Notes on Revelation 18

Picking up from Chapter 17, Chapter 18 further describes the "great city" by describing its destruction.

It must be understood that this city is the same as that in Chapter 17, and it is characterized as sitting on top of the beast, first described as the Roman Empire as a whole, and then described as two of the kings of the Roman Empire.

John argues that his first century audience can figure out who the beast and the woman who rides it are by using "wisdom" (13:18; 17:9), i.e., taking the information that is given and putting it together logically. The angel also inteprets both for John in the book so that the reader will have no doubt who he is talking about (17:7). 

This means that both the beast and city have first century referents that can be identified.

The attempt to identify the city as Jerusalem by some fails on numerous accounts. The argument that two cities are presented, i.e., Babylon and the New Jerusalem, is absolutely true. However, this is not a contrast between earthly and heavenly Jerusalem, but between the chaotic world ruled by the devil and the glorified world ruled by God. It is a contrast between dystopia and utopia, characterized by the cities of Babylon/Rome that represents the center of the sinful world and a restored Jerusalem that represents the center of the new world where the presence of God dwells and gives life to all of it and its inhabitants.

Revelation is truly a tale of two cities, therefore, but the two cities contrasted are the Renewed Jerusalem and Rome, the former symbolizing the kingdom of God and the latter the kingdom of the wicked world. John is arguing throughout his work that one must choose between them and cannot live in both worlds, compromising the worship of the Lord Jesus Christ with participating in pagan festivals which are held as worship events dedicated to their gods and emperor. 

The description of the city does not characterize Jerusalem at all without stretching the meanings of every term and image.

1. The city is actually described as having kingship over all the kings of the earth (17:18).

2. The city is said to be a major, if not the major, center of commerce (18:3, 9, 11-15), yet scholars reject the idea that Jerusalem did much trade at all with any nation outside of itself (Philip A. Harland “The Economy of First-Century Palestine: State of the Scholarly Discussion” in Anthony J. Blasi et al. Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches [Walnut Creek: Altimira Press] 2002, 520).

3. The city is dressed in scarlet, displaying that it has political power.

4. All of the kings live in luxury from its immoral behavior, likely referring to its plundering the nations. They weep when the city is destroyed because their luxury will be gone. No such thing occurs to the nations when Jerusalem is destroyed.

5. It is described as causing the other nations to commit sexual immorality with it (18:9), which is often a symbol of idolatry in prophetic literature. This means that all the kings of the earth participated in the religion of the city. This makes sense if John's concern is the pressure received from Rome to worship the emperor and his image and the gods of Rome, but makes little sense if Jerusalem, which denounced idolatry and even got itself in the Jewish War for trying to avoid it, is the city. Furthermore, the city really didn't have much a religious influence over the empire, so that all the kings of the earth would be viewed as participating in Judaism, and their religion is never characterized as idolatry in the New Testament.

6. The image of the beast burning the city is almost a sure use of imagery from the rumors that Nero burned the city of Rome in A.D. 64, and the Nero redivivus myth that reported that Nero would come back to life to take vengeance upon the city. 

7. As discussed before, the identification of the beast as Nero is clear, but the fact that he is dead according to the book in Chapter 17, means that it is his resurrected successor who is to be identified as the beast. Since this is Domitian, who has nothing to do with destroying Jerusalem, but does in many ways work to destroy the city of Rome through his policies and destruction of the senate, the correct identification of the city should be Rome.

8. All of the deaths of Christians and everyone else on the earth is the fault of this city. This characterizes Rome, but doesn't make much sense as Jerusalem, which according to the New Testament only killed a couple of Christians that we know of (James beheaded by Herod and Stephen by the mob). One could say that this was under the jurisdiction of Rome, and also include these deaths that occurred under its watch, but one could not blame the deaths of all Christians and everyone else in the civilized world on Jerusalem without getting imaginitive with it.

The city receives the punishment in gave out to Christians in full measure, displaying that God allowed His people to be killed by it, but in no means does this mean that He will not pay it back for what it did to them. 

The destruction of fire is total. The destruction of the city is ultimately a symbol for the destruction of the wicked world, its power, its luxury, etc. The fact that chaotic agents destroy their own city is parallel to the fact that the inhabitants of the earth destroy their own earth (11:18). The point, of course, is to argue that although the world enjoys life now, it will be taken from it. This is part of the warning, not to the world, but to so-called Christians who need to understand that if they bind themselves to the world by compromising with it, they bind themselves to its judgment as well. The city will never again exist upon the earth. Destruction is total and final. 

In this way, the city and the beast are identifiable to the audience of Revelation, but it does not mean that they themselves do not represent larger things in the future. As discussed many times before, John uses microcosmic descriptions as that which pictures and leads up to the macrocosmic event. This means that even the city of Rome and the beast may not be the final referents, but rather are first century pictures of the wicked world and its rulers who oppress Christians. In this way, an idealist understanding of Revelation is not ruled out, as long as it takes the historical imagery as the direct referent seriously. 

The Gospel according to Willy Wonka

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971) was one of the weirdest movies I ever saw as a kid. There was always something very disturbing about it, an eerie feeling that shocks its audience with the strangeness of another world and the judgment that takes place there of those who misbehaved in ours.

It wasn't until I was older that I actually saw the movie in a different light. Wonka, in my estimation, is meant to be God. The Oompa Loompas are angels. The factory is heaven or the new earth, i.e., God's garden, and the people going through the tour are there to be judged.

Each child represents at least one type of sinner guilty of one of the seven deadly sins. There is Veruca (greed), Augustus (gluttony), Violet (pride), and Mike (sloth). The others are displayed in the kids as they get angry (wrath) when their sins are not fed (lust). Some think Charlie represents lust, and this is possible as well. One could also say that they are all tempted with lust and envy by the Satan figure, Slugworth, who of course, ends up working for Wonka. Others think that the entirety of humanity represents lust and envy in their imbalanced desire to possess the golden ticket. In any case, the sins likely represent all the sins of humanity.

The song about Wonka displays he is God in that he takes creation and fills it with goodness. He then sings a song that the factory is paradise. He's the candyman who makes the world taste good.

However, sinners do not inherit paradise. One by one, the sinners are ejected from it and go off to various images of hell (a garbage dump, a furnace, the boiler, being turned into something not human, trapped in one's delusions, etc.).

The most important part, however, is the end. Charlie has sinned by partaking of something he was told not to. He incurs Wonka's wrath for this, and is told that he will not inherit the promise because of it. He has a chance to still get what he wants by betraying Wonka, but instead he repents by handing over his only chance to gain a reward. By doing so, Wonka forgives him and gives him his entire kingdom. They go up into the sky to look over Charlie's new kingdom.

The idea seems to be that God rejects sinners unless they repent. This much is true, but the story is missing one thing: a basis for God to be just and forgiving at the same time. In other words, this is the gospel according to an older Americanity (which is more of a general relgious idea rooted in Judaism or the Inclusive God of American religion), where God is forgiving if one turns from his wicked ways, even without Christ as the sacrifice that would allow such a thing.

Christ isn't needed. Hence, as long as one follows the songs of the Oompa Loompas and repents even if they don't, they'll be fine in the end, as they'll still inherit paradise.

Unfortunately, the gospel of Willy Wonka falls short of being good news in that there is nothing that takes away the sins already committed. They are unjustly dealt with by the god-figure in the movie, and so evil is left unanswered. This is Christless Christianity, or just Christless religion in general.

So if I could rewrite it, I would make Charlie the Christ figure. He would go into the factory for his family, just like he does, but he would be without sin. He would obey the rules perfectly and reject the temptation of Slugworth from the beginning, showing his absolute loyalty and love for Wonka the entire time. In the end, his family would inherit paradise with him. This is the message sinners really need to hear: that since Christ died for sinners, there is a basis for God to forgive them in Christ, and those who are united to Him will inherit all things with Him. This provides hope in a world of suffering and a joy in the midst of hardship. Evil is only temporary. God has overcome it through the work of His Son, and forgiveness through Christ's work restores the sinner to God and seats him as an owner of the paradise of Christ. And that is what makes the world taste good.

Biblical Theology LVI: 1 Peter

The First Epistle of Peter is written to encourage Christians in Asia Minor, who are going through suffering, that their suffering is normative for the Christians life, and that the true grace of God is evidenced in their leading holy lives in the midst of suffering, and not in using it as an excuse to return to a life of sin.

Theology: Peter focuses the attention of the Christians in Asia Minor on the eschatological hope that is to come, and away from the desire to minimize suffering and to be happy in this life. Peter argues that joy comes to the Christian when he focuses on what God has done, is doing through suffering, and will do for him when Christ is revealed. God’s judgment of Christians is now instead of with the world later. Hence, the fiery trials they are undergoing are for the purpose of purification and a testing of their faith.

Ethics: Peter argues that, in light of Christ’s suffering, Christians are to be priests in the world who display Christ through their suffering. Their suffering is not an excuse to live in ungodliness, but rather than means of their growth in godliness. They are to be holy as God is holy, and their holiness is manifest in how they deal with unjust treatment from those in authority over them. This sets up his argument that Christians must submit to all governing authorities, even if tyrannical, and even if they are afraid of losing their possibility for happiness in this life, because Christ did the same. Through their suffering, they live out His ministry in the world as His priests, and gain opportunities to proclaim Him to those who are disobedient and lost.

He argues that being priests also means not partaking in the wickedness of the world, or its criminal behavior that throws off and disrespects government, but rather to take upon the name “Christian” only if one suffers in submission for the sake of Christ. The former behavior of the Christian when he was a pagan was due to desires that were fed by ignorance of everything the Scriptures proclaim. Christians have been ransomed from their former way of life, not with perishable money, but the imperishable blood of Christ. Their lives here are temporal, but God has secured an eternal life in Christ for them that cannot be tampered with by an earthly power.

In this regard, Peter presents two roads of happiness, one against which he is implicitly arguing, and one for which he explicitly champions. The one road is that of seeking happiness here and now in one’s current situation. This road will lead to rebellion against God and man when one thinks he has been unfairly treated. The second road is one that seeks the happiness of the kingdom to come, which in turn seeks the joy of being a suffering priest in the world now. It is not that one finds joy in suffering, but rather that one finds joy in proclaiming Christ through his suffering, and when given opportunities by their unbelieving masters, to proclaim him with their words as well. Since Christ’s path was one of submission and not rebellion, even when cruelly treated by authorities, the Christian’s path is one of submission and not rebellion. The trials themselves are God’s temporary judgment upon believers that saves them.

This is possible only because Christians focus on the future hope they have been given in the promises of God to His people according to the Scriptures. Hence, it is through craving the proclaimed word that they as newborn infants will grow up to salvation, i.e., becoming like Christ in the world. As a result, they display Christ’s value to the world, a kingdom of priests, a temple in which His glory dwells, and is on display before the world that now hates Christians, but will glorify God because you them when He appears. Hence, Christians are not to see themselves as the rest of the world, but as strangers and foreigners in a land that is not yet their own.

Notes on Revelation 17

Chapter 17 reuses the image of the beast in Chapter 13, adds an additional rider to the beast, and then interprets both.

It's important to understand here that the beast is being brought into the image again in order to identify the madam of the whorehouse (i.e., "great prositute," or "mother of prostitutes"), and is not a separate image. This is important because many want to identify the city as Jerusalem, but John's point of bringing in the beast is to say that the city is Rome, not Jerusalem.

It is here that we also see what the image of the beast is about. It is first described as the Roman Empire and the heads representing the seven hills upon which the city of Rome sits. The woman, of course, is dressed in royal garb and represents the city of Rome.

However, as is common in apocalyptic, nations are often personified in their leaders, and so the beast is soon interpreted by John to refer to one of Rome's kings, who is then identified as two of Rome's kings.

We saw in Chapter 13 that the beast had a name of a man. Contrary to Beale et al. who take the position that the man is generic, the number is said to be his name in 15:2, and here it is explicitly said to refer to a single king of the empire who then returns in the form of another king. It does not refer to all the kings, the Roman Empire as a whole, the corrupt system, etc. The beast is specifically said to be one of the seven and an eighth.

As we saw the beast to referred to Nero originally, it is clear that John is concerned with the beast come again in the form of the eighth king.

Here, it is said that the original beast, i.e., Nero, is dead. It also says that five of the kings have "fallen," meaning that five are dead. This means that Nero is one of the five, and according to Roman history, he would be number 5. Revelation begins the list of kings from Augustus on down to Nero for the five who have fallen. John then presents himself in the time of Vespasian, as a writer in the Flavian Dynasty would not have included the usurpers as legitimate kings. This means that Titus, who only reigns for two years, is the correct identification of the seventh king who only reigns for a little while.

What this means is that Domitian is the eighth king with whom John is concerned. It is Nero and Domitian who are recorded by Christian historians as being the only two emperors in the first century to have persecuted Christians. Through these two, the prostitute is drunk with the blood of the saints who give testimony to Jesus Christ.

The kings under the emperors dominion yield to him an empire for his city to rule over, and they help him persecute Christ through Christians with his power. As said before, they are seen as only temporary rulers, as the beast is himself one who must go up to destruction, and is not permanent.

It is important here to note that the overcoming of the Lamb in this war is not meant to be literal at this point. The Lamb overcomes the beast by sealing those who belong to Him. They are the called, chosen and faithful who do not give in to the pressures of the beast. Because of this, Christ is seen as more powerful than the beast, as his greatest weapon is the fear of death, and these Christians love and fear Christ more. Hence, in this way, Christ has beaten the beast.

This understanding of overcoming is a thread that exists throughout the book. The one who overcomes is the one who will inherit the throne of Christ and rule with Him over the earth/nations in the end. Overcoming does not mean that one overcomes politically, through force of arms, by gaining control of human institutions; but rather it means to stay faithful among the pressures of an unfaithful world. This is what it means to be a conquerer in the book.

John returns to the city as the object of the emperor and his minion's wrath. This is John's use of the Nero redivivus myth, where Nero returns to destroy the city of Rome. It is through their tyranny that they are viewed as hating their own city. Nero himself is said to have burned the city, and that imagery is used here. Domitian is said to have been a tyrant over his own city, destroying much of its well-being during his time, so much so that the senate forbade his deification and tore down his statues after his death. This theme is a common one in the Bible where chaotic agents are used to destroy their own. Like the Urukhai and Orcs in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, evil eventually cannot contain its own murderous lusts in a cage and will inevidably destroy itself.

The many waters are interpreted to be the many different people groups that Rome rules over, and this is made more explicit by the statement that the "great city" (often used of a capital city) has kingship over the kings of the earth.

1 Corinthians 15 and the Clarity of Greek Syntax

When I finally sat down to learn German, I aced the grammar and vocabulary. My pronunciation was prestine. So, of course, when I went to take my Theological German exam, I had the utmost confidence that I would ace that as well . . . until I sat down to take it. Then I immediately realized that I had no idea what, I think was a text from Barth, was saying. That’s because learning a language is much more than learning grammar and vocabulary. I see this same error repeated with students of Greek who have a couple years of Greek but no advanced knowledge of it under their belt. What is worse is that many lesser seminaries and Bible colleges just teach people the Greek alphabet and then tell them to use the resources like dictionaries and interlinears. This is a recipe for destruction, and the common joke echoed throughout the faculty departments of Greek scholars everywhere is that a person now has enough knowledge of Greek to be dangerous. This is said, of course, because partial knowledge is usually a convincing ignorance that leads to the dogmatism of error.

Since I am writing a book on Preterism right now, I see tons of this in Preterist exegesis. 1 Corinthians 15 is a good example of this, and I’ll just mention a few of the many errors made by Preterists concerning this text. There are many more. 

In vv. 1-34, Paul argues against the idea that there is no resurrection by arguing that a denial of the resurrection means that Christ has not been raised, since to deny that X takes place is to deny that any part of X takes place, including the X of Christ. It is clear from this passage that Paul is arguing for the physical resurrection of Christ, as he mentions the gospel of Christ being raised after dying on the cross and being buried, as well as His appearing physically to the apostles and other disciples afterward. The Greeks would have taken issue with this idea simply because their religious anthropologies reject the notion that the physical body is to partake in what is spiritual and good in salvation. This is Part I of his argument and sets up his second argument in the rest of the chapter.

In vv. 35 and following, Paul begins to answer a second objection to the resurrection, which functions off of the idea that the body is crude and a temporary thing, and therefore, could not possibly be something that inherits eternal life. 

Because Preterists often read interlinears, they see that many of the articles or adjectives or verbs stand alone, and therefore, feel that they can plug in whatever referent, their own antecedents, to these, since none are explicitly named by the Greek.  

For instance, one might read in a translation or interlinear that, “It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. (vv. 42–43). When he reads this, he concludes that the word “it” is not in the text. Hence, the subject becomes open. What is sown in dishonor and raised in dishonor? What is sown in weakness and raised in power? What is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body? He might conclude that it is the Christian person. In this case, the Christian person dies with his physical or earthly body and is raised as a spirit or with another body that is his spiritual body, a different body than the one he currently has. 

The problem with this interpretation is that the word “it” does not need to be a separate word from the verb supplied. It can be that the 3d masculine singular could be translated as “he,” but this then takes us to understand what the antecedent is. The text of v. 43 does not say that “he is raised with a spiritual body,” but rather that whatever the subject may be, it is to be identified both with the natural and spiritual body. In other words, the thing that is being sown is the same thing that is being raised. If the thing is a natural body sown, the thing is a spiritual body being raised. Since that is the case, the 3d masculine singulars should be understood, not as “he,” but as “it,” referencing the body.

This is also made clear in the preceding verses. The subject matter is the nature of the body in the resurrection, not the nature of the man who is raised. Hence, in vv. 35–41, Paul talks about the form that is given to the body of a seed that is planted, and then continues to talk about different bodies that have different natures, arguing from nature that physical bodies can be given different natures and are not confined to a singular one. It is from this argument that he proceeds to discuss the fact that when a physical body dies, its temporal, mortal nature dies and God gives to it a new nature that is immortal. There is no man mentioned that would be the antecedent of the verbs other than the sōma.

But the reading of interlinears gets worse than this when one approaches v. 46. Some Preterists have argued that the natural man (i.e., the sinful man in Adam) is first and the spiritual man (i.e., the man redeemed in Christ) comes afterward, and therefore, Paul would not be arguing that the physical man comes after the spiritual man again. First is the physical and then is the spiritual. There is simply nothing else after this. It is clear that this is talking about a person, and not the body, because Paul refers to Adam and Christ in the preceding verse.

The problem is that this is talking about the body still, not the Christian person as a whole. This is made clear by the grammar, which is neuter singular in agreement with sōma and not with anthrōpos in v. 45. The contrast between Adam and Christ, therefore, is not one between the fallen and redeemed natures, but between the mortal body given to Adam and the immortal body given to Christ. The body’s first nature is not immortal. It is mortal. The body’s immortal nature is given later (as Paul says, after it dies). The argument continues that those who are in Adam have received the mortal nature of Adam’s body, but those who are in Christ will also receive the immortal nature of Christ’s resurrected body.

Some of this is a simple misunderstanding of what Paul means by terms like “spiritual” and “heavenly” versus “earthly” or “natural.” Preterists often interpret these terms to mean “non-physical” versus “physical” based on their interpretation of v. 50; but it is clear that the term “flesh and blood” is defined immediately by Paul as “that which is perishable versus that which is imperishable.” Paul further clarifies this in vv. 53–54 as the mortal body being transformed by its being given the nature of immortality and imperishability. 

The misuse of the interlinear comes in again in these verses, as the Preterist will note that the word “body” is not in the text; but this, again, is a misunderstanding of Greek syntax. The article and adjective are neuter singulars and refer back to the antecedent sōma. It is a very common practice in Greek for the author to leave out the modified noun simply because it is seen as redundant. The author will either just write the article that is in agreement with the noun in gender and number, or as in this case, write both the article and modifying adjective that agrees in gender and number. What this means is that, even though the interlinear does not show it, Paul means the reader to read sōma after each adjective. Hence, the text of vv. 53–54 should read, “For this perishable body must put on an imperishable nature, and this mortal body must put on an immortal nature. Now when this perishable body puts on the imperishable nature, and this mortal body puts on an immortal nature . . .”

It is clear, then, from the Greek, that what is being raised is the actual body that Christians have gained from Adam, but this body is being raised with a new nature that mimics that of Christ’s redeemed body. The term enduō means to “clothe over,” and often refers to putting on an outer garment over existing clothes. Paul is not arguing, therefore, that the Christian becomes a spirit or is given a new body that is a completely different body than the one he has, but rather that his body will be redeemed and transformed into one that is fit for the immortal kingdom of God.

It should be noted for further meditation that Paul argues that Christ has not conquered death, what he refers to as the last enemy, until the body is transformed in this way. In other words, until the resurrection/transformation of the physical body from mortal to immortal occurs, Christ will remain on the Father’s throne until He puts all of His enemies under His feet. What this means is that “death” here refers to physical, not spiritual, death, which is another misunderstanding that Preterists often plug into this text. One can see that the understanding of Greek, rather than a cursory knowledge gained from interlinears and a nominal knowledge of Greek, can sharpen one’s understanding of what is being said, and even refute deeply held assumptions that often go into reading the English text.

Fool's Gold

When I was a boy, there existed an amusement park in Las Vegas called Old Vegas. It was reminiscent of Vegas as an old mining town, complete with gunfights between cowboys and prospectors mining precious metals. One of the souvenirs was a bag of gold that could be bought for a few dollars. Of course, when I bought it I thought I was rich. These people must have not known what they had. I was so ecstatic when I bought one. I immediately imagined all of the Star Wars toys I could buy with it, as that was the most valuable thing in the world to a small boy in those days. Imagine my disappointment when after all of my boasting and excitement for being rich, my mother informed me that it was not a bag of gold, but fool’s gold, otherwise known as iron pyrite. It was called “fool’s gold” because it looks like gold, but is, in fact, just a shiny rock that is completely worthless.

I was reminded of this when recently a couple of apostates from our church announced on facebook that they were no longer Christians, and because of this, they were more loving and empathetic now that they did not believe. I can only assume that is the case because Christianity is exclusive in its love, and therefore, excludes others from partaking in the things that God grants to those He exclusively loves in Christ.

Of course, I have argued many times on this blog that this type of inclusive love and empathy is contrary not only to the Bible but to common sense. There simply is no such thing as inclusive love and empathy. It doesn’t exist; and in fact, those who surmise that they practice it are actually arguing for a system that is less loving and less empathetic than that of the Bible or any practice of exclusive love, i.e., real love.

Love isn't generic. It is specific, and therefore, it is exclusive. Generic love never loves anyone, but always ends up hating those placed specifically under our care.

The wife who spends her time going from house to house and opening her legs for all of the guys in the neighborhood isn’t more loving because she is inclusive. She is less loving to her husband and family, not more. She has simply excluded her family from love and empathy in an effort to give it to everyone. The man who distributes a limited amount of food to all of the kids in the neighborhood is not more loving because he is inclusive, since he has starved his children by doing so. He has excluded his children from love and empathy, as they are malnourished and will likely die from such “love.” The hospital that has limited funds and decides to buy the entire city an aspirin each rather than spend its money curing those under its care is not more loving because it is inclusive. Inclusivity has killed its patients. What is more unloving and lacking in empathy than that? As I’ve said before, inclusive love doesn’t exist. It always excludes one group over another. A man can decide to love the murderer who comes into the house to kill his children by not shooting him, or he can decide to love his children by killing the murderer. He cannot do both. To give one homeless man your couch is to exclude the other twenty on your street from sleeping there.

Love and hatred are choices one makes to include and exclude people from one’s care. Apart from this, the words are an empty means of virtue signaling spoken by thoughtless and empty-headed people. Empathy is given to one group, precisely, because one is compassionate to give to one group by not giving to the other. The very nature of these things is exclusive.

Inclusive love isn’t love. It’s hatred. Inclusive empathy isn’t empathy. It’s apathy. And it still chooses one group over another. It’s still doing what it claims it is not doing.

God’s love, of course, is true love because it is exclusive love, not despite it. Christians truly love because their love is exclusive, not despite it.

My only thought can be that love and empathy are being defined in sappy, emotional terms and not by specific acts and behaviors that are done toward individuals. Even this, however, is contrary to what is being claimed by inclusivists, as the man who lets his children die is apathetic toward them. That’s why he lets them die and chooses the life of others over them. The woman who lets her family suffer by being a whore is apathetic toward what she is doing to her family. She lacks empathy.

The great absurdity is that even the claim of these apostates, i.e., that they are more loving and empathetic than Christians, is praising non-Christians as more loving, and condemning Christians as being hateful. In other words, it excludes Christians from praise and only includes non-Christians in that praise by grouping them in particular categories. It is apathetic toward the feelings of Christians and impugns their reputation and empathetic toward the feelings of apostates and builds up their reputation as admirable. It is itself exclusive, and if exclusive love is hatred then it is a hateful thing to say. Oh, the irony. The truth is that these people don't have a more inclusive love at all. They just have a culturally conditioned set of criteria for including and excluding that is set by other modern people rather than God via revelation. In other words, they have an alternate value system that decides who will be included and excluded, a value system that is not based in God's will, but in their and their culture's own rebellious and arroagant desires.

God reveals, however, that He loves His people because He removes the wicked who destroy them from their midst. He restores a safe and harmonious existence in creation by removing those who prevent it. He excludes Group B from living among Group A, precisely, because to let them live together isn’t loving everyone. It is an act that hates Group A. To let the oppressors and the oppressed remain together, treating them as though they are one and the same group, giving salvation to both and condemnation to none is actually to condemn the oppressed to forever live under the physical and spiritual tyranny of their oppressors.

Instead, God’s disfavor is on the destroyers His people, precisely, because His favor is on His people, not despite it. Likewise, Christians are to mimic God’s love as He has revealed it and in accordance with common sense.

What is really happening is that these apostates have now included people who society has made them feel bad about themselves for excluding, and excluded people, i.e., Christians, that society has made them feel good about themselves for excluding. This has nothing to do with being loving and empathetic and everything to do with feeling better about oneself because one’s self-image is being stroked by societal norms and sentiments. In other words, it isn’t actually about loving others at all. It is about loving oneself by being accepted by our society as a loving person. It’s about being given a merit badge by a culture that can’t think straight about what love actually looks like.

There simply is no one as loving as the God who is exclusive, and there are not people who are as loving as Christians who are exclusive in theirs. He is love and they are His people, not because they love everyone without respect to persons, but because they love “one another.”

The person who thinks he is more loving, however, has pockets full of pyrite. He pats himself on the back and gets really excited about how rich he is now. He and his “love,” however, are impoverished and lack any value in the world. His “gold” is only valuable to a fool, and he will be shown to be such both now and in the end.