Exegesis and Theology

The Blog of Brian Collins

Reflections on the Eternal State – 19th Century-Present

by

In the nineteenth century the Princtonians, despite some hyper-spiritualist statements (Hodge, 451f., 453), clearly affirmed that the eternal state would be on the new earth, though at times this is termed heaven (Hodge, 457, 460-62). Bavinck provides a much clearer defense of the new earth as the eternal home of the redeemed (page 716ff.).

Dispensationalists have long held to a re-created earth in the eternal state. Scofield and Chafer seem to have taught that Israel would dwell on earth for eternity while the church would dwell in heaven (Reimers’ Eschatology notes). Alva McClain states, “The ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ here undoubtedly refer to the physical universe. The ‘first’ or original universe passes away, and is replaced by a ‘new’ universe. This does not necessarily mean the annihilation of our present world of matter; for the Greek kainos may mean new in character rather than in substance. The same term is used of the regenerated believer: he becomes a ‘new creation’ (II Cor. 5:17, ASV) in a crisis which does not annihilate the personal entity but transforms it” (McClain, 510).

Though the popular view of the eternal state remains an eternal existence in heaven, several popular works, including Randy Alcorn’s Heaven and N. T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope, have argued for the eternal state on the recreated earth.

Bibliography

Alcorn, Randy. Heaven. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2004.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Volume 4: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Hodge, Archibald Alexander. Outlines of Theology. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1863.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Chicago: Moody, 1959.

Wright, N. T. Surprised by Hope. New York: HarperOne, 2008.

Reflections on the Eternal State – Middle Ages through the Post-Reformation

by

By the time of the early Medieval period, the conception of heaven as the place of beatific vision was firmly established by authors such as Pseudo-Dionysius and Gregory the Great (Russell, 93, 96). Nonetheless, it is important to note theologians still affirmed physicality of the resurrected body (Russell, 95). In popular discourse, people still described heaven in physical terms and often as a garden or a city. With the revival of towns, heaven was more often described as a city (McDannell and Lang, 72-73). It is not clear whether these physical paradises were conceived to be located in the present world or in heaven. The latter is most likely.

As interest in astronomy grew, theologians began to locate heaven in the outermost of the heavenly spheres as a realm of pure light. Thomas Aquinas did not deny the existence of a future new earth (though he did deny that it would have any plant or animal life). Nonetheless, in Aquinas’ thought the saints will do nothing but contemplate God in the eternal state  (McDannell and Lang, 82-83, 89).

During the Renaissance the conception of heaven as a static place of contemplation gave way to a two-tiered vision of eternity. Above was the New Jerusalem as the dwelling of God and below was a garden paradise. The redeemed could move between contemplation of God above and the joys of human reunion and companionship below (McDannell and Lang, 119, 142-43).

The reformers Luther and Calvin both affirmed the restoration of earth and the access of the saints to both the restored earth and heaven. Unlike Aquinas, Luther and Calvin believed plants and animals would exist on the restored earth. The focus of the eternal state remained the worship of God (McDannell and Lang, 154f.). Diversity of views existed among the theological descendants of the Reformers. In his The Saints Everlasting Rest, the puritan Richard Baxter emphasized the delight in and knowledge of God that the saints will experience. The puritan Cotton Mather spoke of a re-created earth, but it is difficult to tell if he saw this as a millennial or eternal habitation (Smolinski, ed., 268ff.).

Bibliography

McDannell, Colleen and Bernhard Lang. Heaven: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Russell, Jeffery Burton. A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Smolinski, Reiner, ed. The Threefold Paradise of Cotton Mather: An Edition of ‘Triparadisus.’ Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1995.

Reflections on the Eternal State – Patristic Era

by

Irenaeus taught that at his return, the Messiah would establish the “Kingdom of the Messiah” on the present earth and that the saints would be resurrected to enjoy a thousand years of life in which there would be agricultural abundance and peace between humans and animals. This would be followed by “the Kingdom of God the Father” of which Irenaeus said little. McDannell and Lang understand this to be a spiritualized kingdom (McDannell and Lang, 50-53). If so, this Irenaeus’ view was identical to that of Tertullian, who authored the first book about the eternal state: About Paradise (now lost). Tertullian taught the saints would be raised to live in the New Jerusalem for 1,000 years after which they would live as spirits in heaven for eternity (Russell, 67). By contrast, Origen simply taught an eternal spiritual existence in a spiritual heaven (Russell, 76).

With Ambrose’s About Paradise the emphasis turned toward a heavenly eternity alone. Though described with the earthly imagery of the garden and the city, communion with God was the centerpiece of Ambrose’s vision (Russell, 80). Augustine followed Ambrose’s vision of a spiritual heaven in which the redeemed will enjoy the beatific vision and respond in praise (McDannell and Lang, 59). In the east the Cappadocian Fathers and Chrysostom also emphasized the beatific vision (Russell, 84). These theologians rejected the earthly kingdom taught by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Their less material and more spiritual vision of heaven may be due to the rise of monasticism which devalued the physical world and valued mystical contemplation (McDannell and Lang, 58). Craig Blaising also ties the development of a “spiritual vision” approach to eternity to the influence of Platonism on early Christian theologians (168).

Bibliography

Blaising, Craig A. “Premillennialism.” In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Edited by Darrell L. Bock. Counterpoints. Edited by Stanley N. Gundry. Grand Rapids: Zondervan: 1999.

McDannell, Colleen and Bernhard Lang. Heaven: A History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Russell, Jeffery Burton. A History of Heaven: The Singing Silence. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Calvin on Fundamentalist Taboos

by

A ban on dancing had already been introduced before Calvin’s time, but it is true the regulations had been tightened. Calvin thought that since the way people touch each other in dance is nothing less than a first step to adultery, the purity of the body would be better safeguarded by the complete avoidance of dancing. Even if nothing untoward was to happen it was . . . in Calvin’s words, ‘an invitation to Satan.’

Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life, 151.

July 10, 1509

by

Calvin took his task as a preacher seriously. He saw the preacher as God’s ambassador to the church. Calvin thought that when he spoke as a preacher, it was God himself who spoke. This also meant that Calvin would have to account for every word he uttered. It was for this reason that Calvin could not ascend the pulpit without careful consideration, because he thought of it as ‘the throne of God, and from that throne he wants to govern our souls.’ The presence of the pulpit meant that at church the congregation would come face to face with God’s judgment seat, where guilt must be confessed and where forgiveness would be obtained. For the preacher it meant speaking only after first listening respectfully to his Taskmaster. This was true not only for Calvin but also for every other preacher. If a pastor did not first become a student of the Word, ‘it would be better if he were to break his neck while climbing into the pulpit.’ ‘For God there is nothing higher than the preaching of the gospel . . . because it is the means to lead people to salvation.’ Calvin had enough self-knowledge to realize that he himself had to be subject to the Word as well. ‘When I climb into the pulpit, it is not simply to instruct others. I do not exclude myself, since I myself must remain a student as well, and the words that come from my mouth are to serve me as much as others. If not, woe to me!’

Herman J. Selderhuis, John Calvin: A Pilgrim’s Life, 110f.

Book Notes: Godfrey, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor

by

Godfrey, W. Robert. John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor. Wheaton: Crossway, 2009.

Sample Pages

This book is an ideal introduction to Calvin’s life and theology. Godfrey begins not with Calvin’s birth but with Calvin at Strassburg producing his first commentary (on Romans), the first major revision of his Institutes, and his “Reply to Sadoleto.” The remainder of the first chapter places Calvin and his theology in his Reformation context by examining the reply to this Roman Catholic Cardinal.

Chapters two through five provide a brief survey of Calvin’s life. Chapters six though eleven provide a survey of various topics.

I found the biographical chapters enjoyable but without information that I hadn’t heard elsewhere. The chapter on worship was my favorite of the topical chapters. The chapter on the sacraments was, as expected, the chapter where I most disagreed with Calvin.

Calvin on Theological Speculation

by

Is it not evidence of stubbornness rather than of diligence to raise strife over the time and order in which [angels] were created . . . . Not to take too long, let us remember here, as in all religious doctrine, that we ought to hold to one rule of modesty and sobriety: not to speak, or guess, or even to seek to know, concerning obscure matters anything except what has been imparted to us by God’s Word. Furthermore, in the reading of Scripture we ought ceaselessly to endeavor to seek out and meditate upon those things which make for edification. let us not indulge in curiosity or in the investigation of unprofitable things. And because the Lord willed to instruct us, not in fruitless questions, but in sound godliness, in the fear of his name, in true trust, and in the duties of holiness, let us be satisfied with this knowledge. For this reason, if we would be duly wise, we must leave those empty speculations which idle men have taught apart from God’s word concerning the nature, orders, and number of angels. I know that many persons more greedily seize upon and take more delight in them than in such things as have been put to daily use. But, if we are not ashamed of being Christ’s disciples, let us not be ashamed to follow that method which he has prescribed. Thus it will come to pass that, content with his teaching, wee shall not only abandon, but also abhor those utterly empty speculations from which he calls us back.

Calvin, Institutes, 1.14.4

Alan Jacobs on Philip Jenkins

by

Alan Jacobs wrote an excellent critique of Philip Jenkins’ work, The Lost History of Christianity. (Jacobs actually critiques a Boston Globe essay by Jenkins, but the Globe essay was “a kind of preview” to Jenkins’ new book.)

Here’s an excerpt:

And if I do give up on the uniqueness of Jesus, what do I retain? I think we get a clue in this passage from Jenkins:

By the twelfth century, flourishing churches in China and southern India were using the lotus-cross. The lotus is a superbly beautiful flower that grows out of muck and slime. No symbol could better represent the rise of the soul from the material, the victory of enlightenment over ignorance, desire, and attachment. For two thousand years, Buddhist artists have used the lotus to convey these messages in countless paintings and sculptures. The Christian Cross, meanwhile, teaches a comparable lesson, of divine victory over sin and injustice, of the defeat of the world.

But these lessons are not comparable at all; they are quite dramatically at odds with each other, which may help to explain why attempts to reconcile them—if indeed that was really what was going on—have not succeeded. Christianity, being anything but Gnostic, does not believe that the material world is evil, but rather good: the glorious creation of a personal God. Christianity does not teach the innocence or purity of the soul, but rather the corruption of the will and the resulting involvement of the body in sin: As the Body says in a poem by Andrew Marvell, What but a Soul could have the wit / To build me up for Sin so fit? Christianity does not believe in nonattachment, but rather teaches precisely the opposite, that we should weep with those who weep and rejoice with those who rejoice. The Buddha says, “He who has no love has no woe”; St. John says, “He who does not love abides in death.”

 

The whole article is well worth reading.