They Shall Reign on the Earth
I know I harp on this all of the time, but I think it's important! I hear so much talk about "heaven," and it never seems to match up with the picture which the Bible gives us. People seem to always focus on the intermediate state as the end all, and completely leave out the most glorious fact that at the end we who are in Christ will be physically resurrected and will reign with Jesus on the new earth. I heard this point gloriously made when someone said, "Heaven is important, but it isn't the end of the world" (if you get that, you should be chuckling to yourself right now).I was reminded of this last night when our pastor read from Revelation 5:9-10 at our Good Friday service:
"Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth."
Obviously, I'm not saying that heaven isn't eternal; that would be foolish. Heaven is God's dimension where he dwells and rules. But the point I am making is that John is showing us in Revelation that the end is about heaven and earth being completely joined together; when finally and fully God's kingdom shall have come and his will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.
Thoughts?
posted by DrewDog | 12:42 AM
8 Comments:
Do you know where the idea of heaven being "the ultimate end" came from?
On a side note, I just love this blog. It's like having an easy access Mars Hill forum right in my own home.
Well, Mark, I think it partly comes from the fact that, as I mentioned, in a sense heaven is the ultimate end... as long as you realize that heaven will be forever interlocked with the new earth; you can't separate the two. I agree with NT Wright, that when referring to the end, we would do well to practice calling it the "new heavens and the new earth."
But, what I think you're really asking is: How did everyone start thinking of the ultimate end as some disembodied, this-world-is-not-my-home, floating-on-clouds-with-spiritharps, kind of existence?
I'll let someone else take a crack at answering that one, and if no one else does, I'll answer it.
Is this a quiz, Professor? I have three guesses, then: (1) Gnosticism, (2) Platonism, (3) Dispensationalism.
All of these could motivate one to devalue the material world for cosmological (1), metaphysical (2), or eschatological (3) reasons. The gnostic may look back toward the good old days before the unfortunate creation of matter, the platonist upward (or inward, as it were) from the real/actual to the ideal, and the (Gentile) dispensationalist forward ("just a-passin' through) to Da Rapture. I suppose a gnostic might also prefer a future union with The Christ Spirit to one with The Jesus Man, but on that I'm just idly speculating. Safe to say, a neo-platonic gnostic dispensationalist sounds like one discontented individual.
N T Wright, in one of his latest books, "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus", gives a good summary of Marvin Meyer and Bart Ehrman’s account of the Gnostic worldview (see: "The Gospel of Judas"). One of the summary points, I think, will fit in nicely with this post, and, perhaps, will help certain readers make some necessary distinctions.
“The main aim of any right-thinking human being, therefore, will be to escape the wicked world, and the outward human existence, altogether. ‘Salvation’ means exactly this: attaining deliverance from the material cosmos and all that it means. Only so can one make one’s way to the pure, higher spiritual existence where, freed from the trammels of space, time and matter, one will be able to enjoy bliss unavailable to those who cling to the present physical world and who mistakenly worship its creator.”
How would a “Gnostic Christian", presupposing the above, speak about the resurrection of Jesus?
I think they would either commit the fallacy of equivocation (by implying the resurrection was not physical), or they would commit the fallacy of a non sequitur (by arguing that because Jesus was raised bodily from the grave we can have hope that one day we will be able to escape this wicked world, and our outward human existence).
In order to clarify my latter point; what would be the need for a bodily resurrection, presupposing a Gnostic worldview? If the point is to “escape the wicked world, and the outward human existence,” why would we need a bodily resurrection?
Lawton, I think you hit the nail on the head. Very well put; you get an A (jk). Everyone knows I'm no professor, and in no position to be giving out quizzes.
At any rate, I love your assessment of neo-platonist gnostic dispensationalism.
Cheers,
Andrew
Aaron, great points as well. What a perfect quote from Wright! The scary thing is that I think this description of gnosticism fits the description of the vast majority of American Evangelicals today.
Take a look at an earlier post of mine entitled, "Who Cares About Resurrection?" If you can't find it by scrolling down, look here.
Cheers,
Andrew
Andrew, I too was moved to think when Pastor Doug read Rev. 5:9-10. It gave me another very different glimpse of this complicated and utterly good place/time called Heaven. Somehow, hearing more about Heaven (and everyone's thoughts on it) confuses me and focuses my thoughts at the same time.
Thanks for the excellent Blog.
adina
Thanks, Adina. Hopefully as time progresses, there will be more moments of focus and less moments of confusion :)
I'm sure that's partly my fault; I have been known for my inarticulate rambling.
Anyway, thanks for stopping by and leaving a note.
Cheers,
Andrew
Post a Comment
<< Home