“That would make sense, Timothy, but for one thing: at every moment after death, would we not still want more happiness the next moment, and the next . . . and so on to infinity—so that this craving can still never be satiated, even in heaven?”
“Ah, so on to infinity, you say. I see.” Timothy had that thoughtful gleam in his eyes as he paused, and looked askance for a moment. “I think, perhaps, that you and I mean different things by the phrase ‘eternal life’—or perhaps I should say that our notions of ‘eternity’ are different.”
“How so?”
“By your answer, Mark, I glean that you are equating ‘eternity’ with ‘perpetuity.’ To me, the two concepts are not equivalent. To me, ‘eternity’ suggests an unchanging, immutable and therefore timeless state, while ‘perpetuity’ suggests a temporal component, that is to say, everlasting, for all time, for an infinite duration of time. Do you understand the distinction I am drawing?”
“Perhaps you should explain it further.”
“My notion is simply that time is nothing more than a measure of change. Think of it this way: If all were static—if the universe were completely motionless—then rational, sentient beings within that universe would have no conception of time. So it is one thing to say that after the body dies, the soul lives on in perpetuity, for all time; that would entail the notion of everlasting existence in a universe of change. It is quite another to posit that after the body dies, the soul remains for eternity, unchanging and immutable, outside any realm that can be measured by time—or space. To the extent that it is eternal, then, the soul would be as free of the temporal dimension as of the physical dimension—and equally free of dependence on the physical and changeable body.”
“Ah! Now I see the distinction.”
“And do you also see which is better able to be fully happy and need for no more: a soul that thereafter experiences change, or one that does not?”
“The latter.”
“So if, after death, the soul experiences no ‘next moment,’ but only an eternal ‘now,’ would you then agree that this desire for happiness, insatiable while we live in the flesh, could indeed have been instilled in us by a just, loving and perfect God, without the logical objection that your notions of infinity and perpetuity entail?”
“I would agree.”
“And let us look at this from the opposite perspective. Tell me, Mark; do you believe not only in heaven, but in hell?”
“I do. I think of hell as a place—perhaps I should say a ‘state’—of eternal punishment for the wicked.”
“But during a man’s life, no matter how extensive his wicked deeds, surely he can only have been finitely evil, not infinitely so—at least as you reckon infinity; am I right?”
“You are.”
“If God is indeed just, then, surely He would not mete out infinite punishment for finite evil, would He?”
“I suppose not.”
“Then a place or ‘state’ of eternal punishment cannot be consistent with the notion of a just God—if ‘eternity’ is simply ‘temporal infinity.’ Agreed?”
“Agreed.”
“So whether in terms of heaven or hell, must we not say that eternal life is indeed different than perpetual life?”
“We must, if we are to believe God to be just.”
“Precisely, Mark. And if such a concept of eternal life follows rationally from the concept of a just, loving and perfect God, should we not also explore God’s justice, love and perfection for clues as to how eternal life is to be obtained—what you have been calling ‘salvation?’”
“I am anxious to do so!”
“We have agreed that it is not illogical for the soul to survive the body and enjoy eternal life—but neither is it necessary that all souls will do so. I take it, by phrasing your question as one of ‘salvation’ you mean ‘being saved from the absence of eternal life’—saved from eternal death, in other words?”
“True.”
“So, if one needs to be ‘saved’ from eternal death, then such eternal death must be what awaits us if we do nothing, if we keep no covenant with God; else the concept of ‘salvation’ would make no sense here, would it?”
“No.”
“Eternal life, then, is not the automatic fate of all humanity simply by virtue of being born; rather, the status quo, if not altered, leads to death. Is that not your belief?”
“It is.”
“And it is this altering of the status quo through the promises of our Lord—the ‘new covenant,’ as you phrased it—which you wish to understand better, so that you will know how one may secure the promise of life eternal that awaits those who keep their end of the ‘bargain,’ as you put it?”
“Exactly!”
“Then let us look first to the old to give context to the new. As you have said, it was with Israel that God made the old covenant, to be their God and to take them as His people, called apart from the rest of the world. And as you have said, obedience to the Law of Moses was what He demanded of Israel, in return for which He offered—what?”
“As the Torah puts it, ‘to raise them high in praise and renown and glory above all other nations he has made.’”
“Do you understand this to be the same as eternal life?”
“In truth, Timothy, I am not sure. The Torah makes no mention of eternal life, not explicitly anyway. It references ‘salvation’ only in the context of deliverance of Israel from its enemies, and in the context of a long and prosperous life followed by an unending line of descendants.”
“Then unless such references are a euphemism for eternal life, the old covenant is different from the new on both sides—that which God offers, and that which man must do to demonstrate acceptance; do you agree?”
“I do indeed. But if these words were meant euphemistically, if they were intended to have a meaning beyond the literal, why the obscurity? Why would the scriptures not be direct, if this were their true meaning, rather than casting something so important in metaphor?”
“Why indeed, Mark! What shall we say, then? That a faithful Jew who observes the Law in every respect has earned God’s favor for himself and his progeny so long as they shall live, but does not have the promise of life eternal in God’s presence as his reward?”
“It would seem so.”
“And indeed, that is what the Sadducees believe. But the Pharisaic view is quite different; to varying degrees, they hold to life eternal as the reward for faithful observance, do they not?”
“It is as you say; the Pharisees interpret the Psalms, certain of the Prophets, and the apocalyptic books, particularly the Book of Daniel, as supporting the promise of eternal life for those who adhere to the Law.”
“But as we have said, this is not a necessary interpretation. And even if it were a defensible one, still, the quid pro quo—faithful adherence to the Law—is at best a difficult achievement, perhaps an impossible one given the frailties of human nature; is it not so?”
“It is. There are so many precepts to keep, and the Torah is explicit that one who fails to fulfill any of the provisions of the Law shall be accursed.”
“Is it likely, then, that God would be