Questions on Eternity, Klingons, and Death

KEVIN HARRIS: Bill, it's that time again when we get your thoughts on some questions that we've received at ReasonableFaith.org and from around Facebook. This first one says,

Hi, Dr. Craig. I really appreciate your tireless efforts in defending the truths of Christianity. I'm sure you get lots of emails in your inbox so I will understand if this is not answered. I was wondering: Is the concept of eternity coherent? My imagination is sincerely lacking in this area. In the intermediary state when the soul leaves the body, with what eyes do we see? On the resurrection day when our souls are reunited with our physical bodies, does that mean that there will be a time when those of us who are buried and not cremated will be alive underground in a coffin? I find it difficult as I'm sure most do, and trying to understand the concept of the passage of time in eternity. Perhaps not a good analogy, but it sometimes helps me to think that when I dream I don't feel time moving at all. Perhaps heaven is like that except everything is more real and not less real as in a dream. So many other things puzzle me like our ages in heaven or the nature a person will have who has been born with brain defects or genetic abnormalities. Jesus kept his scars. Does that mean that we'll all have our scars, too? Are there any popular level books you could recommend that deal with these questions? Sorry for these ramblings that are likely less coherent than my initial question. Thanks, James. UK

A lot of stuff we all think about in that one.

DR. CRAIG: There are a ton of questions here that James asked. Let me try to work through them one at a time. First he wants to know: Is the concept of eternity coherent? This is the subject of my book Time and Eternity. There I explained that there are two different concepts of eternity. One would be timelessness. On this view God is not in time; rather, God transcends time and therefore does not have a temporal location or duration. And I think that is a coherent concept. There's nothing illogical about the existence of a changeless, timeless being. On the other hand, eternity could mean everlasting existence throughout time. In this view something exists in time – it has a location and a duration. But for every time that there is, that entity exists at that time. And I think that's also a coherent concept. You only get into trouble when you try to blend these two together and you don't clearly distinguish them conceptually. That might be what James is having difficulty when he speaks of his imagination. So he says in the intermediate state when the soul leaves the body with what eyes do we see? Well, the soul doesn't have any eyes. The eyes are physical organs that are part of our bodies. So a disembodied soul could at best have visual experiences that are mental projections. It would have appearances of things to it that wouldn't be mediated by photons entering his eyes and impinging upon the retinas to produce images. They would be mental appearances. Now he says on the resurrection day when our souls are reunited with our physical bodies does that mean that there will be a time when those of us who are buried will be alive underground in a coffin? No, the corpse in the coffin will be inanimate and dead, but then it will be raised to life by Christ when he returns bringing with him the souls of the departed dead. Then the soul will be reunited with the resurrection body as in Ezekiel 37 to produce then a new resurrection life. He says he's having trouble understanding the concept of the passage of time in eternity. Well, this depends on your concept of eternity. If eternity is timelessness, there is no passage of time! But if eternity is everlasting duration then it's just the ordinary passage of time that we're familiar with right now. He suggests an analogy that when you dream you don't feel time moving at all. What he's talking about there is psychological time, and certainly psychological time is different from real time. In psychological time we might say that time flies when we're having fun or that time drags when things are boring. That's not a reflection of time itself; that's just psychological time – felt time. So I don't think that's a good analogy for heaven. It could be that in heaven things seem to go by very quickly or they could go at a different rate. That's just a psychological question. He asks some interesting questions. What age will we be in heaven? I think we don't know. That's just speculation. But we would be certainly, I think, in the prime of life. It could be that children who die are raised from the dead at the age they were when they died and then they grow up to maturity and then remain in the prime of life, but that's all just conjectural. We don't really know. What about a person who's been born with genetic abnormalities or defects? I think that all of those will be done away with in the new heavens and the new Earth. There will be no more disease or defects. Now, Jesus having the scars of his crucifixion, I think, are a special case because those wounds are, as it were, the symbols of his atoning death on our behalf. They are the trophies of his conquering death and sin and hell, and therefore, I think, is a special and singular case. So those would be some of my thoughts on his complex question.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dear Dr. Craig, In the Gospel accounts Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene and Mary his mother and then his disciples. I read in these accounts that Jesus appears to them but they don't recognize him. Not until he speaks do they recognize him. So my question is: Did Jesus' face change or were the disciples and followers so distraught that they were not paying attention, or was there some type of facial covering that was traditional for men to wear that would conceal his face? Orlando, United States

DR. CRAIG: One minor correction about Orlando's question. He's interpreting one of the Marys who is at the cross and is identified as the mother of James the Less and Joses as being Jesus’ mother Mary. I don't think that's correct. James, the brother of Jesus, would never have been referred to as James the Less, so this is a different Mary who is at the cross. Now, Orlando's question concerns this nonrecognition motif. This appears in only three of the resurrection accounts. It is not a universal feature of these appearance narratives, and I don't think that this motif indicated that Jesus was somehow changed physically. The only clue we have to this is in the Gospel of Luke during the appearance on the road to Emmaus where Luke explicitly says, “their eyes were held from recognizing him.” So this was a kind of supernaturally imposed impairment. Then in the breaking of the bread instantly they do recognize him. So the question is: What are the Gospel writers trying to teach by this nonrecognition motif? I think that probably it's trying to say that Jesus is not going to continue with you in the same way that you knew him during his earthly ministry. He is now risen. He's going to be ascended, and therefore he's going to be very different in how you relate to him. I think that nonrecognition motif is symbolic of that radical change in how the disciples will relate to Jesus.

KEVIN HARRIS: This question says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I hope this message finds you well. I have a question about your neo-Apollinarian model of the incarnation. On a previous question of the week you said that the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature permanently. So even though you think Christ presently lacks a body, when he re-enters our space-time manifold his human nature will be manifested again as a body just like a vibrating tuning fork in a vacuum jar produces sound once air is introduced into the jar. However, in the context of the possible existence of aliens on other planets, you've said that Christ could assume additional alien natures if necessary to save these alien races. But how can Christ assume, say, a Klingon nature in addition to his human nature? If, when he re-enters our spacetime, he necessarily manifests his glorified human body, he can't manifest in our universe both a human and a Klingon body simultaneously. Right? Thank you for your time. Nephili, United States.

I knew we'd get a Klingon question one of these days.

DR. CRAIG: In response to Nephili's question, I think I need to walk back a bit what I previously said. I was asked about whether Christ could have multiple incarnations, say, on another planet. Could he become a Klingon in order to save the Klingons? And it seemed to me that there would be no obstacle to this. Why would the second person of the Trinity be incapable of assuming a human nature here on Earth, and then on some other planet in another galaxy assuming the nature of an extraterrestrial in order to win their salvation? It just seemed to me that this was within God's power. But she raises a really interesting question. She says, "Well, could he manifest himself in our universe as both a human and a Klingon simultaneously?" And that's a great question, and I think does give me reservations. How could Jesus be both a human being and a Klingon at the same time? They could meet each other, and in that case you would have one person in two different places at the same time. It would be like cases of time travel where the time traveler journeys back in time and meets up with himself at a younger age. In that case you have the same person existing at two different places simultaneously, and a good many philosophers (including myself) think that that appears to be metaphysically impossible. So I think I need to look at this question in more detail, Nephili. I know that the medievals like Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus addressed the question of whether or not there could be multiple incarnations of Christ – simultaneous incarnations of Christ – and I would need to read them and think more about this before giving any sort of a confident answer.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Hello, Dr. Craig. I wanted to take a moment to express how profoundly your work has influenced my faith journey. It has been truly transformative for me. I have a question that's been on my mind regarding God's freedom. I understand the concept of God's libertarian freedom existing independently of creation, but I'm curious about moral actions. Given that God is the greatest conceivable being, his goodness seems to be necessary and intrinsic. I recall you mentioning that libertarian free will doesn't always require a choice between two specific options A and B. Rather it only necessitates the ability to will against a particular option; say, not-A. So can we conclude that God is free in the sense that while it is impossible for him to sin thanks to his nature as the ultimate good, he still actively chooses and wills the good? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Matt, US

DR. CRAIG: I deal with the question of God's moral perfection and his freedom to choose in my second volume, 2A, of my Systematic Philosophical Theology. I think that Matt is absolutely correct here that even if God chooses something necessarily because of his essential goodness that does not preclude his choosing freely. In order to choose freely, you don't have to be able to do the opposite. A classic illustration of this is to imagine someone who's been wired up with electrodes in his brain by a mad scientist, and this mad scientist wants the person to vote for Kamala Harris in the presidential election of 2024. So he purposes that when this individual goes into the polling booth, if he tries to vote for Donald Trump, he'll throw the switch – he'll activate the electrodes – and force him to vote for Kamala Harris. Now, if those electrodes are activated, I think we'd agree that the person does not vote freely. He's determined to vote that way by the mad scientist. But suppose that, in fact, the person goes into the polling booth and of his own volition decides to vote for Kamala Harris so that the mad scientist never activates the electrodes? It seems to me and many other philosophers that in such a case the person freely votes for Kamala Harris even though it was not possible for him to do otherwise. So what is essential for freedom is not the ability to do otherwise but rather the absence of external causal constraints upon one's action. That action is up to you to perform, and those conditions are met in the case of a perfect God. So even if God's choices are necessary in some cases because of his moral perfection, that isn't incompatible with his choosing freely.

KEVIN HARRIS: Next question,

Dr. Craig, this will surely be the most difficult question for you to answer. How do you know everyone's name in the Defenders class? With some context to that question, the body of William Lane Craig's work could easily be spread out among 10 highly committed scholars. His published works, talks, media events including lectures and debates, and on top of all this he is firmly rooted in the local church and ministry. How have you honed your schedule to be so productive in the areas God has called you? How could other Christians follow your example or learn from you with respect to how we spend and manage our time? Micah, US

DR. CRAIG: Well, Micah is very kind in his remarks. The fact is that I often will forget the names of people in the Defenders class and will ask them, "Have I met you before?" And they'll say "Oh, yeah, we've been here before." And then they reintroduce themselves. But fortunately there's kind of a limited number that always asks the questions. The others just sit there, and so I do learn the names of everybody who asks questions frequently. Now, how have I honed my schedule to be productive? I have tried to inculcate a personal quality that Jan and I call single-mindedness, and this is the ability to focus upon your first priority and not allow the good to become the enemy of the best. By being single-minded you will avoid distractions. You will say no to many other good things in order to focus upon the primary thing. I think that this quality of single-mindedness is really one of the keys to being productive.

KEVIN HARRIS: This next question is rather detailed, so here we go. It says,

Dear Dr. Craig, I'm a Christian and a civil engineer who practices in the discipline of traffic engineering, designing and building roadways. In our industry, creating and designing safe roadways is critical, and we often analyze collisions – that's like car accidents data to quantify safety. This includes variables such as fatalities or serious injuries within a certain area or network. The idea of a safe road brings up many questions such as: What is a safe road? How many fatalities are acceptable? How do we balance safety with the reality of the cost to build roads? With infinite money we could implement endless safety precautions, but that is not realistic. These questions have eventuated in the latest movement in our industry now known as “vision zero.” Originating from Sweden in the late 1990s and now in many countries around the world, “vision zero” is a philosophy of road safety that states that no one will be killed or seriously injured within any given road transport system, hence the name “vision zero.” It is also stated that it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system. My question to you is, as a philosopher, is this a reasonable and realistic vision? Of course no one would disagree that zero fatalities is a good thing; yet having zero fatalities as an end goal seems so inconsistent with what is achievable in reality I have trouble getting on board with that vision. Am I being unethical for thinking that zero fatalities is impossible? It reminds me of the tension between the Christian life and striving to have holiness without which no one will see the Lord, and yet knowing that none are righteous, no, not one. Yet, in the world of engineering, there is a finite reality of what can be built. I would appreciate any insight you might have regarding how to think about this so I can be a more effective and motivated civil engineer to better serve my fellow man. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Ian, US

DR. CRAIG: This is certainly one of the most intriguing questions we've ever received. I know absolutely nothing about traffic engineering, and so Ian's question is just fascinating about this field of which I know nothing. My initial reaction, Ian, is to say that I think that the vision of zero fatalities, while maybe being a good goal, is not achievable in reality. One reason would be because of the Christian doctrine of sin. Because of the inherent sinfulness of people, there will always be people who drive irresponsibly, who exceed the speed limit, who take chances, who cut you off, who even drive drunk under the influence. And so given human sinfulness I think that this goal of the civil engineer is probably not a realistic one.

KEVIN HARRIS: A few more questions. This one says,

Dr. Craig, What key differences should we expect between your Defenders doctrine class and your volume of Systematic Philosophical Theology, whether in depth, style, or content? Which of the two would be considered more complete, and do you recommend doing both or is one sufficient depending on the reader's level? Thank you. Kaya, India

DR. CRAIG: Thank you Kaya for asking about my Systematic Philosophical Theology and my Defenders class. These do cover much of the same material but in a different way. With regard to depth, the Systematic Philosophical Theology is far deeper than the Defenders lessons. The Defenders lessons are deliberately geared toward lay people who have no background in philosophy or theology and science, whereas the Systematic Philosophical Theology is written for other scholars. It's an academic work. In terms of style, the Systematic Philosophical Theology is in a written style whereas the Defenders classes are more in an oral style of delivery. The sentence structure is much simpler in the Defenders class. It's the way we typically talk to one another rather than the way we write in an academic book or article. As for the content and which of the two is more complete, well, the Defenders class actually surveys a broader content of topics. For example, in the doctrine of creation in the Defenders class we have a long section about angels and demons, and that is not found at all in the Systematic Philosophical Theology because I have no philosophical, as opposed to theological, reflections upon the reality of angels and demons that would be any different than the reality of human souls or God as an immaterial mind. So I do think that both are useful, and I would say that for the beginner, the person who is an intelligent layman but doesn't have a background in philosophy or theology, start with the Defenders lessons. You can either watch the videos of Defenders 3 or you can read the transcripts and study them. Then, once you've mastered that material, then I think you could be prepared to go on to reading the book.

KEVIN HARRIS: A couple of questions from Facebook.

Dear Dr. Craig, Many Christian churches are emphasizing a home church model. It involves small groups meeting in homes. Some think it's more in line with what we see in the New Testament and should take the place of our church buildings and congregations. Is this a more biblically accurate model? Thanks, Chelsea.

DR. CRAIG: I'm currently reading on the locus of ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the church, in my Systematic Philosophical Theology, and one of the topics in ecclesiology is the organization and structure of the church. In response to Chelsea's question, I do think that the model of home churches, small groups, is much closer to the kinds of churches that are described in the book of Acts. These typically met in churches, or maybe in workshops of people in the church, but didn't have temples or dedicated buildings. But I wouldn't say that this is therefore a more biblical model in the sense that the Bible commands us to have that ecclesiological structure. It seems to me that this is open and adaptable to change as culture and congregation sizes change. So while these home churches, I think, do resemble more closely the New Testament church, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are therefore more biblical than churches that have buildings.

KEVIN HARRIS: Final question today.

Dear Dr. Craig, When I read the account of Stephen being stoned in Acts, it makes me wonder whether we receive some sort of comfort at our deaths. Stephen was about to undergo a violent death, yet he saw Christ standing to receive him. Do you think this was a special occasion, or can all of those in Christ expect some kind of comfort at the moment of our death? Sandy

DR. CRAIG: It does seem to me that what Stephen experienced was a special occasion and not something that we should all expect. As Stephen died he saw a vision of Christ standing to receive him. This does seem extraordinary, this incident. Now, that doesn't mean that there won't be some kind of comfort for us at our moment of death, but I would take more precedent for that not from this incident about Stephen but from near-death experiences. People who have had these near-death experiences where their hearts have stopped or even the brain has been inactive for a time always seem to report, or generally report, that dying was a tremendously pleasant and enjoyable experience; that it was not something horrible but it was something that was really wonderful. So in that sense I think we needn't fear death. From those who have had this experience and come back, it seems to be a really wonderful experience to die, and that can give us, I think, some encouragement.^[1]