Author: Christopher R Smith

The Rev. Dr. Christopher R. Smith is an an ordained minister, a writer, and a biblical scholar. He was active in parish and student ministry for twenty-five years. He was a consulting editor to the International Bible Society (now Biblica) for The Books of the Bible, an edition of the New International Version (NIV) that presents the biblical books according to their natural literary outlines, without chapters and verses. His Understanding the Books of the Bible study guide series is keyed to this format. He was also a consultant to Tyndale House for the Immerse Bible, an edition of the New Living Translation (NLT) that similarly presents the Scriptures in their natural literary forms, without chapters and verses or section headings. He has a B.A. from Harvard in English and American Literature and Language, a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Gordon-Conwell, and a Ph.D. in the History of Christian Life and Thought, with a minor concentration in Bible, from Boston College, in the joint program with Andover Newton Theological School.

What if I feel like a stranger, foreigner, and alien amongst fellow Christians?

Q. We hear in the Bible and in sermons that Christians are strangers, foreigners, and aliens in this world and so we need to remain steadfast in our faith in the face of a world that sees us as different. However, I find that more and more I am feeling like a stranger, foreigner, and alien amongst fellow Christians. It seems to me that Christianity is as polarized as the rest of our society and I have trouble seeing Christ in the beliefs of fellow Christians, just as they have trouble seeing Christ in my beliefs. (I will offer one example: how we treat and speak of those who are literally foreigners in our country.) This makes it especially difficult to remain steadfast in our faith if we as the body of Christ are so divided. I would be interested in your thoughts about this. Thank you.

Here is one thought that I hope will be encouraging to you. There is not a complete overlap between the visible church and the invisible church. (There never has been, and there never will be on this earth.) The invisible church consists of all those who are genuine followers of Jesus and of the mystical fellowship that exists between them. If we think of the invisible church by analogy with an oyster (and Jesus did say that the kingdom of God was like a pearl of great price), then the visible church is its shell. The visible church consists of all the arrangements that the invisible church makes to live in this world—tax-exempt organizations with by-laws, denominations that pass resolutions, buildings from cathedrals to storefronts, and so forth.

While the Bible admonishes us to be in the world but not of the world, inevitably, whenever the invisible church makes arrangements to live in this world, something of the world gets worked into those arrangements, so that they are “of” as well as “in.” Similarly, whenever people become part of the invisible church, they bring part of the world in with them.

So you will feel like a stranger, foreigner, and alien whenever you find yourself in the midst of arrangements that are more “of” than “in.” And as you acknowledged, there will be times when other Christians feel that way around you, whenever you might be more “of” than “in” yourself.

Is there anything we can do about this? Do we simply have to feel painfully out of place at times and wait for that glorious moment when Jesus brings his invisible church to the fore and its shell fades into the background? No, I think there is much that we can do. Carefully picking our moments, we can engage people whom we have reason to believe will listen to us, and we can share our concerns with them.

Not everyone will be open to this. Unfortunately we have become a media culture that enables and encourages “bias confirmation,” that is, seeking out and listening to only those sources of information that reinforce what we already believe. It’s hard to have a reasonable conversation with someone when you and they are working with different sets of facts. I’m not recommending that you try to engage people if you discover that to be the case.

But I do think of what Jesus told his disciples when he sent them out: “ Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you.” You are looking for someone who is a “son of peace” or “daughter of peace” even though the two of you seem to have different perspectives about how Christians should be engaging our culture and world these days. If you recognize in them a genuine openness to listen, learn, and grow in understanding, share your concerns, maintaining that same openness yourself. I have seen that this can and does lead to all participants seeing things in new and better ways. It also makes each of us feel much less like a stranger to the other.

As I said, this must be done carefully and selectively. But it can be done. Each such conversation plants a small seed. And Jesus talked about how great things can grow from small seeds.

Will there really be no marriage in heaven?


Q. In Mark 12:25, Jesus says that when people “rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” So does this mean that the marriage relationship doesn’t exist in heaven? I love my wife dearly, so this is kind of hard, but faith directs me to 1 Corinthians 2:9, and I know eternity will be amazing beyond anything we can imagine.

I certainly understand and appreciate your question. My wife and I had a long and happy marriage before God called her home to heaven. (I tell our story in my other blog that is linked in the right sidebar, Endless Mercies.) The 34 years that we had together didn’t seem long enough, and even if we had been married for twice as long, that wouldn’t have seemed long enough either. So like you I struggle, from an earthly perspective, with the idea that we will no longer be married in heaven.

However, also like you, I am directed by faith to the heavenly perspective. My wife and I met as counselors at a Christian children’s camp. So our initial relationship was as co-workers for God’s kingdom, as brother and sister in Christ, and soon as good friends. And that is what we are again now. It’s just that she has gone to work in the heavenly expression of God’s kingdom, while I am still working in the earthly expression of it. (I tell people, “She’s no longer at this branch, she’s been transferred to corporate.”)

When we are reunited in heaven, we will still be all of those things, and more. I appreciated the way you referred to 1 Corinthians 2:9, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” I also think in this regard of Luke 5:9, “No one, after drinking old wine, wants new wine, because he says, ‘The old wine is better.’” (Or, as the Common English Bible puts it, “No one who drinks a well-aged wine wants new wine, but says, ‘The well-aged wine is better.’”)

In heaven, you and your wife will each be like well-aged wine—mature, developed, complex, fully come into your own. The love that you have for each other will not be impaired in any way by the human immaturity, brokenness, and sinfulness that unfortunately trouble our relationships on earth. And so your relationship there will be even better than it is here. It will be glorified, perfected.

And there is more. In a way that I admit I do not fully understand now, your relationship will become even more wonderful in heaven as the exclusivity that gives marriage its special character on earth is transformed into an inclusivity that will draw others in to bask in the love that you have for each other. A good marriage has been called a “circle of warmth and light”—something like a warm campfire that draws people in on a cold, dark night. Perhaps you are already having the experience on earth of people feeling comfortable, secure, and accepted when they are with you and your wife because you have created in your home your own small world of unconditional acceptance and love. Now imagine that world greatly expanded to make countless others realize their own security and acceptance in God, without taking anything away from the love you have for each other, and I think you will have a small glimpse into what the relationship in heaven of the having-been-married-on-earth will be like.

But really no eye has seen … no ear has heard … no mind has imagined. So ultimately we trust God by faith and know, as you say, that eternity will be amazing beyond anything we can imagine.

Does God want women to have significant roles in the church?

Q. In my reading of Scripture, there are many instances in which women had significant roles in the early church. For instance, in the gospels, Anna the prophetess (Luke 2:36-38), an elderly widow who worshiped at the temple and recognized Jesus as the Messiah. Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna (Luke 8:1-3), women who supported Jesus’ ministry financially and served Him directly. The Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:1-42), who became an evangelist to her town, sharing the message of Jesus. Mary of Bethany (Luke 10:38-42, John 12:1-8), who sat at Jesus’ feet to learn, signifying her devotion and understanding of discipleship. In the NT there are many other examples of the work of women in the church. It seems to me that affirming women in such roles helps advance Christ’s kingdom and His work.

I agree with you. As I say in the series of posts on this blog that begins with this one, “I believe there should be no restrictions on what women can do in communities of Jesus’ followers.” But I recognize that Christians of good will, who have equal commitments to the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, see this issue differently. That is why I have engaged the biblical texts in detail in that series of posts, and in even more detail in a separate blog. (If you visit that blog, once you have read the first post, you can access the others in the right sidebar; work from the bottom up.) Personally I have been blessed and enriched in countless ways by the ministry of women within the church of Christ, and I want to see their gifts and callings and persons affirmed and released for the blessing of many others.

Is it all right to visit the Pyramids of Gaza?

Q. May I ask you whether it is all right to visit the Pyramids of Gaza? Because of all other man made things, the pyramids stand in awe of assumed human creation. But if we take this further, it looks as if it is true this was made by the pagans for pagans. So if Scripture says to stay away from unholy things, how do we apply this?

I think the issue you are asking about is equivalent to a question that Paul addresses in his first letter to the Corinthians. They wanted to know whether it was all right to eat food that had been offered to idols. The simplest form of their question was whether they could eat meat they had bought in the market if it had previously been offered to idols. Paul responded, ”Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, ‘The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.’” Paul explains that idols are not real gods. The gods that people worship through the idols do not actually exist. So nothing happens to the meat when it is offered to an idol. The animal that the meat came from is part of God’s creation, and so the meat belongs to God and can be received as a gift from God.

The Bible is creation-affirming and culture-affirming. It teaches and shows that we can enjoy and appreciate God’s creation and the things that humans create. Humans bear the image of God, and so they are creative like God. The pyramids, as you say, are a spectacular human creation, and I believe we can appreciate the accomplishment they represent and their monumental beauty.

But in his letters, Paul does caution believers about two dangers associated with this. The first is that we must not worship and serve the creature rather than the creator. Our love and devotion belong to God alone, and we celebrate his creation and human creations as a way of honoring him as the source of all creativity. The second caution is that supernatural forces of evil actually do exist, and when people worship created things rather than God, those evil forces are lurking in the background. Paul says to be especially careful not to cause anyone who has recently come out of such a background to fall back into it. So if your visit to Egypt were going to cause someone who had recently gotten free of occult practices to get interested in Egyptian spells and charms, then for the sake of that person, you might forego or postpone it. But if you are simply going as an interested tourist, appreciating human history, culture, and architecture, and learning about an ancient civilization, I don’t see a problem with it. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it,” and that includes the pyramids.

Is Revelation depicting Elijah himself or someone in the “spirit of Elijah”?

Q. In Matthew 17:10-13, the disciples were confused about Elijah. They knew of John the Baptist, but had to learn that Jesus was talking about the “spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17), which John represented, not the actual person. Later, in the book of Revelation, Elijah shows up again. Could the same logic apply? That is, could a well-know figure fill this role as Elijah, or do you think that it’s the actual person? Perhaps, we simply don’t know. This could lead to confusion as it did for the disciples.

Elijah is actually not mentioned by name in the book of Revelation. But the two witnesses John sees in his vision are described in terms reminiscent of Elijah and Moses: “They have power to shut up the heavens so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague as often as they want.” However, this does not mean that these two witnesses will actually be Moses and Elijah, returned to earth as at the time of the Transfiguration, particularly since they are not identified by name. I think instead the idea is that these two “witnesses” will testify as to how the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) point to Jesus. That is what the book of Acts describes Paul doing in Rome: “He witnessed to them from morning till evening, explaining about the kingdom of God, and from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets he tried to persuade them about Jesus.” These witnesses will do that on a grander scale, accompanied by works of power as God “confirms his word by the signs that accompany it.” But since Elijah is not identified by name as one of these witnesses, we don’t need to ask whether that is literal or figurative. I think it is most likely that these witnesses will come “in the spirit and power” of Elijah and Moses, without necessarily being those two individuals returned to earth.

Why did Cain tell God he feared that others would kill him?

Q. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, why did Cain tell God he feared that others would kill him after killing his brother? Also, how was he then able to marry and procreate?

Cain may have said “whoever finds me will kill me” in reference to a future time at which he expected there would be more people on earth. However, since the account of Cain and Abel takes place once they have become adults, there could already have been other people around. While the book of Genesis only describes the births of three of Adam and Eve’s children—Cain, Abel, and Seth—it also says, “After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.”

As for how Cain was able to marry and procreate, please see this post.

Did Jesus give up all knowing the future just before the creation?

Q. Did Jesus give up all knowing the future just before the creation? (We understand he did at His incarnation.) Could the epic story unfold as Jesus relies on close faith and communication with the Father for revelation and instruction all the way through? Voluntarily not knowing the future, right up to receiving His completed bride (church) and perhaps beyond. His ongoing humility as reliant Holy Royal King and husband. I don’t have any Bible passages yet. Maybe Genesis 32:25 as “the man” wresting with Jacob couldn’t overcome him?

As you note, and as I discuss in this post, Christian theology understands that in becoming incarnate as Jesus, the second person of the Trinity gave up certain divine attributes.  This is what Paul means when he writes in Philippians that Jesus “emptied himself”  in order to be “born in human likeness.”  The Greek term for “emptying” is kenosis, and that term is used in Christian theology to describe Jesus’ act of giving up these attributes. Jesus specifically gave up what are known as the non-communicable divine attributes, that is, the ones that are unique to an infinite God and so cannot be passed on to finite humans: omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, eternity, etc. Jesus did not, however, give up the communicable divine attributes such as love and holiness, which can be taken on by humans as they grow in godliness.

However, Christian theology would not say that the second person of the Trinity gave up these non-communicable divine attributes just before the creation. In the incarnation, Jesus voluntarily submitted himself to the authority and guidance of God the Father. But in the divine activity of creating the universe, the second person of the Trinity was a full and equal partner with the other two persons of the Trinity. As I discuss in this post, all three persons of the Trinity are involved in every action of the Godhead. At the beginning of Genesis, we see the Father creating by speaking, that is, by the Word, as the Spirit hovers over the unformed creation. So they are all involved. John tells similarly us at the beginning of his gospel, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” I do not believe that the second person of the Trinity could have played this role in creation after first giving up divine attributes such as omniscience.

I would say further that in writing to the Philippians, Paul, after describing how Jesus “emptied himself, taking on the form of a servant” in his incarnation, then indicates that after his resurrection and ascension, God the Father restored Jesus to his full prior status: “Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name.” So I would not see the voluntary “emptying” of the incarnation continuing into the future after Jesus’ time on earth.

However, I do appreciate your sense of the humility and interdependence with the Father (and the Spirit) that has characterized, and will continue to characterize, the Son’s activities throughout the whole history of creation and redemption. If I would not agree with what you suggest might be the case with his attributes, I certainly agree with what you say about his attitude.

(As for the implications for all of this of the account of the figure who wrestled with Jacob, please see this post: Why couldn’t God defeat Jacob in a wrestling match?)

Does Jesus live in all humans?

Q. There are numerous quotes in the New Testament that state that Christ lives in us. But they all seem to predicate this on a belief in Jesus. But if we are all children of God, doesn’t God (and, therefore, Jesus) live in all humans, believers and unbelievers alike?

I would say that in one sense Jesus lives in everyone, but that Jesus lives in another sense only in those who believe in him and trust him for salvation.

Christian theology recognizes that God is paradoxically both transcendent and immanent. That means that while God is a being separate from what he created (Christianity is not pantheistic), God is also present within his creation, including in the people he created. The New Testament affirms this. Paul told the Athenians, for example, “He is not far from any one of us,” and then he quoted the Greek poet Epimenides, “In him we live and move and have our being.” Paul wrote to the Colossians that the church of Christ is “his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.” I will comment on the first part of that statement shortly, but in the second part of it, Paul is saying that Christ “fills all in all.” English versions express the meaning of that by saying things such as that he “fills everything in every way” or that he “fills everything everywhere with himself.” So Christ does live in all humans immanently.

However, the New Testament seems to distinguish a different sense in which Christ lives specifically in those who believe in him. Paul wrote to the Galatians, “I have been crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live, yet not I, but Christ lives in me, and the life that I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” We see here that Christ living in a person in this sense is the result of that person surrendering his life to Christ. The idea is similar in what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” The clear implication is that if people are “in the faith,” then Christ lives in them in this sense, but not otherwise.

So what is the sense—different from the immanent sense in which Christ lives in everyone—in which Christ lives in believers? I would say that it is a relational sense. Paul wrote to the Philippians that his goal was “that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, if by any means I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” It seems that Paul equates “being found in Christ” (which I would say is comparable with Christ living in him) with “knowing him.” I think he means close personal fellowship. Jesus himself used this same image for belief in the message he gave John for the Laodicean church: “Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me.” I think it is in this sense that Paul tells the Colossians that the church is the “body” and the “fullness” of Christ. It is the human community that he inhabits in the fullest way.

So I would say that while it is true that Christ lives in everyone in an immanent sense, Christ lives only in believers in a relational sense.

Was John taken up to heaven to witness the visions of Revelation?

Q. Revelation 4:2 says John was “in the Spirit.” Does it mean that the Spirit descended on him, or was he taken up into heaven to witness the vision?

That is an excellent question, but we don’t really know the answer to it. John’s experience seems very similar to one that the apostle Paul had. Speaking of himself as “a man in Christ,” here is what Paul said about his experience:

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows. And I know that this man was caught up into paradise—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, God knows— and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.

So it seems that even people who have such experiences aren’t sure whether they were physically brought up into heaven or whether they saw into heaven in a vision. John’s experience seems similar, in that he reports seeing things in heaven firsthand and even being told not to relate some of them. (“When the seven thunders had sounded, I was about to write, but I heard a voice from heaven saying, ‘Seal up what the seven thunders have said, and do not write it down.’”) Here is how John relates the beginning of his own heavenly vision:

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” At once I was in the Spirit, and behold, a throne stood in heaven, with one seated on the throne.

So should we place the emphasis on “Come up here,” and understand that John was brought into heaven? Or should we place the emphasis on “I will show you” and “behold,” and understand that John saw these things in a vision? Personally I think we don’t have a clear answer, any more than we do in the case of Paul (or that even Paul himself did). So I conclude that perhaps this isn’t the most important thing for us to understand. What we should understand is that, “whether in the body or out of the body,” John was shown the spiritual workings behind the events of his day so that he could give a clear warning to the believers of his time not to compromise with the emerging cult of emperor worship. In ways that interpreters work hard to understand, John’s warnings also speak to believers throughout history and at the end of history.

It is true that John introduces his heavenly vision by saying that he was “in the Spirit,” but this is not the only place in the book where he says that. To introduce his very first vision, of Jesus exalted in power and glory, he tells his readers that he was “on the island called Patmos” and that he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” So “in the Spirit” does not seems to be a phrase that indicates being caught up into heaven. Rather, it seems to describe, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit’s special presence with John in order to convey spiritual visions and understanding.

As I discuss in my study guide to Revelation, John uses the phrase “in the Spirit” twice more, and the phrase seems to mark off the major sections of the book of Revelation. This too suggests that we should not understand the phrase to mean “carried off by the Spirit,” but rather something like “inspired by the Spirit.” I hope these thoughts are helpful to you.

Why does 1 Kings say that only the tablets were in the ark when Hebrews says it contained other things?

Q. The author of Hebrews, speaking of the ark of the covenant, says, “in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.” However, when they brought the ark of the covenant into Jerusalem and finally to the temple, in 1 Kings 8:9 we read, “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone that Moses put there.” Everything regarding the tabernacle is so exacting (holy) that this difference seems curious.

If we read through the biblical narrative, we find that the statement that needs to be explained is the one in Hebrews rather than the one in 1 Kings. We read in Exodus, about the jar of manna, “As the Lord commanded Moses, so Aaron placed it before the testimony to be kept.” In other words, the jar was placed in front of the ark, not inside it. Similarly, we read in Numbers that God told Moses to put Aaron’s rod that budded “before the testimony, to be kept as a sign.” Once again, in front of the ark, not inside it.

So why does the author of Hebrews say that these things were “in” the ark? We have to be careful about how we understand prepositions in texts translated from other languages. It’s been observed that the last thing a person typically learns who is acquiring a new language is how that language uses prepositions. There are subtle differences in the use of the “same” prepositions between languages. The Greek preposition ἐν, which the author of Hebrews uses when speaking about the ark, can mean in, on, at, by, among, or with. For example, in Matthew 3:9, some versions translate it “do not say within yourselves,” while other versions translate it “do not say among yourselves.” 1 Corinthians 9:15, which also uses the preposition ἐν, translated very literally, says, “And I am not writing these things in order that it may be thus with me.” We need to see this range of meaning in that preposition, and understand its specific meaning from the context.

In the context of Hebrews 9:4, the rest of the biblical narrative enables us to understand that the writer is using it to mean that the things described were in and around the ark. That is consistent with the preposition’s range of meaning and with the details of the tabernacle as we learn them from the biblical narrative.