Meditations on Future Hope

Let’s consider two ways of looking at the meaning of time and events: naturalism and messianism. There are certainly other ideas about history, the present, and the future, but for simplicity’s sake, I’m only interested in these two. By naturalism I mean that the natural which we observe is all there is, so that we must accept the meaninglessness and entropy of all that is. By messianism I mean the Jewish and Christian hope of a hidden tendency of time to run from death to life, from decay to renewal, from divine silence to divine Presence.

What will happen to us? What will come of this decaying world? How do we explain the current meaninglessness of our existence? What could a messiah or a messianic age or some arc toward a messianic age have to do with anything?

This is all very much on my mind as I am engaged in a year-long close reading of Isaiah and also teaching a series on Future Hope at our congregation. It’s tempting to pull a Pacal’s wager here:

  • Either naturalism is true or messianism (though admittedly there are more options that two).
  • If naturalism, then there is no inherent meaning or hope for ultimate goodness and beauty but only the dread reality of increasing decay.
  • If messianism, then present meaninglessness and decay will be reversed.
  • People with hope live better than people without and messianism should cause us to work in the present for the values of the messianic future.
  • We may as well believe in messianism since there is no cost to being wrong but there is present value if we are right.

What more can we say about naturalism vs. messianism?

God is hidden if he exists at all (and in this view he does not). Every reason for believing has its counterpart in a reason for doubt. Death happens to us all. No knight on a shining white destrier comes to save us from the dragon. The universe is so vast it seems meaningless and void. Every emotion and instinct we have seems as though it can be explained by physics and chemistry. Our highest aspirations may just be hormonal. The clever destroyers of faith now tell us that our capacity to believe in the father in the sky is an evolutionary adaptation of humans which makes us better at survival in the bleak reality of a world of death. Believing a lie, they say, is good for survival. And in case we start to be infected with a case of naive optimism that there really is meaning, we will soon experience the greatest challenge. We will see some meaningless death or suffering. We will ask why this child died and another lived, why this one was born disabled and another not, or we will see a starving mother trying to keep her children alive while another eats five hundred dollar meals every weeknight in a gross display of excess.

Two books have been especially helpful for me and at one time I was reviewing them both here on Messianic Jewish Musings (with a series on each book and comparisons between them): Abraham Joshua Heschel’s God in Search of Man and C.S. Lewis’s Miracles. I cannot more highly recommend any two books for people who want to believe or who are afraid to believe or who believe and want support.

Heschel talks about the evidence that is all around us. If we sense the sublime in all things we find a connection to God who is there. Ultimately he says we find God in three places: the sublime we sense in the world and in people, in the holy words of the prophets, and in holy deeds of love and sacrifice which reveal to us a meaning foolish to deny.

Focusing in on the third place Heschel says we find God: when we love, truly love, any other person, we admit naturalism is untrue.

Lewis, in Miracles, gives a devastating argument against naturalism. If naturalism is true, we’ve no reason to trust our brains (random molecules, after all) and thus the very reason people tend to believe naturalism (thought or reason) is proved untrustworthy by that very same naturalism. Here is a paragraph I wrote in my series on Lewis’s book:

Lewis is calling on us to see our minds not as a mere system of hormones and electrical impulses. Some are tempted by the complexity of our knowledge of the brain to think it is simply a computer, a machine itself, a machine of Nature. Lewis has already dealt in part with the problems in that view. Keep in mind, philosophy doubts better than it proves — so we’re not saying there is such a thing as a foolproof argument to demonstrate any claim. But if our mind is simply a machine or part of Nature itself, then we’ve no reason to trust it at all. Thought is as absurdly unimportant as the diffusion of salts in the ocean or molecules in space.

Never again will they learn war. You will increase in gladness. There will be no end to Messiah’s government … he will establish it with justice. The poor will be cared for with righteousness. The wolf will dwell with the lamb … the lion will eat straw like the ox. They will not hurt or destroy. There will be rest forever from pain and turmoil. Hashem will heal. The dead will live. The whole world will be full of fruit. All the peoples, including Egypt and Assyria, will worship Hashem in Jerusalem. All will stand in awe of Hashem. The earth will be a peaceful habitation. Our eyes will see the King in his beauty. The redeemed will all be there. All flesh will see the Glory of Hashem together. The waste places will be a pool of water and a fountain of beauty. Prisoners will all be free. Everyone who has been formed and made by God will be blessed. We will be engraved on Hashem’s hand. All our previous affliction will be comforted forever. The desert will be a garden of Hashem. Joy and gladness will be found everywhere. Hashem will be the light; sun and moon will be needed no more. We will have a garland instead of ashes. God will rejoice over you. We will banquet and drink wine in the everlasting feast of Hashem.

And that’s just what Isaiah says.

This entry was posted in Abraham Joshua Heschel, Bible, C.S. Lewis, Faith, Life to Come, Loving Deeds, Messiah, Messianic Prophecy. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Meditations on Future Hope

  1. “The poor will be cared for with righteousness.”

    So, there will ALWAYS be the poor (and the rich, by inference), even under Messiah’s governorship? I suppose there won’t be communism after all.

    • Andrew T. says:


      Judaism certainly distinguishes between the dawn of the Messianic era (rebuilt Temple, sacrifices) and the far off distant future (sacrifices no longer necessary, according to Rabbi Kook and his many talmidim). If the lion no longer slays the lamb, certainly there will be no rich or poor!

    • Drake says:

      Ah Gene,
      In articles past, Rabbi Derek had pointed to Jewish community life as an antidote for the hard times ahead, all the while you were swift to rejoin him insomuch that much of that ideal was influenced by socialist rabbis. From thence my curiosity was piqued. I’ve developed a soft-spot for your anti-commie streak. I too distrust Communism.
      *respectful bow*


      -The Drake
      PS. I’m being serious. Those Occupy bridge trolls are minutes from my office.

      • Andrew T. says:

        According to Rabbi Shlomo Aviner (one of Israel’s most revered Zionist Rabbis), such movements are misguided in that they focus on the middle class, when the needs of the truly poor ought to be the focus. It is abject poverty that we are commanded to remedy; mere inequality is a lesser issue. And I do mean commanded.

        • “It is abject poverty that we are commanded to remedy; mere inequality is a lesser issue. And I do mean commanded.”

          Andrew T. , great point!

        • Drake says:

          I think that’s definitely true, but central bodies tend to be bad allocators of resources. It comes down to man-to-man. I think the danger is when we start trying to determine kindness, charity, and need in relation to the standing or appearance of others. That goes to not coveting, which according to Gene’s most recent post, can cause society to lose everything.

  2. Derek Leman says:


    I skipped over some of the complexity of Future Hope prophecies, as you well know. The idea that the world to come will arrive in two stages is common in both Jewish and Christian thought. I follow this reading and I take the prophecies somewhat literally. In the first stage, there will be death and birth as well (see Isaiah 65:17-25). There will be poor, perhaps only at first. The view in Isaiah 11, where this quite comes from, is from the present to the future, so perhaps the “poor” here are those poor now, but they will not be poor by the second day of the Messianic Age. It reminds me of Yeshua’s saying, which in Luke is more stark than Matthew’s version: Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

  3. Andrew T. says:

    “I cannot more highly recommend any two books for people who want to believe or who are afraid to believe or who believe and want support.”

    I will certainly have to read those books, then.

  4. James says:

    I’ve only read Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” and that’s when I first came to faith many years ago, but I can highly recommended Heschel’s book, having read it quite recently. More than any other book I can think of, Heschel illustrates how one cannot use science as a tool to investigate the God, since science can only examine that which exists with the universe of created things.

    • Andrew T. says:

      But, as a “modern Chassid,” wouldn’t R. Heschel have thought that the universe is an emanation of God and that, conversely, God (and Love) is innate to all of existence?

      But as a matter of fact, the further you get in theoretical physics, the closer you get to the God of the mystics. R. Heschel was writing when the old Newtonian physics was still in vogue.

  5. Drake says:

    I think when we discuss entropy, we should be speaking outside of the sense of what we think in terms of physical entropy and thermodynamics.


    Well, in Derek Leman’s “The World to Come,” (wink) there are all these lovely wine references about the Messianic Age and the Olam HaBa. But there is a problem: if there is an age without entropy, your wine will not ferment and you won’t be able to blue your metals in the smithies. You could never cool your ice cream. Your sacrifices would not combust, or they would not go out! In the way that we view kosher beyond health, so should we view our particles and how G-d treats them. In light of this problem, we cannot nix entropy entirely. Rather, we should conclude that there must be an overarching puissance attuned to when and where the processes of physics are useful to us, ie: G-d.

  6. Dan Benzvi says:

    Instead of discussing and writing ask yourselves, “What have I done for the poor lately”.

    • “Instead of discussing and writing ask yourselves, “What have I done for the poor lately”

      Good point, Dan, but we can do both, right – we can talk and give? Yeshua talked about giving to the poor a lot, but only rarely is he recorded to actually give.

Comments are closed.