Will we not feel sorrow in heaven over loved ones who are not there?

Q. According to the book of Revelation, when we’re in heaven in the presence of our Heavenly Father, there will be no more sorrow, tears, or pain. But I think of some of my loved ones I will not see there. Will I not be sorrowful in some way?

I think that when we are in heaven in the presence of our Heavenly Father, two things will be true.

First, we will be able to see how God is completely just and fair. We will recognize that the only ones who are not in his presence are people who made an informed, definitive choice not to acknowledge him and not to worship and obey him. We will see that God did not condemn anyone because they didn’t understand or because they never had the opportunity to hear. We will realize the truth of the biblical statement that God “does not want any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” We will see how God worked in ways we could not have imagined to draw people to himself. Only God knows a person’s heart, so we should not make assumptions now about who we will and won’t see in heaven. That is one thing that should make us expect less sorrow in heaven than we otherwise might anticipate.

Second, we will recognize, at least better than we are able to do now, how there were really only two possibilities for our world: love that was made possible by a freedom that necessarily allowed for the possibility of both good and bad choices, or a world without freedom and the possibility of bad choices but without love either. We will be able to understand what that second kind of world would have been like; we will be horrified by how cold and mechanical all relationships within it would have been. By contrast, we will appreciate much more fully the power and grandeur and beauty of love, how it enables relationships to thrive and grow as people seek the best for each other and how it enables relationships to take on new life even after hurts and misunderstandings through the power of forgiveness and reconciliation. We will recognize how that kind of world was the right kind of world for us. In light of this, if we recognize that people we knew did make informed, definitive choices not to acknowledge and worship God, while we will regret those choices, we will accept them as something that had to be possible.

But the freedom that characterizes our world also enables us now to encourage and influence others to make good choices, especially the choice to receive the salvation that God is offering. If we are followers of Jesus, our lives, words, and examples can offer that kind of encouragement. In other words, there is something we can do now about the sorrow, or at least the regret, that we think we may feel in heaven. While we must always be respectful of where a person is in their spiritual journey and not pressure them in inappropriate ways, we can positively commend faith in Jesus through words and actions that demonstrate loving concern for them and point the way to the Heavenly Father who is eager to welcome them home.

Where did Adam and Eve’s sons get their wives?

Q. The Bible only tells us that Adam and Eve had 3 sons. Where did the women come from for the sons to marry? Where in the Bible is that explained? I’m also thinking about the inbreeding that had to happen after the rain stopped and Noah and his family populated the earth. Doesn’t that mean there has to have been some physical and mental abnormalities in subsequent generations?

In response to your question about who Adam and Eve’s sons married, while the book of Genesis only narrates the birth of their three sons Cain, Abel, and Seth, a genealogy shortly afterward in the book says, “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” Jewish tradition says that the sons of Adam and Eve married their sisters. This is also what we must infer from the Genesis narrative, since according to it they could not have gotten wives any other way.

Like the situation you noted of Noah’s sons’ children necessarily marrying their first cousins, this situation of Adam’s sons necessarily marrying their sisters raises the issue of whether “physical and mental abnormalities” resulted. I recall one of my professors in seminary addressing this issue. He said that because the human race was still so young in the time of both Adam and Noah, there had not been an accumulation of genetic weaknesses that would lead to such abnormalities. In other words, the human gene pool was clear and strong and it could overcome this risk. That is one possible explanation. Another is that to enable humans to “be fruitful and multiply” successfully, God granted the equivalent of divine healing in the form of good genetic health. We should note that the biblical text does not say either of these things explicitly, but they are ways in which we can try to understand the biblical story.

This post addresses a question related to yours:

If humans originally multiplied by Adam and Eve’s children having sexual relations with each other, wasn’t that sin?

Did the wise men visit Bethlehem before Jesus was 40 days old?

Q. Given that Jesus was consecrated at the temple in Jerusalem on the 40th day and afterwards Mary and Joseph returned to Nazareth, doesn’t that mean that the wise men visited Bethlehem prior to Jesus’ 40th day?

Actually, the wise men did not visit Jesus in Bethlehem. When Herod asked them when they had seen the star that led them to come look for Jesus, they told him it had appeared two years before. (That is why, tragically, Herod ordered his soldiers to kill all of the boys in the area of Bethlehem who were two years old or younger.) Mary and Joseph only went to Bethlehem for the census, and as you observe, they returned to their home in Nazareth after forty days, after they had “done everything required by the Law of the Lord.” The account of the wise men in the Gospel of Matthew says that “the star they had seen when it rose went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him.” So Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were now in a “house,” no longer in the improvised situation in crowded Bethlehem that had required Mary to lay the newborn Jesus in a manger.

You may have been asking about the timing of the wise men’s visit because Matthew says that they came to see Jesus two years after he was born, but Luke indicates that his parents were only in Bethlehem for forty days after he was born. The solution to this difficulty is that the wise men did not visit Jesus in Bethlehem. While Matthew says that Herod “sent them to Bethlehem” on the basis of what the priests and teachers of the law told him from Micah’s prophecy, Jesus was no longer there. The star guided them to the right place.

Why doesn’t Job ever mention Satan?

Q. We recently studied the book of Job. Why does Job not mention Satan, when he’s the one behind his troubles?

Job doesn’t mention Satan because Job doesn’t know that Satan is behind his troubles. He can’t know, otherwise the purpose for his troubles would be defeated.

As I discuss the opening narrative in my study guide to the book of Job, I say:

“The book of Job has much to say about the problem of evil, that is, why there is so much suffering in the world if it’s governed by a good God. As we consider the book in detail in the sessions ahead, we’ll get many insights into this question. But here the Adversary begins by raising a different problem, the problem of good. If apparent goodness is always rewarded and bad conduct is always punished, how can we ever really be sure that a person is genuinely good and not just trying to win rewards and avoid punishment? It turns out that the only kind of universe in which genuine good can be known to exist is one in which good people sometimes suffer undeservedly but still demonstrate continuing loyalty to God.”

If God told Job, “You are suffering these things in order to prove that people can still trust me and live in the right way even when they suffer without knowing why,” then Job would know why he was suffering. In order for the test to address the “problem of good” and show that God has created a universe in which genuine good actually does exist, Job can’t know why he is suffering.

In light of this, in this session of the study guide I also ask this question for reflection and discussion:

“One of the most disturbing thoughts for readers of the book of Job is the idea that the devil could somehow trick God into allowing him to harm a loyal person of faith. But the interaction here is much more complex than that simple interpretation implies. The Adversary can only believe that Job is motivated by greed; the Lord knows that Job’s heart is actually pure and devoted. And so the Lord permits, or perhaps even arranges, a test in which the devil’s worst efforts actually disclose the truth about Job’s good heart, and about the possibility of goodness generally. If, through suffering without knowing why, you could help demonstrate for an audience on earth and in heaven that cynical, disparaging, diabolical contradictions of God’s ways are false and unfounded, would you be willing to do this?”

(You can download a copy of my Job study guide for free at this link.)

Does a person need to be baptized to become a church leader?

Q. There is a young couple in our church who, though they are relatively new believers, both have great leadership abilities. We are consistently looking to disciple new leaders. However, while he has been baptized, she has not. She does not plan to be baptized, and he supports her in this. The main reason seems to be that she is fearful of most public speaking, and when our church baptizes people, it asks them to give a public testimony. We have explained that a baptism can be done more privately, for example, in the summer when lakes, beaches, and pools are available for gatherings of smaller groups, instead of in a huge church service. But after nearly a year, she still chooses not to be baptized. We are hard pressed to find any scripture that says that to be a leader, one must first be baptized. We have gone through both the 1 Timothy qualifications for leadership and the scriptures that speak to baptism itself, and none state directly that baptism is a qualification for church leadership. So can we begin to disciple this couple with a view toward bringing them both into leadership roles, even if she chooses not to be baptized?

It is true that the Scriptures do not state directly that anyone in a leadership role in the church needs to have been baptized. However, the Scriptures do teach as a general principle that leaders must set a good example and lead by that example. It would not be appropriate for a leader to tell a young Christian, for example, “You don’t need to be baptized. I haven’t been baptized myself.” Jesus chose baptism as the means by which he wanted people to declare publicly that they were his followers. So when any of us becomes a follower of Jesus, it is a matter of obedience to our Lord to make a public declaration of our allegiance to him in the way that he has specified. Personally I believe that every leader in the church should set an example of obeying Jesus in this way. (And since Jesus told his apostles to go and make disciples and baptize them, and since those instructions apply in a continuing way to church leaders today, every leader in the church should also be eager to see others baptized.)

And personally it’s hard for me to imagine someone being baptized only as a matter of obedience. I have baptized many people as a pastor, and in every case, the person was eager to be baptized. For them, it was a joyous moment in which they were able to express their devotion to their Lord publicly, in front of family and friends. So in the case of the woman you are describing, I would want to ask her what specific concerns she has that are keeping her from being baptized. I think one very important question would be, “If you could be baptized without having to do any public speaking, would you be baptized?” If the answer is still no, then there are further concerns to address as a matter of discipleship. Ultimately it is the Holy Spirit who brings us to the realization that we should honor Christ in baptism—and that, in fact, we are eager to do so. Perhaps further growth as a believer, with the help of appropriate counsel and encouragement, will help this woman make that realization, if there are in fact other concerns present.

But if the answer is yes, then, as you have already noted, there are many ways in which a person can be baptized without having to speak at length in front of a large group. You have mentioned one of them, a small-group setting. There are many others. In the churches where I was a pastor, we typically did ask baptismal candidates to give a public testimony. But sometimes, when we had many candidates and when we had time constraints, we would have them write out their testimonies, and we would print those in our bulletin for people to read. That might be a possibility in this case. I have also used an interview format in front of a congregation with people who didn’t feel comfortable speaking on their own. I had learned their story, and so I would prompt them with questions to allow them to tell the story one step at a time. They could respond directly to me, so they didn’t feel as if they were speaking to a large group. These are just some of the many alternatives that could be pursued. I’m sure that your church would not insist on a public speech if that stood in the way of someone being baptized.

However, it is a reasonable expectation that a candidate for baptism will say at least something publicly. All Christian traditions have baptismal vows that candidates take. This is part of what makes baptism a sacrament, a public confession of faith in Jesus and a commitment to follow him. The specific vows vary in length and detail from tradition to tradition. When I have baptized people, I have only asked them two questions:
Officiant: Do you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?
Candidate: I do.
Officiant: Will you live from now on in obedience to him?
Candidate: God helping me, I will.
I would hope that even a person who was not generally comfortable speaking in public would be able to give such answers in front of a group of believers, large or small, who had come to witness their baptism. (Once again, as a rule, I have never found candidates to be reluctant to answer these questions. Some have spoken out their answers so loudly and with such commitment that people could probably have heard them on the next block!)

I’m glad to hear that this couple have become believers and that they have leadership gifts that will be of service to God’s people. I’m also glad to hear of your sympathetic concern for them and of your commitment to ensuring that you are following the teaching of the Scriptures. May God give you wisdom, grace, and patience to be a good guide, teacher, encourager, and discipler.

Can God transform the heart and mind of a leader?

Q. Does God have the capacity and/or willingness to work in the heart and mind of a leader and transform him from within so that he follows Jesus’ teachings such as “love God, not money” and “love your neighbor” (including strangers; don’t treat others as enemies)? Sometimes we see leaders that we feel have the potential to be a much better leaders if they were transformed in this way. Is this something we can hope for?

The Bible certainly encourages us to pray for our leaders, and as it does, it encourages us to believe that God wants those leaders, as he wants all people, to be transformed as you describe. Paul wrote in his first epistle to Timothy, for example:

I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I think the idea here is that if we do pray for our leaders, God can work through those prayers to influence their character and conduct so that we, the people they rule, will be able to live “peaceful and quiet lives.”

One example in the Bible of a leader who was transformed is Nebuchadnezzar, the emperor of Babylon. He had conquered all of the kingdoms around him, and so he thought that he was the supreme ruler of the world. God gave him an inspired dream to warn him about this proud attitude and its consequences. The prophet Daniel interpreted the dream for him. Daniel explained that he needed to acknowledge that “the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”

That acknowledgment had to take a specific form. Because Nebuchadnezzar was arrogant in his position of power, he was doing things that were wrong, and he was oppressing the people he ruled. Daniel warned him, “Renounce your sins by doing what is right, and your wickedness by being kind to the oppressed.” In other words, Nebuchadnezzar had to do more than just give lip service to the idea that God, not he, was the supreme ruler. He also had to rule in a way that showed he recognized that he was accountable to God to do right and not oppress people.

It seems that Nebuchadnezzar took the warning to heart for about a year. But then he became proud again (and apparently started doing wrong and oppressing others again), so God dealt with him severely. God made him become insane for seven years. But at the end of that time, Nebuchadnezzar “raised his eyes toward heaven” (an expression that I think describes repentance), and God restored his sanity and his position as emperor. Nebuchadnezzar recounted this experience in a letter to his empire that is preserved in the Bible. He said in conclusion, “Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride, he is able to humble.”

I think we can recognize from Nebuchadnezzar’s experience that God’s first inclination toward any ruler who is proud, who is doing wrong, and who is oppressing others is to get them to change their ways. God sent warnings through a dream and through a prophet. Even after Nebuchadnezzar started ignoring the warnings and God had to deal with him more severely, God’s goals were still transformation and restoration. And those goals were ultimately accomplished.

This account should give us hope that God’s goals are still the same today for any ruler who is being proud, doing wrong, and oppressing others. We can expect that God will bring experiences into that leader’s life that serve as warnings, and that God will send people who will give explicit warnings. We can also expect that God will take whatever further measures are necessary to bring about the kind of transformation in leaders’ lives today that Nebuchadnezzar experienced in his own day. So I believe that we can and should pray for the transformation of leaders, knowing from the Scriptures that this is something God wants.

The apostle Peter wrote in his first epistle, “Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” In Peter’s time, the emperor was the ruler who had authority over him. Believers in Jesus today should similarly “show proper respect to everyone” and “honor” their own rulers. I hear in your question an attitude of respect and honor for the position of ruler and a desire for rulers to conduct their personal lives in a way that is worthy of that respect and honor. I believe this is something we certainly can and should pray for, knowing that as we do, our prayers are in accord with God’s wishes and purposes.

How old were Jesus’ disciples?

Q. How old do you think Jesus’ disciples were?

I would direct you to the discussion in this post, which notes that movies tend to portray the disciples as middle-aged or older, certainly older than the 30-year-old Jesus, but which then argues (convincingly, I feel) that the disciples were mostly younger than Jesus, in their 20s or even teens. My thanks to Rick Thiessen of Allen Creek Community Church for such an excellent treatment of the subject.

Was Paul only saved when he was baptized and “washed away his sins”?

Q. Many speak as if Paul’s salvation took place when he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. In fact, the term “Damascus Road experience” is often applied to those with a dramatic conversion testimony. In Acts 9, we learn that Paul was knocked to the ground, terrified by the heavenly light. The Lord told him to go into the city and wait. In the meantime, the Lord spoke to Ananias and told him to go and visit Paul. Later, in Acts 22:16, we learn that Ananias said to Paul, “And now, why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name.” So perhaps it was only after acknowledging his sins and calling on the Lord for forgiveness that Paul became a saved sinner? What do you think? (By the way, water baptism can’t save or “wash away sins” or be part of a “work” required to be saved. However, believers should agree to water baptism. But that’s another topic.)

Your question highlights how, on the one hand, we may speak of a “moment of conversion,” but how, on the other hand, we may also describe conversion as a process. It’s true that when people are converted suddenly and dramatically, we often call that a “Damascus Road experience,” as if Paul’s own conversion had been sudden and dramatic. But as you point out, there was more to it than the encounter with Jesus on the road. Luke relates in Acts 9:9 that Paul fasted for three days after he was led into the city, and Jesus tells Ananias in Acts 9:11 that Paul has been praying. Christians of some traditions would refer to this as the “use of means” toward salvation. So things were still in process between the time Paul encountered Jesus on the road and the time when Ananias came to visit him.

One way to think about the sacraments is that they are the church community bearing witness to the work of God in individual lives. Based on what Jesus told him about Paul, Ananias was prepared to call Paul his “brother” in the faith and to offer him baptism (indeed, to challenge him to be baptized). So we could say that Paul’s baptism was the moment at which, from the perspective of the Christian community, for all it knew, Paul was a saved sinner. (Only God ultimately knows people’s hearts.) However, we see both a moment and a process even here. When Paul went to Jerusalem, the believers there did not want him to join them. They were afraid of him, thinking that he was not a genuine disciple but only trying to infiltrate their group so that he could arrest more of them. It was only when Barnabas vouched for Paul that the Christian community ultimately considered that, from its perspective, for all it knew, Paul was a saved sinner.

Furthermore, in appreciating how the “moment of conversion” is also one step in an extended process, we might consider what leads up to that moment. Suppose someone is converted suddenly and dramatically at a gospel meeting. What brought them to that meeting in the first place? In many cases, they had developed a relationship with a believer who invited them, and they agreed to come. All of this testifies to God’s ongoing prior work in their life. We might similarly recognize God’s work in Paul’s life prior to his Damascus Road experience. The most important question for Paul before his conversion was, “Who is Jesus?” He was convinced that Jesus was not the Messiah and had not risen from the dead, and so in his zeal for God, he persecuted the followers of Jesus. Well, he had the wrong answer. But he had the right question! It was alive in him, driving him, and he no doubt saw and heard much that ultimately helped him recognize that Jesus was the Messiah and had risen from the dead, for example, when he tried to make Christians renounce Jesus but they refused, despite threats, coercion, and punishment.

So I think the answer to your question is that we can speak meaningfully of the moment of Paul’s conversion, but we can also recognize how his conversion was a process. That’s a paradox, but so are many other things in the Christian life!

Thank you for your question. Here are a couple of other posts on this blog that relate to it.

Am I still considered a Christian if I haven’t been baptized?

What if I’ve never had “that moment” of asking Christ into my heart?

Is the opposite of faith certainty or doubt?

Q. In the movie Conclave, Cardinal Lawrence says (going by memory here, a risky proposition), “The greatest sin facing the Church is certainty.” A good friend of mine, an Episcopal priest, once told me, “The opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty.” However, I recently came across Matthew 21:21, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.” And also Romans 14:23, “But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.” I consider myself a believer and a follower of Jesus. Help me resolve these seeming contradictions. 


In another post on this blog (linked below) I say, “The capacity for faith and the capacity for doubt are the same. If you did not have any doubts about what you believe, you would not be believing it by faith.” That seems to be what the character of Cardinal Lawrence means in the movie. He goes on to say, “Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand-in-hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery. And therefore, no need for faith.” In other words, the “certainty” that the cardinal describes as the “one sin which I have come to fear above all else” is a certainty based on something other than faith. It is a doctrinaire dogmatism based on tradition or rationalism.

I believe that the reason why Jesus could say “if you have faith and do not doubt” is not that faith and doubt are opposites, but that we can use one and the same capacity either to believe or to doubt. He means “if you use that capacity to believe rather than to doubt,” your prayers will be answered in the way described. Similarly Paul’s meaning in Romans would be “whoever uses that capacity to doubt is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from using that capacity to believe.”

We can think of many other capacities that we could use in one way or another. We might have an admirable potential capacity for persistence in carrying good projects to completion that we use instead to be stubborn and not open to reasonable persuasion. We might have an admirable capacity to enjoy life and help others find joy in life that we instead use to fool around when we should be working. And so forth. The point in both cases, and in all similar illustrations, is that the person would not be able to persist if they were not also able to be stubborn, and the person would not be able to find and share joy in life if they were not also able to fool around irresponsibly. The goal is to become able to use the capacity in the positive way in which God intends us to use it. And we should not beat ourselves up if we find ourselves in the learning curve. Doubt is evidence of capacity.

How did John the Baptist know that Jesus was the Messiah?

Q. How did John the Baptist know that Jesus was “the Lamb of God, which taketh the sin of the world” if, at that moment, the Holy Spirit hadn’t revealed to him that Jesus was the Messiah? “The next day, John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29 KJV). “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost” (John 1:33 KJV).

These events are related out of chronological sequence in the Gospel of John for purposes of storytelling. Here they are in chronological sequence:

  1. When God sends John to baptize, he tells him, “The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit” (verse 33). God does not tell John specifically who this man is. The descent of the Spirit is the sign that will identify him.
  2. John begins to baptize people without knowing specifically who the Messiah is (verse 31, “I knew him not”).
  3. John tells the Pharisees that he is not the Messiah himself, but the Messiah is coming (verses 24–27).
  4. John sees Jesus coming toward him (verse 29a).
  5. John sees the Spirit come down from heaven as a dove and remain on Jesus (verse 32).
  6. Because of this, John says, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (verse 29b).
  7. John tells the crowds that Jesus is the person he said was coming (verse 30) and testifies that Jesus is the Messiah (verse 34).

I hope this helps clarify the sequence of events. John knew that Jesus was the Lamb of God, and said so, because he had just seen the Spirit descend on him.