Martyn Whittock is a historian who has written two fascinating books about end times expectation through history, The End Times, Again? 2000 Years of the Use & Misuse of Biblical Prophecy and its impact on the radicalisation of politics, Apocalyptic Politics: A Taproot of Political Radicalization and Populism.
In this video, he asks me all the questions he has about Israel in the New Testament, what the Bible says about the ‘end times’, and whether it predicts a return of Jews to the land and the restoration of the temple. In part I draw on the material in my Grove booklet, Kingdom, Hope, and the End of the World: the ‘now’ and ‘not yet’ of eschatology.
Detailed timings:
0.00 Introduction
3.00 Martyn’s previous understanding of the end times.
4.30 The history of end times speculation and radicalisation of politics
7.30 How should we understand the language of ‘Israel’ in the New Testament?
11.00 Paul’s argument in the first part of Romans
14.00 The OT vision of Israel as a kingdom of priests
17.00 Does Judaism have a separate role in ‘salvation history’ separate from the Christian Church?
18.30 The diversity of Judaism in the first century—Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots and Essenes.
23.00 How should we understand apocalyptic language in the Bible?
24.40 How should we read OT prophesies about the return of the Jewish people to the land?
26.00 Did Jesus fulfil messianic expectations?
32.30 What is the meaning of Matthew 24 and the destruction of the temple?
37.15 How do we put together the diverse perspectives on Jesus’ return and The End across the NT?
39.30 What is dispensationalism and why is it problematic?
42.30 Should we read the Bible ‘literally’
45.00 What about the tribulation and the rapture?
47.40 Ezekiel’s vision of the new temple—fulfilled in Jesus.
51.30 What about ‘all Israel will be saved’ in Rom 11.26?
Wise words indeed concerning studying the Bible in groups (ie more than one person), to prevent or limit misinterpretation.
To Dave;
You mean argumentum ad populum ?
Not so much shared opinion (of a group), but rather listening to different individual perspectives on what a particular verse/passage/book may refer to; I may be with people who have a much deeper or richer understanding of scripture than I do.
Amen, Dave.
But at the end of the day, we have to make our own minds, coupled perhaps, with a humble awareness that we are not intellectually infallible (not even the Pope).
Typo Correction :
Amen, Dave.
But at the end of the day, we have to make up our own minds (cf. Romans 14:5 : Let each one be convinced in their own minds) – coupled with a humble awareness that we are not intellectually infallible (not even the Pope).
Discernment; agreed.
Ian, this is you (in collaboration with your guest) at your best. I’d call it a tour de force. At it’s heart the multiple references to Jesus as the temple. I particularly liked your strong assertion that ‘genea’ means what it says it means… ‘generation’… not race. Not only is that honesty (instead of trying to wriggle around meaning… the same method as I use for what the Bible says about sexuality… it means what it means) but in addition, it almost renders Jesus and followers as liars if we contort meaning to ‘race’. Of course, many later followers have misconstrued this as they ‘look forward’ to armies gathering around a future temple in (maybe) modern Israel… but surely that’s looking in the wrong direction, instead of looking at Jesus as THE temple.
I don’t share your seeming belief that (to quote Martyn) “We [Christians] will be here [Earth] until the return of Christ” and to quote you “We will reign on Earth forever” rather than reigning in some neo-platonic state of existence.
Just as I believe in an old (13billion yrs) Earth, I also believe in a very distant future Earth (another 1 billion+ years). When you say Jesus will return, the dead will be raised, we will be with the Lord forever etc… I do not expect that to happen on our present, actual planet Earth. I see that as what happens at our resurrection in a deeper dimension. I expect each of us to die here on Earth, and for the Earth to be consumed by a red giant sun, and the Universe to run its future course for billions of years without us in it.
Rather, I believe in our own ‘end times’ in the eye-blink existence we have here on Earth individually… in may case maybe 10, or 20, or 30 years… maybe less. But while we are alive in our apportioned ‘end times’ we should open to Love and to God. I believe resurrection will happen in God’s own deeper dimensions and good estate.
Be that as it may, in Jesus we find the eternal temple, into which we are being called as children of God – and I think you set that out brilliantly in this video, which I would commend anyone to watch. As living sacrifice, as living stones, in Jesus we are called to fulfil our vocations as Christians… and the Love of God, and the Spirit of God, flows (as you point out) like streams of living water (and I love your connection between John 7 and Ezekiel 47). Our calling in the ‘end times’ is to open our hearts to the flow of God’s love and God’s Spirit in faith.
Countless cultists have played on apocalyptic expectations, rapture, tribulation in very literal ways. As Martyn mentioned, tens of millions of people expect a post-Christian apocalypse to happen after we’ve been raptured away. That’s again, projecting forward in a way that sidelines the here and now reality that Jesus is the temple of God – today – and our bodies in our induction into Jesus become temples too, by God’s grace. I don’t think modern Israel is end times prophecy playing out. I believe end times prophecy plays out in Jesus, and that should be the focus, not fevered imagination that the world is going to end on December 21st 2012 or June 2nd 2024! Cultists never tire of the supposed ‘end of the world’ (see Wikipedia for list of rather sad and crazy predictions of ‘the end’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events )
No. Our business is to turn our eyes upon Jesus, here, today. To open our hearts in faith. And may streams of living water well up from the holy source and flow out through us to others. Once again, thank you for some *really* impressive scholarship. You have a gift. The video was very incisive and whole-Bible theological.
Dear Susannah;
Thank you for your thought provoking, comments.
I generally think that Christians need to be much better educated in biblical eschatology, and be aware of the possible exegetical and interpretative options that are open to them. Once achieved, they can then make up their own minds – hopefully, in part, via critical thinking skills. As Anglican scholar, George W. Wade put it, in his translation of the New Testament (“The Documents of the New Testament”; 1934) :
” In the beginning there existed the Divine Reason, and the Divine Reason was with God, and the Divine Reason was God.”
John 1:1.
God bless you, Susanna.
“In the beginning there was the Living Answer; and the Answer was with God; and the Answer was God”.
John 1:1 :
” In the beginning was the purpose, the purpose in the mind of God, the purpose which was God’s own being “.
Dean Ireland’s Oxford Professor of the Exegesis of Holy Scripture : George Bradford Caird ; ‘New Testament Theology’.
“To read John 1:1 as if it said ‘In the beginning was the Son’ is patently wrong”.
Professor Colin Brown, Fuller Seminary; ‘Ex Auditu, 7, 1991, p.89.
@ Pellegrino
>>“To read John 1:1 as if it said ‘In the beginning was the Son’ is patently wrong.”<<
One needs to read John 1-15. John states Jesus is one with God; is God; is God active in creation; and is sent by God into the world, becoming Incarnate:
So, if not God incarnate, who is John saying Jesus is?
And, more importantly, who do you say He is?
To : Happy Jack;
John 1:1a :
“In the beginning was the Word [or, the Expression of the Father’s Logic]…”
Cf. The Analytical Literal Translation.
Your interpretation of John 1:1, Happy Jack, is a clear case of eisegesis, rather than exegesis.
Many scholars recognise the word ‘Logos’ in John 1:1 has many possible, legitimate translations – but if “Word” is the one chosen, then the “Word” in John 1:1 is probably a personification of God’s [i.e. the Father’s] “Self-Expressive, creative utterance”, that was evident in the Genesis creation. God’s “Self-Expressive Creative utterance” as regards the new spiritual creation cf. 2 Cor. 5:17), became embodied in Jesus, at John 1:14. Until then, the “Word” in John’s prologue is probably still just a personification.
As the “Translator’s New Testament” notes with respect to the John 1:1-14 passage (emphasis added) :
” But the full meaning of the term [i.e. ‘Logos’] becomes abundantly clear when, at verse 14, we are told that the ‘logos’ became a human being….but the translator must on his guard against identifying the ‘Word’ with Jesus Christ AT TOO EARLY A STAGE. ”
The well known Roman Catholic Christologist, Professor Raymond E. Brown, noted that the Synoptic Gospels portray Jesus as having no literal, pre–existence. Regarding Matthew, Brown writes (emphasis added) :
” The fact that Matthew can speak of Jesus as ‘begotten’ (passive of [Gk.] ‘gennan’) in [Matthew] 1:6, 20 suggests that for him the conception through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the BECOMING of God’s Son…Clearly here the divine sonship is not adoptive sonship, BUT THERE IS NO SUGGESTION OF AN INCARNATION WHEREBY A FIGURE WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY WITH GOD TAKES ON FLESH.”
“The Birth of the Messiah”; pp. 140, 141.
Philippians 2: 6-11 seems to contradict the suggestion that Jesus is not God.
Surely, it is fundamental to the Philippians passage – and a wonder – that our God chose to reveal to us… reveal God’s true nature… by coming to live with us.
By this supreme act of giving if God’s own self, we learn the deep nature and revelation of who God is: humble-hearted, sacrificial, compassionate (in the alongside/sharing sense).
It’s an astonishing revelation. Truly (and surely it’s one of the main themes of the bible)… the coming of Jesus is the fulfilment and demonstration… to the point of death… to the point of no turning back… that
GOD IS WITH US.
All the way, in givenness, in sacrifice.
God did not die on the cross by proxy!
And so I find it very hard to write off the profound depth and giving of God in that Philippians passage… that God,
“made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness…” and
“…humbled Himself and became obedient to death – even death on a cross.”
God – in three persons – is high and exalted, but though God “dwells in a high and holy place” yet God also dwells with the humble… dwells alongside…
And the ultimate gesture, not by proxy (which would be a cheat), was that God came – in person – and dwelt among us. And gave and gave, to the point of no turning back.
Jesus was a visible image of the invisible God, a revelation by God of God, a revealing of God’s nature, God’s compassion, God’s humility, God’s covenant.
God made that covenant in person, not by proxy. The covenant in the shed life-blood. That’s how far God goes. That’s how much God loves. That’s how much God is with us.
Praise God. Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Who from everlasting to everlasting are three persons and One God.
@ Pellegrino
Raymond Brown?! He’s very popular with Muslims; not so much with orthodox Catholics.
John 1, 1-15, is clear:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God …
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Never mind all these “scholars”: Who do you say Jesus is?
Dear Susannah;
Thank you for your comments on Philippians 2:6-11, but with great respect, Susannah, they are attempts to retroject anachronistic, post-New Testament ideas, and non-scriptural language into the actual Scriptural text, and thus, back into a 1st century Christian setting.
The Roman Catholic ‘New American Bible’ has the honesty to state in it’s footnotes to Phil. 2:6 :
” EITHER a reference to Christ’s [supposed] pre-existence and those aspects of divinity that He was willing to give up in order to serve in a human form; OR TO WHAT THE MAN JESUS REFUSED TO GRASP AT ATTAIN DIVINITY. MANY SEE AN ALLUSION TO THE GENESIS STORY : UNLIKE ADAM, THOUGH IN THE FORM [Gk. ‘MORPHE’ – WHICH IS A NEAR SYNONYM OF THE Gk. ‘EIKON’ = IMAGE) OF GOD (GENESIS 1:26-27), DID NOT REACH OUT FOR EQUALITY WITH GOD, IN CONTRAST WITH THE FIRST ADAM IN GENESIS 3:5-6.”
In other words, the Philippians hymn (Phil. 2:6-11) is most probably an example of what is called “Adam Christology”, whereby the human archetypal Jesus is compared with the human archetypal Adam. The NAB’s footnote to Phil. 2:7, also includes the comments :
“While it is common to take Phil. 2:6, 7 as dealing with Christ’s [supposed] pre-existence and Phil. 2:8 with His incarnate life so that lines Phil. 2:7b, 7c are parallel, IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE TO INTERPRET SO AS TO EXCLUDE ANY REFERENCE TO PRE-EXISTENCE..”
The passage says that Jesus was “in the form of God” – which reads in the transliterated Greek, “en morphe Theou”. This is NOT the same as meaning ” “Jesus was God”. Trinitarians often attempt to limit and contrast the lexical definition of “morphe” as “inner essential being”, with the meaning of “outward appearance” – but many Greek scholars (including Joseph Henry Thayer) reject this distinction. Jesus was therefore, in outward appearance (i.e. “morphe”) functioning as ‘God’ in that He was God’s Agent-Representative, because He is the Messianic, Son of God. (e.g. Matthew 9:1-8 – where the man Jesus is authorized by God to forgive sins; and Luke 7:11-16, where the man Jesus performs a miracle, and the people praise God for empowering the great prophet Jesus).
The New Testament (like the Old Testament) consistently portrays God as just one person – and that ONE person is the Father (cf. I Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:6; John 17:3; 20:17; Rev. 1:6; 3:2; 3:12).
I believe Jesus in John 17:1-3. I don’t believe Jesus was a liar.
To Happy Jack :
It’s time you started listening to Jesus when He said that the Father is the ONLY (Gk. monon) True God (John 17:1-3).
Jesus is not a liar, Happy Jack.
Also note John 10:33-36.
Good night, and God bless you.
The thing is, dear Pellegrino, that when you suggest that the divine nature of Jesus is ‘post-New Testament’ I think that takes insufficient account of the very strong suggestions that Jesus is actually divine.
Again and again, things attributed to God in the Old Testament are attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. I wish I had my notes from an interaction I had with a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I found a score of descriptions and attributes of God which Jesus appropriated for Himself.
The most fundamental perhaps, the great I AM statements. God in the Old Testament: ‘I am’.
Jesus in the New Testament: ‘I am… I am… I am… I am…’ showing a conscious intent of the author (and Jesus) to highlight this point.
And this is coupled with the key question Jesus poses: “Who do people say I am?”
That’s the key question of Christianity.
I repeat: God did not make a covenant with us on the cross BY PROXY.
God came to live ‘WITH US’ and took on the nature of a servant… the visible image of the invisible God.
That death on the cross is the supreme expression of WHO God is. Of God’s own compassion. Of God’s givenness to us. To the point of no turning back. God didn’t do that by Proxy.
We must also remember that God is not ‘contained’ in any book – not even the Bible’s narratives. God is numinous. God is mysterious. And in a sense, the shared consciousness aspects of a God who is One in three persons is hard to pin down because although God can be deeply personal, God is also reclusive…
…and as mortals we need to understand that: that God is such a vast consciousness and being that we should in right attitude be content to accept limits to what we can explain. The trinity being One and Three is hard for many people to ‘see’… in contemplative practice you do get openings to a tiny wee bit of what that is like… when God comes (occasionally) in contemplation, and takes you into God’s presence, where suddenly you are in this great ocean of consciousness, and you find God is sharing awareness and consciousness with you.
But I only give that as an example (like a little sign) along the way.
The point is, that the Trinity is insinuated in the New Testament when Jesus tries to coax out of followers the recognition that He is divine. In so many ways Jesus appropriates to Himself the attributes that had been understood to be God’s… and that was part of what caused HUGE offence…
It was the challenge.
God came to Earth but his own did not recognise their God.
It was the humility of God, that though God dwells eternally in heaven, God became small and a servant… and chose to live alongside the shit, the sin, the dust.
That is the kind of God we have. It expands our understanding of who God is.
And it’s all told in the New Testament, without trying to pin everything down, because we can’t pin down God, or box God up. But from the very beginning Jesus was there. Do you believe that?
Jesus is (in a way) the progeny of God’s own mind in action… God’s creative compassion… calling us into our futures, into our beings and becomings. ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Through Him all things came to be.’
Dear Pellegrino, couple with HJ’s question, might I ask you:
Do you believe Jesus was there from before the creation of the world?
Dear Pellegrino,
Who do you think Isaiah was referring to when he described a boy who would be born as God (Isaiah 9:6)?
@ Pellegrino
The commentary in the NAB has been rightly described as “spiritually dangerous to read,” filled, as it is, with “egregious, scandalous, and jaw-dropping errors.”
Still no answer from you – Who do you say Jesus is?
I think you are creating a false dichotomy. Why is it one or the other?
‘When you say Jesus will return, the dead will be raised, we will be with the Lord forever etc… I do not expect that to happen on our present, actual planet Earth.’
On what biblical grounds?
We go to heaven when we die. We go to the heavenly country. It is not planet Earth, it is somewhere new.
“The first heaven and the first earth had passed away.”
I think ‘we go to heaven when we die’ owes much to Platonism, and hardly anything to the Bible.
When we die, we sleep in death, in Christ, awaiting the resurrection of the dead when he returns.
1) So Jesus returns to a Universe that has been in some way changed like his resurrected body?
2) And the physics of the universe is different and the earth won’t be enveloped and destroyed by the sun becoming a Red Giant?
I can imagine (1) but don’t know we can figure out the how of which (2) has a go.
Hi Ian,
Acts 1:10-11 talks about heaven. It’s easy to assume we go there too.
So, why does it not say, “He ascended before their eyes and came back to the one who sent him..” driving home the idea of ‘coming in glory’?
I’m with you on sleeping in death until he calls us. It really jars when people say on The Repair Shop, “he’ll be looking down with approval on your restoration of his golf clubs,” etc..
P.S. How do you make your theological interpretation compete visually with dispensationalism etc? I think it needs some visual clues built in to push out populist ideas. Otherwise, however sound your careful exegesis is it will always be stamped on and overwritten by the golden calf of Hollywoodesque evangelicalism.
I think most thinking and truth-seeking people (probably including many here) concluded that we live in an ancient (13billion years old) ancient, and that humans descended by evolution from earlier life forms. We have concluded that the idea of a young Earth and a first (parentless) human is a myth.
The tale in the Bible is figurative.
That being the case, it seems quite strange that we stop this ancient universe and its physical laws dead in its tracks when it comes to thinking about the future.
The future of the universe – most likely – will continue factually as it did in the past, following scientific laws, for hundreds of millions of years to come. It’s simply the universe we live in. We of course will be dust in an eye-blink of time. That is our place in this particular universe. Surely to be consistent, truth-seeking people should view the entire history of the universe as fact not myth, and realise that God is deeper being and reality, and speaks figuratively to us.
There is another thing. Steve talks about pushing out populist ideas (presumably the idea that is dominant in many places – that when a person dies, they go to heaven).
Sometimes people can be right. They can instinctively think in terms of a deeper world, a different world, and a God who can operate in deeper dimensions than the ones we understand. Historically, Christianity has not always been good in the way it parachutes into a culture and writes its spirituality off. But sometimes perhaps we should actually listen more to the instincts and insights people have,
Maybe we are meant to understand Biblical accounts of the future more figuratively, and less factually. That, after all, was the lesson learned from the implosion of the narrative of a first human without ancestors.
We know very well what many in the public grasp…
Child: “Mummy, where’s granny gone?”
Mum: “She’s gone to heaven.”
Maybe she has.
Bear in mind that God can dwell outside time in eternity. I suggest the heavenly country to which we are called is eternal as well. It’s a deeper dimension. Jesus will still come, if we are raised from the dead to that country of God.
And that understanding can be held without the literalism and factual insistences that fly in the face of science, and alienate many people today who believe in science, and the universe we live in.
Some people – let me say this clearly – have encountered the heavenly realms and the heavenly country. They know it exists. And that it is both ‘spiritual’ but also deeply physical as well… and eternal… and possessed of untouchable peace and rest… and dazzling with chining glory… and everywhere… everywhere… the presence of God.
Of course Jesus comes, when we are resurrected into that country, into that world. It is eternal, outside of time, and it’s where God resides forever.
So do the saints. Outside of time, it’s where we’ve always been called to be. “And I shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever.” If a saint has died, that’s where they are.
This is partly why many Christians believe in the Communion of Saints, and believe in faith that they may pray for us. But that is a separate issue.
My point is that I believe ‘the people’ are right. We are strangers in a strange land here in this universe. But we are called to God’s good and eternal estate and household.
And it is amazing!
Sometimes Puritanism needs to listen better to what God may choose to reveal to ordinary people: “I praise you… because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children… for this was your good pleasure” (Luke 21) (Matthew 11:25).
“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong; God chose the lowly things of this world, and the despised things… so that no-one may boast” (1 Cor. 1: 27 et seq).
Of course, these things apply to the preaching of the gospel itself, but they reflect the nature of God, sometimes to speak to the least expected, and those who are disparaged by learned religious people.
When we die, we go to heaven.
It is so obvious, I am astonished that anyone thinks our planet will itself be the home for the resurrected dead. Our planet will be rendered uninhabitable by the sun. The universe itself will carry on for billions of years without human presence.
But in the eternal country, and the deeper reality, God is enthroned forever, and we shall dwell with God… in the beautiful country and the land of rest. Try to listen to what the scarcely religious believe instinctively. To what the child believes. Try to open to the figurative, as you did with Adam, Eve, Noah.
typo, should be “lived in an ancient universe“
That being the case, it seems quite strange that we stop this ancient universe and its physical laws dead in its tracks when it comes to thinking about the future.
But if God is capable of creating the universe, and capable of suspending the normal physical laws of the universe so that, for example, a virgin can give birth or a dead body can be restored to life, then that God is clearly capable of stopping those physical laws dead in their tracks, isn’t He?
Or to put it another way: God started the physical laws of the universe, right? So if God started them then God must be able to stop them. Right?
The future of the universe – most likely – will continue factually as it did in the past, following scientific laws, for hundreds of millions of years to come.
That’s what would happen if God doesn’t intervene in those physical laws, yes. But we agree, don’t we, that God is capable of intervening in physical laws. And we agree that God has what the peelers might call form when it comes to intervening, having done so to cause a virgin to give birth and to raise a man (actually, two men) from the dead.
So how can you be sure that God isn’t planning to intervene again in order to call time on the universe when it has fulfilled the purpose that He had for it when He made it?
It is so obvious […] Try to listen to what the scarcely religious believe instinctively. To what the child believes.
You make a big thing about listening to science. But then you come out with this nonsense. Any physicist will tell you that when it comes to the truth about things, any time there is an answer that is obvious, intuitive and instinctive — the kind of thing a child would believe — that answer is wrong. It’s ‘so obvious’ that light is either a wave or a particle… but actually it’s neither. A child could tell you that a heavier pendulum will swing faster than a light one… but it doesn’t. People intuitively believe that if you keep accelerating in space then you must be able to go faster and faster and faster… but you can’t.
And that’s just physics, before we even start on mathematics like how 0.999999999999… = 1.
If you want to find the truth the one thing you must absolutely do first is disregard anything which seems obvious or that people believe intuitively. It’s almost certainly wrong.
Dont you think though Ian there are certain passgaes in both Old and New Testaments which indicate more than ‘sleep’ after death, if by sleep you mean unconsciousness or similar. For example, at the transfiguration, were Moses and Elijah just woken up from their sleep to have a chat with Jesus, then back to unconsciousness?!
I think there are too many such passages to conclude there is no ‘state’ after physical death. I wonder if Paul uses the sleep analogy to recognise the temporary nature of the first death, rather than unconsciousness.
Peter
There is Scriptural evidence for consciousness after our physical death and before the resurrection of our bodies when Christ returns.
Ian – it may also have something to do with Luke 23:43. Jesus doesn’t seem to be telling the person crucified next to him ‘today you will go to sleep in me for a very long time until my eschatological return’. (Of course, at a stretch he could have meant this – but then he would have been fooling with grammar and his statement would have been disingenuous and misleading).
That is a good point, Jock.
Not only did Jesus say that, but the gospel writer chose to point that out. Now if all humans are ‘going to sleep’ until after the ‘end of the world’ and the creation of a ‘new earth’… and the man next to Jesus on a cross is running 2000 years late already…
Or…
We do the classic workaround that many evangelicals call out if ‘liberals’ do it… and say Jesus’s plain statement is not literally true… and I think that is unconvincing.
I repeat my own view, that the popular conception that when we die we go to heaven (God willing – I don’t discount judgment) may be closer to the actual truth than ‘interpretations’ of more clearly figurative language in Revelation.
It seems logical, that though in our flesh we return to dust, yet our spirits go to heaven, to be with God forever. And are duly resurrected in the far deeper realms and dimensions of God.
I think people ‘get’ this. I think the robber will have ‘got’ this and maybe been comforted.
And Jesus says it. He doesn’t say to the robber, ‘At the end of the world in the future you will go to be with God’. He says ‘TODAY’.
And actually that’s hugely reassuring. When a loved one dies (I’ve just experienced that) it’s less comforting to think, ‘Right they’re going to be in a kind of sleeping limbo now for maybe thousands of years.’ It’s much more solace to know that rightaway, today, they are with God, and in felicity.
Of course, God dwells outside of time, so one could argue that (say) another 2000 years on earth is less than an eye-blink in the eternity of heaven.
That could be a ‘let out’ for justifying the idea that the dead are asleep until the end of this world.
But on the principle that Jesus (and the gospel writer) mean what they say, TODAY does seem to mean TODAY. And that sits well with people’s loss, and people’s hope, that their loved ones are actually not in sleeping zombie state until the end of the world, but are alive and with God… in felicity in God’s house.
That last bit reminds me of the words “And I shall dwell in the House of the Lord forever.”
What a wonderful prospect and hope!
Susannah – thanks for yours. The verse from Luke sprang to mind because one of my bad habits is listening through Bach’s ‘Actus Tragicus’ (BWV 106) – and while we don’t expect squeaky clean theology from Bach, Ian Paul’s understanding would seriously spoil the ‘Heute wirst du mit mir im Paradies sein’ bit.
I heard (somewhere on youtube) one of the recorder players complaining that the recorders did a lot of hard work to get it all into heaven, but then somehow got sacked when they reached heaven (until the last two minutes of the piece where they’re involved in the finale – and indeed finish the piece).
@ Susannah Clark and Jock
There are other Bible verses that demonstrate consciousness after death – an intermediate state between death and the bodily resurrection.
.
The prophet Samuel is conscious when summoned by the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28;) This is an exceptional incident since a medium is involved (Deut. 18:11–12), but it indicates the possibility of and belief in consciousness after death.
1 Peter 3:19–20 refers to Christ preaching, after death, to spirits who disobeyed in the time of Noah. They were conscious.
In the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are shown interacting with Jesus (Matt. 17:1–9). However, Elijah never died (2 Kings 2:1–12), and although Moses did die (Deut. 34:5), Jude refers to an angelic dispute over his body (Jude 9). According to early Christian writings, this was a reference to the Assumption of Moses, Because of ambiguity about what happened to Moses after death (was he assumed? raised from the dead?) and because of the exceptional nature of the Transfiguration, this text is of limited value.
In the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31), Jesus describes Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham as conscious in the intermediate state (i.e., between death and resurrection). Jesus’ parables are informed by real things (kings, fathers, sons, banquets, vineyards, and so on). If this is a parable, it suggests conscious individuals in the afterlife are also real.
More definitely, Paul expects to be conscious in the intermediate state when he says he “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21–24)
Hebrews says, “…we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses….” (Hebrews 12:1) This hints at the communion and intercession of the saints. It shows that the Church in Heaven is neither cut off from nor disinterested in the pilgrim Church on earth but is actively interested our salvation. On the same theme, the clearest passages indicating consciousness in the intermediate state are in Revelation, where the souls of the martyred are depicted praying and worshipping God (Rev. 6: 9–11, Rec,7:13–15). These are decisive since they are not exceptional and refer to the souls of many unnamed Christians continuing to be conscious.
Then, of course, Jesus’ resurrected body went somewhere – and, as you say, He promised the “good thief” He wold see him in paradise that day.
Now, the Bible says people aren’t conscious after death. It describes the dead as being “asleep” (Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 9:24; John 11:11) and says that ‘the dead know nothing’ (Eccles. 9:5; cf. Ps. 6:5, 88:10–12, 115:17) Describing death as sleep in this way is euphemism – an example of phenomenological language, where something is described by how it appears rather than how it actually is.
Thank you HJ.
There are also the words of Jesus in John 14:
“My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”
So, whether literally or figuratively (as we are reflecting on mysteries), we seem to be destined to live with God in God’s place of dwelling (which is surely in Heaven).
Jesus specifically says he is going ‘there’, which suggests not some kind of ‘new earth’ but Heaven itself. And ‘there’ is where our own coming to God is being made ready. The eternal plane of existence and consciousness.
Now I mention that, in part, to re-iterate my belief (and many other people’s instinctive belief) that when we die, we go to heaven.
But in terms of arrival there, bear in mind that heaven is eternal – if eternal means ‘beyond time’… a constant state of existence… then when a person dies, the passing of time here on earth (until the end of the world) has little bearing on our arrival in Heaven, since Heaven is simply there to receive us in eternity… whether it is 2023 on planet earth or 2123 or whenever. From the perspective of Heaven that is ‘now’.
When Paul writes that we shall be changed in the twinkling of an eye, I don’t think that means there is a time delay in heaven, because heaven is not ‘in time’… it is eternal and just exists.
Hence when we die, our arrival is instantaneous – the mere twinkling of an eye – when viewed from the perspective of God, heaven, and our own experience.
We die. We go to heaven. In a twinkling.
Honestly, I don’t think mortals find it easy to think or understand the idea of eternity and the Divine existence outside of time. We think of ‘going to heaven’ as something in the future. In fact, Heaven is now. Heaven is now, and David is slaying Goliath on earth (reportedly). It is now, and Jesus is being born. It is now and Columbus is sailing across the Atlantic. It is now, and you are reading this right here. It is now, and humans have landed on Mars. It is now, and the sun is expanding towards our planet. It is now, and that sun no longer exists.
We die and are received in the ‘now’ of Heaven. We ‘go’ to heaven. Even if our dust has been scattered and dispersed across the universe. In the ‘twinkling of an eye’ we are ‘now’ in Heaven.
I do not believe we are held in some non-conscious state. I do not think the bereaved must suppose their loved ones are ‘blanked out of consciousness’ and ‘thereness’ for centuries or millenia to come.
They are there, in the ‘now’ of Heaven (God’s house for God’s household).
I suggest the ‘sleep’ image is much more like a human analogy, a figurative euphemism, for the body that has died. It looks like it’s sleeping. But the soul, the spirit, flies home to God, to the eternal ‘now’ and the eternal household. Not just (what it appears in time) some frozen limbo, some computer brain switched off for two thousand years.
I think the general population have got it right. We die and next thing, we’re in eternity, in Heaven, in the rooms prepared for us. With God.
When, as you mention, the writer refers to the great cloud of witnesses… they are there, in the ‘nowness’ of Heaven and eternity. Others of a more Reform tradition may disagree, but it does mention the ‘cloud of witnesses’ in the Bible. I belong to the Catholic tradition that believes in an existing communion of saints with God in Heaven, who may pray for us, and who dwell now with God.
We are time-strapped. We find it hard to conceive eternity. As Paul described it, to us it is a ‘Mystery’. He reports from inside time. But he indicates that from the perspective of Heaven (though a ‘mystery’ to us) our arrival into the eternal now occurs as a twinkling of an eye.
We die. We are there. Oh blessed country!
‘”My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?”
So, whether literally or figuratively (as we are reflecting on mysteries), we seem to be destined to live with God in God’s place of dwelling (which is surely in Heaven).’
Nope. Jesus is here talking about dwelling in him. See https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/i-go-to-prepare-a-place-and-greater-works-in-john-14/
In Rev 13.6, the followers of the lamb are described as ‘those who dwell [pitch their tent] in heaven.’ Paul similarly says we are ‘blessed in the heavenly places’ with Christ in Eph 1.3. Hebrews 12.22 says we have come (past tense) to the heavenly Jerusalem. The gospels says that we have entered the kingdom of heaven when we repent and believe.
So, no, heaven is not the place our souls go to when we die.
I would like to add one more thing.
In everything I’ve written, I do not discount judgment.
Judgment can’t be avoided. It is not possible to be real with God without it.
We can be judged in part here on earth while we are alive. I know I have been, and I am grateful for it, though it was a very painful ordeal.
And we will also go through the process of judgment after death.
The fire of judgment is not a small thing. It can consume or it can purify.
Which it does is ordained by God. For this reason, I leave it to God to know.
What I do know is that judgment, and facing up to it, being confronted by it: can be extremely painful. But it is encounter with the loving enfold and the holiness of God.
Is it God’s will that we should be destroyed by its flames? I believe God aches for us to be purified. And afterwards to live more deeply and devoted to God. Then judgment is shown to be a good thing and a thing of love.
But we are also dealing with supernatural evil which seeks to enveigle itself inside a person, and inside whole communities collectively, and take them over. There is only one power to whom we have recourse and that is God. The God who bled to death for us, who goes all the way, and through whose shed blood we are bound in covenant and eternal faithfulness.
I mention these things because my narrative above about going to heaven may appear to gloss over judgment. I assure you I do not think we can gloss over judgment, but at the same time God is deeply loving, and the flames of judgment can purify and not just consume.
Our trust is in the total devotion and givenness of Jesus Christ, and His blood, and faithful covenant to the point of no turning back.
What a Saviour! What a beloved! What a God!
Thanks Ian.
Hmmm… in the article you link to, you seem to be implying that the ‘rooms’ we are called to inhabit are actually the lives we live ‘in Christ’.
I understand the concept of dwelling in Christ (just as Christ, by the Holy Spirit, dwells in us). That union in Christ is fundamental.
But at the Resurrection, we are both ‘in Christ’ and also in our own bodies as well. It’s not either… or.
So I am not persuaded that ‘because we will be ‘in Christ’ therefore we will not also have corporate individuality such that those rooms prepared for us in heaven are not places’ (if I understand you correctly).
I’d suggest the statement means what it says. In Heaven we have risen and corporate lives prepared for us (though yes, with the vast additional and fundamental dimension of life in union with Christ and with God).
In contemplative practice we find both aspects of experience: union in God, becoming aware of the great sharing of consciousness and awareness that God draws us into… but at the same time, the preservation of unique and precious individuality… the experience is of union in God’s awareness (by God’s grace) along the vast plain of God’s consciousness, but also of being individual soul with identity, and (as promised) a share in physical and corporate life after the resurrection.
Therefore, I really don’t see the concept of union in Christ meaning that we will not live in heaven, in sacred lodgings prepared for us… many of them… indeed for a host of souls. As *one* aspect of eternal experience. We are both body and spirit.
I’m not clear how belief in union in Christ excludes that risen and bodily life we are promised, inhabiting ‘rooms’ in heaven that we also seem to be promised.
Or are you suggesting the Heavenly Country isn’t physical?
Why would we not dwell there, in the House of God, forever?
It is our homeland. It’s where we eternally exist.
I accept (and value) the close study of the Bible which your Reformed tradition is very good at.
But I wonder if we should also value the Catholic monastic tradition which has been a profound part of Christian inheritance for much longer, and the practice of contemplation, with the insights that offers?
Notably, what it actually is like, experiencing the consciousness God calls us into, and the shared awareness with God, on a supernatural level beyond earthly words and settings, which is part of what God may mean (at least one aspect) by ‘union’ in the Holy.
Perhaps many Christian traditions offer insights and pathways to God, and we learn from each other.
Meanwhile, if we are to inhabit physical bodies at the resurrection, then no matter how deeply we spiritually experience union in Christ, actual physical ‘rooms’ make sense as well.
And Jesus in that passage in John 14 locates them in Heaven (in My Father’s house). I don’t think that promise should be spiritualised away, as meaning dwelling in Christ. There is a bodily dimension, of course, to the Resurrection. Heaven is physical too. Very much so.
‘I accept (and value) the close study of the Bible which your Reformed tradition is very good at.’
It is not ‘mine’ and it is not uniquely Reformed either—though the C of E is Reformed and Protestant. This is about taking Scripture as our prime authority, which is just Anglican.
If you don’t accept the truth of what Scripture says, then I am not sure what the point of our discussion is. I have pointed out what Jesus and others in Scripture say; if you decide that you know better, drawing on other traditions, you are free to do so.
Oops, sorry about all the bold font – forgot to close off the bold command after exclude.
I don’t think I know ‘better’, Ian. I think God probably speaks through a diversity of traditions. So I think it’s nice if different traditions can share views. Please bear in mind that I am what is commonly referred to as a born-again Christian who has been hugely influenced by the attention my early evangelical churches pay to scripture. But there are other traditions too in the Church of England, both since the 1530s and before. I just think sharing views and the paths we walk is a good thing, and I thank you for your generosity and hospitality in letting different views be expressed. I think the existence of diverse views and traditions which obviously exist in the Church of England is a reflection of a Broad Church. I have drawn on the evangelical, the charismatic, the social gospel, the socially liberal, while also being very rooted in catholic contemplative teachings and practice. All these traditions have things to offer.
But I come before God dressed in rags and judged for my sins. I know that bitterly because I have caused harm to others. And I am certainly not ‘better’ than anyone else.
Here’s another take on why Jesus hasn’t come back yet.
https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/why-jesus-hasnt-come-back-yet-according-to-the-new-testament/
Chris –
2 Peter 3:1-14, is the obvious reason.
Another may possibly be the failure of Israel as a whole, to accept their Messiah (cf. Acts 3:17-20).
The idea that the return of Jesus got delayed (beyond the first century) is nonsense: He said that the gospel must first be preached to all peoples (Mark 13:10), and it didn’t reach the Americas (to take the most obvious example) for well over than a thousand years after that.
HJ thinks we can usefully use the word “suspended” in relation to Christ’s return, rather than “delayed”.
Scripture indicates there are three significant “signs” that will precede Christ’s Second Coming:
(1) The Church, His body on earth, must pass through a final trial marked by religious deception, apostasy from the Faith, and the rise of the antichrist. When history draws to a close Satan and his followers – demonic and human—will seek to destroy as many souls as possible, unleashing diabolic destruction and causing widespread apostasy. (1 Jn 2:18-22)
(2) Jesus told the disciples the Gospel will be preached in the whole world. (Mt 24:14).
(3) Israel’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah will take place prior to the parousia (Rom 9-11; Rom 11:25) How this “full inclusion” of ethnic Israel into Christ will come about and what the “fullness of the Gentiles” means, is not clear.
“Delayed” is the word used in the article I am writing against.
I am suprised that you don’t mention the signs Jesus gave when specifically asked what would precede the end, on the Mount of Olives (Matt 24,25; Mark 13; Luke 21), or the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse.
Need to read part 1
https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/on-why-jesus-hasnt-come-back-yet/
and part 2
https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/prophecies-arent-predictions-of-the-future/
first.
Dear Chris (the) Bishop;
Can’t you give us a precis, Chris?
What’s your personal, “bottom line” upon the the supposed, delay of the Parousia?
Yes – good. But!
13 minutes in: “The Israel of God starts out as ethnic Israel”
This cannot be correct? I presume this was a slip of the tongue? Scripture cannot be more clear that ethnic Israel does not equate to the elect—Jesus himself describing unbelieving Jews as children of the devil (John 8:44).
Surely Romans 9:6 is saying that not all ethnic Israel is saved. And Ephesians 5:31–32 implies that salvation was never by a blood union.
The concept that ethnic Israel comes through to the church is seemingly behind the concept that the Mosaic Covenant continues into the church age—just the external administration/rituals change, as per John Calvin, but contra Jeremiah 31:31-32?
Notwithstanding these comments it was an excellent discussion, and as ever with the numerology, Ian is brilliant—and so clear about “and so all Israel”.
Yes, I agree. I think the point is that God called an ethnic group/nation, called Israel, to be in relationship with him, a priestly people who are a light to the world. But from the beginning not all obeyed that call. Hence Paul’s argument that ‘justification’ was by faith from the beginning—a faith response to God’s invitation, as per Abraham.
ISTM that the NT writers envision that this invitation is now extended to all, including the gentiles, but that the people of God would now comprise a Jew + Gentile ‘Israel’ of God. There doesn’t appear to be any expectation that Jews would stop being Jews.
Surely the vision of Jeremiah 31 is that the law will be fulfilled in their lives, and not abolished…?
Btw I would add that Romans 9.6 is the best example of Paul using Israel in two different senses—an ethnic people, and those who receive the gift of life by faith.
Yes, in Romans 9, Paul makes a distinction between the physical descendants of “Israel” and “Abraham’s offspring” who, by grace and by faith, are “God’s children”; with the latter now including the “Gentiles”.
Colin,
Once again we are revisiting familiar territory. John 8:44? The way you describe this clearly indicates that contextualisation doesn’t fit the bill on this particular topic (see Stephen Motyer’s “Antisemitism and the New Testament ” -Grove Books for a more balanced analysis).
Romans 9:6 ? The “exegesis of omission” – evidently Romans 11:1 f doesn’t count anymore!
Ephesians 5:31 – 32 “implies that salvation was never by a blood union!” Who said it did? I certainly didn’t! ? And who believes that “the Mosaic covenant continues into the church age? I certainly don’t. Neither is seems does the writer of the Hebrews [8:13]. But then, according to the logic of your position he totally misrepresents verse 13 in his “failure ” to update the Jeremaic Covenant in [8: 8].Sadly this is not covering new ground. In comments you wrote in Psephizo (6-1-18) expressing support for the idea of “a suppercessionist view of Israel”, I wrote a response; referring among other things to the two Hebrews passages. To this day, I have not received a response.
Hi Colin,
I am away for the next two days and do not have time to address all these points. You have perhaps misunderstood me.
I do not believe ethnic Israel were offered eternal life under the Mosaic Covenant or that that covenant continues into the church age— this is what others believe. In brief, the Westminster Confession VII:5 (following Calvin) states:
“This covenant [of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel [the New Testament]—so one [Mosaic] covenant two administrations.”
N T Wright (et al) follows this understanding (e.g., N. T. Wright The Day the Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of the Crucifixion (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 312–314.)
Jeremiah 29:29–30 quotes a Hebrew proverb (also in Ezekiel 18:2–3) —and then goes on to speak of the new covenant—that is the key difference—the new covenant doesn’t come via the bloodline (also the point of Ephesians 5:31–32) —otherwise the gospel could not be offered to all nations.
In other words, the Mosaic Covenant was with ethnic Israel, the new covenant is with the Israel of God— a covenant which reaches back to Abraham and beyond.
Re John 8:44 —who are the seed of Satan in Genesis 3:15? This metaphoric seed concept runs all through Scripture beginning with Cain (1 John 3:1–12) —it is all unbelievers. Jesus wasn’t making a point about Jews—his point was about all unbelievers—it is Scripture’s great division: Belonging to Satan or Christ.
The most thorough study I know on this is:
John L. Ronning, “The Curse on the Serpent (Genesis 3:15) in Biblical Theology and Hermeneutics” (PhD, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1997).
Available as a free download:
https://www.academia.edu/83502856/The_Curse_On_The_Serpent_Genesis_3_15_In_Biblical_Theology_And_Hermeneutics
Jeremiah 29:29–30 should be Jeremiah 31:29 30
See my other comment. God clearly called an ethnically defined people, even if not all of them responded in faith.
Yes, I agree – the Bible seems so clear on all this.
I would suggest three key purposes for ethnic Israel were: to demonstrate to the nations how a nation should behave; protect the seed line of Christ; and through the sacrificial system typologically prefigure his death.
None of those functions come through to the church.
The question of the law is more complicated? Perhaps another blog?
@ CH
Yet, writing of the people of Israel (ethnic) Paul declares:
“Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. (Rom 9: 4-5)
Isn’t he saying that not all the Israelites “got” the meaning of the Mosaic Law? For many of them, the Law became externalised in works and not internalised through the workings of grace and faith.
This is summed up by Christ: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matt 22: 37-40)
Martyn and Ian, I am disappointed that you make it difficult to play Recognise the books from the covers (in the backgrounds)!
PC1,Peter,
A very good point about sleep you make. Sleep is a place that is a safe place where toil has ceased. To rest in sleep one must feel secure. So, I agree with you, the sleep of the first death is pleasant for those bundled as sheaves with the living. Ian is technically right and Suzannah is dreaming already;)
REFERENCE Ian Paul
July 28, 2023 at 6:53 pm
I think ‘we go to heaven when we die’ owes much to Platonism, and hardly anything to the Bible.
When we die, we sleep in death, in Christ, awaiting the resurrection of the dead when he returns.
IAN How do you explain Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Also the appearance of Moses and Elijah on the mount of transfiguration??
@ Alan K
There are Bible verses that demonstrate consciousness after death – an intermediate state between death and the bodily resurrection.
.
The prophet Samuel is conscious when summoned by the witch of Endor (1 Sam. 28;) This is an exceptional incident since a medium is involved (Deut. 18:11–12), but it indicates the possibility of and belief in consciousness after death.
1 Peter 3:19–20 refers to Christ preaching, after death, to spirits who disobeyed in the time of Noah. They were conscious.
In the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah are shown interacting with Jesus (Matt. 17:1–9). However, Elijah never died (2 Kings 2:1–12), and although Moses did die (Deut. 34:5), Jude refers to an angelic dispute over his body (Jude 9). According to early Christian writings, this was a reference to the Assumption of Moses, Because of ambiguity about what happened to Moses after death (was he assumed? raised from the dead?) and because of the exceptional nature of the Transfiguration, this text is of limited value.
In the account of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19–31), Jesus describes Lazarus, the rich man, and Abraham as conscious in the intermediate state (i.e., between death and resurrection). Jesus’ parables are informed by real things (kings, fathers, sons, banquets, vineyards, and so on). If this is a parable, it suggests conscious individuals in the afterlife are also real.
More definitely, Paul expects to be conscious in the intermediate state when he says he “would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21–24)
Hebrews says, “…we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses….” (Hebrews 12:1) This hints at the communion and intercession of the saints. It shows that the Church in Heaven is neither cut off from nor disinterested in the pilgrim Church on earth but is actively interested our salvation. On the same theme, the clearest passages indicating consciousness in the intermediate state are in Revelation, where the souls of the martyred are depicted praying and worshipping God (Rev. 6: 9–11, Rec,7:13–15). These are decisive since they are not exceptional and refer to the souls of many unnamed Christians continuing to be conscious.
Now, the Bible says people aren’t conscious after death. It describes the dead as being “asleep” (Ps. 13:3; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 9:24; John 11:11) and says that ‘the dead know nothing’ (Eccles. 9:5; cf. Ps. 6:5, 88:10–12, 115:17) Describing death as sleep is euphemism – an example of phenomenological language, where something is described by how it appears rather than how it actually is.
This story from Jesus is an interesting one. I would suggest that the main point of the story is the words that Jesus puts into the mouth of Abraham, that those who do not take heed of Moses and the prophets will not take heed of a man returned from the dead. It is also a story of inversion. That the poor man is honoured by being named, and the rich is not is one example. The reason for the different destinations does not seem to be based judgement of a moral character. It is simply that it is the opposite to that which they experienced when they walked upon the earth.
What it does not do is provide support for eternal torment for the damned. The destinations of the rich man and Lazarus are not the result of a final judgement when all are judged, since the rich man’s brothers are still alive.
Rather, it relates interestingly to second temple ideas of Sheol – the place where everyone goes when they die. The word translates reasonably to the Greek concept of hades, which is the word used in the LXX. The Encylopedia Britannica has an interesting entry for Sheol:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sheol
which includes this:
“This simple if grim conceptualization of life after death became more complicated during the Second Temple period (516 bce–70 ce). In addition to the promise of an eventual resurrection, some Hebrew scholars at the time came to believe that Sheol is divided into multiple compartments and that everyone who goes to Sheol will be assigned to a particular section based on moral worthiness. According to the noncanonical Book of Enoch, there are four such chambers: one chamber with a bright spring of water, where the righteous happily await the Day of Judgment; one in which the moderately moral can look forward to their own reward; one in which victims of murder wait for justice to be done; and one to punish the wicked—which prefigured the Jewish idea of Gehenna, a hell in which the wicked are tormented with fire.”
The relationship to the story is obvious.
@ Dave W
>>What it does not do is provide support for eternal torment for the damned. The destinations of the rich man and Lazarus are not the result of a final judgement when all are judged, since the rich man’s brothers are still alive.<<
That's a different issue – eternal torment – the point HJ is making is that the parable provides Scriptural support that after our physical deaths their is an intermediate conscious state prior to the resurrection of bodies at the final judgement.
On Israel The Relationship Between God and Israel
“Despite the majority of Israel currently still being in rebellion, God will not forget His people, and will pour His Spirit on Israel at a specific point in time, in agreement with the covenantal promises.” Dr. Eitan Bar, One for Israel.
This for me chimes with the fact that the Jews are a covenant people, a chosen people, even though rebellious Israel did not enter the land God did not abandon them because He is faithful “who promised” and established them through mighty victories.
ROMANS 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.
ROMANS 11:29 For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.
He brought them out and will bring them in .Faithful God .
Scripture is clear everywhere – and such is repeatedly reaffirmed by its marital imagery – that God has finished with ethnic Israel as a nation.
This does not mean he has finished with ethnic Jews.
Dr Hamer, I, for one, do not believe God has finished with ethnic Israel as a nation and conclude such from carefully and prayerfully studying Scripture.
Hi Simon!
What did you make of the video overall…?
Hello brother
Well, I respect your expertise on eschatology and your learned and articulate presentation of certain positions, that differ than my own regarding ethnic Israel and the land.
‘conclude such from carefully and prayerfully studying Scripture.’
and many others have done exactly the same but come to a rather different conclusion…Both cant be right, which means God has either revealed the reality to one and not the other, or he has not revealed to either but has left it to human speculation.
Yes, I agree – which was my point in responding to the emphatic dogmatic assertion that “scripture is clear everywhere…God has finished with ethnic Israel as a nation”. I take the very opposite view from studying the same scriptures; so what is to be done? Hopefully we can hold our own strongly held beliefs, defend and share them robustly, whilst respectfully speaking of and to one-another, as we wait for God to reveal all things when Christ returns.
One concern I have is that whenever this subject arises Dispensationalism is set up as the opposite pole to the prevailing supersessionism. Dispensationalism is quickly dismissed by taking aim at some of its more idiosyncratic aspects and thus an argument is deemed to have been won by blowing down a straw man. It is possible to have a belief in the future role of a national and racial Israel in God’s economy without being a Dispensationalist. I manage it as do the many people I have fellowshipped with, been taught by and ministered among.
simon (or anybody else) – could someone here give me a one-sentence working definition of ‘dispensationalism’ and a one-sentence working definition of ‘supersessionism’? I tried looking at Wikipedia, but don’t feel I’m much further ahead.
Jock,
Dispensationalism is the claim that God ‘dispenses’ his relationship with the human race differently at different stages in human history. In one sense this is entirely true – the option to believe in Jesus Christ was not open before the Cruxifixion, to take the obvious example, and the Mosaic covenant was with the Israelite nation only (although God-fearing gentiles could enter it provided they accepted its laws). That means there was a change at Sinai, too. The weakness of dispensationalism is that it gives no explanation why a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8) might transition from one dispensation to another.
I take a covenentalist view, that God treats different peoples differently becaue he has different covenants with them – only the Noachide covenant iswith the whole human race (Genesis 9, and not necessarily the extra details in Jewish tradition), the Mosaic covenant is with the Israelites only, and the Messianic covenant is only with believers in Jesus.
If a dispensationalist gives this explanation for his or her belief then we are essentially in agreement. In practice, though, dispensationalist belief tends to go along with the pre-tribulation rapture, which I roundly reject.
Supersessionism in a separate post…
Jock,
Paul says in Romans 11 that gentile believers enter spiritually into Israel. We are ‘grafted in’, because we are in Christ and Christ is an Israelite. This view can be termed Enlargement Theology – God’s covenant people are increased and encompass gentile believers in Christ as well as the Jews, not ‘instead of’; both-and holds here, not either/or. The ‘instead of’ view corresponds to Supersessionism or ‘Replacement Theology’, the notion that the church replaced the Jews at the Crucifixion as the sole people of God, and that God has thrown the Jews on the scrapheap of history for rejecting His Son. This view derives implicitly from the view that the Mosaic covenant replaced, rather than supplemented, the Abrahamic covenant (and is now just ‘the old covenant’). But that view contradicts Paul’s statement that God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable, and it implies that God knowingly deceived Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who would have taken a physical meaning of descendants as numerous as the stars. It also doesn’t match the grafting image, for when one plant is grafted on to another, both are meant to survive. Christians are grafted into the Abrahamic covenant, but Jews are not cast out of it. In Romans, Paul speaks of Israel co-existing with the church. Nowhere in scripture is the church called the ‘new Israel’.
NB The Abrahamic covenant is not about the salvation of the individual.
anton – OK – many thanks for this – it is clarifying.
In these terms, I don’t know how I would place myself. My view is that God is the same today, yesterday and forever *and* that he treats all people the same way.
I take Job 19:25-27 (I know that my redeemer lives) to indicate that he knew where he stood with God – and he knew why (his redeemer) – even though at that point Jesus had not yet been born (and Job couldn’t have been aware of the precise mechanism). For me, the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8 is important – as I’ve pointed out before, the Ethiopian eunuch wasn’t saying ‘I’m completely bamboozled and can’t make logical sense of this’. Rather, he was asking ‘who is this man?’
In both cases (book of Job, the Ethiopian eunuch) I’d say that John 3:16 applied; they both believed in the redeemer (although clearly not with the clarity and precision that we have – with the New Testament writings at our disposal) and not in any righteousness of their own.
I don’t see clearly how all this works itself out, but (from the descriptions you gave) I’d more-or-less reject dispensationalism.
Also, based on your descriptions, I’d reject ‘supersessionism’ – the example of Job in particular would indicate that it’s actually possible for people who haven’t heard of Jesus of Nazareth to trust in a redeemer in the sense intended in John 3:16.
Although the bottom line (for my own Salvation) is that I thank God that I had a very good introduction to Holy Scripture, the Word of God and I know it is our duty to proclaim Christ and him crucified.
in that era… that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people… and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth
It is simply not possible to describe the Zionist era more accurately in few words, and this was done by the prophet Isaiah (11:11-12) more than 2500 years ago.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the program. I would like to encourage you to consider the following volume that Stan Porter and myself edited recently, since it addresses some of the topics that were addressed:
The Future Restoration of Israel: A Response to Supersessionism, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Alan E. Kurschner. McMaster Biblical Studies Series 10. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2023.
Hope to see you at ETS this year.
Thanks,
Alan
Thanks Alan! Does the volume contain a range of views, or all following a similar line?
Ian, all of the contributors argue for a place for Israel in God’s future program from many different backgrounds and strategies.
Hi Jock re your comment on the man on the cross beside Jesus, I understand due to a lack of punctuation, the Greek words can equally mean ‘I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise’ so I dont think it’s definitive.
Peter
PC1 – surely if that’s what it meant, he wouldn’t have needed the word ‘today’. Putting the comma after today makes it look like ‘I tell you the truth today, but don’t believe a word of anything I told you yesterday.’
I think he could have meant, I tell you right now…
HJ & Suzannah,
My thinking has been modified by your thoughts on the consciousness of the departed. thanks.
I see the cloud of witnesses as those who now inhabit the New Jerusalem. The arena of this life has been vacated; they take their place in the royal stand below the throne. (Revelation 5 describes the royal box in a roman amphitheatre. The departed are the victors under the throne/altar).
N.J. is coming down even now. It is filled with the Cloud of Glory and the Bride of Christ. Its gates are the spoken gospel, the pearls of Wisdom. The Word of the Spirit comes out from them and we enter the New Jerusalem through them. One day the full weight of glory that has entered it will make it visible on earth. At that time it will be the only shoa in town! Inside, it will be filled with golden light; on the outside it will be a wall of fire expanding at the speed of light sweeping all before it. The N.J. must be a conscious city, alive, vibrant; not a mausoleum. It is the Paradise of God.