I think it may be a vanity for us to believe that in heaven our bodies will be perfect, without defect or blemish. Clearly our souls will be but I’m not so sure about our bodies. I think the idea of a “glorified hairline” or “glorified thighs” meaning a full head of hair and slim, cellulite-less thighs is more a reflection of America’s distorted body image rather than a hope of heaven.

When we are in heaven we will be trophies of this immense grace. We will be treasures in God’s storehouse gained from his great conquest. We will not be hollow trophies easily won.

Abel’s blood still cries from the ground (Heb 11:4); will that end when his body is resurrected? I think Abel will be in heaven bearing the marks by which his brother murdered him. Job’s body will still have the pockmarks from the disease that ravaged it. John the Baptist’s head will be attached but I bet we’ll see the scar where Herod had it removed. James, John’s brother will bear the marks of Herod’s sword (Acts 12:2). Paul’s back will bear the marks of his five beatings (2Co 11:24) as well as the thorn in his flesh.

Why? Why would God allow these signs of suffering and pain to abide in heaven? Take a look at the last one I listed above: Paul’s thorn in the flesh. We don’t know what it wasSome theorize that it may have been a problem with his eyes because of his comment to the Galatians, “You know it was because of a bodily ailment that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me… For I testify to you that, if possible, you would have gouged out your eyes and given them to me” (Gal 4:13-14, 15b) and “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand” (Gal 6:11). For what its worth, this is possible but it could be that this particular eyesight problem was a temportary condition as a result of his being stoned in Acts 14. but the point is that God did not remove it, instead the thorn was a means of grace to Paul. God told him “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Should that emblem of grace be taken away from Paul in glory? Rather, I think that in heaven Paul might be able to point to it and say “You see this? God gave me this to weaken me so that his grace might be shown to be magnificent! Isn’t He kind to let me show his glory?” The same thing might be said of all of God’s saints who have suffered while under God’s sovereign care.

The doctrine of the preservation of the saintsThe phrase “perseverance of the saints”, in our modern context, makes it sound like something we do. It originally meant something very different. I’d rather save the meaning than the archaic language and so I change the term to “preservation”. is all about God and none of us. John Piper said that, “there are no mirrors in heaven, heaven is not a hall of mirrors” and my wife says “there are no high fives in heaven.” It isn’t about us getting there, it is about God’s grace and glory and justice. To have Job stand in heaven perfectly healed and his potshard-scraped skin spotless would be amazing. But to see Job in heaven, whole and healed with scars of his trial praising God for his mercy would, I think, even more allow God’s glory to shine through those scars.I’m not speaking of some gory, celestial horror movie. These saints are resurrected and healed. For example, John won’t have his head under his arm, carrying it like a basketball. He will be made whole but bear the marks of God’s grace.

The ultimate demonstration of this concept can be seen in the Risen Savior:

And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. – Luke 24:38-40

But [Thomas] said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” – John 20:25b-28

And one of the elders said to me, “Weep no more; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered, so that he can open the scroll and its seven seals.” And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. – Rev 5:5-6

Jesus will bear the marks of his death for us, even till the end of time. They are marks of God’s tremendous grace to fallen man. When we are in heaven we will be trophies of this immense grace. We will be treasures in God’s storehouse gained from his great conquest. We will not be hollow trophies easily won. The pain and suffering and hurt that God overcame to save us will be present as a reminder of the great things he has done. Glory God and to the Lion of Judah, the Lamb who was slain.

A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word “darkness” on the walls of his cell. But God wills our good, and our good is to love Him (with that responsive love proper to creatures) and to love Him we must know Him: and if we know Him, we shall in fact fall on our faces. —C. S. Lewis

As usual, Cartee writes with clarity and a passion for Jesus Christ. He discusses what grace is really all about.

Those folks who brought you the Christianized version of DDR are back with more!

This time its Light Warriors!

From the synopsis:

Angeltown is under attack! Maniac Brainiac and his band of menacing minions are out to control the minds of the children with worldly messages. Using a keen wit, quick reflexes and a good understanding of the Bible, help the Light Rangers mend this Maniac Madness and bring peace back to Angel town.

Here are some descriptions of the tasks that lie before you:

• Through his Brain TV, Maniac Brainac is controlling the minds of the kids in Central Angeltown. The children are brain-washed into thinking the Bible has been proven to be false.
• Vanna Vanity has placed prideful messages on billboards all around North Angeltown to influence the kids, now she’s throwing a party in her honor.
• The situation in South Angeltown doesn’t look good. Kids are being selfish because Mimi Me has stolen their teddy bears; and now, they don’t want to share anything else because they’re afraid that they’ll lose those things too.

So what’s so wrong with this? Don’t we want our kids to believe the Bible and to not be vain or selfish? Of course we do. But what does this game teach them? We should have confidence in our Bibles because… What makes you vain and selfish is… You can resist those sins by…

The correct moral message is present but the answer is not. We can trust our Bibles not because we don’t watch TV but because they are God’s word to us. They are historically accurate and his faithful witness. We can resist selfishness not because we already have our Teddy Bears (how is that for being backwards moral reasoning!??!) but because in Jesus we have something better than a Teddy Bear, as great as a Teddy Bear is. We can resist vanity not because we don’t look at billboards but because we know that we are sinners undeserving of another moment of rebellious existance but preserved by God’s good grace. He is the center of the universe, not us.

The implicit message of this kind of thing, and really I think much of evangelicalism believes it without knowing it, is that our children are innocent and pure. Sin comes from outiside sources. I don’t know how we get this idea having had three children, I’ve seen how they behave and I know I never taught them that kind of stuff. No, we sin because we are sinners.

We need to take great care with these kinds of things until the archaeologists work through it all (remember the ossuary thought to be James’? Turned out to probably not be.)

Okay, with that in mind, recently what is believed to be the oldest church building was discovered in, of all places, Armageddon! That should give Jack Van Impe an aneurism or something.

Other inscriptions name a Roman army officer, Gaianus, who donated money to build the floor, and a woman called Ekoptos who “donated this table to the God Jesus Christ in commemoration”. The table is believed to have served as an altar.

Some of the rational for dating the building so early is because of the symbolism. There are no crosses but there are two fish in a circle. That could indicate an early date but then again, all they have is the floor of the building. Crosses might have been part of the decoration of the walls. Another interesting thing about the site is that a “table” was found that is presumed to be used for Communion. If that is true, then there is evidence that the early church (end of the 2nd century) did not refer to it as an altar. That could say something about early sacramentology and when the tradition of a sacrifice developed.

Also from the Guardian, “Some specialists remain sceptical about the latest discovery. ‘I think this is a little myth to boost tourism,” said Michel Piccirillo, a respected biblical archaeologist. “The idea that it is ancient comes from the pottery and the shape of the letters on the inscriptions, but this is not definitive.'” Yea, well if it is a little “myth to boost tourism” then they really blew it. “Unfortunately for Israel’s beleaguered tourism industry, the find was made behind the walls of one of the country’s maximum security prisons.” So much for boosting tourism in Israel. Oh well, the prison can always be moved, right?

(HT: Joe Thorn)

Though Calvin recognized that the phrase “he descended into hell” in the Apostle’s Creed was “once not so much used in the churches,” (Institutes, 2.16.8) he believed that it was an appropriate and necessary phrase. However, he comes short of actually saying that Jesus descended into hell. He says “it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment.” (Institutes, 2.16.10) This could be understood to be in agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 44 which places Jesus’ experience of hell on the cross, not in the grave. In the Institutes Calvin is sufficiently vague in discussing the order of the events of Jesus’ death so that interpretation remains a possibility: “Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then [the Creed] appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God.”

Instead, I believe that it is better to simply omit the phrase from the Creed since a) it is not Biblical and b) it is missing from the earliest forms of the Creed. I think Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology may be on to something when he points out that the phrase originally was understood to mean that Jesus descended into the grave and that when various versions of the Creed were put together we wound up with the unfortunate situation of having the synonymous phrases “buried” and “descended into hell” side by side in the Creed. This required a redefinition of the later as the church struggled to keep the various versions intact while creating a standard text.

Here are some texts adduced to support Jesus’ descent into hell:

1 Peter 3:19-20 – The idea is that Jesus descended to hell to preach to those who died before he came. However, it may be better to understand that Jesus, through Noah, preached to those who were disobedient while Noah built the ark and those people are now in prison because they did not listen to Jesus. The problem with taking this to mean all who died before Christ is that the scope of this text is really only those who in Noah’s day.

Ephesians 4:9-10 – Hell does not seem to be in sight in this verse at all. There are a few different interpretations that are more viable. It could be that Jesus descended, not to hell but to the grave. Jesus descended into the abode of the dead (Sheol in the OT) and as he rose from the dead he lead the elect dead to heaven. This need not be taken chronologically but might be logically. Elsewhere Jesus is the “firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18).

Another view is that Jesus descended not in to hell but simply descended to the earth. The “lower parts” is meant to indicate that he really did come to earth, not to the high and lofty position but that he came as a poor and humble man. What this interpretation has in mind is the phrase from Eph 4:8 that “he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.” Here Jesus came to earth, completed his ministry and ascended to heaven. In that work he won a people to himself and gives spiritual gifts to them. That is the gift of salvation as well as spiritual gifts.

These other interpretations weaken the Biblical data that might support Jesus descent into hell. Couple that with Jesus’ own statement from the cross that the thief crucified next to him that “this day” he would be with him in paradise and that he said “it is finished” and we see no need for him to descend into hell for three days at all.

Anne Rice has practically created the Vampire genre with her novels. “Interview with a Vampire” was even made into a movie. (One that helped propel young Kirsten Dunst’s career.) Rice’s work has been a tremendous draw for the Goth crowd.

A few years ago her writing slowed down. In 1998 she returned to the Roman Catholic Church as she moved from atheism to faith. Her newest book, first in a series, is called “Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt“. She’s decided to write a fictionalize, first-person account of Jesus’ life.

At first, I was very skeptical. After reading an interview (free registration required) with Rice in the Chicago Trib, I now just skeptical.

Here are some quotes that backed me off from “very” skeptical:

Q. You write that, based on your reading of a lot of biblical studies, many scholars actually dislike Jesus. Why do you think this is?

A. I think Bible scholarship — skeptical Bible scholarship — started in earnest in the 18th Century, and it started on the premise that Jesus is not God. Many of the Bible scholars I read are skeptical, age-of-reason-type people, trying to show that the Gospels, in their view, don’t make sense, and there were no miracles, no virgin birth. It’s no more than a set of opinions, a set of opinions that have a skeptical worldview. It claims to be science, but what’s being used is a lot of speculation. There’s a huge bias to it.

I examined all these arguments and found them to be very shallow and very flimsy and assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions. This is a field where everything is mixed up — religion, history, politics — and people have strong feelings, and often irrational feelings. The skeptics, I found, are as irrational as any religious person might seem.

She is spot on here!

Q. You write about your obsession with Jesus. How deep is that obsession? And just how obsessed are you?

A. I am totally obsessed. It’s a wonderful obsession. It’s having a subject that will never let you down. There’s no end to what you can study and ponder and learn. I’ve never felt this way in my life. Before, my writing was often so exquisitely painful. This is totally different. I feel totally transformed.

Almost sounds like Christian Hedonism. She is correct, we cannot exhaust our understanding of Jesus. The one word that is missing here is “love”. It is possible to be obsessed with something and not love it.

One last positive quote:

Q. Do you have a sense of what ripples this book will cause?

A. My hope is that it makes Jesus real to people who haven’t thought about him or ever seriously considered believing in him literally.

Wouldn’t that be great! I hope that God uses Anne’s books to awaken many, especially those in the Goth crowd.

However, all is not rosy. Here is the quote that troubles me:

Q. You write of using the Infancy Gospel of Thomas to help you think about the powers Jesus had as a child — the sparrows you have him creating out of lumps of clay, the playmate he kills without realizing what he’s doing. And there’s the snowball scene in which Joseph thinks the snow came because Jesus prayed for it, and he says, “No! I didn’t do it. Did I?” Did you have fun writing that?

A. It was fun. It also took a great amount of courage, and all that studying. I drenched myself in research. I read over and over and over again all the stories in the Bible. A lot of thought went into it.

The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic writing. I read it in college and it is pretty bad. The fact that Rice not only read it, but mirrored it in her book is troubling. I would rather have her simply make some stuff up than reference to a work that is false and tries to pass itself off as authentic. “The Da Vinci Code” appeals to The Gospel of Thomas as well. Neither of which are historically accurate. Another book by a popular writer that gives a tip of the hat to it may serve to only make it that much more popular!

In the end, we’ll have to wait and see when the book comes out how well it does. If it is popular enough we can probably count on a major motion picture.

As I have listened to the news, especially special reports on NPR, I have hear a word repeatedly come up and yet have not heard it commented on: church. As reporters visit shelters, they are often visiting churches. As unofficial clean up crews go out and remove trees from houses and clear debris, it is often church groups doing it. I have heard from many churches in this area who are sending not just money, but people to the affected areas just to help. It reminded me of something I read in the Bible this morning: “And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful” (Titus 3:14). The context doesn’t seem to limit this to just the church, it doesn’t set any boundaries on the urgent need.

“And let our people learn to devote themselves to good works, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not be unfruitful” (Titus 3:14)

The world can argue with our theology. The can make a mockery of the notion of creation (isn’t evolution a fact?) and wince at the word ‘sin’. They can depict Christians as bubble-headed holier-than-thous on TV (Ned Flanders and Rev. Lovejoy on The Simpsons). But when we show up en masse to take a tree off their roof and cover the hole with a tarp, asking nothing in return, what do they say then? “Hi, we’re from XYZ Church and we were told you needed some help.” How can you argue with that?

I have been praying that as people from New Orleans and the other affected areas encounter Christians in a way they have never encountered them before, that God will use it to open their eyes and change their minds. May it be that He would awaken many and begin to stir repentance in them. May they consider Christianity as more than a political movement or a laughably naive world view. May they see the church as the church. And may God grant that we do a good job being who we are.