Do we have a wrong idea of heaven?
In February, Anglican Bishop NT Wright said in an interview with Time Magazine that Christians are wrong about heaven. He specifically rebuts the cultural picture of heaven Maria Shriver described in her book What's Heaven:
"[It's] a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him."
NT says the Bible teaches that heaven is not a place where we float on clouds as body-less souls listening to music all day; heaven will come down to earth and, with redeemed bodies, we will work the redeemed Creation.
This is a pretty significant claim as I imagine many Christians -- many of us included -- fall into the camp NT is criticizing. Thoughts?
posted by Matthew at 11:43 PM
15 Comments:
I personally don't think the Bible teaches much on Heaven. It mentions that it's God's resting place, and where the Father sits with the Son on their thrones, but other than that I could only find Mark 12:25 that describes the afterlife.
"For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in Heaven"
The context here is in response to the Sadducees asking Christ about levirate marriage. But what it says about the afterlife is that we will have no need of companionship.
Almost all of the traditional verses that are used to described Heaven, I actually believe are referring to the fulfillment in power of the New Covenant, after the Old Covenant (or "heavens and earth") have passed away.
So all that to say, while I intellectually understand how NT Wright came to his conclusion, I find little to back it up in the Bible. I just don't think the Bible teaches much on Heaven, and I think that's intentional because our work is here on Earth and that should be our focus.
To determine whether or not the Bible teaches about heaven, It all depends on what you're looking for. If i remember correctly, in at least 2 of the gospels Jesus comes preaching that "the Kingdom of Heaven is near." I believe Luke's and Mark's gospels call this same reality "the Kingdom of God." (this is due to the Jewish custom of not saying the name of God. "the kingdom of Heaven" is really the same things as "the kingdom of god.") that being said, language is important. we should probably be talking about the kingdom of God, or the Kingdom of Heaven instead of "heaven." The kingdom implies that which God reigns over, which is everything both in heaven and on earth.
Now, if you've read any of NT Wright's works - which i would highly recommend - you will see that he is probably the authority on the biblical teaching on the resurrection and the "afterlife." What he is arguing here, which falls into a much bigger argument, is that the traditional quasi-gnostic idea of a disembodied heaven that we 'go to' when we die is not a biblical idea. what is biblical is what we see in Revelation 21 - the new jerusalem coming down from heaven and the declaration, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."
What is important to keep in mind is that the reason we don't fine much teaching on "heaven", as hudson's dad pointed out - although for the wrong reasons, i think - is because we are looking for the wrong thing. You won't find much on the "afterlife" because 1st century (and the ancient Hebrews) Jews don't really have a sophisticated understanding of the "afterlife." The OT talks about Sheol, the place of the dead, but as far as I know, there isn't much development. In the NT, we find much that is similar however there is a new understanding of resurrection (which you will have to look at NT Wright's "the ressurection of the son of God" for more). The Jewish hope was always an embodied hope. The Christian hope isn't any different. We do not hope for "heaven", the way most of us probably think. we hope and pray for "thy kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven." Jesus' resurrection is God's firstfruits of the new creation. Jesus experiences now what we will experience in the Kingdom - the resurrection of our physical bodies ON EARTH, which is God's good creation. Jesus does ascend into heaven and sits at the right hand of God (which is the traditional place of the judge), but he will come again, as the historical orthodox creeds tell us. and for this, we must wait.
Heaven is the place where God dwells. what Christians hope for is a time when God will dwell with men on earth as it is in heaven. Wright's catchphrase is "The Christian hope is not about life after death, but life AFTER life after death."
Hudson's dad made this comment: "I just don't think the Bible teaches much on Heaven, and I think that's intentional because our work is here on Earth and that should be our focus." I would adamantly disagree here. The bible is almost ALL about the kingdom of heaven. it is ALL about God's work to restore the people of Israel, the nations, and the whole living earth. Through Jesus, God dwells with man through his spirit. Now we wait in hope for the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God. The work on earth is what we have to do, it is all we can do. but it is not our focus. we patiently wait for the coming kingdom, which is our focus, and we do the work of God in the meantime. Our work will not bring about the Kingdom. God's kingdom must COME, we can't work it into existence.
The Dude,
In regard to your final paragraph, let me restate:
The Bible doesn't teach much on the afterlife (at least New Covenant afterlife) because I believe if we were aware of the reality of it, we'd 'fall asleep' on our mission here on Earth. Christ told His disciples to be on alert (which is a bad translation, a more accurate would be 'press on'). I think that we are to 'press on' with what Christ called us to do here on Earth and let the afterlife come when it does. We're assured of our salvation. What more do we need to know?
What might we need to know?
Well, one of the problems is that we don't think we need to know anything about what the Kingdom of God/Heaven will look like, and this leads to really bad ideas of what we should be doing in the meantime. Isaiah says that "the lion will lay down with the lamb," and revelation says that, "there will be no more tears." Is this not important information?
This helps shape what kind of work we think is important and encourages us to press on towards that goal, no matter how distant and unattainable it may seem to us. The Sermon on the Mount, depending on your interpretation of it, can become a helpful way of guiding us into what life in the Kingdom looks like for disciples of Jesus.
The work we do now is profoundly eschatological - that is, shaped by what we think God's Kingdom is about, who it is for, and most importantly, who we God is for us. For me, this is why I am a supporter of non-violence. I can also say that Iconsumerism is bad because it doesn't align with what i think the Kingdom is about. I think caring for the earth and all of God's creatures is important, not because it just seems like a good idea, but because i am motivated by God's coming kingdom and to act in line with it. Because God cares about his good creation and it has a major role in the new heavens and the new earth, i am compelled to care for it too. In my opinion, the fact that so many people we know go to law school and business school and then work for large firms or banks is because they have absolutely no idea of what God's kingdom is about. They think they are going to float off into heaven one day, and the work they did on earth was either to pass the time, or save some souls from hell (and make some money while they were here.) Neither of those views gives even a passive reading of the kingdom.
We have "fallen asleep" here on earth NOT because the bible doesn't teach us about the Kingdom but because we have given up our (read: Christian) vision of the future in exchange for a gnostic, consumeristic, progressive, humanistic, scientific vision of the future.
Read Jurgen Moltmann, "Theology of Hope", for a much better and richer (although quite dense) understanding of this.
I agree with you, there is work to be done. But what kind of work? And to what end? How is it that Liberation Theology (with all its flaws) flows out of a profoundly eschatological theology? Why is the Left Behind series supported by extremely weak and wrongly directed eschatology and understanding of the Kingdom? What good comes out of believing that God is going to destroy the earth and that he seeks to destroy his human enemies?! None, in my opinion, because it is just bad, bad theology.
None of this is to say, of course, that we have full knowledge of the eschaton. We don't, and we can't. But there is much we can know, much that has been revealed to us, and we are called to be bearers and witnesses of that truth.
Repent, for the Kingdom of God is near!
ps - lest anyone ignore everything else i wrote, of course i don't think lawyers and bankers are always bad. however, i would like to know if anyone ever has become a banker because they were profoundly influenced by liberation theology!
please, ignore the polemic :)
I think the difference between us is vast, mainly because I'm a full preterist and you're a futurist. I think those verses you quoted in Isaiah are strictly describing the 'age to come', i.e. the New Covenant. It was fulfilled spiritually.
I don't want to turn this into an eschatological thread, but I felt I had to explain my background.
But to answer the original post, I just don't see a lot of verses described a New Covenant afterlife. Thus, I can't know if we have the right/wrong idea of what it is.
ahhh, well that is good to know. we do fundamentally differ in our views, although I would be wary of giving myself to any label on this point. It is a very complex issue. However, this "new covenant afterlife" you speak of is new terminology for me. Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?
why is it that you hold to a full preterist view? and maybe for everyone else out there you might want to explain what exactly that means as you understand it.
Also, would you deny the resurrection of the dead?
Like I said, I don't want to hijack the thread into an eschatology discussion, but rather remain on the Heaven topic. But I'll clarify if it helps.
A full preterist believes all prophecy in the Bible including the return of Christ has been fulfilled, all by 70 A.D.
By New Covenant afterlife, I'm simply making a distinction between the Old Covenant afterlife (Sheol) and New Covenant afterlife (after return of Christ and resurrection of the dead, we go to the immediate presence of Christ).
I believe the resurrection of the dead definitely happened, but in the spiritual realm at Christ's return.
i think this is a discussion worth having, but if you would like to finish it, that is fine with me. Seeing that this is a blog about Christians and work, it seems fitting that a discussion on Heaven and eschatology would play into that. But this is why I find full preterism deeply flawed and inconsistent with the biblical witness.
I believe I've given a sufficient account of why eschatology matters, and why our understanding of Heaven or the Kingdom of Heaven matter - for good or bad. You haven't given any reason why holding to your view empowers, encourages, directs, or even makes sense of bodily existence on the created earth, especially when it comes to the work we do.
Aristotle was right, as is the history of Christian thought. Without a proper telos (end) we cannot make sense of where we are now and what we are to do (ethics).
To be honest, man, if you really want to know why I'm a preterist, it would take quite a bit of background to explain full preterism to do it justice (in fact I'm having to do this for our church's pastoral staff currently, and it's taken several months so far). The deal with preterism (and Bible study in general) is that we take into account things like context, historical and audience, common Hebrew language and customs, etc. This takes a great deal of research and thus explanation. If you're really interested I can give you a string of sermons you can listen to online that help give such a background.
The problem I see with futurist eschatology is that there is no explanation for many of Christ's sayings, notably Matt 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, Matt 16:27-28, Matt 10:23, and why Rev 21 and 22 describe what many believe is 'heaven on earth' yet it says there are nations and kings and that there's a tree that is for the healing of the nations. Why do they need healing in a perfect environment?
Honestly, I don't understand your second paragraph. Why would a preterist view alter our work on Earth? Life goes on. I believe that the redemption Christ brought in His parousia was a spiritual one, not a physical one.
If you are really interested in a discussion more thoroughly on the subject, just email me, unless you'd rather have it here. Email's in the profile.
And just FYI, anything you've probably read on full preterism is a terrible representation of it. I remember when I first began studying it, it was incredibly difficult to get a true view of it because there was so much distortion because you almost have to believe it to understand it.
If you want some good material on it try these:
1. bereanbiblechurch.org, click 'eschatology' on the left menus and read the first 5 sermons along the top.
2. preterist.org, although I don't agree with a few things, it's a good resource. especially the Q&A.
3. preterism.com is another good one.
HD,
I understand what preterism is, and I know the theology and biblical studies behind it. I'm wondering why YOU are a preterist. What compelled you to buy into that theology over futurist, historicist, etc.? I am currently studying theology, and to me the preterist view does not take the canonical context of scripture seriously enough, it wants to isolate the prophecy to a certain time, which there seems to be no basis for in my opinion.
Perhaps we should move to a private conversation for some of these issues, but there are some points here that are important for this discussion.
my second paragraph was stating why this question of 'heaven' matters. I do follow NT Wright in this matter, and I think that this interpretation of the bible makes most sense of the context, both of the writers of the text and our own present context and helps guide us into what sorts of work and to what end we should be working. I am asking you to give an account of how preterist theology makes sense FOR YOU of what kinds of work we do, why we do it, and to what end - if any. you say, "life goes on." Really? that's it? what about faith, hope, and love? what is our hope? what is your hope, as a preterist?
My hope as a preterist is that when I die, I can go to be with the Lord immediately. This is different from the futurist view which (if they are being consistent with Scripture) says that the dead go to Sheol to await resurrection during Christ's paruosia.
I am a preterist because I see clearly in Scripture and in Christ's teachings the promise that He would come during the lifetime of His disciples. In Scripture I see the plan of the fulfillment of the New Covenant as the promised 'new age' fulfilled spiritually, not physically as futurists see it. I believe that in keeping audience relevance in mind in the New Testament, it effectively rules out any futurist view. (You see, I believe the Bible was written for us, but not to us. Each author had a specific audience in mind). For the futurist view to be correct, Christ and Paul would have made a lot of false promises to 1st Century Christians. Furthermore, I see no evidence Scripturally that say anything about a physical resurrection or a destruction of the Earth at Christ's return.
Our biggest problem is that we interpret the Bible like looking through a telescope backwards. We have the unfortunate problem of hindsight. We should, rather, interpret by placing ourselves in the positions of the 1st Century Christians who were getting these Scriptures for the first time. And we must come with a full understanding of the Old Testament. Unfortunately, we grow up being taught the New Testament first and we miss how consistent it is with the Old Testament, how certain Hebrew phrases and words are used symbolically and such.
I used to be a futurist, by default, since I was raised in the church. But in college, I began to study certain doctrines for myself. When eschatology came up, I found too many unanswerable questions with the futurist view.
Further on the 'hope' comment.
You must understand that hope is something that a person has because he/she is weak by very definition. Consider Proverbs 13:12 "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but desire fulfilled is a tree of life."
And essentially, you're asking me 'what is our hope' as if the Gospel and Christ's death and resurrection isn't fulfilling, when clearly Scripture says it is.
I realize most futurists believe that when they die, they go immediately to heaven (which is inconsistent with Scripture), but if you believe that and if you die and go to heaven, why do you need the hope of a heaven on earth? is it not the same?
Also, keep in mind the principle of audience relevance. The 'hope' described in the New Testament doesn't necessarily have to be still unfulfilled now, does it? I believe it's talking about a completeness to the Kingdom of God (i.e. the complete, fulfilled in power union of the church and Christ). Because at that time remember Christ told His disciples that the Old Covenant system would not pass away until all prophecy described in the Law and Prophets (i.e. Old Testament) was fulfilled. So the audience of the New Testament is awaiting the fulfillment of the prophecies and the installing of the New Covenant. Things remain incomplete, and that fulfillment is their hope. The fulfillment as I see it is the spiritual union of Christ to His Church as defined in Revelation.
I have responded to HD by email to save people from the technical details.
However, I think this conversation should continue.
Post a Comment
<< Home