N.T. Wright, who often has found his fair share of controversy among scholastic circles, has now found controversy in the media with his book Surprised by Hope.
If you are familiar with N.T. Wright’s previous works, this “controversy” is nothing new or terribly surprising. Unfortunately, the controversy focuses on the sensationalism of the claims made without bothering too much in the important discussion underneath.
Surprised by Hope represents a more pragmatic version of Wright’s previous The Resurrection of the Son of God, spending less time on scholastic argument and more time on pragmatic conclusions regarding the matter.
The essential thesis is that western Christendom has misdirected the future hope expressed in the Bible: it is not God’s purpose to take all believers up to Heaven forever, but to transform believers in the resurrection, the earth and heavens, and to create a new heavens and a new earth that restores the state of affairs as in the Garden. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the earth-shaking event that inaugurates God’s Kingdom and the vision of this new reality, and believers are called upon to work to reflect the values of this new creation in the midst of the old.
Unsurprisingly, most people have picked up on the denial of being in Heaven for eternity and ran with it. This may prejudice the reader against the main purpose of the work, which is unfortunate.
Surprised by Hope is quite helpful for many reasons. First of all, it represents a summation of the principal arguments that Wright made in The Resurrection of the Son of God without requiring 700+ pages. One can read Surprised by Hope to get the basic ideas, and turn to The Resurrection of the Son of God if one is interested in the full argumentation.
What is especially helpful is the demonstration that the resurrection of Jesus and what it means was perhaps controversial outside the early church, but not within it. Even though the concept would be thoroughly denied by pagans, and not accepted in its pure form by any Jew, Christians firmly believed that Jesus died, was buried, and yet was raised again. They were looking forward to their own day of resurrection when the Lord would return and right all wrongs in the Judgment.
Wright then describes how Christianity began to gravitate toward a focus on Heaven in the medieval period which was made complete by the Reformation. The Enlightenment and its mindset made the belief in resurrection even less tolerable, and the subsequent conflicts have led most of Christendom, for various reasons, to accept a more Platonic than Biblical view of the afterlife. The idea of disembodied souls being in Heaven forever, as Wright indicates, is not at all home in the Bible, but would find enthusiastic support among many pagan circles.
Wright then establishes a different model of the afterlife: at death, souls go and be with Christ in Heaven (based on a crasis of Paradise and Heaven, along with reference to Philippians 1), awaiting the final day on which they will be resurrected and transformed, and the heavens and earth will be restored (cf. 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).
When some people would ask why it would matter what happens in the end, Wright responds in many ways, including:
1. the modern Christian hope is not a hope of conquering death as much as succumbing to it. 1 Corinthians 15 makes it quite clear that death is the enemy and will be conquered– and that will require the resurrection of the body.
2. the perspective of spending forever in Heaven leads to a detachment and even the vilification of all things earthly, which is not supported in the Bible.
3. the creation of a disconnect between what Christians are doing and what is going on in the world, which was not intended.
This presentation is not going to satisfy many, because it is just more appealing for people to believe that they’re going to go to Heaven forever than it is to be part of a new heavens and a new earth. It’s also been ingrained in Christianity for many generations, and such a tradition is hard to cast out, especially when so many beloved hymns involve the concept.
In all things, however, we must be students of the Scriptures, and accept what they teach (Acts 17:11). The surprising thing, however, is that much of what Wright puts forward is entirely consistent with the teachings of the Scriptures.
1. The Resurrection. The resurrection is the central hope and message in the New Testament. It represents the crescendo of Peter’s first lesson (Acts 2:36). It represents the proof of the judgment to come, as proclaimed in Athens (Acts 17:30-31). It is the basis of our salvation, and Christianity is entirely based on it (1 Corinthians 15). If Jesus was not raised, then Christianity is worthless. If Jesus was raised, we look forward to being raised with Him.
2. Heaven. As difficult as it may be to swallow, the Scriptures do not focus on Heaven as a final eternal destination like so many do today. Wright would apply passages like John 14:1-4 and Philippians 1:23 to the period of “life after death”: the soul resides with Christ in Heaven at that time. Wright would seem to equate Paradise and Heaven, which may be difficult considering John 20:17 (yet we see saints as pictured in Heaven with God, Revelation 4). Wright points out that the dwellings of John 14 are more like waystations than mansions, and the only concern I would see involves the interpretation of “I will come again and take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” in verse 3. If, however, Jesus talks about a more personal gathering (i.e., He comes and takes the soul to Heaven at death), and not the collective gathering at the Judgment, one could accept the argument.
Other passages are considered. There is no denial of being a citizen of Heaven in Philippians 3:20, but that’s spoken of in the present, and involves matters of loyalty more than eventual destination (especially when Paul then speaks of the transformation after resurrection in the next verse). 1 Peter 1 speaking of salvation being “kept in Heaven for you” does not mean that we must receive it in Heaven as much as it is being stored/maintained in Heaven for us to receive eventually somewhere. As to Revelation 21 and the picture of the church as New Jerusalem, Wright correctly points out that said city comes down from Heaven, and is not pictured going up to it.
The focus of the afterlife in early Christianity is the resurrection and the redemption of creation (Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15), and not as much disembodied bliss in Heaven. It may not be easy to accept, but it’s hard to deny it.
3. New heavens and new earth. Wright makes much of the reference of the new heavens and earth in 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21, but would seem to deny the destruction by fire aspect seen also in 2 Peter. This is unfortunate, because it makes perfect Biblical sense. Redemption of all corrupted things involves death: Jesus died so as to redeem people (John 3:16), Christians are redeemed because they died in a figure in baptism (Romans 6:3-7), and God even demonstrates in Israel that redemption of the firstborn would require the death of animals (cf. Exodus 12-13). It is entirely consistent to see that the old heavens and earth would need destruction in order to be redeemed, and no injury is done to Romans 8– perhaps the regeneration after destruction is what the creation seeks.
Regardless, there seems to be something to the discussion of the new heavens and the new earth, and it is hard for us to discount the concept. It seems to be what the NT authors expect to happen after the resurrection and transformation of the flesh (cf. 1 Corinthians 15).
4. Current mission and purpose. Wright spends much time applying these new understandings to the current mission and purpose of the church. In this much of his Anglican traditionalism comes in, but such is not a hindrance for all things he establishes.
Wright correctly indicates that the thrust of the promotion of the Gospel in the NT has less to do with “having a relationship” with Jesus like you would a boyfriend or girlfriend and more with recognizing His Lordship. Christians are to be seen as heralds and workers of the new creation, subject to Christ in His Kingdom. This leads Wright to reaffirm the necessity of baptism because of its relationship with the resurrection as stated in Romans 6:3-7. In baptism we become a new creation, part of what God is going to do in the future in the new heavens and earth.
Wright also attempts to dismiss the present nihilism of much of Christianity toward the earth. Wright points out that even though the creation is defiled, it still remains God’s “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), and it is not God’s purpose for us to just cast it off entirely. Instead, Christians are to work to bring God’s purposes into the world, being the model of what the new creation will represent. Such is how we are to “look above” in Colossians 3– not that we look above for our eternal destination as much as our current inspiration. We are to be what God desires for us to be and do appropriate things on the earth. This will require us to stand for the cause of holiness, righteousness, and justice on the earth.
I wish that Wright did not have such a collectivist view for such things, as if the church itself can do them. Yet it’s clear in what he writes that he sees individual Christians as being the ones out working for these causes in their lives, and such is exactly what is expected of us. Christianity should not be a religion of escapism as much as a religion of victory– we can have victory through Christ’s resurrection and lordship, and this is the message which we must take to the world.
Surprised by Hope is a good beginning for a discussion about the nature of the Christian hope, our roles in God’s Kingdom, and the relationship between heaven and earth. It’s important for us to consider the message and the Scriptures and continue that discussion so that we may return to the groundbreaking truths of Christianity that took the world by storm so many centuries ago.
Ethan R. Longhenry
