Pages

Sunday, March 07, 2021

Does everything we do have eternal significance?

What Really Matters in Life
James Bejon

What follows is an article written for my church newsletter. It is heavily influenced by thoughts prompted by David Field's "Not the Least Lash Lost", which I consider to be a simply superb and must-read piece of work.

Scripture does not provide us with many details about the afterlife, but it is profitable for us to think deeply about the fact and nature of it. Absent an afterlife, life is 'vanity'. The world goes round and round in circles, and who knows whether our brief lives' accomplishments will profit the wise or the foolish in the days to come? (Let us eat and drink, for 'tomorrow' we die.) Yet, as Christians, we have a sure hope. Our actions and their consequences continue on into the next world in some way. But in what way? Insofar as they are rewarded (or not) at the judgment seat? In part, no doubt. But might there not be more to it than that? Martin Luther is reported to have said, "If I knew the world would end tomorrow, I would still plant my apple tree today". Would we? It all depends on how we view life's continuity-discontinuity questions.

Consider the flood. The flood was a major discontinuity in world history. But the people who left the ark were the same people who boarded it. Like every other man in history, Noah was a product of his past life and past decisions. What he did before he boarded the ark determined the kind of man he would be when he left the ark and stepped out into God's new creation. (People, after all, are not abstract entities; they are the sum products of their pasts and past decisions.) So, what about the day of the Lord's return and of the Resurrection? To what extent does our pre-resurrection life affect our post-resurrection life? Might not what is true of Noah be true of us? Let us put the question in more practical terms. Does everything we do have eternal significance? Or just some things? Cooking the dinner, disciplining our children, doing a good day's work, caring for a relative who may or may not be saved: Are these tasks ultimately irrelevant necessities? Or is there more to it than that? My suspicion is as follows: everything we do, in some way or other, reverberates on into eternity. At times, Scripture emphasises the discontinuity between the present world and the world to come (e.g., 2 Pet. 3), while, at times, Scripture emphasises the continuity between the two worlds. (At Christ's return, for instance, the kingdoms of the world become his kingdoms, and the deeds of the saints follow them into the heavenly realms and clothe in preparation for their return, and the kings of the earth thereafter bring their glory to the city of God: Rev. 11.15, 14.13, 19.8, 21.23-26.) Both sides of the coin are vital for us to appreciate.

Consider, by way of illustration, Jesus' resurrection body—a body whose appearance marked the genesis of a new age. Weren't the hands with which Jesus broke the bread en route to Emmaus in some sense the same hands which were nailed to the cross a few days before hand? And which fashioned wood in Nazareth? And which Mary and Joseph held as they walked Jesus as a young child? Wouldn't Jesus have looked like Mary and inherited certain traits from her? Didn't Mary's actions in that sense at least survive on into the resurrection world? (And might not similar things be able to be said of our own hands and what they have done?) Consider, in this connection, Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 15. The bodies which we commit to the earth when we die are the same bodies which are raised. (Continuity and discontinuity again.) Our bodies together with whatever has affected them are the raw materials of the resurrection. What grows in the resurrection depends on what seed is planted. And, as a result, Paul says, our toils are not 'in vain' (15.58). Now, does that word 'vain' remind you of our initial reference to Ecclesiastes (vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas)? The reminiscence, I suspect, is deliberate. Precisely those labours which are rendered vain by death—the labours of planting and plucking up, healing and punishing, keeping and casting away, weeping and laughing—are redeemed and preserved in value by the resurrection. As one writer puts it, "When we are raised,...the work we have done in the present, in the service of [our] new master, will, [no doubt to our great surprise], turn out to be part not only of who we are, but of the new world he will have brought into being".

But what about our sins? Well, we will not live in eternal regret at what we did or failed to do in the present life. (Our sins will not be 'remembered' against us.) Of that much I am sure. But just as, here on earth, our consciousness of our sins affects—and even heightens—our sense of gratitude as we worship (Luke 7.41-47), so too, I believe, they will do in eternity. When we sing, 'Worthy is the Lamb who was slain', we will know exactly what he was slain for, since the more we know about Christ's work, the more we will appreciate it. The nature of our failures will inform Christ's people of the scope and glory of Christ's work of forgiveness, just as the nature of our frailties and disabilities will inform Christ's people of the scope and glory of Christ's work of restoration. We may not all have the same ministries, bodies, or abilities as one another, but everything we do in life ultimately matters.

10 comments:

  1. Good thoughts.
    Re: “Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 15. The bodies which we commit to the earth when we die are the same bodies which are raised.”
    I’ve often thought about the resurrection bodies for those individuals whose bodies have been rendered unrecognizable or even obliterated altogether d/t horrific deaths via explosions/fires/animal attacks/abortion, etc.
    I’m sure it’s not a significant hurdle for God to deal with, just something that has come to my mind when I think of our resurrected bodies vs the bodies we die as. Maybe it isnt profitable to think this deeply about this particular aspect of the resurrection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Eyezayah! I don't think it's necessarily "unprofitable" to think about how God might restore "obliterated" bodies. I suppose it depends what your line of thinking about this is. Of course, thinking about how God might restore obliterated bodies would be speculation in the end, but not all speculation is necessarily a waste of time or fruitless or somesuch. And in fact some speculation can be quite "profitable". I think there are many examples of both "profitable" and "unprofitable" thinking in philosophical theology. So I guess it just depends. :)

      Delete
  2. Right on Saigon.
    Not really related, but where do you (and maybe anyone else on the blog interested in inputting) think the best place to start with the baptism debate is? As in, any recommended work that you found helpful is settling your own position on the credo vs paedo topic. I’m not looking for wether baptism is salvific or not, nor the mode of baptism, but rather the paedo/credo issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How funny! Another friend and I were just talking about this. Paul Manata had a good argument for paedobaptism while Greg Welty has a good argument against (and by implication for credobaptism). They're both a bit dated but still good for a starting point at least.

      https://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2015/07/11/why-im-not-a-baptist/

      https://www.gracegems.org/C/baptism%20welty.htm

      Delete
    2. There's a lot of material on the debate here on Triablogue too.

      Delete
    3. A recent tweet from John Frame:

      The flood (1 Peter 3:20–21) and the exodus through the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:1–2), which are used in the NT as pictures of baptism, sprinkled equally people of all ages.

      I don’t believe that Christians should break fellowship over this issue. Indeed, I wish there were a way that believers holding different positions on this matter could belong to the same church.

      https://www.twitter.com/DrJohnFrame/status/1368966447964229632

      Delete
    4. “I wish there were a way that believers holding different positions on this matter could belong to the same church.”
      How in the world would this work practically? Like are you thinking not only could church members hold differing beliefs, but that paedo and credo baptisms would actually take place in the same Church?

      Delete
    5. Oh, I'm not entirely sure it would "work practically". I think that may be why Frame expressed it as a "wish".

      That said, maybe someone can verify, but I have heard of paedobaptists and credobaptists co-existing in Doug Wilson's church. Even if this is true (it might not be), I'm not sure how his church does it in practice.

      Delete
    6. Im nervous to add to this one here as it might be controversial? I agree with the sentiment of this post, but where does this extend to? if we start dividing theological beliefs between core, important, and not-important. Where does paedo/credo baptism fit in here? It feels quite a lot like people treat their position on this as core (it is after all a denominational distinguishing line), but I have often wondered how important it is. Of course we are commanded to do it, and it is important, but I feel like people argue about the age more than is necessary. Am I crazy, please feel free to call me so. I have been in a denomination that holds one view, and another denomination that holds the opposite,. I used to hold each position quite strongly. Now I am just not sure 😀

      Delete
    7. Thanks, yage!

      1. Please don't feel like you can't say something just because it's controversial! I, for one, certainly don't mind at all. I don't mind interacting even with people who vehemently disagree, as long as they argue in good faith.

      2. I don't think credobaptism vs. paedobaptism is a "core" belief if by core belief we mean a belief on par with, say, the gospel itself. I've gone back and forth on this issue too. For one thing, I figure if God meant for one or the other to be the correct theological position, and a position absolutely central to Christian faith, then God would have made it perfectly clear in his word.

      3. I think culpability for belief depends in part on variables like a person's knowledge, their opportunities in acquiring such knowledge, the time and place in which they grew up, and so forth. For example, someone with a PhD in biblical studies may be more culpable for certain beliefs than an average layperson. To whom much is given...

      Delete