Revelation, the lake of fire and A.D.70
|
Andrew - I think you’ve missed each of the points I was making. Maybe the points weren’t made clearly enough. ‘What’s so puzzling about Isaiah 66:24? Isn’t it simply an image of judgment on the enemies of YHWH.’ It’s the suggestion of on-going punishment in "their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched" that I was referring to. But maybe the worm refers to maggots (not some idea of an irreducible kind of personal life that goes on living in torment), and the fire a burning which keeps on burning after destruction. But it’s an odd image, isn’t it? ‘It seems to me fairly obvious that if you throw something into a lake of fire, it is destroyed. It’s not going to come back to bother you. It’s not going to be part of a pristine new creation. But how can it be understood as ‘eternal punishment’? Destroyed is destroyed.’ There’s a bit more to the imagery than annihilation pure and simple: along with destruction there is burning! Burning is more than just purification in this context. It’s punishment as well. 19:20 emphasises that the beast and false prophet were ‘thrown alive’ into the lake of fire. Not pleasant! In any case, I do go with an ‘annihilation’ (not eternal suffering) position in relation to these passages, in their ‘end of time’ significance, but I don’t go with the idea that there will be no terror and no suffering at all. So I think Jeremy Wales does have a point - but I think he underestimates the terror facing those who are judged and condemned on the day of judgement - facing annihilation: the reality of which is caught in the imagery of fire. What also emerges from the ‘lake of fire’ imagery and passages in Revelation is something beyond A.D.70 - and certainly beyond the imagery of Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) and events associated purely with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70. The imagery is more associated with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sulphurous fiery eruptions of the southern Dead Sea area. My comment wasn’t a commentary on Revelation alone - so sorry if the short-hand misled you. I wasn’t intending to suggest that different types of judgement are distinguished in Revelation, although there is more than one book of judgement there: books for judgement, and the book of life. Judgements for rewards are indicated elsewhere in the N.T., eg parable of the talents, parable of the minas. The argument about whether these parables are to be interpreted pre or post A.D.70 is another issue: I’m arguing that whether they have a pre or post A.D.70 application, they establish the principle of judgement for rewards, and that there is a post-death judgment of this kind for Christians/followers of Jesus. Incidentally, I have been making a number of points in recent posts which call into question the extent of the A.D.70 principle of interpretation, of which the lake of fire references is one. I’m not against this re-interpretation, and in fact you could take some of it to apply to this section of Revelation. What I am suggesting is that there are limits to the re-interpretation: not least of which is the question of hell, fire, and what happens when we die. I am suggesting that the bible, New Testament in particular, is very concerned with what happens when we die. But even that comes back to a focus on the earth - new earth, in this case. I’m also suggesting that in making A.D.70 the primary crucial event for first century Christians (and for our story as well: see ‘What was Jesus’ gospel?’ from the Christian Associates conference - 03/06/2003), and making the death of Jesus on the cross narrowly relative to this event, we are missing much else of significance, especially to mission, in the ascension and outpouring of the Spirit as evidence of the on-going reality of God’s kingdom in the world. I just think the discussion has to move on beyond relativising N.T. passages and history generally to A.D.70. After all, there has been enough on this site on the subject over the last three years, and enough Tom Wright material on the subject. I think we need to look at the wider implications of this kind of reinterpretation - there are so many qualifications required, it almost calls into question the whole principle. Unless one can also add that a great deal of N.T. teaching had an A.D.70 application as well as a wider application. Otherwise you end up with saying, as has been said in the ‘core narrative’ series on this site, that the teaching of Jesus in the gospels is not relevant to us today, and the death of Jesus on the cross was narrowly relevant for 1st century Jews, and only indirectly relevant for the rest of the world. I hope this comment comes across as a helpful disagreement - as I would like to see an interpretative approach which harmonises some of the discrepancies which are, to my mind at least, compromising a very good case. |
Comments
Whose future is it anyway?
invitations to LaHaye and O'Neal
This took some digging but here are the e-mails for inviting Drs. LaHaye and O’Neal.
LaHaye: write beverly@leftbehind.com
O’Neal: write bob@onealclan.com
I’d be interested in their comments about the future of evangelicalism (see, Andrew, I really can spell.) I wrote but I doubt I’ll get an answer. Perhaps they’ll respond to the esteemed Andrew though.
Jay
just reading it as it stands
where's the discrepancies?
I’m also suggesting that in making A.D.70 the primary crucial event for first century Christians (and for our story as well: see ‘What was Jesus’ gospel?’ from the Christian Associates conference - 03/06/2003), and making the death of Jesus on the cross narrowly relative to this event, we are missing much else of significance, especially to mission, in the ascension and outpouring of the Spirit as evidence of the on-going reality of God’s kingdom in the world.
I have to both agree and disagree with this comment. I’ve had a casual interest in ideas of eternity for a few years, but haven’t done any serious study. However, it seems to me that this statement holds truth, but misses a portion too.
If we "shrink" the value of Revelation to only encompass AD70 we do risk shrinking its audience to those willing to invest time and energy into understanding the situation. Until Mel Gibson makes the movie, mission appears to suffer. I say this because the heavenly/eternal reading is, although strange and ‘fanciful’, accessible to the general public.
Theologians shouldn’t stop there, however. In limiting Revelation to only a heavenly/eternal reading we really miss the point, especially when we combine that with a rapture theology. (Rapture is not my main point — let’s not start that here!) I believe that such a reading leaves us with a vengeful god (for non-believers) and a "quick-fix" god (for believers) both of whom will ignore the sovereignty given to mankind in order to achieve their will at all costs. This would be a terrible continuation of an incorrect gospel message.
Can our reading weave both strands? I’m not a big fan of repeating fulfillments. I believe that the writer was talking about the Fall of Jerusalem, at least until the last couple of chapters. This is a place for the interested to investigate. On the other hand, many themes of revelation are directly relevant to mission and spiritual development:
the principle of judgement for rewards, and that there is a post-death judgment of this kind for Christians/followers of Jesus.
And I just don’t see how this gets lost if we interpret it AD70 or not.
The theme of dominion is another that finds its climax in Revelation. I believe this theme is stregthened by an AD70 reading.
there are so many qualifications required, it almost calls into question the whole principle. Unless one can also add that a great deal of N.T. teaching had an A.D.70 application as well as a wider application.
Why? Different authors, different books. Am I missing something on this one?
I feel I’ve talked past your comments a little in a long-winded and wandering fashion. My apologies for the post-exam lack of mental energy. I guess I can see both readings relating to mission, although each lends its strength to different aspects of that. Perhaps you could, for the hard of understanding like me, list "some of the discrepancies" clearly so we can have a look at them. I’d appreciate that.
Going global
Peter, some follow-up on this and the earlier comments. It’s helpful, as you say, to broaden the scope of the discussion.
Otherwise you end up with saying, as has been said in the ‘core narrative’ series on this site, that the teaching of Jesus in the gospels is not relevant to us today, and the death of Jesus on the cross was narrowly relevant for 1st century Jews, and only indirectly relevant for the rest of the world.
This gets at what I take to be one of the principle gifts of postmodernism - that it takes us back to the irrelevance and oddity and historical particularity of the original narrative in order to discover a new relevance for today. This applies also to mars-hill’s comments about ‘shrinking’ the value of the book of Revelation. We can preserve public relevance by keeping the old traditional ‘heavenly/eternal reading’, the reading of evangelical piety, alongside the historical reading. Or we can be hermeneutically more adventurous and imaginative and create a new public relevance directly out of the historical reading. I think that in the interests of theological integrity we have to do the latter, though it is certainly the more difficult course.
3. these events (ascension and pentecost) introduce a ‘universalising’ tendency into the story of God’s people, which runs counter to the narrative/historical approach which is being proposed…
Yes and no. Yes, these events intiate a universalizing process, though in the first place, Pentecost is a sign of the renewal of the covenant between God and the descendants of Abraham and cannot be separated from the impending judgment on the people. In fact, given the context in Joel, I would suggest that Peter in Acts 2 virtually makes the outpouring of the Spirit a sign that Israel faces catastrophe. It is perhaps significant here that he invokes Joel rather than Jeremiah 31:31-34. Pentecost and AD 70 are two sides of the same coin.
And no - because for just this reason I do not see that the ascension and pentecost run counter to the narrative/historical approach. The incorporation of Gentiles into the people of God is a natural extension of what happens at pentecost, but this is still the historic people of God, the rich root into which wild olive branches are grafted. And as far as Paul is concerned, this is prior to AD 70. What Paul seems to me to be saying in Romans 11 is that at this stage Israel still in principle has the option of remaining at the heart of God’s purposes: if the people repent, then the people of God will retain its historical Jewish identity. If not, the Jewishness in the church will be wiped out, which of course is what happened. This takes the universalizing process a step further, but we are still dealing with a historical narrative and we have gone further than is envisaged in any detail in the New Testament.
5. the ‘transfer of power’ in Daniel 7 was at least as much to do with the ascension and the outpouring of the Spirit as the overthrow of Jerusalem/Rome.
This may be theologically correct but I don’t see that the outpouring of the Spirit really belongs thematically with Daniel 7.
8. while a very sensible case can be made out for Revelation referring to pre-A.D.70 events (and being written for the churches before A.D.70), not all of Revelation can be fitted into a pre-A.D.70 interpretive scheme.
Agreed. A big part of Revelation (15-19?) predicts judgment on Rome; a much smaller part speaks of a final judgment and renewal of creation, which is the point at which the final destructiveness of the lake of fire becomes especially significant.
Daniel 7 and Pentecost
It is this dimension of the Spirit, rather than the historical judgement on Israel, which seems to me to be the significance of the Spirit (and therefore Pentecost) for today.
That may be true. I was merely commenting on its apparent significance for Peter on the day of Pentecost.
What lies behind Acts 2:33 is not Daniel 7 but Psalm 110 (cf. Acts 2:34). Of course, there is a convergence of these OT themes in the NT, and perhaps I am being pedantic, but I just don’t think that Daniel 7 is used to explain the giving of the Spirit. The reason for this is that the Spirit of the Christ who suffered is given to the suffering church in advance of the vindication and transfer of sovereignty that is associated with the coming of the Son of man. The church which had been given the Spirit still cried out for vindication (cf. Rom.8:12-27). I would disagree with you, therefore, that the giving of the Spirit was ‘the practical implementation of the transfer of power’ - that only comes theologically and eschatologically with the judgment on the enemies of the people of God and the ending of the affliction.
Again the issue arises: which of the bible’s own self-interpretive theology are we going to strip out in order to get at ‘the irrelevance and oddity and historical particularity of the original narrative’?
I’m not sure what you mean by this. I don’t see it as a matter of stripping out the Bible’s own self-interpretation - it’s a matter of recognizing that that interpretation is as historically conditioned as what it interprets.
Pentecost, parousia and public relevance
1. It’s broader than that: a sign of the imminence of the ‘last days’ as understood, literally or analogically, by Joel, which would include both judgment on Israel and the renewal of the covenant through the Spirit of God. When Peter says, ‘Save yourselves from this crooked generation’ (Acts 2:40), this is not a universal call to salvation: it is addressed to Jews facing the destruction of their city, their temple, their way of life, their faith, because the nation had turned its back on God and rejected his prophets.
2. I would question whether the ascension is understood as a fulfilment in some way of Daniel 7. I am more inclined to think that it prefigures a later vindication - hence the angel’s remark about Jesus ‘coming’ in the same manner that he departed. The ‘victory’ of the church comes through the faithful suffering of those who imitate Christ (this is especially clear in the letters to the churches in Revelation). We can speak of the Spirit strengthening and inspiring them, but I would argue that it is still conceived in concrete historical terms as a victory over the antipathy of the pagan world towards the people of YHWH. This is the means by which the church survived - and I would have thought it has everything to do with the church’s mission role in the world. If the church had not survived, there would be no mission. We may not be happy now with the emphasis on judgment on enemies (precisely because the fundamental victory over satanically inspired Rome has been won through the way of the cross), but the motif is clearly there in the New Testament.
3. The church was certainly active before judgment on Jerusalem and Rome, but would it have become a global movement under pre AD 70 political conditions? The whole process must be taken into account. Although the ‘victory’ over Rome was an ambiguous one, it still in effect guaranteed the freedom of Christ’s followers to worship and serve him throughout the world.
4. I don’t think I’m particularly embarrassed by the ascension. I just don’t think it signifies in itself the transfer of authority that is described in Daniel 7. The way I see it, Jesus gives the Spirit to the church as his body to equip them for the period of affliction that lies ahead so that they will be able to stand before him at the parousia, when the church is finally rescued from its persecutors and that concrete political victory attained. This certainly has repercussions for the church after the parousia - we remain Christ-centred and Christ-like, the Spirit doesn’t cease to be an active force in the church - but for the most part mission no longer needs to be defined according to this narrow agenda.
5. I still think that it is helpful and illuminating (and probably necessary) to read Romans 8 against the background of a pressing apocalyptic narrative about the suffering of the church and the prospect of vindication and renewal associated with the coming of the Son of man. However, the new creation metaphor remains constantly open to reuse - until the final renewal of heaven and earth described in Revelation 21. It is descriptive of the renewal of the people of God (cf. Isaiah 64:17) but it draws its descriptive power from the ultimate hope of a new creation free from sin and death, in which the dwelling of God is with men. On that point I agree with you.
P.S. Perhaps the way to approach the question about ‘public relevance’ is simply to see the New Testament story (not just the gospels) as a radical recovery, reinvention, restatement of what it means to be a ‘chosen people’ - a people committed, for better or worse, to living in covenant relationship with the creator God. I would suggest at least that we need to get this larger biblical narrative sorted out before we start drawing conclusions from the gospels about right living, etc. We are the people of God redefined by the narrative about Jesus. What is the public significance of that?
Making sense of Pentecost
Peter, I’m conscious of the fact that I’m being a bit stubborn at the moment - it’s a failing I have. But I am trying very hard to nuance the argument in response to your feedback and criticism. I am conscious of the fact that you are seeking to safeguard something of extreme importance.
Your description of the role of the Spirit pre A.D.70/downfall of Rome suggests that its (the Spirit’s) main function was to help the church survive until those liberating events occurred. (Survival = ‘victory’ for the churches in Revelation). This suggests to me far too defensive a description of what was taking place - the emphasis in Acts is on the growth and spread of the church throughout the known world. This was happening before Jerusalem fell or Rome declined.
It wasn’t meant to sound that ‘defensive’. Part of the impact of the outpouring of the Spirit on Israel was the movement of the disciples out into the world and the development of communities of believers that would themselves confront Christ’s enemies and suffer from that confrontation. But this expansion of Christ-like (Son-of-man-like) communities was precisely the means by which the Spirit-renewed people of God ‘survived’ the collapse of second temple Judaism and the opposition of Rome. This is why Jesus was so concerned that the good news of the kingdom should be preached to the nations before the ‘end’ (Matt.24:14).
Let’s agree to disagree on the connection between the ascension and Daniel 7 for now. I could be wrong; I need to go back and look at the whole thing again. I do want to keep in view, though, the significance of the judgment theme in relation to Pentecost. I’ve just read a very interesting article by G.K. Beale (‘The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost’) in Tyndale Bulletin 56.1, in which he argues that Acts 2 has in the background not only Joel 2 but passages from Isaiah that associate the image of ‘tongues of fire’ with judgment on Israel (Is.5:24-25; 30:27-30; 66:15). What we need to recognize is both this more restricted narrative-eschatological significance and the implications of this new covenant in the Spirit for the ‘post-eschatological’ life of the church. The challenge we face, both here and for the gospels, is to make sense of the universal dimension through the particular narrative, not by-passing it or compressing it to the dimensions of an a-historical religious myth as so often happens. Your question about the basis for the relevance of the gospels today is highly pertinent and needs to be addressed properly. All I would say is that in my view resetting the Gospel stories in this narrative-historical framework gives us a very powerful and compelling starting point: it certainly does not render either the Gospels or the gospel irrelevant, but we may have problems making them work in quite the way we used to.
Peter re: Your response
Kia-ora,
Thanks for your quick reply to my comments. It’ll probably take me a couple of weeks to think and read my way around them. They’re on the boil - Thanks for your patience.
Links please
Kia-ora, I know it’ll be a pain — here’s the navagation issue again — but could someone please post the other writings relevant to this discussion? I’ve found:
Brian McLaren on hell (here)
Where can I find the discussion(s) relating to the gospels and AD70? Thanks.
Gospels and AD70 links
There is stuff scattered all over the place, but I think these are some of the main discussions:
The coming of the kingdom of God
End of days
What was Jesus’ Gospel?
Jesus’ Gospel of the kingdom
NT imminence of parousia
Brian McLaren on hell
Thoughts on issues regarding narrative/historical reading & hell
Reply to points 1-3:
I would agree that ascension and pentecost are important, this seems to have been dealt with (or at least in progress) in the dialogue between Andrew and yourself. I would point to my comments about the value of thematic study complementing a narrative reading (here) and say that although we can rank themes in terms of their importance, all the themes still exist. I think that different NT books emphasise different themes and we must be careful not to over-emphasise one theme in our final theology. Doing so in a discussion like this seems safe enough to me though. But am I being naive? Is there more than this at stake? I see the important differences in points 1&2 and I’d agree with:(ascension and pentecost) introduce a ‘universalising’ tendency into the story of God’s peoplebut have to disagree with:
which runs counter to the narrative/historical approach which is being proposed…I see both events working together. I tend to disagree with Andrew’s PPP comment 3 (here), since we will never know “what if…” I think it’s incorrect to make AD70 the central point, but I think its importance has been missed by many. Most of the church-goers I talk to have no idea what happened then or how it relates to the NT apocalypses. That’s sad, so I’m glad it is being emphasised. It is certainly the interpretative key for Revelation and has an important bearing on much of the NT. I guess we’ll always disagree on how much, but the discussion around it is very helpful.
Response to point 4:
It is the narrative that allows us to understand the Spirit, and it is by this spirit that we gain understanding of the narrative. There is a circle at work here, and it takes a wiser mind than mine to distinguish which came first. (I’m not saying that the Spirit is not pre-existent, I’m talking about our understanding of it.) There are complex issues here, too difficult for me at the moment!Response to Points 5-6:
This is dealt with in others’ comments. I might add stuff there when I have some more time.Response to Point 7:
I’m enjoying the cconversation around this but once again, I want to deal with it seperately. I’m drafting my current escatology in response to another request on this site. This will deal with my ideas about heaven and hell in a more structured and comprehensive way. I would agree that it seems important to decide whether this has an earthly, heavenly or combined meaning.Response to point 8 and general comments:
I’d agree, as Andrew has, that not all Revelation can be fitted into an AD70 scheme. However, I would contend that it is the primary key for unlocking this book (Revelation), which brings me to a main point: the Bible is a library, and the books are different. Different books were written by different people, to different audiences at different times. From a literary perspective I question whether any one scheme can successfully address all the NT writings without becoming generalised to the point of uselessness. Andrew’s work has unlocked valuable information on apocalyptical NT writings and how the early church viewed these writings but this is not the end of the game. (In all fairness I should point out that this understanding, in general, is not new; although Andrew’s work puts fresh perspective on it.) Mark’s gospel shows Jesus in contention with spiritual powers, Matthew’s displays Jesus’ claims as messiah, Luke’s focus is on the disenfranchised and John’s gospel seems to be addressed to those living in a post-Jerusalem world, dealing with the issues of AD70. As the audiences change, the message does. (I wonder if anyone has enough time to write up some more information about this and how it effects our understanding of God? I can’t see myself having enough time until the end of the year.) According to Spong in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, “…if Matthew could be deleted from the Christian writings, about 90 percent of the references to the fires of hell would be eliminated from the Christian tradition” (p155). Although Matthew does exist and, in probability was heard/read by the author of Revelation, I think this hypothetical situation would change the way we read those references. What do you think? As you have pointed out, every reading emphasises some areas over others. While this is a given, I think that these areas are serious and worth further thought. I wonder if anyone else in the community has any thoughts on them?How are we to understand eternal punishment?
Are we to understand eternal punishment perhaps as a state from which there is absolutely no hope of being resurrected, or brought back to life, owing to complete rejection of the Resurrection Himself and Way to eternal life; Christ?I tend towards an ‘annihilation’ view and can’t quite reconcile eternal torment as a punishment that God who is described as being love in the Scriptures would inflict.Jesus speaks of suffering of those who are for example cast into outer darkness, but their suffering appears wholly egocentric, rather than a heart felt turning towards God because of His mercy to us in Christ.Even in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man thinks about his family, rather than perhaps the family that Lazarus came from?
Eternal punishment is hellish
Eternal punishment is pernicious, dangerous and unChristian. The notion of hell as eternal punishment is what underwrites every human torture chamber. After all, if a good God can consign someone to eternal torment, anything we can do (especially if couched in justice terms) is mild and harmless by comparison.
What understanding of justice is operating here? What possible crime is there that is so “eternal” as to merit eternal punishment? After all, if crucifying God’s only Son wasn’t enough to earn God’s eternal wrath, what is?
Now, I know the response: if we don’t accept Christ as saviour, then we align ourselves with the crucifyers and stand outside of the ambit of grace and forgiveness. But the love that forgives never gives up. Can we truly believe that the God who seeks and woos so assiduously stops at the point of death? Why? If the answer is the example of the parable of the Rich Man and Dives, then we need to recognise that this is a parable, not a description! It is poetic. It is hyperbolic. It is metaphorical.
Think for a moment about what such an understanding of hell entails. It must have some sort of geographical location. Where? I ask that, because it must, by definition, be outside of God’s realm. It is a “no-go” area for God. Yet God is the author of all created reality. If there is anywhere where God cannot be, then God ceases to be God. And if, on a literal understanding of hell, it is Satan’s stronghold, then there is a place where God’s rule does not hold sway, and God ceases to be God.
Which of us would willingly consign one of our children to everlasting torment? I wouldn’t - and I am not nearly as loving as God is supposed to be! Everlasting torment denies the love of God which we otherwise preach.
And what of justice? Which reputable court would pass such a sentence? That is a vital question. If our response is, “God’s ways are not our ways”, then we must recognise that most of our Christian justice stuff falls apart at the seams, because it is predicated precisely upon the inistence that there IS a recognisable and necessary correlation between God’s ways and our ways, and that our system of justice reflects the divine, however inadequately.
And yet … we need to take with absolute seriousness a justice of judgment, together with the human capacity to reject God. Good Friday says nothing if it does not say that human beings have the ability to reject God most profoundly and finally. Good Friday is humanity’s final “No” to God that starts in the biblical story of the Garden. The point, though, is that God has a last word to speak AFTER our last word on the subject - the word of grace and resurrection.
I find it increasingly difficult to believe in hell. But I go with Moltmann. He finds himself unable to get around the biblical insistence on it. But he is intrigued by the Greek icons depicting the Harrowing of Hell - of Christ leading a host of captives out of the satanic stronghold. He argues therefore for a hell where the gates are open, and a hell which is NOT godforsaken. Christ continues to woo. And people leave. So, to paraphrase Paul, I am convinced that not even hell shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.
But hey, it’s late at night and I’m tired. If this seems overly sharp or incoherent, I apologise!
Evangelism isn't about saving souls
You’re right about the parallel with Lewis, Peter. And if one operates within the framework of eternal punishment, an annihilationist view is very attractive. It lets God off the hook of being an eternal torturer. Of course, it is a position that requires careful and sophisticated argumentation and seems to contradict a straightforward and clear reading of the biblical texts (particularly Matthew). I suspect it is driven by a desire to be as faithful as possible to the texts, while rescuing God from some pretty unstomachable and uncountenanceable actions and character traits. (This is not just rehtoric. If you have observed anyone in torment - physical, emotional or psychological - and seen the destructive effects it involves - it WILL break anyone eventually - it is inconceivably sadistic to imagine torment that never ends and never releases anyone to oblivion.)
The sort of position I am advocating also runs counter to the clear meaning of the text. It puts me in a place where I am quite willing to believe that some of the biblical authors and even Jesus himself believed in hell as a place of torment. And I’m quite prepared to argue that they may have been mistaken, without for a moment supposing that this is to do some sort of violence to either Scripture or Christology. On the latter, I don’t assume that Jesus knew everything! I don’t believe, for instance, that ANYONE, including Jesus in his lifetime, understood the full implications and significance of resurrection and just how amazing God’s grace is!
My argument is a theological one. I understand the rejection of Jesus as not only historical but representative. Human beings give their final word to God, and it is an unequivocal rejection of God’s ways and presence in our human world. So I do not underestimate the potency of human resistance to and rejection of God! What the cross and most importantly the resurrection say most clearly, however, is that this elecits not judgment from God but sorrow, love, grace and resurrection! God’s word is the last word - and it is a word of Life. The divine will to life cannot be turned by human sinfulness. So, like Lewis and Moltmann, I don’t believe that our rejection of God is ever a settled question as far as God is concerned. I use the term “wooing” deliberately, because God is always seeking to win our hearts and minds through grace.
That takes me to an interesting place as far as the motivation for evangelism is concerned. Evangelism is not about saving souls from hell. It is about putting people in touch with Life here and now! The tragedy of people missing out on Christ is not what happens to them in the next life, but THIS life! In Jewish theology, one of the greatest sins is the sin of the unlived life. Most of us spent our lives significantly “unlived”. Jesus came to bring Life in all its abundance (Jn 10:10). Not to be a follower of Jesus is to live other than God intended - at a subhuman level. It is to miss out on the life of the Spirit and the task of transforming the wrold into the Kingdom. We are made by God, for God, here and now. Christian faith is faith for THIS life. The promises of the life of God are for THIS life.
I wish we had as serious a view of this life as we ought. We would see it as an unimaginable tragedy for people to miss out on all that God has for us. That is the evangelistic spur. It is not a “fire insurance policy”.
My question to those who want to argue for evangelism as “saving souls” is this: what if there is no inescapable hell? What if there is no such thing as annihilation? Where does the evangelistic passion then go? Let me put it as starkly as I can: if there were no life beyond this, I would be as passionate about the Good News of Jesus Christ as I am, because it is Life in all its fulness. I don’t think it gets any better than that!
if only for this life
hello Lawrence
i’m interested to know how your enthusiasm for a “this life” emphasis to the Christian faith would be balanced by 1Co 15:19
“If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”
as well as other related texts, for example, 2Ti 2:3-4
Therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No one who wars tangles with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who chose him to be a soldier.
i understand that some, I think Andrew, for example, would place this as being a mindset principally in reaction to the pre-AD 70 eschatalogical period of time, which the church has now emerged from…
others, including myself, would want to emphasise a wider and ongoing application, particularly to parts of the world where injustice, hardship, oppression are, for long seasons of life, the only hope.
as i understand it, it is the definite hope of the hereafter life, when every wrong will be righted that has provide the strength for Christians in every age to endure the most otherwise embittering and impossible persecutions; Richard Wurmbrand and his co-workers speak is this way with regard to what they endured and suffered under communism.
which is not to exclude a this-life emphasis, at all, only to say that perhaps, if it is this-life-only that may, perhaps, be on the way to being unbalanced with regard to scripture and truth…
i am interested in other’s thoughts along this line…
This life and the one to come
Hi John. Thanks for this. Yes, I was aware of having the same conversation with Paul in my head as I wrote! I guess I read Paul as making his point with his customary rhetoric, and over-egging it a bit just here. After all, if there was only this life, during which Paul could experience the transforming work of Christ, the presence of the Spirit and the joy of communion with God and sharing in God’s work, I’m not sure he’d really want to call that the most pitiable existence possible! And I have to say that, if it were actually the case that there is nothing beyond this life, I would be more than happy to live it as a disciple of Jesus Christ.
But, as you point out, it is an emphasis, not a “this-life-only” view that I have. You’re right about the significance of the future promise for people whose life is a living hell. I see my emphasis as a necessary answer to Marx’s critique of religion. He was absolutely alive to the way in which that can become an excuse for quietism and oppression. He was right there with Jesus in his thesis on Feuerbach (I forget which) when he said, “Philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point is to change it!” That’s what Jesus enjoins when he tells us to pray for the coming of the Kingdom - the doing of God’s will on earth as in heaven.
In other words, the promise of the future life, when used as a comfort for those who have nothing else to hope for, stands as condemnation for us as Christians who do not get on with the business of changing the world in the name of Jesus so that it takes on the shape of the Kingdom.
to whom much is given...
thank you, lawrence:
i found your answer interesting and compelling and can find no fault with it, well said…
i particularly like the wording and challeng of your final paragraph:
In other words, the promise of the future life, when used as a
comfort for those who have nothing else to hope for, stands as
condemnation for us as Christians who do not get on with the business
of changing the world in the name of Jesus so that it takes on the
shape of the Kingdom
with your permission, i’ll quote you on that, because it captures
the very essence of ‘to whom much is given…’ holding the two parallel
communities of the suffering church (which would include sufferance of
genuine poverty, incurable disease as well as persecution?) and the
‘free, fit and able’ church together in the kind of tension that i
think paul would insist upon ("when one part suffers, we all suffer")
i feel that our theology needs a good and constant dose of that
emotional tension, otherwise there’s a danger of a lot of rather vulgar
exulting in our status as ‘spirit-filled, abundant life’ people… who
seemingly haven’t noticed the utter chaos and devastation faced by
everyone else… or worse, are deliberately exulting assuming that will
inform others of what true spirituality is all about…
regards
john
emphasising this life over eternity
I’m really enjoying this thread! I’d like to side with an emphasis for this-life, too. Although I believe in an afterlife — and am carefully considering my view of hell — I believe the main focus for Jesus and the apostles was this life. I’d like to continue in this tradition.
That’s where the idea of AD70 fulfilling the apocalyptic passages gets my attention: it allows us to live in the present. (At the moment, I’m not sure whether my reading led me to this belief or vice versa.)
Living in the present is a pre-requisite for mental health and I certainly disagree with any doctrine that leads to poor mental health.
A few years ago I partook in Lawrence’s mental experiment: “without consideration of an afterlife, what is my commitment to Christ?” (paraphrased). I found myself (and my faith community) lacking, since without fear (couched as love for the damned) to motivate, there was little left.
I’d always found evangelism to be a rather hollow exercise in self-righteousness. Rediscovering God’s passion for this life has changed my views…As long as evangelism and salvation equate to leading people to reality I am encouraged to continue.
In regards to the suffering of the saints, I agree that a belief in eternal life and rewards for works (based in grace) is true and pure motivation. I would, however, question the divinity of those that look forward to the judgement of their enemies.
Re: emphasising this life over eternity
I’m not sure if I would bother continue living if I knew for sure that there was no afterlife.
I can think in to the future too easliy and can see the futility of living if God and eternal life are not real.
An interesting side to this is the question…
Could you, or anyone for that matter, be willing to give up their eternity to save say 100 people? It seems to be what Paul hinted he was willing to do. Its kind of a sobering thought. I think my love for those around me is so overwhelming that I would have to do it if it was the only way. Thankfully we never have to make that choice.
Re: emphasising this life over eternity
After reading a few more of the posts above i think I had better try to explain what I just said a bit better in case I get flamed.
I have found life to be a lot of hard work and I see many people around me having much more fun without a thought to their future.
I am not very young anymore so I have seen a lot of things in this world and I could not have persevered if I had not been looking forward to spending eternity with God and lots and lots of kind loving, non-judgmental people.
Most of the people I would like to spend eternity with are just the bottom of the rung sheep in the churches.
Re: emphasising this life over eternity
God forbid that you get flamed, John! For my part, the afterlife is an imporant reality. My emphasis is on where we suppose it (heaven) is. Most church theology has said that it is somewhere other than earth, so that earth can be dispensed with - consigned to the flames. Earth - the universe etc - is the object of God’s saving love. The wrong emphasis means that we treat this life as unimportant - a dress rehearsal for eternity, if you like. And it isn’t! Jewish theology says that one of the greatest sins is the sin of the unlived life and I am well aware of far too many Christians who need to "get a life" - particularly, they need to stop living as thouhg being human in this world is akin to walking through a minefiled of contamination that will earn is damnation.
The other problem is people who ignore earth and the plight of people because they think the church has the job of reminding them that the important place is heaven. So forget about making poverty history and sort out your fire insurance policy … or book your place in glory …
I don’t think that Christians ought to be concerned with "Where will I spend eternity?" There’s no mystery about it! If we are "in Christ", and are experiencing life and fellowship in God through Christ, it shall follow as the day shall follow night that we will share in whatever Christ’s own future is! We needd to stop torturing ourselves with anxiety and fear, and take salvation seriously!
That’s what I was driving at, anyway!
Lake of fire, etc.
Is it not just possible that the Lake of Fire, the Book of Revelations and the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments concerning the final judgment may mean just what is written.?
I have the impression that the numbers of those who don’t believe that humanity will someday face St. John’s version of the "End of Days" are growing within these forums. I hope this isn’t true.
Don’t make me invite Drs. Tim LaHaye and Robert O’Neal here. The Book of Genesis portrays the world’s past and the Book of Revelation is the Earth’s future.
Jay