Fire Insurance? (June 10 Show)

[look2jesus]

Greetings everybody,

Just to add to what Homer said, when Paul closes out the resurrection theme at vs. 58 it seems that his conclusion is that our present walk with the Lord, our dutifulness and faithfulness and perseverance, is tied to the expected reward:

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” NKJV

The reality is, I think, that since we have been made in God’s image and, therefore, possess certain characteristics given to us by Him in creation, and because He is the God that He has revealed Himself to be, it becomes almost impossible to do anything but speculate on this question.

I agree with Steve in this sense, that if God, being the same God that we know Him to be, were to have devised a different purpose or plan or whatever for us, then our duty and privilege, would still be to serve Him and glorify Him as best we could.

But I think that what Paul is arguing in vss. 12-19 is that, included in the proclamation of the gospel, is the testimony that God raised Jesus from the dead. Now, if in fact, God did not raise Jesus from the dead, that would call into question everything we know about God. God would be shown to be a liar and His character would be greatly impugned. And in this circumstance, we might as well eat, drink and be merry, etc. because how could we trust anything God says. We certainly couldn’t have much hope in our being resurrected.

So when Paul says, “If the dead do not rise” or “what advantage is it to me, if the dead do not rise”, in my opinion, he’s not alluding to some alternative plan that the God we know from scripture chose to accomplish, instead of the plan He did accomplish, but rather he is pointing out the foolishness of following a “god” which, in this case, would be the antithesis of the God which we find revealed in the scriptures.

If God were not to be the God He has revealed Himself to be, then who's to know how different our natures would be and in what manner we would or could respond to this "different" God?

It does seem, however, that in verse 58 Paul is dangling a carrot in front of us…

l2j

[steve]

Matt pointed out something that I was about to post at the time, which has perhaps not been given sufficient weight here. The Old Testament saints did not have a clear idea of immortality at all. I do not believe that David knew about rewards in a future life—and in much of his early life, fleeing from Saul, he might reasonably have said, "I am of all men most miserable." However, his psalms (even those written during this early period) indicate that he loved God and wished to be loyal and pleasing to Him.

It may be true that we have additional incentives to persevere, of which David knew nothing. However, I can hardly imagine that a man of principle would see himself as being at liberty to deny God the honor due Him simply because there was no known pay-off in the end. As Matt mentioned, the Old Testament saints served God because they perceived value in God Himself. They obviously hoped for reward in this life, but they knew full well that many godly people died without seeing "the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living."

Suzana pointed out that Abraham "looked for a city..." (Heb.11:10). I do not think this necessarily refers to his personal anticipation of eternal life (though this might have been something he hoped for—Heb.11:13-14). I think it means, primarily, that he anticipated a great new society (the Church) that would arise from his family line, through which all the nations of the earth would be blessed. His own immortality may or may not have figured into his hopes. We have no record of God revealing such things as personal immortality or the final resurrection to him.

We are told that some of the (probably) later martyrs of the prophetic and Maccabean periods "looked for a better resurrection" (Heb.11:35). They had grounds to do so, no doubt, from some few passages in Isaiah and Daniel (which are themselves ambiguous).

The point being that those who, like David, were men "after God's heart," valued God for who He is, independently of any clear promise of reward in a future life. This is the difference, I think, between the motivations of people who know and love God, on the one hand, and those of the merely religious, on the other.

[Suzana]

The Old Testament saints did not have a clear idea of immortality at all.

Steve, would that mean that Martha was speaking from knowledge she had gained from the teachings of Jesus, or had there been a development of a general expectation or understanding of a future resurrection within the Jewish faith?

John 11:23-24 (KJV)23 Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. 24 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

[steve]

The belief in the resurrection, as well as belief in the afterlife (hell, etc.) had been thoroughly developed by the rabbis in the inter-testamental period. Their views on hell were largely speculative and borrowed from other cultures. However, their belief in the resurrection was developed from a couple of passages in the prophets. By the time of Christ, the Pharisees (who followed the rabbinic teachings) were staunch defenders of the resurrection doctrine against the Sadducees. It would be the Pharisees' teaching in the synagogues, most likely, that informed Martha's theology. We do not know whether she had been present to hear Jesus speak on the subject—but that, too, is possible.

[mikew]

From the time of Adam's fall, mankind has been outside of the garden of Eden looking in at the flaming sword and wondering how could he reach that Tree of Life. Of course, our view of the garden only comes through the written record. Yet this is the common history of all mankind.
The expectations for eternal life are obvious from the account. Adam, in the garden, was perfect and had life with no end. But then by eating of the forbidden fruit, he now had the top three problems. He was an outsider to paradise. He was imperfect. He was dead (or dying or going to die).
It should be identifiable in ancient history about those cultures who have expected an afterlife that would restore them to eternal life if they achieved that perfection, the lost perfection of Adam. And, of course, if you had to die at some point, then there would have to be a resurrection to get that life back.

I meant to add to my entry earlier that though there would be some reasons for inquiry and speculation about eternity, there was not much to be found in the Old Testament about it. But as pointed our earlier from Hebrews 11, there was an expectancy that the promises would be fulfilled to those to whom the promises were made.

There were some concepts of eternity. I think the main ones were mentioned with respect to the throne of David:
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

[mikew]

We are told that some of the (probably) later martyrs of the prophetic and Maccabean periods "looked for a better resurrection" (Heb.11:35). They had grounds to do so, no doubt, from some few passages in Isaiah and Daniel (which are themselves ambiguous).

Are you specifically thinking of ambiguity as seen by Jews before the time of Christ or by believers subsequent?

What were some of the problems in assessing the resurrection wording of Dan 12:2,13?

[steve]

Are you specifically thinking of ambiguity as seen by Jews before the time of Christ or by believers subsequent?

What were some of the problems in assessing the resurrection wording of Dan 12:2,13?

I don't think there is any ambiguity in the New Testament about the reality of the resurrection. I do think that there is ambiguity about the interpretation of Daniel 12. I think Daniel 12:3 may describe the same thing that Luke 2:34 is describing...which would not be the resurrection. Verse 13 sounds more like a reference to the resurrection, however.

The passage in Isaiah to which I was referring was Isaiah 26:19.

[christopher]

Just a few thoughts on this.

I think, as Suzana pointed out, that it may be a matter of should vs. would. I believe Jesus pointed out the correct attitude in this analogy:

Luke 17:10
10 So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do.' "
NKJV

It's a person's duty to serve God because, as servants He owns, it is right thing to do.

Likewise, God told Aaron:

Num 18:20
20 Then the LORD said to Aaron: "You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them; I am your portion and your inheritance among the children of Israel.
NKJV

The Levites were promised nothing tangible in the deal, only the privilege to serve God. That's the should part.

But what's the motivation to do what one should do? I think Suzana brought up another good point about those who resist evil in wars even though they're probably going to die by doing so. There seems to be great satisfaction in doing what is right, even when there is no rewards. Has anyone ever experienced self-loathing simply for being self-serving? I have, and I hate it.

If we know that serving God is the right thing to do, whether or not there is the promise of eternal inheritance, then I think there is still great personal benefit to do so, even in this life.

[Allyn]

I might be way off base but I don't think we could possibly love God or anyone for that matter if God Himself was not a loving God. Being created in His image involves the trait of a loving God thus our capacity to love. It goes without question in my mind that we are able to love only because God is love.

[Jason]

I'm starting to think Steve's comment on the show was merely a visceral response to shallow Christianity. There are mature Christians who think as I do on this subject, as evidenced by some of the comments here. I interpreted Steve to mean "we should serve God no matter what" but the scripture says "we love God because he first loved us." So I'm in agreement with Allyn here. I will serve God whether or not I'll get some kind of reward, but the scriptures give us ample incentive to do so. Therefore, I think Steve is incorrect to say such Christians are carnel because they serve with a hope in mind. To do so is to disagree with Jesus and Paul, both of whom spent time "dangling the carrot" as L2J said.