Jesus, His Life, Part 2–John the Baptist: The Mission

This is post is a review of the second episode of the History Channel miniseries Jesus, His Life. Called Pastor Gabe Hughes wrote a good review of the first episode of the History Channel miniseries, which you can read at his blog here, or at my blog here. That review suggested that the gospel message about Christ’s death for the sins of his people would be left out, and that the message of the gospel would be presented as ‘saving the world”. Episode 2 confirmed Pastor Gabe’s suspicions.

To be clear, reviewing the second episode in the same manner as Pastor Gabe, with ‘time stamps’ indicating exactly where certain things were said in the film or taught by commentators was both time consuming and difficult, especially when the film needed rewinding to capture exactly what was being said or taught. I did not watch it, or review it with hostile intent, but in order to be able to intelligently discuss it and point out areas that didn’t seem to be faithful to the Biblical account.

Having said all that, here is what I observed concerning John the Baptist: The Mission, with ‘time stamps’ and an occasional personal comment.

This episode began with some of the same footage as the first episode, and included comments from various Christian personalities. Probably the most notable (popular) evangelical would be Joel Osteen, who also was the executive producer of the series. That in itself is in indicator of sorts. If you wonder why I said that, just ask me.

Much of the story is told from the point of view of John the Baptist himself – what he might have been thinking during his relationship with Jesus. The operative term here is ‘might’. Keep that in mind.

Dan’s Observations & Comments, in chronological order, with approximate time stamps:

3:50 – Dr. Robert Cargill (University of Iowa) suggests that “John the Baptist came preaching fiery sermons about what we would call social justice.”

4:35 – During scenes depicting John’s activities at the Jordan River, Rev. Dr. Otis Moss III (Senior Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ) suggested that John was baptizing people for a ‘renewal moment’ and has John telling those being baptized “You are reborn!” (baptismal regeneration?) He also suggests that what is being washed away is “that which is old”

4:57 – Dr. Adam Marshack (Author of The Many Faces of Herod the Great)) tells us “John’s message is simple; repent of your sins, receive Baptism, receive purification, and you will be saved.” (baptismal regeneration confirmed?)

6:15 – Jesus’ first appearance at the Jordan River. John narrates and tells us that he thought his mission was to find Jesus, but instead Jesus found him. (not in the text of scripture?)

7:05 – Jesus and John are seen walking along the Jordan passing our food (fruit). (Initially we see John passing out food and Jesus watching and later Jesus passing out food and looking back at John?)

Professor Mark Goodacre (Duke University) interjects that while the gospels make it seem like the relationship between Jesus and John was brief, but in reality, it lasted much longer. They spent a lot of time together learning from one another and becoming part of the same group. (pure speculation?)

FR James Martin (Jesuit Priest) adds that for a time Jesus was one of John’s disciples. John was both a friend and mentor to Jesus, but in the end the student (Jesus) became the teacher and the teacher (John) a student. (Where is this in scripture?)

11:05 FR Martin asks the question “Why is sinless Jesus wanting to be baptized? In FR Martin’s mind Jesus wanted to start His ministry in a dramatic and public manner. (more speculation?)

11:51 – Dr. Cargill offers that Jesus realized he needed to do what he saw John doing. Jesus says “I’ve got to take an unpopular message to the people, even if it kills me.” (Really?)

13:06 – FR Martin (I think) tells us that Jesus (standing in the Jordan looking sort of puzzled) realizes who he is for the first time. Jesus finally realizes God’s plan for his life and surrenders to it. (Didn’t Jesus tell his earthly parents, when he was 12, “I must be about my Father’s business?) Jesus then stumbles out of the water.

Jesus heads to the desert and at @16:28 Satan shows up. Simon Sebag Montefiore (Author & Historian) provides commentary concerning the 3 temptations. The temptations are presented adequately, however Jesus saying “It is written.” after each temptation is omitted. Mr Sebag does include Jesus saying “Do not test the Lord my God.” It’s suggested that when Satan told Jesus “Worship me”. he was referring to the Roman Emperor. (?)

We now return to John’s story .

18:00 – Dr. Cargill says that after Jesus baptism John decided to “up his game” and take on political leaders. He heads to Galilee and publicly calls out Herod Antipas, The account of the rest of John’s life and execution seem to be accurate. What is embellished a bit is the visit of ‘Andrew’ to John in prison. I don’t believe scripture tells exactly who visited John in prison, only that John sent some of his follower to ask Jesus “Are you the one?” and Jesus sent a couple of his disciples to the prison to tell John what they had “seen and heard”

24:50 – Andrew visits John in Prison. We see bits of conversation between Andrew and John, with ‘flashbacks’ to what Andrew describes to John. Andrew tells John that a great Prophet has arisen.

At the same time, we are shown what Jesus was up to after the arrest of John.

25:14 Dr. Cargill tells us “After John is arrested, Jesus basically picks up the baton and runs with it. . . Jesus says to himself “This is My time.”” There is a scene of Jesus preaching the sermon on the mount to a small group under a tree. (borrowed from another film?)

26:16 – Jesus goes back to Galilee and recruits some of John’s disciples to be his own.

27:00 – We see Jesus and the great catch of fish when Jesus told them to cast on the other side of the boat, after an unsuccessful night.

31:00 – FR Martin says it was probably hard for John to let go of his own ministry. Back at the prison, it seems Andrew had left for a time, came back and told John of miracles performed by the Apostles. We see a scene of Andrew healing a sick person.

32:23 – Dr. Cargill talks about the needs of taking care of the poor, the widows, orphans, and the disenfranchised. (The mission of the Messiah that John needs to rethink?)

32:45 – Back to the prison. John realizes Jesus must become greater and he (John) must become less, because Jesus is doing work no one has ever seen.(we are not told in the Bible when John realized Jesus was the Messiah.).

Miscellaneous comments in summary:

Dr. Cargill doesn’t think John wanted to die and that he was actually afraid and sad. However John did understand his role in the life of Jesus.

Joshua Dubois (former faith advisor to President Obama) talked about understanding the profundity of the upcoming sacrifice and that John and Jesus were n the verge of a moment that would ‘change the world’. (Did Jesus die to save sinners, or the “World”?).

Back to the execution of John. The sword is about to drop for the beheading. John asks himself “Did I do enough? I hope so.” The sword drops and John’s head is delivered to Herod, Herodias and Salome in the banquet hall.

FR Martin reiterates that John was Jesus’ mentor and friend, and that Jesus would miss him at a very important time in his life.

Switch to Andrew, with a small group of disciples, saying to Jesus “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his followers to pray.” (See Luke 11:1. This happened, but the passage just says ‘one of disciples’ said that to him. Andrew was similarly named in other places on the film.)

Dan’s final comments:

1. There was much added to the film that is not in the record of scripture, which is the character and tendency of other Biblical films. You could say it’s a cinematic necessity in order to attract viewers and generate income. Some of the speculative additions are reasonable, but others seem silly to most biblically literate movie goers.

2. There are places in the above set of observations where I would have found it easy to biblically refute the action in the film, complete with scripture references. I deliberately chose NOT to comment so that I could not be accused of just sharing my opinion. That often happens when some readers find it repugnant that anyone say anything negative about a ‘Jesus’ film.

3. Where I did insert personal comments (italicized) I included question marks “?” so I wouldn’t appear dogmatic, and to encourage readers to compare the film with scripture on their own.

I sincerely hope this review has been helpful.

P.S. I WILL say with confidence that the only time I heard anyone say anything about the issue of “sin”, which is central to the message of the gospel, was when one of the film’s commentators told us that repentance from sins was necessary for salvation (correct), but water baptism was also necessary FOR salvation. I must therefore conclude, with Pastor Gabe, that the series will probably never offer a clear presentation of the gospel message. What we will be taught is that Jesus died to ‘change the world’

8 implications of calling Jesus “Lord” by Jesse Johnson


I recently preached 2 Corinthians 4:5 (“We do not breach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord”), and in preparation I came across this powerful list of 8 implications of preaching Jesus as Lord. These are from Murray Harris’s New International Greek Testament Commentary (p 332), where he writes:

Whenever worshiping Christians repeat the church’s confession “Jesus is Lord,” they are:

1. Implying that the Christ of faith was none other than the Jesus of history (Acts 2:34–36),

2. acknowledging the deity of Christ (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6, 9–11),

3. admitting the Lord’s personal rights to absolute supremacy in the universe, the church, and individual lives (Acts 10:36; Rom. 10:12; 14:8; 1 Cor. 8:6; Jas. 4:15),

4. affirming the triumph of Christ over death and hostile cosmic powers when God raised him from the dead (Rom. 10:9; 14:9; Eph. 1:20–22; Col. 2:10, 15) and therefore also the Christian’s hope of resurrection (1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14),

5. epitomizing the Christian message (Rom. 10:8–9; 2 Cor. 4:5) and defining the basis of Christian teaching ( Col. 2:6–7),

6. declaring everyone’s accountability to the Lord, the righteous judge (1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Tim. 4:1, 8),

7. making a personal and public declaration of faith (Rom. 10:9), which testifies to their being led by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), and

8. repudiating their former allegiance to many pagan “lords” and reaffirming their loyalty to one Lord through and in whom they exist (1 Cor. 8:5–6; 1 Tim. 6:15).

It is good to be reminded that “Lord” is more than a title, and more than a name. It reveals the identity of Jesus, and compels a response from us that is more than simply a phrase we say–ie. there is more at stake here than saying “Jesus is Lord.” That phrase implies so much, that when rightly understood it alters our worldview.

‘Son of God’: Jesus film earnest but bland, reviews say

By Oliver Gettell, LA Times

11:22 AM PST, February 28, 2014

Adapted for the big screen from the History Channel miniseries “The Bible,” the new film “Son of God” is essentially a feature-length recut of the second half of the series, based on the New Testament.

The reedited nature of the movie, which tells the story of Jesus from his birth through his preaching, crucifixion and resurrection, might explain why many film critics are saying “Son of God” feels more like a greatest-hits compilation than a cohesive work.

In a review for The Times, Martin Tsai writes, “to its credit, ‘Son of God’ proves more than a mere watered-down ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ The epic proportions of the miniseries hold up well on the big screen, save for the digitally composed establishing shots of Jerusalem.”

On the other hand, it also has the feel of a “midseason clip show.” Tsai adds, “If ‘The Bible’ was CliffsNotes for the Scriptures, ‘Son of God’ is the cheat sheet. The two-hour film condenses about four hours of what already was hasty television, and it all winds up a little dramatically static.”

The New York Times’ Nicolas Rapold says, “‘Son of God’ runs through the scriptural greatest hits of the Passion with the reliability of a Sunday reader.” He continues, “Jesus looks like a tanned model in robes in the person of the Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado. His scenes pivot on teachable moments buttressed by reaction shots to his coterie, undermining the mysteries of Jesus with the blandness of the filmmaking.”

Rapold concludes, “‘Son of God’ may have hit the mark if part of the goal was to create a portrait flat enough to allow audience members to project their own feelings onto the screen.”

Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle finds the film a bit chintzy, writing, “Jesus of Nazareth’s accent changes frequently,” that “Jerusalem looks as if it was built in a few hours out of balsa wood,” and that there’s “more hair product being used in this movie than in an entire season of ‘Dancing With the Stars.'”

However, “the film does thoroughly succeed in one important regard: offering a coherent, viewer-friendly account of the life of Jesus Christ. The movie flies by despite its 138-minute running time, a holy CliffsNotes that packs in all the greatest hits. Never again will a Sunday school student get lower than a C-minus on this material.”

The Newark Star-Ledger’s Stephen Whitty writes that “‘Son of God,’ unfortunately, is ultimately just a bit of canny recycling,” and “the cuts and compromises show.” What’s more, he says, “there’s little fresh or daring here. As controversial as ‘Passion’ or ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ were, at least they presented very personal visions of this ancient story; whether you felt they were enlightening or blasphemous, they took risks. They dared all. But when it comes to ‘Son of God’ — well, the film is willing. But its spirit is weak.”

And Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post says, “‘Son of God’ is nothing if not sincere, its earnest retelling of Jesus’s life story resembling a gentle, pop-up book version of the New Testament, its text reenacted for maximum reassurance and intellectual ease.”

She ends with an advisory: “To the filmgoers thronging to theaters this weekend: Don’t expect to see a great film, or even a very good one. Whether you discover a meaningful channel with which to continue your walk with the film’s protagonist, however, is strictly between you and your god.”

An Evaluation of Muslim Dreams & Visions of Isa (Jesus) by Dennis McBride

What follows is a bit long and was posted in two separate parts at Southern View Chapel. Here is the link to part one. Part two can be accessed by clicking ‘Next’ at the end of part one. I posted the links on Facebook and a friend of mine started a discussion group to which I was invited. The others in the group think that these visions are nothing to have any issues with, and I seem to be the single person who feels that the articles evaluating them have merit. At any rate, while I have not offered my personal opinion, I think the articles do not reflect supporting a presupposition, but are rather well presented. I will offer that some former Muslims who are now Christians do not think that the Isa who appears is the Jesus of the Bible. This might be a FOX moment – we report you decide (or not).

Here are both online articles:

An Evaluation of Muslim Dreams & Visions of Isa (Jesus) by Dennis McBride

My Goal: The goal of this paper is to evaluate the reported phenomenon of Jesus (Isa) appearing to some Muslims in dreams and visions [1], and to discern if such reports fit the pattern of Scripture as determined through conservative grammatical/historical principles of interpretation (hermeneutics).

My Concerns: I first became aware of the Muslin dreams phenomenon through a Christian brother who spoke with great excitement about a special moving of the Lord within Muslim communities. I wanted to share his excitement because I knew something of the difficulties of Muslim evangelism, and the great joy missionaries experience over even one Muslim coming to faith in Christ. However, over the course of our conversations my questions and concerns started to mount.

In short, I questioned if it was really Jesus appearing to these people, and if so, why? What special circumstances at this point in redemptive history would necessitate Him personally intervening, when He said it would be the Holy Spirit’s role to convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment through the preaching of the gospel by human preachers (John16:8; Rom. 10:14-15; 1 Cor. 1:21)?

I had no desire to resist or even question what God might be doing, but I feared these dreams of Isa might be little more than extra-biblical psychological or spiritual encounters that could supplant God’s Word and potentially lead their participants away from biblical authority rather than into it. And I was greatly concerned to hear the supposedly biblical rationale some of my fellow conservative Bible teachers were offering in defense of this movement. Some former defenders of the centrality and sufficiency of God’s Word in evangelism seemed suddenly to be sacrificing that doctrine on the altar of subjective mystical encounters. I needed to understand why, and to evaluate their rationale by God’s Word. I also needed to examine Isa’s communication to determine if it was consistent with Christ’s communication while He was on earth.

My Prayer: I rejoice that many Muslims are coming to faith in Christ, and I pray the Lord will send many more laborers into those fields. However, as Christians we have a mandate to guard God’s Word with all diligence and to test all claims of divine communication (1 Thess 5:20-21; Acts 17:11). This study is an attempt to do that.

Throughout this study I raise a number of questions about various aspects of this phenomenon, and I welcome the reader’s responses, whether they agree or disagree with my conclusions. I also welcome input on aspects I may have overlooked but need to consider.

My Conclusion: This study concludes that the biblical support offered for the Muslim dreams phenomenon, when evaluated within the context of Scripture, does not, in fact, support the phenomenon. Therefore, I conclude that these dreams and visions lack biblical authority and must therefore be viewed as extra-biblical experiences generated from sources other than the Holy Spirit.

Four Representative Descriptions or Views of the Muslim Dreams Phenomenon:

The following quotes are taken from the sources footnoted and reflect the primary views in support of this phenomenon.

Description/View #1 – We are now hearing many stories of people coming to faith in Christ as the result of a dream or vision where He appears to them, inviting them to trust in Him. This is particularly happening in the Muslim world. Many people instantly know it’s the Lord Jesus when He appears to them, but some do not. In some dreams and visions, He tells them who He is, and in others He does not—He just loves them and calls them to come to Him. After the dream/vision, the Lord provides someone to identify Him as they continue to seek Him. (We see something similar in the story of Cornelius in Acts 10.)

So, from what I understand, people are putting their trust in Christ, but some don’t know anything more about Him than that He is God, He loves them and He invites them to trust in Him. Two recurrent invitations continue to appear in the dreams and visions we are hearing about: 1) "I am the way, the truth and the life," and 2) "You belong to Me." As people are then able to get a copy of the Bible or talk to a Christian, their knowledge of Christ, the Cross, and the Christian life grows, as well as their faith and their understanding of who Jesus is and what He did.

For years, I have heard that God’s only plan for evangelism is for us to share the gospel. But these stories show that sometimes, Jesus goes directly to a person. And, in Revelation 14:6, there is an angel who takes the gospel to men.

So what that means is that if a person has never heard of Jesus through the preaching of the gospel, that is no obstacle for God. He can, and testimony shows that He does, appear directly to—and call a person to—have faith in Him. We still need to diligently pursue the Great Commission and take the gospel to all nations, since evangelism through the changed lives of Christ-followers is still God’s main plan. But God’s hands are not tied by our inability (or laziness, or selfishness, or disobedience) to get the gospel to everyone He has chosen for eternal life. [2]

Description/View #2 – There are many ways that people who have grown up and lived their lives in the Western part of the world will differ from the person who has grown up in the Eastern part of the world. Their foods differ. Their clothing differs. These things are mostly accepted and understand, but that same sort of understanding must continue to be brought to the forefront with regard to views on the supernatural.

Dreams and visions have been a known reality especially within the region we now know as the Middle East dating back to the days of Joseph. Both the Bible and the Qur’an document the stories of Joseph and his interpretation of dreams, not to mention the vision he was given. God was moving through dreams and visions then and He continues to speak through them today. Likewise, there is no reason not to believe that he will speak through them in the future. Instead, the words of Joel once again serve as a reminder that old men will “dream dreams” and young men will “see visions.”

In lands where people have never seen the words of God in written form and they may not even know how to read at all, God is still speaking to them and revealing Himself to them through dreams and visions. Within the lives of people so entrenched in the rituals and structure of Islam, God is breaking through with dreams and visions. In societies that are already open to the reality of the supernatural, God is showing himself to be a power above all powers, a name above all names. In the still of the night or the calm of a moment, God is using a form of communication that is not new, but instead echoes through generations. It is not the only way for Him to reach them, but case after case shows that it is one way. Missionaries have a choice to either ignore the reality or dare to believe and ask that God would invade their friends’ dreams, too, and reveal the truth of Jesus Christ to them as he has done in the lives of countless individuals.[3]

Description/View #3 – The visions or dreams we are discussing, and as documented in Muslim countries and elsewhere, come on two occasions. First, they come as heralds of the gospel, to non-believers. They open the eyes, point to, or start the search for the gospel message that is to come in its fullness. It is not the gospel itself, which only comes through the Word of God, written, or shared by a follower of Jesus either in person or over the radio and such. Think of Cornelius, who received a vision but was presented the gospel by Peter.

Once the gospel is received, the dreams stop. They do not return until and only if there is a great need for spiritual ministering such as under torture or martyrdom. They may, but not always, return under those circumstances as a vision of the waiting glory to come. Think of Steven. This is the pattern that missionaries see and the pattern that is seen in Scripture. . . [The dreams and visions] are not ongoing and indiscriminate in their nature and never add to the canon. They are given to nonbelievers in the first instance and to spiritually needy believers in the second instance. [4]

Description /View #4 – Just as God used a vision to convert Paul, in like manner He reveals Himself to Muslims through dreams. Just as God prepared Cornelius to hear the gospel through a vision, so God is preparing a multitude of Muslims to respond to His good news.[5]

Primary Considerations: Below are the primary considerations on this issue, most of which are reflected in one or more of the descriptions quoted above. I will address them in question and answer format.

1. Should we question an experience that helps lead someone to faith in Christ?

Why make an issue of how Muslims come to faith in Christ, as long as they come to faith? And doesn’t the fact that they come to faith legitimize the means by which they come? Those are fair questions, and the most concise answers are: 1) God commands us to be discerning in all things 2) the end doesn’t justify the means if the means fail the test of Scripture, and 3) this isn’t merely an experience; it’s a significant spiritual movement based on subjective mystical encounters that must have objective biblical support before they can be classified as truly Christian. Testing what claims to be from God is every Christian’s responsibility (1 Thess. 5:20-21; 1 John 4:1-3), and exercising caution about claims of Jesus speaking personally to Muslims is as important as exercising caution about any reports of divine communication beyond the text of Scripture itself.

In Acts 17:11 God commends the Bereans for putting the gospel itself to the test. But testing Muslim dreams is more difficult by far than testing the gospel because the gospel is a singular, cohesive, objective entity readily affirmed by direct biblical support; whereas these personal dreams are numerous, varied, subjective, and virtually impossible to test fully due to their extra-biblical content.

2. Is this a secondary doctrinal issue?

It has been argued that the fact of Muslims coming to Christ is so significant that the means by which they come is inconsequential. Therefore, to question the validity of dreams and visions is to miss the point and to nitpick over “secondary doctrines” when we should be rejoicing over God’s grace toward these people.

However, examining claims of Jesus appearing to Muslims does not diminish the value of Muslim converts. Just as God calls us to evangelize the lost and rejoice in their salvation, He also calls us to guard His Word and rejoice in the truth. One is not to be set against the other by improperly juxtaposing salvation and sound doctrine.

Claims that Jesus personally speaks to individuals today under any circumstances is not a secondary doctrinal issue by any means. Any time someone claims to have heard the voice of God, and especially if they claim to have seen Jesus, it’s of utmost importance to verify what Jesus reportedly did and said.

3. Are we to test the message or the messenger?

Discerning rightly between the message and the messenger is a key component in testing this phenomenon. That is to say, we can’t conclude that Isa is who he claims to be, or who his hearers perceive him to be, simply because his message has some biblical content (i.e., Scripture verses), or because God may use those verses to help bring the dreamers to saving faith. God’s Word will accomplish its intended purposes regardless of the messenger. That’s why Paul could rejoice even when men who wanted nothing more than to cause him grief proclaimed Jesus (Philippians 1:15-18). But even in his rejoicing Paul still exposed the sinful motives of those messengers, thereby demonstrating that the message doesn’t necessarily validate the messenger.

In Gal. 1:8, where Paul’s focus is primarily on the message, he also addresses the messengers, and does so in the strongest possible language: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” That’s a hypothetical scenario involving a false message, but coupled with Phil. 1:15-18 it shows the need to test both message and messenger, and to reject the “end justifies the means” approach to the Muslim dreams phenomenon offered by some of its advocates (i.e., “people are getting saved; therefore it must be Jesus appearing to them”, or “people are getting saved; therefore we shouldn’t question the means by which they are coming to faith”).

As important as the messengers are, the power of the gospel to redeem souls is not dependent on their identity or credibility. Therefore one can rejoice in Muslim conversions while still expressing concerns about the messenger, especially since the Isa of Muslim dreams isn’t simply calling Muslim’s to believe in the Jesus of the Bible; he is calling them to believe in him (Isa), therefore claiming to be God and worthy of their worship.

That’s one of my primary concerns with this phenomenon. To believe in the Jesus of the Bible is one thing; to believe in the “Jesus” of one’s dreams is quite another. Muslims who are “coming to Jesus” are equating the two, as are many who minister to Muslims and who pray Isa will appear to more Muslims so more will be “saved.” Therefore, it may be even more important to discern between this messenger and his message than in either of Paul’s two examples cited above. Paul’s were messengers with false motives or false messages; Isa is a messenger claiming to be God! [6]

4. Does this phenomenon constitute ongoing revelation?

Some supporters of Muslim dreams also affirm that divine revelation ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture. They see no contradiction in those positions because they don’t view these dreams as ongoing revelation. Isa, they say, isn’t adding to Scripture; he’s merely reiterating what has already been revealed (i.e., Scripture verses and biblical principles).

A Doctrinal Contradiction: However, the doctrine of no ongoing revelation affirms that Christians have no message from God apart from the text of Scripture[7] In other words, Scripture alone is God’s verbal communication to mankind, which excludes all other supposed communication from Him, including Jesus speaking in contemporary dreams and visions. Therefore, one can’t affirm both cessation of divine revelation and Jesus personally communicating with Muslims (or anyone else). They are mutually exclusive doctrines.

A Divine Encounter: Claiming that these dreams aren’t intended to add to Scripture doesn’t change the fact that they are appeals to divine revelation. Content aside, the encounter itself, if true, is revelatory. It is God revealing Himself personally beyond His self-disclosure in Scripture. Therefore, any personal encounter with God is rightly considered ongoing revelation.

New Messages from Jesus: Additionally, in Muslim dreams Isa is reportedly communicating not only Bible verses, but also messages of encouragement, instruction, exhortation, prophecies, and other information not included in Scripture. That’s ongoing (or additional) revelation, especially since it reportedly comes from God Himself. Granted, it’s not intended to be canonized, but it is divine revelation nonetheless. When Jesus Himself speaks, how can it be anything less than authoritative divine revelation? Fact is, far from being non-revelatory, these hundreds of appearances of Isa suggest a contemporary period of divine revelation rivaling the New Testament era itself.

5. Can God communicate the gospel supernaturally?

Does Scripture disallow Jesus (post-ascension) personally communicating to unbelievers to prepare them to receive the gospel? That’s a fair question, but I think the more appropriate question is: where does Scripture teach that He will do that? And do the biblical accounts of visions serve as parallels or patterns for what is occurring today in some Muslim communities?

Could God Do It? Before answering those questions, I want to comment on the hypothetical question of whether God could communicate His gospel apart from human instrumentality if He chose to do so. The answer, of course, is yes, He could. However, He has already decreed both the end and the means of salvation, and has revealed His decree in Scripture. The end is that all the elect will be saved and none lost (John 6:39-40); the means is through faith in Christ in response to the Spirit-empowered gospel proclaimed by human instrumentality (e.g., Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 2:36-40; Rom. 1:16; 10:13-15).

Jesus personally communicating the gospel at this point in redemptive history would be outside His revealed decree, which would be a highly exceptional situation. That raises the questions of what aspects of Muslim evangelism constitute a highly exceptional situation that would require God to work outside His revealed decree, and is there clear Scriptural support for Him doing so? I will answer those questions below as I examine the texts used to support Isa’s appearances.

6. Is this phenomenon consistent with the Holy Spirit’s convicting role?

Toward the end of His earthly ministry, Jesus told His disciples He had to leave so the Holy Spirit could come. And He told them the Spirit would convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment, and would guide people into all truth. He would also reveal the things of Christ, impart illumination and saving faith, and regenerate human hearts (cf. John 16:5-15; 1 Cor. 1:12-16).

We know from Romans 1:18-20 and 2:14-15 that general revelation (i.e., external creation and internal conscience) is God’s self-revelation to everyone; that’s why all are without excuse and accountable before Him (Rom. 2:20; 3:9). Also, general revelation is how He pre-conditions His elect to the gospel. Those who by grace respond to general revelation receive additional (special) revelation through God’s Word and the Spirit’s ministry. Why then is it necessary for Jesus to make personal appearances to prepare someone to receive the gospel when that’s the specific role of the Holy Spirit?

All unbelievers are equally lost and can be saved only if the Father grants them faith (John 6:65), draws them (John 6:44), opens their hearts to the truth (Acts 16:14), and teaches them (John 6:45). That’s how every unbeliever comes to faith. There is no unbelief that is beyond the reach of the Holy Spirit’s convicting and regenerating power, and which requires personal visitations from Jesus to convince it of the truth of the gospel.

7. Does the church’s failure to evangelize Muslims necessitate Jesus’ personal intervention?

Some say that Jesus has to intervene personally because the church has failed to evangelize Muslims. However, that could be said of any people group in any area at any time in church history, and even of individuals in our own culture who haven’t heard the gospel because a Christian friend failed to share it. If that were the case, dreams and visions would be commonplace.

Perhaps the church has failed in some measure to evangelize Muslims, and I pray that Christians will be increasingly active in reaching out to them. But the third description of this phenomenon cited above echoes a common assertion that the dreams and visions “open the eyes, point to, or start the search for the gospel message that is to come in its fullness. It is not the gospel itself, which only comes through the Word of God, written, or shared by a follower of Jesus either in person or over the radio and such.”

That description argues against failure on the part of the church to reach out to Muslims. If Muslims are receiving the gospel that can only come through God’s Word, written or shared by a follower of Jesus, then of necessity Christians are involved in the process. So despite any evangelistic deficiencies within the church, it appears God is still linking Muslims with Christians, either directly or indirectly, to help get the job done.

However, my main point here is that failure on the church’s part doesn’t necessitate Jesus personally intervening through dreams and visions, because it’s the Holy Spirit’s role to direct the elect to the gospel and the gospel to the elect. Could the Spirit prompt unredeemed elect individuals to dream about Jesus and use those dreams to open their hearts to the gospel? Of course He could. But that’s not what’s being claimed. To have a dream about Jesus, even a Spirit-directed dream, is different from Jesus revealing Himself in a dream. One is natural; the other is supernatural. One is a natural dream; the other is a divine revelation. Those distinctions must be understood and maintained.

8. What did Jesus say about His future appearances?

Immediately after Jesus ascended into heaven, two men (angels) said to the onlookers, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). And when He does come to earth again, it will be “in the glory of His Father with His angels” (Matt. 16:27). Jesus warned about any supposed appearances prior to that time (Matt. 24).

Those passages refer specifically to Christ’s physical return to earth at some future point in time, but do they also preclude Him appearing in dreams or visions prior to that time? We can’t answer that question conclusively from those texts, but we can conclude that the only teaching Jesus gave concerning His future appearances on earth relate to His physical return. Therefore, we mustn’t conclude that other appearances are permissible unless Scripture elsewhere permits us to do so. With that in mind, I’ll briefly discuss the relevant New Testament “visions” passages below (see #11) to see if they give a green light to modern-day appearances of Jesus in dreams or visions.

9. Does Scripture encourage expectations of personal visitations from Jesus?

Faith based on God’s Word (spoken or written), not personal divine visitations, has been the biblical requirement and standard since the birth of the church.[8] In fact, with the exception of Paul on the road to Damascus, there is no biblical record of Jesus appearing to any unbeliever following His ascension. And Scripture nowhere encourages or even suggests praying for divine appearances as an evangelism strategy or a means of comforting persecuted Christians during the church age. That is utterly foreign to Scripture. Yet the challenges to propagate this phenomenon continue: “Missionaries have a choice to either ignore the reality [of Muslim dreams] or dare to believe and ask that God would invade their friends’ dreams, too, and reveal the truth of Jesus Christ to them as he has done in the lives of countless individuals” (italics added). [9]

It’s important to note that Jesus Himself commended those who believed without seeing Him (John 20:24-29) [10], and He corrected the erroneous thinking that a personal appearance of one who has died is more persuasive than hearing God’s Word (Luke 16:19-31). [11] Peter, too, commended believers who loved the Lord without having seen Him (1 Pet. 1:3-9). That’s normal Christian faith. Additionally, there are no instructions or regulating principles in the Pastoral Epistles regarding dreams or visions (with the exception of the Col. 2:18-19 warning about false teachers who take their stand on such experiences), whereas there are numerous and detailed instructions for teaching, preaching, and guarding “the sacred writings which are able to give . . . the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15; see also 1 Tim. 4:13-16; 2 Tim. 4:1-4; Titus 1:9-11).

10. Is Isa’s message consistent with Scripture?

If Jesus were appearing to unbelieving Muslims, it follows that His message would be consistent with His message to unbelievers while on earth. But that is not the case.

What Isa Reportedly Says: As I read the various accounts of dreams, I’m struck with the impossibility of testing them according to Scripture because their extra-biblical content is so extensive and varied. Many of the dreams contain a verse or two of Scripture, along with encouragement to seek the Savior spoken of in the verses. In many, Isa either identifies himself as Jesus or is assumed to be Jesus by the dreamers.

Reportedly, some of the dreamers had no prior exposure to the Bible or the gospel, but most of the accounts I’ve read indicate the dreamers had some prior exposure to the Bible and/or Christians. Other accounts don’t comment on that aspect of the story.

Most of the content of the dreams relate generally to the circumstances of the various dreamers (e.g., encouragement in trials or rescue from danger, which are common themes). That kind of content can’t be tested by Scripture except by broad measurements such as “does it encourage faith in Christ?” or “is it generally consistent with biblical principles?” But those are vague and inadequate tests for determining the divine origin of a dream or vision, as I will explain below.

What Isa Doesn’t Say: I’m most struck by what Isa doesn’t say in the accounts I’ve read. Although the encounters are said to prepare the dreamers for the gospel, there is little or no mention of sin, repentance, confession, righteousness, or forgiveness; and no presentation of God’s holiness or justice. Simply put, the need for salvation isn’t clarified (or in some cases even mentioned), yet that was at the heart of Christ’s communication with unbelievers when He was on earth. But Isa’s “gospel” is minimalistic and void of any clear and concise call to repentance. Gospel clarity and precision would be especially important for those Muslims who don’t have a biblical background to draw from and who would therefore need to understand what God requires of them.

Does Isa Pass the Test? Jesus used a variety of approaches when speaking with unbelievers, depending on the individual or group (e.g., Nicodemus, Rich Young Ruler, Woman at the Well), but typically He identified who He was, confronted their sin, called them to repentance, called them to believe in Him, cautioned them to count the cost of discipleship, and then to take up their crosses daily and follow Him. He didn’t state all those elements in every case, but collectively they constituted the thrust of His message.

By way of contrast, Isa typically identifies who he is (or the dreamer instinctively knows who he is), and tells the dreamer he loves him and wants him (the dreamer) to follow him (Isa). Sometimes the dreamer is overwhelmed with a sense of love and peace just by being in Isa’s presence (which was never the case with unbelievers in the presence of Jesus). So the message that emerges is one of believing in Isa and following him apparently apart from the Holy Spirit convicting of sin, righteousness, and judgment (John 16:8).

That’s the pattern I see throughout the accounts I’ve read. Consequently I question the substance of the message Isa is delivering, and the substance of the gospel some of these Muslims are affirming. That’s not to say their conversions aren’t genuine, especially given the fuller gospel presentation that some receive subsequent to their initial dreams. But it is to say that the message Isa is giving falls short of the message Jesus typically gave to unbelievers while on earth. That shortcoming is a major point of consideration in discerning if this really is Jesus speaking to these people.

Again, I understand the assertion that Isa isn’t sharing the gospel but is merely preparing dreamers for the gospel that is to come in greater fullness via a human evangelist. But I still question the inconsistencies between Jesus’ preparation of unbelievers while on earth and Isa’s preparation via dreams. Also, in some of the accounts I’ve read, Isa does, in fact, call on the dreamers to believe in him. So the claim that he merely prepares them to receive the gospel isn’t always consistent with the testimony record.

Additionally, I have to wonder why Jesus wouldn’t share the gospel with Muslims if He were appearing to them. He’s the most capable and powerful evangelist the world has ever known. Yes, Rom. 10:13-15 says salvation comes by hearing the gospel preached by a human, and that is part of the divine decree I mentioned above. But those who affirm that Jesus is appearing to Muslims also affirm by implication that God isn’t confined to His own decree in these instances, so why would the human evangelist be necessary at all except in a follow-up capacity?

11. Are New Testament visions a pattern for Muslim dreams?

Descriptive or Prescriptive? One task of an interpreter of Scripture is to determine if a passage is descriptive or prescriptive. In other words, does the passage describe what occurred in the past, or does it prescribe what will or should occur in the future, or both? For example, determining if the Acts chapter two account of the Day of Pentecost only describes what did occur as a unique event in the history of the church, or whether it also prescribes a pattern for what should occur in each believer’s life, will determine one’s position on Pentecostalism. Determining whether Paul’s teachings on the role of women were descriptive of the culture of his day or prescriptive for every culture will determine one’s position on the role of women in the church today.

Similarly, determining if the accounts of biblical visions describe what did occur during a unique time in revelatory and/or redemptive history, or whether they also prescribe a pattern for what should occur today will, in large part, determine one’s position on the current Muslim phenomenon. So with that in mind, I’ll briefly examine the New Testament accounts used in support of the Muslim dreams phenomenon.

Consider the Context: I should first mention that in support of Muslim dreams, their advocates often cite the occurrences of similar phenomenon in Scripture. And without question God did use dreams and visions on occasion in both the Old and New Testaments when they served His purposes. But we must consider not only the fact of their use in Scripture, but also the reasons for their use and the historical and redemptive contexts in which they were used. If those considerations have contemporary parallels in the Muslim phenomenon, then it may have biblical support. If they don’t have parallels, the phenomenon isn’t “just as” or “in like manner” as the biblical accounts (to quote Rick Love), and therefore lacks direct biblical support.

I’ll confine my examination to the New Testament visions that have been appealed to in support of the Muslim dreams phenomenon, or that help us evaluate that phenomenon. Those passages are:

a. Acts 7:55-56 – Stephen’s vision of heaven

b. Acts 9:1-10 – God’s visions to Paul and Ananias

c. Acts 10:3 – The vision to Cornelius to send for Peter in Joppa

d. Acts 10:9 – Peter’s visions of the “sheet” and animals

e. Acts 10:19 – Peter is “thinking about the vision” and the Spirit interrupts him

f. Acts 16:6 – Paul’s vision of the man of Macedonia beckoning him to come there

g. Acts 18:9 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision to encourage him to keep preaching

h. 2 Corinthians 12:1 – Paul says he had momentous visions

i. Revelation 1:9-17 – John’s vision of the ascended and glorified Christ

A Brief Examination of Those Visions:

a. Acts 7:55-56 – Stephen – “Being full of the Holy Spirit, [Stephen] gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, ‘Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’”

Stephen was a man “full of grace and power”, who “was performing great wonders and signs among the people” (Acts 6:8). His vision of heaven, while facing martyrdom, followed his powerfully and confrontive sermon to the Jewish Council, and is often offered as a pattern for the dreams and visions some Muslims experience during similar trials. But to my knowledge Stephen was the only New Testament saint to have a vision of Christ or heaven just prior to his death. So Stephen serves as an example of how God can comfort His children during martyrdom, but doesn’t establish a pattern for Him doing so either then or now.

Unique Apostolic Period: More importantly, although Stephen was not an apostle per se, he ministered in the power of the Holy Spirit during the apostolic period, which was a unique transitional period in which God was giving new revelation through His messengers, and confirming the messengers and the message by miraculous signs and wonders (Acts 6:8; Heb. 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 12:12). Those signs and wonders, as well as the personal revelations, were directly linked to the birth of the church, to apostolic preaching, and to inspiration of the New Testament Scriptures.

Those events and that period of time have no parallel in church history, so their context can’t be duplicated. Therefore, the experiences of Steven and his apostolic companions must be viewed as descriptive unless Scripture indicates otherwise. That’s a point I’ll return to repeatedly in the considerations that follow because the contexts that reveal God communicating one-on-one to His messengers also reveal His reasons for doing so. And those reasons were directly linked to non-repeatable historical and revelatory events. So it isn’t exegetically permissible to pull an experience like Steven’s vision out of its context and place it into a context of contemporary Muslim dreams without a more definitive biblical rationale.

New Testament Pattern for Persecution: I praise the Lord for encouraging and undergirding His children during times of persecution or martyrdom, and I certainly don’t question His ability to do that. Although Stephen’s vision was unique and therefore doesn’t serve as a pattern or norm, Scripture does give us a pattern for undergoing persecution:

In this [your eternal inheritance] you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls (1 Pet. 1:6-9, italics added. See also Rom. 5:1-5; James 1:2-4).

In that passage Peter makes clear that “the revelation of Jesus Christ” was yet future for those believers, and that the firey testing of their faith, apart from any visions or appearances of Jesus, was what produced faith like pure gold, which would result in praise, glory and honor to Christ.

That’s the New Testament pattern for discerning God’s will in persecution, which doesn’t eliminate the possibility of Jesus appearing to persecuted Christians today, but it does raise the question of what it is about today’s persecutions that would prompt Jesus to appear when He didn’t do so even in Peter’s time when the church was relatively young and Christians were being severely persecuted and definitely in need of encouragement?

b. Acts 9:1-10 – God’s visions to Paul and Ananias concerning Ananias’ healing ministry to the newly converted Paul.

Paul described this experience as “a heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19) even though it included time-space manifestations, some of which were also witnessed by his companions (Acts 9:7). Apparently Paul did not see Jesus Himself, but saw “a light brighter than the sun” (Acts 26:13) and heard Jesus’ voice (Acts 9:3-4ff; 26:14ff).

This was an encounter wherein Jesus personally called an unbeliever to faith. But this, of course, was no ordinary unbeliever, and the unique apostolic ministry to which Paul was being called makes this encounter utterly unique and directly related to the canonical revelation that was to follow. Does Paul’s vision establish a pattern for contemporary Muslim dreams as Rick Love and others assert? The fact that Paul had a “vision” is similar, but the reason for that vision has no modern parallel because it was linked inextricably to Paul’s apostolic calling, divine revelation, and the future disclosure of God’s Word.

The same is true of Ananias’ vision, which apparently involved hearing the Lord’s voice but not seeing Him. His vision was directly linked to Paul’s, and therefore it, too, has no direct modern parallel. Both of those accounts are descriptive of what happened in the past, but not prescriptive of what should happen in the future.

c. Acts 10:3 – The vision to Cornelius to send for Peter in Joppa. (See notes under Acts 10:19 below.)

d. Acts 10:9 – As the messengers arrive from Cornelius, Peter falls into a trance and has the three visions of a “sheet” of animals coming down from heaven; this is the divine lesson that teaches him to accept the gentiles as co-participants in the Abrahamic covenant blessings. (See notes under Acts 10:19 below.)

e. Acts 10:19 – Peter is “thinking about the vision” and the Spirit interrupts him.

The visions Peter and Cornelius experienced are often cited as patterns for Isa preparing unbelieving Muslims to receive the gospel from Christian evangelists. But Peter and Cornelius aren’t a pattern even for New Testament evangelism, much less modern-day evangelism. Theirs was a unique situation in which the Lord drew them together supernaturally for a specific purpose that has no parallel today or in any other period of church history.

Further, there is no correlation between Cornelius’ experience and Muslim unbelievers whom Isa is reportedly preparing to receive the gospel. Cornelius was not an unbeliever, but “a devout man, and one who feared God with all his household, and gave many alms to the Jewish people, and prayed to God continually” (Acts 10:1-2). He did not see Jesus, but an angel (Acts 10:3, 7, 30-31) and was then directed by the Holy Spirit to send for Peter (Acts 10:20). Cornelius’ vision was clearly revelatory and intended to be included in the canon of Scripture (as were Peter’s).

But beyond those dissimilarities is the unique role their visions played in redemptive and revelatory history. Peter’s visions were intended to teach him that God was including gentiles in His covenant promises. Peter represented Jewish believers to whom the gospel was entrusted, and through whom it was first proclaimed following Christ’s Ascension. He also represented apostolic authority. Cornelius represented gentiles, who were previously outside the covenant (cf. Eph. 2:11-12) but who were now to be included.

Given the animosity between Jews and gentiles, and the other Jew/gentile dynamics present at that time, Peter and his apostolic companions needed to know that God was including gentiles in the covenant promises (Acts 10:28-29), and that the Holy Spirit had been given to them just as He had been given to the Jews at Pentecost (Acts 10:44-48; 11:1-18). Similarly, Cornelius and his fellow gentile believers needed to know that the Apostles were God’s authoritative ambassadors of the gospel. Those mutual understandings were critical for the foundation and unity of the early church, and that’s why Peter and Cornelius had to meet face to face.

My assumption is that most Muslims are gentiles, and therefore would already be included in the covenant promises upon exercising faith in Christ. So there would be no need for God to move among them as a people group in a parallel fashion as He did with Peter and Cornelius. So there is no apparent pattern that Peter and Cornelius set for the current Muslim phenomenon. Yes, they had visions, but those visions were set in a unique and non-repeatable redemptive context.

f. Acts 16:6 – Paul’s vision of the man of Macedonia beckoning him to come there. I’ve already commented on the unique nature and context of Paul’s visions, so I needn’t repeat myself here or in “g.” and “h.” below, except to emphasize once again that they were directly linked to apostolic authority, the birth of the church, and biblical revelation, which means they have no contemporary parallels.

g. Acts 18:9 – Jesus speaks to Paul in a vision to encourage him to keep preaching.

h. 2 Corinthians 12:1 – Paul says he had momentous visions.

i. Revelation 1:9-17 – John has a vision of the ascended and glorified Christ. It’s interesting to note that John’s reaction was to “fall at His feet as a dead man” (v. 17). John knew Jesus well, and even described himself as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:20). But when he saw Christ in His ascended glory, he fell down as if dead. That’s a far cry from the reactions of Muslims who reportedly have seen Jesus in dreams and visions in which He is typically described simply as a man in a white robe who made them feel an overwhelming sense of love.

Conclusion: In light of their unique contexts I must conclude that the New Testament vision passages do not lend biblical support to contemporary Muslim dreams.

12. Does Joel 2:28 support the Muslim dreams phenomenon?

Joel 2:28 is a favorite verse for supporters of Muslim dreams because it speaks of a time when dreams and visions will be common:

“And it will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.” There’s no doubt Joel prophesied that such a time would come, but are Muslim dreams part of its fulfillment? Joel’s prophecy has elements that are difficult to interpret, but its key elements are clear and identify a time that is yet future as the time of its fulfillment. A full exegesis of that passage is beyond the scope of this paper [12], but note that verse 28 begins, “and it will come about after this” (italics added), which refers back to verses 2-27. Those verses speak of events that have not yet occurred, and of a time when God will bless Israel and she will know that He is her God. Then verse 28 will occur.

Many advocates of Muslim dreams reference Pentecost and Peter’s description of the phenomenon accompanying the coming of the Holy Spirit on that occasion as initiating the era of dreams and visions prophesied by Joel – an era, they say, that will continue throughout the church age. In Acts 2:16 Peter does describe the phenomenon onlookers were witnessing at Pentecost as “what was spoken of through the prophet Joel.” He then quotes Joel 2:28-32:

“And it shall be in the last days,” God says, “That I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all mankind; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even upon My bondslaves, both men and women, I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit and they shall prophesy. And I will grant wonders in the sky above, and signs on the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come. And it shall be, that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:17-21).

It’s clear from the description of the cosmic signs in Joel’s prophecy that Pentecost was only a partial fulfillment of that prophecy, with its complete fulfillment yet to come. Dr. Irvin Busenitz comments:

The cosmic signs of Joel 2:30-31 [3:3-4] are significantly absent in Luke’s account of Pentecost. The sun was not darkened; the moon did not turn to blood. There is no blood, fire, or columns of smoke. Joel mentions nothing of speaking supernaturally generated foreign languages nor does Acts give evidence of supernatural dreams. [13]

Nathan Busenitz adds, “If the continuationist [those who believe that the signs and wonders of the Apostolic age continue throughout the church age] is going to apply the prophecy and dreams of Joel 2 to the entire church age, he must explain why the cosmic signs of Joel 2/Acts 2 are not also a continuing part of the church age.”[14] That’s the challenge for those who appeal to Joel 2:28 in support of Muslim dreams as well.

Dr. Irvin Busenitz continues:

Only two points of contact are found [between Joel’s prophecy and Pentecost]: God’s Spirit was poured out, and those who called upon the name of the Lord were saved. But it is these two elements of Joel’s prophecy – the Spirit poured out and salvation for those who call on the Lord – that provide the connecting link to Pentecost. They lead logically to the central focus of Peter’s sermon. Consequently, it appears best to view Joel’s prophecy as fulfilled in a preliminary fashion at the time of Pentecost, with a complete fulfillment reserved for the time surrounding the Second Advent.[15]

There were no dreams or visions at Pentecost, nor did Joel indicate that Jesus would appear in dreams and visions when His Prophecy was fulfilled. He speaks only of the fact of dreams and visions, not of their content. Therefore, it’s incumbent upon those who defend Muslim dreams on the basis of Joel 2:28 to demonstrate more convincingly how Joel’s prophecy supports this phenomenon.

13. If Jesus isn’t appearing in these dreams, who is?

If the Isa of Muslim dreams is not the Jesus of the Bible, who is he? One option is a false Christ appearing as an angel of light (2 Cor. 11:4, 13-15). But what could the enemy of our souls hope to gain from doing that? Consider this: we’ve already seen that people with sinful motives have preached Christ for selfish gain (Phil. 1:15-18), so it’s reasonable to envision the author of pride and selfishness doing the same and in the process potentially:

· Diverting worship from Christ to himself, which has been his goal from the beginning (Isa. 14:12-14; Matt. 4:9).

· Deceiving Muslims into thinking they’re worshiping the true Jesus when, in fact, they’re worshiping the person in their dreams. All the accounts I’ve read unquestioningly equate Isa with Jesus.

· Diluting the primacy, centrality and authority of God’s Word by establishing faith based on subjective revelations and experiences (John 20:24-29).

· Creating expectations of evangelism linked to visitations from Jesus. (Some Muslim outreach strategies now include praying that Isa will appear to even more Muslims so more will be saved.)

· Creating expectations of additional visitations from Jesus, such as during times of persecution, and the inevitable disillusionment and confusion that result when those expectations aren’t met.

· Causing division within the Body of Christ over this issue.

I mention those to illustrate how the enemy could benefit from a phenomenon that on the surface may seems like a kingdom divided. I haven’t concluded that visions of Isa are necessarily demonic, nor do I believe Muslims are not being genuinely saved. But Muslims who come to Christ do so in the same way everyone else throughout church history has: the Holy Spirit opens their hearts to the truth (Acts 16:14). But the spiritual harm that can result from connecting their faith to subjective mystical experiences can be great, as certain parallel revelatory claims of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (as well as various cultic groups) have demonstrated over the years.

When it comes to personal revelations from God, the difference between the Muslim phenomenon and other revelatory claims is simply one of degree, not kind. Consequently, an experiential and mystical foundation has already been laid for the communities of former Muslims who have seen Isa and now profess faith in Christ.

14. Are there cultural considerations that might shed light on this phenomenon?

Another option to the question of who is appearing to these Muslims has to do with cultural considerations. In my research I sought the counsel of Dr. William Barrick, Professor of Old Testament at The Master’s Seminary. Dr. Barrick ministered among Muslims in Bangladesh for 15 years and offered these observations about reported appearances of Jesus to Muslim converts there:

(1) Most turned out to be pure imagination upon close questioning and examination. None had really seen him while awake—almost every single one had had some sort of dream.

(2) Muslims can be extremely susceptible to charismatic doctrine and practices, because much of folk Islam is infused with the same things seen in charismatic circles (speaking in tongues, healings, miracles, extreme emotionalism).

(3) Muslims revere special experiences and make them up in order to provide (a) a viable [in their opinion] response to those who accuse them of abandoning Islam, (b) a means of identifying with the testimony and life of persecution lived by the Apostle Paul, and (c) dreams are taken very, very seriously—about anything.

(4) Those who had dreams about Jesus seem to have all had some prior contact with Christians, the Gospel, or with the Scriptures that left an indelible impression. What was revealed in the dream had first been revealed to them in real life experience. The dreams merely replicated those experiences. The appearance of Jesus in their dreams matched exactly the appearance of Him they had seen as a child in a Christian flannelgraph lesson or in some Christian literature. The verses of Scripture (John 3:16 being a favorite) in their dreams was one they had been taught or heard.[16]

(5) Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians deals with those who claim special experiences (such as visions) and counters their error with the realities of the work and Person of Christ.

Conclusion: If Muslims were having dreams about Jesus, which resulted in opening their hearts to the gospel, I’d say, “Praise the Lord”, because I believe the Holy Spirit can use natural dreams to convict people of their need for salvation and direct them to the gospel if He so chooses. However, the reports I’m hearing and reading claim that Jesus Himself, in the person of Isa, is appearing to Muslims in dreams. I must reject the accuracy of those claims for all the reasons outlined above, and conclude that such dreams and visions lack biblical authority and must therefore be viewed as extra-biblical experiences generated from sources other than the Holy Spirit. I must also continue to pray that the gospel of Jesus Christ, not dreams and visions of Isa, will permeate Muslim communities throughout the world for the glory of our Lord and the salvation of many precious souls.

[1] For the sake of brevity, I will hereafter refer to the phenomenon simply as “Muslim dreams”.

[2] Sue Bohlin, What About the Person Who Never Heard of Jesus?, Probe Ministries,

[3] Good News for the Crescent World , Dreams and Visions in the World of Folk Islam: Could These be a Pathway to Jesus Christ?,

[4] Former Missions Chairman of a conservative evangelical church. I cite this unpublished source because it’s a concise summary of the supposed biblical support for Muslim dreams.

[5] Rick Love, Muslims, Magic and the Kingdom of God (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2000), 156.

[6] See #9 below for an examination of Isa’s message.

[7] C.f. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, Article XXV: “We deny that the preacher has any message from God apart from the text of Scripture” in Explaining Hermeneutics: A Commentary on the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics. Oakland, California: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1983 (

[8] Cases such as Paul, Cornelius, and Steven are directly related to the unique Apostolic era, as discussed in section #11 below.

[9] Good News for the Crescent World, Dreams and Visions in the World of Folk Islam : could these be a pathway to Jesus Christ?,

[10] Jesus said to Thomas, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

[11] In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells the story of the rich man & Lazarus. While suffering torment in Hades, the rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his five brothers so they wouldn’t end up there too. Abraham responded, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” The rich man replied, “No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!” But Abraham said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.” (Vv. 29-31). That text alone should erase any question about the sufficiency of God’s Word in bringing the lost to salvation apart from any miraculous encounter or mystical experience.

[12] For a full treatment of Joel’s prophecy, I recommend Dr. Irvin Busenitz’s commentary, Joel and Obadiah: A Mentor Commentary, Christian Focus, or Charles L. Feinberg, The Minor Prophets, Moody Press.

[13] Irvin Busenitz, Joel and Obadiah: A Mentor Commentary, Christian Focus, p. 193.

[14] Nathan Busenitz, Now that’s the Spirit – Assessing and Addressing Evangelical Charismatics, Notes from 2006 Grace Community Church Shepherds’ Conference, p. 3.

[15] Irvin Busenitz, Joel and Obadiah: A Mentor Commentary, Christian Focus, p. 194.

[16] The Arabic translation of the Christian Scriptures dates back to about 867 AD (the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151, and includes the Biblical text, marginal comments, lectionary notes, and glosses). Therefore, many Muslims have had the Bible in their language for more than 1,000 years. (c.f. codex_151.htm.

“Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus”

That’s a video that has gone viral and deserves comment. After I watched it and noted my first impressions (good and not so good), I found an excellent critique by Kevin DeYoung, posted verbatim below.

“Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really”–Kevin De Young

UPDATE: Since I posted this article, Jefferson Bethke and I have had a chance to talk by email and over the phone. I included some of our conversation in a follow up post. I hope you will be as encouraged by the exchange as I was.


There’s a new You Tube video going viral and it’s about Jesus and religion.

Specifically how Jesus hates religion.

The video—which in a few days has gone from hundreds of views to thousands to millions—shows Jefferson Bethke, who lives in the Seattle area, delivering a well-crafted, sharply produced, spoken word poem. The point, according to Bethke, is “to highlight the difference between Jesus and false religion.” In the past few days I’ve seen this video pop up all over Facebook. I’ve had people from my church say they like it. Some has asked me what I think. Others have told me there’s something off about the poem, but they can’t quite articulate what it is. I’ll try to explain what that is in a moment. But first watch the video for yourself.

Before I say anything else, let me say Jefferson Bethke seems like a sincere young man who wants people to know God’s scandalous grace. I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says on his Facebook page: “I love Jesus, I’m addicted to grace, and I’m just a messed up dude trying to make Him famous.” If I met him face to face, I bet I’d like Jefferson and his honesty and passion. I bet I’d be encouraged by his story and his desire to free people from the snares of self-help, self-righteous religion.

And yet (you knew it was coming), amidst a lot of true things in this poem there is a lot that is unhelpful and misleading.

This video is the sort of thing that many younger Christians love. It sounds good, looks good, and feels good. But is it true? That’s the question we must always ask. And to answer that question, I want to go through this poem slowly, verse by verse. Not because I think this is the worst thing ever. It’s certainly not. Nor because I think this video will launch a worldwide revolution. I want to spend some time on this because Bethke perfectly captures the mood, and in my mind the confusion, of a lot of earnest, young Christians.

Verse 1

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting republican really wasn’t his mission
What if I told you republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind
Doesn’t automatically give you vision

Okay, so the line about Republicans is a cheap shot (if you vote GOP) or a prophetic stance (if you like Jim Wallis). While it’s true that “republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian” and in some parts of the country that may be a word churchgoers need to hear, I doubt that putting right-wingers in their place is the most pressing issue in Seattle.

More important is Bethke’s opening line: “Jesus came to abolish religion.” That’s the whole point of the poem. The argument—and most poems are arguing for something—rests on the sharp distinction between religion on one side and Jesus on the other. Whether this argument is fair depends on your definition of religion. Bethke sees religion as a man made attempt to earn God’s favor. Religion equals self-righteousness, moral preening, and hypocrisy. Religion is all law and no gospel. If that’s religion, then Jesus is certainly against it.

But that’s not what religion is. We can say that’s what is has become for some people or what we understand it to be. But words still matter and we shouldn’t just define them however we want. “Jesus hates religion” communicates something that “Jesus hates self-righteousness” doesn’t. To say that Jesus hates pride and hypocrisy is old news. To say he hates religion—now, that has a kick to it. People hear “religion” and think of rules, rituals, dogma, pastors, priests, institutions. People love Oprah and the Shack and “spiritual, not religious” bumper stickers because the mood of our country is one that wants God without the strictures that come with traditional Christianity. We love the Jesus that hates religion.

The only problem is, he didn’t. Jesus was a Jew. He went to services at the synagogue. He observed Jewish holy days. He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, but to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17). He founded the church (Matt. 16:18). He established church discipline (Matt. 18:15-20). He instituted a ritual meal (Matt. 26:26-28). He told his disciples to baptize people and to teach others to obey everything he commanded (Matt. 28:19-20). He insisted that people believe in him and believe certain things about him (John 3:16-18; 8:24). If religion is characterized by doctrine, commands, rituals, and structure, then Jesus is not your go-to guy for hating religion. This was the central point behind the book Ted Kluck and I wrote a few years ago.

The word “religion” occurs five times in English Standard Version of the Bible. It is, by itself, an entirely neutral word. Religion can refer to Judaism (Acts 26:5) or the Jewish-Christian faith (Acts 25:19). Religion can be bad when it is self-made (Col. 2:23) or fails to tame the tongue (James 1:26). But religion can also be good when it cares for widows and orphans and practices moral purity (James 1:27). Unless we define the word to suit our purposes, there is simply no biblical grounds for saying Jesus hated religion. What might be gained by using such language will, without a careful explanation and caveats, be outweighed by what is lost when we give the impression that religion is the alloy that corrupts a relationship with Jesus.

Verse 2

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce
But in the old testament God actually calls religious people whores

These claims say very little because they try to say too much. Have there been religious wars in the last two thousand years? Yes. Have there also been wars over money, land, ego, women, slavery, democracy, freedom, communism, fascism, Nazism, terrorism and just about everything else you can imagine? Yes. Furthermore, if you want to blame conflict on religion, you can’t neatly excise Jesus from the equation. You may not like the Crusades, but many of the Crusaders thought they were sincerely fighting for Jesus by trying take back the Holy Land from the Muslims.

More to the point, Christians need to stop perpetuating the myth that we’ve basically been huge failures in the world. That may win us an audience with non-Christians, but it’s not true. We are sinners like everyone else, so our record is mixed. We’ve been stupid and selfish over the years. But we’ve also been the salt of the earth. The evangelical awakening in England in the eighteenth century is widely credited for preventing the sort of bloodbath that swept over France in the “enlightened” French Revolution. Christians (and conservatives in general) give more to charitable causes than their secular counterparts. Christians run countless shelters, pregnancy centers, rescue missions, and food pantries. Christians operate orphanages, staff clinics, dig wells, raise crops, teach children, and fight AIDS around the globe. While we can always do more and may be blind to the needs around us at times, there is no group of people on the planet that do more for the poor than Christians. If you know of a church with a dozen escalators and no money and no heart for the hurting, then blast that church. But we have to stop the self-flagellation and the slander that says Christians do nothing for the poor.

As for divorce, it is often (but not always) wrong. Even when it is wrong, there is forgiveness when people repent. Shame on any church that doesn’t think or demonstrate that there is room at the cross for unwed or divorced moms.

And about the harsh language in the Old Testament—it cuts both ways. All people in the Old Testament, and in the entire ancient near east for that matter, were religious people. Some of them were fakes and hypocrites and whores. Some were idolaters and adulterers. Some performed their rituals and went on to ignore the weightier matters of the law. And some of the religious people were God’s remnant, God’s holy people, and God’s friends. In both Testaments, God has no problem rebuking religious people and no problem loving them either.

Verse 3

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God’s people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can’t fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religions like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it’s funny that’s what they use to do to mummies
While the corpse rots underneath

I’ve already said that I don’t think “religion” is the right term for what Bethke is talking about. But he has done a great job here of describing false religion. Jesus blasted the Pharisees for being “whitewashed tombs,” for looking beautiful on the outside and full of dead people’s bones on the inside, for appearing righteous but being full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (Matt. 23:27-28). It is possible for churches and churchgoers to have the reputation for being alive, but actually be dead (Rev. 3:1). Some churches claim to love grace, but all they give you is legalism. Bethke is hitting on a real problem.

Verse 4

Now I ain’t judgin, I’m just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there’s a problem
If people only know you’re a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic’s unworthy
It’s like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I’d go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

I wish Bethke, and critics like him, would admit that they are “judgin.” He is evaluating Christianity. He is criticizing church as he sees it. The whole poem is a harsh judgment on religious people. Granted, judging is not the same as judgmentalism. After all, I’m judging this poem. So I don’t think what Bethke is doing is wrong. I just wish he wouldn’t try to claim the moral high ground.

Other than that, this is another good verse. Bethke tells his own story to prove that we can be real good at fooling everyone, including ourselves. We need to realize that there are plenty of people in many of our churches who seem to have it all together but don’t. They are kidding themselves and we should not encourage such self-deception.

Verse 5

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It’s not a museum for good people, it’s a hospital for the broken
Which means I don’t have to hide my failure, I don’t have to hide my sin
Because it doesn’t depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God’s enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don’t you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the Bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the Son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

There is much that is good and a few things that are confused in this verse. The church should be an ocean of grace. We don’t have to hide our sins before God. It doesn’t depend on us. We should love the church and the Bible and believe that sin exists. Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus never supported self-righteousness. All of that is wonderfully and powerfully true.

But let me raise a few other points.

One, we have to remember that the purpose of a hospital is to help sick people get better. I’m sure Bethke would agree with that. But there is no indication in this poem that the grace that forgives is also the grace that transforms. Following Jesus is more than keeping rules, but it’s not less. In one sense, loving Jesus is also all about keeping rules (John 14:15, 21, 23-24). I’m not sure how the Jesus of John 14 fits in the world of Bethke’s poem.

Two, there is no inherent dignity in being broken. Jesus likes the honesty that acknowledges sin, hates it and turns away, but he does not love authenticity for its own sake. We have to be more careful with our language. When Paul boasted of his weakness, he was boasting of his suffering, his lack of impressiveness, and the trials he endured (1 Cor. 2:3; 2 Cor. 11:30; 12:9). He never boasted of his temptations or his sins—past or present. That’s not what he meant by weakness. Being broken is not the point, except to be forgiven and changed.

Three, as I’ve mentioned before, the religious leaders hated Jesus, first and foremost because they thought he was a blasphemer who dared to make himself equal with God (Matt. 26:57-68; Mark 14:53-65; Luke 22:66-71; and less clearly in John 18:19-24). It’s true that many of the religious elite found Jesus too free with his meals and his associations. They called him a “glutton and drunkard” (Luke 7:34), though he wasn’t either. But they also said John the Baptist “has a demon” (Luke 7:33). They were just as opposed to John’s asceticism as they were upset with Jesus’ liberty. More than hating grace, the Jewish leaders hated the truth about Christ and found ways to reject God’s messengers.

Verse 6

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrums
See one’s the work of God, but one’s a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other’s the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that’s why religion and Jesus are two different clans

I won’t repeat my initial comments about religion and Jesus and whether they are really “on opposite spectrums.” I don’t think they are. That point notwithstanding, Bethke speaks the truth in this section. The differences between slavery and sonship, bondage and freedom, blindness and sight are all biblical themes.

I think the line about “religion says do, Jesus says done” can be misleading. Too many people hear that as “relationship not rules” when we’ve already seen that Jesus wants us to do everything he has commanded (Matt. 28:20). But if “do” means “do this to earn my favor” then the contrast is very appropriate.

Verse 7

Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus’s obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that’s why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
“Father forgive them they know not what they do.”
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I’m kneeling at the cross, saying come on there’s room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

There is a lot to like with this final section. Great affirmation of Jesus active obedience. Great focus on the cross. Great invitation for sinners to come to Christ. I think Bethke understands justification by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. I would have liked to have heard something about the wrath of God being poured out on the cross as opposed to simply “absorb[ing] all of your sin.” But given Bethke’s previous video criticizing Love Wins, it’s best to give him the benefit of the doubt. Similarly, I’m not sure it’s best to so emphasize that Jesus was thinking of us on the cross. The “joy set before” him in Hebrews 12:2 was the joy of being seated at God’s right hand, not the joy of being with us as Bethke advocates in another video. But these are smaller points that do not negate the strong message of grace and forgiveness.


I know I’ve typed a bunch of words about a You Tube video that no one may be talking about in a month. But, as I said at the beginning, there is so much helpful in this poem mixed with so much unhelpful—and all of it so common—that I felt it worth the effort to examine the theology in detail.

The strengths in this poem are the strengths I see in many young Christians—a passionate faith, a focus on Jesus, a love for grace, and a hatred for anything phony or self-righteous. The weaknesses here can be the weaknesses of my generation (and younger)—not enough talk of repentance and sanctification, a tendency to underestimate the importance of obedience in the Christian life, a one-dimensional view of grace, little awareness that our heavenly Father might ever discipline his children or be grieved by their continued transgression, and a penchant for sloganeering instead of careful nuance.

I know the internet is a big place, but a lot of people are connected to a lot of other people. So who knows, maybe Jefferson Bethke will read this blog. If you do, brother, I want you to know I love what you love in this poem. I watched you give your testimony and give thanks to God for his work in your life. I love the humble desire to be honest about your failings and point people to Christ. I love that you love the church and the Bible. I love that you want people to really get the gospel. You have important things to say and millions of people are listening. So make sure as a teacher you are extra careful and precise (James 3:1). If you haven’t received formal theological training, I encourage you to do so. Your ministry will be made stronger and richer and longer lasting. I encourage you to speak from the Bible before you speak from your own experience. I encourage you to love what Jesus loves without tearing down what he also loves and people are apt to misunderstand. I encourage you to dig deep into the whole counsel of God.

Thanks for reminding us about Jesus. But try to be more careful when talking about religion. After all, there is one religion whose aim is to worship, serve, know, proclaim, believe, obey, and organize around this Jesus. And without all those verbs, there’s not much Jesus left.


Please also read the follow-up post by Kevin DeYoung – link at the top of this post. It’s excellent.


Can Sheep Become Goats?

Sound like a silly question? It probably should be considered ridiculous, but isn’t that what we are saying if we believe that a genuine believer in Christ can become an unbeliever, a saved person become unsaved, and that a Christian could apostatize and end up in Hell?

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. – John 10:27-29 (emphasis mine)

We are all probably familiar with the separating of the sheep from the goats on judgment day, with the sheep going away into everlasting life, and the goats perishing in everlasting punishment. Hence the question: ‘Can sheep become goats?’ In essence that is what the belief that genuine believers in Christ might/could one day turn away from the faith,apostatize, and end up in everlasting punishment, is teaching. Sheep can become goats.

The argument in favor of the possibility of believers apostatizing is that although no one can snatch the believer from Jesus’ hand (or the Father’s), a person can voluntarily ‘jump out’. I remember being as adamant as anyone in actually believing that. After all, our ‘God given’ libertarian free will demands the possibility!

Well, what did Jesus say about the sheep?

“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish”

One might think that the matter should be forever settled right there, because ‘eternal’ means eternal’ and ‘never perish’ means never perish. Since apostatizing means ‘perish’, and Jesus says his sheep will never perish, the matter is settled! Not so, if recent conversations with several Christians are indications otherwise. The rational? Since warnings against apostasy are given to believers, the possibility must exist. Maybe they think that ‘eternal life’ and ‘never perishing’ doesn’t begin until after we die and have persevered in our own strength. I can’t come up with a different rationale than that.

Well, what else did Jesus say that might help is clear that up?

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” – John 3:36

Again, we have the ‘present possession’ of eternal life for the one who believes the Son, exactly as we had in John 10:38. Not conclusive? What else did Jesus say?

“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.” – John 5:24

Lest there be any doubt at what point in time the ‘present possession’ of eternal live begins Jesus speaks in the past tense removing all possible doubt that it begins at the moment of belief:

“.. .he who hears My word and believes . . .has passed from death into life.”

Over the past week or so, I have studied every passage ever used that is used to ‘prove’ that a Christian can apostatize, that sheep can become a goat. I even tackled what are termed the most problematic, the ones in Hebrews. I’m not going to get into any of those others ‘proofs’ a Christian can lose salvation, because for simple minds like mine, Jesus had the last word on the issue!

Can sheep become goats? Never!