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.

Pauline Psyche

Philippians is a phenomenal letter. Paul, even through the trial he faced, was able to reach out and minister to others as a channel of God's truth. 

Early on in the letter, he communicated (1:23) that he had a -

"desire to depart and be with Christ-- which is far better-but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you."

The question is often asked, is Paul here speaking of being absent from the body in some sort of spirit state prior to the return of Messiah? Is he speaking of ascending to heaven, and there await the "rapture" as some theologians posit? What was the purpose of this statement within his letter to the believers in Philippi? (For any interested in this "rapture" question in Paul, please check out Kurt Willems' podcast episode, "The Resurrection - "Physical" or "Spiritual" Bodies.")

The Old Testament, or as I prefer to call them, the Hebrew Scriptures, are relatively silent on this matter. There are however, occasional hints. Jesus, when referencing the resurrection, used Exodus 3 (the “burning bush passage”) to say that his father was not the God of the dead but of the living. What expositor or theologian today would dub this as a resurrection passage? Jesus obviously had reasoning for making reference to this passage (which is another study). 

There are passages (however insignificant to our ways of thinking) that shaped the theology Paul shared in his writings, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and other literature. This other body of writing, to the consternation of some Christians, influenced Paul's theology, whether some like it or not. He was shaped in part by writings categorized as pseudepigraphic and apocryphal. Paul did not necessarily contradict Jesus' teaching on the matter, but merely expanded, expounded and midrash-ed it.

It may be news to some, but believe it or not, Jesus was not a Greek philosopher and neither was Paul. I don't think either of them taught the Pathagorean doctrine of afterlife with its disembodiment, reward and punishment. Psyche (Gk soul) did not mean the same for Jesus and Paul as it did for Pathagoras and Plato. God created man as a whole soul, and the body was not evil. While the Greek uses psyche where the Hebrew uses nephesh, this does not communicate that nephesh was the inward, immaterial, spiritual essence and counterpart in opposition of the body in a dualistic sense. Nephesh is rather the whole person, the entirely of what it means to be human.

Paul (in other passages, e.g. 2 Cor. 5:8) indicates two options, the first of which was being alive (absent from the body), and second, being with Messiah (present with the lord). It is important when we study, to try and not rely on any anachronistic doctrine, preconceived notion of what it means or what we have been taught it means.

We know what Jesus taught on specific matters, but with Paul, eisegesis has become a common practice (inserting ideas and propositions into his writing that would not have been indigenous). So naturally our reading of Philippians can be radically swayed by our worldview or foundation in determining what we think the Scriptures say versus what the author actually intended. We read far more into specific texts than most realize. Was Paul a Platonist? As a Jewish Rabbi, is he to be understood as proposing a cosmological dualism as propounded in Hellenistic Philosophy? Did Paul embrace the idea that the world was essentially evil and that the body was the prison of an internal (soon to be disembodied) soul?

If I held to a doctrine that declared an intermediate disembodied spirit domain or holding tank until the bodily resurrection, I would have to read such a thing into the Pauline corpus. The real question though becomes, is this view compatible with Paul's identity as a first-century, Jewish, Rabbinical sage and his Scriptures, or am I inserting my own preconceived and learned presupposition as to what he meant? Does it come from Pauline theology or has it developed in later tradition and then crept into the mainline stream of Christian thought? Does history give any evidence one way or another? There are all questions that scholars and historians have discussed and wrestled with.

As hard as it may be to believe, Greek philosophy played a significant role in the formation of Christian doctrine in the first few centuries as the "church" suffered an identity crisis, and became largely comprised of gentiles. Those responsible for shaping and molding Christian thought were converts from other religions and some were even trained philosophers. The great shift had begun and Christianity became a religious smoothie of blended belief containing ingredients entirely foreign to Jesus' and Paul's teaching.

Now, we know that Messiah will return (appear) in the same manner in which he left. We know there will be a resurrection of the righteous (and unrighteous). We know that the saints will be with him at some point and there will be a type of judgment (not of condemnation) and reward. We know that the ultimate “theocracy” and governing hand of God has been inaugurated and will come through “the one he anointed” for the task (Paul - Acts 17). We know that it is the “last day” on which the dead will be raised (even Daniel said something like that).

Paul began his letter to the Philippians by admonishing them regarding work that was being done in their lives. Paul seemed to think (in other places of his writing) that the Messiah’s return could readily be approaching, perhaps even in his lifetime. He said that he was confident that such work being done in and through these people would be “complete” on the day of Jesus, i.e. the Lord. He also referenced the anticipation of “Jesus’ day” that would accompany such a work. Paul then talks about his own matters and trials.

One of the key factors specifically in relationship to living and dying (although I do not pretend this thought is by any means original to me) is time. When a person (in Messiah) closes their eyes in death, the Scripture is quite clear about the status of that “soul." It is dead. The breath returns whence it came; to God. The hope of the believer is in resurrection (God did this for Messiah, he will also do it for us – Paul). It is quite evident that time is a unique phenomenon that can (even in our physical dimension) have unusual sensations. A simple example would be the quick passage of time when one is in a comma or deep sleep. In the same sense, (from the perspective of a believer who closes their eyes in death), time ceases for them. The next waking moment for them would literally be the call to awake or “come up here” (as seemingly suggested in Revelation 11). To them, no calculable time would have passed at all. As soon as they departed in death, all would be waking to their inheritance and experiencing being united in fullness with the Messiah.

From a corporeal perspective, those who have died await their calling, and the dead will rise first (on that day). With that said, I find Paul’s words in perfect alignment with this thought:

“But continuation of my natural life would mean productivity in my work. Therefore, I am in a quandary. I am mutually attracted, having a strong desire to graduate to be with Christ—a much better option. But to remain here in my physical state is what you need even more.”

We cannot say for certain what it was this particular group of believers were “in need of” (with Paul), but it is clear that his greatest desire was to be with his lord. Perhaps the next phrase is a key to understanding what he meant –

“staying on here in the flesh is more vital for your sake. Since I have been convinced of this, I know that I will remain here, and stay alongside all of you, to help you to advance and rejoice in your faith, so that the pride you take in King Jesus may overflow because of me, when I come to visit you once again.”

Paul wants to be with the Messiah, but realizes that they are still in need of him. Paul also has the mindset that he is a slave, a bondservant of Messiah. As such, his desire is for that of his lord/master. With that perspective he says,

“Christ will be held in high honor in my body, whether by my living or dying. For my life consists of Christ, and death would be to my advantage.” 

Of course he wants to be with Messiah, but not if it is against the Messiah’s wishes.

To take this passage out of the confines of Paul’s own definition and his theological context is to put words in his mouth and say something that was never intended. There is no sense that Paul spoke of dying and going to “heaven” as sometimes thought. To assume Paul was a Platonist and held contemporary Christian views of cosmology and dualism is to make him something he wasn't. There is much more that could be said in reference to the whole philosophical and abstract notion of “immortal souls" embodied in flesh, but that will have to wait for another time.

Even though I never did take the time to wright a review of his book “Paul” (which was a great read for the most part), I will leave you with a few words from N.T. Wright: 

“Much of the second-Temple literature is precisely concerned to tell the story again and again to show how the plot was progressing and, perhaps, reaching its climax. Unless we recognize this and factor it into our thinking about Paul and his Jewish world from the very start we will have no chance of grasping the fundamental structures of his thought. And if, as has so often been done, we substitute for his controlling narratives those of other traditions and cultures, we are asking for hermeneutical trouble” p. 12.