Several weeks back, I published an article on why I do not believe in hell. In that post, I traced the history of the doctrine of hell and its omission from the biblical texts. Now, I would like to set my sights on Heaven. I do believe there is such a place as heaven; however, I do not believe the typical depiction of Heaven, nor do I believe that followers of Christ enter heaven after physical death.

My Journey of Afterlife Theology

Early on in my theological journey, this question was a motivator to better understand the Bible as it relates to suffering. I took up the study of theology at the age of eighteen, when my mother was diagnosed with liver cancer. The most prominent question on my mind was why God allows suffering. The second was whether Christians go to heaven.

I lost my mother less than a year into my studies. As you might imagine, I was consoled by numerous Christians that she was in a better place and I would see her again. But part of me was not sure that this was true. I wanted to believe it, and I tried with all earnestness, but it just seemed too fairytale-like. As I dug deeper, I found that I was not entirely wrong.

I started watching a YouTube vlog at the time called “Unlearn.” Unlearn is a heavy source of inspiration for Living by the Logos. Unlearn advocates for “Biblical Christianity,” or what some call “Messianic Jewish,” beliefs.¹ One that I watched addresses the concept of the afterlife. And after hearing Lex Meyer, the face of Unlearn, I never thought the same of Heaven again. I have included links to Unlearn, as well as the podcast on the afterlife, in the footnotes.²

Early Christian Interpretation of Paradise Today

If you have ever encountered any so-called Christians who do not admit this doctrine [of the millenium], but dare to blaspheme the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob by asserting that there is no resurrection of the dead, but that their souls are taken up to Heaven at the very moment of their death, do not consider them to be real Christians- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 80.³

The above quote by the world’s first Christian theologian condemns Christians who believe in going to Heaven after death of blasphemy. This little-known quote is massive in the way that it identifies early Christian belief in the afterlife. Today, virtually every Christian believes that when they die, their soul magically teleports to Heaven. There are numerous sermons, books, doctrines, and denominations based on this one idea. But are these modern inventions embracing the same theology as Justin Martyr two-thousand years ago?

Let’s turn back a few years. The Gospels, with all their differences and similarities, all include the story of Jesus’ crucifixion. This narrative, by modern Christianity, is the focal point of the entire biblical corpus (you know, the part where the hero dies… not where he is resurrected? Churches are decorated with crosses instead of empty tombs? Really??) The Gospel of Luke contains at least one dissimilarity in this story.

Luke 23:43: A Tricky Verse

Luke’s Gospel is easily my favorite. No, not because I was named after it, though that does add a special layer. The Gospel of Luke, in my opinion, is the most professionally composed and historically accurate account of Jesus. Luke’s account of Jesus’ crucifixion also contains a polarizing line that has shaped how Christianity interprets life after death.

As noted in the other Gospels, Jesus is crucified among two criminals. In Luke (23:39), one of the thieves taunts Jesus, saying, “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!” The other criminal responds, “Have you no fear of God? You’re getting the same punishment as he is. Ours is only fair; we’re getting what we deserve for what we did. But this man did nothing wrong” (23:40) Jesus famously says to the other criminal, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” (23:43).

The problem we encounter with all modern English translations is the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43. But what is little known and/or often overlooked in biblical teachings is that the ancient Greeks did not use punctuation. English translations added a comma to this verse, and thus, we have the idea that Jesus promoted the modern belief of going to heaven immediately after death.

Unfortunately, it appears scholars tend to ignore this and embrace the popular notion that colonized Christianity teaches. Few commentaries even acknowledge that maybe there is an alternate interpretation of this text. It honestly shocks me how underdeveloped the research on this verse is.

I am no expert in Greek or Hebrew, but it seems the solution to this verse is quite simple based on historical analysis. Punctuation did not originate until the second century CE at the very earliest, and was not widely used until at least the seventh century.⁴ The oldest copy of Luke 23:43 we have, P(75), has no punctuation.⁵

This textual problem is not one that is easily solved. I believe the strongest argument for reading the popular translation of Luke 23:43 is a matter of terminology. The argument holds that Jesus would not need to include the word “today,” because clearly he and the thief know he is speaking to them “today.” Jesus says, “Truly I tell you today,” because what else would he say? Truly I tell you tomorrow? Going off of this argument, the word “today” is a key word in Luke’s Gospel. What “the hour” is to John, “today” is to Luke.

While these arguments are strong and, of course, common sense, we have to remember that we are dealing with words composed two thousand years ago, in a different language, in a different culture. There are strong arguments for the other view of this verse as well. We can take, for instance, Luke 9:22 (NIV) in which Jesus says of himself, “and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.” Or, we can look to John 3:13 (CJB) where Jesus says, “No one has gone up into heaven; there is only the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.”

Paradise Lost, Regained… or unknown?

These arguments are also strong. But a lesser known argument that has been making strides in recent scholarship is the use of the term “paradise.” What is “paradise?” Why do we automatically assume paradise is heaven? To begin with, let’s look at the CJB translation of our Lukan passage. This translation says, “Yes! I promise that you will be with me today in Gan-‘Eden.” The word translated paradise, paradeisos, is the same word that the Septuagint uses to identify the Garden of Eden.⁶ Furthermore, this word has quite a few differing connotations, including:

…2. a garden, pleasure ground

3. the part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of pious until the resurrection: but some understand this to be a heavenly paradise

4. the upper regions of the heavens. According to the early church Fathers, the paradise in which our first parents dwelt before the fall still exists, neither on the earth or in the heavens, but above and beyond the world

5. heaven

Strong’s Concordance, G3857 – Paradeisos

When we hear the word paradise, we almost immediately think of some heavenly realm. But is this the same way the ancient world would interpret it? According to Paul R. Williamson and D.A. Carson, “The use of the term ‘paradise’ here aligns this promise with the intertestamental concept of a post-mortem abode for the righteous dead in Eden, conceived of as either a final destiny or an interim state.”⁷ This meshes perfectly with the Old Testament concept of sheol and the New Testament concept of Hades. Jesus does not tell the thief they will be together in heaven, but in paradise.

This interpretation makes sense because we are never told in the Gospels that Jesus ascends to heaven or descends to hell. The idea that Jesus descended into hell, famously included in the Apostles Creed, has no biblical basis. Jesus ascending into heaven does have a biblical basis; however, it is found in Acts. According to Acts 1:3-11, after Jesus’ resurrection, he spent forty days on earth before he is “taken away” to heaven.

While it probably makes more sense that Jesus refers to heaven as paradise in Luke 23:43, we cannot rule out other interpretations. The only reason it makes more sense is because the church has pressed this theological concept for centuries. Luke 23:43, in fact, is the only verse in the Bible that truly hints at an immediate transportation to heaven upon death. We, again, should not rule out that only Jesus has ever been to heaven (John 3:13).

While the Bible makes it very clear that while Jews and Christians do not enter heaven at death, it is indeed probable that they enter a paradisiacal realm of sheol/hades. Then again, it could very well be that Luke meant “heaven” when he used “paradise.” Bart D. Ehrman notes that Luke often includes doctrines such as this in spite of differing positions by other biblical authors. It seems as though interpreting this verse is a matter of faith. However, I do not hold the popular view that good people go to heaven and sinners go to hell. To me, this just isn’t rational.

1 UNLEARN The Lies, “About,” https://unlearnthelies.com/home/about/

2. UNLEARN The Lies, “Biblical truth about Life After Death (heaven, hell, and resurrection), YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42gVKzxmzIU

3. Thomas B. Falls. “The Dialogue with Trypho.” In The First Apology, The Second Apology, Dialogue with Trypho, Exhortation to the Greeks, Discourse to the Greeks, The Monarchy or The Rule of God (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 6), 276. Catholic University of America Press, 1948. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt32b2bk.6.

4. Wilson Paroschi, “The Significance of a Comma: An Analysis of Luke 23:43.” Ministry Magazine (June 2013).

5. Ibid.

6. Markus Bockmuehl, and Guy G. Stroumsa. Paradise in Antiquity : Jewish and Christian Views. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 58-59. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=344588&site=ehost-live&scope=site

7. Williamson, Paul R.. Death and the Afterlife : Biblical Perspectives on Ultimate Questions. Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2018. 58.

8. Bard D. Ehrman, “Today You Will Be With Me in Paradise?” The Bart Ehrman Blog, November 2018. https://ehrmanblog.org/today-you-will-be-with-me-in-paradise/

Do you want to know how to get under my skin? Play Christian contemporary music (CCM). Many of the artists you’ll find on Christian radio exhibit extreme arrogance and boastfulness when not on stage “praising the Lord.” Jeremy Camp. David Crowder. Matthew West. I wish I could say I did not have the unfortunate pleasure of meeting such loathsome individuals. I have a brother who worked with these artists who, at the time, I all but idolized. Then I found out they are scum, capitalizing on well-meaning Christians who just want to get their worship on. Such “artists” love to force flawed doctrines into their music.

Growing up, only Christian radio stations were allowed. For those familiar with CCM, you undoubtedly know of Chris Tomlin, the Rod Stewart of Christian music (Sorry, Rod). Many of his songs are sung each Sunday morning in Christian churches across the country. One that has protruded American churches is his song, “How Great is Our God.” In this worship song, Tomlin awkwardly forces the doctrine of the trinity into the lyrics. “The Godhead three in one; father, spirit, and son.” Does Tomlin know that this doctrine has no biblical foundation? Does he know that art and doctrine are not the same? Does he care? Do the churches singing this care?

What is the Trinity?

The trinity is a church doctrine that purports God is one being comprised of three different beings. Does it make sense? No. Does the church ever? Again, no. But church leaders have been charming enough to create a historical debate on what this nonsensical claim means and does not mean. Trinitarians believe that they are monotheists; they also worship three gods; yet, these three gods are not the same person, and yet they are. The University of San Diego gives a simple, yet concise summary of this ideology:

(1) The Father is God

(2) The Son is God

(3) The Holy Spirit is God

(4) The Father is not the Son

(5) The Father is not the Holy Spirit

(6) The Son is not the Holy Spirit

(7) There is exactly one God¹

Oh right, I remember the verse where Jesus says believe this or else you will go to hell. Evangelical churches will tell you this concept is grounded in the Bible. But is it really? An article at Ligonier Ministries notes that the Trinity is essential to “Christian living” and the “creeds and confessions of the church.”² It is. But is it biblical? Well, no, but Ligonier Ministries wish not admit to this. Instead, they argue that it is biblically supported. It is such a religious thing to take a modern concept and say that ancient sources support thinking that the original authors did not hold.

What evidence do evangelicals have? In the Old Testament, Elohim alludes to the multiplicities of identities in the “godhead,” such persons communicate with each other, and the “spirit” being God’s agent in Creation, to name a few talking points. So there are multiple gods, but with Jesus, the number is reduced to three. Confused yet?

In the Old Testament, Jesus is the Son of Man and the Son of God. But two is not a perfect number, so the church decided to throw in the Holy Spirit and make it three. The core of the New Testament “doctrine” is that God, Jesus, and the Spirit are present at Jesus’ baptism. But the idea really comes from a redaction in a book that barely made it into the biblical canon. Let’s turn to the Logos and see what these evangelists are so hyper about.

1 John 5:7-8

The “unabashed, clear-cut evidence” for the trinity is found in the first epistle of John. 1 John is one of three eponymous epistles that hardly made it into the biblical canon. Now, over a thousand years after the creation of the canon, textual and historical criticism have shown that early Christians tampered parts of these epistles. The trinitarian-obsessed evangelical touts 1 John 5:7-8 as evidence that the doctrine of the trinity is, indeed, biblical.

Want to make such an evangelical’s head spin? Inform them that 1 John 5:7-8 is redactional. Inform them that manuscripts prior to 1400 CE do not contain these passages. Furthermore, it only occurs in eight Greek manuscripts, none of which is older than the aforementioned date.³ Famed theologian and textual criticism expert Bruce Metzger notes, “The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions… except the Latin.”⁴

The word trinity (from the Latin trinitas and Greek trias) was not used by theologians until the end of the second century.⁵ Even then, these terms were not used in the modern trinitarian sense. They alleged that there were three gods. They did not allege that there are three gods who are different and yet the same. It was not until the Arian Controversy in 325 CE that the church decided the Spirit was homoousios (Greek for being the same or in the same essence as) with the Father and Jesus.⁶

Additionally, trinitarians love to point to one version of the Great Commission. Matthew 28:19 records Jesus as encouraging his disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” But in the early church writings of Paul and the Great Commission of Mark, baptism is only to be done in the name of Jesus.⁷ Scholars are generally in agreement that Matthew 28:19 is also an interpolation.

Lastly, what do trinitarians make of the monotheism of the Old Testament? According to Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, Isra’el! Adonai our God, Adonai is one.” This does not change in the Gospels. In fact, the Bible asserts that God does not change. And of course, Jesus refers to Deut. 6:4 as the most important law! Jesus affirms that the God of Israel is one God (Mark 12:39). He does not preach that he is one of three parts of God, separate, yet distinct. Why? Because the trinity is a byproduct of the church and it is meaningless.

Conclusion

So much of modern Christianity is built from church history rather than the Bible. The concept of hell, the trinity, the rapture, among others. These are core beliefs in the contemporary church. And if you do not believe them, you are a heretic! And yet, these doctrines have no biblical basis. Instead, the church creates doctrines and uses or edits Scripture to suggest these ideas are biblical. Why should we believe concepts created centuries after the Bible was composed are biblical?

I do not know why the church has done this. Maybe it is to make Christianity seem more logical. Or philosophically correct. The way doctrines should be built is from the Bible, not the other way around. I also do not know why more pastors and church leaders do not stop to think whether the ideas they insist all must believe are actually sound. I am not a Christian, so how could I possibly know? It makes no sense to me. The trinity makes no sense to me. And hopefully by reading this, you are as confused as I am.

If you do not believe in the trinity, you are not going to hell. The trinity is not a sound doctrine, and hell is a fabrication. The church fools millions of people with these ignorant ideologies. Why it does not preach from its sacred work will never cease to amaze me, for better or worse. As Chris Tomlin forces random, useless dogma into his songs, so does the church force unbiblical, irrelevant doctrines into its sermons. For what purpose? I suppose we will never know.

1. H.E. Baber, “The Trinity,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, University of San Diego, https://iep.utm.edu/trinity/.

2. “The Trinity,” Ligonier Ministries 2022, https://www.ligonier.org/guides/the-trinity

3. Martin M. Culy, I, II, III John : A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=147107&site=ehost-live&scope=site, 127

4. Ibid.

5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “History of Trinitarian Doctrines,” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

6. Ibid.

7. Ahmad Khan Aftab. “Trinity – the Doctrine of Triune God Origin and Adoption in Christianity.” Defence Journal 15, no. 6 (2012), https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/trinity-doctrine-triune-god-origin-adoption/docview/2560565852/se-2, 69.

Faith, hope, and…

Fill in the blank. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:13, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and ____. But the greatest of these is ____.” Is the missing word logic? No! Because when we are discussing matters of life and death or good and evil, logic simply has no place. I say this as a polemic towards both militant Christians and offensive opponents of belief. Why is it that there is so much debate on the issue? Is proving or disproving God really this important? That it would require one to take advantage of the hardest part of being human? How can we as a species be so divided on a topic that, one way or another, affects us all?

The problem of suffering is often categorized as a philosophical problem. And while yes, there is a time and place to debate the issue, I believe we should be more concerned about what we are doing to resolve the issue. It is not so much about explaining the reason for suffering as it is seeking to mitigate the prevalent suffering in our world. Of course, this is not an easy task. But nobody ever said it would be easy. Look around at the world. There is suffering everywhere. It’s on the news. It’s on the streets. It’s raging inside each and every one of us.

Love. That’s all it takes. No, love cannot cure a genetic disease. But it can minimize the ill effects of suffering prevalent in the one with the sickness. Explaining how God does or does not exist—what is that going to accomplish? The research I have reviewed for this post answers that question quite simply: nothing. Theodicies do not remove the sting of pain and suffering. Likewise, attacking people’s belief systems and boldly, yet selfishly asserting there is no god is producing nil results. I mentioned in a previous post that to have a purely logical answer to the problem of suffering, one must be a psychopath. I stand by my words.

A problem greater than the problem

Rationalization of suffering, in fact, worsens the effects of suffering. I can reflect on a time in my life when this certainly rang true. During one of my darkest times on this earth, when my mother was battling liver cancer, I struggled to make sense of her suffering and mine. Why did God do this to me? What have I done? I asked. The church gave me logical answers. Granted, I am endowed to note that the church I attended did so in a loving manner. But I was offered logic. In those moments, I did not need logic. The stress of trying to understand “why me?” and “what have I done to deserve this?” only added the stress I was already experiencing.

I came across a literature review of the sociologist Max Weber, who often discussed theodicy and suffering. In this review, the author explains, “The potential for the problem of suffering to shatter and shock people’s lives grows with the advance and force of rationalization.”_¹ The author continues that as intellectual beings, humans are driven by a desire to understand the meaning of suffering.² Believers of any faith, of course, become stressed and anxious to make sense of the apparent inconsistences of their belief systems and the world to which they belong. A world full of rampant suffering.

A biblical response

Now, I am not a sociologist. My purpose in this post is not to explain how societal beliefs and religious beliefs combat each other. My point in raising this issue is to address the word, the logos, we can live by. As I am a student of the Bible, I turn to this source for finding the solution. And the solution to this problem is, of course, love. That is the word I omitted in the aforementioned verse. But I would like to turn the attention to another verse, in which the author makes an important calling. Galatians 6:2 (CJB) states, “Bear one another’s burdens — in this way you will be fulfilling the Torah’s true meaning, which the Messiah upholds.”

My solution to the problem of suffering is found in this verse. Bear one another’s burdens. As cliché as it may sound, we are all in this together. Whether we identify as Christian, agnostic, atheist, or anything and everything else, we are all on this world together. We all share it. We share the good, we share the bad. We share the suffering, we share the joy. It is not our place to shove dogma down the throats of those who are already walking in darkness.

Galatians is written to “the church of Galatia,” and thus its audience is rather specific. It is the responsibility of Christians to bear the burdens of one another. I would take this a step further in my opinion. It is not the responsibility of Christian’s to only look out for each other, but to serve those in their community. Christian or not. In fact, the call to “bear one another’s burdens” is likely included to echo the sentiments of pagan philosophers Xenophon and Socrates.³ Believers of the Bible are called to serve each other, indeed, but they are also called to serve others.

The church and the temple

All too often the church views itself as some kind of utopian kingdom on the earth, superior to those who do not associate with it. In this way, it has become like the Temple in Jesus’ day. It has become a place for pious individuals to gather and hear about a book that was, in their view, written exclusively for them. Sinners are not allowed. Pastors have become the Pharisees. They assert that if you do not conform to the beliefs of the church, you cannot belong to it. I have seen this happen. It seems the church has accepted the idea that they are only to bear the burdens of its members.

Jesus led a revolution, but he did not do so by sitting in the temple and sharing the burdens of his fellow believers. Much to the Pharisees’ disgust, he communed with sinners. He shared the burdens of the religious outcasts. Why is it that the modern church refuses to follow his lead? Instead of prescribing philosophical defenses to the problem of suffering, the church should be leading the charge to eliminate suffering. And not only within itself, but within the greater community to which it belongs.

A call to change

Rationalizing suffering in the church is not alleviating the burden of human suffering. A pastor telling churchgoers why their perspective on the problem of suffering is superior to that of non-Christians is not ending the suffering. In fact, it is making the problem much harder to reconcile. While I believe that “there is a purpose for the pain” and “everything happens for a reason,” these beliefs accomplish nothing without action. Faith without works is dead. And works is not exclusively confined to missionary trips to other countries. Works out of faith are simply any actions performed for the purpose of showing love.

The love that Christ showed to sinners. No, pastors are not miracle workers and cannot cure blindness. But they can make every effort to love on the members of their church, as well as the members of their community. Instead of sending someone home for wearing dark leather or making one feel alienated for showing up to their facility high, why not make every effort to show them that they are loved? Instead of casually hanging out with church staff, why not show humility and develop relationships with those who do not attend the church?

The problem of suffering is a colossal problem. I feel that in the world, and especially in the church, the problem is overlooked. When it is touched upon, it becomes an opportunity to argue for a particular belief. This only makes the suffering worse, as I have experienced firsthand. We should be making every effort to bear each other’s burdens, regardless of where we come from or what we believe. In the end, three things remain, and rationalization is not one of them. Love is.

1. Wilkinson, Iain. “The Problem of Suffering as a Driving Force of Rationalization and Social Change.” The British Journal of Sociology 64, no. 1 (2013): 128.

2. Ibid., 130.

3. Weidmann, Frederick W. Galatians. First ed. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012, 124.

For many years, I have struggled with a few mental health disorders. I have struggled with substance abuse. At least twice, these ailments led to a crisis. Twice, I was hospitalized as a result. In those moments, I could not possibly wrap my mind around the idea that my suffering was temporary. And yet, it was. I am supremely thankful to have the support system I do. I am beyond grateful for the nurses, therapists, counselors, and professionals who pushed me to believe the truth of this message.

I think the idea that pain is only temporary is a universal truth. You do not have to be a Christian to believe it. I will say that in my years as a churchgoer, I always appreciated teachings on verses such as Romans 8:18. They were scarce; more often than not, I was presented with theodicies. The free will theodicy. The original sin theodicy. The heaven theodicy, if you will. Indeed, there is a time and place for discussions on these concepts. But when one is grieving or facing a health crisis, saying people suffer because of sin can only make matters worse.

I am not saying churches should embrace a universalist message. Not that it would matter much, but I believe I would be excommunicated from every denomination if I were to say so. What I can say is that there are moments when logical doctrines cause nothing but harm. In my last post, I mentioned that in the face of grieving, logic is tossed out the window. Suddenly, defenses and offenses become blistering reminders of how polarizing religion can be. And it can certainly make the situation much worse.

Yes, most of the time when faced with hardship we beg the problem of suffering. “Why me?” “What have I done?” “How could God allow this to happen?” Imagine if instead of presenting a logical defense of God’s allowance of suffering, a pastor could change the course of the conversation. Instead of defending their point of view, why not try to help the suffer understand that God never intends suffering to permanent? No one suffers for eternity—unless you accept the Christianized concept of hell, which I do not.

I do not believe that we go to heaven when we die. This simply is not biblical. I likewise do not believe that “bad people burn in hell.” Hell is never even mentioned in the Bible! This is all clearly up for debate, and I hope to write on the topic one day. My point in raising this issue is to correct the idea often sucked out of this verse. Paul is not saying that “going to heaven” is the primary purpose of our suffering. “The glory that will be revealed” is Paul’s way of acknowledging that one day, whether in heaven, on earth, in purgatory, or wherever, God’s purpose will be revealed.

In this life, it is impossible to understand why we suffer. In this life, the purpose of hardship is for us to endure for the hope of what is to come. While researching this verse, I came across an old research article which explains of Paul’s intentions,

“[Paul] looked at the world and the human struggle with wide open eyes. The hope he finally came to was reached through despair. His hope respects an ultimate glory: this alone prevents his despair from being complete.”¹

Hope. That was Paul’s solution to the problem of suffering. That was his drive to endure his despair. It was my mother’s drive to endure the harshness of her cancer. It was my drive to process the grief of losing her. The pain is only temporary; but hope is eternal.

If it is hope that you will be in heaven someday, then I encourage you to cling to such hope. But heaven itself is not necessarily the glory we anticipate in suffering. The glory that will be revealed to believers of the Bible is one day understanding that there was a purpose for the pain God allowed. Taking it a step further, as Mr. Lewis has argued, humanity’s destiny is to one day be united with their god (or gods).² This union is, indeed, the ultimate essence of glory.

I mentioned earlier that I loved hearing verses such as Romans 8:18 exegeted in church when I still attended. I believe the ultimate aspect that I enjoyed the most is the encouragement to have hope. It was often distorted to a very specific hope, the hope that when we die, we enter paradise. But that is a very Western way of thinking. It centers solely on the self as it implies that we deserve to enter heaven. Do we? Have not all sinned and fallen short? Many modern scholars argue that the glory Paul speaks of is the “hope of redemption.”

Redemption from what, though? Sin? Possibly. But the following verses in Romans suggest it is redemption from the frailty of human life (e.g., 8:21, 23). One of my favorite scholars, Craig Keener, writes that humanity has been subjugated to perishability; we acknowledge that our bodies, our material life, is mere vanity, and we long to escape this.³ He states, “‘Redemption’ refers to the freeing of slaves; the goal of freedom here was liberation from death (7:24).”⁴ Don’t we all anticipate the end of suffering?

Human life is only temporary. And as such, suffering is only temporary. In regards to the problem of pain, I think we can draw this from Romans 8:18: every soul anticipates the end of suffering. We all question why we suffer. But as Paul acknowledges, we may not know why we suffered in this lifetime. That is to be revealed at another time. What we should focus on, and what we should encourage those struggling to know, is that we can hope in the future. We must certainly acknowledge the pain and devastation, but we can rest in knowing that it will not last forever.

Whether you are a theist, polytheist, atheist, or anything else, I believe we all possess a desire to see the pain end. It is a universal truth and a path I have walked many times. We may not all agree with the Bible or Paul (I, for one, think Paul is a bit overrated… but that’s just me) but we can agree that there is always hope. Sometimes, we have to realize the pain is only temporary. It may get worse before it gets better. And it may very well be that the trials do not compare to the glory that is yet to come.

1. Lewis, Edwin. “A Christian Theodicy: An Exposition of Romans 8:18–39.” Interpretation (Richmond) 11, no. 4 (1957): 405.

2. Ibid., 411

3. Keener, 106.

4. Ibid.