Q & R Session 3
What about soul sleep?
The Bible frequently uses sleep as a metaphor for death, but metaphors aren’t reality. They are a way of understanding reality. Daniel 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18, and 1 Corinthians 15:51–55 are the most prominent verses that use that metaphor. I personally see it as a way of softening the harsh reality of death rather than an literal description of what has happened to the person. The idea is that the body is sleeping while the soul lives on until they are reunited. 2 Corinthians 5:8 teaches that death leads immediately to presence with God for those who believe in Him.
Why were people resurrected just to die again?
The Bible records 10 resurrections—In the Tanakh, the widow of Zarephath’s son in 1 Kings 17:17-24, the Shunammite woman’s son in 2 Kings 4:18-37, and the man from Elisha’s grave in 2 Kings 13:20-21. In the NT, the widow of Nain’s son in Luke 7:11-17, Jairus’ daughter in Luke 8:40-56, and Lazarus in Jn 11. Obviously, Jesus Himself as well. After Jesus, Tabitha in Acts 9:36-43 and Eutychus in Acts 20:7-12. The point is that there was a hope of a future resurrection to life of some sort. Details were fuzzy, but the Jews did believe that people would live again somehow. Why Elijah got to be the first one to raise someone in the Biblical narrative, I’m not sure. There’s some really strange parts of that story that suggest to me there’s some big narrative idea I’m not catching yet. The purpose though is to point ahead to future resurrection. Elisha gets to raise two (one in life, one in death) to double Elijah. Jesus raises three, I think to literally 1-up Elijah and Elisha, like He has the power of both of them combined. Then I think it shows up in Acts to demonstrate that the disciples had the same Holy Spirit power Jesus had. Each resurrection narrative serves a literary purpose.
We do have to ask how long those people lived after resurrection and what other people thought about it. Did they remember anything of their time beyond the grave? Did they say anything about it? In the case of Lazarus, the end of John 11 into the beginning of John 12 depicts him as a local attraction for people curious about his experience.
Matthew 27:50–54 is an unusual account. It claims that at Jesus’ death, certain people who’d believed in Yahweh (likely dead for centuries) came to life and started walking around Jerusalem. That’s literally the only mention of this happening. It’s super weird and no one knows exactly what to do with it. But the idea seems to be drawing on the OT themes of a future resurrection where people would once again physically live on the earth.
Is there a temple in heaven?
Quiet a bit of debate revolves around this topic. Some look to Revelation 11:19 to suggest there is a temple in heaven. But remember that heaven means sky. Temples don’t exist in the sky. This is a vision. The temple of Solomon hasn’t been around for nearly 800 years, and depending on when you believe John was written, Herod’s temple was either still in Jerusalem or just destroyed. There is no temple in the sky. He’s seeing a vision.
If you jump ahead to Revelation 21:22, there is very clearly no temple in the new creation because God is forever accessible to humanity. This is all heavily symbolic imagery, but we have to remember the point of the temple. It’s where heaven and earth meet. You don’t need a temple if heaven and earth are reunited.
What trips up scholars in our circles is Ezekiel 40-48. It’s a very long passage in which Ezekiel receives a vision of a future restored temple. Whole chapters are taken up describing the dimensions of the structure, so some people think it must be a literal structure that will be built again in the future. But because of Revelation 21:22, they know it can’t be in eternity. They’ll often suggest the temple will be in the millennial kingdom.
I have several problems with this. First, again, a temple is only needed outside Eden. This is about when heaven and earth are reunited. You don’t need a temple at that point.
Second, sacrifices are a big part of this temple, and the NT makes pretty clear that Jesus was the final blood sacrifice. We don’t need to make further sacrifices. I know some would say the sacrifices would just be a memorial of what Jesus did, but that’s what communion is for. There is no command in Scripture to make blood sacrifices to remember Jesus’ blood sacrifice. That feels sacrilegious to me.
Third, Ezekiel 44:9 makes clear that no Gentiles were allowed in the temple he saw. That runs counter to everything the NT is about.
Fourth, Chapter 47 of Ezekiel mentions a river flowing directly out of the temple that gets progressively deeper until it’s so deep Ezekiel can’t even swim in it. It basically heals the entire land and makes everything near it like a garden paradise. There is no such river in the middle of Jerusalem. That’s the language of a renewed Eden.
I believe Ezekiel was given a vision of a possible future where if the Jews had returned to Yahweh after the exile, this temple could have been set up. But they didn’t. Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all show that the people didn’t behave any better after the exile. So that future never came about.
Is there a tabernacle in heaven?
The description of the tabernacle in Exodus is quite detailed and seems to be mirroring something that exists in God’s realm. Some believe based on the concept of “as above, so below” that there was a heavenly tabernacle and Moses was being instructed to build an earthly replica. I think they’re on the right track but coming from a slightly different direction. The concept “as above, so below” comes from Arabic source that’s over one thousand years old. It is not found in the Bible and is actually more commonly referenced in occult circles and in relation to the tarot.
That being said, there is something to the idea. Going off the previous question, there is no need for a temple or tabernacle in heaven since those exist to provide an earthly dwelling place for a heavenly being. But God does have a throne room in heaven, and that seems to be what the tabernacle is a representation of. The temple is based on the tabernacle which is based on Eden which is based on God’s throne room. The Bible Project has a good number of resources on the significance of tabernacle imagery on their website. Just search “tabernacle” on bibleproject.com.
What did Jesus look like
The Bible gives us zero description of what Jesus looked like. Despite what many believe, there’s not even a verse that says He had a beard. Isaiah 50:6 is the only thing that comes close to mentioning it, but do you really think the point of that passage was to proof text that 700 years later, Jesus would have a beard? As I reread the passage, it doesn't even feel that messianic. It's talking about Isaiah and Israel. It sounds like either Isaiah had a beard, or it's just metaphorical shame language since most Jewish men of the time would have had a beard.
That being said, Jesus likely did have a beard since most Jewish men of the time did. He likely had longer hair, but probably more like a small afro than the mullet we usually imagine. It would have been dark, not blond. He would have had olive skin, somewhere between white and black. He was probably shorter. Nothing stood out about him. He was a carpenter, so He was probably strong, likely with a lot of callouses. He walked everywhere, so He was probably pretty fit. He was agile; He had to walk mountains. Children loved hanging around Him, so He probably had a very welcoming smile. He loved to party.
I tend to think the lack of description about Him is purposeful for two opposing but related reasons. First, we are not to get married to any one idea of what He looked like. He was not white with blond hair and blue eyes. But on the flip side, I believe it’s also partially so we can imagine Jesus as being like us. All over the world, people have depicted Jesus looking like them. That’s not entirely a bad thing so long as you understand it’s an artist’s rendering and not reality. If it helps you relate to Jesus, great. Just remember that it is a tool to help you relate to Him, not an actual depiction of His appearance.