A Passing Thought about Heaven and Hell

A fleeting thought passed through my mind a few days ago: why do religious folk have such a longing for an afterlife (if such there be)? In my case, since I have persistently, for good or ill, continued to associate myself with those Bible-thumping Baptists, it would be the blessed afterlife of the Christian Heaven. The only options one is given in Baptist theology for the afterlife is Heaven or Hell—and I have no interest in spending eternity in a Baptist Hell (if such there be). It turns out, however, descriptions of Hell in the New Testament are quite minimal. In general, Hell is described as a “place” of torment in fire¹ and the absence of God (Matt 25:31-46). If one was not all that religious throughout one’s earthly life, the absence of God might not be a bother, and a burning of one’s spirit/soul (if such there be) in a (nonphysical) fire might not seem that fearsome, since it is not a burning of one’s physical flesh and bones.² Hence, Hell may be a place of suffering, but not physical suffering. How much can a nonphysical fire hurt a gathering of (nonphysical) spirit “molecules,” one wonders.

Spending eternity in the Christian Heaven, on the other hand, might not be that satisfying either. The New Testament only speaks obliquely or metaphorically³ about Heaven. Compare, for example, the description of Heaven as a physically buffed-up version of a new Jerusalem, although the Christian Heaven is obviously a nonexistent spirit “space” (Rev 21). What takes place in Heaven is, hopefully, also expressed in images. Denizens of Heaven will forever (I Thess 4:16-18) spend their time praising God (Rev 5:11-13; 19:4-8), serving/worshiping God (Rev 7:13-17; 22:3), and extolling God in song (Rev 14:1-3). It sounds roughly like a morning worship service in a post-reformation church of any variety. Doing that all day,⁴ day in and day out, forever, could become a bit tedious, perhaps, and lead one, like the ancient Israelites, to think fondly of what was left behind—the “fleshpots” of life on earth (Exod 16:3), so to speak. Even divinely-prepared activities, like diets (Exod 16:8, 12, 13-16, 31) for example, would tend to become a little old over time (Exod 16:35).

            The creation was once the apple of God’s eye (Gen 1:31), but the primordial couple outraged God, and he cursed the created order as well (Gen 3:16-19)—so goes the biblical narrative. On the other hand, most of us have found that our proverbial three score and ten (Ps 90:9-10), or so, has also brought physical, mental, and emotional pleasure and offered us the opportunity to grow and develop in mind, body, and spirit; to enjoy creation’s diversity; to delight in those sensual pleasures innate to the flesh, and join to become one with another for the journey of life (Gen 2:23-24). Life, even in a fallen universe with its many downsides (viz. cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other terminal diseases for which there is yet no known cure) is still a great ride.  The major disappointments have been life’s brevity and the inevitable goodbyes.

            Of course, there may be more diversity to Heaven and less torment to Hell (if such there be) than the biblical writers were aware-of. In both afterlife scenarios, we are only dealing with ideas expressed in one religious tradition. There were other views in antiquity. In the faith of the ancient Israelites, for example, the dead went to Sheol, a common collective afterlife for the departed dead, much like the ancient Greek belief in Hades,⁵ initially a place for all the departed.⁶ Modern ecclesiastical beliefs about Heaven are usually much rosier than we find in the Bible, and contemporary views of Hell are likely to have been influenced to some degree by Dante’s Inferno.⁷

            I called it a passing thought, and so it was, but, after reflecting on it, my reflections led me to this longer essay. I suppose you, reader, have thoughts on the subject?

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

¹Mark 9:43; Matt 13:49-50; Matt 25:41; Rev 14:9-11, 20:12-15, 21:8; Jude 6-7.

²Who knows what a burning of a spirit/soul means, except it is not physical torture.

³A metaphor is an image describing one thing in terms appropriate to another.

⁴Of course, there would be no “days” in the sense of 24 hours, which is tied to the rotation of the earth around the sun, besides there is no night in Heaven (Rev 21:25; 22:5).

⁵Hedrick, Wry Thoughts about Religion, “The Land of Forgetfulness”: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=sheol

⁶See Alan Segal, “Afterlife,” New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1989), 1.65-68; Richard Bauckham, “Hades, Hell,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, 1992), 3.14-15.

⁷Dante Alighieri, the Divine Comedy, part one is the Inferno. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/langdon-the-divine-comedy-vol-1-inferno-english-trans

Do Deceased Believers Sleep until the Resurrection?

To judge from 1 Cor 7:1-40 Paul believed in the imminent appearing of the Lord and that the final resurrection would occur within his own lifetime. Otherwise he likely would not have made such unreasonable demands on believers.¹ Paul seemed to think that believers alive in his day would live to see the final resurrection (1 Thess 4:13-18).² But what of those who had died earlier? It is a question that still plagues pious believers and systematic theologians.

If one thinks that Paul and other early believers had some insight into answering this question, one might be led to believe that the soul of a believer who dies is immediately translated into the presence of the Lord (2 Cor 5:6-10; Phil 1:21-23; Luke 23:39-43; Rev 6:9-11, 7:13-17). But Paul’s comments in 1 Thess 4:13-18 suggest that such may not be the case. Paul’s final words in this passage (i.e., “and so we shall always be with the Lord”) raise the question of where dead believers were before they were resurrected if they were not at that moment with the Lord? Shouldn’t deceased Christians have gone to be with the Lord as soon as they died? If Paul was right in 2 Cor 5:6-9 dead believers should have been accompanying the Lord on his return. As Paul said to living believers in 1 Thess 3:13: may the Lord establish your hearts unblameable in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints. Paul’s statement in 1 Thess 3:13 seems to be in direct contradiction to 1 Thess 4:13-17. Apparently one can make either argument from the Bible: the souls of believers sleep till the resurrection or they go directly to be with the Lord.

            This kind of dissonance in the New Testament has led some to project an intermediate state between a believer’s death and the resurrection, which some refer to as “soul sleeping.”³ In other words when believers die, their bodies decay but their souls sleep (1 Thess 4:14) until they are awakened at the resurrection by the Lord’s cry of command, the archangel’s call and the sounding of God’s trumpet (1 Thess 4:16).

The theory of soul sleeping may have evolved out of the similarity that biblical writers find between sleep and death. For example when Stephen was killed, he is quoted as saying: “Lord do not hold this sin against them.” And the author of Acts adds: “And when he had said this he fell asleep. And Saul was consenting to his death” (Acts 7:59-8:1; see also, Mark 5:39-40; John 11:11-15; Dan 12:2; 1 Cor 11:30; 15:6, 20; Jer 51:39, 57: Ps 13:3). Indeed, the states of sleep and death resemble one another so closely that at a certain point even today one cannot immediately tell one state from the other.⁴

The truth of the matter is, however, that no one, not even the biblical writers, knows for certain what happens when life leaves the body. What we think we know is based on our faith or lack of it. At least one author of a biblical book apparently agrees that knowledge of what happens when we die is known to no one. The author of Ecclesiastes writes: “All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all return to dust again. Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth” (Eccl 3:20-21 RSV; compare 9:10).⁵

How do you see it?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹That he recognized the demands to be unreasonable is suggested by 1 Cor 7:20-21, where he was willing to suspend his rule in all the churches of remaining as you are and allowed slaves to gain their freedom.

²As he put it to his readers: “The dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive…”(1 Thess 4:17).

³See the discussion in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism

⁴https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK252967/ ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death

⁵In the epilogue Eccl 12:7 must be read in the light of Eccl 3:19-21 and 9:10.

Of Prophets and Prophecies

In the biblical tradition a prophet is believed to be an individual God has selected as spokesperson to deliver a particular message in a particular ancient context. The prophet can be male or female (Exod 15:20-21; Jdg 4:4; 2 Kgs 22:14; 2 Chron 34:22; Neh 6:14; Isa 8:3; Luke 2:36; 1 Cor 11:4-5). The God of biblical faith apparently did not practice gender discrimination in selecting people for the responsible role of prophet (as New Testament writers did: 1 Tim 2:8-15). A prophecy is believed to be a communication originating with God/the spirit of God that is directly transmitted through the prophet (Deut 18:18;1 Sam 10:10; 2 Chron 18:10-11; Jer 14:13-16, 26:12; Ez 37:1-10, 38:14-23; Amos 7:12-17, 8:1-14; 2 Pet 1:21): the voice is the voice of the prophet but the words are believed to be the words/Word of God (Jdg 6:7-10; 2 Kgs 21:10-12, 24:2; Zech 7:7-12; Luke 1: 67-79; Heb 1:1). Prophecies take various forms. For example, a prophecy may be a doxology (Exod 15:20-21), a psalm (Luke 1:67-79), a rebuke (Jer 26:12-13), a prediction (John 11:49-52), or even an act of a prophet (Jer 13:1-11).

            Nevertheless believing that God was speaking through the prophet did not ensure that God actually was speaking through the prophet, which raised questions about the source of the prophecy (1 Kgs 22:5-20). This in turn led to the recognition that not all prophets were sent by God, but some were false prophets (Matt 7:15; 2 Pet 2:1: 1 John 4:1). And apparently some believed that God even sent forth lying spirits to deceive the prophets (1 Kgs 22:20-23). How should one then distinguish between true prophets, false prophets, and deceived prophets? It is not unlike a problem that contemporary church folk have: how does one identify an authentic word from God (if such there be) amidst all the contradictory religious teachings of today’s religious groups both Christian and other than Christian?

The answer that the ancient Israelites came up with was the following: if the word does not come to pass or come true then it is not a word that the Lord has spoken” (Deut 18:15-22). That only works, however, with predictions, and there were some predictions that the biblical texts represent as true sayings of God that did not come true—as, for example, the prophecy that there would always be a descendant of David ruling Israel (2 Sam 7:1-13; Jer 33:17-18). Today, however, Israel is no longer a monarchy, and its leaders do not claim descent from David! Here is a second failed prophecy: Ezekiel prophesied that the ancient city of Tyre would be utterly destroyed and no longer inhabited (Ezek 26:15-21), but today Tyre is a thriving city in Lebanon.

Early Christians co-opted some of the “Old Testament” prophecies to prove that the founding events of their faith had been foreseen by the prophets. The theory behind this way of reading the “Old” Testament must have gone something like this: We are in a new situation and the old covenants obviously no longer apply to the new people of God (Jer 31:31-34; Heb 8:8-13). For the new people of God everything is new (2 Cor 5:17). But on the other hand they also believed that the Word of the Lord would live forever (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Pet 1:24-25). They reasoned that it is simply not possible that a word of the Lord could be rendered obsolete after being spoken in its original context. What the prophet spoke lives on to apply to future contexts as well. Therefore the word of the Lord can also apply to the early Christians in their new situation. From that perspective Matthew read Isaiah in the light of the new people of God (Matt 1:18-23).

For example, Matthew took the prophecy that Isaiah made to King Ahaz of Judah during a political crises in the eighth century BCE. The birth of a peasant child to a nameless young woman, Isaiah said, prophesied God’s presence with his people and the survival of the Kingdom of Judah (Isa 7:1-25) in that ancient context. The prophecy came true; Judah did survive. Matthew, however, focused on only one verse in the passage (Isa 7:14) and ignored the ancient context and the fact that the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah’s day. He asserted that the prophecy also related to the birth of Jesus (Matt 1:18-23). “Hooks” in the verse written by Isaiah making Matthew’s explanation of Isaiah 7:14 seem plausible are the words “virgin” and “Immanuel.”¹ On the basis of only two words Matthew ignores the plain meaning of Isaiah’s fulfilled prophecy and finds a deeper spiritual level to the passage, by reading it in the light of later Christian faith.²

In my view, however, Matthew has simply misused Isaiah in an attempt to justify early Christian belief. The kindest thing one can say about such an approach is that it simply is not a cogent reading of Isaiah—particularly in the light of Paul’s comment that prophecies are imperfect (1 Cor 13:9) and will pass away (1 Cor 13:8). In other words, Isa 7:14 related only to Judah in the political crisis of the eighth century BCE.

How does it seem to you?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

¹The word virgin (parthenos) only appears in the Septuagint (Greek version of Hebrew Bible). The Hebrew reads ‘almah, a young woman (of marriageable age).

²See Hedrick, “Prophecy Fulfilled or simply Creative Reading,” Wry Thoughts about Religion, Friday February 14, 2014: http://blog.charleshedrick.com/search?q=prophecy

Armageddon and the Apocalypse

Modern day "prophets" are continuously warning us that Armageddon¹ or the Apocalypse² or the Day of the Lord is near. They claim to know "the signs of the times," and describe certain historical events as harbingers of the end—precursors to the day of the Lord. They base their dire predictions on what they regard as ancient biblical prophecies that have predicted certain events in our day, which they think will trigger an end-time scenario. They hope to persuade us through fear, and entangle us in their webs of misinformation.

 

            "Prophets" have been predicting the end of the world from Judeo-Christian texts at least since the Isaiah Apocalypse (24-27), and there is no lack of such people in the public media today. When their prophecies fail, as they inevitably must, they recalibrate the time of the end, and then these also fail. Eventually these self-styled "prophets" pass from public view—only to be replaced by other such "prophets."

 

            In the New Testament the "book ends" of end-time speculations are provided by the earliest writer (Paul) and the latest writer (the author of Second Peter). The end-time in Second Peter (middle second century) is generic—a simple prediction that the world will end at some unspecified future time, and includes an encouragement to live holy and godly lives, but with few specifics as to what that lifestyle includes (2 Pet 3:1-14).

 

Do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet 3:8).

 

The day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up (2 Pet 3:10).

 

Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these [events], be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace (2 Pet 3:14).

 

Paul, on the other hand, imagines that the end of the world is actually happening in his own day in the middle first century (1 Cor 7:26, 29; 1 Cor 10:11). In the face of this present crisis he attempts a bit of social engineering in the daily lives of his readers. For example, here is his rule in all the churches: in view of the fact that the end of the world is now happening, people should remain in the social circumstances in which they find themselves (1 Cor 7:17, 20). Hence, if one is a slave, "never mind" (1 Cor 7:21).³ If circumcised, don't try to remove the marks of circumcision; if not circumcised, don't seek circumcision (7:18). If unmarried, or a widow, one should stay single (7:8). If married, a wife should not separate from her husband, and if she does she should remain single; and for the husband—no divorces (7:11-13). If one is living with a "virgin"⁴ either marry her or not, it makes no difference (7:36-38), but he preferred that people remain single as he was (1 Cor 7:8).

 

            There have been many attempts to predict the precise time of the end, and such attempts have always been able to attract a gullible audience for their nonsense. What usually happens is that the predictions fail, and then the "prophet" recalibrates the time of the end, which also fails in its turn. This, for example, was what happened in the case of the early nineteenth-century end-time "prophet," William Miller, leader of the Millerites, who predicted the return of Christ in 1843 or 1844.⁵

 

            If one gets hooked in the nets of these admittedly charismatic figures, prepare to be disappointed—as all have been through the years. People simply cannot predict the future and that statement includes even the authors of the biblical texts. Believing the predictions of modern day "prophets" will not make them come true—as the uniform experience of history proves.⁶ The fact that none of these prophetic figures through history have been correct is the one certain datum of such speculations about the end.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

¹Armageddon; see Revelation 16:12-16. The word appears only once in the Bible.

 

²Apocalypse is a disclosure or revelation. As used of the end, it is the uncovering of the secrets of the end of the world.

 

³Paul, however, violates his rule, and concedes that if slaves have the opportunity to secure freedom, they should seize it.

 

⁴"Virgin" (Parthenos; παρθένος) in this passage (1 Cor 7:36-40) is usually translated "betrothed." James Moffat, however, translates it "a maid who is a spiritual bride."

 

⁵https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_(preacher).

 

⁶See John R. Hall, Apocalypse. From Antiquity to the Empire of Modernity (2009), 147-56.

Parsing the Resurrection of the Christ

Christian communities in the West celebrate Easter this year on Sunday March 27, but the Easter celebration in Orthodox Christianity will not happen until May 1, 2016.  Easter, as virtually everyone in this country knows, celebrates the revivifying of the dead Christ.  At some point between 26 and 36 of the Common Era Jesus was crucified near Jerusalem (Mark 15:22; John 19:17-20) under the administration of the Romans. There are no eyewitness accounts describing either crucifixion or resurrection that are contemporary with the event. The earliest mention of the resurrection is little more than a formulaic confession, which is thought to derive from the early Palestinian Christians, some 20 years or so before Paul; he quoted the brief confession in a letter (ca 50):

 

            I have delivered to you [the Corinthian Christians] as of first importance what I also received,

            That Christ died for our sins

                        according to the scriptures,

            and that he was buried,

            and that he was raised on the third day

                        according to the scriptures,

            and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve (1 Cor 15:3-5 RSV).

 

The confession is frustrating in its lack of detail.  It doesn't describe specifically what the disciples saw; did Christ appear bodily (compare, Matt 27:51-53); did they have a vision (Acts 9:10, 17), or a dream (Matt 1:20-21)?  Did they see a spirit (Luke 24:37) or a phantom (Mark 6:49)?  Perhaps they only saw his "angel" (Acts 12:15)?  The nature of the experience is conditioned by what they saw, or thought they saw.

 

            Paul himself had no personal knowledge of what had occurred earlier except for what he learned through the confessional report.  He himself claimed, however, to have had an experience similar to what is suggested by the Palestinian confession (1 Cor 15:8; Gal 1:15-16), but he does not describe this experience further (but compare another claim, 2 Cor 12:7-9).

 

            Paul's early analysis of the post-crucifixion "sighting" by the Palestinian followers of Christ finds it to be a spiritual experience, which specifically denies that the Christ was seen in some sort of bodily state (1 Cor 15:44, 50).  In short, the physical remains of the Christ had been transformed (1 Cor 15:20, 51-53), and he came forth a "life-giving spirit" (1 Cor 15:21-22, 45).

 

            Some twenty years or so after Paul, the gospel writer we call Mark in describing the origins of the gospel that his church preached (Mark 1:1) reports only that Jesus was raised (16:6); there are no reports of sightings. Only an empty tomb and the promise that he could be seen in Galilee (16:7) greeted the mourners coming to the tomb that first Easter morning; it was a terrifying experience (16:8).  Towards the end of the first century the resurrection state of the Christ has become something more substantial than a vision, dream, or bodiless spirit. In the romantic accounts of the later gospels he was described as being seen in a bodily state (Matt 28:9; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29).  In the early 2nd century such statements suggesting a bodily state were seized upon to argue that "he was in the flesh even after the resurrection" (Ignatius, Smyrnaeans, 3:1-3).

 

Commentary:

 

Is the resurrection of the Christ an historical event?  A reported sighting of a dead person following his burial is not what we usually think of as an historical event—that is, as an event open to verification by a neutral third party.  The witnesses to the resurrection (Peter and the disciples, Paul, and the others he reported having seen him [1 Cor 15:6-8]) all shared faith in Jesus as the Christ, and, hence, are scarcely neutral third parties).  The historical event of Easter is that they claimed to have seen him. That they claimed to have seen him is open to historical verification. What they claimed to have seen is a part of a salvation or theological history (a history that traces out the claims of the perceived acts of God in human history).  It is not a common human experience that people are raised from the dead by the activity of God.  People that die remain dead.  Hence, it is only the claim that God has intervened in human history and performed a miracle by raising Jesus from the dead that is verifiable as historical event.  The resurrection itself is a part of a theological history.  What can be observed by anyone should not be confused with what can be seen only by a few.  In this case what the few saw they saw with the eye of faith (John 20:3-9); the many, however, see with the natural eye.

 

How do you see it?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

"Parsing": to sort into its component parts.

Roy W. Hoover, "Was Jesus' Resurrection an Historical Event? A Debate Statement with Commentary," The Fourth R 23.5 (September-October 2010): 5-12, 24.

Charles W. Hedrick, When History and Faith Collide. Studying Jesus (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 1-13.

WILL THE EARTH ABIDE?

Even to consider the question seriously starts the tectonic plates shifting beneath one's feet. If the earth passes away, it takes along with it human consciousness, history, and civilization. As unthinkable as it may be, the impermanence of the earth has been considered even by the biblical writers, although God pronounced his creative act "very good" (Genesis 1:31).  The biblical myth, however, is that God once destroyed every living thing on the earth (Genesis 7:4, 21-23), so something went very wrong.  The flood event was not understood by the writers as a destruction of the earth, but (as we would say) a global destruction of life, which God promised never to do again by floods (Genesis 9:11-17).  God promised that the earth and earthly life cycles would continue "while the earth remains" (Genesis 8:20-22), which is not quite a promise that the earth is permanent.  Hence, in this expression the biblical writer raises the specter of the earth's impermanence.

 

            The threats of destruction involving the earth in Hebrew Bible are usually like the flood incident—threats against a particular people for a particular reason (e.g., Zephaniah 1:14-18; 3:1-8).  The earth abides, but certain peoples are destroyed.  Even the "Little Apocalypse" of Isaiah 24-27 (First Isaiah) predicts only a devastation of the earth and not its destruction. Isaiah 65:17-20 (Third Isaiah), however, foresees a "new heavens and a new earth" and asserts that "the former things shall not be remembered or come to mind."

 

            Paul's letters seem inconsistent.  In one letter he suggests that even the (old) earth is anticipating redemption, because of its being in bondage to decay (Romans 8:19-23), which suggests that the present earth will continue after its redemption.  Yet in another letter he writes that "the form of this world is passing away" (1 Corinthians 7:26, 31).  The writer in Second Peter unambiguously announces the destruction of earth:

 

The Day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. (2nd Peter 3:10).

 

The prophetic writer, John, echoes Third Isaiah in foreseeing the advent of a "new heaven and a new earth," and echoes Paul in announcing the "passing away" of the first heaven and first earth (Revelation 21:1-4).

 

            Do you suppose that God's mind for some reason was changed about the creation being "very good," and as a result what began "good" in God's judgment will end up in a fiery cataclysm?  If so, why would God decide to destroy a "very good" and perfectly innocent creation?  Animals, plants, and the "material stuff" of earth are not unrighteous, evil, or unethical, and scarcely deserve punishment.  Such insentient things and creatures would scarcely even be able to appreciate that they were being punished.  Perhaps the biblical writers are wrong in foreseeing the end of the world, for they cannot actually read God's mind. When it comes to God, all of us human beings are limited and see things only "in a mirror dimly" (1 Corinthians 13:9, 12)—even prophets, preachers, and TV evangelists.

 

            Nevertheless, that said, the transience of our habitable blue and white planet earth has always been threatened by natural causes.  A large enough wandering comet striking earth would cause catastrophic devastation.  In 1908 a comet about the size of a football field, among other things leveled 2000 square kilometers of forest in central Siberia. Perhaps some other cosmic catastrophe might occur, such as a "super nova within ten or twenty light years of the solar system," an event that some conjecture was the cause of the passing away of the dinosaurs "some sixty-five million years ago." Super novae are huge exploding stars.

 

            Our Sun is a star, or put another way, the stars you see in the night sky are suns.  They have a limited life span. "Billions of years from now, there will be a last perfect day on earth. Thereafter the Sun will slowly become red and distended," on its way to becoming a red star, then degenerating to a white dwarf; ultimately it becomes a dark and dead black dwarf.  Our earth would have then long since become uninhabitable to life as we know it. Sagan's description of the death of the earth echoes Second Peter: Earth will "swelter even at the poles" and then,

 

The Arctic and Antarctic icecaps will melt…Eventually the oceans will boil, the atmosphere melt away to space and a catastrophe of the most immense proportions will overtake our planet.

 

Will we earth people be able to survive without our mother, the earth?  We were spawned millions of years ago in an earthy primordial soup of dust from the stars and nourished at mother earth's breast on our way to becoming human beings. Perhaps, we will, but what might we become without her?

 

How does it seem to you?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

Carl Sagan, Cosmos (1980): comets, 73-76; death of the sun, 230-32; death of the dinosaurs, 283; origins of life, 30-31; super nova, 238-39.

Why am I Here?

This is not a question asked by octogenarians when they enter a room and wonder what brought them there.  It is a question about human existence.  Does life have a purpose beyond simply the living of it?  That question is not the same for everyone.  It is suitable only for those on the front end of life.  For those on the back end of life the question becomes "why was I here?"  Only the young have the luxury of asking the question in the present tense. The question has two foci: first, what is the purpose of all life, and second, what is my individual purpose in life?

 

            The first focus is a wide-eyed wondering that anything at all exists, and hence in part asks about origins.  Depending on your commitments, however, that question may or may not be answerable.  If you are a Creationist, you believe that a God originated all you see about you.  Various religious traditions offer a number of different answers to the question, but all would consider creation as an act of God.  The ancient Hebrews answered the question "why am I here?" as follows.  Your purpose as a human being is to:

 

Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth (Genesis 1:28).

 

Hence in this view the chief aim of humanity is to manage the earth and all its life processes. The answer that comes out of the Christian Puritan and Reformation traditions is that human beings are here to serve and glorify God (e.g., 1 Peter 4:11; 1 Corinthians 10:31).

 

            On the other hand, if you are an Evolutionist, the origin of life was not a purposeful act.  Life happened "quite by accident" over time around "4.0 billion years ago in the ponds and oceans of primitive earth" (Sagan, Cosmos [1980], 30-31].  Hence the answer to the origins question "why am I here?" for an Evolutionist is: there no reason; you just happened along in the course of things.

 

            There is, however, a second aspect to the question "why am I here?" It is: what am I supposed to do with my life now that I am here?  In many ways it is a quotidian question.  That is, how should I occupy my time throughout the day?  It is also a serious existential query and prompts the question: what is my purpose in life?  We usually bump up against this aspect of the question when we think about occupation, but it also has a more narrow focus: how should I act in a particular situation?

 

            A good example of this latter significance of the question is found in Esther.  Hadassah (Esther), a Jewess, had become the queen of the Persian Empire.  Her uncle Mordecai learned of a plot to annihilate all the Jews in the Empire and sought help from Esther with these words: "Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this" (4:14).  In other words: this is your moment; time to step up to the plate!

 

            Creationists have already answered the origins question by projecting a Creator behind the cosmos whose will must be satisfied: we are here to obey the will of the creator in all things.  The Evolutionist, on the other hand, finds no need to pander to the will of a supposed deity mediated through imperfect and contradictory interpreters.  The Evolutionist is free (to a point) to decide what to do in life and with life.  It is both exhilarating and terrifying to realize that what I do with my life is my personal choice; or in the words of the poet:

 

Out of the night that covers me

Black as the Pit from pole to pole

I thank whatever gods may be

For my unconquerable soul.

                   ###

It matters not how strait the gate,

How charged with punishments the scroll,

I am the master of my fate

I am the captain of my soul (William Henley, Invictus).

 

From the perspective of the Creationist, however, the child of the Creator replies to the Evolutionist's arrogant assertion: true freedom can only be found in complete submission to the Creator—for only where the Spirit of the Lord is does true freedom exist (2 Corinthians 3:17).  Everyone is enslaved to sin, and only the Son brings freedom from sin (John 8:31-37; Romans 6:17-28 and 8:2).  Or in the words of the poet:

 

Free to be me, God, I really am free.

Free to become what you want me to be.

Free to decide whether I should be Lord

or be your slave and obey your word (Kate Wooley, Free to be me).

 

How do you answer the question, why am I here?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

Will Christ Come Again?

Christian Fundamentalism touts belief in the second coming of Christ as one of five fundamentals of Christian faith.  It is part of the Nicene Creed (4th century), which confesses that "Jesus Christ...is coming again with glory to judge living and dead."  The earliest use of the expression "second coming of Christ" occurs in Justin Martyr (2nd century), Dialogue with Trypho 14, and the writer of Hebrews (9:28) also expects that "Christ...will appear a second time..."

 

            The hope of a future coming of Christ is part of the earliest extant Christian text (1st Thessalonians 1:10; 3:13; 4:13-5:11), where the event is referred to as "his [God's] son from heaven," "the coming of the Lord Jesus," "the day of the Lord."  There is also evidence that the earliest Christians prayed for his coming.  Paul concludes a letter with what is thought to be a prayer of early Aramaic Christians: marana tha, "our Lord come" (1 Corinthians 16:22).  The latest writing (ca 150) in the New Testament also warns that "the day of the Lord will come like a thief," and describes the event as "the coming of the day of God" (2nd Peter 3:9-13).  Hence a future return of (the Lord Jesus) Christ is a belief shared by virtually all the early Christians.

 

            It is questionable, however, whether the earliest gospel (Mark) shares the belief in a second coming of Christ. In Mark Jesus never says "I am coming again," or I will come a second time."  Instead in the Gospel of Mark it appears that Jesus anticipated a future coming of "a son of man" (8:38-9:1, 13:24-27, 14:60-64).  He speaks in these passages of the coming son of man in the third person as though he were someone other than himself.  Other statements in Mark refer to the son of man as a contemporary figure who suffers, is betrayed, is killed, and rises from the dead (9:9. 12. 31; 10:33. 45; 14:21. 41). These events, identifying Jesus as the son of man, clearly reflect the faith of the early church (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:1-5; Acts 2:22-24).  The question is, however, did these sayings originate with Jesus, or are they faith statements of the church retrofitted into the career of Jesus to justify the church's belief that the coming son of man was Jesus?  There exists no saying of Jesus in which he unambiguously promises to return sometime in the future.

 

            Nevertheless, virtually all scholars accept that Jesus referred to himself as "son of man" (e.g., Mark 2:10.27- 28; Q, Luke 9:58 =Matt 8:20), but what does the expression mean?  In what sense did he use it of himself?  In my last blog I indicated its meaning (loosely construed) was something like "man of the people"—i.e., "a common human being," as the expression is used in Mark 3:28 ("sons of men"), meaning "human beings."

 

            There are three different senses in which the term "son of man" is used in Hebrew Bible: Job 25:4-6 describes an insignificant human creature; Psalm 8:3-6 describes a human being a little lower than God; Daniel 7:13-14 describes an apocalyptic figure of the end time.  The early church understood the term "son of man" (an Aramaic expression for "I") as a claim to be the apocalyptic figure of Daniel 7:13-14.

            Mark 2:10 was rejected by the Jesus Seminar as a Christian formulation giving Jesus the present authority of the coming apocalyptic figure. They accepted Mark 2:27-28 as a genuine saying of Jesus. This saying is the only surviving son of man saying in the gospel of Mark that likely originated with Jesus.  If the Sabbath was made for human beings (Mark 3:27), then a human being (i.e., the "son of man" in the sense of Job 25:4-6) rules over the Sabbath as he was ordained to rule over the earth (Gen 1:26-30; spoken to Adam).  It is not a messianic claim, but rather a logical argument that dissolves Sabbath rules.

 

            It seems probable to me that Jesus anticipated the imminent appearing of an apocalyptic figure other than himself (Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:24-27), and the early church identified this figure (i.e., the son of man from Daniel 7:13-14) as Jesus.  How could such a thing happen?  It likely occurred among his early followers under the influence of Judean messianic expectations and their reading of Hebrew Bible as a book of prophecy.  Such a situation is actually depicted in John 2:13-22, where an incident in the Judean temple during the public career of Jesus (2:13-20) is understood differently after the death of Jesus by his followers; they came to the new understanding by reading Hebrew Bible like a book of prophecy (John 2:21-22).

 

            In the synoptic tradition, however, there is no future coming of the Lord Jesus Christ—at least, not in so many words. The synoptic gospels describe a future coming of a "son of man."  The early church in the main abandoned "son of man" language, and identified the resurrected Christ as the figure of a future apocalypse.

 

            Will there be a second coming of Christ as the early Christians expected, and modern Christians believe?  It depends. I regard the belief that Jesus is coming again as a "faith fact."  That is to say, it is a fact if you believe it to be so—nevertheless one should always remember that believing a thing to be so does not make it so.

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

 

Marion Soards, "Parousia," 646-47 in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (1990).

 

Does God provide Portents that Warn of Future Events?

Does the God of Modern Christian faith deal in portents?  I suppose in the final analysis, it will depend on who you ask.  Portents are well known phenomena in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.  Occurrences, which otherwise might seem to be simply natural happenings in the world, are regarded as omens or signs of future events that are sent by the gods—for example, the flight of birds, the movements of the stars, the falling of trees in the woods, etc.  There were also those in the ancient world who were thought to be endowed with the ability to recognize and interpret the signs that portended future events, and thus avoid disasters.  The practice of foretelling the future through such signs was called "divination," for the portents were thought to be sent by the gods.

               Although the practice of divination was forbidden in Israelite law (Deut 18:9-12), nevertheless portents show up in the Old Testament.  For example, Isaiah's nudity was thought to be a portent (Isaiah 20:2-3, 8:18) and the "handwriting on the wall" was a portent of doom for Belshazzar (Dan 5:5-31).  Some prophets thought that the Day of the Lord would be preceded by fearful portents in the heavens (Isa 13:9-11; Joel 2:30-31). Some New Testament writers thought that the end time would be preceded by similar portents in the heavens (Mark 13:24-27; Luke 21:8-28).  The Apocalypse describes some specific portents (Rev 12:12:1; 15:1).  The birth of the messiah in Matthew was preceded by the portent of a star in the heavens leading the three magi to Bethlehem (Matt 2:1-23). The ripping of the curtain of the Judean Temple at the death of Jesus (Mark 15:37-38) is likely a portent, which Mark declines or neglects to clarify.

               A case on point may be the crowing of the rooster that portended Peter's denial of Jesus.  Before they went out to Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested, Jesus told Peter that "before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times" (Mark 14:30), Matthew (26:34), Luke (22:34), and John (13:38), however, describe only one crowing of the cock followed by the three denials.  I have always wondered why it is that the other canonical gospels have only one crowing of the cock while Jesus in Mark predicted two.  It may well be because Mark's narration of the actual event of Peter's denial cites only one crowing of the cock (Mark 14:66-72).  The first crowing of the cock is apparently not stated in the passage, although some reliable manuscripts add a first crowing at the end of Mark 14:68: "and the cock crowed."  New Testament textual critics add the first crowing appearing in some manuscripts to the end of 14:68 in [square brackets], indicating that they are not completely convinced of the authenticity of the enclosed words.  In any case a first crowing of the cock, whether or not Mark narrated it, must have served as the portent of Peter's great denial and initiated the sad drama, which concluded immediately upon Peter's third denial (Mark 14:72).

               The motif of a crowing cock as a portent of some kind of disaster is mentioned several times by the first century Roman writer, Cicero ("Divination").

               Does God actually warn us of tragic events through seemingly inconsequential natural events like the flight of birds, the crowing of roosters, the cawing of crows, or some other natural occurrence?  Portents are attributed to God in the Bible, but how about today?  Should we modern users of the Bible regard portents as superstition, or should we regard them as "gospel truth," and consult modern diviners or augurs for a reading of "divine" signs before undertaking significant activities in our lives?  If, on the other hand, we determine that portents and divining the future are simply the stuff of ancient superstition, which have no basis in fact, how should we then regard and use the Bible?  Any thoughts?

 

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University

Prophecy Fulfilled, or Simply Creative Reading?

Last Sunday morning in Baptist Bible study the lesson for the day was a part of John's account of the crucifixion.  In the student quarterly the lesson writer pointed out several "fulfilled prophecies" in John's crucifixion story.  A fulfilled prophecy is something a New Testament (NT) writer believed happened in order to fulfill a prediction by a Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (OT) writer.  In this case the writer of John believed that certain OT writers had "foretold" (predicted) that certain events would take place during the crucifixion of Jesus.  The "prophecies" are: Psalm 22:18 (John 19:24), Psalm 69:21 (John 19:28), Exodus 12:46/ Numbers 9:12 (John 19:36), Zechariah 12:10 (John 19:37).  The version of the Bible used by the writer of John is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (called the Septuagint).

            I checked the purported prophecies John identified in the OT, and surprisingly discovered there was no indication in the context that the OT writers were even aware of a future event—much less that what they wrote had to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.  Nevertheless John relates these statements to the OT with the formula "in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled…" or the like.  The specific "prophecies," which John cites, are neither marked out in the OT as prophecies nor is a crucifixion mentioned in connection with the statements.  There are even inconsistencies between the supposed prophecy and John's quoting of it: Psalm 22:18 mentions an outer garment, while John specifies an inner garment; Zechariah 12:10 reads, "they shall look upon me whom they mocked (or treated despitefully)," while John reads "they shall look upon him whom they pierced."

            The OT writers seem oblivious to the idea that their statements are to be applied to some distant future situation in the life of Jesus.  On objective grounds the statements in Hebrew Bible/OT do not describe events occurring in the future life of Jesus. John seems to have arbitrarily selected statements out of their context in the OT and applied them to the crucifixion story because they are similar in language to John's story (the synoptic accounts are different).  How can the similarity in language be explained?  Under the belief that the entire OT was a book of prophecy, John adapted his narrative of the crucifixion to fit the statements in the OT; or he searched out statements in OT having similar language to support his narrative; or John was using a traditional list of early Christian prophecies concerning the Christ from which he selected appropriate "prophecies."

            If any of these alternate explanations seems plausible, how then is it possible to claim the OT statements as deliberately intended prophecy on the part of the OT writer?  The writer of the Baptist quarterly had an answer for this question and explained Psalm 22:18 (John 19:24) as a prophecy this way:  The soldiers that divided up the garments of Christ were not aware they were fulfilling prophecy when they decided to cast lots for the inner garment of Jesus.  As John was writing his Gospel, however, John knew they were prophecies.  "The Spirit led John to include a reference to Psalm 22:18, where the Psalmist foretold these very events," says the Baptist lesson writer.  Thus, although the psalmist was apparently unaware that he was foretelling a future event, what he wrote becomes prophecy at a later time due to the "inspired" reading of the OT by John.  The lesson writer described the prophecy as a revelation to John, rather than a revelation to the OT writer.  Hence the "prophetic" statements only become prophecy after the crucifixion, when John wrote about it.

            Fulfilled prophecy is frequently used in contemporary conservative circles to demonstrate the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus. The Baptist writer of last Sunday's lesson on the crucifixion, for example, argued that because of the fulfilled prophecies "we can be assured that He [Jesus] is the Savior and worthy of our devotion."  As early as the second century, Justin Martyr had argued that the fulfillment of prophecy proves that Jesus is "the first-born of the unbegotten God."

Apart from the assertion of John that they are prophecies, the OT statements used in the crucifixion story cannot be objectively demonstrated to have first occurred in the mind of the OT writer, for the OT writers do not identify their statements as prophetic utterances!  In order to see these passages as prophecy fulfilled one must have faith that the prophecy first occurs in John's mind by revelation, and John through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is thereby enabled to see what is generally unavailable to others—perhaps not even the OT writer was aware that he had uttered a prophetic statement.  It appears to be simply a case of "creative reading" by John; that is to say, John reads prophecy back into a text where it never existed—except in John's mind.

An assertion whose proof is ultimately based on faith is not proven true by the belief of the one who makes the assertion; the faith statement only proves that one believes the assertion.  If other purported prophecies in OT fail to reflect the specific character of a deliberate prophecy, then the arguments that prophecy proves both the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus are seriously undermined.  Similarity of language is not enough.

What are your thoughts?

Charles W. Hedrick

Professor Emeritus

Missouri State University