Surprised by Hope: Part 1

In Surprised by Hope, N.T. Wright is “rethinking heaven, the resurrection, and the mission of the church.” But, in his appeals to the early church and orthodoxy throughout the last 2,000 years, it is pretty clear that he doesn’t really think he is coming up with anything new.

Tom divides the book into three major sections, but the first two are the ones that immediately concern the topic of the class I’m taking. It only makes sense that I cover each in a separate post. The first part, titled “Setting the Scene,” lays out not only modern preconceptions of the afterlife, but also the preconceptions held by many people during the first century C.E.

In the beginning of the book, Tom offers a qualifier, one that all Christians should take seriously in any discussion about the afterlife. “All language about the future… is simply a set of signposts pointing onto a fog.” This is not out of line with 1 Corinthians 13:12, where St. Paul says, “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” (KJV) Tom hasn’t died, I haven’t died, and you probably haven’t died either. Our best guess is still just our best guess, even with the Bible’s aid.

So, what is the main thrust of the book? What is the point? Tom says there is not just one, but two matters he wishes to address; two matters that are often separated, he thinks, unwisely. The first seems quite obvious. He wants to give us a picture of the afterlife, of the hope to come. And the second point does relate to the first, for it too considers hope. But not some distant, detached future hope; Tom says there is hope for the world, right here, right now. Tom would probably disprove of my doing so, but I may end up separating the two.

Tom then goes on to present a myriad of views people hold about the afterlife, a variety that can be quite dizzying. It might be helpful to put them in some categories to help understand them better. So, what happens when you die? There are three most basic lines. The first is… nothing. Death marks the end. You are annihilated, or just cease to exist. The obvious converse view would be that something happens, and that catches the other two broad viewpoints. The second point here is that is some general continuation of your existence, although you as a person might not really realize it. A prime example of this would be reincarnation. The third and final point takes this to another level by not only claiming that there is some continuity to your existence, but that this continuity ensures your personal survival. There is not only a continuity of existence; there is a continuity of identity. Tom is clear that the third is the Christian hope.

So, what do we do with death if we have this hope of continued existence? Tom thinks death has been a subject of confusion, even among Christians. Some see death as a bitter enemy, while others see it as a dear friend that will take us to a better place. The nature of the afterlife in general is a matter of confusion, as many hold to some Platonic view of a disembodied continuation away, over there, in heaven. But what about resurrection? Creedal Christianity holds to the belief that “We look for the resurrection of the dead.” And of course, the climax of scripture comes on Easter Sunday with the resurrection of Jesus.

An appropriate place to start, then, is in the past, with the resurrection of Jesus. What we think of that will determine a great deal of what we think of all the rest. Tom is a historian, so he gets to work as one. First, a quick note on rigid literalism, or Biblicism. Tom has no reservations pointing out the many differing details in the resurrection accounts across the gospels. Blinding holding to a doctrine of inerrancy can be a most unhelpful belief. Instead, a messy account is more likely to be true. For instance, at a trial, identical witness accounts are the ones that get singled out for being “too good to be true.” There’s something fishy about witness testimonies corroborating too closely. So as a historian, he gives quite a bit of weight to the gospel accounts of the resurrection. They have the marks of true history.

He continues by framing first century Judaism in its context. For the most part, pagan cultures rejected the notion of any sort of resurrection. The idea of resurrection only really took root in some sects of Judaism. The Christian hope did burst on to the scene, but not out of the blue. The early church’s view of the afterlife was derived from Jewish thought, and not just a wholesale replacement. The striking thing isn’t how similar the early church’s view of resurrection was to Judaism; it is how removed popular Christian thought is from its historical roots. Resurrection is not the mere continuation of the self, or even a glorification to some other realm. No, it is a renewed physical existence. Our model, as Christians, should be the resurrected Christ.