Theological Triage: A Proposal

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is the ninth president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary–the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and one of the largest seminaries in the world. Dr. Mohler hosts two podcasts: “The Briefing” ("a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview") and “Thinking in Public” ("a series of conversations with the day’s leading thinkers"). Dr. Mohler also serves as the Centennial Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Seminary, as the editor-in-chief of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, and the editor of WORLD Opinions. He has contributed to over 100 other published works.

[The above paragraph was adapted from the author's bio in He Is Not Silent: Preaching in A Postmodern World and from https://albertmohler.com/about/.]

One unique contribution that Dr. Mohler has made to theological discourse is coining the term "theological triage". Over the years, Dr. Mohler has explained this term in several places. For example in his 2008 book He Is Not Silent: Preaching in A Postmodern World, Dr. Mohler wrote:

As anyone who visits a hospital emergency room is aware, a triage nurse is customarily in place to make a first-stage evaluation of which patients are most in need of care. A patient with a gunshot wound is cared for ahead of a sprained ankle. This makes perfect sense, and indeed to ignore this sense of priority would amount to medical malpractice! In a similar manner, the pastor [/theologian] must learn to discern different levels of theological importance. I identify three distinct orders of doctrine in terms of importance.

Summary

Dr. Mohler writes that first-order doctrines are those "essential to the Christian faith"–denial of these doctrines will place a person outside of Christianity. Second-order doctrines are those "necessary for the ordering of the local church"–disagreement on these doctrines will make it "impossible to function together in a single local congregation". Third-order doctrines are "those that may be the ground for fruitful theological discussion or debate, but that do not threaten the fellowship of a local congregation or denomination."

More recently, Gavin Ortlund of Truth Unites has written Finding the Right Hills to Die On: The Case for Theological Triage (2020). Ortlund is explicitly indebted to Dr. Mohler's triage metaphor and categories, but he lists them a bit differently. He writes: 

First-rank doctrines are essential to the gospel itself. 

Second-rank doctrines are urgent for the health and practice of the church, such that they frequently cause Christians to separate at the level of local church, denomination, and/or ministry.

Third-rank doctrines are important to Christian theology, but not enough to justify separation or division among Christians.

Fourth-rank doctrines are unimportant to our gospel witness and ministry collaboration.

Ortlund's explanation of first-rank and second-rank doctrines tracks exactly with Dr. Mohler's first-order and second-order doctrines. Ortlund divides Dr. Mohler's third-order doctrines into two 'ranks'. Ortlund's motivation in this division seems to be ministry-driven; as a public theologian, Ortlund regularly engages in theological discussions and debates, so by categorizing some doctrines as "fourth-rank," he is able to better focus on first through third rank doctrines, while avoiding distractions by (at least relatively) unimportant doctrines.

Proposal

It may be the case that an additional "order" or "rank" is needed in this rubric of theological triage. In both Dr. Mohler's and Gavin Ortlund's explanations of second-order or second-rank doctrines, there seems to be the assumption that differences among these doctrines will cause Christians to separate into both different congregations and different denominations. However, it may be the case that some doctrines would cause Christians to separate into different congregations, while still allowing for denominational cooperation.

For example, 9Marks has published several articles and podcast episodes arguing against multi-site churches, or even against churches holding multiple parallel services on a weekend for congregants to choose from. (They argue that churches planting churches is the ecclesiologically healthier model.) There are many churches in the SBC that are influenced by 9Marks and that agree with the critique of the multi-site church model; however, there are other churches in the SBC which utilize the multi-site model or which have multiple parallel services on the weekend. Whereas a person with a conviction against multi-site churches could not become a member of a site in such a network, it seems that the SBC has been able to promote friendly cooperation between multi-site churches and those who object to the multi-site model. Therefore, it may be the case that among second-rank doctrines, there are some that are so serious as to distinguish different denominations and some that would distinguish different congregations within the denomination.

IF this division of second-rank doctrines is NOT valid (if every doctrinal distinction that would distinguish one congregation from another should also distinguish one denomination from another, and vice-versa), then there are several doctrines (like multi-site churches and the ordination of female deacons, to give another example) that the SBC needs to address at the denominational level.

Conclave: Some Evangelical Thoughts

Conclave. Directed by Edward Berger. Screenplay by Peter Straughan. Based on the novel by Robert Harris. Focus Features: 2024. 

Edward Berger was born on March 6, 1970 in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. He is married to Nele Mueller-Stöfen. Before directing Conclave, which was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar, Berger gained international fame for writing and directing All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), which was also nominated for the Best Picture Oscar.

Peter Straughan was born on August 1, 1968 in Gateshead, Durham, England, UK. He was married to Bridget O'Connor until her death by cancer on September 22, 2010. Before writing the screenplay for Conclave, which won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar, Staughan gained international fame for co-writing the screenplay for Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, which was nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar.

Robert Harris was born on March 7, 1957 in Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England, UK. He is married to Gill Hornby. Before writing the novel Conclave, Harris gained international fame for his novels (known for heavily incorporating historical and political elements), and for working with Roman Polanski to adapt two of his novels–The Ghost Writer (2010) and An Officer and a Spy (2019)–into films.

[Some sentences from the above three paragraphs are taken directly from IMDB.]

The unique contribution of the film Conclave is its look behind the veil of papal politics, which–according to Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor–was largely accurate its details. Conclave–a movie about the death of a pope and the election of a new pope–was released on October 25, 2024, and Pope Francis was admitted to the Agostino Gemelli Polyclinic Hospital in Rome on February 14, 2025; this made Conclave seem particularly relevant at the 2025 Academy Awards (held on March 2). Conclave was released to streaming on April 22: the day after Pope Francis died.

Summary

According to the Focus Features official summary of the film:

Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is tasked with running this covert process after the unexpected death of the beloved Pope. Once the Catholic Church's most powerful leaders have gathered from around the world and are locked together in the Vatican halls, Lawrence uncovers a trail of deep secrets left in the dead Pope's wake–secrets which could shake the foundations of the Church.

Some reviewers used the term "mystery" or "murder mystery" to describe the film, but these terms are misleading. The inciting incident (the death of the Pope) is not a mystery to be solved. The filmmakers do maintain a tension similar to a mystery film, and there are some surprises, but these are mostly political in nature.

Critical Evaluation

In a response to Conclave on twitter.com, Denny Burk noted:

Conclave aims to drive home one point: Doubt is a virtue, and certainty is a vice. The good guys are the liberals who always learn but never come to know the truth. The bad guys are the conservatives who think they know what is true.

Dr. Burk's point is certainly correct. In fact, the film does not even argue the 'one point' as much as it assumes that point and seeks to reinforce it through caricatures of conservatives. The filmmakers seem to assume that their audience will already agree with theological liberalism.

[Spoilers follow.]

The climactic plot point of Conclave, illustrating that "doubt is a virtue, and certainty is a vice" is the revelation that the ascendent pope is intersex: Cardinal Benitez (presented as a sympathetic, humble, and convictional person) is revealed to have been born with male external organs and internal female sex organs, with XX chromosomes. This is a highly unlikely scenario, as the presence of external male organs usually requires an XY chromosome structure, even in situations where other intersex features are present. However, there is an exceedingly rare condition called 'de la Chapelle Syndrome' that could result in symptoms such as those described by the fictional Cardinal Benitez.

In Conclave, the intersex condition is presented as allowing Cardinal Benitez to embody and live out the theme that "doubt is a virtue, and certainty is a vice" in a unique way. However, it is interesting to note that Cardinal Benitez's gender identity is not merely presented as a matter of personal feeling and choice. Benitez decides to forego having surgery to remove the internal female sex organs, stating, "I am what God made me," and Benitez seeks the counsel of the pope. The will of God and the authority of the head of the church are crucial in thinking through an unusual, complicated situation.

Conclusion

Thinking outside of the liberal Roman Catholic context presented by the filmmakers of Conclave, how should Evangelicals think through the theme and situation presented in the film?

Evangelicals believe that we have certainty concerning crucial matters of belief and life, not based on our own opinions, but based on God's revelation in the Bible. Because we live in a fallen creation, there are complicated situations that arise. We should not throw our hands in the air and conclude, 'There is no objective truth,' with life just being governed by our own individual feelings and choices. Instead, we should seek the will of God, as He has revealed it in the Bible. Evangelicals do not believe that there is any head of the church other than the risen Christ, so when we face unusual, complicated situations, we should seek the counsel of the gathered congregation of believers, praying to Christ and searching the Bible together.

To consider a point analogous to that presented in Conclave: say that in an evangelical church, there were an individual with an intersex condition, and that intersex individual was deciding whether the pursuit of pastoral ministry is appropriate. How should that intersex individual think through the issue? The most fundamental issue one must keep in mind is that what we are is defined by our Creator: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:27 ESV). Moreover, God defines leadership in the church; concerning pastoral ministry in the church, the Bible says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man" (1 Timothy 2:12a ESV). Even in light of the complicated situation presented by an unusual intersex condition, church members should not reject the basic gender binary, nor should they reject the idea that only qualified men should be accepted for pastoral ministry.

Given these principles, an intersex individual who is trying to decide whether to pursue pastoral ministry would want to have as much information as possible. Chromosome testing, if available–to provide additional objective evidence, informing the perception of one's identity–may be useful. An intersex individual, like anyone else, would seek answers from the Bible. Since many intersex conditions–like 'de la Chapelle Syndrome'–result in the individual being sterile, passages such as Matthew 19:11-12, in which Jesus discusses those who are 'eunuchs from birth,' may be relevant. Finally, an intersex individual should seek counsel from other Bible-believing brothers and sisters in Christ, looking for help within a spiritually healthy local church, in order to discern the will of Christ.

Daily Doctrine by Kevin DeYoung: An Appreciation and Critique

DeYoung, Kevin. Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024. 

Kevin DeYoung presently serves as the senior pastor of Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and as an associate professor of systematic theology in Charlotte, North Carolina. In 2008, DeYoung's book Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, written with Ted Kluck, brought him to national attention within Reformed and evangelical circles. Since then, DeYoung has written books for children, adults, and academics, including Just Do Something, Impossible Christianity, and The Biggest Story Bible Storybook. DeYoung has been a blogger for The Gospel Coalition website, and he was one of the featured speakers at the biennial Together for the Gospel Conference from 2012-2022.

The unique contribution of Daily Doctrine: A One-Year Guide to Systematic Theology is its format: this systematic theology is broken into 260 daily readings, each between a page to a page-and-a-half in length. (DeYoung intentionally made the number of readings less than the days of a calendar year, so that readers could skip weekends or otherwise catch up on missed entries to still complete the book in a year.)

Summary

On pages 8-9, DeYoung writes:

Traditionally...systematic theology has been comprised of seven main topics: prolegomena (literally "first words," where ground rules and the doctrine of Scripture are usually covered); theology proper (covering the doctrine of God, the Trinity, the decrees, creation, and providence); anthropology (the doctrine of man's creation and fall); Christology (the person and work of Christ); soteriology (how we are saved and how saved people live by the Spirit); ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church); and eschatology (the doctrine of last things, both personally and cosmically).

DeYoung follows this traditional structure, except that he adds a section on Covenant Theology after his section on Anthropology, and he divides Christology into two sections: one for the person of Christ, and one for the work of Christ. So the parts of Daily Doctrine are:

• Prolegomena: Preliminary Considerations and Doctrine of Scripture

• Theology Proper: The Being of God and the Works of God

• Anthropology: Man as Created and Fallen

• Covenant Theology: How God Relates to His Creatures

• Christology 1: The Person of Christ

• Christology 2: The Work of Christ

• Soteriology: The Doctrine of Salvation

• Ecclesiology: The Nature, Mission, and Ordering of the Church

• Eschatology: Last Things

Critical Evaluation

DeYoung does an excellent job presenting a systematic study of theology in a clear and concise manner. Though intended to serve "pastors, students, leaders, and laypeople" alike, in this book, DeYoung does not shy away from using technical language, including distinctions like anhypostasia versus enhypostasia (terms I did not learn until I was in seminary) and archetypal theology versus ectypal theology (terms I did not learn until well after I left seminary). Because it is both brief and technical, this book may be of better service to those who have had at least a survey of systematic theology, rather than complete beginners to the subject.

Though intended to serve the church as a whole (and–in many ways–accomplishing this goal admirably), DeYoung's teaching in Daily Doctrine is from a specifically Presbyterian perspective. This is especially evident in certain entries within his sections on Covenant Theology and Ecclesiology. Unsurprisingly, a Reformed Baptist reader will have objections with some statements in these sections.

In his section on Covenant Theology, DeYoung devotes two daily readings to views that differ from his own: Dispensationalism and Baptist Covenant Theology. From a Reformed Baptist perspective, the entry explaining and critiquing Dispensationalism is commendable. A Reformed Baptist may also express thanks to DeYoung for the entry on Baptist Covenant Theology, at least for his acknowledgment of the existence of Baptist Covenant Theology–often overlooked by paedobaptist covenant theologians–and his fairness in using terms that Baptist covenant theologians would accept when explaining our position. DeYoung spends half of his entry on historic Baptist Covenant Theology–the theology following the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith–and the other half of that entry on "progressive covenantalism," and uninformed readers might not be able to understand the nuances between these views from DeYoung's brief entry, but this is understandable considering the significant overlap in the two Baptist views, especially in considering the newness of the new covenant.

In offering a critique to Baptist Covenant Theology's view of the new covenant, DeYoung writes:

[W]e might ask whether the establishment of the new covenant moves us, in God's redemptive economy, from a mouse to a cat or from a puppy to a dog. The nature of the covenant community, the recipients of baptism, and the way in which the church becomes visible...are all related to the question of whether the new covenant is fundamentally different or the same essential thing brought to fullness and completion. [Paedobaptist] Covenant theology answers this question by seeing the new covenant as a grown-up dog, not a different animal entirely.

Notice that if in DeYoung's analogy dog = covenant, then there is no new dog in his analogy. If a parent told a child with a puppy, "We're going to get you a new dog in three years," then–after three years–the parents pointed to the grown-up dog and said, "There's the new dog we promised." The child would rightly feel deceived. DeYoung is basically saying that the new covenant is not a new covenant.

But notice how Scripture describes the new covenant. In Jeremiah 31, the LORD says that the new covenant is "not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer 31:32a). Explaining Jeremiah's prophecy, the author of Hebrews does not only call the new covenant "new," but also "second" and "better," since the new covenant is "enacted on better promises" (Heb 8:6). The Spirit-inspired author of Hebrews does not say that the old covenant simply matures, but that it is faulty, obsolete, and vanishing away (Heb 8:7-13). The text could hardly be clearer about the essentially different nature of the new covenant.

Conclusion

In many ways, Daily Doctrine is a helpful resource for those who would like daily help to grow in loving the Lord with all of our minds. It would be a great resource to give to graduates of a Christian high school or Bible college: those who have received some theological education and would benefit from having that doctrinal consideration sharpened. However, a Reformed Baptist giving this book as a gift would want to make sure that the recipient is quite clear on the nature of the new covenant, so that DeYoung's paedobaptist Covenant Theology would not have a negative effect on church membership and future family decisions.

Comparison/Contrast Between Revelation 9:1-11 and 20:1-3

Characteristics of the Present World That are Absent in the New Earth

Using similar phrasing– οὐκ ἔστιν/ἔσται ἔτι (ouk estin/estai eti)–John, in Revelation 21-22, indicates seven things that will be no more in the new Earth: 

The sea (Rev 21:1)

Death (Rev 21:4)

Mourning (Rev 21:4)

Crying (Rev 21:4)

Pain (Rev 21:4)

Any curse (Rev 22:3)

Night (Rev 21:25; 22:5)

The number seven seems significant, indicating the complete passing away of every negative or difficult aspect of the old creation.

Death, mourning, crying, pain, and "any curse" are all effects of sin, and we rejoice that these will be absent from the new Earth. The absence of the sea and night may be more surprising, since–as recorded in Genesis 1–God made these as part of His "very good" creation. We should recognize that the sea and night are seen as symbolic of separation, fear, and death. In John's vision, the removal of these physical features indicates that there will be absolutely no lack of security. The lack of sea and the lack of night in Revelation indicates that there will be fearless, unbroken fellowship with God and with each other.

Psych Meds a Sin?

Appreciation

I love, appreciate, and respect Tony Miano. I am thankful for his example in evangelism. 

Introduction

A couple of days ago, Tony was a guest on the G220 Radio, a podcast hosted by my friend Mike Miller and his friend Ricky Gantz. On this podcast, Tony argues against Christians taking psych meds, asserting that use of such medications undermines the sufficiency of Scripture. Tony seemed to be saying that for a Christian to use psychiatric medications is a sin.

In response to a question I raised on the livestream, Tony was (helpfully) crystal clear that disagreements on the use of psych meds is not a first-order issue. However, it seemed like the use of psych meds was still being presented as somewhat analogous to an error regarding church government or the ordinances: where disagreements between genuine Christians might exist, yet there are some who must be biblical and some who must be unbiblical in their practices.

Taking psychiatric medications (or allowing one's child to take psych meds) may be wise or unwise in a given situation, but the taking of such meds cannot be called a sin for three reasons: the definition of the sufficiency of Scripture, the distinction between spiritual replacement and physical tool, and the dire circumstances in which one may be involved.

Definition of the Sufficiency of Scripture

The first reason that taking psych meds is not necessarily a sin involves the definition of the sufficiency of Scripture. The definition of scriptural sufficiency is based on passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17,

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

Scripture's sufficiency is well-summarized in the Abstract of Principles, which declares that Scripture is "the only sufficient, certain and authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and obedience." For saving knowledge, for faith, and for obedience to God, the Bible is sufficient. The Bible is not sufficient (nor does it claim to be sufficient) for absolutely every aspect of practically navigating God's creation. If your hiking guide, helicopter pilot, or heart surgeon tells you that the only training he received for his job was reading his Bible, then you would be rightly concerned; if you want to teach your teenager to do his Algebra or to drive an automobile, then you had better seek some books and experiences outside the Bible. It may be the case that if you want to make strident statements against medical practices or pharmacology, extra-biblical research is needed as well.

Distinction between Body and Soul

The second reason that taking psych meds is not necessarily a sin involves the distinction between body and soul. The argument against psych meds would claim that the meds are being sought not just as a means to navigate this physical world in a particular way, but that the meds are meant to minister to a person's soul in a way that only Scripture can do.

IF psychiatric medications are being used as a spiritual replacement for repentance and sanctification (and Tony indicates that, in his own experience, that's how the medications WERE being used), THEN taking psych meds IS a sin. HOWEVER, it is not NECESSARY to use medications as a SPIRITUAL REPLACEMENT. Instead, medications could be a useful PHYSICAL TOOL to deal with symptoms in order to set the stage for addressing deeper, spiritual needs. If a person has a pounding headache that is distracting him from prayer, it is no sin for him to take some Tylenol before praying. If a person is having panic attacks–including rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, tightness in the chest, and nausea–it is no sin for him to take a psych med to help deal with the panic attack symptoms before moving on to address the spiritual issues of anxiousness that might be the root of the attacks.

Dire Circumstances

The third reason that taking psych meds is not necessarily a sin involves the dire circumstances in which one may be involved. If a person is involved in self-harm and suicidal tendencies, then that person desperately needs direction toward Christ and discipleship. However, if the patterns of thought and tendencies are so severe that she is in immediate danger from herself, then psychiatric medications may be a helpful step in preserving physical life until the needed spiritual work may be done. To label psych meds a sin, causing shame to those who permit their use, may take away a helpful tool for keeping someone alive long enough to hear a needed gospel word.

Conclusion

The act of taking psychiatric medications (or allowing one's child to take psych meds) cannot simply be labeled as sin due to the definition of the sufficiency of Scripture, the distinction between spiritual replacement and physical tool, and the dire circumstances in which one may be involved. We need to be careful not to call an action a sin, when the Bible has not called that action a sin: to do so may be a true violation of scriptural sufficiency. This matters to Christians who are at the end of their rope, and who are seeking tools to help get them (or their children) to a place where their thoughts are coherent enough to allow them to receive the instruction from God's Word that they ultimately need. 

Jesus in the Middle?

On February 11, 2025, Rick Warren, the former pastor of Saddleback Church, tweeted:

If the Gospel writers had revealed any contrasting political/worldview positions of the two thieves, then Warren might have a basis for making such an application. Since Scripture contains no such contrast between the thieves, Warren has basically just taken the word "middle" and loaded in a meaning for the term from outside the text. Warren's tweet is an example of false equivalence and eisegesis.

There are biblical texts that clearly have bearing on hot-button political issues of our day. For example:

• Life is consistently valued from the womb (Job 31:15; Psalm 139:13; Isaiah 44:24; Luke 1:41).
• Jesus affirms gender distinctions, and He affirms marriage as a lifelong union of a man and a woman (Matthew 19:4-6).
• Justice and love are to be extended to the "stranger [who] sojourns with you in your land" (Leviticus 19:33-34).
• Mosaic law regulates private industry in order to ensure that the vulnerable in society have a source of provision (Deuteronomy 24:19-22).

However, the exact ways in which Bible verses should influence the crafting of specific laws in our nation (at local, state, and federal levels) are debatable. Nobody should attempt to coopt the Bible–nor the focal point of the Bible: Jesus Christ our Savior–for his own political agenda. The Lord will not serve as a poster-boy for leftist, centrist, or right-wing political groups.

"When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand. And Joshua went to him and said to him, 'Are you for us, or for our adversaries?' 'Neither,' He replied. 'I have now come as Commander of the LORD’s army.' Then Joshua fell facedown in reverence and asked Him, 'What does my Lord have to say to His servant?' (Joshua 5:13-14 ESV)

Even God's old covenant people–national Israel–could not claim the Angel of the LORD as their own, as if He would serve their agenda. Instead, Joshua had to humbly enquire about the Lord's will, then submit to that will. Likewise, followers of Christ must–with humility, gentleness, and respect–seek the will of Christ from Scripture, and then pray for wisdom as we strive to implement His will.

Biblical political engagement does not require Christians to find a centrist position between protecting life in the womb or allowing it to be electively destroyed: it does not require Christians to find a centrist position between protecting children from genital mutilation and allowing for childhood genital mutilation. Biblical political engagement does require Christians "to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8). Let us pray for the Spirit to help us exemplify these cardinal and heavenly virtues in our lives.

Found Written in the Book of Life or Cast into the Lake of Fire

If anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15) 

Revelation 20:15 "means that the only criterion of salvation is to have one's name written in the Book of Life" (David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1103). For those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, only their "works"–written in the other books–can testify for them (Rev 20:12-13), and since all our works fall short of God's holy standard, those works are insufficient to save (at best), or they serve to justly call for our greater condemnation.

Notice the passive verbal forms in Revelation 20:15. Divine action is directly implied. God is sovereign over the names written in the Book of Life and over whom is cast into the lake of fire. All who are saved from the lake of fire owe their salvation to God, and they have no grounds for boasting before Him.

The Book of Life

And I saw the dead, the great and small, standing before the throne. Books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the [Book] of Life. (Revelation 20:12a)

In Revelation: Four Views, Steve Gregg notes:

There is a noted differentiation between the books from which the dead were judged and the Book of Life... The latter was mentioned in the promise made to the overcomers in the church of Sardis (Rev 3:5). It is apparently the register of all those whom the Lamb has redeemed. Jesus told the disciples, "Rejoice because your names are written in heaven" (Luke 10:20). The church is composed of those "who are registered in heaven" (Heb 12:23).

The idea of a divine book of life has an Old Testament that is found in several texts. In a prayer of intercession for Israel, Moses prays that God would forgive Israel's sins, and if not, that God would blot Moses himself out of the book God had written (Exo 32:32-33). In an imprecatory section of Psalm 69, David prays that his enemies would be blotted out of the book of the living (Psa 69:28). In a prophecy concerning the remnant in Zion, Isaiah praises God that those whom He has "recorded for life" will be called holy (Isa 4:3). More specifically, Revelation 20:12 is an allusion to Daniel 12:1-3, a text that involves the General Resurrection and the Final Judgment, and which proclaims deliverance for "everyone whose name shall be found written in the book" (Dan 12:1). In each of these Old Testament verses–from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets–the idea of a book of life or record of the living seems to involve a list of names for those who will be preserved through divine judgment.

In the Book of Revelation, prior to Revelation 20:12, having one's name written in the Book of Life is seen as the ground for (not merely the result of) faithfulness to God through persecution. In Revelation 13:8 and 17:8, the beast accomplishes universal deception, causing people everywhere to commit idolatry, and only those who have had their names written in the Book of Life will be able to resist following the beast. The names are written into the Book of Life by God prior to the deception of the beast, and the writing of the names into the Book of Life is effective to preserve God's people through the deception of the beast.

Both Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 make it clear that the names of the redeemed have been written in the Book of Life "from the foundation of the world." This is consistent with the Apostle Paul's statement from Ephesians 1:4 about the saints being chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world." Preservation through the Final Judgment is a matter of God's sovereign grace.

At the Final Judgment, books that record the works of each person will be opened. Everyone will be judged according to his or her works. But the most crucial book is the Book of Life, for it is only through having one's name written in this book that a person will be spared from the torment described in the following verses. 

The One Seated upon the Throne

Then I saw a great white throne and the One sitting upon it, from whose face Earth and Heaven fled, and no place was found for them. (Revelation 20:11) 

It is obvious that the One seated upon the throne is divine, but some believe that readers are to understand the personal identity of the One seated upon throne as God the Father and others believe that readers are to understand the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne as Christ. We should understand the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne to be Christ for three reasons: Jesus said that the Father has committed "all judgment" to the Son, Jesus said that He will sit "on the throne of His glory" to render the final judgment of all people, and Paul wrote that Jesus is the One who will "judge the living and the dead."

The first reason we should understand the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne to be Christ is Jesus' statement that the Father has committed "all judgment" to the Son. This statement is recorded for us in John 5:22. This statement is in the context of words from Christ about the General Resurrection and the Final Judgment: interconnected events that are both under the authority of the Son (John 5:22-29). If we understand that the same John who wrote the Gospel of John also wrote the Book of Revelation, then we see John 5:22 as a more explicit statement regarding the personal identity of the One on the throne, helping to interpret the less clear statement (on this point) that John records in Revelation 20:11.

The second reason we should understand the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne to be Christ is Jesus' statement that He will sit "on the throne of His glory" to render the final judgment of all people. This statement is recorded for us in Matthew 25:31. This statement is also in the context of words from Christ about the Final Judgment (Matt 25:31-46).  In Matthew 25:31, Jesus not only mentions that He will be the one who renders judgment, He also explicitly includes the detail that He renders judgment while sitting "on the throne of His glory." This explicit detail helps us in determining the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne in Revelation 20:11.

The third reason we should understand the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne to be Christ is the Apostle Paul wrote that Jesus is the One who will "judge the living and the dead." Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote this in 2 Timothy 4:1, a verse that also mentions Christ's appearing and His kingdom. This is consistent with what Paul had preached on Mars Hill–that the judgment of the world will come through "a man whom [God] has appointed"(Acts 17:31)–and Peter's earlier proclamation that Jesus is "the One appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead" (Acts 10:42).

Some people argue that the personal identity of the One seated upon the throne in Revelation 20:11 must be God the Father. They point to Daniel 7, a passage that has some definite influence on the Book of Revelation, in which the Ancient of Days, who is distinguished from the Son of Man (and is thus clearly identified with God the Father rather than with Christ), is the One seated upon the throne. However, there is a redemptive-historical movement that we see depicted in Daniel 7:13-14 in which the Ancient of Days (God the Father) gives dominion to the Son of Man (God the Son).

Furthermore, "Christ was said to be seated with His Father upon His throne in Revelation 3:21." The ancient world knew of a bisellium– a throne that was a single piece of furniture with two seats. [David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (Dallas: Word Books, 1997), 262.] Just because the Father is depicted as seated on the throne in other passages does not mean that the Son is absent from the throne, or that He is not the focus of Revelation 20:11.

The personal identity of the One seated upon the throne in Revelation 20:11 is clearly Christ because Jesus said that the Father has committed "all judgment" to the Son, Jesus said that He will sit "on the throne of His glory" to render the final judgment of all people, and Paul wrote that Jesus is the One who will "judge the living and the dead." This matters to the church because it focuses our attention on God the Son, and it is through God the Son that we know God the Father rightly (John 14:6).