Jesus is Not Coming Down From the Sky

There is No Santa

Imagine a young boy who believes in Santa Claus. He believes that the presents he finds under the tree each Christmas morning were placed there by a magical man who came down the chimney, and who afterward hopped on his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.

But, one Christmas Eve, the boy decides he wants to see Santa for real and so he sneaks out of his room late at night hoping to catch Santa in action. What he does see, however, is his own parents carefully laying out presents, one by one, around the base of the tree. And so, he knows the truth. It is in fact his own parents who are delivering the goods.

Now, with this knowledge, would it be proper for the boy to then believe that it is his own parents who slid down the chimney? And it his own parents who will fly off into the night on the sleigh? No, of course not. The boy must disregard the entire Santa narrative. There’s no one coming down the chimney. It’s all his parents buying the presents from the store, wrapping them out of sight, and placing them under the tree. Once the boy discovers the truth about one thing, he must apply that truth to everything else.

First Century Cosmology

First century Christians did not have telescopes. They believed the realm above them was a series of layers transcending the dome of the sky. They believed that angels and God literally resided in and above the layers containing the sun, moon, and stars. God’s throne room was a literal place up in what we would call “outer space.” When Jesus ascended up to the Father, to sit at His right hand, Jesus literally went up to sit on a literal throne in a literal throne room.

Since Jesus was up in outer space, of course when He returns, he will return from outer space. Where else would He come from?

21st Century Cosmology

Today we have telescopes. We know that we live in one galaxy among billions, and that each galaxy contains billions, if not trillions, of stars. The universe is so vast, it is beyond comprehension. In fact, the universe is likely infinite. We know this now.

We know that there is no Santa. Therefore, is it proper for us to continue to believe that one day the world will see Jesus descending down to the earth through the layers of the heavens as they believed He would in the 1st century? Should we combine their cosmology with our own? No, of course not. Ask any Christian today where heaven is, and unless he’s a flat-earther, he will likely say that heaven is located in the spiritual realm, someplace beyond the material realm that we do not have access to.

New Testament Eschatological Language

New Testament (NT) eschatology is primarily Israel’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology builds upon it, but then transcends it. The cosmos coming under judgement for the NT authors was the Israelite cosmos. The end was near, at hand, at the door, soon, and about to happen. Every NT author believed he was living in the last days. And he was, to the degree that the old order of things was coming to an end. The apocalyptic language of the NT reflects this.

Israel’s eschatology is not the Church’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology is this: Just as a dragnet draws all the fish into the boat, so is all creation being drawn to the Father by the redemptive work of Christ. We don’t know when this work will be complete, and we don’t know what it will finally look like. For now it is beyond our comprehension, beyond our reach.

It’s okay to be somewhat agnostic when it comes to eschatology. Embrace the mystery. Whatever you do, don’t go on believing that your dad has a pack of flying reindeer hidden away in a barn somewhere.

We Are Not Israel

Israel is gone. Our faith is not “Judeo/Christian.” We are just Christian. Yes, Jesus was the Messiah Israel was waiting for, but He was not the Messiah they were expecting. Jesus was not the blood soaked Davidic warrior coming to destroy Rome and establish a powerful Israelite theocracy the 1st century Jews were hoping for. This is why He was rejected.

Jesus subverted all Messianic expectations. His kingdom is not of this world. He came to conquer a higher enemy. He came to do the will of the Father, not Israel. The Father’s will is to redeem His creation. This is what Christianity is: The redemption of creation through Christ.

For Christians, Israel has become allegory. The Old Testament scriptures are transformed to types and shadows. It’s not our literal history. It’s our mythology.

Most Christians live like this even if not fully aware of it. They may say the stories are literal history, but they always apply the stories allegorically to their own life’s journey. It doesn’t matter if the stories are literal history or not; anything to do with Israel we allegorize.

Jesus is not coming down from the sky. Israelite cosmology is not true. That’s okay, because we are Christians. We know more. We’ve seen more. We know what is mythology and what is reality. We know the truth, and what we know is true; we must apply it to everything else.

The Original Idea of Christianity

According to Israel’s prophets, the coming of the Messiah was directly connected to Yahweh’s promise to restore exiled Israel.

Christianity then is based on the idea that Jesus is the Messiah, and that, for some reason, the promise to restore Israel is extended to the nations.

Deification from Nothing

And only by this primordial assent does humanity in its eternal “multi-hypostatic” reality— as the eternal Adam of the first creation— freely receive its being from its creator: and this even though that assent becomes, on the threshold between the heavenly Aeon and time, a recapitulation of the Fall, an individuating acceptance of entry into the world under the burden of sin, such that every soul is answerable for and somehow always remembers that original transgression. In that moment, the spiritual creature concurs in its own creation, and God hands the creature over to its own free self-determination. Here, naturally, the language of past and future can devolve all too easily into a mythology of individual guilt historically “prior” to any person’s actual life; but, of course, there was no fall “back then” in historical time, either for the race or for the individual. Rather, the Fall “happened” only as belonging to the temporal unfolding of that eternal assent. It “happened”— or, rather, is happening— only as the lingering resistance of nothingness to that final joyous confession, the diminishing residue of the creature’s emergence ex nihilo. For no creature can exist as spirit in God except under the condition of having arisen from nothingness in order to grow into his or her last end. That passage from nothingness into the infinite, which is always a free intentionality toward a final cause, is the very structure of created spiritual beings. They could not be spirit otherwise.
David Bentley Hart, You Are Gods (Kindle Locations 2269-2281). University of Notre Dame Press. Kindle Edition.

The above quote is dense. I had ChatGPT break it down for me…

1. Humanity’s “primordial assent”

All of humanity, seen as one great reality (called here the “eternal Adam”), says “yes” to God in a timeless, original way — that’s what allows us to receive our existence.
This assent is not something we’re forced into; it’s freely given.

2. Entry into the world as a re-enactment of the Fall

When each soul crosses from God’s eternal realm into time, that assent gets played out again.
This entry into earthly life also means accepting a world where sin and brokenness exist — a “burden” every soul bears.
Somehow, each person participates in and “remembers” the original turning away from God (the Fall), even though it’s not a literal memory of a past historical event.

3. Individual freedom at creation

In this moment of entering existence, the soul agrees to be created and is entrusted by God to its own freedom.
God hands each creature over to its own self-determination — we’re not puppets; we live by our own will.

4. The caution against misreading the Fall

It’s easy to turn this idea into a story of “individual guilt” for something that happened before we were born.
But the author says that’s a misunderstanding — the Fall wasn’t a single event in history, for either humanity as a whole or for each person individually.

5. The Fall as an ongoing reality

The Fall “happens” as part of the unfolding of that original assent in time.
It’s the ongoing resistance of nothingness — the fact that we came from nothing — to fully and joyfully uniting with God.
This resistance gradually diminishes as we grow toward God.

6. Why this resistance exists

A creature can only exist as a spiritual being in God if it has come from nothingness.
That means we must grow from nothingness toward our ultimate purpose — union with God — in a free, intentional way.
That journey from nothing to infinite life in God is the very structure of what it means to be a spiritual creature.

In short:
We each freely agree to exist, but entering the world means stepping into a condition where sin already burdens us — not as guilt for a past event, but as part of our starting point in nothingness. The Fall is not “back then,” but is the ongoing process of wrestling with the pull of nothingness as we freely move toward God, which is exactly what it means to be a spiritual being.

***

The Climb from the Hollow

In the beginning, there was no beginning.
Ermias opened his eyes in a vast, dim hollow. No sun, no stars; only a faint glow far above, like the hint of a dawn. He did not remember falling here; he simply found himself at the bottom, his feet in the dust.

He stood. Something inside him whispered: Up there is your home.
Not a command, but an invitation.

The climb was hard. The walls were steep in some places, treacherous in others, and the dust clung to him, weighing him down. It whispered, You come from me. Stay. It pulled at his ankles, reminding him how easy it would be to stop.

Ermias kept climbing.
Not because he was told to, not because he feared punishment, but because the faint light above called to him. The higher he climbed, the stronger the light, and the lighter his steps.

Still, the dust never let go. Even when he could see the edge of the hollow, its pull was there, a quiet ache in his legs and longing in his chest. It was part of him, just as much as the light.

He understood:
He had not been pushed into the hollow long ago. He had always been here, and his life was the climb — the slow, free, deliberate rising from the nothingness of the dust toward the fullness of the light.

***

If we view the fall in this way, how does the life of Jesus guide us from nothingness to God?

Complete Surrender to God’s Purpose and Freedom from Nothingness:
- Jesus embodies complete surrender to God’s purpose, demonstrating the free intentionality required to move from nothingness toward divine union. His prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will, but yours be done” (Luke 22:42), illustrates this active, free choice to embrace his divine end.
- Unlike every other human being, Jesus’ freedom was never bent inward toward self-assertion. Every choice He made aligned perfectly with the will of the Father, overcoming the pull of nothingness.
Incarnation as the Bridge from Nothingness to Infinity:
- The doctrine of the Incarnation (God becoming human in Jesus – John 1:14) illustrates the journey from nothingness to divine fullness. As fully human, Jesus shares in the creaturely condition of originating ex nihilo, yet as fully divine, he embodies the infinite end toward which all creatures are called.
- Jesus entered the same condition we inhabit—born into the finitude and vulnerability of human life, subject to temptation, pain, and mortality. By living our condition without turning inward, He shows that the journey from nothingness to God can be completed within human limits.
Overcoming Temptation as Resistance to Nothingness:
- The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Luke 4:1-13) symbolizes the rejection of the “residue of nothingness.” Satan’s temptations—material gain, power, and self-preservation—represent ways the creature might cling to autonomy or finite desires, resisting divine intentionality. Jesus’ refusal of these temptations demonstrates how to prioritize God’s will over the allure of nothingness.
- His temptations in the wilderness are the archetypal moment where the pull of “nothingness” tries to assert itself—through comfort, power, and self-display. Jesus answers each one with trust in the Father, refusing the shortcuts that would anchor Him in self-will.
Teachings as a Guide for Intentionality:
- Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), outline a way of life that orients the soul toward God. His emphasis on love, humility, forgiveness, and trust in God offers a roadmap for aligning one’s intentions with divine purpose.
- Jesus describes His very sustenance as obedience to God’s purpose—“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to finish His work” (John 4:34), showcasing the opposite of clinging to self-sufficiency.
Crucifixion as the Ultimate Surrender:
- Jesus’ death on the cross (Mark 15:33-39, John 19:30) represents the ultimate act of self-emptying (kenosis), where he freely embraces the finitude and suffering inherent in creaturely existence. By accepting death, Jesus confronts the nothingness at the heart of human mortality and transforms it through his trust in God’s redemptive power.
- On the cross, Jesus fully experiences the consequence of our condition: mortality, weakness, and even the feeling of God’s absence. But instead of yielding to despair, He entrusts Himself entirely into the Father’s hands, reversing the “Fall” by freely surrendering to Him in suffering.
Resurrection as the Fulfillment of Divine End:
- The resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10, John 20:1-18) is the definitive triumph over nothingness, demonstrating that the journey from ex nihilo to God culminates in eternal life. Jesus’ risen life shows that the creature’s free assent to God’s purpose leads to transformation beyond the limits of finitude.
- The resurrection is not just a miracle to prove divinity—it’s the completion of the passage from nothingness into the infinite. In Him, human life is lifted fully into God, body and soul, showing the destiny that awaits every spirit that freely assents.
Example for Practical Imitation:
- Jesus’ life provides concrete practices for moving toward God: prayer (e.g., the Lord’s Prayer, Matthew 6:9-13), service to others (John 13:1-17), and sacrificial love (John 15:13). These actions reflect a life oriented toward divine intentionality, showing how everyday choices can resist nothingness and grow toward God.
- Jesus’ whole life shows what it looks like when created spirit fully grows into its “last end”—unbroken union with God, serving as the pattern and pioneer of what it means for created spirit to complete the climb from the Hollow to the Summit.

Reasons to Doubt the Supernatural Nature of Christianity

I’ve taught Apologetics before. I didn’t like it. I wouldn’t consider myself a Christian apologist as apologists are expected to come up with black and white answers to difficult issues. I do not believe there are black and white answers. Also, apologists seem less interested in discovering truth than they are defending presupposed dogmas.

However, as unlikely as it seems, there’s a chance I might teach the subject again. Therefore I thought, “What are some legitimate reasons why one would doubt the supernatural nature of Christianity?”

Here is my list…

Unfalsifiability of Christianity

Claims about heaven, hell, or divine judgment rely on post-mortem experiences, which are unverifiable in life, aligning with critiques of supernatural claims lacking empirical testability.

Christians cannot claim that living a faithful Christian life guarantees success or well-being in this life, nor that rejecting the Christian life necessarily leads to hardship or misfortune here and now. We know this from simple observation. Plenty of non-religious people live happy fulfilling lives, and plenty of Christians live difficult unhappy lives. The promise of whether things go good or bad for you can apply only to the after-life, which is unfalsifiable.

The hope found in the New Testament is grounded on the soon return of Christ, the transformation of the world, and the transformation of the individual bodies of believers. This leads to my next reason…

Failed Eschatological Expectations

New Testament passages suggest Jesus’ return was expected within the first century, which didn’t occur, undermining divine foresight.

Modern Christians have no clear explanation for what happens at death since the New Testament doesn’t teach it. The authors of the New Testament did not expect the world to continue on for thousands of years after Pentecost. The New Testament authors expected the Parousia (return of Christ, resurrection/transformation of bodies, judgement) to happen within their own lifetimes or shortly after.

The Parousia did not happen at that time, nor has it happened from that time till now. This calls into question the divine inspiration of the New Testament writings.

I can also include here the issue of the scripture’s focus on national Israel and the covenant promises. The New Covenant was promised only to Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-13). While it is true that Paul preached the gospel to the gentile world, his primary concern was Israel, which is why he always began his preaching in the synagogues. He clearly was passionate about Israel embracing their New Covenant gospel (Romans 9:1-5). And while I am not a proponent of the Israel Only movement, one can ask, “What if the original Jesus movement, a sect within Judaism, was only a failed Israelite eschatology?”

Persistence of Evil Under Divine Rule/Absence of Physical Manifestation/Decline of Verifiable Miracles

If Jesus reigns as a divine king, the ongoing existence of suffering and injustice suggests a lack of observable supernatural governance or intervention.

Despite theological claims of Jesus’ ongoing divine presence, the lack of any verifiable physical manifestation calls into question the active role or power of a supernatural agent.

Whereas early Christian accounts abound with miracles, such as healings and resurrections, modern times lack consistent, empirically verified equivalents, raising doubts about the reliability of early miracle claims.

I’ve combined three reasons here into one as they all have to do with the tangible presence of Christ in the current world.

Since the Parousia did not happen in the first century, the Church had to adopt a new way of seeing things. For the most part the Church began to teach that the kingdom of Christ is partially manifest in the Church, and that Christ rules in the hearts of believers. There will still be a future Parousia and history as we know it will end.

One can ask then, “What has actually changed in the world post-Pentecost?” If Jesus is king, what exactly is he king over? The world? The Church? Heaven? He doesn’t appear to be ruling the world, at least not in any obvious way. Perhaps he is king over the Church, but the Church is so fragmented (see reason #7) that he could only be king over an invisible Church: the “true believers,” whoever they may be. Only God knows. We might say he reigns over heaven, which we presume to be perfect. Since we cannot see heaven, we cannot verify this.

Spread of Christianity Through Natural Means

Christianity’s global expansion correlates with historical forces such as imperial conquest, colonialism, demographic trends, and migration—factors that suggest a sociopolitical rather than supernatural spread.

Has the spread of Christianity over the last two thousand years been remarkably different than the spread of any other religion?

Syncretism with Pre-Christian Traditions/Parallels with Other Religious Traditions/Shift from Jewish Sect to Gentile Religion

Many Christian customs have clear roots in earlier pagan traditions, indicating a blending of cultural practices rather than the emergence of a wholly distinct revelation.

Christianity shares core motifs (such as virgin births and dying-and-rising gods) with older mythologies, implying that its supernatural claims may stem from universal myth-making rather than unique divine revelation.

Christianity’s shift from a Jewish Messianic sect to a Gentile-dominated religion suggests human-driven evolution rather than divine preservation.

I’ve again combined three points here to highlight the evolution of religion throughout time. Many scholars agree that pre-exilic Israel was shaped by the dominant cultures surrounding it in the formation of its theocratic system. Likewise, post-exilic Second Temple Judaism was significantly influenced by Zoroastrian and Hellenistic thought. Christianity, which began as a Jewish sect, is often seen as a synthesis of Jewish tradition and elements from first-century mystery religions. Over time, it evolved into a predominantly Gentile movement. These developments suggest a gradual, human-driven evolution of religious ideas rather than a singular, divinely revealed system.

Theological Discontinuity Between Testaments/Moral Progress Beyond Scripture

The portrayal of God in the Old Testament (wrathful and nationalistic) differs markedly from the loving and universal God of modern Christianity, suggesting doctrinal evolution shaped by cultural change rather than consistent divine character.

Modern ethical stances (e.g., the condemnation of slavery) often diverge from or contradict biblical teachings, indicating that moral advancement may arise from secular humanism rather than scriptural guidance.

I am not comparing God as portrayed in the Old Testament to God as portrayed in the New Testament here as much as I am comparing God as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments to God as portrayed by modern Christians. Modern Christians tend to read the Old Testament allegorically, and even Fundamentalists struggle to reconcile the differences.

Fragmentation Within Christianity/Subjectivity in Scriptural Interpretation

Theological and cultural divisions across denominations (e.g., Evangelical, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox) suggest Christianity is not a unified divine revelation but a diverse, evolving human tradition.

The need for personal or ecclesiastical interpretation of scripture underscores the role of human subjectivity in defining doctrine, weakening claims of an objective or universally clear divine message.

Christianity exhibits such a high degree of internal diversity that one expression of the faith may, in practice, function as a distinct religion from another. For example, American Evangelicalism and Syrian Orthodoxy differ so significantly in theology, worship, and worldview that they can be seen as fundamentally separate religious traditions.

Personality often plays a significant role in shaping the style of Christianity a person gravitates toward. For example, someone devoted to John MacArthur’s church is unlikely to transition to a Charismatic congregation. While he may claim his reasons are purely scriptural, it’s more likely that his theological preferences align with his personality (which, of course, includes his politics).

Modern Biblical Scholarship and Archaeology

Scholarship questions the historicity of key biblical events (e.g., Exodus, Canaanite conquests), and textual criticism highlights inconsistencies in manuscripts, undermining claims of divine inspiration.

Did Moses write the Pentateuch? Or was it written by several authors and compiled later? Did the exodus out of Egypt actually happen? Did Daniel write Daniel? Did Daniel exist? Or was the book of Daniel Maccabean propaganda? Who wrote the gospels? Did Paul write all the letters attributed to him?

Modern scholars differ much in their opinions, and I find they often overstate their arguments. However, their work cannot simply be dismissed because it contradicts traditional Christian beliefs.

Psychological and Sociological Explanations for Religious Experience

Neuroscience and psychology offer naturalistic explanations for spiritual experiences (e.g., visions, divine presence) as brain-based phenomena, and sociological factors like community bonding explain Christianity’s appeal.

Worship services with dimmed lighting and emotional music absolutely influence how a person feels about what they perceive to be Jesus. This isn’t just true of modern western services, but it is true of ancient style Orthodox services as well.

It’s easy to see, especially with productions like The Chosen, that Christians will form their religion to fit their specific needs and desires. One would think it would be impossible to turn Jesus into a false idol, but how can modern Christians be sure that’s not exactly what they’re doing?

David Bentley Hart and Eschatology

David Bentley Hart (an Eastern Orthodox scholar), in a series of articles concerning eschatology, writes: “[B]iblical eschatology is of its very nature … somewhat obscure on the actual details of how things end. Whatever it tells us—or hints at for us—comes in the often unintelligible form of elaborate symbolic fantasias and infuriatingly elliptical metaphors, all pronounced with an urgency soon belied by history’s perversely persistent failure to end. If we are to be strict and fastidious literalists about the language of scripture, the Lord, it would seem, has been coming “quickly” for two millennia now; the hour has been late since the days of the Caesars; the world that is passing away is doing so with all the hectic dispatch of molasses flowing uphill in February.”

Other than a shared expectation of a soon fulfillment of eschatological expectations, the New Testament authors give us no consolidated narrative. The traditional Christian eschatological storyline (Christ’s second coming, general resurrection, final judgment, eternal Kingdom) is not found in a unified form. Texts like Paul’s epistles, the Gospel of John, and Revelation offer distinct visions.

“My claims regarding the early Christian sense of a rapidly approaching ‘eschaton’ are, before all else, claims regarding the first epoch of the church as an association of believers in Christ who harbored a large variety of apocalyptic expectations, at once intrahistorical, truly eschatological, wholly eternal, or combining two or more of these in an indeterminate haze of anxious anticipation, fear, and hope. And I assume that it was only a sense of the imminent realization of those expectations that imposed any sort of uniformity on what was otherwise a farraginous collection of religious, political, cosmic, and psychological aspirations. The things that were coming soon from God—the things that lay just over the horizon of the present—were imagined in many forms and modalities, temporal and atemporal and both at once; but what was beyond doubt was that they absolutely must happen very soon (δεῖ γενέσθει ἐν τάχει, as the first verse of Revelation says), and this was the uniform confession and profoundly unified experience of believers.” (Hart)

Below is a summary of the various views of eschatology and resurrection the NT authors had, as presented by Hart in his articles…

1. Paul (Authentic Epistles: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon)

Eschatology: Paul’s eschatology is marked by an imminent expectation of Christ’s return (parousia) to consummate the present age and inaugurate the Kingdom (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). He envisions a cosmic transformation where the “Age to Come” replaces the current order (1 Corinthians 15:24-28). Judgment is ambiguous, sometimes suggesting a selective process for the saved (Romans 8:11) and other times hinting at universal salvation (Romans 5:18; 1 Corinthians 15:28). Condemnation, if it occurs, consigns the reprobate to the past, not eternal torment (1 Corinthians 3:12-15). Paul’s focus is both intrahistorical (imminent divine intervention) and eternal (cosmic renewal).
Resurrection: Resurrection is central to Paul’s theology, equated with salvation itself (1 Corinthians 15:42-50). It involves a transformation from a mortal “psychical body” (σῶμα ψυχικόν, animated by soul and flesh) to an imperishable “spiritual body” (σῶμα πνευματικόν), composed of spirit (πνεῦμα), akin to angelic or celestial beings. This transformation is conflated with an ascent through celestial spheres in Christ’s train at his return (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; Philippians 3:20). Resurrection is primarily for the righteous, though universalist passages suggest broader inclusion (Romans 5:18).
Key Features: Paul’s eschatology is future-oriented but imminent, with a strong universalist undercurrent. Resurrection is a cosmic, spiritual event, reflecting first-century cosmology where spirit is a subtle, incorruptible element.

2. Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke)

Eschatology: The Synoptics blend intrahistorical and eternal horizons, with a strong preterist emphasis on first-century events, particularly the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (Olivet Discourse: Mark 13; Matthew 24; Luke 21). Jesus’ prophecies use prophetic idioms (e.g., Isaiah 65:17-25) to depict historical calamities as cosmic upheavals, targeting the rich and powerful for their oppression (Matthew 25:31-46). Judgment is often intrahistorical (e.g., within a generation, Matthew 24:34), but a secondary eschatological horizon of divine justice looms (Matthew 11:22-24:11). The Kingdom is both imminent (Luke 11:20) and present within believers (Luke 17:20-21), with varied fates for the unrighteous (e.g., destruction, exclusion, temporary chastisement). Matthew’s allegory of judgment (Matthew 25:31-46) is a gathering of nations, not a resurrection event. Mark mentions resurrection only once (Mark 12:25), and Luke links it to the righteous (Luke 14:14).
Resurrection: In the dispute with the Sadducees (Mark 12:25; Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:35-36), Jesus describes the resurrected as “like angels” or “equal to angels” (ἰσάγγελοι), implying a spiritual, eternal existence free from marriage and death. Resurrection is not clearly tied to judgment, and its nature remains ambiguous. Luke’s depiction of the risen Christ with “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39) contrasts with this angelic vision, suggesting potential inconsistency or redaction. Mark’s minimal focus on resurrection may align with spiritual ascent or soul revival.
Key Features: The Synoptics’ eschatology is heavily preterist, with metaphorical language tied to historical events. Resurrection is symbolic and ambiguous, often reserved for the righteous, with a focus on ethical transformation.

3. Gospel of John

Eschatology: John’s eschatology is predominantly realized, emphasizing the present reality of eternal life through faith in Christ (John 5:24; 11:25). The Kingdom is marginalized, replaced by “eternal life” (aiōnios zōē), which collapses future expectations into the now. Judgment is immediate, occurring in Christ’s crucifixion, which casts out the world’s Archon and draws all to himself (John 12:31-32). While a future resurrection and judgment are mentioned (John 5:28-29), these are qualified as already present (John 5:25: “the hour is coming”). The “last day” is the cross, where history and eternity meet (John 12:48). John’s universalist tone suggests all are redeemed through Christ’s act (John 12:32).
Resurrection: Resurrection is both a future event (John 5:28-29) and a present reality (John 11:25: “I am the resurrection and the life”). Believers already possess eternal life through faith, transcending death (John 6:47; 8:51). Resurrection is an ascent to a supercelestial reality, described as aiōnios, likely indicating a divine, eternal realm akin to Plato’s Timaeus. John lacks a final ascension scene, portraying Christ as continually present (John 20:19-28).
Key Features: John’s eschatology is radically present-focused, with judgment and resurrection fulfilled in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The universalist vision reconciles historical and eternal horizons.

4. 1 Peter

Eschatology: 1 Peter has a future-oriented eschatology, anticipating Christ’s return and final judgment (1 Peter 4:7). However, it also hints at a realized dimension, with Christ’s resurrection enabling spiritual actions (e.g., preaching to the “spirits in prison,” 1 Peter 3:18-19). Judgment is linked to historical suffering and divine vindication, but not explicitly tied to a universal resurrection.
Resurrection: Christ’s resurrection is described as a transformation from flesh to spirit (1 Peter 3:18: “put to death in flesh, made alive in spirit”), enabling him to enter spiritual realms. This aligns with Paul’s spiritual body concept, suggesting a non-carnal, angelic existence for the resurrected.
Key Features: 1 Peter bridges future and realized eschatology, with resurrection as a spiritual transformation, reinforcing the apostolic view of an imperishable state.

5. Hebrews

Eschatology: Hebrews shifts from imminent historical expectations to a vertical, transcendent eschatology. Christ’s second coming is mentioned (Hebrews 9:28), but the focus is on his present role as High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary (Hebrews 4:14; 8:1). Salvation is an ascent to the “world above,” emphasizing a timeless divine reality over future consummation.
Resurrection: Resurrection is implicit in the ascent to the heavenly places, where believers are drawn by Christ’s priestly work (Hebrews 6:19-20). It is not detailed but aligns with a spiritual, non-carnal transformation.
Key Features: Hebrews prioritizes a vertical eschatology, with resurrection as a spiritual ascent, reflecting a shift from historical to eternal concerns.

6. Pseudo-Pauline Texts (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 2 Timothy)

Eschatology: These texts reflect responses to delayed expectations. Ephesians and Colossians emphasize a realized eschatology, with believers already “raised” and “seated” with Christ in heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6; Colossians 3:1-2), though future consummation is noted (Ephesians 1:10). 2 Thessalonians, likely non-Pauline, introduces an intermediate period of apostasy and the “man of lawlessness” to explain Christ’s delay (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3), insisting on future divine intervention. 2 Timothy refutes claims of a mystical resurrection, maintaining future imminence (2 Timothy 2:17-18).
Resurrection: Ephesians and Colossians view resurrection as a present spiritual reality, aligning with John’s eternal life. 2 Thessalonians and 2 Timothy anticipate a future bodily resurrection, possibly for both just and unjust (Acts 24:15, though not pseudo-Pauline).
Key Features: These texts show a transition from Paul’s imminent eschatology to realized or adjusted expectations, with resurrection varying from present to future.

7. Revelation

Eschatology: Revelation is primarily preterist, focusing on the fall of Rome and the establishment of a new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:1-5). It adopts apocalyptic imagery, including a millennial messianic reign and two resurrections (Revelation 20:4-6), but these inaugurate a new epoch, not history’s end. Judgment is symbolic, tied to political and spiritual aspirations rather than a final cosmic assize.
Resurrection: The first resurrection is for martyrs during the millennial reign, the second a universal judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). Both are symbolic, reflecting anti-Roman hopes rather than literal eschatology.
Key Features: Revelation’s eschatology is allegorical and preterist, with resurrections as political symbols, not doctrinal statements.

Differences in New Testament Eschatology and Resurrection

Author/Text	Eschatology (Kingdom, Judgment)	Resurrection	Key Features
Paul (Authentic)	Imminent parousia, cosmic transformation (1 Thess 4:13-17). Judgment ambiguous, possibly universal (Rom 5:18). Kingdom is future “Age to Come” (1 Cor 15:24-28).	Spiritual transformation into imperishable “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:42-50), conflated with celestial ascent (1 Thess 4:16-17). Primarily for righteous.	Future-oriented, universalist hints, spiritual resurrection, first-century cosmology.
Synoptics (Mark, Matthew, Luke)	Preterist focus on AD 70 (Olivet Discourse: Mk 13; Mt 24; Lk 21). Judgment intrahistorical (Mt 25:31-46) with eternal horizon. Kingdom imminent and present (Lk 17:20-21).	Angelic, non-carnal existence (Mk 12:25; Lk 20:35-36). Vague, possibly for righteous only (Lk 14:14). Luke’s “flesh and bones” (Lk 24:39) inconsistent.	Metaphorical, preterist, ethical focus, ambiguous resurrection.
John	Realized eschatology: eternal life now (Jn 5:24; 11:25). Judgment immediate, on cross (Jn 12:31-32). Kingdom marginalized, universalist tone.	Present eternal life through faith (Jn 11:25), also future (Jn 5:28-29). Ascent to supercelestial reality, no final ascension scene (Jn 20:19-28).	Radically present, universalist, eternal life as aiōnios reality.
1 Peter	Future-oriented, with Christ’s return and judgment (1 Pet 4:7). Some realized elements (1 Pet 3:18-19).	Christ’s resurrection as shift to spirit (1 Pet 3:18), enabling spiritual realms. Aligns with Paul’s spiritual body.	Bridges future and realized, spiritual resurrection.
Hebrews	Vertical, transcendent eschatology. Christ as High Priest in heaven (Heb 4:14). Future coming secondary (Heb 9:28).	Implicit as spiritual ascent to heavenly places (Heb 6:19-20), non-carnal.	Vertical focus, present salvation, minimal resurrection detail.
Pseudo-Pauline (Eph, Col, 2 Thess, 2 Tim)	Mixed: realized in Eph/Col (Eph 2:6), future with delays in 2 Thess (2:1-3), 2 Tim (2:17-18). Judgment varies.	Present spiritual raising (Eph 2:6; Col 3:1-2) or future bodily (2 Thess, 2 Tim, cf. Acts 24:15).	Transition from imminent to realized or adjusted, varied resurrection views.
Revelation	Preterist, anti-Roman focus (Rev 21:1-5). Millennial reign, symbolic judgments (Rev 20:11-15). New epoch, not history’s end.	Two symbolic resurrections: martyrs’ reign, universal judgment (Rev 20:4-6). Political, not doctrinal.	Allegorical, preterist, symbolic resurrections, political critique.