I've been thinking about heaven recently. I hear allot of talk about us having our own personal mansion, with John 14:2 usually being used as support.
I've been doing a little research on this and the majority of the translations/versions I looked at say, "In my Father's house are many rooms. The only ones I found that don't are Young's and (New) King James, which say, "In my Father's house there are many mansions". Feel free to do some research of your own that, www.biblegateway.com.
As usual, I'm drifting from contemporary thought and I would like to suggest, we won't have individual mansions when we get to heaven. I'm thinking there'll be 1 "...BIG BIG HOUSE with lots and lots rooms" (to quote Audio A). Even in the translations/versions that use "mansions", the mansions are in "My Father's House", one single establishment. I tend to picture a Southern homestead. Y'al jump in da truck we goin' on up to the Big House.
I would think individual mansions lining the streets of gold would reinforce our individuality and created separation. Whereas the 1 House with rooms/mansions within it would reinforce the community and family we are suppose to experience in Christ, and what Adam and Eve had before the Fall.
TSB VIII
2 months ago
13 comments:
Jess, you commented on my blog! This is the best day ever. The best dorm ever, is a great example, seeing as most of us have never lived on a Southern Homestead. Come to think of it, I got a little taste of heaven when I was in VA, living in the duplex with a bunch of Christian guys. Our Chrisitan Frat House, "The Duplex" as we called it, was our heaven on earth. Guys living and sharing life together in Christ. WOW, Epiphany moment
If the passage is talking about heaven, then I agree with your view that personalized mansions are not being implied.
Personally, I don't even know if the passage is talking about heaven. Since you've looked up the terms mansions/rooms already, perhaps you'd be interested in looking up how the New Testament talks about God's 'house'
For example:
Hebrews 3:6
But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.
1 Peter 2:5
you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house
God's house, in the N.T., seems to be His people, not heaven. In fact, the only other time the greek word for mansions (mone) is only used one other time in the N.T. and it just so happens to be the same chapter:
John 14:23
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
This fits very well with the question Thomas asked in 14:5 about the 'way' to this 'place' to which Jesus replied that He IS the way (6).
It would seem to me then, that God's house is the church and we are the rooms. And yet if we continue to follow the way (Christ), we will eventually reach a place where these realities are more clearly seen.
I do not think I am spiritually mature enough to understand the full depth of these truths.
I was wondering, about the term "house". I know some times in Scripture it refers to a genelogy or lineage as "house". What makes me think it isn't referring to us as being the rooms is the use of the article "a".
"I am going away to prepare a place for you."
In order for him to be referring to us as the building, it would seem he totally broke away from what he was saying for verses 2-4.
Wherever he is going he is coming back from to take us there (John 14:3). So This would appear to be eschatological unless Jesus was going away to build some commune in South America or to visit North America.
Matthew, please understand I know you have done much more eschatological research than me. So I automatically give your opinion a great deal of weight.
I do still think this passage is echatological though.
I agree it is eschatalogical actually. I just also think it is more than that. I think it's a both/and situation. We are the rooms in His house NOW 'and' there may be actual rooms in His house later.
I'm still not sure if it's talking about heaven, because heaven was never designed for people. Heaven is the dwelling place of the angels, earth is the dwelling place of people, otherwise, why would there be talk of the "new earth" in Revelation. I think this passage is more along what Matthew was saying, less literal, more figuative.
However Dave, I do agree with you that the "rooms" translations is better than the "mansions" translation - it gives more sense of unity to the Church, which is in harmony with the rest of scripture.
Steph,
I again refer to John 14:3, were Jesus said he was going away. This came between the last supper and the crucifixion. Jesus says, he holds the keys to hades (Revelation 1:18), which some have inferred to mean he descended to hell, actually we say that in the Apostle's Creed.
Then on the Cross he siad to the thief, "You will be with me in paradise". Then Jesus rose from the grave and after 40 or 50 days ascended to heaven, where he now sits at the right hand of the Father.
So if Jesus was going to prepare a place, there's one of two places Jesus was preparing a place for us.
Hades was the place of the dead in greek mythology, much like the sheol of hebrew theology. Saved and condemned 2gether, perhaps separated by some sort of chasm, but in the same area. Now since with Christ death and resurrection all those who are already dead went to there appointed place. WE can deduce that this means it wasn't Hades/Sheol he was talking about. Some people like to translate Hades to mean hell, I have a hard time believing there's gonna be ANY type of mansions in hell.
This leds us to one other option heaven.
I don't see any really support that says, we won't go to heaven and since I've only been seriously studying the Scripture for the past 6-7 years, I tend to side with 400+ years of chruch tradition and the brilliant theological minds of our Churhc Fathers.
By the way, Hell wasn't created for people either, but people are still gonna end up there.
I would lean towards the idea that prior to the cross, the dead were in their graves (sheol, hades) and that after the cross the souls of the saved were with Christ (like the thief & the 'souls' in Revelation).
At judgment day souls & bodies will be re-united. The new Heavens & Earth will be created and, apparently, we'll live on that new earth. But I would argue that the new earth will BE heaven in a practical sense. Heaven is a less a 'place' and more a relationship. Whereever God IS, heaven is. That's why we are said to be in the kingdom of heaven now, in a sense (b/c God lives in us).
As for church history, as popular a view as eternal hellfire is today, I do not believe it was so clear-cut in early Christianity. I heard recently that Christianity was fairly evenly divided into 3 camps:
1. Annihilationism
2. Universalism
3. Eternal damnation
I do not think the Bible makes it clear either way, probably on purpose.
Personally, I reject the idea of universalism. I have seen some good Scriptural arguments, however, for conditional mortality and remain undecided b/w choices 1 & 3.
The reason North American evangelicals are almost exclusively in camp #3 is b/c we are, apparently, overly-literal in our interpretations of apocalyptic passages.
Matthew,
Thanks for the correction.
Hell is currently empty, if we were to put time restraints on it. It's not until the final battle that Satan and all his followers are cast in.
In reference to the New Heaven & New Earth. Would this be for the millenial reign?
Well, I'm amillennial.
I think the 1000 years represents the church age wherein Christ has been reigning over His kingdom through the triumph of His Word (as the rider on the white horse with a sword in His mouth Rev 19:15).
I believe at the end of the church age satan will be released and then defeated once and for all (Rev 20:7-9) and then judgment day begins (20:11) followed by the new Jerusalem, Heavens & Earth (Rev 21:1-2).
I could certainly be wrong, Christians have been disagreeing about the millennium for MORE than a millennium! But amillennialism currently seems the best interpretation to me.
A dispensationalist eh?!
You've been brain washed by that Calvinist, Charles Stanley! Haven't you?!
Who's a dispensationalist? :)
That's the complete opposite of what I am! Almost all Dispensationalists are rigid premillennialists.
Good point, but for some reason I associate amillenialists with dispensationalists.
I tend to think the Lord is reigning through his people currently. However, I think all the events of history are going to culminate at the end of a 7 year tribulation at which Christ will return to usher in a visible 1 000 year reign. Does this mean I'm a amillenial-premillenialist?
In reference to the topic of which this conversation spun. Andy Scott & I were chatting and he pointed out that prior to a wedding the bride groom would go to his Father's house and prepare a room for his bride and the marriage could not take place until the room was complete.
If you go to modern day Israel you'll find the houses have one main building with several small buildings off of it.
Andy got this info from Chris Massie, who was one of the BBC students who took the tour of Israel this pass summer.
This kind makes me wanna hold closer to the whole 1 building many rooms image.
:)
I think that makes you a pre-millennialist with a clue. Some pre-millennialists (dispensationalists in particular) tend to think Christ won't really have victory over satan till the end of a future 7 year tribulation (in fact, they say it'll take Him 1000 years to change things around).
I think the victory has been won.
I still agree with you that 1 house and many rooms makes more sense than individual mansions though
Post a Comment