Are we “on a pilgrimage to heaven,” or are we preparing a worthy place for God to dwell? In his new book, N.T. Wright argues that postmortem destiny is not central to the New Testament’s message. The good news that Jesus came to proclaim does not concern an “afterlife” as popularly understood, but rather the coming of the kingdom of God into the world.
God’s Homecoming: The Forgotten Promise of Future Renewal, by N.T. Wright (352 pages, HarperOne, 2025)
I owe a lot to the writings of Anglican theologian and Bible scholar N.T. Wright, and particularly to his illuminating discussions of the resurrection, the kingdom of God, and the theology of the Cross. Speaking as a Roman Catholic, I have learned more about these topics from Wright than from any Catholic author, aside from those (like Bishop Barron) who have obviously been influenced by him. In his newest volume, Wright hits many of the familiar notes heard in his previous work, but framed in a new way. The book is a sequel to Surprised by Hope, Wright’s stunning look at the resurrection. In that book Wright insisted on the bodily and eschatological dimension of Christ’s rising from the dead. Here he drives home the centrality of the idea of homecoming in the salvation narrative: not our homecoming in an otherworldly “heaven,” but rather God’s homecoming among us.
Wright’s books are always mind-blowing in the best sense of the word, overturning our ingrained assumptions and making us see things in a new light. This book is no exception, although those who have followed Wright’s previous works will find a steady building of themes and ideas.
Wright has long been a strong critic of what he sees as the dilution of the Christian message, particularly on a popular level, by the influence of Platonism. One can infer, from Wright’s argument in this book, that the idea of the “Platonic ascent” has corrupted our sense of the biblical narrative, turning our entire eschatology upside down.
Briefly, the form of Platonic philosophy known as Neoplatonism, which influenced Christian thinkers like St. Augustine, proposed the soul’s journey as an ascent from the material and sensible to the spiritual and eternal, culminating in a transcendent union with God.
The problem is that this philosophically based “going up to God” or “going to heaven” idea is the diametric opposite of what scripture teaches about our destiny. In the Bible we find, with rare exceptions, not language about people going to heaven to be with God, but language about God returning to or visiting his people. During Israel’s sorrowful exile, the prophets consoled her with promises that God would one day fill his abandoned Temple again, would one day return triumphantly as king, and that his glory would “fill the whole earth.” In back of all of these promises of return is the assurance of God’s enduring presence in the world: the burning bush, the pillar of cloud, the tabernacle in the desert, and the Temple.
These themes of the Old Testament are carried over and fulfilled in the New. Jesus is described as Emmanuel, “God with us.” The last of the prophets, he was also more than a prophet, for in him God was returning in person. Jesus tells parables about the arrival of the bridegroom to the wedding feast and the return of the householder to reward his faithful servants—images of his future coming. After Jesus’ ascension, we witness the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the newborn Church. The Holy Spirit’s descent is a “down payment” for Jesus’ final return, ushering in the Book of Revelation’s ultimate vision: that God will make his permanent dwelling with humanity, “and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them” (Rev. 21:3).
These are all images of homecoming. Wright sums up the “master narrative” of the Bible in these terms: “God is coming back at last. And he is coming back to be king.”
True, one does occasionally find a scattered reference to a “going to heaven” idea in early Christian writings. For example, St. Irenaeus says the following in The Apostolic Preaching: “believers in Him [Jesus] ascend to heaven, since His Passion is our ascension on high.” Interestingly, though, Irenaeus immediately follows this with language about the Son of God “speaking with mankind” and “being amongst them.” Irenaeus was acutely aware of the dangers of Gnosticism: of an otherworldly escapism that saw humanity’s true home as being in another place altogether. He wanted to counteract the Gnostics’ disdain for the body and the material creation by stressing that Jesus came in the flesh and dwelt among us. And behind that narrative is the biblical idea of the goodness of creation and God’s continuing involvement with it.
Sadly, the Gnostic idea could be said to have won out on the popular level. It comes out especially at funerals, where mourners like to declare that the deceased went “home to heaven,” “home to God,” or just “went home,” without any mention of the eventual bodily resurrection or new creation. Even worse is the text of the well-known hymn: “This world is not my home; I’m just a-passing through.” Well, the world in its present fallen state may be a mess, but God certainly intends to redeem it and make his home here with us.
Even so great a Christian thinker as C.S. Lewis shows inconsistency here, at times (as in The Great Divorce) offering beautiful accounts of new creation, at others serving up a version of the “souls going home to heaven” narrative.
This problem transcends Catholic/Protestant debates; it is endemic to Western Christianity in general. Wright’s overall point, and it is very well taken, is that postmortem destiny is not central to the New Testament’s message. The good news that Jesus came to proclaim does not concern an “afterlife” as popularly understood, but rather the coming of the kingdom of God into the world. It is not “life after death” but what Wright has cleverly called “life after life after death”!
It is hard to argue with Wright that Heaven–Hell theology (with which Catholics include Purgatory) has preoccupied us far too much in the Christian West, causing us to neglect of the theology of the kingdom and of new creation. The motif of divine homecoming ties together many of these strands of Christian belief, harmonizing beautifully with the notion of Jesus, the bridegroom, espoused to his church, his bride.
At one time I imagined that N.T. Wright’s initials must stand for “New Testament” (they stand for “Nicholas Thomas”). With God’s Homecoming he has hit another one out of the ballpark: a book deeply informative, crammed with biblical learning, and genuinely helpful for the average believer. It is also a thought-provoking book that will challenge many of our complacent assumptions.
I fear that some will not want to hear his insights, as our popular religious language is deeply ingrained. Our flagrant misuse/abuse of the word “heaven” (which in the Bible never refers to our goal and destination) is just the beginning. As Wright tirelessly insists, “heaven” (shamayim in Hebrew, rendered in Greek as ouranos) is the Bible’s name for God’s domain that is destined to interact with earth, or the domain of human beings. It is essentially keyed to new creation, or the accomplishment of God’s redemptive plan. Accommodating these ideas may require that we freshen up our language a bit, emphasizing God’s homecoming and our welcoming of him as central motifs in our faith where they had previously been marginal ideas at best.
If there is a “master narrative” or “master message” to Wright’s book itself, it is a plea to return to the biblical worldview. All too often Christian thought, at least in the West, has taken Greek-philosophical categories as a starting point and then tried to shoehorn Jesus and his good news into them. This, Wright argues, is sure to lead us astray and distort the Christian message, and in fact has done so time and again. We will only understand Jesus by placing him in his first-century Judean context. This isn’t to deny that philosophical inquiry can complement our journey—but we must first root ourselves in the scriptures and their world.
Going back to scriptures, back to the gospels, is a project to which many in the Catholic world, more specifically, have been calling us: among others, Pope Benedict XVI and, among English-speaking scholars, Bishop Robert Barron, Dr. Scott Hahn, and Dr. Brant Pitre. Their work is very much consonant with and complementary to Wright’s.
Like all of Wright’s books, this one is not just for theologians but is of vital importance to all of us. Are we “on a pilgrimage to heaven,” or are we preparing a worthy place for God to dwell? The distinction is far more than an academic one. It just might affect the way we live our lives. N.T. Wright makes a persuasive case for readjusting our eschatological vision.
__________
The Imaginative Conservative applies the principle of appreciation to the discussion of culture and politics—we approach dialogue with magnanimity rather than with mere civility. Will you help us remain a refreshing oasis in the increasingly contentious arena of modern discourse? Please consider donating now.
The article muses:
[“…Briefly, the form of Platonic philosophy known as Neoplatonism, which influenced Christian thinkers like St. Augustine, proposed the soul’s journey as an ascent from the material and sensible to the spiritual and eternal, culminating in a transcendent union with God.
The problem is that this philosophically based “going up to God” or “going to heaven” idea is the diametric opposite of what scripture teaches about our destiny. “]
I ask: Is this intended to be the essence of Anglican Wright’s message or is it that of Mr. De Sapio?—-
Whichever, it raises a few questions: Is there an instant judgement of our lives and final destiny when we die? If we pass that judgement where will we wait during our “life after death” until the “Kingdom of the new creation” and our “life after life after death” takes place? Where does God reside now? After the ‘Kingdom of the new creation’ is formed, will God abandon His current home and relocate there?
Mr. D. says:
“It is hard to argue with Wright that Heaven–Hell theology (with which Catholics include Purgatory) has preoccupied us far too much in the Christian West,…” WHAAAT?
Do Wright and Mr. D suppose that the prospect of a morbid destiny due to our own actions need not particularly concern us? As an Anglican, does Wright even believe in the sacrament of Penance or the consequences of those actions?
This whole piece(and Wright’s book?) is a grand testament to theological nonsense.
Mr. Judge: Thank you for reading my review and for your challenging questions. Let me try to address them.
“I ask: Is this intended to be the essence of Anglican Wright’s message or is it that of Mr. De Sapio?—-”
It is intended to summarize Wright’s argument.
“Whichever, it raises a few questions: Is there an instant judgement of our lives and final destiny when we die?”
According to Wright, yes. He does not deny the existence of individual postmortem judgment.
“If we pass that judgement where will we wait during our “life after death” until the “Kingdom of the new creation” and our “life after life after death” takes place?”
He would say that we are with God, awaiting the resurrection.
“Where does God reside now? After the ‘Kingdom of the new creation’ is formed, will God abandon His current home and relocate there?”
God resides in his realm, heaven, though of course this is not a point in the space-time continuum and God is not limited by place. The whole point is not that God will abandon heaven and relocate, but that heaven and earth will come together.
“Do Wright and Mr. D suppose that the prospect of a morbid destiny due to our own actions need not particularly concern us? As an Anglican, does Wright even believe in the sacrament of Penance or the consequences of those actions?”
No, he does not, nor do I. Read his chapter in “Surprised by Hope” on “Paradise, Purgatory, Hell” to be assured of this. It is a matter of relative emphasis – on individual postmortem judgment versus God’s universal end-of-time judgment. I do not know whether he believes in the sacrament of Penance or not.
Michael –
“…Relative emphasis” ?? Need I remind you that if you, or Wright or I do not pass the ‘individual postmortem judgement’ then the ‘end-of-time judgement’ matters zilch. If we don’t focus our greatest attention, yea our whole life on the first, we’ll never even be in the game for the second. Nobody in Hell gets a second chance.
This concept of Wright is similar ideology to the Jehovah Witnesses ( paradise here on Earth) and Mormons ( ruling separate planets as gods). Steeped in materialism. But two maybe three verses vaporize those and Wright’s perpsective.“My kingdom is not of this world. John 18:36;”In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.”John 14:2-3;”You know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God” is a statement made by Jesus to the Sadducees, found in Matthew 22:29 and Mark 12:24. In this passage, Jesus corrects them for their misunderstanding of the resurrection and their misuse of scripture, noting that in the resurrection, people do not marry but are like angels in heaven. One would say also, in the resurrection, people do not eat, breathe,or clothe themselves. Beware human animal bias to shape the Afterlife according to our nature. A dear friend of mine in his nineties couldn’t wait to die so he could be together with his deceased wife and daughter. I didn’t have the heart to remove his rose-colored glasses. Misplaced hope was his tranquilizer when facing the unknown.
This makes for a vision as heartless as those of Marxism, where, for instance, the slaughter of millions of infants in the womb each year counts for nothing, because all that counts is the small improvements in our lives, we survivors, that makes this a slightly better world. For them that die along the way in this “this world” vision of things, well, tough.
It doesn’t surprise me that a relatively young man like De Sapio would fall for this, it does surprise me that this is the limit of NT Wright’s vision.
If the heaven that we common people believe in and hope for is not really there, and we look forward to nothing much after journeying through this vale of tears, well then, what is it that St. Teresa of Avila meant when she spoke of this life as being comparable to an uncomfortable night in a bad inn?
Mark: You misunderstand Wright entirely. He does not deny a future life, he affirms in the strongest terms (as do I). His point is only that the popular view that prevails, particularly among Western Christians who are not theologians or biblical scholars, falls short of the richness of the biblical vision. I strongly encourage you to read either of his books, “Surprised by Hope,” or the present one. He is widely considered the foremost New Testament scholar in the world. Any further summary I could give here is liable to fail to do justice to what he says.
Thank you.
Mr. DellOrfano: Thank you for your comment on my review. As to the “My kingdom is not of this world” verse, Wright has commented extensively on this. Suffice it to say, the more correct translation of the Greek would be “My kingdom is not FROM this world.” Jesus meant that his kingdom does not take its direction from the forces that govern this world. His kingdom is certainly meant FOR this world, however. It would be worthwhile to look into Wright’s explanation of the biblical concepts of “heaven” and “earth,” which lie in back of much of his argument here. Unfortunately there isn’t space for me to address that here.
As to the “many mansions” verse, Wright has analyzed this extensively as well. The passage is complex. Wright points out that the Greek word translated as “mansions” refers most often to a temporary dwelling place. He also goes into the possible Temple resonance of the passage (the Temple in fact had multiple rooms or alcoves) and the fact that “My Father’s house” can refer to the Father’s “household” (i.e., the church). Wright also believes the passage has to do more properly with the coming of the Holy Spirit, who will be at home in the believer.
If people do not eat, wear clothes, or breathe in the resurrection, then why did the resurrected Jesus do all three?
I have a little trouble fitting the apocalypse into this framework.
So, just another form of secularism. Like the pagans and the Confucians, “religion” is about a nicer “this world”. For Christians, the Bible is to be interpreted by the Church, otherwise Mormonism and just about anything is possible. Can’t people just keep the faith as it has been held for the last two thousand years. For so much of the OT it’s true that the afterlife was not properly understood, but, to be a Christian, one can’t reject revelation in order to go back to that time. One does not have to believe that the created world is evil in order to believe the Christian faith in heaven. Finally, one has to be very suspicious of any “Christian” scholarship where God leaves his Church in complete ignorance for two thousand years, from the Apostles themselves, until yet another expert biblical opinion tells what it’s all about. It’s the source of all sects.
Having read the article, and the commentary by others, I believe the next thing to do is read N. T. Wright’s book.
I agree with Matthew that the next thing to do is to read the book, but since I am not likely to do that and I have only Miichael’s reading of the book to go on, let me add this.
Mankind is often caught in false dualisms, in this case it is, Heaven vs Earth.
But God created both and He does not annihilate what he created.
We Christians have the mission to make this world a suitable place for God’s indwelling and we do this by sanctifying everyday realities. When we live fully Christian lives, we make Christ visible to non-Christians and attract them to the Church. This is the message of St. Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei: the sanctification of work.
In previous times there was too much emphasis on heaven. The “holy people” were those who left this world to live in monasteries, preparing themselves for heaven. The task of the rest of the Christians was to try to avoid serious sin so as to achieve some lower place in heaven. This laxity of Christians in taking sufficient care of this world has led to the loss of many of the gains which Christianity made up to its apogee.
The first Christians didn’t have this attitude. They rejoiced that Christ had overcome all the demons and false gods, freeing them from the tedium of a life without meaning and anxiety of a life subject to superstitions and frightening worship practices. It was this joy and love for each other that converted the pagans.
In these hyper secularised times, it’s the opposite. The emphasis is on this world, the next one doesn’t exist. And we see the result: boredom, sadness, anxiety.
St. Josemaria is not the only one with this message. The Russian religious philosopher, Vladimir Soloviev, would have concurred with it, though he doesn’t use the same terms. He saw Christ, the God-man, as the summit of human perfection, the totally sanctified. But this perfection was concentrated in one Person and what was needed was the extension of perfection i.e the spreading of sanctity across the entire human race. This is the task of humanity, a moral task, since man is foremost a moral being. We Christians are meant to spearhead this task.