Raised in the Gereformeerde Kerken and in the Christian Reformed Church. Educated at Calvin College and the Pennsylvania State University. Currently a member of the Presbyterian "wing" of a multi-denominational congregation.
John, a few comments: If you date the flood a few hundred years before the Egyptians built their pyramids, the larger mountains must have formed in a very short time and that presents problems with the deforming of the geological layers. If you look at Mount Rundle, you see that those particular geological layers resisted bending and remain roughly parallel to one side of the mountain. On the other hand, exposed rock layers along the Juniata River in Central Pennsylvania show foliation in the form of synclines and anticlines. As to stating that "water ends up under rock all time", yes, of course, there is groundwater and there are aquifers but the porosity of intact igneous rock is relatively low (0.3% for granite) and caves and caverns do not extend over large areas. If I recall, Walter Brown has a whole layer of water, apparently devoid of any geological material and with sufficient permeability to be expelled at a great rate. That layer of water served as a "lubricant" allowing the continents to move very rapidly without creation large amounts of heat due to friction. My understanding of "water under the earth" is that the conventional wisdom was that the Earth floated on water and that there was a "firmament" above the water and the Earth along which the sun, moon, and stars traveled on a sort of track. As to the expanding population after the Flood and the preservation of technology, minds better than mine have pondered this and have come to the conclusion that preserving technology by a family of eight is no simple matter. The common understanding is that Noah built the ark by himself, maybe with the help of his sons but he most likely had access to available technological resources. If he felled the trees himself, he must have had an axe of some sort and that assumed that there was some type of metallurgy (Tubal-Cain). Noah used pitch to seal the ark and must have had a source of this pitch and equipment to smear the pitch on the ark. Genesis 4 suggests a reasonably well developed society (tentmaking, enough leisure time to make and use instruments). By the time the flood waters had receded, the metallurgists would have died. If Noah did not know how to make an axe, he and his descendants would have had to reinvent metallurgy (I don't think that Noah would have used a flint axe but, if he had, he would have had to know where to find this flint). In short, a literal reading of the Flood story raises too many questions to an increasingly sceptical generation and, as I have mentioned before, may in fact hinder our attempts to bring the Good News of salvation in Christ. I just hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit enough.
Randy, if this parallel does not work for you let me suggest another one. A few years ago, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada allowed same sex unions to be blessed in congregations that allowed this sort of thing and if the presiding pastor was willing to do the blessing. This is called the "local option." A number of congregations have since left that denomination. I believe that the same things happened in the USA with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
Now suppose that, in a few years, the CRC goes along that same path and that individual congregations allow their minister to perform same sex marriages, should congregations opposed to this be allowed to move from a "liberal" classis to a more conservative classis, even if this move would involve long distances?
Note that I am not advocating that the CRC should allow same sex unions but I see the CRC move in the same direction as the ELCA and ELCIC (and other mainline denominations) but with a delay of a few years.
Randy, no, I was not comparing being female with being homosexual; I was comparing the acceptance, by the CRC, of women in office and of the schism that it caused, with the acceptance of same sex unions by the ELCIC, ELCA, etc, that is also causing schisms in that ELCIC and ELCA congregations are moving away, in some cases, as you have mentioned, to NALC (and I should add at this point that a close friend, a pastor, also recently moved from the ELCIC to NALC).
I am not CRC-bashing at all and I am saddened that you read that into my comment. I hold the CRC in great respect and have always been supportive of it. My leaving the CRC was not because of theological difficulties but because we were not prepared to drive 100+ km to participate in the life of the nearest CRC congregation. Hence our journey via the ELCIC to The Presbyterian Church of Canada. But it cannot be denied that the CRC saw fit to accept women in office, first as deacons, then as ruling elders, and finally as teaching elders. I would suggest that much of this change was due to changes in the culture in which we live in North America. Those who opposed the concept of women in office were told that the relevant Bible passages were either not applicable to the current culture of that an alternate interpretation was acceptable. Therefore, is it unreasonable to suggest that the CRC is immune to a similar approach when it comes to homosexuality? I seem to recall a number of articles in The Banner over the years [strongly] hinting that the CRC needs to become more acceptable of practising homosexuals (e.g., John Lee's article "A Valentine's Embrace" in the 2013 February issue although the author did no specifically mention anything about "practising" homosexuality).
Finally, I am encouraged to read that "the baneful influence of GKN theology from the 1960's has faded from our seminary and many younger pastors, I think, have an appreciation for biblical faithfulness and the confessions."
I appreciate your concerns about the disabled but I take issue with your points. In the first place, the disciples did recognize Jesus. True, Mary Magdalene did not recognize Him, but that may have been because she was crying. She did recognize Jesus when she called him "Rabboni" when He spoke to her [John 20:15-6]. The disciples recognized Jesus when He showed them His hands and side [John 20:19]. In the second place, you make the assumption that our glorified bodies will bear the marks of our lives on earth. Making assumptions is always dangerous because they are based on an imperfect understanding. The Bible is quite silent on these matters. In fact, I am surprised how little the Bible speaks of specific aspects of life after death. My guess is that words cannot express this concept. I have not stated that I expect that we will be "annihilated and turned into something completely different than we were on earth" and I will accept that the concept of annihilation may suggest that "who we are on earth doesn't matter." Still, it's cold comfort to me that I will still not be able to see the red cardinal in a leafy tree.
You have not addressed my comment about the difference between wounds inflicted before death (in the case of Jesus, pierced hands and feet) and those inflicted after death (pierced side). I mentioned victims of the guillotine who would, if your assumption is correct, have glorified, but headless, bodies.
Let me give you an example. In our recent federal election, a quadriplegic member of parliament was re-elected. He was seriously injured when his car hit a moose 15 years ago. Are you suggesting that he can look forward to remaining a quadriplegic for all eternity? Of course, it can be argued that he can praise God with his infirmity but I should also point out that he also has memories of having been a provincial kayaking champion before his accident. Are you suggesting that, when we receive our glorified bodies, our memory will be wiped clean? How will this be seen by believers whose mind has become clouded by old age? Will they receive glorified bodies with this diminished mental capacity?
I appreciate your concern for the disabled and it may well be that God places a high value on our experiences and that He values the experiences of people with disabilities. But to speculate on things that we cannot know to change current attitudes is, to me, putting the cart behind the horse. Yes, your assumptions may raise the self-worth of the disabled (and I value Bev's comment about her deformed hand) but do little for those of us who hope that our bodies and mind will be restored.
Thanks for your response. I suppose we'll have to "agree to disagree." In your initial response, you wrote that "Like you, I expect that you will, and you will bear the marks of your color-blindness in the new heaven and earth." Yet, in your second response, you assume that I "you will see colors in the age to come." That was not my comment; I mentioned color-blindness. But, more to the point, you seem to consider "recognition" as we currently understand it. And, right away, this creates an intractable problem because we change over time and those who will "recognize" us won't have the same image of us, so we may be 'recognizable' to others in different ways, somewhat along the lines that the colors of a butterfly wind change depending on which angle you look at them.
You have already stated that one of your wishes is that your daughter will come running up to you and say, 'Hi dad, let's talk.' In other words, you hope that your daughter will be made whole. Likewise, you hope you will be able to communicate with your mother who now has dementia. Here we have two individuals, one with a disability since birth and one with an acquired disability. Will they both have the marks of their disability? I would think not. What about the recovered drug addict whose body is a road map of tattoos? He or she may be known by these tattoos. Will they prevail into eternity?
Now let's get back to the wound in Jesus' side, acquired after His death. Note that not all disciples were at the foot of the cross and may not have been aware of the desecration of Jesus' body after death. Unless word got around, it's not likely that the disciples would have been aware of this wound. And, considering how dense the disciples were, they may not have made the connection between Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 and the crucifixion. Therefore, I think that the extrapolation to what our bodies may or may not look like is extremely tenuous and gets into the realm of speculation.
I see nothing wrong with pastors using terms such as 'freed,' 'released,' and 'made whole' at funerals. Maybe these terms should be used in every funeral because we are freed and released from the bondage of sin. This does not mean that life has no meaning or that we're better off dead than 'disabled' or 'in the bondage of sin.'
In conclusion, I don't disagree with you on the value of life and the value of disabled individuals. What I have problems with is the - to me- questionable extrapolation of the marks that Jesus showed after His resurrection to our appearance in the life to come. But I'm not a theologian.
It's been a few days since I was able to respond to Mark's recent comment, first to my most recent comments, and then to Ben's. I welcome Ben's contribution to this interesting debate.
I maintain that this discussion is, to a large extent, conjecture: we don't have much of a clue as to what, as Mark calls it, "the age to come" will be. To save keystrokes, let's use the acronym "TATC."
First of all, the Bible says very little about TATC and that forces Mark to use the word "assume" a lot ("I assume that God is a God of economy"). Second, I am convinced that it's going to be a lot better than we can even assume (how's that for using "convinced" and "assume" in one sentence!). But I use these terms to show how little we know about TATC. Yet, in his most recent response, Mark is quite certain that some of us will have marks identifying us as martyrs.
Now let's get back to the initial point that Mark made, that, somehow, the marks that Christ showed in His resurrected body is a precursor of how we will be identified in TATC. I took issue with that and am pleased that Ben appears to share my views.
Mark also maintained that our disabilities will be evidenced in TATC. In his first entry in this series, he wrote, "we can expect that his followers will bear the marks of our own disabilities and challenges throughout eternity too." I disagree and want to push the envelope a bit here. What about conjoined twins? There is a pair of twins in Vernon, BC, that shares part of their brain. Will they retain a mark of this disability in TATC?
Let's take this one step further. With the exception of dementia and mental problems, the discussion has dealt primarily with physical aspects and how we are recognized by outward appearance. What about the acid tongue, the pettiness, the intolerance, by which many of us are recognized? What about pedophiles, some of who apparently are "hard-wired" that way? Will they retain a mark of this disability? On the one hand, we expect that sinful traits will be removed, initially gradually as the sanctification process evolves and then by a quantum step when we enter TATC. How is this different from physical shortcomings? I would argue that, just as our sinful nature will be cleansed, our physical dimension will be made whole as well. Any "mark" would undoubtedly remind us and others of the saving grace effected by Christ but against a backdrop of the evil from which we were released.
Mark mentions that" God is a God of economy" and that "[n]one of our experiences gets wasted." I'm not familiar with the "God of economy" concept but there are experiences that we prefer not to bring into TATC. To assume that these experiences "conform us more to the image of Christ" presupposes that they were all positive.
As to recognizing each other, will my grandfather who died when my grandmother was 27 recognize her in the same way as I will, when she was in her early sixties? I doubt it and that makes me think (assume?) that, in TATC, we will recognize each other in an appropriate manner. If a wayward child does not enter TATC, its parents may not remember his or her existence but this, I admit, is also conjecture.
I think that part of our problem may be that we tend to be self-centred: will we recognize, will we marry, will we, will we? Now, if you really want to put the cat amongst the pigeons, will we need to wear any clothing? My answer to this is that God, through Jesus, will have the best in store for us and we can "take that to the bank." As the old Dutch hymn has it, "Take my hand in Your hands and lead me like a child." That's good enough for me. I realize that this does not resolve the issue of worthlessness that some disabled individuals may feel but to invoke the marks on Christ's resurrected body is, to me, not the way to go.
I agree that it is probably best to put this matter to rest. It's been an interesting discussion. As to Peter Kreeft's question about sex in heaven," I focus more on life on a new Earth and have found [Bishop] N T Wright's "Surprised by Hope" very interesting. As he writes, "our hope is not 'going to heaven when you die' but rather in life after life after death." Brings to mind Martin Luther and his peach trees.
I think we need to be very careful here. It's true that the only record we have of a resurrected Person mentions that Jesus could be recognized by the wounds in his hands and feet and his side (John 20:26-27). But is it not true that the wounds in Jesus' side were made by the Roman soldier (John 19:34)? In other words, the hands and feet were pierced while Jesus was alive, but His side was pierced after He had died. If we say that Jesus will carry these marks "throughout eternity," and assume that the same applies to us, that our infirmities will be carried "throughout eternity," then the same must apply to any damage done to our bodies after we have died. In other words, anybody who was executed by guillotine during the French revolution can then be expected to be headless "throughout eternity." And where does this then stop? Is there some cut-off time when deterioration to our bodies (natural decay) is not reflected in our new bodies?
I appreciate that some people with disabilities may want to carry their disability into eternity; I'm not one of them. I'm partially colorblind and would hope not to have to deal with the inability to see cardinals in a tree or ripe raspberries on a raspberry bush throughout eternity."
What I agree with is fhe author 's statement that "[f]rankly, none of us has a clue what heaven will be like, except that it will be good beyond our wildest expectations." Maybe we should leave it at that, rather than to speculate about things for which we will never, on this side of eternity, have sufficient information.
Posted in: Ecumenical and Interfaith Approaches to the Genesis Flood Story
John, a few comments: If you date the flood a few hundred years before the Egyptians built their pyramids, the larger mountains must have formed in a very short time and that presents problems with the deforming of the geological layers. If you look at Mount Rundle, you see that those particular geological layers resisted bending and remain roughly parallel to one side of the mountain. On the other hand, exposed rock layers along the Juniata River in Central Pennsylvania show foliation in the form of synclines and anticlines. As to stating that "water ends up under rock all time", yes, of course, there is groundwater and there are aquifers but the porosity of intact igneous rock is relatively low (0.3% for granite) and caves and caverns do not extend over large areas. If I recall, Walter Brown has a whole layer of water, apparently devoid of any geological material and with sufficient permeability to be expelled at a great rate. That layer of water served as a "lubricant" allowing the continents to move very rapidly without creation large amounts of heat due to friction. My understanding of "water under the earth" is that the conventional wisdom was that the Earth floated on water and that there was a "firmament" above the water and the Earth along which the sun, moon, and stars traveled on a sort of track. As to the expanding population after the Flood and the preservation of technology, minds better than mine have pondered this and have come to the conclusion that preserving technology by a family of eight is no simple matter. The common understanding is that Noah built the ark by himself, maybe with the help of his sons but he most likely had access to available technological resources. If he felled the trees himself, he must have had an axe of some sort and that assumed that there was some type of metallurgy (Tubal-Cain). Noah used pitch to seal the ark and must have had a source of this pitch and equipment to smear the pitch on the ark. Genesis 4 suggests a reasonably well developed society (tentmaking, enough leisure time to make and use instruments). By the time the flood waters had receded, the metallurgists would have died. If Noah did not know how to make an axe, he and his descendants would have had to reinvent metallurgy (I don't think that Noah would have used a flint axe but, if he had, he would have had to know where to find this flint). In short, a literal reading of the Flood story raises too many questions to an increasingly sceptical generation and, as I have mentioned before, may in fact hinder our attempts to bring the Good News of salvation in Christ. I just hope I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not relying on the Holy Spirit enough.
Shalom!.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, if this parallel does not work for you let me suggest another one. A few years ago, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada allowed same sex unions to be blessed in congregations that allowed this sort of thing and if the presiding pastor was willing to do the blessing. This is called the "local option." A number of congregations have since left that denomination. I believe that the same things happened in the USA with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
Now suppose that, in a few years, the CRC goes along that same path and that individual congregations allow their minister to perform same sex marriages, should congregations opposed to this be allowed to move from a "liberal" classis to a more conservative classis, even if this move would involve long distances?
Note that I am not advocating that the CRC should allow same sex unions but I see the CRC move in the same direction as the ELCA and ELCIC (and other mainline denominations) but with a delay of a few years.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, no, I was not comparing being female with being homosexual; I was comparing the acceptance, by the CRC, of women in office and of the schism that it caused, with the acceptance of same sex unions by the ELCIC, ELCA, etc, that is also causing schisms in that ELCIC and ELCA congregations are moving away, in some cases, as you have mentioned, to NALC (and I should add at this point that a close friend, a pastor, also recently moved from the ELCIC to NALC).
I am not CRC-bashing at all and I am saddened that you read that into my comment. I hold the CRC in great respect and have always been supportive of it. My leaving the CRC was not because of theological difficulties but because we were not prepared to drive 100+ km to participate in the life of the nearest CRC congregation. Hence our journey via the ELCIC to The Presbyterian Church of Canada. But it cannot be denied that the CRC saw fit to accept women in office, first as deacons, then as ruling elders, and finally as teaching elders. I would suggest that much of this change was due to changes in the culture in which we live in North America. Those who opposed the concept of women in office were told that the relevant Bible passages were either not applicable to the current culture of that an alternate interpretation was acceptable. Therefore, is it unreasonable to suggest that the CRC is immune to a similar approach when it comes to homosexuality? I seem to recall a number of articles in The Banner over the years [strongly] hinting that the CRC needs to become more acceptable of practising homosexuals (e.g., John Lee's article "A Valentine's Embrace" in the 2013 February issue although the author did no specifically mention anything about "practising" homosexuality).
Finally, I am encouraged to read that "the baneful influence of GKN theology from the 1960's has faded from our seminary and many younger pastors, I think, have an appreciation for biblical faithfulness and the confessions."
Posted in: Will People Have Disabilities in the New Heaven and Earth? Part 2
Mark,
I appreciate your concerns about the disabled but I take issue with your points. In the first place, the disciples did recognize Jesus. True, Mary Magdalene did not recognize Him, but that may have been because she was crying. She did recognize Jesus when she called him "Rabboni" when He spoke to her [John 20:15-6]. The disciples recognized Jesus when He showed them His hands and side [John 20:19]. In the second place, you make the assumption that our glorified bodies will bear the marks of our lives on earth. Making assumptions is always dangerous because they are based on an imperfect understanding. The Bible is quite silent on these matters. In fact, I am surprised how little the Bible speaks of specific aspects of life after death. My guess is that words cannot express this concept. I have not stated that I expect that we will be "annihilated and turned into something completely different than we were on earth" and I will accept that the concept of annihilation may suggest that "who we are on earth doesn't matter." Still, it's cold comfort to me that I will still not be able to see the red cardinal in a leafy tree.
You have not addressed my comment about the difference between wounds inflicted before death (in the case of Jesus, pierced hands and feet) and those inflicted after death (pierced side). I mentioned victims of the guillotine who would, if your assumption is correct, have glorified, but headless, bodies.
Let me give you an example. In our recent federal election, a quadriplegic member of parliament was re-elected. He was seriously injured when his car hit a moose 15 years ago. Are you suggesting that he can look forward to remaining a quadriplegic for all eternity? Of course, it can be argued that he can praise God with his infirmity but I should also point out that he also has memories of having been a provincial kayaking champion before his accident. Are you suggesting that, when we receive our glorified bodies, our memory will be wiped clean? How will this be seen by believers whose mind has become clouded by old age? Will they receive glorified bodies with this diminished mental capacity?
I appreciate your concern for the disabled and it may well be that God places a high value on our experiences and that He values the experiences of people with disabilities. But to speculate on things that we cannot know to change current attitudes is, to me, putting the cart behind the horse. Yes, your assumptions may raise the self-worth of the disabled (and I value Bev's comment about her deformed hand) but do little for those of us who hope that our bodies and mind will be restored.
Shalom
Tyl
Posted in: Will People Have Disabilities in the New Heaven and Earth? Part 2
Mark,
Thanks for your response. I suppose we'll have to "agree to disagree." In your initial response, you wrote that "Like you, I expect that you will, and you will bear the marks of your color-blindness in the new heaven and earth." Yet, in your second response, you assume that I "you will see colors in the age to come." That was not my comment; I mentioned color-blindness. But, more to the point, you seem to consider "recognition" as we currently understand it. And, right away, this creates an intractable problem because we change over time and those who will "recognize" us won't have the same image of us, so we may be 'recognizable' to others in different ways, somewhat along the lines that the colors of a butterfly wind change depending on which angle you look at them.
You have already stated that one of your wishes is that your daughter will come running up to you and say, 'Hi dad, let's talk.' In other words, you hope that your daughter will be made whole. Likewise, you hope you will be able to communicate with your mother who now has dementia. Here we have two individuals, one with a disability since birth and one with an acquired disability. Will they both have the marks of their disability? I would think not. What about the recovered drug addict whose body is a road map of tattoos? He or she may be known by these tattoos. Will they prevail into eternity?
Now let's get back to the wound in Jesus' side, acquired after His death. Note that not all disciples were at the foot of the cross and may not have been aware of the desecration of Jesus' body after death. Unless word got around, it's not likely that the disciples would have been aware of this wound. And, considering how dense the disciples were, they may not have made the connection between Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 12 and the crucifixion. Therefore, I think that the extrapolation to what our bodies may or may not look like is extremely tenuous and gets into the realm of speculation.
I see nothing wrong with pastors using terms such as 'freed,' 'released,' and 'made whole' at funerals. Maybe these terms should be used in every funeral because we are freed and released from the bondage of sin. This does not mean that life has no meaning or that we're better off dead than 'disabled' or 'in the bondage of sin.'
In conclusion, I don't disagree with you on the value of life and the value of disabled individuals. What I have problems with is the - to me- questionable extrapolation of the marks that Jesus showed after His resurrection to our appearance in the life to come. But I'm not a theologian.
Shalom
Tyl
Posted in: Will People Have Disabilities in the New Heaven and Earth? Part 2
Mark and Ben,
It's been a few days since I was able to respond to Mark's recent comment, first to my most recent comments, and then to Ben's. I welcome Ben's contribution to this interesting debate.
I maintain that this discussion is, to a large extent, conjecture: we don't have much of a clue as to what, as Mark calls it, "the age to come" will be. To save keystrokes, let's use the acronym "TATC."
First of all, the Bible says very little about TATC and that forces Mark to use the word "assume" a lot ("I assume that God is a God of economy"). Second, I am convinced that it's going to be a lot better than we can even assume (how's that for using "convinced" and "assume" in one sentence!). But I use these terms to show how little we know about TATC. Yet, in his most recent response, Mark is quite certain that some of us will have marks identifying us as martyrs.
Now let's get back to the initial point that Mark made, that, somehow, the marks that Christ showed in His resurrected body is a precursor of how we will be identified in TATC. I took issue with that and am pleased that Ben appears to share my views.
Mark also maintained that our disabilities will be evidenced in TATC. In his first entry in this series, he wrote, "we can expect that his followers will bear the marks of our own disabilities and challenges throughout eternity too." I disagree and want to push the envelope a bit here. What about conjoined twins? There is a pair of twins in Vernon, BC, that shares part of their brain. Will they retain a mark of this disability in TATC?
Let's take this one step further. With the exception of dementia and mental problems, the discussion has dealt primarily with physical aspects and how we are recognized by outward appearance. What about the acid tongue, the pettiness, the intolerance, by which many of us are recognized? What about pedophiles, some of who apparently are "hard-wired" that way? Will they retain a mark of this disability? On the one hand, we expect that sinful traits will be removed, initially gradually as the sanctification process evolves and then by a quantum step when we enter TATC. How is this different from physical shortcomings? I would argue that, just as our sinful nature will be cleansed, our physical dimension will be made whole as well. Any "mark" would undoubtedly remind us and others of the saving grace effected by Christ but against a backdrop of the evil from which we were released.
Mark mentions that" God is a God of economy" and that "[n]one of our experiences gets wasted." I'm not familiar with the "God of economy" concept but there are experiences that we prefer not to bring into TATC. To assume that these experiences "conform us more to the image of Christ" presupposes that they were all positive.
As to recognizing each other, will my grandfather who died when my grandmother was 27 recognize her in the same way as I will, when she was in her early sixties? I doubt it and that makes me think (assume?) that, in TATC, we will recognize each other in an appropriate manner. If a wayward child does not enter TATC, its parents may not remember his or her existence but this, I admit, is also conjecture.
I think that part of our problem may be that we tend to be self-centred: will we recognize, will we marry, will we, will we? Now, if you really want to put the cat amongst the pigeons, will we need to wear any clothing? My answer to this is that God, through Jesus, will have the best in store for us and we can "take that to the bank." As the old Dutch hymn has it, "Take my hand in Your hands and lead me like a child." That's good enough for me. I realize that this does not resolve the issue of worthlessness that some disabled individuals may feel but to invoke the marks on Christ's resurrected body is, to me, not the way to go.
Shalom,
Tyl
Posted in: Will People Have Disabilities in the New Heaven and Earth? Part 2
Mark,
I agree that it is probably best to put this matter to rest. It's been an interesting discussion. As to Peter Kreeft's question about sex in heaven," I focus more on life on a new Earth and have found [Bishop] N T Wright's "Surprised by Hope" very interesting. As he writes, "our hope is not 'going to heaven when you die' but rather in life after life after death." Brings to mind Martin Luther and his peach trees.
Shalom.
Tyl
Posted in: Will People Have Disabilities in the New Heaven and Earth? Part 2
I think we need to be very careful here. It's true that the only record we have of a resurrected Person mentions that Jesus could be recognized by the wounds in his hands and feet and his side (John 20:26-27). But is it not true that the wounds in Jesus' side were made by the Roman soldier (John 19:34)? In other words, the hands and feet were pierced while Jesus was alive, but His side was pierced after He had died. If we say that Jesus will carry these marks "throughout eternity," and assume that the same applies to us, that our infirmities will be carried "throughout eternity," then the same must apply to any damage done to our bodies after we have died. In other words, anybody who was executed by guillotine during the French revolution can then be expected to be headless "throughout eternity." And where does this then stop? Is there some cut-off time when deterioration to our bodies (natural decay) is not reflected in our new bodies?
I appreciate that some people with disabilities may want to carry their disability into eternity; I'm not one of them. I'm partially colorblind and would hope not to have to deal with the inability to see cardinals in a tree or ripe raspberries on a raspberry bush throughout eternity."
What I agree with is fhe author 's statement that "[f]rankly, none of us has a clue what heaven will be like, except that it will be good beyond our wildest expectations." Maybe we should leave it at that, rather than to speculate about things for which we will never, on this side of eternity, have sufficient information.