Pages

Showing posts with label Heaven. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heaven. Show all posts

Storied Salvation: Assurance

Salvation According to Paul: Assurance


“Paul would certainly see 'salvation' as secured through 'belief in the Lord Jesus', however much such belief would have to be spelled out in any particular case.”[1]

The book of Jude with its unique content and non-canonical citations contains a noteworthy warning to its readership:

“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe” Jud 1:5.

The idea that belief and obedience are mutually exclusive or autonomous is not found in the OT or apostolic tradition. God does indeed secure his people, but not without their consent or cooperation. Security and safety are found in continual obedience to God; it’s his word not ours. Once the later idea that grace and obedience are separate from each other is removed – one being accomplished by God’s fiat alone and the other optional by us – Jude’s warning is perfectly appropriate. “Those who did not believe” are not those who wandered into heresy,[2] but rather those who after participating in God’s renewing and restoration power refused to participate and act in the obedience required to be part of that kingdom. This is not a matter of maintaining proper theology, but rather a failure to put into action God’s commands. There are numerous examples of faith as obedience, where those who were once obedient but did not continue on that path were subsequently judged by God.
The psalmist wrote:

“The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; He is their strength in time of trouble. The LORD helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, Because they take refuge in Him” Ps 37:39-40.

There is no question that Yahweh is the source, character, nature, substance, and reality of salvation. It depends on his faithfulness, consistency and reliability, not our wavering attempts. Does this then describe our eternal security; are we eternally secure? I believe that is the wrong question to ask. A better question is, “Who are the righteous,” which the passage describes? This passage (and others like it) is about the righteous, a topic about which the OT (especially the Psalms) has a lot to say. Jesus came teaching Israel what the actions of a righteous (kingdom citizen) look like. God himself is our guarantee, as Paul said, “by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” Eph 4:30.[3]

Within the idiomatic way biblical language works, salvation can be spoken of as an accomplished action, although in modern ways of reckoning it causes substantial confusion regarding that from which we are being “saved.”

The proof of spiritual transformation in the Gospels is the confirmation of the people and the spirit of God. There is a sense in which the principle, first taught in the OT, and taught also by Jesus with the witness of at least two, is appropriate. It’s not a matter of self-confirming statements, but rather community affirmation. Obedience is obvious.

“The sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death” 2 Cor 7:10.

The declaration by many dedicated men of God should ring in our ear; hineni, “here I am,” your servant waits for your instruction. Obedience is the best gauge in the present regarding one’s salvation being a reality in the future.

“The righteous dead still await the promised resurrection, 'God' has singled out Jesus, bestowing on him, uniquely, resurrected existence and making him thereby the exemplar of what believers can hope for and the assurance that their hope in 'God's' readiness and power to raise the dead is not in vain (esp. 1 Cor 15:20-58; Heb 2:5-18; 1 John 3:1-3). Resurrection, thus, is presented as the essential means by which ‘God’ will demonstrate faithfulness to believers, and their hoped-for salvation/vindication is directly patterned after what 'God' did in/for Jesus. . . . So, 'God' in the NT is emphatically known as the deity who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to glory, which justifies and even demands now that Jesus be proclaimed as 'Lord' (e.g., Phil 2:9-11). But God's resurrection of Jesus also serves to signal incomparably this God's great power and purpose, which are to eventuate in a personal/bodily glorification of believers that is patterned after that given to Jesus.”[4]




[1] J. D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Erdmans, 2008), 674.
[2] 1 Tim 4:16.
[3] Eze 9:4; Eph 1:13-4; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:21-2; 5:5; 2 Tim 2:19; Rev 7:3; 9:4.
[4] L. W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology (Abingdon Press, 2010), 42.

Beam Me Up Scotty

It is my contention that rational dialogue and meaningful conversation are the lifeblood of truth pursuing activities within the diverse community of God. So therefore, I offer you the opinions of N. T. Wright (FYI, that is said with humorous intent, but seriously, I believe he’s right on track and far from alone in the world of NT scholarship regarding the opinion expressed here).

In his book Surprised by Scripture, N. T. Wright made the following comments pertaining to the perspective generically known as the “rapture,” which represents the belief of many Christians today:


“It isn't a matter of simply deconstructing the massive 'left behind' theology that has been so powerful in North America in particular, though we must do that if we are to think biblically. We must focus on one element of particular. The word parousia, 'royal appearing,' was regularly used to describe Caesar's 'coming' or 'royal appearing' when visiting a city, or when returning home to Rome. And what happened at such a parousia was that the leading citizens would go out to meet him, the technical term for such a meeting being apantçsis, The word Paul uses here for 'meeting,' as in 'meeting The Lord in the air.' But when the citizens went out to meet Caesar, they didn't stay there in the countryside. They didn't have a picnic in the fields and then bid him farewell; they went out to escort their Lord royally into their city. In other words, Paul's picture must not be pressed into the nonbiblical image of the 'Second Coming' according to which Jesus is 'coming back to take us home' – swooping down, scooping up his people, and zooming back to heaven with them, away from the wicked earth forever. Revelation makes clear in several passages, with echoes in other New Testament books, the point is that Jesus will reign on the earth, and at his royal appearing the faithful will go to meet him, like the disciples on the road to Jerusalem only now in full-blooded triumph, and escort him back into the world that is rightfully his and that he comes to claim, to judge, to rule with healing and wise sovereignty.” N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (HarperOne, 2014), 101-102.

Within the New Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures there are metaphors the writers used for communicating a picture. For example, in the NT – with regard to what is called “atonement theology” – Jesus is called a “Lamb” by John, a “High Priest” by the writer of Hebrews and referenced as the culmination of Israel and the Isaianic suffering servant in varying other places. Well, which is it? How can he be both the sacrifice (in some interpretations) and the priest who mediates it? Can both pictures be valid in different ways, without having to be harmonized? Did the writers have the literary freedom to choose their own illustrations, metaphors and have their own set of interpretations for the purpose of communicating to differing audiences and/or for different theological motifs? There are distinguishable reasons as to why they used the metaphors they did, and generally they are rooted in the Hebrew Scripture. 

Now back on topic. There are historical grids sometimes put in place for the sake of governing interpretations as to what the NT writers meant with respect to Jesus’ anticipated return. One such example is the somewhat elusive “Jewish wedding.” While the practice of betrothal, separation for a time, immanent appearance of the husband for his bride, then leading her from her father’s home to his may be evidenced somewhere, this does not mean it was by any means the predominant practice of all Jews everywhere for all time. Actually, it is attested to infrequently. 
(For more information, see Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Social Life; The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Hendrickson; The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, v. I, Bride of Christ, Eerdmans; Evans and Porter, Dictionary of New Testament Background, Marriage, IVP; Metzger and Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Marriage, Oxford; Werblowsky and Wigoder, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Betrothal, Oxford; Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, Marriage, Baker Book House). 

This particular custom has become a favorite of some due to its parallel in rapture interpretation: Jesus became betrothed to the Church, went away for a time and at some unknown point in the future, he will return to usher his people back to heaven (i.e. his home and now theirs for eternity, which will be consummated by the “Marriage Supper of the Lamb” found in Revelation).There is no question that the NT portrays an image of betrothal and marriage between God and his people, albeit in the NT, it is through Jesus as the intermediary. This is covenant speech, possessing the same imagery found in the Hebrew Scriptures, specifically in the Torah and Prophets. This imagery was used to describe the relationship between God and the covenant people (e.g. Hosea and Ezekiel). 

Merely saying something or other is the “Jewish” way (such as a wedding) may sound impressive but doesn’t mean anything. What “Jews”, where and when? Customs and practices changed and evolved throughout their history as surely as it has in our own. Having a model of betrothal or marriage that may have been used at a particular place or time is not justification for allowing it to govern our hermeneutics in relation to what the gospel writers or Paul was trying to communicate. 

I don’t have a problem with the term “rapture,” referencing a general “catching away,” but rather have difficulties in the sub-modern divorcement of it from the “day of the Lord” and the “resurrection,” both of which are found in the NT. If there is a rapture to catch away believers “somewhere else” before the restoration of the Kingdom of God upon the earth, it means that: 

1. Jesus must return twice, once to snatch away God’s people to “heaven” (i.e. somewhere other than earth) and also at his restorative coming. 
  
2. The saints have to be evacuated to some “other” place. Where do the Scriptures speak of going to heaven in an ethereal, quasi-spiritual existence or being anywhere but on earth, where we were created to inhabit? The rapture theology teaches that we are swept off “somewhere else” while the earth goes up in smoke, which is something other than a renewed, restored and declared good earth. This is akin to Gnostic doctrine. The popularized rapture theory (as commonly believed) does not square with the scriptural definition of resurrection. 

In addition to the Jewish perspectives, there is also evidence of varying points of view within the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Justin Martyr’s contention in Dialogue with Trypho (LXXX) saying: 

“For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit the truth of the resurrection and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their soul when they die are taken to heaven: do not imagine that they are Christians.”

To be clear, I have no difficulty with those who express this opinion, but am only pointing out that it does not hold up to a sound and thorough exegesis of NT literature with the OT framework the prophets had been declaring for ages. Regardless of what the Ante-Nicene and proto-orthodox apologists believed does not validate or invalidate what the NT documents describe on those merits. If a half-way thorough search of their (the patristic fathers) writings were done, it would reveal a disunity of opinions and beliefs that most Christians would no doubt find disturbing, even outrageous. This is why when scholars refer to those people groups and sects, they do so in a plural sense, “Judaisms,” “Christianites,” etc. 


“‘When Christ shall come,’ we sing in a favorite hymn, ‘with shout of acclamation, and take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.’ What we ought to sing is, ‘When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.’ In the New Testament the Second Coming is not the point at which Jesus snatches people up, away from the earth, to live forever with him somewhere else, but the point at which he returns to reign not only in heaven but upon the earth.” N. T. Wright, Surprised by Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (HarperOne, 2014), 102.


Don’t think that the story of the Bible is about abandonment and evacuation. Christianity has been falsely led to believe this. We are to be restorers, peace-makers, care-takers and stewards now, of this place with the hope of resurrection and ultimate renewal. Don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good. You were created to be good on earth, this is your home.

I did a podcast on this subject here.

I've also written on this topic before.

Storied Salvation: Part XVIII

Salvation According to Paul: Present

“The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” 1 Co 1:18.

The NT sometimes indicates that salvation, justification, redemption, adoption, glorification, and resurrection are both past and present realities.[1] However, the larger scope of salvation is indeed God's rescue operation for all humanity from sin and death through messiah, which culminates in resurrection where death is destroyed for those who sleep in the dust. It cannot be ignored that this is also an eschatological final deliverance of Israel and the saints from their physical enemies.

“Jesus believed that there was one God who had made the world, and who had called Israel to be his people; that this one God had promised to be with his people, and guide them to their destiny, their new exodus; that his presence, guidance and ultimately salvation were symbolized, brought into reality, in and through Temple, Torah, Wisdom, Word and Spirit. He was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”[2]

Along with the role of God as savior and deliverer, Scripture also places an emphasis on the role his people play in the present, as it is the present that determines the future. Endurance, persistence, determination, tenacity, patience, and ultimately obedience are all intimately connected as actions of the faithful. Faith is an action-oriented dynamic based on God’s covenant-keeping character, not something I retain as a medallion.

Participation is the reality. Faith without action has no validity. Upon consideration of the Shema one will discover that hearing, as a Jew would describe it, is done in ones “feet,” meaning it is action-based, hearing that immediately translates into action, a.k.a. obedience.

“Theologically, salvation depends to some extent on the individual's faith in Yahweh. Ps. 37:40 affirms that Yahweh saves ‘because they take refuge in him’ (cf. 13:5[6]; 25:5; 42:5[6]; 65:5[6]; 78:22; 86:2; 119:94; Lam 3:26; et al.). Ps 119:146 appeals your personal deliverance to achieve a purpose – ‘I will keep your statutes.’”[3]

When Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” he no doubt had the Shema in mind. While the “word of Messiah” is without question the Good News about the Kingdom of God which he proclaimed, in Paul’s mind faith, i.e. action/obedience, results in salvation. We have been conditioned far too long to think that salvation is an object of our possession that can exist independent of our behavior. Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, is secure; it is us, when un-faith-ful, who have no salvation. If we choose to act as though we possess a free pass and nothing more is required, we have chosen to abandon the relationship and the means by which we are made righteous.

It is in this present time – while we wait, train for service and live as citizens of a kingdom to come – that we can say with Paul, that we too are working out our salvation with fear and trembling.[4] Deliverance is the result of our dynamic interaction with him through his promise. Salvation exists by God’s grace towards his people and the obedience on their behalf with his assistance. Our work is God’s work too. In the NT, the work in and through a believer is an expression of God’s renewing, restoring and salvific action. Salvation is not about going to heaven, but rather being raised from death for life on God’s renewed earth. We anticipate in the present what will become full reality in the future.




[1] Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14.
[2] Wright, Victory, 652.
[3] William A. VanGemeren, “ישע,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grandrapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997), 2:560.
[4] Phil 3:20; 2:12, 

Storied Salvation: Part XVII

Salvation According to Paul: Past

Paul occasionally uses the past tense when referring to salvation: 

I. “For in hope we have been saved” (Rom 8:24, cf. Tit 2:11).

Although the verb used is in the aorist tense – denoting something that has been done – for Paul the nature of hope is anticipation,

“We . . . groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of the body” (Rom 8:23).

The adoption for which believers long for is their final salvation. The “inward groaning” experienced by believers and creation (8:22) is as Dunn describes,

“the inward sense of frustration of individual believers (as a whole) at the eschatological tension of living in the overlap of the ages seems the most obvious reference, not least in view of the parallel with v 26 and 2 Cor 5:2, 4.” J. D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 38A:474.

It is the redemption of the body, i.e. resurrection which is to be fully realized. This is evident in what the apostle explains,

“hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees . . . if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it” (Rom 8:24-25, cf. 2 Cor 5:7).

“Hope in the NT is always future oriented, and unseen in the sense that the object of hope is yet to be revealed. Yet hope is not wishful thinking, but what the writer to the Hebrews describes as both ‘sure’ and ‘certain’ (Heb 11:1).” Colin G. Kruse, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012), 350. [1] 

II. “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph 2:8).

In the context of this passage there are clues that through Paul’s strong use of metaphor and the use of the past tense, he alludes to a future reality. Paul’s wording “made alive” (v. 5) and “raised us up and seated us with Him in the heavenly places” (v. 6) seems to specify “so that in the ages to come” (v. 7) a reference to glorification that awaits the saints. 

It is also possible that Paul sees believers being represented in heaven, Christ having been seated at the right hand of God (cf. Rom 8:16-24). [2]

III. “He [God our Savior] saved us, not on the basis of deeds” (Tit 3:5).

Here, the mention of “saved” although past, is tied to the hope of future life in the age to come (v. 7).

IV. “He [the Father] rescued us from the domain of darkness” (Col 1:13).

The context in Paul’s greeting is the inheritance that is being shared with the saints. Through the spirit, the guarantee, the first-fruits of what is to come, was given. This is sometimes called “now and not yet.”

Regardless of one’s eschatological orientation, it seems most are agreed that this present age – with its domain of darkness – is not as it should be and as it will be in the age to come. What is ahead, how to fix the problems now, and what God intends are usually where debate centers. Paul, though, envisions the people of God connected with the Messiah and saved in the manner which he described in detail to the Corinthians, “first-fruits.”

“The Messiah has been raised from the dead, as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” 1 Cor 15:20 (Wright, KNT).

First-fruits was an offering of the first-ripened grain, harvested and presented to God in celebration and thanks for the whole harvest which would follow.

“‘We were saved,’ says Paul in Romans 8:24, ‘in hope.’ The verb ‘we were saved’ indicates a past action, something that has already taken place, referring obviously to the complex of faith and baptism of which Paul has been speaking in the letter so far. But this remains ‘in hope’ because we still look forward to the ultimate future salvation of which he speaks ‘in (for instance) Romans 5:9, 10. This explains at a stroke the otherwise puzzling fact that the New Testament often refers to salvation and being saved in terms of bodily events within the present world.” Wright, Surprised by Hope, 210-11.
____________________________
[1] See also J. D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity, Christianity in the Making, v. 3 (Erdmans, 2015), 714.
[2] See F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI.:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 287.

Why the Rapture isn't Biblical

Here is a great piece on the biblical absence of the modern rapture doctrine enthralling so many today by Kurt Willems.

"Christ will return to resurrect, to purge, to heal, and to establish the eternal kingdom of God on this earth. Heaven and earth will unite like a bride and husband – for all eternity. That’s it. The Bible teaches that when Christ comes back, it will be Good News!"

Dustin Martyr on YouTube

For those readers who (like myself) enjoy a good YouTube video, be sure to check out my friend (and fellow blogger) Dustin Smith, aka. Dustin Martyr. Here is his excellent, most recent video, but be sure to check out his blog and YouTube channel for more well-made videos.

Knock, Knock - It's Jesus, Personal Lord and Savior

'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me. (Rev 3:20 NAU)

There have been many passages in the Bible taken out of context and misused for varying purposes, and this passage is no exception. I am certainly not alone in my objection to the modern evangelical twist this specific text has been subjected to in past years.

While this text contains imagery drawn from various sources and subtle Hebraic ways (Exodus for example) for communicating a specific message, there are some obvious conclusions to be made regarding what this text does and does not say.

Does taking a passage out of context in order to make a theological (or other) point constitute as abuse of a text? The answer is resoundingly yes, although there are some groups convinced that if the Bible is quoted in any way for making any point, it is proper and justifiable. The Bible's role - in this mindset - is to be there for the moment needed, to say what the individual wants it to say, the Google of God. This careless and cavalier attitude toward Scripture is detestable, and does great injustice to the original writer and world of that text. It must be allowed to say what the writers intended and the message be for the audience to whom it was written. Then and only then can we bring it into our world and time.

Revelation 3:20 is a favorite of evangelists, preachers, youth leaders and many whose objective has been and continues to be “shooting the gospel gun” at as many as possible and therefore promote the urgent call of Jesus into the desperate life of a sinner. This mentality has left many gaping wounds in innocent bystanders.

It has been hijacked for the purpose of an attempt to prove that Jesus stands at the door of a sinner’s heart needing an immediate response to the call or reception of the so-called gospel message. Is this really what this text is saying? Does the context of chapter three or even the book of Revelation as a whole for that matter support this theory? Is Christ standing at the door of a sinner’s heart waiting for him/her to ask him into their hearts by praying a sinner’s prayer?

Terminology and cliché have become rampant in the church, making for handy marketing techniques, but unfortunately at the same time have fostered ignorance to solid theology, exegesis and proper hermeneutical principles needed for interpreting any given word or phrase. These phrases are rarely helpful or accurate. For instance, what does “asking Jesus into your heart” even mean? While some see a vague notion able to be corroborated in a proof passage or so, this is not a NT theme and is rather quite foreign to the Hebraic worldview in which Jesus came and proclaimed his God ordained message. The NT has a quite different message: “repent and believe in the Gospel of the Kingdom of God” (Mk. 1:14-15, Acts 8:12).

This misuse of the Biblical text has done tremendous damage. The easy, non-existent gospel of “little sinner, little sinner, let Jesus come in” may indeed be heartwarming – having created a caricature of a loving, caring Jesus who stands at the threshold of people’s hearts begging them give him entrance into their lives as a personal Lord and savior, but nevertheless is not accurate and has no presence in the Biblical narrative. Jesus is not pressing, coercing or pressuring anyone to be participants.

I had a unique experience with this phenomenon a couple of months ago. My family and I attended our local county fair, and while strolling through the church section of the booths, my children were drawn in and subsequently harassed and heckled by the church representatives. They drew the children in with games and goodies trying to persuade the children to “say these words after me,” “don’t you want to ask Jesus into your heart?” and "don't you want to know true peace, joy and have assurance that when you die you will go to heaven?" Now, my children were aware of this nonsense (since we discuss things like this as a family) beforehand, and having tried to reason with these individuals in an attempt to explain what it is they were actually saying, they would not (or could not) hear me. I finally had to remove my children from them to the point of actually walking away. I did not want to be rude, but as a protector of my children and having insisted that they were not interested, the salesmen persisted nonetheless in trying to get my (at this time slightly bewildered) children to repeat a “sinners prayer” knowingly against my will.

Protestants often abhor Jehovah’s Witnesses and what they do, but these guys were far beyond them on a ignorance and annoyance scale. JW’s are at least cordial, respectful and will dialogue like rational human beings (in my experiences with them), but not these (dare I call them) gentlemen. How has Christianity come to this? What is being communicating by this type of methodology and Biblical illiteracy in favor of catch phrases and a cheap gospel? These men were sincere; I didn’t doubt it for a moment. But they wouldn't listen to one word I had to say regarding their theology or evangelistic practices. I could’ve been reciting Hamlet and they would've been none the wiser. They were on a mission to get a confession or recitation from my children’s lips and their specific brand of religious propaganda into little hands.

The Christian evangelical methodology and message has been sabotaged to the point of downright distortion beyond recognition from the first-century apostolic message whence it came. The door at which Jesus knocked in Revelation 3:20 was not some vague spiritual metaphor, but rather a specific door. And while he wasn’t physically knocking, he was however speaking to real people, a specific group. We cannot ignore the context and culture of this text and carelessly act as though this passage is to just anyone, and says what we want it to.

“To the angel [not pastor] of the church in Laodicea…” (Rev 3:14 NAU). 

They are known in this passage as the lukewarm church. (There is some neat imagery present, apparently drawn from the geographical region of these people in relation to lukewarm water with which they would've most likely been acquainted). In Revelation 3:14-22, they are verbally chastised for their apathy and complacency:

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot” (v. 15). 

Hot water is good and useful, as is cold, living and refreshing water. But tepid, mineral filled water is useless. They did not necessarily reject Christ, but their passion and zeal had waned and disobedience had ensued. They maintained their profession of Christ, but in reality there was no place for him in their assembly. It is in this context that Christ stood outside the door of the Laodicean church, eager for them to make amends as a congregation and restore their relationship to God and fellowship with Christ through repentance.

The Church needs to stop acting like a business and using poor tactics in an attempt to make sales or win recruits. Twisting the text to make it dramatic, palatable or emotional is not God’s mission. This has made modern Christianity reprehensible to those who know better. The fullest sense of what the Gospel of the Kingdom of God represented was never a matter of Jesus being king of someone's heart, it rather pointed towards repentance, restoration, renewal and redemption, not being king of the heart with hope of Heaven.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

I had written this a few months ago in response to an inquiry made to me regarding the story Jesus told in Luke 16. I had forgotten about it until I read a commentary by a friend of mine, Sean Finnegan called "The Rich Man and Lazarus." This was posted on his new web site Restitutio. In his commentary, he gives far more detail then I do here. So if this subject peaks your interest, check it out.
He has podcasts and explores many other interesting subjects relating to theology and Church history as well. 

The story Jesus told in Luke 16 has been frequently used in an attempt to support the doctrine of conscious eternal torment. There are - in this reading of "the Rich man and Lazarus" - some vital elements missing and assumptions made not inherent within this text or indigenous to the context.

In a brief overview, several observations can be safely made:

First, this is a parable, not history or a factual narrative. This, like many parables or stories Jesus told has borrowed content (i.e. a well-known story tweaked to illustrate his point). "There was a certain rich man..." and "there was a certain beggar..." Two chapters later in Luke, it says, "Now he told them a parable" (Lk. 18) and then the parable in the same form as Luke 16, "in a certain city there was a judge....there was a widow in that city..." (emphasis mine). Unknown to many New Testament gospel readers today is that few of Jesus' parables are actually original to him. He borrowed stories from other Rabbis as well as popular stories or folklore known in his day (Aesop etc.). Therefore, it must be understood that just because Jesus uses a story from his day, does not necessarily mean he endorsed all the elements in the story as fact or theologically sound. That wasn’t why he was using the story. He uses the story to illustrate his own teaching point.

Second, the subject and interaction that culminates in Jesus telling this parable does not concern afterlife, hell, conscious eternal torment, final judgment or anything resembling these ideas. This is important, because a parable is meant to teach a particular principle. Afterlife has nothing to do with the theme of Jesus' context he is communicating to his listeners. Rather, it is a message to the Pharisees about their failure to be good stewards. Luke says "they were lovers of money" and were scoffing at him [Jesus]." Jesus speaks of having ones heart right before God, because he [God] detests what may be seen as "highly esteemed" among men.

Jesus here is threatening the order of civil structure (such themes as “first shall be last and last shall be first”). In the parable, a man who was honored by man and had the luxuries of life now inhabits a lower place than he who was despised. He ends the parable speaking about “those” relatives of the “rich man” (other Pharisees) who would not be persuaded by Moses and the prophets (perhaps this was Jesus’ allusion to the Scripture over their love of tradition and oral Torah) and then gives a hint about not being persuaded even if “one should rise from the dead.” This is of course a preamble to what Jesus was about to do (Lk. 16:27-31). In the story, Abraham’s words “they would not believe,” prove to be true, because after Jesus’ resurrection in Luke, the same attitude is exhibited.

Third, if the setting is examined, the time frame of "here and now," cannot be escaped. It was in the present age, not some distant time in the future. This action has taken place before any type of judgment and is taking place in hades, the realm of the dead (equivalent to Sheol in the Old Testament, the place of the dead, not the place of conscious eternal torment) not Gahanna, the final punishment. It simply refers to the grave.

Fourth and finally, the story is figurative, not literal. If this story were read as literal, some convoluted propositions would be presented:

1. Abraham is in charge and receives all the righteous dead and remains with them.
2. The “righteous” on Abraham’s side can travel back to give messages to the world of the living (opposed to the realm of the dead, hades/sheol).
3. Physical water (a drop) has immaterial properties capable of relieving the anguish or torments of a disembodied spirit in the grave.
4. Disembodied souls or spirits have physical attributes (eyes, tongue, etc.) and can use senses present in corporeal bodies.
5. Angels transport the dead (although in immaterial form – a disembodied soul) from earth to Abraham (wherever that may be).
6. The righteous dead are within audible and visible proximity to each other and have the ability to communicate.

In Jesus’ version this story, the messed-up social structure of the “rich” versus the “poor” man becomes evident. Even in his predicament, the rich man still wants the poor man to serve him (“send Lazarus to me…that he may cool my tongue”).  Jesus is teaching about stewardship and the necessity of his people to take up their God-given responsibilities to care for the broken, hurting sick and torn instead of living vicariously and sumptuously. Jesus exhibited what he taught, he healed the sick and cared for the broken (even at times going against the established “tradition”). This story (parable) is not about final judgment, does not teach the immortality of the soul, conscious eternal torment or any “Heavenly abode” for the saints, but rather was a real message to real people who were missing the calling and mission of their God. This message is just as relevant for people of God today as it was then.

Saul, Saul!

It is shameful the way certain religious Christian (and non-Christian) groups malign and mistreat others in the name of theology, doctrine, love and all that is sacred. The very one to whom allegiance has been pledged and for whom it is asserted a defense is made is the same one upon whom dishonor is brought.

Paul, first known as Saul under seemingly sound and noble motivation was working against the kingdom of his God all the while oblivious to the fact that it was he, not those whom he persecuted who was misaligned with the work of God. Throughout history as religious wars persisted and dissentious sects postulated the “true faith,” a dominant orthodox creature slowly emerged out of the sea of Christianities. As it grew in strength, all who found themselves “thinking otherwise” were cast aside, drawn-out and persecuted by heresy hunters. Did (does) this accurately portray Jesus’ own exemplary model? Was Jesus’ method an imperialistic one; did he teach the necessity of eradicating competing opinions?

With the rise of creedal Christianity and the refining of Christian orthodoxy (which was inadvertently redefining the religion of Jesus) came the need to draw a clearer distinction between soteriological essentials and non-essentials, “What is the ‘correct belief’ one must have in order to be saved?” Indeed, with “correct belief” necessarily came the need to redefine “to what” and “from what” were Christians being “saved”?

Soteriology was given a new face, a new hope and new prerequisites. No longer was this a religion and gospel proclaimed by Jesus, with him as the chosen leader of God’s campaign drawing men to the kingdom with promise of resurrection and glorification on a restored and renewed Edenic earth, but rather a religion about Jesus, where his nature, abstract metaphysical analysis and systematized declarations of belief were essential for acquiescence into the spiritual kingdom of the Universal Church in expectation of an ethereal, spiritual existence in heaven after death.

The heresy hunters in the history of the church left an indelible record, stained with the blood of “heretical” saints, and their successors still roam the edifice of Christian orthodoxy looking for any who threaten the integrity of their bulwark. If you have never been “saved” you are a mission field; a prize to be won. If you have left the solely approved rampart you are an enemy combatant who has a bounty on your head. Never-mind that protestant orthodoxy and heterodoxy is entirely subjective to the whims of denominational segregation and that according to the original Universal Church, whose wake cut the grains of theological fact and fantasy, all who oppose her statements of “right belief”, Canons and clauses are not a part of the true faith. Where does that put those who discard her creeds?
Gandhi wrote and captured this thought in a simple way. It seems to be a fundamentally profound and underlying error in modern Christian orthopraxy:
               “Intolerance betrays want of faith in one’s cause.”
Unfortunately, the downward trend is “anything goes,” but it never should become a point of hatred or ostracism of anyone, Christians should be exemplary models of dealing with situations. Christians of all people should be the ones who can handle someone who does not believe quite like them. What in the world has happened to Jesus followers? Perhaps a better question is, “what on earth have Jesus’ followers done with his teaching? Christians have lost faith in the cause for which we are supposed to stand. We have forsaken and ignored the teaching of our founder and traded it for a bunch of worthless doctrines and traditions. The name we are supposed to uphold has become a reproach and a byword, it is a stench. Christians who claim to be followers of the messiah, and say they want to be like him more than anything else, but yet turn and treat others with contempt, spite and ostracism are liars beyond the pale. It is they who are dragging the name of “messiah” through the mud, and they who have caused the mention of “Christian” in the ears to be abominable and abhorred.
Richard Beck writes, 

“When theology and doctrine become separated from emotion we end up with something dysfunctional and even monstrous. A theology or doctrinal system that has become decoupled from emotion is going to look emotionally stunted and even inhuman. What I’m describing here might be captured by the tag ‘orthodox alexithymia.’ By ‘orthodox’ I mean the intellectual pursuit of right belief. And by ‘alexithymia’ I mean someone who is, theologically speaking, emotionally and socially deaf and dumb. Even theologically sociopathic.

(Alexithymia — etymologically ‘without words for emotions’ — is a symptom characteristic of individuals who have difficulty understanding their own and others’ emotions. You can think of alexithymia as being the opposite of what is called emotional intelligence.)

Orthodox alexithymia is produced when the intellectual facets of Christian theology, in the pursuit of correct and right belief, become decoupled from emotion, empathy, and fellow-feeling. Orthodox alexithymics are like patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex brain damage. Their reasoning may be sophisticated and internally consistent but it is disconnected from human emotion. And without Christ-shaped caring to guide the chain of calculation we wind up with the theological equivalent of preferring to scratch a doctrinal finger over preventing destruction of the whole world. Logically and doctrinally such preferences can be justified. They are not ‘contrary to reason.’ But they are inhuman and monstrous. Emotion, not reason, is what has gone missing.”

Transfiguration and Heaven



Remarkable men of the past such as R. Akiva have remarked that scripture can have many faces or interpretations. In years of biblical exposition, often times commentators have been guilty of attempting to support or promote specific points in order to bolster doctrinal views. This is not seeking truth, merely protecting positions. 

Pretending that some passages do not contain difficulties is not the answer, but on the other hand presuppositions about any passage (e.g. such as a “heaven” doctrine would have never been naturally assumed or explicitly seen by the audience) or to interpret a passage with latter historical and theological developments is to impose upon the text itself. Reading into a text a later or foreign (e.g. Platonic philosophy or Hellenistic axioms) idea that would not have been intended by the initial telling is to do it a great disservice and miss the message. 

With that said,  the account of the “transfiguration” is a worthy subject of investigation. One reason for its examination is because it has been suggested in the past (under the influence of a later doctrine) that Moses and Elijah were able to appear (with Jesus) because of their dwelling in “heaven”. Is this really the case? Is “heaven” really the destination of the dying/dead?

The story of the transfiguration is an echo, or reenactment (to a Jew) of Exodus 24. Moses went up the mountain with Aaron, the elders, and with Joshua. Exodus 24:15 says, “When Moses went up on the mountain of God, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord settled [tabernacle] on Mount Sinai.... for six days the cloud covered it...” Now listen to Matthew 17, “After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John and led them up the mountain... he was transfigured and his face shone like the sun...” And then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, I will put up three shelters (tabernacles)... while he was speaking a bright cloud enveloped them and a voice said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am delighted. Listen to him.”” And the disciples fell face down. 

First, note this declaration from Heaven/God, and observe how this is completely taken from the Hebrew Scriptures. This is called “stringing pearls” in Rabbinical writing. The first part of this passage comes from the Torah, specifically from Gen 22. This immediately gives the context of the Father’s love for this special son Jesus being like the love that Abraham had for his special, unique son Isaac. It also shows the difficulty of having to give up that son.1

The phrase “you are my Son” is also found in the K’tuvim (writings) book, Psalms chapter 2, “I will proclaim the decree: the LORD said to me, 'you are my son; today I became your father.”
The phrase “whom I love” is also found in the Nevi’im (prophets), in the book of Isaiah, chapter 42 (one of the messianic servant chapters): “This is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one, in whom I delight. I have put my spirit upon him, he shall teach the true way to the nations.” 

The last part of the declaration of God in the passage is “listen to him.” This phrase comes from the Torah as well. Deut. 18 is a declaration of the prophet like Moses that would be raised up: “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people, like myself; him you shall heed... I will raise up a prophet for them from among their own people, like yourself: I will put My words in his mouth and he will speak to them all that I command him; and if anybody fails to heed the words he speaks in My name, I myself will call him to account.” Simply put, “listen to him.” The God of Israel is quoting from all three sections of his book, TorahNevi’imK’tuvim (Tankakh, the Hebrew scriptures, Old Testament).

Next, take a look at Psalm 43 (in context to the transfiguration passage), “You are God my stronghold.... Send forth your light and your truth, let them guide me; let them bring me to your holy mountain to the tents where you live...[where you tabernacle]...Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Savior and my God.” Who is truth? For a Jew - Moses, Elijah, and the messianic figure of Isaiah 42 are all truth. There is light, brilliant light. Peter is putting two and two together, piecing the text together to determine from Psalm 42 - “there is truth and light – we need tents.” Jesus had said of himself, “I am the way, the truth, and the life...” John 14:6 and “I am the light of the world...” John 8:12.

In Ex. 34:29-35 Moses’ face is depicted as shining exceedingly bright. There are possibilities, yet we are told little about these events. There are however, some givens as to what it meant to (especially Peter) them right away. There is enough evidence to suggest more here than meets the eye at first glance. An undisputable fact was Moses being asleep, dead, at rest awaiting the resurrection of the just, at the coming of the Messiah (Deut. 34:5-6, Jos. 1, Jude 9). 

In Christianity today, some speak of the kingdom of God/Heaven and some hardly know what it is. This event shows that the expectation for the realization of that kingdom has been alive for a long time and these few disciples saw not only Exodus in a live retelling but also a vision of the culmination and climax. The key to the meaning and explanation of the transfiguration is in verse 9 of chapter 17. “As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying,Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.’”

Jesus described what they saw as a vision. Luke even remarks that they “were speaking of His departure which He was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” Visions usually center around something that is to happen in the future. In this case it centered first, on what Jesus was about to do, and second, his departure.
Peter, later in life states (2 Peter 1), “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’-- and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.”

The Greek word that Peter uses is parousia, which is used elsewhere to speak of Jesus’ second coming and the establishment of the age to come. The whole context of 2 Peter 1 is speaking and commenting on the vision at the transfiguration. In verse 11 it states, “for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.” Also in verse 19, “so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.”

Those specific disciples were given a vision of the coming kingdom, which they were proclaiming to the people of Israel, and then later to the rest of the world. It was the good news of the kingdom of God. This also fits with the vision of the prophet Daniel in chapter 7, where the “son of man” comes with the clouds of heaven. This vision closely resembled Sinai, as some of the prophets seemed to imply.

In Hebrews 11 it is said that all those heroes of old died “without receiving the promises”, and “apart from us they [will] not be made perfect” (verse 13, 40). To read a “heaven” doctrine into these passages (as many commentators have done in years gone by) is to read something into it which it never meant to them, certainly not to Peter, and likewise should not to us.

So then, what about Elijah and his heavenly ascent? Like already mentioned, Moses is asleep, dead (Deut. 34:5-6, Jos. 1, Jude 9). It is worthy of consideration that Elijah is also asleep. Here is why:
2 Ki. 1:17 “So Ahaziah died according to the word of the LORD which Elijah had spoken. And because he had no son, Jehoram became king in his place in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah.”
2 Ki. 3:1 “Now Jehoram the son of Ahab became king over Israel at Samaria in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years.”

Jehoram (son of Ahab) came to rule over the Israel (the northern division) in 852 -853 BCE.2 Immediately following this proclamation (verses and chapters were not put in until roughly the 14th century CE.) it tells us that Elijah is taken. The narrative lets us assume that it is right around the same time (852 BCE.)
After Jehoshaphat died, Jehoram became the only king of Judah in 848 BCE., “Now in the fifth year of Jehoram the son of Ahab king of Israel, Jehoshaphat being then the king of Judah, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah became king.” 2 Ki. 8:16
From the time Elijah disappeared (right around 852 BCE.) until 841 BCE. there was a Jehoram in Israel and Judah (sons of Ahab and Jehoshaphat respectively). According to 2 Chron 21:11, “Moreover, he (Jehoram of Judah) made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot and led Judah astray.”

Jehoram reigned eight years (848–841 BCE.).3  2 Ch. 21:12-20, “Then a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet saying, ‘Thus says the LORD God of your father David, 'Because you have not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat your father band the ways of Asa king of Judah,but have walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and have caused Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to play the harlot as the house of Ahab played the harlot, and you have also killed your brothers, your own family, who were better than you, behold, the LORD is going to strike your people, your sons, your wives and all your possessions with a great calamity; and you will suffer severe sickness, a disease of your bowels, until your bowels come out because of the sickness, day by day.' Then the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines and the Arabs who bordered the Ethiopians; and they came against Judah and invaded it, and carried away all the possessions found in the king's house together with his sons and his wives, so that no son was left to him except Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons. So after all this the LORD smote him in his bowels with an incurable sickness. Now it came about in the course of time, at the end of two years, that his bowels came out because of his sickness and he died in great pain. And his people made no fire for him like the fire for his fathers. He was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years; and he departed with no one's regret, and they buried him in the city of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.”

This letter came from Elijah after he had already been “taken” (at least in the narrative). It’s not unreasonable to propose that the narrative is out of order, but is there sufficient evidence to prove it over the current reading? This would have taken place roughly 8-10 years after Elijah was already gone, obviously raising more questions. 

Additionally, in 2 Kings 2:11 the text informs that Elijah “went up to heaven by a whirlwind”. Verse 17 depicts the prophets having thought he dropped on some nearby mountain and sent 50 men on a search for him (without success for 3 days). They didn’t think he was taken to the throne of God (heaven), that would have been unheard of; this understanding is Christian speculation read into the text. They thought he had been relocated somewhere else. It is just as plausible to believe that he was transported through the sky to some other location.4

The story in Acts 8:39 tells of a similar incident involving the “Spirit” (which is wind in Hebrew ruach) [the wind] snatching and transporting Philip; he was then found at Azotus (vs. 40). As stated before, the body of Moses was also taken and buried by God in some unknown location according to the scripture. Jesus even said that no one would ascend into heaven before the son of man (himself) John 3.


[1] As a side note, Gen 22 is the first time that love is mentioned in the scriptures. It is described as the “law of first mention,” which basically means that the definition of love is being defined in this context, which is what John was playing upon when he said, “Here is what love is: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the kapparah (appropriation) for our sins” (1 John 4).
[2] There was another King Jehoram who reigned in the southern kingdom of Judah with his father Jehoshaphat
[3] Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible
[4] Enoch is often suggested as someone who did not die. However, the phrase used in Gen. about him “and was not” is often times a poetic euphemism for death, e.g., Ps 39:14[13]; 103:16; Job 7:21; 8:22. Also “took him” can be used in this way as well, e.g., Job 1:21; Isa. 53:8 (a parallelism between “take away” and  “cut off from the land of the living”. Sarna notes: “‘then he was no more’ [is] the regular formula, ‘then he died’ is replaced by a description of how he died. The term is most frequently used of sudden, unexpected, and unexplained disappearance. ‘For God took him’ [is] a euphemism for death, as is clear from such passages as Ezekiel 24:16, 18 and Jonah 4:3. It is most likely used here, as Rashi noted with premature death.” Sarna, Nahum M. (1989) The JPS Torah Commentary, Genesis, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia pg. 43