I've had a few thoughts on the nature of the afterlife, and this seems like a decent medium in which to air them. According to a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) understanding, if I'm correct at least, then there must actually be two seperate and distinct afterlifes of sorts.
The first is that to which people go immediately upon dying. This would be the afterlife referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and to which the thief on the cross was headed when Christ informed him that he would this day be with Him in heaven. From what I can tell, this is a purely spiritual existence, considering that the body remains on earth. However, this cannot be the final state, for that would deny the truth of the Resurrection and the promise of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, it is itself an unnatural state, since man was created body and soul, not just soul, and so continuing to exist without a body, even if in the presence of God Himself, would still be an imperfect situation.
This brings us to the second afterlife. According to the Nicene/Constantinople creed, we "await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come." There will be a general resurrection when Christ comes again, when all men, whether sheep or goats, will find themselves with renewed, perfected bodies. This then is the eternal afterlife, the life of the age to come. The New Jerusalem is a new creation, a new physical Paradise where men can finally live as they were originally intended, body and soul in unity with the Divine Energies of God (never the Substance).
So then arises the question: why do people focus pretty much exclusively on the temporary, imperfect spiritual afterlife when it is the eternal, perfected post-resurrection afterlife that really matters? The former is more of a holding area than anything else, with the peace of heaven being but a shadow of that which is to come, and the torments of hell likewise being but a shadow of the suffering that the newly resurrected will undergo in the Outer Darkness.
Speaking of the Outer Darkness, given the context of the situations when this term is used (namely after the wedding feast, which I understand to be the Second Coming, and therefore after the general resurrection), it would seem to me that the spiritual Hell of the immediate afterlife is more akin to that from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (ie a place of fire and whatnot), while the everlasting Hell of the age to come will be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, with each person consumed with isolation, loneliness, fear, sorrow, etc..
These are just some musings on the subject, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone cares to make comment upon them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Ah, slashic... I had almost forgotten about it. Only to stumble upon this, your blog, and be painfully reminded of it ;)
Here's my two cents on the whole "what happens when you die" question.
Time exists sort of like a little bubble in a huge, enormous, gigantic, uncomprehensible expanse of ocean which is eternity (or "not time"). When you die, your soul leaves that dinky bubble of time and goes straight to eternity (a "short-cut" if you will, to Judgment Day, and all that excitement). Well, not everyone goes to eternity, some (a lot?) of people will go straight to hell.
Try to think of eternity as being the same distance away from any point in time. If someone dies in 1805, they leave time and enter eternity (or hell). If someone dies in 2007, the same thing happens to them. There is no true "waiting room" or "purgatory" or "between time", because all those imply that eternity must wait for time to end, or something like that.
So I guess one could say that everyone will reach eternity at the same "time" regardless of when in history they kick the bucket (or bouquet, if they're French).
That's my two cents. Thanks to inflation , it may have turned out like two dollars.
I agree for the most part with Matthew's view of the afterlife, with the obvious exception of the needless business about essence and energies. I especially appreciate the observation that our culture, even our Christian culture, tends overwhelmingly to focus on the spiritual, disembodied afterlife before the general resurrection. I think that many may be uncomfortable with how very real the afterlife will be. When it's reached its perfect state of completion, it will be this earth, the one we're walking on right now, renewed.
I don't know, Z... I don't think that creatures ever enter into eternity. Matthew likes to apply the term "eternal" to God and His divine existence exclusively, and "everlasting" to the creatures, though he didn't follow that usage in this post. I think that it's a salutary distinction to make. A creature requires time to exist, because creatures move and change and develop, which is impossible in eternity. The "holding cell" that Matthew envisions is nothing like Purgatory--it's a blissful state spoken of in Scripture, just not the final, perfect state. All the saints still await the general resurrection.
Consider Psalm 131:1. "O Lord, my heart is not lifted up; my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me."
Scripture often speaks of the dead as having fallen asleep, but does not tell us what that is like. We are not to inquire about that which God has not revealed. We'll find out when we get there. In the mean time, it's none of our business.
Our business is to look for the resurection of the dead and the life of the world to come, secure in the Father's mercy through Christ's atoning sacrifice.
Chris, remember that Christ promises us eternal life many times, as in John 3:16, Matt. 19:29, John 5:24, John 6:27,40,47,54, etc. Do not bring phylosophical reasoning into a discussion of Scripture. Reason is a whore and cannot be trusted.
"Everlasting life" may be a more accurate translation of the Greek (you would know better than I), but that would be the only reason to question the use of the word "eternal." The only valid question here is, "What does Scripture say?" If Jesus said it's true, then it is true, whether it makes sense or not.
Post a Comment