Heaven (54 page)

A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE NATURAL REALM

Every belief that would make our resurrection bodies less physical than Adam's and Eve's, or that makes the New Earth less
earthly than the original Earth, es­sentially credits Satan with a victory over God by suggesting that Satan has per­manently
marred God's original intention, design, and creation.

Anthony Hoekema writes,

If the resurrection body were non-material or non-physical, the devil would have won a great victory, since God would then
have been compelled to change human beings with physical bodies such as he had created into creatures of a different sort,
without physical bodies (like the angels). Then it would indeed seem that matter had become intrinsically evil so that it
had to be banished. And then, in a sense, the Greek philosophers would have been proved right. But matter is not evil; it
is part of God's good creation. Therefore the goal of God's redemption is the resurrection of the physical body, and the creation
of a new earth on which his redeemed people can live and serve God forever with glorified bodies. Thus the universe will not
be destroyed but renewed, and God will win the victory.
³⁵⁶

After reading a first draft of this book, a friend sent me an e-mail. She has attended a Bible-teaching evangelical church
for many years, reads widely, and is very intelligent. She wrote, "Because I believed that places didn't matter to God, I
didn't want them to matter to me. Because I believed that animals didn't really matter to God, I didn't want them to matter
to me. Because I believed that my spirit was really all that mattered to God, I didn't let my body matter to me." She was
glad to be free from these christoplatonic beliefs.

If I could snap my fingers and eliminate a single false assumption that keeps us from accurately understanding Scripture's
revelation about Heaven, it would be the heretical notion that the physical realm is an obstacle to God's plan rather than
a central part of it.

Wayne Grudem argues for the physical nature of the realm we'll live in for­ever: "God will not completely destroy the physical
world (which would be an acknowledgment that sin had frustrated and defeated God's purposes), but rather he will perfect the
entire creation and bring it into harmony with the purposes for which he originally created it. Therefore we can expect that
in the new heavens and new earth there will be a fully perfect earth that is once again 'very good.' And we can expect that
we will have physical bodies that will once again be 'very good' in God's sight, and that will function to fulfill the purposes
for which he originally placed man on the earth."
³⁵⁷

Consider the biblical facts that give us a very positive view of the physical realm:

• God made Adam and Eve to be spiritual
and
physical—they were not human until they were both.

• God often took on human form in Old Testament times. He was also likely in human form as he walked in Eden.

• God took on a human body, becoming a man in Christ, not just temporarily but forever.

• God raised Christ in a human body with physical properties, a body that walked, talked, ate, and could be touched. He explicitly
stated he wasn't a ghost.

• God made mankind in his image, and because humans are physical beings—though God is spirit—there must be something in our
human bodies that reflects God's identity. Certainly there's nothing about our bodies that repulses God, who created humanity
as his crowning achievement.

• God's Holy Spirit indwells human bodies and calls them his holy temples.

• God will raise people with eternal physical-spiritual bodies, then come down to inhabit the New Earth with them.

All seven of these assertions are undeniable to most Bible-believers. Yet some­how, many Christians imagine they will live
forever in a disembodied existence in an immaterial realm. As a result, they wear blinders when they interpret Scripture,
and they fail to understand the richness of God's revelation concern­ing the world we'll inhabit forever.

The christoplatonic view of the eternal Heaven is an insult to Christ's re­demption and his resurrection. Christ did not die
to give disembodied people a refuge in the spirit realm. He didn't rise to offer us a mere symbol of new spiri­tual life.
On the contrary, he died to restore to us the fullness of our humanity—spirit
and
body. He rose to lay claim to and exemplify our destiny, to walk and rule the physical Earth as physical beings, to his glory.
He died to lift Earth's curse and rose to guarantee that the earth itself would rise from misery and de­struction to be a
realm ruled by righteous humanity, to God's eternal glory.

APPENDIX B

LITERAL AND FIGURATIVE INTERPRETATION

I
f my interpretation is accurate of even one-quarter of the Scripture passages I've cited in this book, then the Bible says
a great deal more about Heaven than many Christians have ever considered. How could this be? A major reason is the interpretive
assumptions we bring to Scripture.

For years, I taught biblical interpretation at a Bible college. We studied the different types of biblical literature and
how to interpret each—including his­torical narrative, wisdom, poetry, prophecy, and instruction (especially the Epistles).
There's considerable overlap between these literary forms. For in­stance, the Gospels are historical narrative but include
Christ's parables. The letters are instructional but include some history and poetry. Biblical poetry of­ten recalls historical
events. Historical books contain prophecy. Prophetic books include history and instruction. Daniel and Revelation are apocalyptic
books that contain both history and prophecy. Therefore, it's a mistake to say that every statement in a historical book should
be taken literally and every statement in an apocalyptic book should be taken figuratively. We must always evaluate meaning
in light of immediate context.

In studying biblical interpretation in the classroom, we'd often go to texts commonly understood a certain way, then try to
discern what the original writer was conveying to the original readers. Often we found a striking difference be­tween what
the texts actually said and how they were popularly understood. We realized that our minds often weren't open to the meaning
of the texts because of the preconceived ideas we were reading into them, ideas we'd heard from others or picked up from our
culture, but which didn't correspond to Scripture.

This is why we read in Luke 15:7 that Jesus says there is "rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents," yet we don't
believe that people in Heaven are aware of what's happening to people on Earth. We read in Luke 16:9 that we should "use worldly
wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings," yet we don't
believe we'll have homes in Heaven and open those homes to each other. We read passages in the prophets promising that God's
people will live forever on a righteous Earth, then assume this must mean a spiritual blessing in an incorporeal Heaven. We
read that we will have resurrection bodies and will eat and drink at tables with Christ and fellow believers, yet we don't
actually envision this to be true. We read in the last two chapters of Revelation about nations on the New Earth and kings
of those nations bringing their treasures into the city, yet we don't believe there will be real nations or kings of those
nations. Many doubt there will be a city at all. The examples go on and on—when it comes to the eternal state, we don't let
Scripture say what it says.

Then, despite these and innumerable other passages, we say, "The Bible tells us very little about Heaven." The truth, in my
opinion, is that we simply don't
believe
the significant amount the Bible tells us about Heaven. Our christoplatonic assumptions have a stranglehold on us and impair
our ability to interpret Scriptures that deal with the afterlife. Only by discarding those as­sumptions and replacing them
with the scriptural doctrines of bodily resurrec­tion and life on the New Earth can we interpret Scripture in ways that allow
"bodies" to be bodies, "eating" to be eating, and "dwelling places" to be dwelling places. I'm well aware that many readers
will question my interpretations in this book, often because they've never heard them before. They sound far-fetched because
we're unaccustomed to them. Though some of my hundreds of inter­pretations are undoubtedly flawed, I believe most of them
are sound. I encour­age readers to let the texts speak for themselves—let God speak to you without filtering his words through
christoplatonic assumptions.

If we abandon the unbiblical assumptions that predetermine our biblical in­terpretations, the otherworldly house of cards
will come crashing down. In its place we'll be able to construct a doctrine of Heaven that's solidly based on re­vealed Scripture.

To do this, let's further examine what went wrong—how, historically, the church has embraced false assumptions that distort
our view of Heaven.

SCHOLASTICISM'S UNEARTHLY HEAVEN

Prior to the Middle Ages, people thought of Heaven tangibly—as a city or a paradise garden, as portrayed in Scripture. But
the writings of twelfth-century theologians such as Peter Abelard and Peter Lombard and thirteenth-century theologian Thomas
Aquinas led to the philosophical movement known as scholasticism, which came to dominate medieval thought and ultimately took
hostage the doctrine of Heaven.

The scholastic writers viewed Heaven in a much more impersonal, cold, and scientific manner than their predecessors. They
departed from the Heaven of Scripture that contains
both
the unfamiliar transcendent presence of God, surrounded by the cherubim,
and
familiar earthly objects and personages, in­cluding people wearing clothes and having conversations. They embraced a Heaven
entirely intangible, immaterial, and hence—they thought—more spiritual.
³⁵⁸
They claimed that Heaven couldn't be made of familiar elements such as earth, water, air, and fire. Instead, they argued,
"the empyrean [the highest heaven or heavenly sphere] must be made of a fifth and nobler ele­ment, the quintessence, which
must be something like pure light."
³⁵⁹
And they ignored almost entirely—or allegorized into oblivion—the New Earth as the eternal dwelling place of resurrected humans
living with the resurrected Jesus in a physical realm of natural wonders, physical structures, and cultural distinctives.

The scholastic view gradually replaced the old, more literal under­standing of Heaven as garden and city, a place of earthly
beauty, dwelling places, food, and fellowship. The loss was incalculable. The church to this day has never recovered from
the unearthly—and anti-earthly—theology of Heaven constructed by well-meaning but misguided scholastic theologians. These
men interpreted biblical revelation not in a straightforward manner, but in light of the intellectually seductive notions
of Platonism, Stoicism, and Gnosticism.

According to Aquinas, neither plants nor animals will have a place in Heaven, the world of light.
³⁶⁰
He argued there would be no active life in Heaven, only contemplation.
³⁶¹
Because God is the great object of our worship, Aquinas supposed we would think of nothing and no one but God.

Aquinas was absolutely correct that God is the cosmic center. But his faulty logic reshaped our understanding of Heaven by
undercutting the bibli­cal doctrines of physical resurrection, Paradise restored on the New Earth, and the redeemed culture
and community of the New Earth's holy city and nations. His view neglected the eternal nature of Christ's humanity and im­manence,
entirely eclipsing them with his deity and transcendence. Scholastic theology requires that we negate or spiritualize countless
Scriptures, rejecting the plain meaning.

Though some thinkers later departed from scholasticism, its underlying christoplatonic views never lost their grip on the
Western church.

SHOULD WE TAKE LITERALLY WHAT SCRIPTURE SAYS ABOUT HEAVEN?

No one interprets the Bible absolutely literally or absolutely figuratively. Whether we tend more toward the literal or the
figurative largely depends on our assumptions. People who believe Christ's body remained in the grave must interpret the Resurrection
accounts figuratively. If they believe that Christ liter­ally rose, but that Heaven will be a realm of disembodied spirits,
then they will take some of Christ's words literally, but take figuratively Christ's references to Heaven being an actual
place, mankind one day inheriting the earth, and the physical universe being renewed. They will take figuratively God's fashioning
of the new heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem.

Obviously there are many figures of speech in the Bible, such as when Peter is called a rock and Christ is called a door,
a lamb with seven eyes, and is said to have a sword coming out of his mouth.

Scripture is also full of accounts that should be taken
literally,
such as Noah's flood and ark, the plagues, crossing the Red Sea, and Christ being born in Beth­lehem, calming the storm, healing
people, multiplying loaves and fishes, being crucified, physically rising from the dead, and ascending.

I believe that our resurrection bodies wouldn't be called bodies if they weren't actual bodies. They wouldn't be said to be
like Christ's body if they won't be, just as Christ wouldn't be portrayed as literally rising from the dead and having a resurrection
body if he didn't. Similarly, Paradise wouldn't be called
paradise
if it wasn't Edenlike, at least to a degree. (It need not be identical to Eden, of course.) Similarly, I believe the New Earth
wouldn't be called the New Earth if it wasn't earthlike. Kings wouldn't be called kings and ruling wouldn't be called ruling
if the meaning didn't largely correspond to those words. (The meaning needn't be
limited
to what these words mean presently, but there must be substantial correlation.)

The detailed literal fulfillment of Christ's first coming and death portrayed in Isaiah 52-53 and 61:1-3 instructs us on how
we should interpret Isaiah 6066's detailed descriptions of a coming life of righteousness and peace on what is called a "new
earth." Similarly, I believe that the historical accounts of Christ's life on Earth after his resurrection should instruct
us how to interpret Revela­tion 21-22's account of our lives on the New Earth after our resurrection. It's true that large
portions of both Isaiah and Revelation contain figurative and apocalyptic depictions, some of which should
not
be taken literally. Yet we shouldn't make the same mistake many scholars make with Isaiah 52-53, spiri­tualizing these passages
and entirely missing their central—and very literal—points, even in the midst of much that's figurative.

HOW LITERALLY SHOULD WE INTERPRET THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE?

It's demonstrably true that Revelation, as apocalyptic literature, often shouldn't be taken literally. Will the blood literally
flow up to the horses' bridles (14:20)? Will Christians become pillars in the temple (3:12)? Is there really a seven-horned,
seven-eyed lamb, and are there seven spirits of God (5:6)? If you took their temperature, would the Laodiceans be lukewarm?
Does Christ literally spit them out of his mouth (3:16)? Is Christ actually knocking at the door (3:20)? Is he the lion ofJudah
(5:5)
and the
lamb with seven eyes? Is the woman literally clothed with the sun (12:1)? Does a great prostitute sit on many waters (17:1)?
Is there literally a great red dragon with seven heads (12:3)? These are figures of speech. They can't be taken literally
without contradicting known facts, both observable to us and elsewhere revealed in Scripture.

It's obvious that certain numbers, especially the numbers seven and twelve, and various multiples of twelve, have symbolic
significance in Revelation. As I've developed elsewhere, the thousand years of the Millennium have been understood either
literally or figuratively by orthodox Christians throughout history
³⁶²
(However, those who disagree about the Millennium can nonetheless agree on the New Earth.)

When John the Baptist said, "Look, the Lamb of God," no one should (or does) think he was affirming that Jesus had wool and
walked on four legs (John 1:29). Rather, John meant, "Look, this man Jesus is the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial
system." Note, however, that this figure of speech alludes to realities with physical correspondence—the actual, literal death
of Jesus on the cross. So, the figure of speech had an actual (one might say almost literal) fulfillment in Christ's crucifixion.

Christ's words to the seven churches of Revelation 2-3 contain some figura­tive language. But shouldn't we believe these were
actually seven churches, lo­cated in the specified geographical locations? In Revelation, didn't the real apostlejohn witness
certain real events, some past, some present, and some future, including the physical return of Christ to the earth? Revelation,
like other books of Scripture, contains passages that must be interpreted according to their con­text.

Peter, in an instructional letter, tells the church about the new heavens and Earth, with no suggestion that he's speaking
figuratively. Isaiah spoke of new heavens and a New Earth in very tangible, descriptive, earthly ways. Hence, when we hear
of God creating new heavens and a New Earth in Revelation 21, we would be mistaken to assume it doesn't have a literal meaning
corresponding to the Bible's previous references to a New Earth.

When Jesus is described as a lamb with seven eyes, it contradicts known facts to take that literally. But would it contradict
known facts to believe that on the New Earth there will be a great city with streets of gold and gates made of pearls (Revelation
21:21), and with trees and a river (22:1-2)?

When Christ is described as riding on a white horse (Revelation 19:11), must this be purely symbolic? When he rode a colt
into Jerusalem (John 12:1216), it had symbolic meaning, but it was also literal—
he was actually riding a colt.
If Christ could descend from Heaven at the Second Coming, why couldn't he just as easily come down riding on a horse? Kings
often rode horses into van­quished cities. Thus, commentators say that riding a horse symbolizes a kingly entrance. Of course
it does. But that's because
kings really did ride horses into cit­ies.
And they really did sit on thrones that had symbolic significance. Christ has a body suited to sitting on a throne and riding
a horse, doesn't he? He created horses and exults in their magnificence (Job 39:19-25). Why should we assume he won't actually
return on horseback or sit on a throne?