WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR HEAVENLY MANSIONS? (JOHN 14:2-3)

Sometimes pursuing a study of a Bible passage is a little like following Alice down the rabbit hole. You start out on firm ground, but then things begin to get “curiouser and curiouser.” That is what happened when I decided to look more closely at some very familiar verses that I could recite as a small boy, in the King James Version of course:

    “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.” (v. 2)

    And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again,

    and receive you unto myself;

    that where I am, there you may be also.” (v. 3)

The biggest controversy in the first line of v. 2 concerns the translation of the word “mansions.”

The next difference of opinion among translators involves the proper punctuation of lines 2 and 3. Modern translations are divided among rendering them (a) much as in the KJV (see Jerusalem Bible, TEV, AB, NASB, and NEB) and (b) those who treat these two lines as a question (as in J.B. Phillips, NIV, RSV, NRSV, The Message). The latter rendering goes something like:

    “If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?”

The difference between the two types of translation stem from the fact that the original Greek manuscripts have no punctuation that would make a definitive decision between the two renderings. The only argument I have read that attempted to justify one translation over the other was advanced by Borchert, who takes issue with wording it as a question. He says that it “is unlikely since this statement is part of John's introductory announcement of Jesus concerning his purpose [to die]. An opening question here would give the impression that Jesus had opened a debate.” Whichever side is correct in this matter, it is really a moot point since both a statement or a question express the same basic idea.

What?So where did the translation “mansion” come from? It began with the Latin Vulgate rendering mansiones, from which the Tyndale English word “mansion” was derived, and it in turn influenced the reading of the King James Version. But modern versions disagree with that understanding of the Greek word mones, derived from the verb meno, meaning “to abide.” Thus, we see that:

The Living Bible says, “many homes.” So each of us we will have a whole house to ourselves, even if it may not impress our neighbors quite as much.

NRSV, AB, NASB, and RSV translate mones with the generic term dwelling-places, which is a bit of a comedown from an actual mansion, and may not even mean a complete house.

Now we come to the most popular translation, “rooms.” This is the option chosen by TEV, J.B. Phillips, NIV, JB, and RSV. It looks like we will have a room in a larger building that is shared by many people. This is also the opinion of Borchert, who feels that “apartments” is the preferred translation.

At least The Message paraphrase reassures us that there will be “plenty of room.”

Colin Brown discusses the origin of the word monai as probably derived from an Aramaic word meaning an inn or a stop for the night. Thus, the early Christian theologian Origen thought the word referred to various stations on the way to God. Vine and many others reject Origen's interpretation.

But the revised views on John 14:2 are not all negative from our worldly viewpoint. Thus, The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery states, “Jesus could compare heaven to a stately house with many rooms because there are connections between a house and heaven – such as refuge, rest and living close together.”

In the above manner, we can see the popular conception of a mansion slowly dissolving into what may be no more than a motel room. But evangelical scholars are not yet done with demolishing our personal mansions in heaven. Witness the following.

When? 

The next piece of uncertainly concerning this passage involves verse 3. What is the time frame that Jesus is talking about when he says he is going ahead of us to prepare a place and will come again.

Guthrie applies it to the Second Coming but notes that others feel it refers to the resurrection, the Day of Pentacost, or the time of an individual believer's death. Only dispensationalists such as Blum confidently state that it refers to the “Rapture” when Christ returns to take believers with him to some unspecified place during the Tribulation.

Ellis says, “The final thought here is certainly an eschatological one – the second advent of Christ. But that by no means exhausts what Jesus is saying. Jesus will come again in the Spirit (cf. vv. 18, 21, 23). There is no vacuum between the days of His flesh and the final arrival in the Father's house...”

Keener takes that idea one step further: “Although John does include some future eschatology, ...John 14:2-3 appears in the context of mostly realized eschatology. The 'Father's house (Jn 14:2) refers not to heaven per se, but rather to the Father's dwelling place (cf. Jn 2:16-21) or household (cf. Jn 8:35)...In the context it refers to the Father and Son residing in believers through the Spirit (Jn 14:23)...Although scholars continue to debate the matter, context suggests that John 14:2-3 involves Jesus' presence even in the current age.” And in vv. 5-6, “He is not saying that disciples come to the Father's house when he returns at the end of the age; he is saying that they enter the Father's presence when they become his followers.”

So not only will there be no mansion in heaven for us to own all by ourselves, Jesus may not even be talking about our eternal reward at all but about something believers already have on earth.

Relationship to John 2:23

Note that Keener cites John 2:23. This is another very important passage to keep in mind when trying to interpret vv. 2-3 since these are the only two spots in the NT where the Greek word mone appears. Verse 23 reads, “Anyone who loves me will heed what I say; then my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” (NEB)

This appears to express a very similar idea to that found in vv. 2-3 although the direction of movement in this metaphorical language appears to be in an opposite direction. In v. 2-3, it looks as if the movement is from people upward to God while in v. 23 it is movement of God and Christ downward to earth. Other possible distinctions between the two appear:

Colin Brown: “The former passage stresses the certainty of the coming salvation and fellowship with Jesus; the latter the present salvation which comes from the indwelling of the Father and the Son.” But note that several of the commentators quoted above feel that vv. 2-3 also refer to the present indwelling. If so, that would mean that the two passages in John 2 are completely parallel with one another.

Hauck takes vv. 2-3 “to express the fact that our earthly state is transitory and provisional” while v. 23 “depicts salvation after the departure of the Saviour as a permanent abiding of Christ and God in believers.”

In basic agreement with Brown and Hauck, Borchert sees the basic contrast between the two passages as follows: “In the first the disciples are to gain their dwelling in the divine domain, and in the second the persons of the Godhead come to dwell in the disciples.”

Conclusion

Borchert expresses his opinion concerning the old KJV understanding of a mansion for believers with the words: “Such a concept, unfortunately, supports the Western economic notion that following Jesus will lead to economic prosperity either in this life or in the life to come.”

My own read on the situation is that believers should carefully consider their gut reaction to the above analysis. Were you downcast to learn that perhaps there would be no fancy status symbol waiting for you in the afterlife? Those who are not satisfied with the present presence of the Holy Spirit of God and Christ in their life, will almost certainly not be satisfied with an eternal existence in which that is the best and only reward we will receive.