Acts and Afterlife, Hope and Gospel

Recently a friend online posted this quote:

"In all of the evangelistic sermons in the Book of Acts, none of them makes an appeal to afterlife issues. If you cannot preach the gospel without an appeal to afterlife issues (heaven and hell), you cannot preach the gospel like the Apostles." --Brian Zahnd

From what I know of Zahnd— and that’s not more than a cursory glance because he has not really piqued my interest— it seems like he is not really into recovering the New Testament Church as part of his project. In fact, from what I can remember, he seems to think the New Testament and Old Testament are problematic in important ways (and on some points I agree). But, if this is the case, why tell anyone to evangelize more like the Apostles did? If the Apostles were fundamentally flawed in several ways, why should we look to them as a template about how to evangelize?

Now, we could say the Apostles are problematic in some ways, but exemplary in others, and possessed some real lasting insight. And I would agree too. We find this all the time: Someone with great business skills, but a horrible home life. Someone who is a great parent and spouse, but not very good as a colleague or leader. 

But when you are not known for encouraging people to live and act like first century Apostles (whatever that would mean), and then you really push hard to be like first century Apostles on one particular debated point, then it just doesn't feel super authentic. Now, perhaps Zahnd has a wide swath of issues in which he regularly exhorts people to be like the first century Apostles, and I just haven't read them on that. If so, great!

But, without a regular history of holding up the Apostles as exemplary role models to emulate, it seems to me to be better to say: "I believe that we should avoid converting others on the basis of afterlife issues. Here are my reasons…"

However, this raises an issue of fact: Is it in fact the case that the Book of Acts does not regularly use afterlife issues in the proclamation of the Gospel? In fact this is not the case. One has to take a very narrow view of postmortem life to say that the Apostles did not speak about it in Acts. For instance, there seems to be a clear and regular reference to Jesus' postmortem resurrection and its implications for the Gospel and our own future destiny:

The Resurrection of Jesus as decisive for the proclamation of the Gospel:

• Acts 2:24 "But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."
• Acts 2:31 "...seeing what was to come, he [David] spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay."
• Acts 2:32 "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it."
• Acts 3:15 "You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this."
• Acts 10:40-41 "God raised him up on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."
• Acts 13:30 "But God raised him from the dead"

The Promise of Postmortem Life in the Resurrection:

• Acts 4:2 "...proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead."
• Acts 13:37 "But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay."
• Acts 17:31 "...he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”
• Acts 23:6 "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, descended from Pharisees. I stand on trial because of the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”
• Acts 24:15 "And I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked."

In fact, the only use of the word "apokatastasis" in the New Testament comes from Acts. This word which would later be used regularly in Orthodox Theology to describe God's postmortem action to resurrect and heal the entire creation and all who live(d) in it:

Acts 3:21 "Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything [apokatastasis], as he promised long ago through his holy prophets."

Now, if what Zahnd means is that the book of Acts never uses words like "Heaven" or "Hell" to refer to postmortem destinies, I think that would be accurate. It never uses Hell at all, and only seems to use Heaven as shorthand for "where God and angels dwell as a dimension different from Earth". But another scholar-- NT Wright-- has made a career out of pointing out that "Heaven" and "Hell" are not the proper objects of Christian Hope. Resurrection is our Hope. And this is on full display in Acts. 

So it isn't "afterlife issues" as a category that is excluded from the Gospel presented in Acts. It is only "Heaven and Hell" that is excluded. I suppose a very careful and selective exegesis of Zahnd's original quote might yield that point. But it sure is worded as if the book of Acts does not deal with "afterlife issues" in any way. And if we want to follow the Apostles in anything, we would do well to follow them in the insistence that the resurrection of Jesus offers us a bold new way to live, both in this life, and beyond.

So, I have a feeling that the original quote probably means something like this: Don't preach the Gospel as if it is merely a get-out-of-hell-free card, or a ticket to heaven when you die. This cheapens the Gospel into a petty transaction. Instead, preach the Gospel as a response to resurrection, in which we are offered a way to live into a Love that conquers death itself! It is this resurrection Love that is able to transform your life and your relationships here and now, and in the future it will transform your afterlife and the destiny of the cosmos. The Way of Jesus is the Way of Love, and the life of resurrection is the result of Love!