The Hope Laid Up for You in Heaven
“We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and the love which you have for all the saints; because of the hope laid up for you in heaven, of which you previously heard in the word of truth, the gospel…” (Colossians 1:3-5).
I always was cautious about insisting that eschatology (the study of the end times) was really a necessary component in sharing the gospel. I really didn’t insist on it until I studied this passage. Then I got to thinking, “Apparently, when Paul preached the gospel to the Colossians, he included the ‘hope laid up for (them) in heaven.’” That’s eschatology.
Not only that, but this “hope” was also the driving force, it seems, behind their faith in Christ Jesus and the love they had for all the saints. If that hope that Paul included in the gospel could incite them to faith and love, we would be foolish to leave it out of our gospel, wouldn’t we?
So, what is this hope?
I think it’s necessary to point out that Christians at that time were all futurists. That means, they believed this hope laid up for them was in their future. What do we know about this future hope for them?
1. This future hope united them in love. Paul says his prayers stem from hearing about their faith in Christ Jesus and “the love which you have for all the saints...” This love he says is “because of the hope…” The hope they had united them in love; it did not divide them. It’s not New Testament futurism (or any theology, really) that says, “Believe like us or we break fellowship.”
2. Their future hope was tied to the gospel. Paul says of this hope that they heard about it “in the word of truth, the gospel.” This makes me wonder about attaching the “end times” to the actual sharing of the gospel. I used to think that end times theology was really not necessary in the preaching of the gospel. Now I’m not so sure.
I always thought that, because of all the different views of the end times, we shouldn’t even bring up our views on the subject because it really doesn’t have anything to do with salvation. Again, now I’m not so sure.
I don’t mean by this that if you don’t believe eschatological position X, you’re not saved. God gives us a lot of room for error when it comes to our theology. We are not saved because we have razor-sharp accuracy of every point of doctrine.
However, what we believe about the end times can mean the difference in a life of spiritual joy and riches or spiritual poverty. Let’s look at another place where Paul mentions “hope” and what he connects to that hope.
Look at Romans 8 beginning with v. 18. I’ll not do a detailed exposition, but here are some observations:
1. The creation was waiting for the revealing of the sons of God. The sons of God were those who were led by the Spirit (v. 14). The sufferings of that present time (the first century; not our present time) were caused by others also claiming the title of “sons of God.” They were those who believed that their claim to the favor of God was because of their faithfulness to the ritual worship of the temple – the sacrifices, the priesthood, the dietary laws, the observance of Sabbaths and holy days. The creation looked on asking the question: Which of these really are the sons of God?
2. Paul said this revealing was “about” to take place. In the Greek text, there is the word “mello,” which means “about to, on the brink of.” The Young’s Literal Translation is the only English translation to bring this out: “For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory about to be revealed in us.”
3. Paul mentions the “hope” in v. 20. Rather than explaining the hope as some universe-ending cataclysm, Paul describes it as the time when “the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.” I think the best way to understand this freedom for which they hoped is to examine the letter to the Galatians. The freedom needed by the children of God is not from a supposedly sin-besotted planet, but from the burden of Old Covenant religion which the wannabe sons of God used to accuse day and night those of faith in Christ.
4. In AD 70, the Roman army, after a 3 ½ year siege, breached the walls of Jerusalem and destroyed the city and the temple. I don’t think we appreciate the significance of this historical event in redemptive history. This event totally wiped out any claim that anyone could make that their faithfulness to the temple ritual crowned them as a “son of God.” With the whole center of Old Covenant religion destroyed, there was only one body standing that could claim the title of “sons of God” – those who walked in the Spirit. The creation now had their question answered as to the identity of the true sons of God.
This was the “hope” to which they looked forward. This was the event that would reveal them – the followers of Christ – as the true children of God.
Now to the part that beautifully illuminates the gospel. In Romans 8:31, Paul sums up what he’s been saying thus far. “What shall we say then to these things?” I see this as Paul putting the “hope” to which they looked into a single thought:
“If God is for us, who can be against us?”
In the midst of all the pain, suffering, tribulation, persecution and anguish the Christians bore, the questions on their minds were, “With all the difficulty we’re going through, could it be that we really are going against God? Has our abandonment of the Old Covenant ritual brought upon us the wrath of God? Is God really for us, or is he bent on punishing us for leaving the temple worship?”
Paul wanted the Christians to know – and for us to know today – that no matter what kind of pain, suffering, anguish, tribulation or accusations they underwent, they were still the object of God’s infinite love. Their suffering was not the result of God’s disfavor, anger or rejection.
This was the hope to which they looked forward. They looked forward to a hope where the Father, who they were told loved them, would destroy the temple--the corrupt, ineffectual temple system, the home of those who heaped upon them daily condemnation and persecution. The “end times” for the Christians was the ultimate statement from the Father: I am for you!
It is totally contrary to the gospel today to preach to a person that they are “saved by grace” and then turn around and heap guilt upon them because they fail to keep some jot or tittle of the church or denominational tradition. Many Christians today are deflated because someone condemns them because they haven’t been baptized just right, or haven’t attended the right church, or don’t believe certain doctrines just right, or they don’t read the right translation of the Bible or …. and the list goes on.
The good news of the gospel is that by being in Christ, and only by being in Christ, God is for you. Solidly, unmovingly, lovingly, soundly and eternally for you. If you are in the midst of disaster, trial, tribulation, hardship, sorrow, loss or death, the gospel has a message for you: God is for you. There is nothing that can happen to a child of God in Christ that would change this great truth: God is for you.
We today don’t look into the future for that assurance like they did. We look back. We look back to the work of Christ, including that which was to the first century Christians a “hope” and stand on the solid rock that “GOD IS FOR US.” We don’t look forward to that hope like they did, we look back to a promise fulfilled.
Christians, be encouraged that we do not wait for a future event to let us know of God’s love for us. We can see now when we look at the skyline of Jerusalem and see the absence of the Old Covenant temple that the Father does not accept us on the basis of ritual religion or denominational tradition, but the finished work of his son says: God is for you!
Grand Junction, Colorado
The tree called “theology” has a multitude of branches — theology proper, soteriology, Christology, pneumatology, eschatology, ecclesiology, harmatology and a few others I’m sure I missed. No, I’m not going to tell what all those mean; go look them up. My interest here is that we develop a theology that governs our pursuit of theology and its multiple branches.
Glad you asked. These thoughts sprouted from pondering what seems to be a conundrum within the modern kingdom of God. I often see professed Christians at each other’s throats in the name of orthodox theology. Having Christians ripping into one another is not an unusual sight, neither in this day nor at any other time in history.
What makes it a conundrum is the very plain and obvious statements in the Bible — the wellspring from which we draw any good theology — which say that Christians are supposed to love one another and strive for the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.
Granted, it would be one thing if “loving one another” was just some micro-doctrine a first-century mystic came up with by loosely interpreting the vowel pointing of an obscure Hebrew word found tucked away in an arcane Qumran text. But the command that God’s people love one another — and show mercy, grace, patience, forgiveness, kindness, generosity and gentleness to one another — is stated more bountifully and clearly than 95% of the doctrines we use to smite one another.
I don’t want this to be too drawn out, so let me get to the point. We tend to have the habit of being defenders of gospel theology without really understanding gospel sacrifice. Admit it; there is no discussion of gospel theology without eventually having to deal with the sacrifice of Christ for his people. We tend to fudge a bit, though, when we come to the part about our sacrifice for our brothers and sisters.
What got me thinking about doctrine and sacrifice was looking at 1 Corinthians 8. It’s a pretty humdrum passage as far as confrontational theology goes. There’s nothing of predestination for the Calvinists. There’s no signs and wonders for the Charismatics. There’s no rapture references for the dispensationalists and no timing statements for the preterists.
In it, Paul writes about two groups in the church: the Strong and the Weak. Granted, Paul does not use the term “strong” in the passage, but I use the application from a parallel passage in Romans 15:1. Moving on…
The Strong are those who “have knowledge,” that singular element that that can make one strong, but also be a breeding ground for arrogance. So perhaps we ought to take note: the Garden of Knowledge is not without its weeds. Don’t be deluded into thinking that one can plant plentifully in the Garden of Knowledge and still leave it unattended. The best fruit can be choked if the weeds of arrogance are left to grow.
Paul, in addressing the issue of meat offered to idols, notes that there are two different theologies to address the concern. The Strong don’t believe that there’s anything to that idol. They don’t believe that there’s any demonic presence there. They hold to the oneness and sovereignty of God in his world. They have the “right” theology. They have the orthodox view that should be backed by denominational headquarters.
The Weak have a theology on the subject, also. Their theology sees demons behind the piece of stone. It sees the sacrificial meat as defiled. They wouldn’t dare eat any of it. They would be shocked to see a fellow-believer eat it. The meat leaves their conscience vulnerable to damage. It is immature theology. It is wrong theology.
Now if Paul dealt with that situation in the same manner the modern church deals with it, it would go something like this: After a time of sustained debate, argument, mockery, anathemas, ridicule, contempt, name-calling and scorn, the Strong would write out the “right” doctrine in confessional form, present it as the truly Christian doctrine and then compel the Weak to sign a statement of agreement if they wanted to remain in good standing with the church.
Silly Paul! He really missed a chance to strike a blow against the forces of heresy. Instead, Paul takes several very unorthodox steps. First, — and this one is baffling to most of Christendom today — he doesn’t blast the Weak for their immature doctrine. In fact, he’s exasperatingly tolerant of bad doctrine.
Second, he calls the Strong together and puts the burden of responsibility upon them. What? Isn’t it up to the Strong to sit the Weak down and inform them of their error? Well, he doesn’t, not at this point anyway. He sits the Strong Christians down and says, “Brethren, in order to maintain a loving atmosphere for our weaker brothers and sisters to grow, let’s keep a close watch on our eating practices. I know, I know; we’re free to eat what we want. But when you‘re with our weaker brethren for whom Christ died, say ‘no‘ to meat in their presence.”
Paul saves the strongest words for . . . the Strong! “By sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble” (8:12, 13). So, who’s the strongest in the congregation: The one with the best theological arguments or the one with the most grace and love for the brethren?
Much of our theolo-tudes are based on a premise contrary to the gospel of grace. We unconsciously believe that, the better our doctrine might be, the more righteous and more loved we are in the sight of God. We attitudinally believe that we are saved by the exegetical righteousness imputed by (fill in here your favorite theological system or non-system or doctrinal shibboleth). The gospel is no longer salvation by faith, but by dogma.
I suppose the foundation for a theology of theology is this: Good theology is designed to make us more gracious, not more righteous. Got that; Christ makes us righteous, doctrine makes us gracious.
Maybe we don’t take love and unity seriously because the study and debate of abstract theology is far less challenging to our lives than living a life of sacrificial love for people, many of whom (let’s face it) we may not even like. Maybe we need to come to grips with one of the facts of life: There is no amount of orthodox doctrine or heretical beliefs that will fill you with the love you need to sacrifice for those that may doctrinally repulse you.
Sometimes good theology means we shut our doctrine-hole and just love the brother or sister.
Grand Junction, Colorado
When I was young, I wanted nothing more than to be theologically trained and enter the ministry. Then, I'd hoped I would be run out of the church I pastored and wind up in a low-paying retail job. People, I am living the dream! Besides that, I'm part of a small, home fellowship in Grand Junction, Colorado, married to a wonderful woman and we raised three wonderful daughters. One is married to a great guy, one is in nursing school, and our youngest passed away in 2010. Yes, life is good!