"What If Jesus Was Serious about Heaven?" by Skye Jethani

 A review of What If Jesus Was Serious about Heaven? by Skye Jethani

This is an excellent work! Overall, very enjoyable and important. I have two issues to highlight:

I very much enjoyed the section on Scarcity vs Abundance (Ch 21), the inclusion of the “lesser” (the daughter of Jairus and the hemorrhaging woman Chs 23 & 24), and the feedings of the 5,000 and 4,000 as showing that Israel’s story is being fulfilled in Christ, but also that the Gentiles are invited in (Chs 25 & 26).  What I find an odd omission is that both Mark and Matthew tell these stories together, but Jethani mentions only Mark. I consider that an odd choice, particularly in view that while Mark is generally understood as addressed to a Gentile audience, Matthew is written with Jewish hearers/readers in mind. That both audiences are told this is significant and would I believe strengthen this portion of Jethani’s work.

The second issue is more consequential. It is certainly true that many have misunderstood heaven as only being a spiritual place. However, Jethani says “In fact, the Bible has shockingly little to say about what happens to us immediately after we die, and what it does say doesn’t reference heaven.” (Ch 27) I have to disagree. Any believer who has lost a loved one has wondered about their state, and all of us who have responded to such questions have had to look at passages such as 2 Cor 5:1-8 (and 12:1-5); 1 Thess 4:13-18 and arguably Heb 12:1. (If Luke 16:19-31 is intended as more than a teaching against the excesses of the rich then it also gives us clues about the intermediate state.) 

Jethani is absolutely right to stress that the intermediate state is not the final goal and final state. He is also right to stress that the Kingdom of God is accessed here and now in our relationship with Christ. I think he has failed his readers in dismissing the intermediate state as if were not there. Yes, the lack of detail given in the biblical account makes it clear that this is NOT the endgame, the final state. That is not to say that the Bible gives us no information. It is indeed called Paradise by Paul and Jesus (2 Cor 12:4; Luke 23:43) and it is a place where the believer is “at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8). In Paul’s vision in 2 Cor 12 he calls this place both “heaven” (ouranos) and "Paradise" (paradeisos). This is where Jesus has gone to be with the Father (Acts 1:11) and where he is doing the work of interceding for us (Rom 8:34; 1 Tim 2:5). 

I don’t dare lose sight of the reality and glory of that intermediate state. We do not end up in "Heaven" but that doesn't mean that believers who have died are not now in Heaven. A lot of people I love are waiting there - not for an eternity in that place, but for that final and embodied state written of in Rev 21 & 22 (and 1 Cor 15). We will be on a restored Earth, and God's dwelling place will be with us. (Rev 21:3)

The Place for Worship

The “Proper Place and Number” for Worship

Someone asked me to comment on our current situation under COVID of restricted ability to gather as congregations, assemblies of worshippers. And I know this is a volatile topic, that some pastors have chosen large fines and even jail in defiance of government regulations blocking massed church gatherings.

In Israel from the time of Moses up through the time of exile in Babylon, "the place" to worship God was the tabernacle and then later the temple which Solomon built. When Israel was taken into captivity, something which God permitted because of their unfaithfulness and idol worship, that temple was destroyed and then later rebuilt in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. But while Israel was in exile, we have Ps 137, which is so well known, and became a pop hit by Boney M in 1978. That psalm starts like this:

 

By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept

    when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars

    we hung our harps,

for there our captors asked us for songs,

    our tormentors demanded songs of joy;

    they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”

How can we sing the songs of the Lord

    while in a foreign land?

After that exile was over, even once the temple had been rebuilt, the Jewish synagogue came into existence – a place for Bible reading, prayer, and worship. The word “synagogue” means assembly or meeting. This helped decentralize worship from the one place, the temple in Jerusalem, into many places, and not just throughout Israel. Technically, you didn’t need to have a building, a synagogue, for worship. Proper worship could happen wherever 10 male Jews gathered, and in fact, one could worship alone or with a smaller group if there were less than 10 available.

 

The very early church met both in the temple courts in Jerusalem and in private homes, according to Acts 2:46 and other passages in the NT. The first church gathering in Europe was not in a building, but at the side of another river, this time not in Babylon but in Macedonia. You can read the story in Acts 16 of the vision given by God to Paul, and then in v13, “On the Sabbath we went outside the city gate along the river, where it was customary to find a place of prayer. After sitting down, we spoke to the women who had gathered there.” Apparently there were not 10 Jewish males, heads of households, so that this was not “official,” but God is not restricted by place or number or gender.

 

Yes, we are not to forsake assembling, as Heb 10:25 says. The word used in Heb 10:25 is ἐπισυναγωγή, and has the word “synagogue” or assembly/meeting as its root. Is there a command on what that must look like? No, there isn’t. If all you have is a river, as was the case for the exiles in Babylon and the first believers in Europe, that will do. The focus is after all not on the place, but on the God we worship, and those who have gathered to worship him. 

 

Yes, Rosemarie and I totally miss seeing God’s people gathered together in one physical spot on Sunday. But we will focus on worshipping God together with all who have gathered at the stream – the live stream, that is. We have a pretty good precedent, I would say!

 

Body as Temple of the Holy Spirit: what does that mean?

Body as Temple – Anti-Vaccination?

One of the questions I was asked after the post on masking in the Bible was whether 1 Corinthians 6:19 (our "bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit") had implications in forbidding vaccination. Once again: I will not be addressing the medical questions regarding these vaccines, the mRNA and inactivated virus variants, etc. I will not get into discussions on whether COVID vaccine is different from the polio and other vaccines I received as a child, and the vaccines we received before coming to Indonesia as adults. I'm not qualified to judge all these questions. Yes, I do my own research and have my own opinion, but I will keep that to myself.

 

** I will only approve comments which address the biblical question: Does the fact that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit mean that Christians should not be vaccinated with any of the COVID vaccines? **

 

Executive summary: in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 Paul addresses ONLY the issue of sexual immorality as pollution of one's body and therefore also pollution of the Holy Spirit's temple. Paul does not address eating, vaccines, smoking, healthy exercise, or other issues in this passage.

 

The longer discussion:

I have heard many references to the fact that our "bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you" in connection with practices like smoking, inactivity, eating disorders and the like. However, Paul does not make any such connection here. He explicitly limits the scope of "temple violation" to sexual immorality in v. 18: "Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." This is followed with the often-quoted passage regarding the body as temple.

 

We need to understand that Paul is answering an argument from some in Corinth which said that since our body will ultimately be destroyed, what we do with it is irrelevant. Paul quotes these people in vv. 12-13, but then disagrees with them, and immediately states that we are not to engage in sexual immorality. We discover why he is doing this in vv. 15-16. It is apparent that some Corinthians believed that making use of prostitutes was okay, because our body would be destroyed anyway. Paul disagree: this is NOT okay, as it unites members of Christ with a prostitute. The statement in v. 18 which draws a line between "all other sins" and sexual sins is then followed by the "temple" statement.

 

"All other sins" (or expressions of lack of care for our physical bodies) are not Paul's sermon topic in this passage. Yes, there are other places where Paul favors care for one's physical body. He uses many athletic metaphors (Phil 2:16; Gal 2:2, 5:7; 2 Tim 4:7; and in this same letter, 1 Cor 9:24-26). When facing shipwreck, Paul urges food on his shipmates to help them stay alive (Acts 27:33ff). Paul speaks favorably regarding exercise in 1 Tim 4:8. 

 

I'm probably missing some other passages which could be used to preach a sermon on proper care of the body. But 1 Cor 6:19 is not that passage, except in relationship to sexual morality. I therefore conclude that whatever your perspective is on vaccines in general, and any of the current COVID vaccines in particular, your acceptance or rejection of these should not be based on 1 Cor 6:19.

Masking and Quarantining: Biblical or an Offense to God?

Masking and Quarantining: Biblical or Anti-God?

Loading

Masking and Quarantining: Biblical or Anti-God?

One of the divisive issues of today, especially in what is often called the Western world, is whether to mask, observe social distancing, and practise quarantining. We have probably all seen posts or videos proclaiming that these are an offense to God and not what God intended. I do not have medical credentials.  I earned a title of “Doctor” but not in medicine. I am a theologian and a biblical scholar – that’s my field. And I’d like to offer a biblical perspective.

In Leviticus 13 God instructs Moses regarding “defiling skin diseases” – essentially, leprosy. There is extensive guidance on examination and quarantining. And then we read in Lev. 13:45-46

Anyone with such a defiling disease must wear torn clothes, let their hair be unkempt, cover the lower part of their face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ As long as they have the disease they remain unclean. They must live alone; they must live outside the camp.

 

Did you notice the part about “covering the lower part of their face” and separation from the rest of the camp? Sounds like masking and social distancing. As a biblical scholar I am aware that later references to covering the lower part of the face were understood as signs of mourning. (Ezek. 24:17, 22; Mic. 3:7) This does not mean that this is why God gave this instruction. God’s instructions were not arbitrary, they did not only have religious or cultic significance. 

 

A book I read early in my university schooling (thank you, Dr. Bill Randolph!) was “None of These Diseases” by S. I. McMillen. McMillen deals with Lev. 13:46 extensively and its application in largely eradicating leprosy in modern times. [1963 ed., pp. 11-12; 2000 ed., pp. 12-16] 

 

Every parent has had to convince their children to take medicine or do something that’s “good for them.” God also gave instructions to Israel through Moses that may not have made much sense to them directly. What we know today about germs, bacteria, viruses and the like wasn’t known in Moses’ time, but the instructions God gave “just happened” to be what was needed. Perhaps it was later interpreted as just a sign of mourning, but the fact that God commands it expressly in connection with infectious disease is probably a clue that God’s intention and man’s interpretation don’t always agree.

In any case, the idea that God is antagonistic to covering one’s face (masking) and social distancing or quarantining is clearly not something that the Bible teaches. What you do with this information is up to you.

Sabbath, or Sunday?

I was recently contacted by a friend who is a pastor asking me about Sabbath (Friday sundown to Saturday sundown) as compared to Sunday observance and gathering. He was doing his work as a shepherd in relation to people who had questions on this topic. I was delighted to respond to him, and am reproducing a slightly edited copy of my email below.

To the question regarding doing Sabbath “right” - it is very clear that reverting to a Fri sundown to Sat sundown pattern would deviate from what the early church itself did. 

Some material:

• In our devotional/sermon prep this morning, Rosemarie and I were reading Acts 15, the account of the Jerusalem Council. No, Sabbath itself isn’t mentioned in the account in terms of Christian observance (Acts 15:21 does refer to synagogue practice), but that is significant in itself. The two primary accusations against Christ had to do with his claim to be God, and his violation of the Sabbath. If that had been an ongoing issue for the early church I believe that a stipulation of Sabbath-keeping would have have been part of the requirement for the Gentiles in Acts 15.
• Christ makes it clear in his rebuttals to his critics that Sabbath is to serve man in respect to God, rather than be an obstacle. (cf. Mark 1:27 and many other passages). That in itself is not an argument against keeping the Sabbath: when we visited Israel it was impressive to see the extent to which even non-religious Jews considered Sabbath a gift, a time to invest in family. However, it is also clear that in contrast to the legalists/restrictionists, Jesus views Sabbath as opportunity and blessing rather than as a way of marking personal holiness and rejecting others.
• Specific prohibition against demanding a return to Sabbath observance can be found in Col 2:16 (express mention and use of “Sabbath") and Rom 14:6 and Gal 4:10 (clear reference to sacred or special days, and read the context as well). This is in clear violation of a direct command in the NT, and I cannot find any NT passage that suggests that believers should observe the Sabbath. Ah, but what about passages where the apostles go to the Temple or a synagogue on the Sabbath? (cf. Acts 13:14, 44; esp. 17:2 and 18:4 etc.) Read carefully: Paul and the others were going where the mission field was: that was the day and place of gathering where they could invite others in to relationship with the Messiah.
• So when should believers gather? The NT does not demand one day or another, but there is strong indication in the NT that the practice of the earliest church was to worship on Sunday. Here’s the basis for this:
• Jesus appears to his followers twice on the first day of the week, the day of Resurrection, as they are gathered together (John 20:1 is the resurrection itself; Jn 20:19 is the first such appearance to the assembled believers; Jn 20:26, a week later, is the appearance to Thomas, and again the disciples are specifically gathering and Jesus appears). It is of interest to me that these accounts do not seem to indicate that Christ commanded them to gather - they are doing so, and then Jesus shows up.
• While the above accounts could show the beginning of a pattern, they don’t have to do so: it could just be coincidence. However, my next bullet points will indicate that there is a pattern. How is this established as a regular observance? Ultimately we do not know: Scripture doesn’t record a direct statement by Christ to choose Sunday over Saturday. However, 
• keeping in mind the primacy and inviolability of Sabbath observance for the Jews, and 
• given that we have no debate in the early church on the topic at the Jerusalem Council (although the fact that in other passages Paul addresses the issue and prohibits making it a test of relationship indicates that there were some who disagreed), 
• I would argue that the early church made Sunday their day as a result of Jesus’ teaching in the 40 days between resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3). 
• In other words, a few people made an issue of it, but for the bulk of the church it was a non-issue, and I personally believe that this is because Christ instructed them in this. We certainly see them carrying this out in the following explicit statements.
• Acts 20:7 says of  the early church: “On the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” This was not just a ritual meal - this was an extended day of sermons which in this case went to midnight and beyond (the Eutychus incident). Cf. Acts 20:7-12.
• 1 Cor 16:2 has offerings being gathered on the first day of the week. The discussion on tithes and offerings is another thorny issue for some, but there can be no doubt that this fits the context of a church gathering. 2 Cor 9:12 uses a word in connection with this act of offering which relates to our English word “liturgy”.
• Rev 1:10 makes reference to the Lord’s Day. There is some debate among scholars as to what this means, but most of us agree that this refers to the day of Resurrection, Sunday, the first day of the week. If this was the only support for Sunday gatherings I wouldn’t have a strong case to make, but with the other material as well, I think the pattern is an established and solid one.
• While it is not as compelling for us as is the text of the New Testament, early Christian writers confirm Sunday observance. We see this from Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians (ca. AD 110-117), as well as Justin Martyr (ca. AD 150), who gives us the earliest full description of a Christian worship service in Apology 65-67. It is interesting to me that these writings are simply reporting normal behavior in the flow of the story: they were not written to argue for Sunday vs. the Sabbath. There seems to be no debate on the topic. While their writings do not have the force of Scripture, they do tell us what the early church did, and (contra Dan Brown and The Da Vinci Code) this is a pattern established long before Constantine and the church councils of the Fourth Century.

In the end, I would be violating Scripture to demand that all Christians worship on Sunday, but it is a very direct disobedience (if there are grades of disobedience) to demand Sabbath (Fri-Sat) observance.

Bell's Hell, and the Question of the Cross

Like many others, I don't like the idea of an eternal Hell and am puzzled at a loving and gracious God who would allow this. At the same time, we are in the Easter season; the idea of God himself dying (and the Father allowing the Son to die) on the cross for us is also grotesque.

These two incredible and horrible truths resolve each other when one realizes that the cross means that no one needs to go to Hell. Without the provision of the cross, Hell is the worst, most malicious and evil thing ever perpetrated on man by a supposedly loving Creator-God. Without Hell the cross is unnecessary, and a God who would allow his Son to die for no reason becomes the most despicable being one could imagine. The cross and Hell are problems which essentially resolve each other.

In Love Wins, Rob Bell argues that the idea of Hell as eternal punishment is simply the adoption of Greek terminology by Paul and others to describe the fate of those who reject God. They contend that there will be punishment, but it is not eternal and ongoing. That idea of unending separation and punishment came because some in the early church assumed that when the New Testament adopted Greek language (Hades, Tartarus) it was also adopting the Greek descriptions of that place and state. In fact, Bell and others would say that Paul and others did not intend to agree that these non-Christian concepts described reality: they were simply using the language of their day to talk about a state of punishment - which Bell and others believe and hope will not be eternal. Eventually love will win and all will be saved.

Allow me to point out a couple of flaws in this understanding. First of all, in 2 Thess. 1:5-10 Paul affirms God's justice and "everlasting destruction" and exclusion from the presence of God (v. 8) for those "who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (v. 7, NIV). Paul does not use the Greek terms for this place of everlasting destruction in this passage, but he most certainly affirms what it is like. This argues that it was not a failure of the early church to read Paul correctly that resulted in understanding Hell as eternal, but rather that Paul explicitly understood it that way himself.

Others, who identify themselves as annihilationist, say that the wicked dead will rise but ultimately are destroyed and will not suffer eternally. The effect of the punishment is eternal, not the punishment itself. A variation on this is something called “conditional immortality.” Its proponents argue that the punishment is eternal in the sense that those who die having rejected God will simply cease to exist. Only people who accept salvation will have life beyond the grave. This is completely out of sync with all the judgment passages of Scripture, including 2 Thess 1:5-10.

Daniel 12:2 makes it clear that both universalism ("all will eventually be saved") and annihilationism ("the punishment is not eternal, only its effect") are wrong. Daniel 12:2 states that, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Once again we see the state and condition of the lost described without use of ancient place names like Sheol or Hades. This argues that the description itself is a correct one, not simply adopted by assuming that the pagan term described reality. The passage is also from the Old Testament, and the state described is therefore not a result of incorrect Greek understandings from the world of the New Testament. Further, the idea of "shame and everlasting contempt" has no meaning whatsoever if the duration of the punishment is finite, resolved either by everyone ultimately repenting or being destroyed. A non-existent entity cannot feel shame and contempt, nor do those who are redeemed.

Will love win? Actually, it already has won. On the cross love broke the power of death and Satan (Heb 2:14-15; 1 Cor 15:54-57). Love Won on the cross, which offers a provision for eternal reconciliation with God. It will not do so by a misreading of the Bible so as to limit Hell.

The Bullied Child and the Other Cheek

Does “turn the other cheek” (Mt 5:39) apply to a child under eleven year old who is being bullied? My response to this real-life question from friends is “No”, “Yes”, and “No.” Here’s why:

First, on a societal/cultural level, the US is a nation that glorifies response to oppression. (Disclaimer: I’m a Canadian. We are famous for apologizing when we are bumped or our toes are stepped on.) The theme of the underdog who ultimately triumphs dominates in the media. Americans value and teach standing up for your rights and stopping bullying in its tracks. The law of Moses makes it clear that while the response to injury must be restrained (“eye for eye” does not mean one must take an eye, but rather that one cannot escalate to “eye plus tooth for eye”) the expectation is that one will defend oneself against the attacker or the invader, especially in time of war. Resistance to one’s government, just or unjust, remains a disputed issue within the Christian community, with some arguing that it is never permitted, and others stating that the believer is obligated to stand for righteousness and against injustice, whatever the source. With that cultural and biblical background, it must be wrong to say to a child, “Sure: let yourself be bullied!” The answer to our question should surely be a “No!”

But what if this child has accepted Christ and understands that this journey with him involves being counter-cultural? An eleven year old can comprehend what it means to turn the other cheek. As a theologian who has been a children’s pastor, as the father of four children, and as an observer of many more, I know that children can understand such concepts, grapple with them, and attempt to live them out in real life. We are told to “bless those who persecute you” (Rom 12:14), which is at odds with what our culture values. Evil CAN be overcome by good (Rom 12:21), even if that isn’t done by Hollywood. So then, the answer for a child who has chosen to follow Christ must be a “Yes, do turn the other cheek,” right?

The age of a child is significant. In Jewish understanding, children become responsible for their own actions at age twelve and this is celebrated with a bar/bat mitzvah. Before that time responsibility for their actions rested with their parents. In one way, the bar or bat mitzvah was a party for the parents even if the kids got the gifts!

So where does the responsibility for the bullying lie? Jesus warns strongly against mistreatment of children, especially when an adult is mistreating a child (Matt 18:1-10; 19:14).

What if this is one child mistreating another child of similar age? Some of the Old Testament rules regarding treatment and responsibility for livestock are useful. An ox that gores and kills a human is to be killed itself, and the owner punished by not benefitting from its meat. However, if the owner knew that the ox had a “habit of goring” and did not prevent its doing so, both the ox and the owner were to be killed (Exod 21:28-29). The rules for livestock are not all negative, punitive, and restrictive: the ox treading out the grain was not to be muzzled, in order that it could enjoy some of that grain (Deut 25:4).  As Paul observes, these regulations were not given only for the livestock but also or even more so for us (1 Cor 9:9-10). Beyond that, instructions target the owner of the ox since the ox can’t read.

How does this apply to the case of the bullied eleven year old? Societal authorities (teachers, parents, care-givers, etc.) bear the responsibility of curbing bullying, both in stopping the individual incidents and in being aware of situations where there is a “habit of goring. We live in a broken world and bullying is one of the results.

The child could choose to respond in a Christ-like way, turning the other cheek. This would indeed to a marvelous testimony of good conquering evil, of the cross breaking the grip of sin. An argument can also be made that responding and fighting back is justifiable and ultimately it is the conscience of the child that must dictate the correct response (Rom 14).

The adults in the situation have a much greater and more serious responsibility. Those who have the power and obligation to stop the bully must do so.

Your comments?