Can Our Loved Ones in Heaven See Us?

     Haven’t we all wondered whether our loved ones in Heaven can see us here on earth? For some, it would be comforting to find out this is true. It may help us feel that we’re not alone, that our loved ones are watching over us. It may make us feel that they’re close, in a way, despite the fact that they’re no longer with us physically. And we’ve all wished to be able to update our lost loved ones on the things that have happened in our lives. If only they could see where we are now and what we’re doing! 

     On the other hand, this may not be such a comforting idea. Is there some sort of censorship for certain locations such as the bathroom? What about the bedroom? Can anyone in Heaven observe us, or only family or close friends? Imagine feeling like our decisions are being judged by millions of eyes in Heaven. Are we the main characters in the Heavenly equivalent of a soap opera? Do they discuss what they think we’ll do in the next “episode”? Would they watch on a screen, through a telescope, or with binoculars like those found at tourist sites? 

     Clearly, there are pros and cons to the idea of those in Heaven being able to see us. But whether we like the idea has nothing to do with whether it’s true. So, do we have any reason to believe it? 

     The primary source of this idea is found in a few Bible verses. Hebrews 12 begins with the words “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses…”, referring back to the heroes of faith listed in chapter 11. To some this seems to imply that those heroes are watching and cheering for us. The martyrs crying out to God for justice in Revelation 6 seem at least to have an awareness of some of what is happening on earth. And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16, the rich man appears to have some awareness of the spiritual state of his brothers. 

     One challenge to the idea that people in Heaven can see us is that I think people in Heaven, if given the opportunity to view events on earth, would have much better things to do. I doubt they’ll be flipping on the “Earth Channel” because they’re bored. 

     Perhaps the primary challenge to the idea that those in Heaven can see us on earth is that we cannot assume there is any passage of time, in the way we experience it, in Heaven. There may be, but even if there is, what reason is there to assume it would be perfectly synchronized with time within our universe? This may seem like a strange idea, especially if we’ve always pictured those who have passed away as existing at THIS moment in Heaven. However, science has revealed that the rate at which we experience time passing is not constant, but is inseparably connected to the matter around us as well as the speed at which we’re moving at any given time. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to think that even if there IS passage of time in Heaven, it would not be synchronized with the time we experience currently. In that case, it would not be possible for those in Heaven to watch events on earth. Indeed, if God is outside of time, and Heaven is His dwelling place, it would make sense that time either is not experienced there, or at least is very different from here. 

     This last point brings up something I’ve always wondered. Do we all arrive at Heaven one by one, based on when we died? Or do we all arrive at once? If the latter is true, it wouldn’t mean that those who are dead are conscious somewhere, waiting to be taken to heaven. It may be that when they die, from their perspective, they find themselves immediately in Heaven, as if no time had passed, but that in reality, they had been dead for a long time from our perspective. If that were the case, we would all be resurrected at the same time and enter Heaven simultaneously. It doesn’t mean that those who have died are not yet in heaven; they are, but, from their perspective, so are we. 

     This may make sense of certain verses that discuss the resurrection of the dead that are not entirely clear, such as 1 Thes. 16-17: “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.” Ultimately, however, this is all speculation, and not necessary to understand. As with other things regarding Heaven, we won’t know for sure or in detail until we make it there ourselves. It’s fun to speculate and explore possibilities like this. But it brings with it a caution to not allow our focus to become so consumed with our loved ones who have passed away that our focus is taken off of God. Whether they can see us or not, He certainly can, and that’s what matters. 

Is It Possible To Prove That Miracles Have Happened?

New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman likely is best known as the author of Misquoting Jesus, a book that attempts to show that the Gospels are not reliable, and that the supernatural events were added long after the original accounts were recorded. I have read his book and have also heard some of Erhman’s arguments in one of his debates with Mike Licona, author of The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. During this debate, Erhman contended that it is impossible to prove that miracles have happened in history. Of course, I believe the argument is flawed, and I thought the error was interesting enough to write about it.

Ehrman’s claim is that the general methods we employ to determine what has happened in history can never be used to show that miracles occurred. His argument was something like the following:

Because the events in history cannot be observed directly or re-created, all of our knowledge of historical events is probabilistic by definition. In other words, if there is evidence that points to a particular event, the stronger and more numerous the evidence, the more likely it is the event happened. However, because the evidence is merely cumulative, we can never claim to know with 100% certainty that a particular event happened; we can only know beyond a reasonable doubt, or in some cases with even less confidence. I agree so far.

Miracles, Erhman continues, are by definition not only improbable events, but the least probable event in any given situation. This definition could be debated, as ultimately it is circular reasoning. He is assuming that a miracle, a supernatural event, cannot happen because he “knows” that supernatural events cannot happen. If there is a God who intervenes in the world, however, it would not make sense to declare miracles improbable at all. However, for the sake of his argument, let’s continue to assume that a miracle is the least probable event in any situation.

Finally, Erhman declared that if the historical method is used to show whatever was the most probable event in a given case, and a miracle is by definition the least probable event, the historical method never can be used to show that a miracle occurred (because a miracle would never be the most probable event). Note that he is not saying miracles have not occurred; he is merely saying that it would be impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt that a miracle occurred in history.

It is with this conclusion that I disagree. While on the surface his argument may sound reasonable, even if you don’t know the problem with his logic, I suspect your intuition tells you something is wrong.

The error in his logic turns out to be a subtle difference in what he means by the word “probable” in the one premise versus the same word in the conclusion. We must ask on what basis we determine what is most probable in each case.

To show what I mean, suppose I asked you how probable it is that an airplane flying overhead would crash into a car driving on the highway. No doubt we all would agree this is extremely unlikely. But does this mean that such an event could never be shown to have happened? Imagine if investigators found the smashed remains of a car under a pile of airplane parts. Suddenly this improbable event appears to be much more probable.

In one sense, this is an improbable event, and in another sense, it is very probable. Both conclusions are correct. In the first case, we were talking about the overall probability that this particular event will happen to a particular person at a particular time. In the second case, we’re no longer talking about the same type of probability; now, we are discussing not the likelihood of the event itself, but rather, the most probable interpretation of the evidence in front of us. Once there is evidence to consider, the evidence overrides any previous ideas we had about what was probable.

This illustrates the problem with Erhman’s logic. If he were to observe the evidence that an airplane had crashed into a car, in order to be consistent with his earlier statement, he would have to refuse to take the evidence into account, simply because he had already determined that such an event is unlikely to happen. This is the surest way to guarantee that we draw our conclusions based primarily on our own biases. He has determined ahead of time what he thinks is most likely to happen, and then interprets all new evidence in the light of his initial assumption. If he has decided that it’s unlikely that the Son of God would become a human, be crucified, and rise from the dead, he has declared that no amount of evidence can change his mind. I agree that, in a general sense, such a thing may be improbable (although, if you think about it, nearly every event in history is improbable in a way). But if we have the type of evidence that we do (such as the reliability of the manuscript copies, the lack of motive for the Gospel writers to lie, the empty tomb, the sudden explosive growth of Christianity despite persecution, etc.), rather than bothering with the general probability of such a thing in the absence of any evidence, we need to consider the evidence itself. At that point, it becomes clear that the accounts of supernatural events in the Gospels are very likely true from a rational, objective historical perspective, since that is the best interpretation of the evidence.

Ultimately, Erhman’s logic betrays his anti-supernatural presupposition, and causes him to be closed-minded and unable (or unwilling) to follow the evidence where it leads. When investigating history, we ought to withhold judgments regarding what is most probably only after, not prior to, observing the evidence. I would very much like to ask him what he thinks about Albino tigers, bullets being stopped by Bibles, or a Royal Flush in Poker.