In my experience, few Bible topics elicit as many questions or as much anxiety as the prophecies about the “end times.”

I teach a Bible class of middle school boys twice a week, and they begged me back in January to study Revelation. Knowing the troubling descriptions found in Revelation, I started with an overview. I laid out three major themes that demonstrate that Revelation was written to prepare us—not scare us.

1. Jesus will return.

2. Jesus will reign.

3. Jesus will reward.

When they express fears over the future in light of Revelation, I draw their attention back to those themes. Whether or not one believes in a pre-tribulation rapture (as I do), Revelation shows us that the future is firmly under our Savior’s control and that our future joy with Him far outweighs any struggles that come before.

These concerns are not limited just to kids; recently, a church member contacted me because the subject of the end times keeps coming up in her presence. She encounters believers and non-believers alike who see the turmoil in our world and conclude that “we must be living in the end times.” This is a source of anxiety for them, and she asked how she ought to respond. Since this is something that many of us may deal with, I thought I’d answer it for a wider audience.

Are we in the end times?

If you’re anything like me, you’re filled with questions when people make bold pronouncements about the end time. When people say things like, “We’re clearly living in the end times,” or when they ask if I think we’re in the end times, I always want to know what they mean by the “end times.”

• If they mean that our world is crazy, and Jesus could come back at any moment, then I’m in full agreement. Jesus said He would come quickly,1 and He told us He would come at an unexpected moment like a thief in the night.2 The imminent return of Jesus has been a core doctrine of Christianity from the beginning,3 and we could reasonably call these the end times in the sense that the church age is the last major period before the culmination of history.

• If they mean that our world is so crazy that we know Jesus will return in our lifetimes/the next generation/any similarly arbitrary period, then I don’t think we have sufficient information to say that with certainty. Jesus famously said that no man knows the day or hour of His return.4 The Scriptures teach that we can be aware of the times and seasons5—in the sense that we can recognize the hand of God at work—but even that passage teaches that we will be surprised by the timing of the Lord’s return.6 Ultimately, we are terrible at predicting God’s timeline. The church at Thessalonica got the timeline wrong during the time of the apostles,7 and church history is littered with false predictions. We need to be careful about not adding to that list.

• If they mean that we’re actually living in the Tribulation, then no. Just no.

There may be times when we need to dig deeper and understand what they mean by the statement they just made. Clarifying our terms can help us to avoid misunderstandings with others or enable us to correct misunderstandings that others may have about God’s Word.

However, many of these conversations call for a different approach. I’m obviously not saying it’s wrong to correct theological errors (like “We’re currently living in the Tribulation!!”). But I am saying that an imprecise understanding of the end times is not as urgent as lacking faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. If we have just a moment with someone, and one open door, which should we address?

A question may reveal a more immediate issue than confusion: fear, anxiety, or hopelessness. And that is a reason to point the conversation to Jesus Christ.

What is our ultimate goal in the discussion?

Often, people don’t bring up the end times because they are eager to learn about eschatology; they discuss it because they’re anxious about the world we live in and fearful about the future.

In other words, their immediate need is not precision, but hope.

In those cases, the best thing we can do is to zoom out, away from the finer details—the seals, trumpets, bowls, battles, and devastation—and look at the broad themes of end-times prophecy. I outlined those themes already: Jesus will return, Jesus will reign, and Jesus will reward. When someone is anxious, we draw their attention to those themes. If they don’t know Jesus as Savior already, these can build a natural bridge to a conversation about the Gospel.

How might that conversation go?

• Them: Did you hear about ____? This world is so crazy! Sometimes I feel like we’re living in the end times or something.

• Us: Maybe we are getting close. The Bible says that some pretty unusual things would happen toward the end. It would be pretty stressful if He hadn’t warned us what would happen so we’d know not to worry about it.

• Them: How can you not worry about it?

• Us: No matter how crazy the world gets or what I face in the mean time, Jesus has promised that He’s coming back, He is going to bring order and right all the wrongs, and then He’s going to spend forever with those who belong to Him.

And suddenly, we’ve arrived at the Gospel.

Now, that’s just an example. Frequently, these are brief conversations, so we want to get to the point quickly without adhering to a canned script or getting sidetracked with details. (At least in these cases—I’m usually up for getting sidetracked with details.) We’re not directly engaging about whether or not these are the end times. We’re not dealing with the presence or absence of the rapture. Likewise, we’re not dealing with the sequence of the millennium. Instead, we’re looking at broad themes of prophecy that point to Jesus so we can present the Gospel as the answer to their end-times anxiety.

This is the kind of thing Jesus and His apostles did. The woman at the well wanted to ask Jesus about the Temple, and He pointed her to Himself for salvation.8 The Athenians wanted to show off their statues, and Paul pointed them to the God they missed.9 When people worry about the end times, we should focus on the opportunity to point them to the Savior Who can hold them secure despite the end times!

At OBU’s GenWhy apologetics conference a few weeks ago, my son and I attended a presentation on using everyday conversations as bridges to the Gospel. The presented made it seem so easy. This is even easier because it doesn’t require any kind of leap to get from anxiety over the end times to the hope that Jesus promises those who trust in Him.

The next time someone around you randomly brings up the end times as a source of anxiety, treat it as a divine appointment and use it as a bridge to the Gospel. The problems that make us anxious about the end times have already been solved, and the solution’s name is Jesus.

I was in my office Wednesday morning, trying to wrap up preparations for Sunday before leaving to spend Thanksgiving with my family. While finishing this Sunday’s message on Jonah, my attention was drawn, in light of the coming holiday, to the end of chapter 2.

Chapter 1 contains the exciting account of Jonah disobeying God, running from his calling, and being cast overboard to be swallowed by a large sea creature. In the last verse of chapter 2, the creature spits him out on dry land, and chapter 3 shows Jonah preaching in Nineveh. Finally, chapter 4 sees Jonah being put in his place for arguing with God, Whom he thought was too gracious to the Ninevites. We are so focused on the action in the narrative that we often overlook the majority of chapter 2—Jonah’s prayer. But the prayer represents a major turning point in the life of the reluctant prophet, where he recognizes his duty to God. He ends his prayer this way:

Those who regard vain idols Forsake their faithfulness, But I will sacrifice to You With the voice of thanksgiving. That which I have vowed I will pay. Salvation is from the Lord.

Jonah 2:8-9, NASB

In this prayer, Jonah has recognized that God is far more gracious to him than he deserves, and is powerful enough to pull him up from the greatest depth.

He remarks on the foolishness of serving idols, powerless imaginary gods, when doing so distracts us from our duty to the true God. When we recognize who God is and what He has done for us, the only reasonable response is to give Him thanks in every way we can. For Jonah, giving thanks to God for His goodness is not just a matter of words but of obedience (in his case, sacrifices and fulfilling his promises to God).1

The apostle Paul taught us to give thanks in every circumstance.2 Early believers were skilled at following his instruction, with just one example from Justin Martyr reflecting on how we owe God thanks for being, for creating us, for sustaining our existence, for meeting our needs, and for hearing our petitions.3

If we stop and consider all He has done for us—not to mention Who He is—we will never exhaust our reasons to be thankful. May God make us a thankful people every day, and may we learn to show our thankfulness to Him through obedience.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Over the last several weeks, I have been preaching a sermon series on finding Jesus in the Old Testament. It has been a rewarding study that has reminded me that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection weren’t an accident of history; they were the focus of God’s redemptive plans from the beginning.

By posting a summary of the cities of refuge and their parallels with Jesus, I’m starting in the middle of my series. But since I preached on it last weekend, it’s fresh on my mind. (I hope to deal with the previous studies in later posts.)

What Were the Cities of Refuge?

The Old Testament addresses the Cities of Refuge in Numbers 35:1-28, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Deuteronomy 19:4-13, and Joshua 20:1-9.

The Levites didn’t receive territorial grants during the conquest of Canaan like the other tribes of Israel—instead, God granted them 48 cities. He commanded that they set aside six of these as cities of refuge. (They designated Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan.)

If someone accidentally killed someone else, he could run to a city of refuge to seek safety there. Upon arrival, he would be tried by the authorities of that city. If he was found guilty of murder, he would be sent away to face justice. If he was found guilty of manslaughter—meaning it wasn’t intentional or premeditated—he would be admitted to the city.

Why Were the Cities of Refuge Needed?

God’s Law in the Old Testament emphasizes His justice. When someone committed murder, His Law upheld the sanctity of human life by imposing the ultimate penalty. Sometimes, this penalty could be imposed by a close relative of the victim (the “avenger”). Driven by emotions and unconcerned with due process, the avenger might act without regard to the circumstances of the case and deal with manslaughter the same way as murder.

The Cities of Refuge allowed God’s justice to be upheld—not only by holding the line on murder, but also by ensuring the right of the accused to a fair hearing before a more impartial group of elders in the City of Refuge. It was also a carveout of mercy in the midst of justice, extending mercy to those who were technically guilty of taking a life.

How Do the Cities of Refuge Point Us to Jesus?

Now, the ancient Israelites would not have deduced the Gospel from the Hebrew Scriptures’ accounts of the Cities of Refuge, however, these cities (like so many other Old Testament concepts) offer parallels to Jesus. Concepts introduced in the Old Testament and engrained in the Israelites’ worldview formed the foundation of the Gospel message; viewing the parallels in hindsight show us how God was at work all along to bring the ultimate Redemption to His people.

To see the parallels, we have to recognize a few types in the story. First, the “manslayer” of the Old Testament represents the sinner in the New. Second, the “avenger” of the Old Testament represents the eternal consequences of sin in the New. (By saying one “represents” the other, I don’t mean to suggest the Cities of Refuge are allegories. These are real historical events that reflected a historical need, but God was able to use them to point us to an additional spiritual reality.) With this in mind…

• Hebrews 6:18 describes how believers “have taken refuge” a have a “hope set before us” as a result. The context of the passage is clear, that our hope and salvation are found in Jesus Christ.

• This passage is drawing the attention of first-century Jewish readers to the Old Testament concept of fleeing to a city of refuge to point out that Jesus is our City of Refuge. When the condemnation of our sin chases us down, we flee to Jesus as our only escape.

• As a manslayer was safe from the avenger inside the city of refuge,1 we are safe in Jesus from the condemnation of sin.2

• As the manslayer stood condemned outside the city of refuge,3 we are condemned apart from Jesus by default.4

• As the Cities of Refuge were spread out so that one was always nearby,5 Jesus is nearby for all of us to call upon.6

• As the Cities of Refuge were open to the Jews and Gentiles alike,7 Jesus has made God’s salvation available to all who will believe.8

A Bonus Point

A bonus point in the text deals with the death of the high priest. I exclude this from the list above because in this analogy, Jesus is not the city of refuge but the High Priest.

In Joshua 20:6, it mentions that the manslayer had to stay in the city until the death of the High Priest in order to be protected.9 After the death of the High Priest, he was free to leave and resume his old life, and the avenger could not touch him.

Our High Priest is Jesus.10 He not only protects us, but by His death, he set us free once and for all.11 Because the High Priest has died, the avenger has forever lost the right to put us to death.

Conclusion

In light of the statement from Hebrews 6:18, the Cities of Refuge demonstrate to us that it has always been God’s plan to carve out a place for grace amid His justice and offer Jesus as our only Refuge from the condemnation of sin.

See the full message below:

One of the more puzzling aspects of the crucifixion story is the fact that the Romans offered Jesus a drink after nailing Him to the cross. Those of us separated by time and culture from these events are left wondering why they would do this. Was it an uncharacteristic act of mercy? Probably not.

What did they offer Him?

To understand why they offered Him a drink, we need to figure out what they offered.

• Matthew calls it “wine […] mixed with gall.”1

• Mark calls it “wine mixed with myrrh.”2

• Luke calls it “sour wine.”3

• Some translations call it vinegar.

Are these accounts contradictory? They don’t seem to be. In fact, they seem to agree about the main component of the mixture. When wine undergoes a second fermentation, the alcohol is converted into acetic acid, and the wine takes on a sour taste. Wine vinegar is the result. While those who want to find fault with the Gospels might bristle at the imprecision, there is nothing inaccurate about referring to the liquid as wine, sour wine, or vinegar.

It is likely that they were describing a fairly common beverage called posca, a watered-down wine vinegar that was drunk by the lower classes of Roman society—including common soldiers. Pliny the Elder described the benefits of posca in his Natural History, stating:

“Even when sour, wine still has uses as a remedy. […D]runk with water it is a useful digestive to many when they are convalescing, and a gargle of vinegar and water is a good thing after sunstroke.”4

If this mixture has posca as its base, we have to consider what was mixed into it. Matthew says that it was mixed with gall, while Mark says it was mixed with myrrh. Matthew’s Greek word χολη (cholē) seemingly refers to the bile produced in the liver.5 It is highly unlikely that they would have added bile to a batch of posca; instead, it is far more likely that Matthew’s term describes the taste of the myrrh that had been added to the drink.6

Pliny even describes the bitter effect produced when unguents like myrrh were added to wine, writing, “Nowadays some people actually put scent in their drinks, and it is worth the bitter flavour for their body to enjoy the lavish scent both inside and outside.”7

If Matthew is describing the bitter flavor of the mixture and Mark is identifying an additive that produces a bitter flavor, then no contradiction exists between the accounts.

Why would they offer posca and myrrh?

Numerous medicinal effects were ascribed to myrrh in the ancient world. In this instance, Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida explain that “wine [was] drugged with myrrh and used as a stupefying potion.”8 An Italian study in the mid-1990s demonstrated that myrrh has analgesic properties that under some conditions are similar to the effects of opioids.9 But myrrh’s ability to relieve pain does not explain why the Romans would have offered the mixture to Jesus. Did the soldiers who brutalized Him at every possible opportunity—both before and after this moment—experience a sudden and fleeting outbreak of kindness? Further studies suggest that’s not what happened.

The analgesic and preservative characteristics of myrrh are most noticeable in wine when added in small quantities. On the other hand, researchers at the University of Helsinki noted that in larger quantities, myrrh rendered wine “as impossible to drink as gasoline.”10 Consequently, they concluded:

Apparently Jesus was not the first man crucified by the executioners and the use of a sharp potion was not an uncommon practice. They knew that the crucified would be thirsty. For that purpose they had provided the wine mixed with myrrh. Matthew tells that the wine was mixed with gall (Mt. 27.34). It is a form of torture, which was part of the executioners’ sadistic methods.11

The Finnish researchers’ conclusion would be consistent with the known character of the Roman executioners.

The reason the drink was offered

Available evidence suggests that Jesus was offered posca, laced with copious amounts of myrrh. As to the reason the offer was made, Matthew alludes to this as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.12 The Romans, unaware of this, were likely motivated by their extreme cruelty to offer this mixture. Knowing their victim would suffer extreme thirst, they planned ahead to heighten His suffering yet again by offering Him something undrinkable.

Ultimately, Jesus’ tormentors offered the drink in order to increase His suffering and humiliation. However, in doing so, they unwittingly corroborated His claims to be the promised Messiah.

While none of the Gospels record the actual instant when Jesus stepped out of the tomb, Matthew’s Gospel comes the closest. It describes the moment when the tomb was opened just before Jesus’ exit—an account not found among the others. It says:

And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook for fear of him and became like dead men.
—Matthew 28:2-4, NASB

The other three Gospels skip immediately from the burial of Jesus to the discovery of the empty tomb, with nothing in between.1 A skeptical reader might look with suspicion at the fact that Matthew is alone in recording this opening—particularly given the singular importance of the event. However, the distinctiveness of Matthew’s account from the others’ can be readily explained if we consider the writers’ backgrounds.

Matthew was the only Gospel writer—and, indeed, the only disciple—with documented ties to the Roman government. As a tax collector,2 he was an overt collaborator with the Roman authorities and likely had extensive connections with other Roman officials serving in the area. While the other disciples were aware of the cover stories alleged by the authorities in public, Matthew’s connections provided him with access to the details the Romans privately admitted among themselves.

In fact, Matthew’s Roman connections explain several details unique to his Gospel.

1. Matthew alone records the soldiers’ experiences during this event at the tomb.3

2. Matthew’s account also ends before Jesus emerges from the tomb—consistent with the idea that the soldiers fainted and had no further details to offer.4

3. Matthew alone records the secret conversations regarding the official cover-up of the empty tomb.5

4. Matthew alone records a dream that troubled Pilate’s wife before the crucifixion.6

5. Matthew alone records the preparations for posting a Roman guard at the tomb.7

Matthew’s ties to Rome could easily explain why he alone records details like these. In fact, the uniqueness of these details in Matthew’s Gospel does not diminish his credibility; it bolsters it. Of the four Gospels and Acts, Matthew is the most reasonable place (maybe the only reasonable place) for these details to occur. They would be out of place anywhere else and would leave us wondering if the writers resorted to recording rumors.

Time has a way of blurring for me. I have never once forgotten what day my wife’s birthday is on, but I frequently forget what the current day is. The same is true with holidays; they sneak up on me. This is equally true of election day. I have thought for months about November 5, 2024, but at the beginning of this week, I wasn’t thinking about the fact that it was next week.

That changed as people began to call me, text me, or drop by the office with a question about this state question or that judge. The trust that some others place in me on these matters is something I don’t take lightly (and I’m still a little amazed by it). Since the election is approaching rapidly, to streamline the process for you and me, I am writing out some thoughts on next week’s elections.

Which candidates am I endorsing?

None of them. Not a single one.

I always vote. Occasionally, I even donate or volunteer. But a few years ago, I stopped making any public endorsements of candidates. There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, I spent about 16 years of my adult life heavily involved in Republican Party politics. I served four terms as a county chairman. I was on the board of the Oklahoma Conservative Assembly for more than a decade, including about 5 years as president. I volunteered for candidates and even managed some campaigns. And I used to publish a list of candidate endorsements every election. I never even hinted about any of this from the pulpit, but it wasn’t a secret either. Unfortunately, the result was that when I preached about how the Bible applies to the issues we face, there were people who were able to dismiss what I said because they thought I was shilling for a candidate or party. I wasn’t, but I don’t even want to be perceived that way. The Word of God is the Word of God, and I want to be a spokesman for what it says, not how it benefits anyone politically.

Second, people aren’t always what they seem. Several years ago, there was a man that I had known since I was a teenager who ran for office. Knowing his policy positions and (what I thought was) his character, I wholeheartedly endorsed his candidacy. A few years later, he was convicted of sexual crimes against a minor. That quickly soured me on the idea of “endorsements.”

I don’t have a big platform, nor do I aspire to have one. But what platform the Lord has allowed me to have, I would rather use to discuss issues and promote Biblical perspectives on them. (And sometimes that requires calling out officials for violating Biblical principles.)

I don’t agree with/like any of the options…

You may be uncertain about what to do because you can’t get behind any of the options. I certainly understand that. I have a history of not getting the options I want. Do you remember when James Williamson was Governor of Oklahoma? Or Randy Brogdon or Dan Fisher? Me neither because they were eliminated in the primaries. Historically, the candidates I have really supported have rarely won primaries, leaving me with options I’m not crazy about. In those cases, you just do the best you can to find the candidate who most agrees with you or best represents your values.

In today’s world, it seems more common for Christians to find that every candidate has some unacceptable positions and neither shares your values. This was the case in a local race here in southwest Oklahoma, where a friend was telling me this week about the problems with both candidates. Assuming she had prayed about it and was seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, my advice to her was: If neither shares your values, but one is hostile toward your values and one is not, I’d go with the one who’s not. Admittedly, it was presented in a different context, but Jesus told His disciples, “He who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). It’s not ideal, but if the choice is between two pagan rulers, I’d prefer the one who isn’t trying to destroy us.

Or to paraphrase what I recently heard: If you can’t have Josiah, you may have to pick Jehu over Ahab.

If you’re considering not voting at all, let me gently suggest some resources to read or listen to before Tuesday.

• “How to Vote Like Jesus” — a sermon by Josh Howerton

• “Spurgeon says, ‘Go Vote.’” — an article by James Biesiadecki

Problems with the Supreme Court

There has been a public effort to unseat the three justices of the Oklahoma Supreme Court who are up for retention. Those supporting the justices have argued that the campaign against the three is motivated by business interests or a desire to support our State Superintendent, Ryan Walters. I don’t know who’s behind the ads, and I can’t speak to their motives.

However, there is something that troubles me deeply about all three justices. In 2023, the court found in OCRJ v. Drummond that there is a limited right to abortion in the Oklahoma Constitution when the Constitution says no such thing. Edmondson and Gurich were part of the majority decision affirming a constitutional right to abortion, and Kauger wrote a separate concurrence supporting the decision. (See the decision here.)

This is a problem for two reasons. First, they’re on the wrong side of the issue morally. Second, it is dangerous for one branch of government to usurp the authority of another. That is what has happened here. The courts don’t create policy; the legislature does. By interpreting the right to life found in the Constitution in such a way that it creates a right to abortion is to overstep the legislature—and, ultimately, the citizens.

Vice Chief Justice Rowe rightly dissented, writing:

The Oklahoma Constitution declares that all political power in this state is vested in the People. In today's post-Roe environment, abortion policy presents a political question that should be decided by the People.

Similarly, Chief Justice Kane made an excellent point in his dissent:

Driven most certainly by a commendable kindness of heart, the majority engages in legal contortions to protect pregnant women who are in medical peril by fashioning Oklahoma Constitutional precepts of abortion law that simply do not exist. There is no expressed or implied right to abortion enshrined in the Oklahoma Constitution. In interpreting our Constitution, this Court must guard against the innate human temptation to confuse what is provided in the Oklahoma Constitution with what one wishes were provided.

There is a difference between what the Constitution says and what we might wish it said. Even if we agree with the policy aims of a ruling (which, in this case, I don’t), every citizen should recognize the dangers involved when judges make law instead of our elected representatives. From my perspective, Justices Edmondson, Gurich, and Kauger should run for seats in the legislature if they want to insert a right to abortion into the state constitution. The Supreme Court is not the appropriate place to do so.

What about the other judges?

Keeping up with all the state courts would be a full-time job, and I already have plenty of those. Consequently, at election time, I have to turn to people I trust who do have time to follow the courts. My conservative sources have suggested the following.

• Supreme Court: No on Edmondson, Gurich, and Kauger

• Court of Criminal Appeals: Yes on Musseman; No on Lewis and Rowland

• Court of Civil Appeals: Yes on Downing, Huber, Mitchell, and Prince; No on Bell and Gore

These are not personal endorsements from me; they are presented for your information as a starting point for further research.

What about State Questions?

• State Question 833 amends the State Constitution to allow the creation of infrastructure districts. This allows the creation of an additional layer of government with the ability to incur bond debt and levy additional property taxes for the purpose of infrastructure.

• State Question 834 clarifies that only US citizens can vote in the State of Oklahoma.

Closing thoughts…

No matter how things shake out next week, there are a few things that will still be true.

1. We are still called to show grace to others—even those with whom we disagree.

   Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person (Colossians 4:6, NASB).

2. We are still called to pray for those in authority.

   First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (I Timothy 2:1-2, NASB).

3. Jesus is still King.

   Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen (I Timothy 1:17).

Amen.