Pascal's Wager

Thank you Ravi Zacherias. I have struggled with Pascal’s Wager for years. Basically it challenges an unbeliever to compare the two “end points” of belief or non-belief. A quick summary is that if an unbeliever “tries” Jesus and it turns out that it is all a fraud, what will he have lost? Either way, there is nothingness, in his calculation, so trying belief in Jesus will not “cost” him a meaningless eternity. That is what he already faces.

On the other hand, if this belief is true, and he rejects it, he will have a lost eternity. And it is worse than nothingness. It is a reasonable wager to choose the option that will not end up forever lost if it is right.

The problem is 1 Corinthians 15. Verses 29-32 are the key point:
Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30 And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31 I face death every day—yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink,    for tomorrow we die.” (Verse 29 is a rhetorical question. We can deal with that later if you wish.)

Paul rejected the idea that just “living for Jesus” now, in this present life, is enough “reward.” Note that he recounted some of his “reward.”(v. 30, 31, 32) If there is not resurrection, then his sacrifice was wasted. It was worthless. So does this refute Pascal’s equation? Read on.

Ravi explained something that I, and the other commentators I have read, have missed. It is that Pascal used the unbeliever’s own value system. In his estimation, there is nothing to “avoid” and nothing to gain. The only commodity that makes sense is “happiness.” “Does it make me happy now?” is the driving question. That is because there is nothing after this to consider.

But, if that value system is in error, there is a lot to lose. Pascal was commenting on the flawed system, not the value of belief. So Paul’s contention is valid. But the unbeliever does not have that perspective. By taking the perspective that he has, and leveraging it against the options, we can “move” him to Christ. And once there, he will understand the gigantic error that he almost made.

Neither Paul nor Pascal were discounting the certainty of the resurrection and Jesus’ return. Pascal was burrowing inside the logical wall of skepticism to blast that barrier down. A man living in darkness is oblivious to beauty. Trying to reason him into believing that there is beauty is pointless. What he needs if for someone to turn on the light. Pascal said, “Click.” (Not literally for the imagination challenged. But he did shine the light.)

I chose Jesus.