What Should We Be Doing?

If we are on the verge of global distress (Luke 21: 25), where conflict rages, where disruptions to necessary food and services are widespread, what should we be doing as believers? Should we just assume that God is going to "rapture" us out of the world before it gets too bad? Or, should we prepare for it, believing that we shall live during end time tribulation? If food is going to get scarce, due to further disruptions in the "supply chain," should we not stock up (as many are doing around the world)? Should churches not prepare by buying and storing bulk foods and finding ways to secure it? 

It is estimated that a very large portion of the planet would die after one month without food. We should be at least prepared for this length of time. 

Of course, we should also look to the Lord who has promised to be with his people in the end time tribulations. He fed Elijah by ravens who brought him food. He sent manna and quail to the Hebrews. Elijah ate some meat and he went in the strength of it for forty days. The widow of Sarepta had a cruse of oil and barrel of flour that stay replenished. God is able to take care of us. But, let us also be prepared. 

What think ye?

Elihu's Words (VIII)

Elihu next says:

"Elihu further answered and said: “Hear my words, you wise men; Give ear to me, you who have knowledge. For the ear tests words As the palate tastes food. Let us choose justice for ourselves; Let us know among ourselves what is good. “For Job has said, ‘I am righteous, But God has taken away my justice; Should I lie concerning my right? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’ What man is like Job, Who drinks scorn like water, Who goes in company with the workers of iniquity, And walks with wicked men? For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God." (34: 1-9)

Elihu's Address to the Three Friends

In the above words of Elihu he speaks directly to the three senior speakers, in the second person. But, he does not speak to Job in the second person, but in the third person, talking to the three elders about Job. 

When he says "you wise men," "you men of knowledge," he spoke sarcastically and condescendingly. It was said in wrath and in pride. Repeat those words orally with a tone of anger, with sarcasm. Elihu speaks scoffingly with contempt. This being so, it becomes obvious that Elihu does not really believe that the three senior friends are wise and well learned men. In other words his words mean "you three seniors who think you are, or pretend to be, wise men of learning." His speeches condemn the three elders for their inability to answer Job or to prove their case against him. His words essentially say "YOU so-called wise ones!" It was a slur, an insult, a sarcasm. 

Several times Elihu addresses the three seniors (Job too) by saying (with emotion) "Listen to me!" Why the need to do so? What is Elihu wanting to accomplish by his constant exhortation? Did he see the three seniors losing interest in his words? Becoming uninterested in what he has been saying? Because he cannot hold the attention of the three? It seems ironic how often the idea of being a good listener comes up in the dialogues of the story. Who is the good listener? Job's three friends? Elihu? Or, Job? Who listens to God and man well? After all, wise and learned men are good listeners, and good students. Good teachers are they who are good listeners. Wise speakers have little difficulty holding the attention of hearers and students. Ignorant teachers and explainers have difficulty holding the attention of their audiences. 

Again, what Elihu said to the three men about their being wise and learned men, was said with emotion (pathos), with anger and hate. It was scorn and contempt. Thus far, in his ranting speech, he has relied upon ethos and pathos to convince those listening to him, and very little on logical argument (logos). 

After scorning the three senior counselors, he then invites them to "choose justice for ourselves." Well, if they are so unwise, so stupid, then why call upon them for judgment about justice and righteousness? He first condemns their inability to detect (by taste) what is just, right, and true and then, ironically, though having no palate for such, he invites them to discern the truth of what he is saying by tasting it. 

Two times he calls for a consensus with the three elders who preceded him, saying "let us choose justice for ourselves" and "let us know among ourselves what is good." He believes that the reasoning of great men can discover what is good and right. Yet, he has already said that the reasoning of his three seniors has not been right. His reason for calling for a consensus on the definitions of what is just and good, true and right, is because they are able to do so by using their reason or by a divine vision or dream. He says "For the ear tests words As the palate tastes food." But, obviously, all men do not have a relish for the truth. Because of an evil bent to their nature, and a bias, they rather sometimes have a taste for falsehood and for lies, such as deceivers and con men possess. We cannot rely upon our subjective taste for truth, especially if we have lost our taste buds. Truth is not relative to taste. Truth is truth whether it pass a creature's taste test.

The Misrepresentation of Elihu

“For Job has said ‘I am righteous'," and has said “God has taken away my justice." Elihu says: “For Job has said 'should I lie concerning my right? My wound is incurable, though I am without transgression.’ "

Did Job say those things? Or, is Elihu again misquoting or misrepresenting him, as many bible commentators have affirmed (as I also do)? Pulpit Commentary says (emphasis mine):

"For Job hath said, I am righteous. Job had maintained his "righteousness" in a certain sense, i.e. his integrity, his honesty, his conviction that God would ultimately acquit him; but he had not maintained his sinlessness (see the comment on Job 33:9). He had not even said, in so many words, "I am righteous." The nearest that he had come to saying it was when (in Job 13:18) he had exclaimed, "I know that I shall be held righteous," or "justified.""

I totally agree. God's own testimony was that Job was righteous as none other. Did that mean that Job never had a foolish thought? "The thought of foolishness is sin: and the scorner is an abomination to men." (Prov. 24: 9) Did it mean that he no longer had still a corrupt nature ("the flesh") so that he could not live above sin, contrary to the teaching of the apostle? (Rom. 7: 14-25; Gal. 5: 17) No, it did not mean that. Further, Job never asserted that his claim to be righteous, godly, moral, good, etc. included the idea that he was in every way perfect. He knew that "there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not." (Eccl. 7: 20) In fact, as we have observed before, Job confessed that he was a sinner, though he affirmed that his sins were not to the same extent as when he was a youth (and unsaved). Job was a man who fought against sin by the help of God and was always on guard against it. 

Job was not self righteous by his denial of the charge of being ungodly, a bad character, unrighteous, etc. After all, many of the most righteous men and women of the bible have been falsely accused of being evil people. Job was being falsely accused by Elihu, as by his supposed three senior friends. Further, he was not fighting against God as accused. Also, he was not speaking evil of God and charging God with foolishness or injustice as accused. He was not proud as accused. He had no great secret sins of the mind (as Job himself testified). Nothing in his conduct and worship was condemned by God. 

Pulpit Commentary on Verse 6 and the words - "Should I lie against my right?" 

"This was an essential portion of Job's argument (see Job 27:4). Against the theory of his secret heinous wickedness put forward by his "comforters," he maintained consistently his freedom from conscious deliberate opposition to the will of God, and refused to make the confessions which they suggested or required, on the ground that they would have been untrue - in making them he would have "lied against his right." In this certainly Job "sinned not." But it was essential to the theory of Elihu, no less than to that of Eliphaz and his friends, that Job was suffering on account of past iniquity, whether he were being punished for it in anger or chastised for it in love (see Job 33:17, 27). My wound (literally, my arrow; comp. Job 6:4) is incurable without transgression; i.e. without my having committed any transgression to account for it. Job 34:6"

Again, think of an innocent person being tortured and who is told to confess to the accusation of being guilty for the torture to stop. That person also must ask himself - "should I lie against my innocence?" Should I confess to that which I am not guilty? 

The Accusations

Job was accused by Elihu of being a "scorner" and a wicked man. Ironically, it was Elihu who scorned Job. A scorner is one who scorns, mocks, scoffs, who expresses contempt in anger against others. In the scriptures they are described as being people who refuse all criticism of themselves. Said Solomon: "Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who deals in proud wrath." (Prov. 21: 24) We have also seen how Elihu's wrath is highlighted by the narrator. Job did not scorn his friends even though he found no comfort and little truth in what they said to him. Solomon connects wrath with scorning.

Pulpit Commentary on Verse 7 says:  

"What man is like Job, who drinketh up scorning like water? This comment is not only unnecessary, but unfair. It was not for Elihu, who professed a desire to "justify" (or completely exonerate) Job, to aggravate his guilt by means of rhetorical comment; and the comment itself was unfair, for Job had not indulged in scorn to any extent, much less "drunk it up like water" (comp. Job 15:16). He had in no respect scorned God; and if he had occasionally poured some scorn upon his "comforters" (Job 6:21; Job 12:2; Job 13:4-13; Job 16:2; Job 21:2-5; Job 26:2-4), must it not be admitted that they had deserved it? It was the duty of Elihu to act as moderator between Job and the "comforters," whereas he here seeks to exasperate them, and lash them up to fury against their afflicted friend. Perhaps Job's impassive attitude has embittered him. Job 34:7"

What Elihu said about the character of Job was character assassination. He, and the three seniors, all condemned Job as being a very wicked man. They were false accusers and show that they were sent by Satan to aggravate Job. 

For myself, I become angered when I read the speeches of Elihu, seeing him as the very emissary of Satan. It amazes me that some commentators see him as the only one who spoke and acted right. It is obvious to me that Elihu is not speaking by inspiration of God, but by inspiration of Satan.

"For he has said, ‘It profits a man nothing That he should delight in God."

On this accusation of Elihu against Job, Pulpit Commentary says:

"Again it must be remarked that Job had not said this. The nearest approach to it is to be found in Job 9:22, where this passage occurs: "It is all one; therefore I say, He destroyeth the perfect and the wicked" (Revised Version). Elsewhere Job speaks, not generally, but of his own individual case, remarking that his righteousness has not saved him from calamity (Job 9:17, 18; Job 10:15; Job 17:9-17, etc.). And the fact is one that causes him the deepest perplexity. Job 34:9"

Of course Job believed that there was profit, yea, eternal life, in being a servant of God. However, he did not believe that the profit was in regard to material well being in this world. The repentance and salvation of the thief on the cross with Christ did not save him from being crucified. It did guarantee his entrance in the afterlife into Paradise.

We Must Unite or Kill Each Other

The time has come, say the rulers of the darkness of this age, for the world of nations to unite, and become as one, or else kill each other. This is what Putin is saying. It is what Xi of China, and the other global elite (the conspirators) are saying. Thus, a one world government is being forced upon the populations of the various nations by these global conspirators. It is "either go along with us or let us kill each other." 

Those citizens, in whatever nation they belong, who do not submit to the new global governing system, with its new economic and social system, will be "cut off" from the system. The number of citizens who will "cow tow" to the elite authorities (political leaders and oligarchs) will be a minority and they will not have the means to survive. Power will not be on their side. The wolves will far outnumber the sheep. All this is foretold in scripture. What is going on now in our world is a prelude to the Antichrist, to Babylon, to the beast and false prophet. 

The evils that are now occurring in our world are a result of God's judicial withdrawing of restraints upon Satan and the world. As we see God more and more remove his divine restraints we will see the times becoming even more evil. We must see these things as being part of the day of judgment, the beginning of end time woes. 

Wait till supernatural things begin to happen in the midst of all this transition! The miracles of the two witness prophets! The miracles of the beast and false prophet! People seeking death and not finding it!

Some think that the time of the prophets ended in the first century and that there can be no others. The Mormons don't agree on this and believe Joseph Smith was a latter day prophet and given new revelation. Of course, I don't agree that Smith was a prophet of God. But, I do not reject his claim because of a presupposition that there could be no prophets after the first century. Many who adopt this view nevertheless call the "two witnesses" of the Apocalypse "prophets" (a correct view). 

The early church had its prophets and prophetesses. Oftentimes they prophesied of imminent coming events dealing with then existing believers and with the world then existing. 

"Now in these days prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius). So the disciples determined, every one according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea. And they did so, sending it to the elders by the hand of Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11: 27-30)

If we are living in the days of great tribulation we could certainly find help by such prophets and their prophecies! Better yet, we should all seek to prophesy, to become prophets. Notice these words of Paul:

"Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy." (I Cor. 14: 1)

Did that command cease after the first century? For myself, I have always prayed for faith, hope, and love, but additionally have prayed for any gift that the Lord would wish to give, whether gift of miracle working, gift of healing, or gift of prophesy.

Paul admonished the first Christians to "despise not prophesyings." (I Thess. 5: 20) However, those who say that there could be no prophets after the first century (death of the apostles) would despise and reject all prophesying done after the first century. Thus, Paul's admonition is not applicable to any Christian who lived after the first century.

My prayer is the same as Moses who said to Joshua:

"And Moses said unto him, “Enviest thou for my sake? Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them!” (Num. 11: 29)

"All Against All" - Putin Warns

There is a fight coming, a "free for all" brawl. The scriptures prophesy of it, especially under the rider of the Apocalyptic red horse. 

Said one news source (here):

"Russian President Vladimir Putin warned world leaders of an international “all against all” fight if global powers did not work to resolve disagreements that were exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. 

 

Speaking before the Davos Agenda summit, Putin referenced experts who warned the world is as divided as it was during the 1920s and 1930s, just before World War II, and that tensions could skyrocket if the world does not come together."

The video of Putin's speech can be watched (here). It was delivered at the World Economic Forum a little over a year ago. Is his invasion of Ukraine the beginning of that all against all fight? I have stated that the world's leaders and oligarchs know that a new world order is coming and they each want to stake out their "spheres of influence" within that new structure of global governance. They are now jockeying for position in it, wanting to be in a good spot in the world "pecking order."

The article continues, citing Putin:

“The coronavirus pandemic has become a major challenge to mankind, and it has accelerated structural changes, the preconditions for which were already in place,” he said at a virtual meeting of the World Economic Forum. “We have every reason to believe that the tensions might be aggravated even further.”

I believe that Putin is one of the conspirators for creating the new world order, the new global governing system.

Said the article:

"Putin specifically cited the rise in populism on the right and the left and the growth of radical movements that have riled up domestic politics but he said would inevitably seep into international relations. 

“All of this cannot but impact international relations, making them less stable and predictable,” he said.

“I would like to reiterate, that the situation might develop unpredictably and uncontrollably if we will sit on our hands doing nothing to avoid it,” he warned. “And there is a possibility that we may experience an actual collapse of global development that might result in a fight of all against all.” 

A fight of all against all is exactly what occurs under the rider of the red horse. See my series on the red horse rider for an indepth look at this coming global violence.

Also, notice how the war with Ukraine began with cyber warfare. Cyber warfare is coming and the results will help forward the violence. See my previous posting on this. These are certainly fearful times.

A Debate On John 6

I have been listening to several debates lately on Youtube. One is by a Calvinist and a former Calvinist. The heading of the video says "Gabriel Hughes Vs Dr. Leighton Flowers: What is the Expository Understanding of John 6:44?" (here)

Dr. Flowers totally refuted the born again before faith view of Hughes. That does not mean that I think Dr. Flowers was correct in all that he said (He is a former Calvinist and has debated men like James White). I am, after all, still a Calvinist. But, I am not a Hyper Calvinist, and do not believe sinners are born again before they believe.

But, I don't agree with much of what Flowers said about the "drawing," and the "teaching" of the Father. If I were talking with Flowers, I would force him to deal with these texts: I Cor. 4: 7; Luke 4: 25-27; I Cor. 3: 6. I would also force him to deal with the fact that many have died without ever hearing the gospel.

Get Ready For Next Global Crisis

The Covid Pandemic was a planned event to create a global governing system where there will be one world leader with his cabinet. The world will be divided into ten economic/political zones. Individual member nations or states will be under the authority of the new world order's global governance. If a member nation does not obey the laws and edicts of the new global government, it will be cut off economically. This will be quite effective, making the use of military force unlikely. 

Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), and promoter of the "Great Reset," and of the Davos Agenda, and Vision 2030 project. The end purpose of this vast global conspiracy is so that by 2030 "you will own nothing and you will be happy." 

Schwab has said that the Covid Pandemic has afforded a great opportunity to forward the goals of the WEF. One of those goals is to create totalitarian government. This is exactly what it has produced as even democratic countries have seen basic freedoms denied to citizens. It has forced the people to rely more on government to save them from an enemy (Covid, Climate change, etc.), just as Machiavelli taught.

Well, the next crisis is going to result from cyber attacks, like the kind we recently saw with the southeast pipeline being shut down and causing economic distress in many states for well over a week. We saw it in the cyber attack on the meat industry here. The cyber attacks will do more to harm the economy and the "supply chain" than the Covid Pandemic. 

In a recent video address by Schwab, he speaks of this coming cyber attack and of the consequences of it. If he is right, the supply chain is going to get worse. What better way to control people than to make obtaining basic necessities only available to those who obey the tyrannical government? (Listen to the video here)

In the new world order, you will live in a house or apartment furnished by the government. You will buy things you need only as the government allows it. This is the world that John described in the Apocalypse where no one will be able to buy or sell without "the mark of the beast" being in their hand or forehead.

Also, see this web page for more information on this coming planned crisis (here).

Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs

In this posting I want to cite from "Is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs biblical?" (From Got Questions - here) It is a very good biblical view of Maslow's theory. 

Said the author of the article (emphasis mine):

Abraham Maslow (1908–1970) was a humanistic American psychologist. Many are familiar with his name due to his “hierarchy of human needs.” Maslow studied generally healthy humans and observed that there are certain needs humans have, and he arranged these needs in a hierarchical structure.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is most often presented in a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom. Once needs on the more basic level are met, a person can move up the pyramid to focus on higher needs. Maslow referred to the first four levels of needs as deficiency needs—people’s behavior is motivated by lack of these things. The bottom level contains physical needs (e.g., food and water and, according to Maslow, sexual fulfillment). The next level is security needs (e.g., safety and stability in one’s environment). Next come love and belonging needs (e.g., relationships with family and friends) followed by esteem needs (e.g., self-esteem and respect from others). At the top of the pyramid are growth needs, which Maslow termed as “self-actualization.” The idea here is that, when the basic needs are met, people have the desire and ability to grow and realize their full potential.

Maslow’s hierarchy has been criticized, refined, and expanded upon since he first put forth the theory in 1943. The most common critique is against Maslow’s methodology—observation of individuals, mostly male, whom he deemed to be self-actualized. The method he used is inherently biased, and, with a limited sample size, findings may not be applicable cross-culturally or for all ages and genders. Maslow admitted that not all the lower-level needs must be met for higher-order needs to come into view. He also said that some needs are more pressing than others given the individual and the circumstances. For example, one person might be more motivated by esteem needs than by belonging needs. Maslow also said that behavior is multi-motivated and often determined by a combination of needs rather than just one.

Maslow's pyramid does not see a sense of need for God as part of man's basic need, as much as food and shelter. However, man, consciously or unconsciously, seeks for meaning in life, even when basic needs are not being met. He seeks to understand the why of his existence. This is not a need that is first realized when one reaches the top of the pyramid, but is realized early in life, even by those who are lacking basic needs. There is a lot of realization, and "self actualization," that occurs while one is still struggling to have basic needs met. The need for a relationship with God, which exists in all, though suppressed, is a base need, and until that need is satisfied there will be no transcendence, or "self actualization," no becoming all that we can be (reaching full potential). 

Despite the criticisms, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs remains popular in psychological education, the business world, and other fields that attempt to understand human motivations and development. The concept makes intuitive sense—after all, a person who is starving is likely to care more about finding a meal than about developing a friendship.

Biblically, we know our deepest need is for relationship with God, which comes only through salvation in Jesus Christ (John 14:6). Of course, our spiritual needs for forgiveness and a relationship with our Creator are missing from Maslow’s pyramid.

Bingo! That is the chief fault with Maslow's theory. He does not see that man has a religious, a spiritual, need that only God can supply.

The Bible would certainly not refute our needs for physical provision, a sense of safety, a sense of love and belonging, or a sense of worth and respect from others. However, the “growth need,” as interpreted in secular psychology, is based on a denial of man’s depravity and the false notion that mankind is basically good.

So, most of the needs in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are valid, although most people have a hard time distinguishing “needs” from “wants.” From a biblical perspective, our most pressing need is for Jesus and the Truth of God. While being tempted in the desert, “Jesus answered, ‘It is written: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God”’” (Matthew 4:4). This statement from our Lord seems to explode the base of Maslow’s pyramid: our basic needs are not physiological, but spiritual.

Well, amen to that!

Paul talked about being content in need and in abundance (Philippians 4:12–13)—he did not require his basic needs to be met before he ministered to others. Believers should also question the pinnacle of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: is our goal “self-actualization,” or is it Christlikeness? Also, must we really have our physical/social/emotional needs met in order to be godly/Christlike? Agape love chooses self-sacrifice and seeks to fulfill the needs of others first. Agape love puts one’s own needs last, not first (1 Corinthians 13:5). “Value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3–4). The whole pyramid of Maslow seems to crumble when placed next to Scripture.

The true human needs found in Maslow’s hierarchy can be met in God. We see in Exodus that God amply provided for the physical needs of His children. We see in the Psalms and in the life of Elijah times when God’s people felt alone, yet God sustained them. We also see times when God’s people have been disrespected or humiliated, yet they found their hope in Christ. Maslow saw human needs as being met in earthly ways, but we know that, even if those needs are met, life can still be “vanity” (see the book of Ecclesiastes). And we can be bereft of earthly fulfillment yet still find satisfaction in Christ.

Again, Scripture acknowledges that humans have certain needs, many of which are found in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Christians should compassionately seek to meet the needs of others. Our attempts to speak spiritual truth may go unheard without a physical component that matches that truth. Meeting people’s earthly needs while withholding the gospel will do little of eternal value. Conversely, presenting the gospel while neglecting people’s earthly needs will also do little of eternal value. James speaks to this in his passage about faith without works being dead (James 2:14–26).

In the Gospels we see Jesus meet people’s physical needs by providing things like food and healing. He also spoke to their fears and gave them a sense of security. He recognized the outcasts of society, which speaks to their need for love and belonging. Jesus, as our Creator, is aware of our every need. He is able to meet our every need, including our need for forgiveness and wholeness. Jesus put things in perspective and set the priority: “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things [the basic necessities of life] will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own” (Matthew 6:33–34).

I am happy to give a hearty amen to these words and commend them to all. I am glad to be able to share them with you. 

In conclusion, think about the evil consequences of having all one's needs met, of becoming self actualized, yet without a relationship with God in Christ. The dangers of prosperity are enumerated in scripture. Wrote Solomon: 

"Two things I request of You (Deprive me not before I die): Remove falsehood and lies far from me; Give me neither poverty nor riches— Feed me with the food allotted to me; Lest I be full and deny You, And say, “Who is the LORD?” Or lest I be poor and steal, And profane the name of my God." (Prov. 30: 7-9)

Notice how those who live a life of fullness and relative freedom from want (basic needs met) are often they who deny God, and who say "who is the LORD." They were self actualized but they denied God, for they thought that they were gods themselves. Poor people often feel a need for God that the rich do not feel. In fact, God has chosen the poor of this world to become heirs of his kingdom and eternal life. (James 2: 5) Lazarus lived his whole life without having many of his basic needs met, and yet the man enjoyed blessed communion with God, which is real self actualization. A man will never reach his potential apart from God.

"This Life"

"For who knows what is good for man in life, 

all the days of his vain life which he passes like a shadow?" 

(Eccl. 6: 12) 

In the scriptures there is constant reference to "this life" and its contrast with "the life to come" (or to the afterlife, to life in eternity after death and resurrection). Some people believe in this life only, not believing in any afterlife. (Ironically, some of these have had their bodies frozen in the hopes that future technology may be able to revive them, thus giving them a kind of afterlife) These are, said the Psalmist, "men of the world, which have their portion in this life." (Psa. 17: 14) "This life" implies another life, an afterlife. Most men focus on the present life and push thoughts about an afterlife to the side. The present life is paramount and mortals should live and act upon the belief that there is no afterlife, or at least any that would imply any harm (universal salvation). This is the predominant belief of human beings, if not theoretically, then practically.

"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." (I Cor. 15: 19)

A man's life on earth ought to be lived in the belief that there is a life after life on earth, after the death of the body. When men live and act with the belief that there is only the present life, and no life after death, they live with the sole purpose of pleasing themselves and insuring their own survival. Though they live without fear of God, they do not live without fear of death, or without fear of other men. If there is no life after death, no God or judgment after death, then one may live without fear of consequences after death. This atheistic belief creates a chaotic and brutish world. 

"For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." (I Tim. 4: 8)

Notice the contrast between "the life that now is" and "the life that is to come." How one lives his life on earth will determine his existence in "the life to come." The Lord Jesus Christ said - "the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5: 28-29) 

The doing evil is the cause of people being resurrected to condemnation. But, doing good is not the cause of participating in "the resurrection of life." Rather, it is a description of those who have been converted to Christ and of their lives after it. Their doing good was the result of having been made good. “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." (Matt. 12: 33 niv) 

The Lord makes the tree (the believing sinner) good when he saves him, when he changes his heart, his mind, and his nature. From that point on, the believer will begin to be good in his behavior (his fruit will be good). Our Lord spoke of hypocrites among his professed followers in the parable of the soils and of the seed, saying that they, like all unbelievers, become "choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." (Luke 8: 14) Notice again the mention of "this life" and how it is the primary focus of lost perishing sinners. There is no thought about a future life and existence after death.

Christ warned his followers, saying:

“But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21: 34)

Both of these passages find Christ speaking about "the cares of this life." Life, for unsaved men, involves one simple principle, avoid pain at all costs and obtain all "the pleasures" of "this life." The way to deal with pain is by pleasure and amusement. Hedonism and selfishness are fruits of living this way.

"Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" (I Cor. 6: 3)

It is important to have right judgment about the things that pertain to this life. But, it is more important to have a right understanding of what pertains to the life to come. If we have understanding about the afterlife, then we should have understanding of the lessor, of this life. But, the natural or carnal man has no good understanding of either the present life or of the life to come.

"No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier." (II Tim. 2: 4)

Thus far, in these passages, there is common reference to "this life" and to the "life that is to come." There is mention of "the cares of this life," and "the affairs of this life," and "things that pertain to this life," and "the pleasures of this life," etc. To concern oneself with only "this life" is unwise and will have ill effect the next life. 

"But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented." (Luke 16: 25) 

Not only was the life of the rich man different than that of Lazarus, but so too was the afterlife of each. One had a life on earth with little hardship and suffering and the other had much hardship and suffering. Yet, when they died, when they entered the afterlife, there was a great reversal. 

Is your whole focus on the present life or on the life to come?