Truth Or Tradition?

Read Acts 2:14-26

The first sermon preached by the christian church was delivered by Peter on the Day of Pentecost. When the gift of holy spirit was poured out on the faithful 120 in the upper room, it was one of the great turning points in the history of the world! And being the very first sermon it should be of enormous significance to anyone who is seriously interested in knowing truth. The fact is, we cannot possibly hope to understand the church and its message unless we understand what these early christian brothers believed and taught.

When I was in Bible College back in the 80’s, I served as an intern for a church that hosted a sizeable group of refugees from Laos. Every Sunday for about 6 months I taught a class on Sunday mornings to these wonderful people who had escaped the tyranny of the Laotian regime, many of them losing loved ones on their journey to freedom. I’ll always cherish the memory of those brave souls who endured so much hardship and heartbreak to find freedom in our country. Some of them were genuinely converted, but many others were just blending in and attended the Sunday classes just to be part of the community.

I share this with you because in the relationships I established with them I often had the opportunity to inquire about their customs and beliefs. Invariably, I found that whether it was a practice involving a wedding ceremony, or a ritual performed as part of their animistic religious beliefs (which some still practiced even though they claimed to be christian), they were unable to explain WHY they did what they did, or why they believed what they said they believed! It all came down to “tradition” which was handed down from one generation to the next. Hmmm. Not so different from many good church going people today I think.

A while back I read an amusing story ( I cannot recall the exact source) about a young woman who had a certain way of preparing a roast for christmas dinner. Everyone loved her roast, and she was meticulous about preparing it in a particular manner. Her recipe required cutting the roast in two pieces and placing the halves in separate roasting pans. When asked why she did this she replied, “I don’t know, it’s how momma always did it.” Some years later she discovered the truth about why her momma alway cut the roast in two pieces. It seems that momma just didn’t have a big enough pot in which to put the whole roast!

These anecdotes illustrate how powerful and deceptive tradition can be!

IS GOD A TRINITY?

Now, let’s look at Peter’s sermon in the book of Acts and compare it to the prevailing teachings of today’s church. Notice first that after pointing to Scripture and indicating the source behind the strange behavior of those gathered, Peter begins to speak about Jesus and his relationship to God (v22). Did Peter stand up and declare Jesus to be God, the 2nd person of the trinity, or God the Son? No! Peter, inspired by holy spirit, apparently had no concept of the trinity! If so, certainly this would have been an excellent place for it to be made known. Instead, he refers to Jesus as “a man attested to you by God”, and through whom God did many signs and wonders, and a man who was crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men, and finally, who God raised up from the dead (vv22-24)!

Nothing Peter says here supports the tradition of a Triune God. In fact, none of it makes a bit of sense if Jesus were in fact God, or even if Peter supposed him to be God. But, if Jesus was, as Peter asserts, a man attested (affirmed, proved) by God”, then it makes perfect sense. And further, I see that it brings all of the Scriptures concerning Jesus and God into perfect clarity. The plain language used here makes it impossible to misunderstand Peter’s sense of who God and Jesus are in relation to each other. Plainly read, Peter understands that God is not a man, but He works through men (v22). Also, God could never be crucified or killed, however, He alone has the power to reverse death by resurrection (vv23-24)! Then notice in v36 that it is “God” who “made him (Jesus) both Lord and Christ.” Who is this God who “raised” Jesus from the dead, and “made” him both Lord and Christ”? Clearly, it is not Jesus who is God!

This is clarified even further when Peter quotes from Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said to my lord. ‘Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’.” (vv34-35)! In the Hebrew Scriptures, the first LORD is adonai and the second is adoni clearly showing the difference between God and a human lord! This cannot be seen in our English translations, but in Hebrew, adonai is always used of God, where adoni is never used of God! The LORD (YaHWeH - God Almighty) said to my Lord (David’s lord, the Messiah - Jesus)! This is not God talking to God, but God speaking to the human Messiah!

But there’s something else… something not written here, but relevant to the portion of Scripture Peter quotes in verses 17-21. Peter’s explanation of what was happening was “this is what was uttered by the prophet Joel” (v16), then he quotes from Joel 2:28-32. What is not quoted is v27 which says “You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God and there is none else.” Did you catch that? I am the LORD your God and there is no other. The word “LORD” is Yahweh, the name of God the Father, while God is elohim (o theos in the Greek). It is literally “I am Yahweh your God and there is no other”!

So then, there is only one who is God, and he is Yahweh! It is this God, Yahweh, who declares, “I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh”(v17). The reference to “My Spirit”, everyone agrees, is a reference to the Holy Spirit. But is this Holy Spirit a person, or is it the gift of God’s own presence and power? The language of “pour out of My Spirit” seems to be an awkward and inappropriate way of speaking about another person. Perhaps it’s because neither Joel nor Peter understood the Spirit as being a 3rd person of a trinity! Perhaps it’s because the Spirit is the gift of God’s personal presence and power to the church - an impartation of God’s own character and nature to those who believe!.

DO WE CHRISTIANS GO TO HEAVEN WHEN WE DIE?

One last important observation in Peter’s sermon is how he speaks of David in relation to Jesus. After quoting from the prophet Joel he quotes from Psalm 16:8-11 (vv25-28). In this Psalm, Peter asserts that David is speaking  prophetically about Messiah Jesus where God promises that he (Jesus) will not rot in the grave, but be resurrected back to life. Peter makes it clear, and is in fact “confident”, that David is not speaking about himself, and points to the fact that he both died and was buried and his tomb is “with us to this day” (v29). Peter declares that David did not rise from the dead, nor did he ascend into heaven. Understand this! David did not ascend into heaven! But wait, I thought all saints went to heaven when they die. Haven’t we been taught this from childhood? I know that some will claim that Old Testament saints went to paradise and Jesus emptied paradise during the three days his body was in the tomb. But this cannot be so because the supposed emptying of paradise would then have taken place prior to the Day of Pentecost. Therefore, David and all Old Testament saints would have already left paradise and been taken to heaven before the time Peter delivered his sermon. But Peter says, NO, David was NOT in heaven!

If not in heaven, then where? Just as Peter says, the dead are in their graves, or tombs. The bible uses the metaphor of “sleep” to describe believers who have died. This is a fitting description because just as those who experience undisturbed sleep have no awareness of time or anything else, so those who are dead - they are awaiting resurrection from the dead! So, David did not go to heaven but remained in the grave awaiting resurrection, which he will experience along with every believer, at the 2nd coming of Christ!

CONCLUSION

If Peter and the early church did not believe God to be “three in one” or that the believing dead go to heaven when they die, how did these doctrines come to have such a powerful hold over the church? The answer is tradition! Both the doctrines of the Trinity and of the dead going to heaven when they die, took root in the early centuries after the death of the apostles. Over time, they have been passed down from generation to generation with the result that very few question their veracity, or even suspect that they may be unbiblical. Yes, some can quote Scriptures that seem to support the traditional views, but in fact, these so called supporting texts are often taken out of context or misquoted entirely.

So, here in the very first sermon preached by the apostle Peter, after the holy spirit was poured out, we find a rather conspicuous contradiction between the early and modern church teaching! Here, Peter sets forth the unequivocal doctrine that there is one God and He is a single person; that there is one lord, Messiah, and he is the man Jesus; that the resting place for all at death is the grave, and that they will rise at the return of Messiah Jesus!  I ask you dear reader, to examine this for yourself. I don’t claim to have special knowledge about the bible… far from it. I only point to what the bible clearly says without redefining words or pulling Scriptures from their context. Compare this to what is taught today and ask yourself why? Then, if you are sincere about knowing truth, regardless of the consequences, ask God our Father to help you read the Scriptures with “new eyes”. I know, for me, the bible makes much more sense than it did when I tried to make certain passages “fit” traditional teaching.

I believe the bible says what it means, and means what it says… do you?

If this article has been helpful in any way, please share it!

The Thief on the Cross

“And Jesus said to him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” --Luke 23:43 (NET)

This passage is considered a strong proof of the immateriality of the soul, and is typically cited to support the teaching that, upon death, the souls of the redeemed go directly to heaven. In this bible account the thief on the cross says to Jesus “remember me when you come into your kingdom". Clearly, he believed Jesus would indeed come into a kingdom at some future time. The prevailing interpretation understands Jesus' answer as a promise of something which far exceeded the petition. In effect Jesus said to him, "there is no need for you to wait until that day, you will be with me this very day."

This interpretation seems clear-cut, but we must ask: is that how the thief understood Jesus words, and more importantly, is it the meaning Jesus intended? If Jesus had something different in mind, what would it be, and how would one justify it based on the text? Virtually every mainstream bible resource supports the traditional view. In fact, pick up any bible commentary and you'll find pretty much the same thing. They unequivocally declare that in using the word 'today' Jesus defines the specific time in which the thief would be with him in paradise. The meaning of the text seems unmistakable!

But there IS another way to read the verse. It is a fact that the punctuation of a bible translation is left to human design and is not considered inspired. If one simply places the comma after the word 'today', the meaning is dramatically altered. The adverb, semeron (today), would then modify the verb 'I say' rather than 'to be', and so read “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise.

It has been argued that it would be nonsensical for Jesus to use the phrase "I say to you today" because it is already obvious that He was speaking today! But this argument is merely an attack on the intelligence of those who support that reading. Of course we realize that Jesus was speaking 'today'!! But it is not unheard of for one to preface a statement with the phrase “I'm telling you right now...”, in American vernacular. It's simply a way of pointing emphatically to what is being said. Similarly, could not Jesus have responded to the thief's request in such a way?

In a book by Anthony Buzzard, reference is made to a German translation which renders Luke 23:43 as “Truly I give you my assurance today: You will one day be with me in Paradise.” In a note, the author adds “Jesus does not wait until the last day, but promises the thief even now that his request will be granted.” (Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven, Buzzard, p.242).

Consider also, that a similar grammatical construction is found in Acts 20:26 where Paul says to the Ephesian elders "I declare to you THIS DAY that I have been faithful". Some argue that if Jesus meant “I tell you the truth today”, semeron would need to precede the verb, but that isn't necessarily true. It is clear what Paul means here. THIS DAY translates semeron, just as in Luke 23:43, and here, as in Luke 23:43, 'today' does NOT precede the verb. Should it then read "I declare to you, this day I have been faithful"? Obviously, that is NOT what Paul meant to say!

So then, we can see that moving the comma in Luke 23:43 is plausible. But we must still answer the question: why would we want to alter the the traditional understanding? The answer, in short, is that the traditional interpretation is based on faulty Biblical understanding of the human soul, and what happens at death.

Consider the following arguments...

1. What is meant by “paradise”? The word paradeisos is found three times in the Bible.

• In 2Cor 12:2-4, Paul equates “the third heaven” with “paradise”. Evidently, it is God's abode, where Christ ascended after God raised him from the dead. It was there that Paul heard things which, he said, cannot be repeated or, simply could not be uttered.
• In Revelation 2:7 we read of the “paradise of God” wherein is the tree of life which is promised to the one who conquers. Many scholars equate this with the garden of Eden and may also be the same paradise that Paul visited in 2Cor 12.
• Then, of course, in our text Jesus refers to a place called paradise which, apparently is the same paradise as described in 2Cor 12 and Rev 2. But this is problematic; which brings us to the next argument.

2. 

   English: Print by Gustave Doré illustrating the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, from the Gospel of Luke Русский: Притча богач и Лазарь из Евангелия от Луки, художник Гюстав Доре (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

   Where in Scripture can it be shown that Jesus entered heaven that very day? According to Acts 1:3 Jesus did not ascend into heaven until at least 40 days after his resurrection. The bible clearly tells us that Jesus died, was buried, and then resurrected on the third day. Luke had previously recorded Jesus as saying “and after they have scourged Him, they will kill Him; and the third day He will rise again." -- Luke 18:33 (NASB).There has been much speculation on how Jesus spent those three days, but according to Matt 12:40, Jesus said of Himself that he would "be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Many assert that by “heart of the earth” is meant Hades, the place described in Luke 16 in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). But it should be observed first that paradise is not mentioned in that story, only “Abraham's bosom” or “Abraham's side”. Heaven is never referred to in any other bible text as Abraham's bosom. Secondly, since it is a parable there is no reason to believe that Jesus was giving a factual account of the afterlife. In fact, the parable was not designed to teach about heaven or hell. Jesus was using a popular idea of the time to figuratively “poke a finger in the eye” of the self-righteous Pharisees. It was really about the Pharisee's attitude concerning rich and poor and of misinterpreting the Law of Moses for their own gain.
   The more accurate understanding of “the heart of the earth” is, idiomatically speaking, in the grave or, the tomb. Some translations read “in the lower parts of the earth”. Any explanation that has Jesus going somewhere or doing something during those three days fails or refuses to acknowledge the plain sense of Scripture that Jesus was dead and in the tomb for three days.
   
   
   
3. Third, as noted above, being in the earth for three days is a picture of being dead and in the grave! If Jesus, the whole person, was not actually dead, it would render his resurrection pointless, for what need would he have for a glorified body if he could already go anywhere and do anything he wanted without one?! For Jesus to be dead he must have ceased from all activities associated with life, including consciousness. In numerous passages of Scripture, we are informed that the dead are unconscious.

• “For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In the grave who shall give thee thanks?” Ps. 6:5.
• “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence.” Ps. 115 :17.
• “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” Ps. 146:4.

Further, he must have been truly dead in every way in order for resurrection to maintain it's literal meaning as restoration of life, not merely revivification of a dead body.

4. Fourth, Acts 2:29-36 clearly shows that David was in the grave and did NOT go to paradise or heaven when he died? If David, a man after God's own heart, did not go to paradise/heaven when he died, why would Jesus proclaim that the thief would accompany him to paradise that very day?
   
   
5. Fifth, that the thief would not immediately go into paradise/heaven is in agreement with the rest of Scripture regarding what happens after death, not the least of which is the fact that Paul calls death "an enemy" in 1Cor 15:26. If it were true that we go directly to heaven at the time of death, we should then welcome it as a friend, not refer to it as the last enemy to be conquered! Not only so, but other Scriptures put our union with Christ “at his appearing”, which means either rapture or resurrection, not at death!

6. Finally, interpreting Luke 23:43 as “..., today you will be with me” does not prove the existence of a soul existing independent of the body, but presupposes it. In other words, one must already have in mind a view that man is made up of parts, such as soul and body, or body, soul, and spirit, and then read it into the text, including the placement of the comma. But numerous scholars, going back at least as far as Eusebius, and more importantly, the Bible itself, sees man as a whole being; a single unitary person.
   
   Note the following quotes from various scholars:

• Lake 2009, pp. 586–97: ‘The English translation of nepeš by the term “soul” has too often been misunderstood as teaching a bipartite (soul and body—dichotomy) or tripartite (body, soul, and spirit—trichotomy) anthropology. Equally misleading is the interpretation that too radically separates soul from body as in the Greek view of human nature. (See body; spirit.) N. Porteous (in IDB, 4:428) states it well when he says, “The Hebrew could not conceive of a disembodied nepeš, though he could use nepeš with or without the adjective ‘dead,’ for corpse (e.g., Lev. 19:28; Num. 6:6).” Or as R. B. Laurin has suggested, “To the Hebrew, man was not a ‘body’ and a ‘soul,’ but rather a ‘body-soul,’ a unit of vital power” (BDT, 492). In this connection, the most significant text is Gen. 2:7, “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [nišmat hayyîm], and the man became a living being [nepeš hayyâ]” (the KJV rendering “living soul” is misleading). … It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul.’
• Vogels (1994), "Review of "The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality", by James Barr", Critical Review of Books in Religion 7: 80, ^"It is generally accepted that in biblical thought there is no separation of body and soul and, consequently, the resurrection of the body is central. The idea of an immortal soul is not a Hebrew concept but comes from Platonic philosophy. It is, therefore, considered a severe distortion of the NT to read this foreign idea into its teaching.".
• Dixon (2000) [9.2.1968], "What Is Man?", Emmaus Journal, "Several Evangelical theologians suggest that the concept of man possessing an “immortal soul” is not the teaching of the Word of God. Clark Pinnock argues that its source is Plato (or Greek philosophy in general), and not the Bible.".

One last thought. There are several accounts of people being resurrected from the dead in the bible, both Old and New Testaments. With the exception of Jesus, all resurrection accounts were to normal physical life and not immortality. In no case do we have anything written about their experiences while in the realm of the dead. There are no protests by anyone about having to leave paradise to come back to physical existence in the earth! It seems clear that death was an experience of complete insensibility. Although this is an argument from silence, it is, at least, worth considering.

In light of all the above facts, it would not be likely that Jesus was alive and in Paradise on that very day, much less, promise the same to the thief on the cross? By saying to the thief, “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”, Jesus associated paradise with the coming kingdom of God on earth and affirmed that the thief would have a place in that kingdom when he comes again to establish it. And so it is with us. When we die, we sleep until Jesus returns and awakens us. At that time, and only then, “...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” 2 Cor. 5:l0

The author desires your reaction and comments. Please check one of the reaction boxes below. To share you thoughts, post a comment.

Did Jesus Come from Heaven?

The Scriptures speak of Jesus as being "sent" by God; i.e., John 3:17; 3:34; 5:23; 5:36; 6:38; 7:28-29. When one is "sent" he goes by command of one with higher authority to fulfill a specific task. This is what it means to be sent! In the case of Jesus, he was sent from heaven. One of the Scriptures that has contributed significantly to a literal understanding of this is John 6:33 where we find the words "he who comes down from heaven", and again in John 6:38 where Jesus says "I have come down from heaven." Also in John 7:29 which says "... I come from him, and he sent me." Even Paul seems to agree in 1 Cor 15:47 which says, "The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man [Jesus] from heaven." That seems to settle the issue doesn't it? Jesus was sent to earth by God - he came down from heaven! But is it proper and reasonable to interpret these verses in such a literal fashion?

Actually, the phrase "come down from heaven" can be understood in two ways. Of course, the traditional view is that Jesus is himself God - the second person in a trinity - who descended to earth and became a man. But the problem with this view is that, although popular, the Scriptures do not actually teach it. In spite of it's lack of Biblical support either in the Old Testament, the Synoptic gospels, or the Church Epistles, the majority of Christians still accept the incarnation (enfleshment) as 'gospel truth'. I did! I held to the traditional view of Jesus as God for well over 30 years. But after allowing myself to consider the possibility that I could be wrong, and after much study, prayer, and discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the incarnation doctrine is just a fabrication. By combining the virgin birth passages in Matthew and Luke, and the Scriptures mentioned above from the gospel of John, inferences are then drawn that Jesus literally "came" from heaven. But in order to make those inferences, one must totally ignore other powerful Scriptures which clearly teach the opposite!

The virgin birth is a miracle to be sure, but tradition has made entirely too much of it. The virgin birth is exactly what it says it is - a birth! There is no need to convolute the truth! Jesus was conceived when God implanted perfectly created human seed into Mary. The result was a birth! The Scripture reads in plain language that Jesus was "born". Study the following (Mat_1:16, 18, 25, 2:1; 11:11; 26:24; Luk_1:14, 35, 57; 2:6-7, 11; 7:28) and read my blog post "Jesus: Son of God". Being born, even though the conception is miraculous, does NOT presume preexistence; if Jesus preexisted his earthly birth in heaven, then Mary would have been no more than a conduit, not a mother! To be born means to be produced, brought forth, brought into life.

There is another way to interpret the phrase "come down from heaven". When Jesus referred to himself as "coming down from heaven" it was John's way of attesting the fact that Jesus' power and authority came directly from God. We must remember that the authors of each gospel wrote from a particular point of view, and to a particular audience in order to tell the story of Jesus from their own perspective. John wrote to Hellenistic Jews. His perspective was that Jesus was indeed the promised and long awaited Messiah whose life, even before the resurrection and ascension, was so in sync with God the Father that he could speak of himself as being "one" with Him (John 10:10), and could say "whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). John's gospel has long been known as 'the spiritual gospel', and for good reason. Unfortunately, traditionalists have selectively interpreted it literally rather than spiritually which has caused much confusion.

The phrase "from heaven" is a Hebraism which was not confusing to Jesus' listener's. They readily understood it's meaning. The same term is used in Luke 20:1-8 where Jesus confronts the Pharisees regarding their understanding of John's baptism, whether it was "from heaven or from man". The contrast Jesus drew (heaven/man) clearly explains the meaning of the phrase 'from heaven'. Jesus was asking whether the origin of John's authority and his commission to baptize had it's source from God or from mere human design.

Think about this: Jesus was charged with blasphemy for saying 'My Father is working until now, and I am working' (John 5:17) because he spoke of God as his Father. If the Pharisees had understood his claim to be 'from heaven' as meaning that he existed in heaven prior to his life on earth, wouldn't that have given them even weightier grounds on which to accuse him? The only explanation for their failure to make that accusation must be that his claims were understood by his Hebrew audience as an assertion of the origin of his authority- not a prior life in heaven!

To "come down from heaven" and to be "sent" by God, are synonymous terms. The word "sent" in the New Testament is apostello from which the word apostle derives (see Mark 3:14). Essentially the word apostello means "to set apart... send out". The point is, to be sent (apostello) is to be commissioned, or charged with a task. According to John 6:38, Jesus came down from heaven (the source of his authority was from God), not to do his own will (not to promote his own agenda) but to do the will of the one who sent him (the will of the One by whose authority he was commissioned). Jesus was not literally sent down from heaven, he was commissioned by God with a specific task! What was that task? To do the will of the One who sent him! According to Luke 4:43 the will of God was for Jesus to preach the good news about the kingdom of God!

"but he said to them, 'I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.'"

The writer of the book of Hebrews acknowledges this in 3:1 which refers to Jesus as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession." In other words, as the apostle of our confession, Jesus was commissioned with the divine task of preaching the good news The force of the truth that Jesus was sent in the sense of being authorized by God for a specific purpose is even clearer when we realize that John the Baptist was himself "sent" in the very same sense!

"Now there was man sent (apostello) by God whose name was John. ( John 1:6)

And even greater clarity is given when we read the following...

"As you sent me into the world, so I have sent (apostello) them into the world". (John 17:8)
"Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent (apostello) me, even so I am sending (apostello) you." (John 20:21)

Does anyone believe that John the Baptist or the apostles came down out of heaven? Of course not! But we do believe that they exercised a heavenly derived authority in their work and doctrine.

Likewise, Paul, in 1Corinthians 15:47, was not comparing Adam's humanity with Jesus' divinity! If you follow the analogy through, in context (1Co_15:45-49), Paul is using the word "heavenly" as meaning 'from God'.

The purpose of this article is not to demean the lord Jesus in any way. But to make him into God, when the Scriptures clearly distinguish him from God, severely detracts from his humanity. How could Jesus have been "...in all things ... made like unto his brethren..." (Hebrews 2:17) if he preexisted as God and was literally sent down from heaven? Or even more confounding, to be both God and man at the same time? Who can understand such a thing.... who can relate to such a being?

"But the testimony that I have is greater than that of John. For the works that the Father has given me to accomplish, the very works that I am doing, bear witness about me that the Father has sent me". (John 5:36)

Jesus is "a man whom he [God] appointed" (Acts 17:31) His work and his message had it's origin and authority from God, and he was empowered by God to fulfill that commission. The fact that he accomplished this God-given work as a genuine man, NOT as God or God-Man, makes it all the more powerful and meaningful to those who claim to be his followers.

Will You Go to Heaven When You Die?

From childhood, it has been my understanding that good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell when they die. Of course, as I got older, I learned that it wasn't just being a good person that got you into heaven, but being born again! (John 3:3) In fact, I learned that it is impossible for any person to be good enough to earn a place in heaven, that's why Jesus had to die on the cross. He became our substitute, We were the ones who deserved death, because we are sinners. But Christ never sinned, yet He died in our place, the righteous for the unrighteous, so that we could live forever – with Him – in heaven.

I think that pretty well sums up the basic concept of modern-day Christianity. Now, I have since come to a much deeper understanding of what the Bible teaches about our salvation. But for this article, I want to focus on the orthodox Christian view of "going to heaven" when we die because I think we have been misguided on this subject.

As I reflect on my past, it's difficult for me to pinpoint any one sermon, Bible class, book, recording, or article that actually supported, with solid Scriptural evidence, the common Christian teaching that we go to a place called heaven when we die. Yet, it was taught as matter of fact and the concept is so pervasive in our culture that it is accepted without question as Bible truth.

Reading through my Bible, however, I find that Jesus teaches often about the kingdom of God ; the first Christians, as recorded in the book of Acts, preached and taught about the kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus; and we find the kingdom mentioned often in Paul's epistles as well. However, "going to heaven" seems to be curiously missing! Is it possible that heaven is synonymous with the kingdom of God, or kingdom of heaven?

In my recent studies on the subject I have discovered that, in fact, the Bible nowhere promises a place called heaven as the final home of the Christian believer! The idea that souls go to heaven at the time of death is apparently more of an inference resulting from the misinterpretation of certain scriptures, rather than a true Biblical teaching.

Recently I had to attend the funeral of my father-in-law. He was a good man and will be greatly missed. But as a believer, the family is comforted in knowing that his eternal home is fixed and secure in Christ. However, my family, like many other typical Christian families, believe that he was ushered directly into the presence of Jesus, in heaven. Now, don't misunderstand me... I don't have a problem with the idea of going to heaven to be with Jesus when I die. The issue for me is: is that what the Bible teaches? If it is, I gladly accept it; but if not, I want to know the truth!

Shortly after my father-in-laws death, while the family was still at the hospital, one of the family members, in an effort to say something comforting to the others, began to relate something she had read recently in a book. I will not mention the book or the author, since I have not read it for myself, but as she told it, the author was writing about death from the perspective of those who are already in heaven. This author imagined that when the death of a saint was announced, all of heaven gathered together to welcome the new soul into heaven as though they were witnessing a birth, and as the new soul poked itself through heaven's portal, the angels announced, "It's a boy!!"

Well, that may be an amusing and lighthearted way of looking at death, and perhaps even helps to bring comfort to some at a time when the reality of death can be so heavy. But is it really advisable for Christians to be comforted by something other than truth? Should we not rather comfort ourselves with what God says? I think we should... I think it's what God expects of us!

The following quote from the Zondervan Study Bible regarding the topics of heaven and hell is quite telling.

"Most Christians have definite, though hazy, notions about heaven and hell. We are confident of our resurrection. We are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons. Saved and unsaved will exist forever as self-conscious, aware individuals. Usually we speak of "heaven" as the place where believers go at death, and "hell" as the place where unbelievers go. But when we explore the use of these words in the OT and NT, we discover how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!"

Notice that is says: “we are confident of our resurrection” and “we are sure that just and unjust alike are ever-living persons.” These two statements are in direct opposition to each other! If we are ever-living persons, of what value is a resurrection? Yet, there can be no doubt about this mindset among most Christians today. Even more surprising though, is the last sentence in the quote above which states that an exploration of the Bible on the subject reveals “how little is said about heaven and hell as we usually understand them!”

Many dictionaries, such as Easton's Bible Dictionary and Smith's Bible Dictionary include the phrase “home of the children of God” in their descriptions of heaven; however, there does not seem to be any basis for this idea from Scripture. It is simply recorded as a “given” without citing reasonable, specific, Scripture references! Consider the following...

Nelson's New Christian Dictionary reads:

heaven 1. Eternal abode of God, the uncreated spiritual realm inhabited by God as well as his angels. 2. Source of everything that is good and changeless and proceeds from God. Thus, in Matthew the question is asked, “Whence was it from? From heaven or from men?” (Matt. 21:25). Jesus and his work are from “heaven” and from “above” (John 3:13, 31, 35). Accordingly, “every good gift and every perfect gift is from above” (James 1:7), and the Lord’s Prayer is that God’s will be done “on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10). 3. Believer’s hope and eternal home which “eye has not seen, nor ear heard” (1 Cor. 2:9). It is a place of love (1 Cor. 13:13; Eph. 3:19), rest (Heb. 4:9), joy (Luke 15:7), knowledge (1 Cor. 13:12), and perfect harmony (Rom. 8:17; Rev. 22:3).
Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

The above source does very well until it comes to point #3. Notice that heaven is given as the “Believer’s hope and eternal home...” But even a brief look at the Scripture references cited on that point, leaves much to be desired in actual support of the statement!

The following is copied exactly from Nelson's Bible Dictionary. I have chosen to use this information in it's entirety because it seems to be quite accurate. The only problem lies in the fact that what the articles below describe is thought to be experienced upon the believers death, when his soul departs the body and goes to heaven. I do not believe this happens. I believe we sleep in death until the return of Christ at which time we will be resurrected. But, read and judge for yourself.

HEAVEN — a word that expresses several distinct concepts in the Bible:
1. As used in a physical sense, heaven is the expanse over the earth (Gen. 1:8). The tower of Babel reached upward to heaven (Gen. 11:4). God is the possessor of heaven (Gen. 14:19). Heaven is the location of the stars (Gen. 1:14; 26:4) as well as the source of dew (Gen. 27:28).
2. Heaven is also the dwelling place of God (Gen. 28:17; Rev. 12:7–8). It is the source of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10). Because of the work of Christ on the Cross, heaven is, in part, present with believers on earth as they obey God’s commands (John 14:2, 23).
3. The word “heaven” is also used as a substitute for the name of God (Luke 15:18, 21; John 3:27). The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are often spoken of interchangeably (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). At the end of time a new heaven will be created to surround the new earth. This new heaven will be the place of God’s perfect presence (Is. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Then there will be a literal fulfillment of heaven on earth.

HEAVENLY CITY, THE — the city prepared and built by God for those who are faithful to Him (Heb. 11:10, 16). Known as the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), this is the city that is to come (Heb. 13:14). These references in Hebrews find their fulfillment in Revelation 21–22. The New Jerusalem is illuminated by the glory of God. It serves as the dwelling place of God among His redeemed forever.

HEAVENS, NEW — a term that, when used with “new earth,” refers to the perfected state of the created universe and the final dwelling place of the righteous. The phrase is found in Isaiah 66:22, 2 Peter 3:13, and in a slightly modified form in Revelation 21:1.
Rooted deep in Jewish thought was the dream of a new heaven and a new earth, a re-creation of the universe that would occur following the Day of the Lord (Is. 13:10–13; Joel 2:1–2, 30–31). The concept of a re-created universe is closely related to the biblical account of the Creation and the Fall and the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1–3). Because of their sin, “the creation was subjected to futility . . . [and] the bondage of corruption” (Rom. 8:19, 21). The need for a new heaven and a new earth arises from human sin and God’s judgment, not from some deficiency or evil in the universe (Gen. 3:17).

The apostle Paul referred to the Old Testament doctrine of the Day of the Lord and applied it to the events that will occur at the Second Coming of Christ (2 Pet. 3:10, 13). When Christ returns, this present evil age will give way to the age to come. The universe will be purified and cleansed by the power of God. This will be reminiscent of the purging of the earth in the days of Noah, but on a universal scale.
Youngblood, R. F., Bruce, F. F., Harrison, R. K., & Thomas Nelson Publishers. (1995). Nelson's new illustrated Bible dictionary. Rev. ed. of: Nelson's illustrated Bible dictionary.; Includes index. Nashville: T. Nelson.

I believe the above article faithfully describes the Biblical teaching about heaven; but as you can see for yourself, heaven is not depicted as as a place, apart from this earth, where souls go after death to pass await bodily resurrection. Rather, the heavens that have anything to do with people are “new heavens” and are associated with the “new earth”. And the heavenly city, where the righteous will also dwell, will come down from heaven and rest over the earth! But what must be understood here is that the new heavens and the heavenly city do not currently exist as destinations for the righteous dead. Instead, they are promised as part of the age to come - the coming kingdom of God, which will be established at the second coming of Christ!

So then, if the information above faithfully represents what the Bible says about heaven, where did the idea come from that righteous souls go to heaven when they die? I will reserve the answer for another article. But if this topic is intriguing to you, I highly recommend that you read some of Anthony Buzzard's writings on the subject. Click here to go to his website articles page..

Keith