Rewards in heaven. I hope to have some, but the idea of rewards in heaven is difficult to fit into my theology. My mother used to say, “As long as I make it, I don’t care if I am riding a tricycle.”
Christ taught that there will be rewards in heaven. Each person will receive a certain “bonus” according to his deeds. Listen to this:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Matt. 6:19-21 19)
What do we do with this? Had I been with Jesus as he preached this, I would have asked him some questions:
1. “How do we get these rewards?”
2. “I thought redemption—everlasting life—was the reward. Are you saying we are going to have rewards on top of this reward? A ‘heavenly bonus’?”
3. “Does everyone receive the same rewards?”
Finally, assuming I know the answer to these first three (which I think I do), I would ask one final question:
4. “Which is the cause of these rewards: our works or your grace?”
If it is of grace then it is not of works; otherwise, grace is no longer grace (Rom. 11:6). Therefore, the answer to the first question would have to be “good deeds.”
The context to the statement in Matt. 6 is not seeking the rewards of men by pridefully praying or putting on a long face while fasting in public to be seen as holy. Do all things in secret “and your father who sees what is done in secret will reward you” (v. 18). This implies that there will be rewards in addition to eternal life. That takes care of question two.
The answer to question three is easy. That everyone does not get the same amount of rewards is evident. Not only does the passage above necessarily imply this, Luke 19 and the parable of the minas teaches us as much also. As well, Paul instructs the Corinthians that there will be a time of reckoning for our rewards. At this time, some believers’ works will be tested and found wanting. Though their salvation is secure, some believers’ rewards will be lost (i.e., they will not get much of a bonus).
“Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. (1 Cor. 3:12-15)
This would include those people who fast and pray for the praise of men. Their heavenly reward will be burned up, though their eternal life is secure in God.
How do I fit this into my theology?
It is the fourth question (”Which is the decisive cause of these rewards: our works or your grace?”) that causes me some confusion. Since my salvation is by grace alone without any reference to works (Rom. 11:6), then are we saying that the added bonus we receive after the resurrection is by works?
This is very difficult, but I do believe our effort produces these rewards. I also believe that, in some mysterious way, it is really God’s grace that is the ultimate cause. While works are necessary for these rewards, in the end we will see that it was the grace of God alone that fueled our works. Therefore, God is the one who ultimately receives the glory. This is why when we are in the presence of Christ, we will cast our crowns at his feet, in recognition that he was responsible for all our rewards (Rev. 4:10). Put it this way:
Salvation=God’s grace alone without the aid of human effort. (Monergistic)
Rewards=God’s grace alone with human effort. (Synergistic)
However, this presents significant problems, especially for us Protestants. Isn’t this just the same thing Catholics do with the relationship of grace and works with regard to salvation? And we don’t like that. We cry foul. They say that justification is by faith plus works, but that these works are ultimately the result of God’s grace. Why can’t they say the same thing about salvation that we are saying about rewards — that both are of grace alone? Do you see the problem?
In other words, if you are going to go this direction with rewards and define “grace alone” in a synergistic way, why would we have problems with Catholic theology that does the same thing with the issue of justification? “Grace alone” cannot mean two different things, can it?
I am not sure I have an answer right now. But it is an intriguing question. Nevertheless, I believe that justification is by grace alone without any regards to human effort. If human effort did play a part, grace is not grace. However, I believe that a theology of rewards must recognize that human effort plays a decisive role in the rewards we receive. To use my mother’s language, some of us will be riding tricycles in heaven while others will be in Ferraris; the determining factor will be our efforts to serve Christ here on the earth. Or to use Christ’s language, “‘Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities. The second came, saying, ‘Your mina, master, has made five minas.’ And he said to him also, ‘And you are to be over five cities.'” (Luke 19:17-19). Service produces “cities” (i.e., authority, responsibilities, rewards).
What does this mean? It means that we have an opportunity beyond anything we could ever imagine. When Christ said to store up your treasures in heaven . . . he was serious! Christians should not cop-out on this issue, saying, “As long as I have my salvation, I am happy. I don’t care about rewards.” This is to deny Christ’s right to use rewards to push us toward good deeds. And that is what he is doing, isn’t it? Using rewards as a motivation for our service? If you say you don’t care about rewards, are you not claiming to be “above” Christ’s motivation?
Often, I am very uncomfortable thinking as I do. It can seem self-serving. In a way, what we are saying about rewards is very similar to what Catholics say about salvation. It is God’s grace that gives us the opportunity, but my effort is ultimately determinative. But if God has commanded us and motived us in such a way, don’t you think we need to be more comfortable with this?
What say you? What is your theology of rewards?
117 replies to "Are Rewards in Heaven Based on Our Effort or God's Grace?"
Jin – Right, Brother! Abraham believed God and he was credited with righeousness because of his faith. He didn’t have to demonstrate it over again, as if it would expire. And so Christ need not be sacrificed over again.
Regarding Israel and the Law of Moses, I love to consider Romans and Hebrews together. Yes, the Law brings us to knowledge of sin and our need for atonement, but Jesus’ ministry on the cross supercedes and abolishes the daily system of sacrifice of animals for sin.
Sola Fide. What’s the Latin for, “Once and for all”?
Once and for all = Semel pro semper!
Jesus taught a poignant lesson about rewards. When the Pharisee (He sure liked polemics against these guys!) made a big deal about his charity so that other people would admire him, etc., Jesus said, “He has his reward.”
There is a saying, that goodness is its own reward. When we do good and love each other for God’s delight, for that higher calling, if you will, our reward is Heavenly and eternal, not earthly and fleeting.
Righteousness is conditional. It was conditional for Abraham too. It was conditional and was dependent upon Abraham’s obedience. Because Abraham was obedient and he kept all of God’s statutes, laws, and commandments, he was blessed and was credited with righteousness (Genesis 26:5). Same is with us in the NT. We can only partake of Jesus’ righteousness when we are faithful and obedient. The NT tells us over and over again to be obedient and to keep the commandments. Jesus tells us to keep His commandments if we love Him. Paul tells us to establish the law despite grace. James tells us to be obedient or else we are liars. Although salvation is free, there are conditions to it. Once we are born again, we can not backslide back to our old sinful selves.
I’m sorry, Jin. I’m not aware of that tradition in scriptures, but I am no scholar! Our righeousness is imputed from Christ through our faith (obedience to the Gospel), and is not earned or maintained by trying to follow the Mosaic Laws. This is the tradition I learned from Hebrews, Romans, Ephesians, et al.
Abraham and Jacob received blessings because of their obedience, but God’s promises in the Abrahamic covenant were irrevocable, regardless of human action. Remember the animals split apart, and God walked alone between the parts?
The tradition that we are constantly, “treading water” with the Law, struggling to “prove” ourselves with obedience, is not a tradition that I support. We live by faith in obedience to the Spirit and we learn to keep the words of Jesus. If we try to earn or maintain God’s favor by obedience to the Mosaic Laws, we fail.
You might find something in here helpful:
http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/2/questions-randy-alcorn-about-eternal-rewards/
Or Randy Alcorn’s short book The Law of Rewards which that Q&A comes out of.
I saw someone mention Romans 2:6 earlier. There’s also Eph 6:8 and Rev 22:12.
1 Tim 6: 18-19 “They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life.”
Seems pretty clear. Want to store up treasure as a good foundation for the future? Then be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share. Which is in line with other passages as well. God’s promise of eternal reward is part of what can fuel sacrificial living in this life. Offering the rewards was God’s idea, not ours, so it certainly isn’t wrong to pursue an incentive God offers and designed us to desire.
C. Barton,
You misunderstand me, sir. No one is trying to follow the Mosaic Law. I think it’s safe to say that almost everybody understands that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled by Christ and therefore all the types and symbolism of the sacrificial economy has been abolished. I am not asking for us to go back to the Mosaic Laws. What I am asking is this: What do you do AFTER you receive the gift of salvation by grace through faith? This is the million dollar question that everybody seems to be confused about. Yes, the “robe of righteousness” has been imputed onto us by faith. But, once our sins have been washed away clean by Jesus’ blood and we are looked on by God as righteousness, what do we do then? Paul addresses this question many times over in his epistles. James emphatically and clearly tells us so. Even Jesus tells us so too. Jesus and James outright tells us to keep the commandments. Paul tells us to keep the commandments by telling us to seek the greatest spiritual gift of all – LOVE.
I would love to be like the thief on the cross where he didn’t even have a chance to sin after receiving his salvation directly from Jesus. However, it is not the case for the majority of us. We have to keep on living on this earth where we are tempted and have to keep fighting the good fight. I think this is where we get confused…do we keep the Ten Commandments or not. This is where most people say that there is some kind of tug of war or tension in the gospel. But, I think it’s pretty clear that once you are deemed righteous you better give an effort to stay that way through Jesus and with the help of the Holy Spirit. I think this is why Paul tells us to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” in Philippians.
Oops! OK, my bad. I agree that repentance and even brokenness before the LORD are an essential part of our odyssey in these mortal vessels. Like James says, if we only look in the mirror and do nothing about our touseled hair or the spinach in our teeth, we will be a mess after a while. Well, that’s a loose paraphrase.
Jesus made His point about repentance in the Gospels, so there is no doubt that sanctification requires our participation, and love, like faith, often requires tangible evidence in works.
The Law of God is very important in Holy Scripture, as the Word of God is always both Law and Gospel!
“Paul tells us that the law speaks “so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.” It can bring no justification, rather, “through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3: 19-20. “But now,” he adds,” “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, through the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it – the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (vv. 21-22). Here the apostle uses “law” in two distinct senses: God’s moral commands, which leave everyone condemned, and the Law and the Prophets as Scripture (i.e. the Old Testament).
Similarly, the Protestant Reformers sharply opposed law and gospel when it came to the covenantal principle by which one is justified, while affirming the unity of the Old and New Testaments in terms of promise and fulfillment. Both the Testaments include both commands and promises. When we speak of the distinction between law and gospel, therefore we are referring to different illocutionary stances that run throughout all of the Scriptures – everything in both Testaments that is in the form of either an “obligatory command” or a “saving promise” in Christ. “Hence,” wrote Luther, “whoever knows well this art of distinguishing between the law and the gospel, him we place at the head and call him a doctor of Holy Scripture.”
*Augsburg Confession (1531), art. 4. Article 5 of the “Formula of the Concord” adds, “We believe, teach, and confess that distinction between the law and the gospel is to be maintained in the church with great diligence.”
All this is a quote from Michael Horton’s very fine book: The Christian Faith, A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, (Zondervan, 2011).
Again, there is law and gospel in both Testaments, and we must see the distinction, but God is always seeking His moral law…
Btw, we should see of course the “Bema Seat of Christ”, as to Christian “judgment” and rewards. Paul knows that this, while not being the cause of our salvation, is surely the proof of our being “regenerated”, and born from above! (Rom. 14: 10-12 / 2 Cor. 5: 10-11..note the “fear” of the Lord here!)
So what is the moral law? Isn’t it the Ten Commandments as summed up by Jesus when He told the lawyer about the two greatest commandments? – 1. love God with all your heart and mind. 2. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Myself, I just don’t see “salvation” and “rewards” as being so-called separate! The only real “theological” Text that speaks of Christian (so-called) reward, is of course 1 Cor. 3:10-23. And there Paul also speaks of human deception, and God’s ability to destroy the man that defiles the temple of God. Also here is the men and Apostolic Ministry too. Perhaps the key verses here are 1 Cor. 3: 10-11, the “foundation” of Christ! Has Christ really been laid, in the lives and work of/by the apostles doctrine? And have we as Christians laid hold here, and are building on that foundation?
Btw, either way one looks at it, 3: 15, is a problematic verse! Is there a kind or Christian purgation? Not a “Purgatory” i.e. place, but a “Bema” Seat, or Divine tribunal where believers, “each may receive the things done in (or through) the body, according to what things he practiced whether good or bad. Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men, and to God we have been made manifest (appear), and I hope also in/ to your consciences.” (2 Cor. 5: 10-11) Again, the Apostles and the apostolic doctrine!
Indeed in some manner, the moral law is seen in the Ten Commandments, as too the quote by our Lord Himself, (Matt. 22: 37-40). But only by grace and ‘In Christ’ can we begin to accomplish this! And here is Justification by Faith! (Rom. 4)
And btw, I would hold justification and sanctification closely, but justification always comes first!
So it seems to me that it is pretty clear. Since we can not do ANYTHING by ourselves and the only way to righteousness and justification is faith in Jesus only, there are no rewards in heaven for the individual. Everything comes from and through Jesus. It seems to me that the only person who would get credit or rewards in Heaven should be Jesus Christ!! Definitely not us!
Plus it seems so silly to have different rewards in Heaven. I do not think that there will be any kind of economy in Heaven. I mean everything is God’s and He is just freely giving it to us after all.
Another thing comes out of all this…The Apostles Doctrine! “And they devoted themselves to the apostles teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2: 42)… Note too, 1 Cor. 15: 1-11!
Salvation and so-called reward are really closely connected, as we can see in the Book of Revelation…”Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” (Rev. 22: 12)
Here we are looking at the life of the redeemed man/person, who has lived his/her life for Christ, not of course human perfection, but true discipleship as ‘In Christ’. WE don’t make Christ Lord, but we can and do seek true submission before HIM! This appears to be the essence of the Pauline of Eph. 2: 8-10.
[…] I’m often asked about rewards in heaven. Here is C. Michael’s Patton’s take. […]
Some thoughts on heaven
From the Preface of In God’s Love by Janet Hurlow
Q What does In God’s Love say about Heaven?
A
“You will be like a woman who has gone through the pain of bringing forth a child. You will hold your baby and not remember the suffering of childbirth. You will welcome the Spirit as you welcomed your child. You will be filled with happiness. You will be a zillion times happier than when you held your baby for the first time.” # 470
“Mom and dad are at the gate to welcome you home. They throw their arms around you and hug you and kiss you with great tears of joy streaming down their faces. All the relatives greet you and are so grateful that got you home safe. Then you see your little brother and your little sister. They are so beautiful. They take you in and show you the great feast prepared in your honor. This is you. You are so young and beautiful. You are so full of energy and life. What happened to the old body? … You could not remember where you had been. Where you had been an old man didn’t matter. You wonder, “Where did the words “old man” come from?” It doesn’t matter. This day, as the sun rises in the horizon, a free man walks this road.” # 502
Click here to see the whole passage. # 502
“Very refreshing is the smell of roses and the song of birds to those who have been in prison for such a long while. God is freedom.” # 126
“That will be the day of rejoicing. All pain will be gone. All thought of death will be over, and disease will be no more. So sweet will God’s Spirit be. He will bathe His children in His glory. Those who are coming to the feast, sign you name…Blessed day, when you come to the feast clothed in God’s love.” # 440
http://www.ingodslovebyjanethurlow.com/book-say-about-heaven.php
There is one issue that requires us to look at “rewards” as perhaps not meaning at all what has been said. In fact, it may indicate that we are taking Jesus’ metaphor of “rewards” too far. The referent may not at all be a literal type of “reward”, but something else all together.
The issue is that life in heaven is not eternal life. Bodily, physical, resurrection in the new heaven and new earth is to be our eternal life – “life in the age to come”. In fact, heaven will be destroyed and remade. What of those “rewards” then?
Finally, the context is the importance of the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fasting. And immediately after the “rewards” text is talk of God and money.
The context suggests that the referent is not literal “rewards”, but the fruits of putting your trust in the right things. Fasting, praying, loving God indicate trust in God. Amassing wealth and money indicate trust in other than God.
There is one issue that requires us to look at “rewards” as perhaps not meaning at all what has been said. In fact, it may indicate that we are taking Jesus’ metaphor of “rewards” too far. The referent may not at all be a literal type of “reward”, but something else all together.
The issue is that life in heaven is not eternal life. Bodily, physical resurrection in the new heaven and new earth is to be our eternal life – “life in the age to come”. In fact, heaven will be destroyed and remade. What of those “rewards” then?
Also, the context is the importance of the spiritual disciplines of prayer and fasting. And immediately after the “rewards” verses are the verses about God and money.
The context suggests that the referent is not literal “rewards”, but the fruits of putting your trust in the right things. Fasting, praying, loving God indicate trust in God. Amassing wealth and money indicate trust in other than God.
Finally, to speak of “rewards” in heaven, as interpreted in your post, is simply not Jewish but pagan. It has more in common with the “Isle of the Blessed” from Plato and Homer than with Jesus and the Jews.
The Athenians would not have objected to having rewards in an eternal, spiritual realm. They had been teaching that for 500+ years. Paul, however, was called a babbler for his talk of bodily resurrection.
I like to think of rewards as sixpence none the richer to borrow from Mr. Lewis. God our Father adopts us when we we’re orphans having nothing admirable or deserving of love; enemies in fact. He then not only made us sons because of what Hid Son did for us, but then makes us co-heirs with Christ being given “every spiritual blessing.” Then the Father gives us Christ’s inheritance but then gives of His Spirit to dwell in us and enable us to do good works which God had preordained before the beginning of the world for us to do. And then when we fail to be faithful to Him having owed Him everything He continues to forgive us and reminds us that we are indeed His sons because of all that He has done for us in Christ.
We have all the motivation we need to carry out the works He has called us to do. And yet “what do we have that we have not received?” There is no room for boasting. In fact every good thing we have experienced has come from the Father of lights. In light of this that we should receive anything from God as reward is a marvel! And yet He in Hid Sovereign Grace out of love bestowes it upon us. We we sixpence none the richer. He accepts our tiny gifts we offer Him and I’d pleased with them because we are His sons and daughters. Not because we are worthy of it. For it all came from Him and it all belongs to Him. “What manner of love is this that we should be called the sons of God!”
I think we often make much of what little we have done for Him. It I’d by grace that He rewards us.
I tend to consider this parable as first three showing that they are his and the last proving he’s not.. I too struggle with this. Should works really be any motivation.. Or is it simple a parable to show what a believer vs an unbeleiver looks like. We certainly see the fruit of working for rewards within the name and claim it groups.. Are we allowed to hate someone for challenging us on such tough issue? 😉
Dominick, the name it and claim it groups are far more about trying to get whatever it is you want in this life, not storing up treasure in heaven by living sacrificially and giving generously in this life. God’s promised rewards should be motivation, else he wouldn’t have make the promises. They shouldn’t lead to materialism, instead they should be one means of freeing us from it.
The parable in Luke is complemented by the parable of the talents in Matthew 25. It is of my opinion that neither of these parables are talking about “rewards” in heaven. Rather, Jesus is trying to teach us about the consequences of being lazy and how laziness in His ministry for His kingdom is not tolerated. Remember that Jesus told us “to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to who much has been committed, of him they will ask the more” (Luke 12:48). God judges us according to what we have and NOT according to what we don’t have. In other words, God expects us to make the best out of what we have been give by Him. As long as we do our best with what we have, be it one mina resulting in five or 10, God will judge our zeal and subsequent effort rather than the results. We are not to be lazy and just sit on the one mina or talent given to us. When we are lazy and do not try to increase the kingdom of God, we are showing apathy towards Jesus, His ministry, and fellow man. Jesus expects us to work as hard as we can to increase and expand His kingdom until he returns. That is why Jesus is pleased with the servants that bring back returns in both of these parables. The servants who did not even try to bring back returns were the ones being condemned.
These parables are NOT talking about different rewards in heaven. That is not the point of the lesson. Only reward for us IS heaven itself. Whatever God has in store for our lives in Heaven is the “cherry on top”!
So we don’t rally “store up treasure in Heaven”?
C Michael, I suggest just sticking with the clear literal meaning of Romans 2:6, Eph 6:8, Rev 22:12, and 1 Tim 6: 18-19. These can’t refer to salvation because salvation isn’t based on our works, but Christ’s alone.
No, I don’t believe that we actually “store up” treasures in heaven. Remember that Jesus always spoke in a way so that the people could understand His point. I believe that “storing up treasures” in heaven is just an illustration for the people so that they can fully understand the significance of NOT seeking after earthly treasures.
God knows what we all need (Matthew 6:8). Therefore, all things will be provided for our ultimate happiness in Heaven. There is no economy in Heaven and certainly there is no boasting in Heaven. Also remember that it is spiritual oneness with God and spiritual happiness we will be given in Heaven rather than material rewards or possessions.
Jonathan, the work of justification in Christ is not founded in works.
However, the work of sanctification in the Holy Spirit that follows justification is highly connected with righteous works.
Evangelical theology sells itself terribly short in this regard. Christ did not enact the Atonement just to forgive the world – but to make the world truly holy.
Seth, I agree. But in the context of eternal rewards for actions in this life, I don’t believe our sanctification is itself the reward being talked about.
C Michael Patton,
The verses you cite in Romans, Ephesians, and rev. all talk of the salvation as the reward. There is no hint of any different rewards. “Accosting to their works” suggest salvation and death and not just differences in rewards. If you do good works as part of your sanctification then you are rewarded with salvation. If you do not do good works after your confession and partaking of the promise of salvation, then you die or lose it. The loss of the talent and Mina in the parables attest to this. John outright tells us so by accusing us as liars when we don’t keep the commandments – bear good fruits.
Justification is free and obtained by faith alone. But, justification is NOT salvation. Justification, sanctification, and glorification results in salvation.
Jin,
“Remember that Jesus always spoke in a way so that the people could understand His point.”
I don’t understand your point. :-). Well, actually I do. But I think it is wrong. You are saying that half his “illustration” is right “don’t store up treasure on earth” while the other half is wrong “store up treasure in heaven.” If this were the case, the treasure in heaven part should have been left off as it would add nothing to his arguements and would find no parallel. Christ would be increadibly misleading not to mention superfluous or, better, manipulative. If there is not really treasure in heaven to be “stored up” in some parallel way that treasure on earth is stored up, Christ was wrong IMO.
However, I am open to your thoughts here. Can you point me to any exegetical commentator who shares this view?
I think what’s important is to not lose focus of the lesson that Jesus was trying to teach. The focus of this lesson was for us to NOT seek earthly treasures. The focus was NOT that there are treasures in heaven and that we should seek for them. We must not read more into what Jesus is trying to teach us. Jesus was simply trying to tell us to focus on Heavenly things rather than earthly things.
The focus is where to place ones heart. The treasures are instruments of desire. Where on places ones treasures is where on places their heart. And I think my point still stands.
Again, do you know of any exegetical commentator who says that this passage does not really mean we store up treasure in heaven? I am truly interested.
I just don’t see that in the text. “Do not do A, rather do B” is a pretty simple structure. Shouldn’t we view the command to do B with equal weight to the command not to do A? You are saying command A is the focus and command B isn’t the focus. Then I don’t understand why Jesus even said it. Wouldn’t the people at the time as well as today be confused? Jesus directly and clearly tells us to lay up treasure in heaven.
I’m not suggesting we “read more into what Jesus is trying to teach us”. I’m suggesting we obey exactly what Jesus told us to do.
Michael,
Could you please define your term “exegetical commentator”? I could imagine there are a lot of folks who would say that they are, but who wouldn’t fit your standards. Thanks. And please be specific!
Jonathan,
I am simply trying to say that we must understand what Jesus tells us within the context and in harmony with the Bible as a whole. When Jesus tells us to cut off our limbs if they cause us to sin, we understand that He does not mean it in the literal sense. How do we know this? We know this because it is simply not consistent with His other teachings. We read those verses in context and understand that His focus is on heavenly things rather than on earthly things – to the point where we should be able to sacrifice our body and limb. We must stay on focus to his lesson and not get side tracked into taking things literally.
Michael,
Both Darby and John Gill calls treasures in heaven as “riches of glory, eternal life, and happiness”. Also they comment that the Jewish writers considered Heaven itself as the treasure.
Matthew Henry explains it this way: “This direction about laying up our treasure, may very fitly be applied to the foregoing caution, of not doing what we do in religion to be seen of men. Our treasure is our alms, prayers, and fastings, and the reward of them; if we have done these only to gain the applause of men, we have laid up this treasure on earth, have lodged it in the hands of men, and must never expect to hear any further of it. Now it is folly to do this, for the praise of men we covet so much is liable to corruption: it will soon be rusted, and moth-eaten, and tarnished; a little folly, like a dead fly, will spoil it all, Eccl. 10:1. Slander and calumny are thieves that break through and steal it away, and so we lose all the treasure of our performances; we have run in vain, and laboured in vain, because we misplaced our intentions in doing of them. Hypocritical services lay up nothing in heaven (Isa. 58:3); the gain of them is gone, when the soul is called for, Job 27:8. But if we have prayed and fasted and given alms in truth and uprightness, with an eye to God and to his acceptance, and have approved ourselves to him therein, we have laid up that treasure in heaven; a book of remembrance is written there (Mal. 3:16), and being there recorded, they shall be there rewarded, and we shall meet them again with comfort on the other side death and the grave. Hypocrites are written in the earth (Jer. 17:13), but God’s faithful ones have their names written in heaven, Lu. 10:20. Acceptance with God is treasure in heaven, which can neither be corrupted nor stolen. His well done shall stand for ever; and if we have thus laid up our treasure with him, with him our hearts will be; and where can they be better
Darby, Gill, and Matthew Henery are interesting commentaries, but are really theological/pastoral/homiletical.
I have double checked with my commentaries and all believe that we get treasure in heaven. No one that I have seen says that Christ only used it as illustrative but did not really mean it. I figured as much as I cannot see anything in the context to suggest that Christ would say “store up treasur in Heaven” but not mean it.
I think it is pretty well settled for me. I can’t really spend any more time arguing about something so obvious. So I Wil have to bail on this conversation. Good one tho. You never know what people will force you to defend!
John Wesley plainly says, “Verse 19. Lay not up for yourselves – Our Lord here makes a transition from religious to common actions, and warns us of another snare, the love of money, as inconsistent with purity of intention as the love of praise. Where rust and moth consume – Where all things are perishable and transient. He may likewise have a farther view in these words, even to guard us against making any thing on earth our treasure. For then a thing properly becomes our treasure, when we set our affections upon it. Luke xii, 33.
Most of commentators of the Bible suggest that lay up treasures in heaven is like us investing our time and effort into heavenly things. The “laying up” is the investing part. Instead of investing our time and sweat in worldly treasures, we are to invest our time and effort into expanding the Kingdom of God and therefore, laying up treasures in heaven.
Wesley also said “I value all things only by the price they shall gain in eternity.”
Jin, that is right. Most commentators see treasure in heaven. Now, you don’t have to define treasure as gold peices, cars, or houses. Christ does not ever define what this treasure is. We just know it is the type that moth and rust cannot destroy. But, to say that there are no rewards in heaven is, in my opinion, unbiblical. I think you should tweak your thinking here.
Irene,
There are quite a few. But an exegetical commentary is focused on historical-grammatico hermeneutics. In other words, they are commentaries which seek to understand the author’s intent and, often, leave broader theological implications and influences aside. Grammar, historical background, context of the argument, attitude of the writer, literature, and original languages are all important here.
Historically, this can be found in the Antiochian school of thought. For example, Theodore of Mopsuestia was one of the first commentators to say that Song of Songs was not a love song between Christ and the Church, but a sexual encounter. The context determines meaning, not theology.
This was broadly rejected by the institutionalized church due to the possibility (and often reality) of abuse. An authoritative hermeneutic was gradually adopted and glosses became the primary means of studying the Bible. Here, one just relied on what the Fathers said about the passage, not what the passage said on its own terms.
During the Reformation, exegesis, in such a way, began again. But, ironically, it was not until the liberal movement that this became more purified of theological leanings. As one person put it “Liberals took Evangelicals to the interpretive woodshed.” Why? Because they did not have a particular tradition based theology that they were attempting to uphold. For example, when a Catholic commentator reads Matt 16, they have to interpret it in line with the church, otherwise they are not really Catholic.
Some good exegetical commentaries out there today are New International Commentary on the NT and OT. The Pillar series. Baker Exegetical Commentary Series. The New International Greek Testament Commentary Series. The Word Biblical Commentary Series. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. The Anchor Bible Commentary represents some more liberal options (and even has some really good rogue Catholics (if they can still be called Catholic after they disagree with the Church on a passage). These are all the ones I use. And besides the series, there are ones that are not part of a series that are really good. I like to go across the board, from liberal to conservative. This is helpful. Now, don’t misread me. Many liberals have their presuppositions too, and these often get mingled into their interpretation.
However, the great thing about reading all these exegetical commentaries (as opposed to theological), one finds that the Bible must not be too hard to interpret as 90% of the time, all these authors agree on the meaning. It is only when one gets to the theological commentaries or homiletical commentaries that the disagreements are significant (but, even the, they are not that bad).
Specific enough? 🙂
I wonder how we place the Text’s of 2 Peter 1: 5 thru 11 here? It seems like the great so-called reward is our “election” confirmed, and our “entrance” into the eternal kingdom of OUR Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Michael,
I appreciate your thoughts. However, when I start to tweak my thinking into believing that there are different rewards according to our works, my faith is affected. According to the Bible, love is unconditional. The book of Job teaches us this. Job has shown us that love for God does not depend on rewards or promises, it is unconditional. Job loved God because God simply existed. God loves us because we exist (of course, He created us). When there is something to be gained other than the love of God, our motives change. If truly Jesus meant for us to have different rewards in heaven depending on our works, would He not have been more specific? If you say that Jesus wanted to motivate us, I would think a specific list of rewards for certain good works would have been given to us. But, the Bible is silent on such specifics and is at best, very vague about such rewards.
Also, we must not forget that we are already sentenced to death. That the work of Jesus is redeeming us from a death sentence. This simple fact that we have been given a second chance at life eternity is a reward on its own. We have been given a reward already through this second chance opportunity. We must stay humble and truly appreciate this redemptive work of Christ. Looking beyond this, is not only arrogant, but presumptuous of heaven.
@Michael: You must explain how the use of “Darby, Gill and Matthew Henry”, are just or only “theological/pastoral/homiletical”? Does exegesis (critical analysis) somehow leave these aside? And note my Text of 2 Peter 1: 5-11.
Btw, mates my last name is also Darby! 😉 (No relation however to JND)
And btw, the post of jin #46, is good and profound! And Christ Himself is that “eternal life which was with the Father”! (1 John 1: 2). It will be a “reward” itself just to cast my wee “crown” before HIM on the throne! (Rev. 4: 10)
“Worthy art thou, our Lord God to receive glory and honor and power, for thou didst create all things, and by they will they existed and were created.” (Verse 11, RSV)
Michael, I tend to agree with your assessment. My gut reaction is that to qualify our happiness in Heaven by requiring performance for “rewards” hurts my feelings a little. It seems an affront that the greatest theme of history in which Christ came and died for us should be sullied with a capitalistic mind set.
Yet, Jesus told his Apostles that certain honors, such as who sits at His right hand, are given by the Father. So, we can infer that there are distinctions, but not diminution, of persons in Heaven. Also, in Revelation: “To those who overcome I will give . . .”, implies a distinction.
Jesus taught that we are to have greater expectations in the afterlife, and that we have “treasures” to enjoy, regardless of how the world sees us or treats us.
I think part of His emphasis is to trust in what He prepares for us and not to depend on the world at large, which will hate us and reject the Gospel.
Michael,
You are right in your understanding that rewards are antithetical to a Reformed theology.
,
I applaud you for both willing to admit this fact as well as pursuing the critical doctrine of rewards.
Might I suggest a few options for your further study:
DTS grad Jody Dillow’s 2 books- “Reign of the servant kings” and “Final Destiny” deal extensively with the issue of rewards.
If you don’t trust a pre-mil pre-trib person (like Dillow), perhaps you can learn about rewards from a Reformed Amillenialist, R T Kendall: http://www.faithalone.org/journal/bookreviews/kendall3.htm
The foregoing is a review of his book.
If you want some on-line resources (so you don’t have to buy a book) I would recommend this website faithalone.org. Search “rewards”
http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1996i/Wilkin.html ; http://www.faithalone.org/magazine/y2001/01E1.html are a good place to start.
The road to reward is a book dedicated to this subject by DTS grad Bob Wilkin.
I don’t think it is antithetical—way too strong of a word. It is just something interesting to try to work through. But it is really no different than the doctrine of sanctification.
[…] Are Rewards In Heaven Based On Our Efforts Or God’s Grace? […]