And Now…It’s Time’s Turn: April 16 (2012) Cover Story about Heaven

April 12, 2012 By 66 Comments

And Now…It’s Time’s Turn: April 16 (2012) Cover Story about Heaven

It seems the major weekly news magazines are competing for readers by having more frequent covers stories about religion. A few days ago I blogged about Newsweek’s cover story about embracing Jesus and abandoning the church. The current issue of Time has a cover story entitled (on the cover) “Rethinking Heaven.” The actual title of the story (inside) is “Heaven Can’t Wait: Why Rethinking the Hereafter Could Make the World a Better Place” by Jon Meacham.

Two recent books seem to provide the catalyst for the story: the best-selling Heaven Is for Real (the story of Colton Burpo’s trip to or vision of “heaven”) and N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope. Other books about heaven are mentioned as well.

The point of the story seems to be that some Christians, especially scholars like Wright and “activist” young Christians, are “rethinking” heaven as what happens here and now when we lead good lives helping others and the future renovation of earth after Christ returns. The article seems to say, or at least imply, that belief in a disembodied, purely spiritual existence after death is the traditional view of heaven.

The article talks about two “two camps in the heaven debate” as if they are equal in terms of basic biblical Christianity. The one camp that emphasizes an immediate and permanent disembodied bliss in a purely spiritual heaven is labeled the “Burpo-Graham view.” The other that emphasizes resurrection, both of the body and of the earth, as heaven is treated as the Wright (not necessarily “right”) view also held by theologians such as Christopher Morse of Union Theological Seminary.

According to Meacham, the second view better lends itself to activism in the here and now to make this world a better place. He acknowledges, however, that at least some in the first camp, holding the first view (purely spiritual heaven) also believe in working to make this world a better place.

What I wonder is why these are treated as separate and incompatible “views” of heaven with two camps of believers who supposedly disagree about heaven? I am sure that Billy Graham believes in the future bodily resurrection and eventual renewal of earth with the joining of heaven and earth that Wright talks about. (I won’t dare to speak for Colton Burpo or his parents, but there’s nothing in that view—yes, I read the book—that rules out a future resurrection.) And I’m confident, or at least hopeful, that Wright believes in Paradise as the disembodied existence of the dead in Christ awaiting the resurrection.

Toward the end of the article the author seems to acknowledge the “two step” view of life after death in Christian theology with the first step being a disembodied waiting for resurrection in a heaven-like paradise and the second step being the new heaven and earth joined together with resurrected bodies. This is, of course, the traditional view of life after death (for believers) held by most Christians throughout two millennia. Catholics would throw in purgatory as part of that “intermediate state.”

The thrust of the article seems to be that some Christians believe in an intermediate state and others don’t and that some Christians believe in a future resurrection and renewed earth that is heaven (for believers) and some don’t. Only occasionally does the author acknowledge that the two views can be combined. What is missing is any hint that the combination is the traditional Christian view!

I admit that books like Heaven Is for Real worry me. They may tend to reinforce folk religion that thinks of heaven in purely spiritual terms without any idea of a future resurrection and new heaven and new earth. But nothing in the book necessarily denies that. Similarly, I worry that some theologians’ strong emphasis on the resurrection and new heaven and earth as the primary referent of “heaven” may mislead people to deny the intermediate state.

What I do is talk equally about two future realities for believers: “paradise” and “heaven.” I think it is appropriate to reserve the word “heaven” for God’s place now and our future home when this world and our bodies are freed from bondage to decay and God is all in all or everything to everyone. But I think we need to talk also about “paradise” as that place many people, in their folk religion, call “heaven”—the abode of the dead in Christ about which we know little. But the apostle Paul wrote the Corinthians about it and even suggested that he (or a man he knew) went there in some kind of “near death” experience.

A holistic account of life after death takes both equally seriously even though it emphasizes the resurrection of both our bodies and creation as the “blessed hope.”

Filed Under: Uncategorized 66 Comments
  • Jesse Reese

    Wright can easily create the impression that these are opposite and contradictory camps. First because he treats the “lay view” of disembodied spiritual paradis (which he argues has been reinforced by pastors and theologians talking too much about it) as the “traditional view.” Also, though, Wright takes great pains to point out that the “intermediate state” is a vague concept in Scripture, and could very well be little more than our assurance that while we are physically dead we are in the hope of the risen Christ. I think that he would admit the probability of more than that, but he is trying to give a corrective to the church’s language, saying that we should talk about the resurrection as the Christian hope, and stop mistaking it for the intermediate state.

    Personally, I am fine with that – no more “I’ll Fly Away” fantasies of escapade, thank you very much.

    • rogereolson

      I guess I’ve been around too many academic theologians who have denied the intermediate state entirely because they consider it “dualistic.” It seems clear to me that the Bible, especially the New Testament, also talks about something we call the intermediate state or “paradise” even though very little is revealed about it. With Niebuhr I say “We should not want to know too much about the furniture of heaven or the temperature of hell.”

  • Marc

    Professor Olson,

    I think you’re spot on in identifying the issue as being the qualification of ‘paradise’ and ‘heaven.’ You mentioned the passage in Corinthians, but I also think the thief on the cross and the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke, are compelling evidence that ‘paradise’ is genuinely something different from ‘heaven.’ Heaven being the place God creates anew after the resurrection of man.

    It is just too bad that the author of the article does not realize he is comparing apples to pears. Granted, some people likely believe heaven is a disembodied state of bliss. But as you said, this is not the Christian consensus. I have not read Wright’s thoughts on the intermediate state, but I hope with you, confidently, that Wright affirms the orthodox view of paradise.

    However, I do think a lot of people still think heaven is some sort of other world they will go to, whereas Wright is insistent that heaven will be this place – transformed! That nuance in belief may propel people toward caring more for the earth and all who dwell in it. Sometimes, Christians can get a little ‘otherworldly’ (disconnected, aloof) if their attitudes and focus is on escaping this miserable world to the new a better one waiting for them. Although this may sound Gnostic I’ve encountered nice Christians who think this way, mostly due to a poor understanding of the intermediate state and the physicality of the new heaven and new earth.

    What do you think is the root of the confusion between paradise and heaven?

    • rogereolson

      Frankly, I think it’s because Christians no longer read the Bible (except perhaps for “devotions”). I don’t see how anyone who seriously studies the Bible, especially the New Testament, can come up with anything but the tradition, consensual view of two “stages” after death–paradise and then heaven.

  • Daniel W

    In his book Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright does indeed propose the traditional view as you describe it, with the faithful who have died having a disembodied existence in paradise while waiting for the resurrection of the dead and the new heaven and new earth

    The thrust of Wright’s book is a fear of an encroaching dominance of folk religion, much like your own, in which people deemphasize the bodily resurrection and the new earth and think that Christian spirits just drift off to heaven and stay there eternally when they die.

    Wright emphasizes the new earth and future resurrection as a reaction to folk beliefs in a purely spiritual heaven. However, he does specifically state that there is a spiritual existence during a waiting period, and he cites Phil 1:21-24 in that regard.

    • rogereolson

      That’s what I suspected. (I have only “looked into” but not read Surprised by Hope, but I know Tom and I’ve seen/heard his explanation of it on clips on youtube.) I almost always find myself agreeing with him. (And he once said he agrees with me! That’s flattering.)

  • Dean

    I just finished NT Wright’s surprised by hope and he indeed takes a view that the Bible speaks of a two-step process of Paradise and then a new heaven/new earth. It’s a great book by the way and I highly recommend it. It has definitely had an impact on how I perceive Heaven and it filled in a bunch of gaps for me after reading some of Rob Bell’s books. As far as books like Heaven is Real is concerned, I haven’t read it (but I have seen interviews of the boy and his parents), and clearly I can’t speak as to what this kid actually experienced, but I completely agree with you that these books are remarkably unhelpful as they typically present a “flat” caricature of the afterlife that does a real disservice to helping people understand what the Bible actually says. Another book that comes to mind is 23 Minutes in Hell. Since I have the maturity level of a 13 year old, I couldn’t help but make the connection with the timeless adolescent game called “7 Minutes in Heaven” for those of you fortunate enough to have played it. What baffles me is the total lack of self-awareness that many American Christians have when it comes to the cultural influences that have infected Evangelical Christianity, I mean, it would be one thing if we were to acknowledge that hey, I realize that a lot of what the Christianity we believe today in America has strong elements of neoplatonism and guess what, I’m ok with that. But I don’t think most American Evangelicals even know that neoplatonism is. It doesn’t even have to be neoplatonism, clearly the modern scientific era has brought with it a whole bunch of baggage that we’ve read strait into the Bible without giving it a second thought. I think it’s a truly bizarre state of affairs. I think it’s bizarre that John MacArthur thinks heaven is a cube.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjn2-3Rh0bc

    • http://patheos RYoder

      How does cremation fit your understanding of reserection?

      • rogereolson

        Not a problem. Even in Paul’s day (when he wrote 1 Cor. 15) people knew what happens to dead bodies. They decay, rot and eventually all that’s left is bones (if even that). Resurrection, whatever it is, exactly, has to be a miraculous work of God beyond our understanding.

  • J Tucker

    It is my contention that death is part of the curse, through Adam’s disobedience, upon all men and that not for the resurrection of believers at the First Resurrection (unto Life eternal) there is no escape from the grave (where the dead reside). Contrary to popular belief there is no human, other than the resurrected, immortalized Jesus (John 3:13), who is presently in heaven, in the presence of God! It is only through the resurrection of the saints from the grave that we can ever escape death and hope to see God. The immortality of the soul as living seperate from the body is neo-Platonic Greek mumbo jumbo that has no basis in Scritpture, nor is it recognized or taught by Jesus or Paul, who describe death as temporary sleep until the resurrection. Know the Word and its truth will set you free!

    • rogereolson

      It sounds like your mind is already made up, but I just don’t see how you explain the many passages of the New Testament that refer to a disembodied intermediate state.

      • Tim Reisdorf

        J Tucker,

        I have sympathy with your view. If there is a continued existence beyond death, but not yet resurrected, then it would seem that people are immortal (that is, they are never extinguished). Jesus hints at this by speaking of eternal life for those who believe, but this can be explained as more of a quality of living as opposed to immortality. Paul (in 1Cor15) talked extensively about the resurrection – that the perishable shall put imperishable.

        I don’t know, maybe I can’t get around my definition of death being too closely related to the notion of extinguishment. If death isn’t the culmination of mortality and the end of life, then I need more instruction.

        • rogereolson

          We need to make a distinction between absolute immortality (Greek idea) and conditional immortality in which souls survive bodily death only because God grants it to them.

          • Tim Reisdorf

            Of course its correct that one may only be immortal because God grants it to them. Is that what was going on with Samuel when Saul and the witch of Endor called upon him – that Samual was still alive but without body? Similarly with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration? My own views do not adequately account for these, but I’m not confident that yours do either – if your “Conditional Immortality” is like the one espoused by Stott, Boyd, Pinnock, and many others.

            While some call it annihilationism, simply stated, “Conditional Immortality” is the biblical belief that the “immortality” of the soul is not inherent (Greek thinking) but conditional (Biblical thinking) upon receiving the gift of everlasting life through faith in Jesus (Yeshua). It is part and parcel of the gospel. God alone has immortality — anyone else becomes immortal only as a result of God’s gracious gift (1 Timothy 6:16, Romans 2:7). source

            It is altogether unclear (and quite doubtful) that Samuel, Moses, and Elijah during their lives had put their faith specifically in Jesus. (Maybe they were grandfathered in?)

            Maybe an explanation of what you mean by conditional immortality would be helpful.

          • rogereolson

            Very simply, it is that human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, and given living souls by God, do not die when the body dies but continue to live by the grace of God.

  • Joshua

    I read this article as well (I came across the cover while waiting for my plane, and thought it would make for some great in-flight reading). Though the writing flowed seamlessly, the ideas certainly didn’t, and like you seem to be suggesting (if I read you correctly), it sets up a false dichotomy; one that at least Wright doubtfully would agree with.

    For most Christians, it’s not an either/or, and I believe the point of Wright’s book is to show that they are not on opposite ends of a spectrum – God’s Kingdom is being ushered into this world through the manifestation of His Spirit in the Church, and to be consummated in its fullness when Christ returns to take up his Kingship over the earth, where he establishes his reign. Have I missed something? I simply don’t know how you get something like an either/or option with Wright’s eschatology, when it seems to me that his point was to show the coherence of God’s Kingdom, not to parse it out and compartmentalize it between this life and this world and the next, which is what the group he is criticizing does.

  • Tim Reisdorf

    Rev 20:4-5 gives some interesting insight into the matter:

    “I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection.” NIV

    According to John’s vision, some (the martyrs) were alive in this scene well before the rest of the dead.

    While we can give John some flexibility for figurative language, surely it is not outlandish nor farfetched and fits within some general notion of what happens after death. People seem not to be resurrected immediately, though some seem to receive that sooner and others much later. If we assume that the martyrs’ resurrection is what the “this” is referring to as the first resurrection, what shall we say about those who were martyred in similar ways after that first wave of resurrections? What about John himself who died unmartyred – was he still dead and awaiting the resurrection ending the 1000 years?

    How does this mesh with Paul’s understanding of Christ’s return when the dead in Christ (presumably that includes the martyrs) shall rise to meet Christ? 1Thes 4

    And it seems to me that these 2 ideas differ with Jesus’ words spoken to the thief about Paradise in incompatible ways. Will the thief rise to meet Christ?

    My own sense about it might be best captured by the question: What does it mean for someone to die? Some might say, “It means that a person has been more or less immediately ‘translated’ into their new heavenly existence.” Some might say, “It means that a person is in some sort of stasis or sleep (not necessarily unconscience, but probably not hyper-aware) waiting for their time to wake up (Eph 5:14). I would tend to agree with the few that might say that a dead person no longer exists (except in the mind of God) (Is 38:18) and that the resurrection brings them back out of non-existence to reality – thus back to life.

    On this matter, I find solid answers quite elusive. The ones I do encounter, I find thin and sickly.

    • rogereolson

      I just think they are all somewhat speculative, so no dogma should be made about them. But one thing is clear, folk religion is wrong when it thinks the blessed hope is a disembodied, spiritual existence in some otherworldly heaven forever immediately after death (leaving out any future bodily resurrection).

      • Tim Reisdorf

        I agree with you. The Bible leaves little room for the continued and happy existence of a body-less being.

  • Robert Gargiulo

    From my reading of N.T. Wright books, including Surprised by Hope, he would completely agree with your affirmation of an intermediate state in paradise awaiting the resurrection. He agrees this is the traditional Christian view (which has been lost by contemporary Western Christians).

  • ao

    While I can’t speak for others, Wright’s criticism of the way many evangelical churches talk about heaven is spot on in my own experience in every evangelical church I’ve ever been in. In my circles, “going to heaven” necessarily means “escaping the earth.” I’ve been told repeatedly that the earth is going to be burned up in the end, leaving nothing but the spiritual (and NOT physical) domain of “heaven”, where we’ll all be forever. When Paul calls the resurrected body a “spiritual” body in 1 Cor. 15, we’ve interpreted that to mean that it’s NOT a physical body. Through our hymns, our sermons, our Bible studies, and our talk at funerals, we constantly reinforce the idea that death for the Christian means that you get to escape your physical body and the physical earth once and for all to go to heaven. And after judgment, you’ll be joined there by the rest of the Christians who haven’t gotten there yet. I’ve been taught that Christians who are dead right now are in their final, ultimate destination, and when we die (or when Judgment Day comes), we’ll join them, too.

    One time I gave a lesson at my church based on Col. 1, 1 Cor. 15, and Rom. 8. I made the argument the ultimate destiny of Jesus’ body, the Christian’s body, and the universe is resurrection and renewal. Afterwards, one of our elders came up to me and warned me about the dangers of my liberal doctrine. When I asked our leaders what counter-interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 or Rom. 8 they could offer, they just admitted that those passages are mysterious and puzzling, and we’re not going to really know what they mean until we all get to heaven.

    If my experience sounds foreign to you, then God bless your church experiences! I’ve just met so many Christians who espouse the very views that Wright criticizes in Surprised by Hope. That’s why Wright and his works on that subject are TIME magazine worthy to me.

    • rogereolson

      My experience confirms yours. Over my almost 30 years of teaching theology I have had numerous Christian students (these were mostly undergraduates, not seminary students) who asserted that my teaching about bodily resurrection and earth renewal was not what they had been taught in church. Many of them were ministers’ kids. To call it “liberal” is so ironic it’s pathetic. But I understand that idea is common. I suspect one reason for all this is funerals. At a funeral the pastor, who may know better, feels compelled to “comfort” the family by emphasizing the completeness and finality of the deceased person’s present condition “in heaven with Jesus.” Only at the grave does the pastor mumble a few words about resurrection, but the “faithful” don’t get it.

      • ao

        Great points!

      • Tim Reisdorf

        I think many who want to escape their body would be willing to live with a body if it simply didn’t have the frailty, diseases and scars. Shoot, I’d settle for that now without a second thought. :)

  • David Cavanagh

    I haven’t read “Surprised by Hope” but I have read all Wright’s books in the “Christian Origins” series, and “The Resurrection of the Son of God” is obviously relevant to this debate.

    It’s perfectly clear that Wright believes in an intermediate state. He insists that firse-century Judaism had various ways of affirming the survival of the individual after death, so “resurrection” is not just a way of saying that Jesus survived death. He memorably describes resurrection as “life after life after death”.

    What’s not clear is how this is to be integrated systematically into an overall view of what happens to us after death. If the intermediate state is just disembodied waiting, it’s rather hard to account for Paul’s enthusiasm to die and “be with Christ” as “far better” than continued living. In all fairness, it should be said that in RSOG Wright is writing as a historian or biblical studies scholar – his concern is to establish what the texts meant in their original context, not to synthesize the results into a systematic theology.

  • Steve Rogers

    One telling thing I’ve noticed is the tendency among those who hold the escape-the-earth/left behind view to also be pro gun, militaristic and antagonistic toward environmental concerns. One might conclude that, while they believe this earth is a lost cause, they’re ready to fight anyone they perceive to be threatening their comfort zone in the here and now.

    • Tim Reisdorf

      A more positive spin might be that they are pro “individual liberty”. They are generally very good people who believe in personal responsibility, private property, and limited government. They are pro-gun because they believe they have a right/duty to protect themselves and their families. They come across sometimes as antagonistic towards environmental concerns many times because they are suspicious of those who would encroach on their freedoms to use their land the way they want to – or they simply dissent as to the conclusions of science concerning these matters. While they certainly have tendencies to what this blog would call “folk religion”, I share many of their values and would be pleased to be counted among them.

      • Steve Rogers

        Tim,
        Could you show me one example of Jesus modeling an “individual liberty” mindset?

  • J Tucker

    Roger–What NT passages teach a disembodied intermediary state? Conscious joy and eternal life occur AFTER the resurrection (the HOPE for all believers to achieve immortality like Jesus), not before, according to Paul. So now we make Jesus and Paul contradict their own teachings and that of the early church for a teaching that came along years later (gnosticism, Greek philosophy) that the Roman Catholic church and others told us through the creeds and other writings must be so? Is that even orthodoxy? What is orthodox was once heresy my friend. If everyone goes somewhere, up or down, as the saying goes, then what is there a need for and doesn’t this diminish the resurrection of the DEAD??? What then does dead/death mean? The issue or problem here is w/ the interpretation of the canon as a whole and w/ a lack of Jewish authorian intent. Death is not the doorway into some intermediary state of consciousness: Solomon, Job, Daniel, Peter, Paul and Christ were very clear about this. The passages you refer to, I’m afraid, are obscure and are canceled out by the more clear teachings of Scripture on these issues in both Old and New Testaments.
    And lastly, how do you explain disembodied souls being sent to either heaven or hell, in conscious bliss or unimaginable punishment, before the Judgment Seat of Christ (for believers) and the Great White Throne Judgment (for the wicked)??? Are the wicked even promised eternal life?

    • rogereolson

      You are putting words in my mouth. I have never said what you suggest is my view in that last paragraph. I have always insisted on a distinction between “paradise” and “heaven” (as the promised new heaven and new earth where we will have resurrected bodies). You ask what NT passages teach a disembodied intermediate state? Numerous ones. I have posted about them here before. See my chapter on life after death in The Mosaic of Christian Belief. I’ll mention just one NT passage here. Matthew 27:52-53 clearly cannot be referring to resurrected bodies as the general resurrection of all the dead had not (and still has not) yet happened.

  • http://www.jonrising.blogspot.com Jon Rising

    Roger, thanks once again for a wonderfully clear article, this time on a topic that too often gets muddled up!

  • Ivan A. Rogers

    Is heaven up there or down here? My answer: BOTH! Yes, Adam’s death process began the very moment he disobeyed, but continued in transition until he attained the age of 930 years. Accordingly, it can truly be said that in the interim, Adam was a “dead man walking.” And we, his genus, walked the path of death in lock-step with Adam until Christ came to set our feet on the path of life. When Christ died and rose from the dead, so, too, did we — in him. Even so, many people find it difficult to believe that their old Adamic nature with its “dead works” (past, present, and future) has already been judged and is now deceased, having been nailed to the cross with Christ (see Col 2:13-15). They find it equally difficult to believe they have been miraculously ‘re-created’ with a new life in the resurrected Christ (see Eph 2:4-6). NOTE: If it is true that Christ has been raised to the “heavenlies (and we in him),” then it is equally true that we (on earth) are not only here, but also there in heaven. If it is true, as Jesus said, “…the time has come for me to leave this world and go to the Father” (Jn 13:1), and yet, say to his disciples, “I am with you always” (Mt 28:20), then, he is not only up there with the Father, but also down here with us. So what’s all this speculation about a so-called “intermediate” place?

    • rogereolson

      Ivan, you ask “what’s all this speculation about a so-called ‘intermediate’ place?” Please tell me where those who die in Christ go?

      • Ivan A. Rogers

        Roger: Those who “die in Christ” immediately go, in spirit, to be with Christ. For instance, as the world’s wisest man has written, “For then the dust will return to the earth, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Eccl 12:7 NLT). Or, “Yes, we are fully confident, and we would rather be away from these earthly bodies, for then we will be at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5:8 NLT).

        • rogereolson

          That’s the intermediate state (assuming you believe in a future bodily resurrection of all those who die in Christ or who are alive at his coming).

  • Travis

    I think I would differ to St. Oran’s conclusion; “The way you think it is is not the way it is, at all.”

  • http://WrightandtheIntermediateView John C. Gardner

    NT Wright has specifically stated in several works that there is an intermediate view(e.g. being with God in heaven or in the hands of God metaphysically) which is followed by resurrection and the New Heaven and New Earth.

    • rogereolson

      Of course he does. He’s orthodox. :)

  • http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profile/Norm Norman

    The idea of hades or the place of holding appears to be an Old Covenant definition that becomes superseded via the consummation of the new kingdom in NT proclamations. If one tends to read kingdom fulfillment language literally and not symbolically defined via the OT itself then indeed we die and reside in Hades, however if the lamb and the wolf lying down together points to an eschatological messianic fulfillment rescinding the old covenant then we may be overstepping by taking too much of this language literally.

    And if the Kingdom has been inaugurated and eternal life with God via the Garden reinstated fully through Christ then perhaps Rev 20’s destruction of Hades has taken place; and when the faithful enter their reward they no longer are held in Hadean limbo but enter God’s presence.

    Does the NT speak of the reality of Hades? You bet because they had not yet seen Christ putting His Old Covenant enemies fully under His feet yet, but He had promised them that within their generation they would see His prophetic fulfillment. Josephus confirms this OT like coming on clouds of judgment in AD70. And it wasn’t to inaugurate domestic and wild animals literally lying down together per Isaiah 11.

    That direct embrace by God post mortem sounds like something I would prefer rather than lingering in Hadean limbo no matter how much we try to paint it as a reasonable plight. The ancients surely didn’t like the thought of residing there. I would suggest immersing oneself in 2T literature beginning with Enoch to get a flavor of the problems that were attributed to Hades and its chains that confine. Thus Christ rescuing the captives/prisoners is not really about opening prison doors but rescuing those in bondage within Hades. It’s not where you want to be IMO and the Rev author appears to agree.
    Rev 20:13-14 … Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, … Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.
    Rev paints a contemporary picture of these events instead of positing them far off in the future.
    Rev 1:1 … to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.
    Rev 22:7 “And behold, I am coming soon. Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.” … “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done.

    • rogereolson

      In traditional Christian theology “hades” is the abode of those who died not in a state of grace. “Paradise” is its opposite counterpart–the place where those who died in Christ await the resurrection.

      • http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profile/Norm Norman

        Roger,

        I can’t really speak to Christendom and the variations that may have been proffered over the centuries concerning the difference between Paradise and Hades. Academically though I like to go to the era of the first century NT which is a product of 2Temple Judaism and not post first century Christendom. If we formulate our definitions from that era then we can more likely emulate the meaning as it was intended for its audience.

        The usage of Hades gradually came into vogue in 2T literature as a result of the Hellenization of the Jews post Alexander. It is similar to and typically replaces the term Sheol, the pit or the Grave in the manner it is applied. However it became much more descriptive and colorful and was used to illustrate vividly the wretchedness of “death” and the grave. It is used to illustrate Judaism’s plight due to Adam’s fall resulting in “death” and the separation from God. It however is not just the plight of the wicked but the realm of the faithful also who were being held there until the day of judgment of Messiah. However within Hades there were differences for the faithful and the wicked.

        Conversely Paradise is the extreme opposite of Hades and death and means God’s Garden abode for the faithful endowed with eternal life. However Paradise is what Adam lost thus being relegated to the pit, grave, hades or the death until Christ frees the righteous faithful from that realm of despair. But also Paradise is what Christ restored and that is the gift of faith that the thief on the cross was promised by Christ. Christ when he rose from the tomb he freed the prisoners from hadean death.
        Luk 23:43 and Jesus said to him, `Verily I say to thee, To-day with me thou shalt be in the paradise.’

        So if your premise is correct, then from a first century 2T perspective those in Paradise never tasted death or separation from God. That idea would have turned what is being taught throughout the OT and NT on its head and would have left the audience scratching their head on how one could postulate such an idea.

        We can see these Jewish concepts of being freed from Hades fairly clearly in this section of Acts and in Ephesians where Christ does not remain in Hades but is raised up. Christ defeats death and rescues the ancient worthies from Sheol/Hades and us as well from being relegated there. We are indeed in the Garden/Paradise of God just as Adam was when he was placed in the Garden and with it comes the gift of eternal life. The old covenant of Israel was the body of sin and death while the new covenant of Christ is the Kingdom of life eternal and not another realm of the “dead”.
        Act 2:27-32 because THOU WILT NOT LEAVE MY SOUL TO HADES, nor wilt Thou give Thy Kind One to see corruption; … it is permitted to speak with freedom unto you concerning the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is among us unto this day; (30) a prophet, therefore, being, and knowing that with an oath God did swear to him, out of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, TO RAISE UP THE CHRIST, to sit upon his throne, (31) having foreseen, he did speak concerning THE RISING AGAIN OF THE CHRIST, THAT HIS SOUL WAS NOT LEFT TO HADES, nor did his flesh see corruption. (32) `THIS JESUS DID GOD RAISE UP, of which we are all witnesses;

        Eph 4:8-10 Therefore it says, “WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH HE LED A HOST OF CAPTIVES, and he gave gifts to men.” (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that HE HAD ALSO DESCENDED INTO THE LOWER REGIONS, THE EARTH? (the Pit/Hades nv) HE WHO DESCENDED IS THE ONE WHO ALSO ASCENDED far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)

        These ideas above about Hades and death are much more richly illustrated in 2T literature which provides us with much of the background to understand the mindset of the first century audience.

        However Revelation brings the case home when it says that Adams lost tree of life resides in the Garden Paradise of God. If Adam and all the Heb 11 worthies resided in the Garden then they were not fallen and in need of redemption from the Pit/Hades.

        Rev 2:7 He who is having an ear–let him hear what the Spirit saith to the assemblies: To him who is overcoming–I WILL GIVE TO HIM TO EAT OF THE TREE OF LIFE THAT IS IN THE MIDST OF THE PARADISE OF GOD.

        Simply the idea of Paradise as the realm of the faithful dead does not match the context of the OT, NT and 2T literature but Sheol, the Pit, the grave, death and Hades do until redemption and consummation of the Kingdom of Christ.

        • rogereolson

          I have the feeling you haven’t understood my view of “personal eschatology” or individual life after death. I think you are reading into it what is not there. I never said that the faithful dead were already in paradise before Christ died. But I do believe there is a “place” that SOME of the New Testament calls paradise where the dead in Christ are awaiting the final general resurrection. Who go there when and so forth is not spelled out in Scripture. I don’t invest final theological authority in extra-canonical literature even though some of it is helpful (as you point out). What’s unclear to me yet is whether you believe there is a “place” of being “with Christ” between bodily death and the general resurrection. Please say what you believe about that and we can go from there. I am sensing that you are an advocate of what is called “soul sleep,” but I’m not sure. Be clear, please.

          • http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profile/Norm Norman

            Roger,

            Yes, I may have misunderstood you; I was trying to interpret your last post which possibly threw me off somewhat. No, I’m not an advocate of soul sleep. I believe that we don’t reside anywhere separate from God upon our deaths and therefore we enter into His and Christ Presence immediately. I can’t say what that is going to look like because scripture doesn’t really “flesh” that out as far as I can tell. However I’m not an advocate of a physically restored earth although God can certainly do that if that is what He intends to do.

            When you talk of resurrection I guess the question is whether you are speaking of corporate National resurrection of the dead as we see addressed in Ezk 37 and Dan 12 IMO, or individual resurrection of the dead as we see in Christ bodily resurrection. I see evidence of both in the NT and they are interrelated since the individual resides in the corporate body. If the corporate body is raised then those individual’s within that body are covenantally bound and are members also of Christ resurrection. That’s why I believe we go to be with God and Christ immediately upon our deaths if we are in Christ. No waiting around. Is there a reason that you think we have to wait somewhere else perhaps?

            I definitely don’t think we reside in Hades as I believe scriptures point to that being discarded with the old covenant and the putting away of the Law, Priest and animal sacrifices. Typically the reason being is AD70 was the fulfilled anticipated messianic judgment that brought about the consummated end of the Old and the stamp of full covenant reality upon the New Kingdom. This makes sense of a lot of the NT when you read it in that manner. Also Roger don’t be so restrictive concerning the extra-canonical literature, the NT is chock full of excerpts, allusions and quotes from them. We Protestants may not have an affinity to them but the NT writers sure seemed to. In fact it’s a disadvantage to not have serious background knowledge of pieces like Enoch, Jubilees, Psalm of Solomon, 4 Ezra and the NT like commentary called the epistle of Barnabas. Just those pieces there will shed a tremendous amount of light upon the mindset of the first century Christian worldview. If we really want to understand the NT we need to understand their culture and what influenced them and our canonical OT was not their only source of enlightenment by a long shot.

            Thanks for the opportunity to post my thoughts
            And Roger make no mistake about it that I truly appreciate your work, otherwise I wouldn’t be checking your articles out on a regular basis. It doesn’t mean I agree with you everywhere but I do like much of the flavor or your work.

            Norm

          • rogereolson

            Thank you. I’m still not clear about your view. Do you believe that upon bodily death believers are immediately in the resurrection? That would require a kind of time warp in which the resurrection has already happened–for those who have died in Christ. I find Scripture passages that contradict that, but I’m not sure that’s what you’re advocating. It is what my good friend Stan Grenz believed and I have blogged about that before, but if you say that’s your view, I’ll be happy to repeat my arguments against it–that I made to him before he died. (We argued about this a lot! Now that he’s gone to be with the Lord in paradise, he knows I was right! :)

          • http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profile/Norm Norman

            Roger,

            If the idea that a corporate raising of Israel is what Christ accomplished through His death and resurrection then the natural outcome seems to be the new Body of Christ (the church and its members). The old Body of Moses which never entered the Promised Land but died viewing it from afar was comprised of the members of the body of death with Adam as its figurehead. We however have been baptized into Christ just as those of the old covenant church were baptized into Moses.

            Rom 6:3 Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death?… 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
            1Co 10:1-2 … that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all were baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

            My thinking is that if Israel was in need of raising; then Christ has already taken care of that issue. Therefore as members therein we have all the rights of eternal life that Christ achieved for Israel and the Gentiles who are grafted in and baptized into Him and His death and resurrection. Of course there is an ongoing personal resurrection for each and every individual who receives their reward for faithfulness through Christ. I don’t know why we can’t experience what Christ experienced at His resurrection if we have been freed juridically from the bondage of Deaths separation from God. IMO the definition of being in Christ and partakers of eternal life means we as sons of God have that right established for us.

            Now you may find scriptures that contradict that position because in my opinion the NT was written in the 40 year New Exodus of the New covenant Israel. If the Promised Land discussed in Heb 3 & 4 is the end of the old covenant and the beginning of the new then perhaps the promised land of consummation was established at the second Temple Judgment of Judaism in AD70 (I think that was about 40 years). Therefore much of the language that looks forward is often in anticipation of that coming prophetic fulfillment of Christ made during the Olivet discourse.

            Heb 8:7-9 For if that first covenant had been without fault, then no place would have been sought for the second.
            …”Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant,
            13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And WHAT IS BECOMING OBSOLETE AND GROWING OLD IS READY TO VANISH AWAY.

            I believe juridically the old covenant was firmly put away beginning with Christ life, death, resurrection and finally His coming in Judgment against the Old Covenant in fulfillment of the Law and the prophets. If it has indeed had the nails driven into its coffin lid then theologically there is no reason why the faithful of the New Covenant cannot enter into full eternal life when the time for their reward occurs.

            Heb 9:8- The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing.
            9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper.

            Hebrews above demonstrates that the Temple sacrificial system was still ongoing and it needed to be firmly set-aside as a demonstration of Jesus endowed with the Power of God as illustrated in the OT. The Jews knew what the destruction of the Temple meant as far as God still embracing them as the chosen covenant people. Since they had gone through the first Temple destruction and exile they understood its implications. So juridically the lawful fulfillment of judgment occurred and leaves only the covenant Kingdom of Jesus Christ with all its blessings.

            That’s the way I see it Roger so I don’t believe a time warp is needed but perhaps instead the recognition of legal fulfillment occurred as required. I could be wrong but ultimately I place my trust in God to provide as He deems for the faithful.

            Roger I would be honored to see your conversation refuting your late good friend Stan Grenz if it has bearing upon what I am presenting.

            Blessings

            Norm
            PS. Sorry I had to reply in the wrong location but there was no reply option in place where this response should go

          • rogereolson

            I have posted here before a rather lengthy essay including Scripture verses supporting my belief in a disembodied intermediate state between bodily death and bodily resurrection. I will try to find that and post it again sometime soon. Watch for it.

  • http://LostCodex.com DRT

    About a year ago I looked at all of the occurrences of “heaven” in the NIV and wrote up my findings. In short, the bible never says we are going to heaven. Wright indeed does talk about “life after life after death” as his primary view.

    My analysis.

    http://lostcodex.com/2011/05/a-new-universalism-no-one-is-going-to-heaven/

  • Pingback: “Resurrection of the dead” is for real « Rev. Brent L. White

  • http://www.daviddflowers.com David D. Flowers

    Roger, why would you ever refer to the “new heaven and earth” as “heaven” (where God is presently)? This is the very thing that Wright is challenging in Surprised by Hope. It is partly why he believes (and I agree) that there is so much confusion.

    The fact of the matter is that this misunderstanding is clearly evident in the language of evangelicals everywhere. The “Paradise” spoken of by Jesus to the thief on the cross (a real conscious existence) is synonymous with the heaven (God’s realm/space) that Paul expected to enter upon his death, and that John sees in the early part of his vision (Rev 4 & 5). The “new heaven and earth” is a resurrected world for our resurrected bodies (Rev 21). So, the confusion comes by using “heaven” to describe post-mortem life after death in God’s realm, and life after the resurrection of the dead and restoration of creation. They are not the same, and the Scripture doesn’t refer to them as being the same.

    If I might be so bold, continuing to speak of God’s present reality AND our future reality as “heaven” is to disregard the Jewish hope contained in a contextual reading of the Old and New Testaments. And you appear to be making much more of an intermediate state than the Scriptures actually tell us. Putting that aside, as it seems to be inconsequential to what is indeed plain about God’s future, there is still no good reason to confuse God’s present reality (heaven) with our future resurrected reality (new heaven and earth).

    In the end, it only perpetuates the D.L. Moody reductionist gospel of “going to heaven” when you die, and misses the importance of a physical resurrection and a restoration of God’s good creation. This is why Wright is so passionate about this issue, and why I resonate with that passion.

    • rogereolson

      You have entirely misunderstood me. I don’t want to repeat what I wrote. Please go back and re-read it. I agree with Wright. But the Bible does sometimes use “heaven” for God’s eternal home (where we will join him after the resurrection in a new heaven and new earth). We will be in paradise “with Christ” until then. But don’t ask me to sort it all out in some sort of precise system. The Bible doesn’t give us that.

      • http://www.daviddflowers.com David D. Flowers

        So what passage did you cite that indicates “heaven” is the future resurrected reality?

        • rogereolson

          Revelation 21:1-2.

          • http://www.daviddflowers.com David D. Flowers

            Roger, I have read your post and all of your comments. Referencing Rev 21:1-2 seems to only further the point I made above. There is a clear difference between “heaven” as a present reality (God’s space), and the new heaven and earth as a future reality. Therefore, our eternal home is not described as “heaven” but as the new heaven and earth. As I said before, it only adds to the confusion among evangelicals to talk about our eternal home as “heaven” when that is a plain misreading of the entire biblical narrative. God’s desire is to bring the two spheres together, consummating heaven and earth for a new resurrected world.

          • rogereolson

            You’re out doing me in this regard! My students find it upsetting enough that I ask them to reserve “heaven” to the future new heaven and new earth spoken of in Revelation 21. I think it’s okay to use “heaven” as shorthand for “the new heaven and new earth,” but not for paradise.

  • http://patheos RYoder

    Some Christians oppose cremation because of their belief in resurrection. How would you answer them?

    • rogereolson

      See my response to your other comment/question.

      • http://patheos RYoder

        I am missing something, haven’t seen any response on cremation.

        • rogereolson

          I responded to one person’s question about it. There were two or three. Cremation is fine. Dead bodies decay and eventually dissolve anyway. To a person who argues against cremation on the basis that God has to have something to resurrect I simply say you don’t understand what happens to bodies after they die. Embalming simply slows down the decaying process. It takes a miracle regardless of whether a body is cremated or just decays. And one miracle isn’t harder for God than another.

  • Mike Hoffman

    On Cremation, I believe Prof. Olson is correct about not limiting God’s absolute power to resurrect rotted flesh, mere bones, ashes or remains that have been obliterated (think Hiroshima and Nagasaki). What Prof. Olson is perhaps missing is the symbolism of the act of cremation. The human body reduced to ashes is a degraded thing in Scripture (Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Malachi 4:3; 2 Peter 2:6). Therefore, while God most certainly has the power to reconstruct the post-mortem body in whatever state it may be in, as a result of warfare, fire, drowning, catastrophic accident or simple decay over time, for the Christian believer to volunteer to reduce his body to ashes is, at the very least, problematic in terms of public testimony and witness.

    Though much has been made by Bishop N.T. Wright and others of the derogation by the historic Church of the resurrection of the body as part of our future hope, nonetheless it is worthwhile to note that the Church placed sufficient emphasis on resurrection to condemn voluntary cremation of the bodies of believers. Why? Cremation has the potential to convey a public impression of denial of the sacredness of the body and its resurrection. A Christian who consents to the cremation of his corpse is offering to the world an act that in terms of its symbolism, is decidedly unedifying and one that lends itself to the sense that significance of the body in the plan of Christian salvation is being denied. Consequently, emphasizing the resurrection while suggesting that cremation is a perfectly acceptable option for the Christian, sows confusion and smacks of a double-minded mentality. I respectfully submit that cremation is not “fine.”

    • rogereolson

      Or another way of looking at it is that consenting to have your body (and casket and huge concrete burial vault) take up precious land forever is a misuse the environment. I’ve never heard your argument before and, frankly, it just doesn’t make any sense to me. It seems to me that argument could be used to support mummifying Christians’ bodies to show how strongly they believe in the resurrection.

      • Mike Hoffman

        You have never heard my argument before? On what basis do you feel the Church historically proscribed cremation?
        Yours is a very revolutionary view – hundreds of millions of Christians throughout history are guilty of “misusing” the environment.
        Moreover, your premise supposes the disparagement of cemeteries as a waste of environmental resources when, in fact, they have been places that invoke in the living repose, meditation and an awareness of the inevitability of death.
        You have not addressed this fact: The human body reduced to ashes is a degraded thing in Scripture (Isaiah 66:24; Daniel 12:2; Malachi 4:3; 2 Peter 2:6)…for the Christian believer to volunteer to reduce his body to ashes is, at the very least, problematic…

        • rogereolson

          This subject is of no real interest to me. Feel free to have your body buried where it will turn into dust and take up precious room that could be used to grow crops for starving people. I’ll be cremated, as many devout Christians are (by their own instructions) and trust God to work his miracle of resurrection on my dust (if that’s how it works) which will be no harder for him to do than to raise bodies that were just buried a day before he returns.

  • Timothy

    This comment may belong on this post but I think I saw somewhere that Roger affirmed bodily resurrection but not physical bodily resurrection. Having reread NTW on 1 Cor 15 I am inclined to think that NTW equates the two. He would affirm a different kind of physicality to cohere with the new earth on which the resurrected person lives. This leads to the other observation. NTW argues strenuously for NOT seeing our ultimate home as heaven. Heaven seems to be a waiting room for the disembodied intermediate state that Roger calls paradise. NTW calls it heaven. The future is not that we end up in heaven but that heaven ends up here where the resurrected are.

    • rogereolson

      The terminology gets very complicated, doesn’t it? To me “physical” means material. It may not mean that to everyone. Paul specifically calls the resurrection body a “soma pneumatikos.” To me that rules out thinking of it as material in any ordinary sense of the word. But he equally emphasizes that it is a body continuous in some mysterious way with the body that is buried. Our best image of what it is is Jesus’ raised body. He ate but also walked through walls/doors. Obviously we can only imagine, not picture or perfectly describe, what that existence is. The issue here is to avoid two errors: 1) thinking of the resurrection in terms of immortality of souls without bodies, and 2) thinking of the resurrection as resuscitation of a corpse.

      • Timothy

        NTW is very categoric that in the ancient world the spirit was material. Seems daft to me but that is his contention. And this is a matter of worldview rather than intelligence; it seems that they were able to hold these together in a way that we cannot. But the bottom line is that for the world of Paul and his correspondents, according to NTW, bodily meant physical.

        • rogereolson

          Of all the church fathers, the only one I know of who was a “materialist” (i.e., believed everything, including God, is some form of matter) was Tertullian. Yes, there were Greek philosophers who believed everything is some form of matter, but I think their idea of matter was far different from ours. And “ours” is being superceded now by scientific discoveries seeming to show that even what we call matter is some form of energy. Maybe the idealists were right all along and all is mind or consciousness? Well, I don’t think so. But it seems more likely than that all is material.