#STRask - Does the Bible Say That Someday Everyone Will Worship God?

Episode Date: July 15, 2024

Questions about whether the Bible says that someday everyone in the world will worship God, the purpose of worshiping God, and whether it might be the case that God has created another universe where that creation also gives him glory. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that someday everyone (all the world) will worship God? [Note: after recording this episode, we also came across Psalm 66:3–4, which says that “all the earth will worship” God, but also that his enemies will give him “feigned obedience.”] What is the purpose of worshiping God? If God maximizes his glory in this universe, is it reasonable to think he’s maximized his glory in another universe or in some other creative act that involves his creation giving him glory?

This is Amy Hall. You're on the Hashtag STRask podcast with Greg Kogel. Back again to answer your questions. Thank you for sending those in. Yeah, I wasn't sure if you were going to launch there. Who am I? All right, Greg. Okay. This first question comes from Aaron. I recently heard several people say that someday everyone, all the world, will worship God. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that everyone will worship God? I know everyone will acknowledge the truth of who Christ is.

Every knee bow, every tongue confess. Is this the same as worshiping him? Well, that's an interesting distinction. That reference that you just offered comes from Philippians 2, and interestingly, it's a citation from a Hebrew text, Isaiah, I think, somewhere, which is applied to Yahweh, and Paul now applies it to Jesus. He just puts Jesus' name in there. Every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is Lord. Now, I guess it's academic whether you want to call that worship or not.

It is going to be an acknowledgment of the lordship of Jesus and the lordship of Yahweh, okay? The lordship of God over all His creation, the Trinitarian God. So this is a verse in Philippians 2 that does make the case that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament because that same verse is used of both Jesus and the Father. So it's referring to his divinity or the divinity, the divine nature they both share. Whether one counts that as worship or not depends on how you view it. worship is something that must come from the heart and be a genuine act of affirming and glorying in the magnificence of God, then it's not worship. If it's an acknowledgment of the sovereign role of God in the universe, that He is the sovereign, well, then it is worship,

because clearly the verse indicates that all will show obeisance to God, the true God. So, a lot depends on how you view it. I guess, just from my own perspective, I think probably to say that we ought to be worshiping is to ask us to do something from our heart and, in a sense, willingly and and maybe not joyfully is too much, but willingly and in an affirming way, acknowledging the glories of God and the role of God as chief sovereign, which is why you bow your knee, you bow your knee to a sovereign. I would think that worship entails more than just bending the knee, the way we usually use the word. All right.

But there's definitely the point there is that all the world will come under that authority one way or another, either under God's mercy or under God's judgment, and an acknowledgment, even through, as it were, gritted teeth, clenched jaws, that Jesus is Lord, that Yahweh is Lord. So I'd be inclined not to call that worship, but I'm not going to fuss over the words. You know, people sometimes use language in, you know, whatever, frivolous ways, but I'm not going to, or ways that I wouldn't use it. I think the broader point is going to acknowledge the sovereignty of God in Jesus, God himself, the Trinitarian God. I'm looking for the verse here. It's verse 11 in Philippians 2, actually verse 10, so that at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess, I'm sorry, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth. That's pretty all-encompassing.

And that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Now, the reference there comes from Isaiah 45, which incidentally is a chapter that has a lot of references to Yahweh that the New Testament authors pick up and use as reference to Jesus. Isaiah 45 is a very popular chapter with Jehovah's Witnesses, which is kind of interesting and ironic, because obviously they deny Trinitarianism and the deity of Christ. But this connection is very strong between New Testament authors talking about Jesus and making reference to these passages in Isaiah 45, and here's one of them. So I would say this is acknowledging the surrender of everything, everyone, every conscious being, not just human beings, but angelic beings as well. All things will be put under subjection and subjection to him, right? And so whether one wants to call that worship or not is a matter of personal issue, but I wouldn't call it worship.

They are, like I said, through gritted teeth, you know, are acknowledging that Jesus is Lord to the glory of the Father. But they are forced to acknowledge that. Can you think of any other passage? Because Aaron didn't really say what people were citing. Can you think of any other passage someone might be saying is claiming that everyone will worship God? Well, no, I can't think of any off the top of my head. And there may be other passages that make the same kind of general point that this one does. But the question, in my mind, it seems the question would still be open as to whether we would call that worship. Because we know for a fact, I mean, I'm thinking about, for example, Revelation 19, where the people with God are praising him because he is punishing the people who have rejected him. So

obviously not everyone is worshiping in the way that we would use that term, as you said. Characteristically, I think you're right. I mean, the characteristic way we use the term does not apply here. So I just wanted to quote Isaiah because I think that might help us also to understand what this passage is about. It says, turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other. I've sworn by myself, the word has gone forth from my mouth in righteousness and will not turn back. That to me, every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. They will say of me, only in the Lord are righteousness and strength. Men will come to him and all who

were angry at him will be put to shame. Now, what's interesting here, if all who are angry at him will be put to shame, then this can't mean that every single person is going to be worshiping God in love and honor. Yeah, in love, the way we usually think of the term, right. But what's odd to me is this also says every tongue will swear allegiance. So I don't really know how to put those two things together, unless it's just an acknowledgment, as you say. Of course, that's not in the Philippians passage, but do you have any ideas about that? Well, the word allegiance does have a certain connotation to it, And it raises a question whether that's an appropriate

word to use to describe what's going on. And the question that enters my mind now is a question of translation. Maybe the Hebrew word, properly understood, doesn't capture the sense of allegiance, like I'm on your side willfully and we're fighting together. That's usually the way it's used. But there's no other English word that gets close to the Hebrew meaning, you know? And so that may be a difficulty. I'm reading a wonderful book, actually two of them right now, about canon and Bible and translations and stuff. And the one I'm trying to think of the name of the book, it's one of those titles where they cross out a word, you know. You cannot trust God's word, and they cross out, cannot put can,

and that's always confusing to remember it just so. But it's actually a very good book and talks about the problem of translations, and what they point out is that every translation has to interpret because there are constructions in the original language that cannot be strictly translated, in a sense, word for word, and carry the same meaning, they carry the same sense. Different languages have different grammar, and they have different ways of making points.

And so what English translators have to do is understand the Hebrew in a rich enough sense that they can find another way of saying it in English that captures that meaning. And different translators are going to view the project in a little different way. So that was really helpful to understand that. And it may be here that allegiance is the way the New American Standard translators translated it because they thought, well, allegiance is the closest that we can get. But I think you're right. This does suggest a connotation that doesn't apply appropriately to people who are forced into submission. Right. People are put to shame. who are forced into submission. Right.

The people who are put to shame. Yeah, right, right. But in either case, what both of these passages are focusing on is there is only one God for the whole world. So the first verse of Isaiah 1, Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth. So the focus is on Jesus being the Lord of everyone, and I think that's what the main point that this is trying to get at. There's not one God for this nation and one God for this nation. He is the God.

He is the one before whom everyone has to bow the knee. Everything is put in subjection to him and put under his feet. and put under his feet. And I think that's the main idea, whether every single person is going to love him is, I think, a different— It's another matter. Yes. Clearly not going to be the case. And the person here would be broader, not just human persons,

but angelic persons too, given the way the verse is characterized. But I think it actually goes beyond that. It's not just saying that there's one God and that there are not many gods and ruling all polytheism. It's also saying that the one God is not everyone's God. He is in the sense that he is the sovereign. But there's a lot of people who will say, and Muslims say this, well, we worship the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Well, they don't worship the same God. They worship a different God. Jacob. Well, they don't worship the same God. They worship a different God. And some people want to suggest that these different religions are worshiping the same God under a false characterization, but it's the same God. They just have some misunderstandings. And this passage,

I think, makes it clear. This God that rules over everyone is the Hebrew God, that one, and not the other gods. And so when other people are worshiping God, their God in their religion, they are not worshiping the true God because there's only one God. And I've heard this a lot of times. Oh, wait a minute, there's only one God. Yeah, so therefore we're all worshiping the same God. No, you're worshiping a false God. And indeed, this is a message that comes across time and again in the prophets. Even in the Isaiah passage, because he talks about, in that chapter, about people worshiping things that aren't gods. That's right.

That's right. So I think we can—there's a stronger point that can be made, not just that there's one god and that one god is Yahweh, and that the others are false gods. But when others worship the false gods, they are not worshiping, in fact, the true God under another characterization. They are worshiping false gods, okay? So I think there's an attempt in this manner, this way of thinking, to sanitize false worship and false religion and make it sound like, well, they're just kind of a little confused. No, they are worshiping a different God. And this is true about Muslims. This is true about Mormons. This is true about Jehovah's Witnesses. This is true about Hindus and Buddhists. And by the way, just one other—people think that religions are all about God and that they're all worshiping the same God because there's only one God.

And this is the point I'm making. But it turns out that religions aren't all about God. They don't all have this common thread. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, for example. Okay? There is no God in Buddhism. It's not relevant to the package, to the program. I think Taoism may be like that, too, and certainly some of the ancestor worship we have in the Far East, Japan, etc.

Animism isn't about God. It's about controlling spirits. So there are lots of religious enterprises for which a God and going to heaven is not even a relevant question. Okay? They are giving different pictures of reality. And it isn't like there's this common thread through all of them. Oh, the common thread is love. No, it's not.

Christianity is not even about love. It's about redemption and forgiveness and and it entails God's love, but the word love doesn't even show up in the Pentateuch until the book of Deuteronomy. I mean, so my characterization is it's about God's lordship over all that's His. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The king makes a kingdom. But Islam is not about love. It's about submission. Hinduism is not about love. It's about submission. Hinduism is not about love. It's about breaking the bonds of karma and then being lost into the eternal one of God. Buddhism is about suffering, you know, and getting away from suffering.

So this is just a confused notion people have about the religious project around the world. notion people have about the religious project around the world. Well, let me just say one last thing about this question, because the very last verse of this Philippians passage says, you know, every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. And I just want to point out that it doesn't, even those who are being punished by God are bringing glory to Him by revealing His justice. And that's something that the Revelation 19 passage says. They're glorifying God because of His justice. So even bending the knee in the sense that you are under subjection to Jesus but suffering the punishment of God, you are still bringing glory to Him.

So in either way, either you are under punishment or you are worshiping, you will bring glory to God. All right, and on that note, here's a question from Tim. This is from the perspective of my friend. What is the purpose of worshiping God? It would seem egotistical for God to create mankind just for the purpose of worshiping Him. God to create mankind just for the purpose of worshiping him? This is a question that I think John, you know, one of those moments, has the church in Minneapolis— Piper. Piper, thank you.

Has spoken to, and he actually has devoted a whole book to this. There's Desiring God, and then there's a follow-up book, and I think it's the follow-up that has a similar title that develops this idea. And I think the broad point he makes is that it's always morally appropriate to honor goodness, okay? And in fact, we do this without even thinking. Think of sports events. We look at activities, sports activities, and we look at magnificent displays

of physical prowess and athletic prowess. And we think it's appropriate to cheer that on. Okay. Because that's something good and we cheer it on. A fireman rescues people

from the house, the burning house. A million awards shows. Yes, there you go. Right. And so, because we think it morally appropriate to honor excellence, okay? Now, if God is good, and He is perfectly good, then it is obligatory, it is morally obligatory for him to also honor excellence. But it turns out that of all the excellence in the world that God could give honor to, and we see examples of that in Scripture, he is the most excellent one in the world. So it is appropriate for him to honor himself as the supreme example of moral excellence and virtue.

This is Piper's argument. And I think that's appropriate. Egotism is when a person exalts themselves to a position they do not belong in, and they draw attention to themselves at the expense of others, all right? So, humility, and this is, I think, a misunderstood element of this virtue, humility. Humility isn't self-deprecation. Oh, I'm awful. You know, I'm nothing. That's not humility. That's self-deprecation. Humility is taking the lower station, because Jesus was humble, but he wasn't awful. He wasn't nothing, okay? He took the lower station, and the Philippians 2 passage, which we were talking about earlier, talks about that. Have this attitude in yourself that is also in Christ Jesus.

He humbles himself to be exalted later, which is the passage we were talking about, but he is taking the lower station. He's God, but he takes the lower station of man. He's man, but he takes the lower station of man. He's man, but he takes the lower station of a servant. He's a servant, but he takes the lower station of dying the death of a common criminal. That's all built right there in that passage. And so humility is taking the lower station, okay? Now, egotism is just the opposite, is when you are taking the higher station that doesn't belong to you.

Now, how do you take the higher station? You take it in one of two ways. You puff yourself up by self-aggrandizement, or you get higher than others by putting others down below you. Okay? Both of those are vices, because it's not appropriate for us to act that way, because we are mere humans with feet made of clay. Now, there are things that are laudatory about human beings, and this is why it says in Proverbs, let's see, how does the, now I lost the exact wording, but it says,

let another, here it is, let another praise you, and not your own lips. So it says, don't praise yourself. That's putting yourself't praise yourself. That's putting yourself above other people. That's egotism. But allow other people to praise you in appropriate ways. Nothing wrong with that. So there are appropriate ways we should be praised, but we are not doing it ourselves. In the case of God, though, he is not taking an inappropriate position when he expects honor and glory for himself. Just like somebody wins a Super Bowl or whatever, or most valuable player, whatever, is expecting to have the approbation of the fans at some level. It's appropriate. People can go overboard with that, obviously,

but I'm just trying to get the basic structure here going. And so this is why, and this is Piper's argument, this is why it's appropriate for God to expect honor for himself. And I think you've put your finger on the very reason why this is so confusing to people. I think they're picturing God, they're imagining what it would be like to worship a man. Who did that? Yes. Who demanded worship, right? Of course, that's terrible.

And then they just apply that to God. But the problem is he's not a man. He's perfect. And this is the point you were making, Greg. It's completely appropriate. And we all know, I mean, anyone who loves God knows that joy has had joy in worshiping him. It's our joy. It joy in worshiping him. It's our joy.

It's actually good for us. And it's the purpose we were created for. This is part of our flourishing. We do better when we do this. You know, just looking at children who honor their parents, the very commandment is so that it will go well with you. Right. That's right. It's actually a good thing to honor those who deserve honor. You're right. Jesus received worship many, many times. It's absolutely clear in Scripture. When we look at the details, Jesus received worship. Okay. Now, he didn't demand it in his

earthly ministry. He didn't demand people worship him. He was in his humble state, obviously. But people's response to his character and his person was to worship him in the way that they would worship God. And we know this because the same kind of behavior that Jesus received and did not rebuke people for, Peter, in one instance, in the book of Acts, and also John in the book of Revelation, received from other creatures. And they said, don't do that. Get off your feet. I am also a man. Worship God alone. Jesus didn't say that because Jesus was God. And it was the same behaviors, the bowing down, the proskuneo. Right. John does that to the angel, right?

Yeah, right. Yeah, at the end. I just have a little illustration about the difference between worshiping a man and worshiping God. I heard this story one time about, I think it was Stalin. And I think Solzhenitsyn said something about this where they'd have to clap for him. By the way, Solzhenitsyn, the famous Soviet dissident who nobody remembers anymore, unfortunately spent 10 years in the Gulag. Christian. I think this story came from him.

But like people would clap for Stalin, but you couldn't stop clapping. So they'd just be standing there in pain clapping. And the first person to stop clapping would be in trouble. Now, that's what it looks like to worship. Until their hands bled and say, you know, I remember that. Sure. That's what it looks like to worship a man. It's forced, it's ugly, it's undeserved. Yeah. And compare that to a beautiful time of worship that we've all experienced at one time or another, and it's just a completely

different thing. It comes from the heart, it comes from love, and it's given to someone who has loved us and sacrificed for us. And also one last point on this, remember that God is Trinitarian. So He is glorifying the Son, the Son is glorifying the Father. And so it's, even in that sense, glorifying the Father. And so, even in that sense, it's not all one person who is receiving this love. God is actually Trinitarian, and the persons are honoring each other and loving each other also. So, it's not all, you know. Me, me, me. Yes, right. In the Unitarian sense. Right. Okay, Greg, I'm going to throw one more in here. Whoa, you're brave.

Okay, Greg, I'm going to throw one more in here. Whoa, you're brave. Just because it goes along with this, and I want to close off this. Tie the bow. Yes. Okay, this one comes from Winnipeggers Are the Best. We believe that God is omnipotent and maximizes his glory. If God maximizes his glory in this universe, is it reasonable to consider he's maximized his glory in another,

or maybe in some other creative act that involves his creation giving him glory? Well, one thing to speculate on possibilities. It's another thing to take the possibilities and treat them as actualities. Whatever universe God would have created, he is going to magnify his glory because that's the nature of God, all right? But that doesn't mean he created any other universes. If he did create other universes, then there would be maximal glory there too, it seems, by the same reasoning. But just because that would be the case counterfactually in a universe he might create doesn't mean that it's not a counterfactual, that it's in fact there are other universes that God created.

We have no reason to believe that. And so there's no reason to speculate beyond the obvious application of his nature to other circumstances that would be counterfactual. God would be glorified at any universe he created. But that's the counterfactual. And we have noified at any universe he created, but that's the counterfactual, and we have no reason that it's actually factual. Yeah, we just have no way to know. I was just curious how you would respond to that. I mean, who knows what he'll create in the future? Who knows what else he has created, but I don't think we have any reason to think that he has as of yet.

Right. All right. Thank you so much for your questions. If you have a question, you can send it on Twitter with the hashtag STRask, or you can go to our website at str.org. We look forward to hearing from you. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kogel for Stand to Reason.