice is a long, drawn-out process, and women are at a disadvantage.”

 

Saba begins to relate the growing pressure on her:  “They say we must listen to the influential and dominant men of our neighborhood.”  The male elders of the community play a major role in making the parties reach a compromise, and here is where the truth really comes out:  she is helpless to even speak and make her feelings known, since she is trained from birth to obey the men and not speak up.  The secular interviewer was an exception; the case drew nationwide coverage.  The elders expressed their dominance in refusing to meet with her; and they parroted the same charge as her father: she ran away, and society will not respect people who allow that with their daughter.  Her lawyer, in meeting with them, does a lame job of pleading the rights of the girl who is thrown away by her family.  But they sat there with arms folded, not an ounce of compassion on their faces, and they insisted that the real issues are honor “and land.”  (I don’t understand how “land” enters the picture--but economics is an important factor here).  They did hint that, if honor is not maintained, that fights between families could grow worse.  An interesting statement; it makes me think that if a family kills off another (dishonorable) family, they might even have community support in taking their land. Why not, if killing is treated so lightly here?    They say, if Saba forgives, then everyone will live in peace.  (The thing is, both families were there, and they were all calm, and I never saw any inter-family hatred, so I think either the real feelings are hidden, or the elders made that one up to add to their case.  What’s weird also is, everyone in that meeting was just talking like it was the day’s weather, despite this gross injustice staring them in the face.)

 

The police officer had an intelligent word: If she forgives, “a message is sent that this crime is no big deal. The laws should be the same for everyone.”  I would add, if you always end in forgiveness, and freedom for the criminal, why should a police officer bother chasing the criminal?  As a result, his job status, which should be important for the community to maintain, would eventually deteriorate. You would not have good men wanting to be police officers with this kind of action going on.   

Qaiser is against a settlement—but here’s another ugly truth about their system:  his older brother handles everything.  And of course, elder brother wants to acquit the attempted killers.   Forgiveness, he says, are the “laws of the community,” whatever that is.  He was worried “if this escalates.”  This hints at what the elders said about inter-family fights..   

 

As you might have guessed by now, Saba, through the men in her family, caved in and forgave.  (Actually, they didn’t ask her opinion).  And HBO got an award for this stunning documentary.  In fact, at the awards ceremony, the prime minister of Pakistan showed up and announced that the perpetrators of honor killings must not be allowed to be forgiven by family members.  He would do what he could to change that Sharia law. 

 

But wait a minute, who really has the power to change Sharia?  Only the religious leaders and the community.  Mufti Kifayatullah, a leader of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a religious party, accepted that some Islamic laws were being misused to protect killers. But he said any reform attempts would be resisted.  "Removing Islamic laws shall never be tolerated, as this country came in to being in the name of Islam,” he said. “The religious parties will not allow the government to solve the problem in this way.”

 

So the honor killings go on, and even grow.  Some killings have gotten pretty brazen, such as the 2014 killing of a woman by her family right outside Lahore’s high court, no less.

Now you the reader, consider how all the main players in this drama believed in and invoked the support of Allah, their God. Yet look how their compassion was absent and their mind corrupted. There were only two people who wanted peace and love.  Yet they were almost killed for that.  Please read my paper on the truth behind the Quran. Now tell me, dear reader, how “all religions lead to the same God.”  Contrast the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:43ff with the vengeful relatives:

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”

 

Is this the same God as Muslims call on for defense of these horrific actions?  Or should we take a word of advice from Matthew 7:16:  You will know them by their fruits.

 

Acknowledgement:  HBO Documentary Films, "A Girl in the River"