Now, the Bible plainly describes the next age as being the merger of heaven and earth, with God living with man.
“The meek shall inherit the earth.” Why would the meek want to inherit something that will be burned to a crisp? Rather, the biblical teaching is that our inheritance, our Promised Land, will be the renewed, restored, transformed earth.
The “new heavens and new earth” spoken of by Isaiah and by John in the Revelation are the heavens and earth of Gen 1 restored, with the corruption of sin and brokenness purged by fire — and improved so that it will last forever.
Hence, in the next age, we will not fly off to heaven to leave the world behind. Rather, God will come to us, to walk among us, in a renewed world in which heaven (God’s realm) and earth (man’s realm) are brought together.
Earth becomes what we call “heaven.”
(Rev 21:2-3 ESV) 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.
The obvious objections to this are 1 Thes 4:17 (speaking of the saved meeting Jesus in the clouds) and 1 Pet 3:10-13. I’ve addressed the interpretation of these passages here and here, respectively.
The goal of God’s work among humanity is not to snatch us away from his Creation, but to restore us to what he always intended for us. It’s redemption, not escape. Restoration, not destruction.
And when we read the Bible this way, some good things happen. For example, the NT and OT accounts of the afterlife start to line up. It’s often been stated that the OT knows nothing of men dying and going to heaven. True. Rather, the OT speaks of a new heavens and new earth in which God restores the earth and comes to live with man — just as is taught in Rom 8 and Rev 21.
Just so, it’s often been noted the OT has no doctrine of hell. And that’s also true. It does speak of punishment and God’s destruction of the wicked, in contrast to the blessed afterlife of the saved. But there is no concept of perpetual, conscious torment of the damned in the OT.
Just so, the NT has been misread. We’ve read the Greek understanding of the afterlife into the scriptures — often by reading the passages to say exactly the opposite of what the words mean.
Monty,
The place is here, but not until the Second Coming and general resurrection. Rev 21 describes the New Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth. Other NT passages speak of the New Jerusalem as being in heaven now.
It’s not that there is no heaven, but that heaven and earth will be merged. Until then, there is a heaven and God lives there.
The NT and OT are both less than clear on what happen in between now and then, but there are hints that in some sense “we” exist in heaven until heaven and earth are reunited. For example, Moses and Elijah met with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration.
Personally, and this is quite unprovable but very plausible, God plainly exists outside of time. Therefore, heaven is outside of time — as we experience time. Hence, from God’s perspective, there does not have to be an in-between time in heaven. We can die and be transported immediately into God’s time, which is heaven’s time, which begins with the general resurrection. Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200, Go straight to Judgment.
Jesus words about prepare a place for his disciples means simply that he will prepare the New Jerusalem to receive his followers when it descends to earth per Rev 21.
Or it could be that there is a disembodied existence between now and then in heaven. But I lean toward the outside of time point of view.
(John 14:2–3 ESV) 2 In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
Re-read the passage. In fact, Jesus is plainly speaking of the Second Coming. “Will come again and will take you to myself.”
John,
I do not buy the Preterist perspective. I think there was a “coming” of Jesus in AD 70, but I think the OT and NT repeatedly look forward to a general resurrection. Dan 12 says,
How do you fit this into your perspective? When do those who sleep in the dust of the earth arise to glory and to shame?
And why do the NT writers so often speak of the Kingdom as not yet come?
(2 Pet 1:11 ESV) For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
(2 Tim 4:18 ESV) The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
(Gal 5:21 ESV) envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
The classic interpretation is that the Kingdom is not yet/already — already here but not yet in its fullness, which to me makes a lot of sense of the several Kingdom passages. An “already” perspective surely struggles to deal with the many “not yet” passages.
Revelation was written by John to the 1st Century church. It should be remembered that they, not us, were the intended reader. If you were a 1st century Christian, especially one with a Jewish background, who would you have understood the beast to have been? Language in Revelation is frequently a direct quote from Daniel. Without understanding what things meant in Daniel, which many of the 1st century Jewish Christians would have been well versed in, it’s easy to come to a conclusion, based in modern interpretation and circumstances, that is disconnected from the texts that provide the intended message from John’s vision. Both Daniel and Revelation should be approached from a Jewish world political perspective rather than a 21st century end of times bias.
Jay, you frequently quote from various authors and scholars and include their thoughts in your posts. You said in comments here that you didn’t “buy the Preterist perspective.” But, would you agree that making a statement regarding the Preterist view” is somewhat generalistic and that within Preterist beliefs there is more diversity than many might think? I’m working through your thoughts in concert with what I’ve come to believe regarding the last days as I’m sure many other of your readers are doing. Perhaps my views will continue to evolve as they surely already have regarding end times events.
Jim Mcguiggan has written extensively on both Daniel and Revelation. Although he comes from a Preterist viewpoint, McGuiggan’s work is well researched and fairly well known in these areas. Of the new heaven and the new earth he writes:
”John sees a new heaven and new earth come into existence. He sees a red Dragon with seven heads, he sees a Glorious Woman with the moon at her feet and a world entirely without drinking water and we asked, “what do these things mean?” Now he sees a new heaven and earth and what are we to do? We’re to ask, “what does this mean?”
“The vision of a new heaven and earth speaks of a new environment, a new state of affairs for the people of God. The old world in Revelation’s context has been dominated by the cruel and evil Roman Empire—it was, so to speak, their world! But they offended God and he attacked it. In Revelation its stars are torn down, its seas are turned to blood, earthquakes tore it in shreds and its vegetation is completely destroyed—the Roman world is dismantled. None of that literally happened! John now sees a new heaven and earth. But as surely as we’re not to believe in the literal dismantling of the Roman world (remember 22:6,10) we’re not to believe in a literal creating of a new heaven and earth. This is a book of pictures! It tells its message in images. It isn’t like other books and mustn’t be interpreted like other books. When Matthew says they met a man carrying a water pitcher on his head we tend to believe that that’s what they actually saw. When John says he saw a door open in heaven or that he saw a new city coming down out of the sky on to the earth we’re not supposed to take it as literal.
“The vision of the new heaven and earth is Revelation’s way of saying that the People of God live to see the destruction of the world “owned” and shaped by the beast-empire of Rome. They are free from Rome. Rome can no longer murder them or make them cry or mourn (21:4). There is no more sea (21:1) therefore the Roman beast can rise from it no more (13:1).”
Jay, I’ve not seen you discuss many alternative perspectives and that may not be your intention here. But, I believe McGuiggan’s work is quite compelling. He has written a complete commentary on Revelation. The apocalyptic and symbolic language of Revelation must be considered from that perspective. That is why I have a particularly difficult time equating chapter 20 – 22 describing a literal future event, even though it is described with symbolism, while others are suggested to be merely symbolic. Why not so with the new heaven and the new earth as well as the New Jerusalem?
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/reflections3.asp?status=Revelation&id=837
All attempts to explain the messages in Revelation relating the message to humanism (human bodies created like God body) are very troublesome. Humans saw Jesus leave this earth in the bodily form of a human. But, when he returned to heaven God’s dwelling place, he was restored to the form that he had prior to becoming human. Jesus while in the bodily form of a human was not in the form of God or as he was before. God is a Spirit, Jesus stated to the apostles that a Spirit does not have flesh and bones, while trying to assure them that his human body was resurrected and what they saw was not a Spirit. Jesus was resurrected in a human form, but as we are resurrected we will be changed (a more glorious body that matches God and Jesus forms) and former humans will be like him as he comes. Since we as humans cannot see the Spirit world or it’s inhabitants, God from the Spirit world has used earthly objects and examples to convey an insight into his dwelling place.
Trying to bring God to man was already done in the form of Jesus, who sought to bring man to God. The intent and form of God/Jesus is spiritual in nature. God doesn’t indicate that man must put away the fleshly to the spiritual because he will become flesh again. We will be like Jesus in nature. There is no marriage or given in marriage and no sexual/physical divide in heaven. All of the points of the gospel is so that we can transcend this earthly state for something better…which is a spiritual state.
Let us read Rev.21 “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.” The new heaven isn’t God’s heaven, but rather the sky and the earth is the earth and the sea is the sea. Our destination will be new, but different from what we have. There is no merging of the two, but a replacement.
Men not reading God’s Words carefully believing that God knows exactly what is true, have ignored without giving an explanation to the communication about the sin that was committed.
(Gen 2:17 ESV) but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
The majority of translations confirm that God identified a period of time in which death would take place. All who read this will know that the physical bodies did not die that day. So was God in error? Because the record supplied by God states, (Gen 5:5 ESV) Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.
(Rom 8:2 ESV) For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:9-11 ESV You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (10) But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (11) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
The living body is dead because of sin, when the Spirit does not dwell in you.
Col 2:13 ESV And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses,
You who are living were dead, but God made you alive and forgave the sins and trespasses.
1Ti 5:5-6 ESV She who is truly a widow, left all alone, has set her hope on God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day, (6) but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives.
The widow in 6 is dead while living because of self-indulgent (sin), living by her own desires.
Man died exactly as God predicted, his Spirit relationship with God was dead, his body did not die that day. All men die in the same way when sin enters into his life.
There were some men in OT that God’s Spirit remained in Noah, Enoch would be examples, others were counted righteous Abraham etc; yet others were cleansed for periods of time through sacrifices (even Cain and Abel explain a system of cleansing through sacrificing), prior to the OT law then there were instructions of sacrifice to remove sins.
All men follow the same pattern as Adam when they sin they die the same day. Christ provided that the dead be buried and raised to a new life with a new Spirit (its even been called (born again)). An individual could not be born again unless he was dead. When did he die? When he believed? No he was already dead before he believed and came to faith.
Let’s look at this from the other side of the fence. If the death that God mentioned was to be physical death how could a man be born again who’s physical body has never died. Born again could not be applied to baptism, Jesus and his followers taught (born again) to living bodies.
Buckeye Chuck:
1. Indiana? You barely got past Indiana? Come to SEC West where big boy football is played.
2. I’ve not studies Preterism in great depth because it just doesn’t make sense to me. For those wanting a brief introduction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism. Then again, when I say “Preterism,” I mean full Preterism. As I’ve said before, some of the prophecies in the NT that sound like end times prophecies do indeed speak of AD 70. But I’m just not buying that Constantine is the new heavens and new earth. It doesn’t fit the narrative of scripture. And it makes our “salvation” Christianity gaining earthly power — which is dangerously bad theology.
The Lion of Revelation transforms into a wounded Lamb. Power is found in the cross, not the throne of Rome.
3. Forgive me for going on. This is going to be kind of stream of consciousness as I consider the implications of full Preterism and Rev 21-22 beign Constantine. (Haven’t really given it that much thought before now.)
So the “new heavens and new earth” are Constantine? The legalization of Christianity? And that means no more death or mourning? Well, if nothing else, it’s bad history. Constantine was shortly followed by Julian the Apostate (his nephew). Who persecuted Christians.
And it’s not as though European history has been free from war, famine, disease, etc. since Constantine. The Black Death etc. occurred post-Constantine. The “mini-Ice Age” brought starvation to thousands. Hitler and Napoleon actively sought to end Christianity. The Communists did the same. So I don’t buy it. Not at all.
I do buy that there are many NT prophecies that speak of AD 70. And plenty that speak of the Second Coming and general resurrection.
Surely McGuiggan teaches the Second Coming and general resurrection? (Full Preterism does not.)
Isaiah uses words such as “create” and “heavens … and … earth.” It’s an obvious reference to Gen 1. There will be a new creation! A second creation! A kainos creation!
Who would use such language over the ascendance of Constantine as Roman emperor? In fact, the recent trend in theology — a good one — has been to consider the last 1500 years of Constantinian Christianity a departure from First Century Christianity. “Resident Aliens” by Hauerwas and Willimon, for example, pictures the church, not as in power and reigning over the Empire, but as resident aliens — foreigners. John Hunter Davidson in To Change the World sees us as exiles like the Jews in Babylon in Jer. 29. And this is seen a preferable to being the consort of worldly powers, such as Rome or whatever. “My kingdom is not of this earth” and yet McGuiggan seems to picture a hallowed kingdom of this earth.
Still not sold.
(Odd having Preterism taught by a Church of Christ preacher, given how many consider the church to have become apostate by the time of Constantine – that is, damned and no longer the church at all.)
The Greek is “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, new creation! …” Again, “creation” is a word loaded with theological depth. What makes a new Christian a “new creation”? How is baptism like Genesis 1? Well, the emperor won’t persecute him! Hardly.
He is changed by the indwelling Spirit. He is being transformed into the image of Christ — he is becoming like Adam and Eve before sin, except better. Instead of walking with God in the Garden, God makes his home inside him! The indwelling is even more personal and intimate. God’s presence is not just a form of communion — it’s also transformational. It begins the process of returning us to the very image of God (which does not require a Christian emperor).
So this new creation anticipates the Next Age in which God joins heaven and earth and dwells with man. Which did not happen in Constantinian Rome.
NT Wright’s Simply Christian makes the case for seeing the Bible as the story of the separation of heaven from earth, finally concluding with the rejoining of heaven and earth. And the story is there throughout scripture — and destroyed by the Preterist view.
Now, obviously, it’s symbolic. To argue for “symbolism” is a strawman argument. Of course, it’s symbolic! But what do the symbols mean? I mean, I doubt that the New Jerusalem has a “Welcome to New Jerusalem” sign at the entrance, right next to the “Churches of Christ meet here” and Civitan club sign. (Maybe Ohio towns don’t have these markers. They do here.)
And the connection with Gen 1, Gen 2, Isa 65 and 66, Paul’s “new creation” language, the “New Jerusalem” texts in the OT and NT are surely not speaking of Christianized Rome. And then what are we make of —
Read Rev 21-22 however you will, 1 Cor 15 is speaking of the Second Coming. And in the Second Coming we get new bodies. And we receive immortality as a gift.
And then there’s —
And creation will be freed from its futility and corruption — at the same time Christians will be adopted, redeemed (in their bodies), and freed for glory. So this is surely the resurrection. Not Constantine’s coronation.
So if you’re pushing a partial Preterist view, that the Second Coming hasn’t yet happened, the general resurrection hasn’t yet happened, but Rev 21-22 speak of Constantine — I still disagree but at least Paul can make sense from that perspective.
I guess I’m too new-Anabaptist for Preterism.
Larry wrote,
This is not the meaning of “humanism.”
The Bible says,
Now, this plainly says that Jesus has something Paul calls a “body.” But it’s his “glorious” body — his resurrection body. It’s not the same as his pre-death body. But his pre-death body didn’t stay in the tomb. It as transformed and left the tomb.
I mean, if Jesus turned into a spirit or ghost, then his body is still in the grave. But his flesh/blood body became a glorious body and walked out of the tomb and through doors.
Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 381–382.
Richard R. Melick, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1991), 32:144.
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians, (Columbus, O.: Lutheran Book Concern, 1937), 863–864.
The commentaries going back to 1937 agree with me.
Now, do I fully understand this? No. But I know that the language the Spirit chose to inspire is “body” with respect to dead, resurrected Christians. We should speak in the language of scriptures and seek to grasp what it means. I’m not going to explain it away or interpret it to mean “not a body.”
1. Indiana? 2015: Indiana 4-1, only loss to #1 OSU. 9/20/2014: Indiana 31 – then #18 and future SEC runner-up Missouri 27. Ask Mizzou about the Hoosiers. B1G East currently has #1 OSU, #3 MSU and #18 Michigan. Not so shabby. And let me remind you (in case you have forgotten) that The Ohio State Buckeyes were the 2104 College Football Playoff National Champions with victories over Alabama and Oregon. If that strength of schedule isn’t enough, then Alabama may be able to have a rematch IF both teams qualify which neither has a guarantee.
2. I appreciate your in-depth summary of Preterism supplied by the deepest of Biblical scholars, Wikipedia, which you say focuses on Empror Constantine representing the new heaven and new earth. However… it’s a bit of a straw man argument to build an entire post response based on points (regarding Constantine in particular) that neither I mentioned nor ones that were a part of Jim McGuiggan’s post I referenced which it seems evident you did not read. To suggest he is espousing a view that the new heaven and new earth refer to Constantine is without merit and falsely describes his position.
Even if you would like to use the Wikipedia post, you will find that it lists the following descriptions of Partial Preterism as follows: “Partial preterism (often referred to as orthodox preterism or classical preterism) holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70, or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero. Some partial preterists identify “Babylon the Great” (Revelation 17–18) with the pagan Roman Empire…” This is close to representing the position of McGuiggan, but can we agree that use of his writings and of others is preferred as opposed to Wikipedia?
Following are brief definitions of the three major views regarding end times as I have studied and understand them.
HISTORICAL view: The book of Revelation, especially the prophecies of the seals, trumpets and bowls set forth particular events in the history of the world that relate to the welfare of the church from the first century to the present and to the end of time. This view probably represents the majority position of the churches of Christ.
FUTURIST view: This view insists that the visions of this book will be fulfilled toward the end of the world. Some of the visions may describe events of the Roman Empire as we have discussed and also describe future events. This demands a literal interpretation of the visions that John saw. Premillenials fit in here. A problem with this position must be addressed in the meaning and significance of the word “shortly” in Rev. 1:1.
PRETERIST view: The visions of Revelation are figurative only and describe only the events surrounding the end of the Roman Empire as it involves the First Century Church. This view demands accepting the early date of writing, probably during the time of Vespasian, in 69-79 AD.
The preterist view also suggests there have been many “comings” of God and Christ throughout the history of the world. We tend to refer to the future coming of Jesus as described in I Thess 4. However, Jesus also “came” in judgment of the Jews after rejecting him as described in Matthew 24 – all of which occurred during the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Specifically in verse 34 “ Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” Just how old would some of these people that Jesus addressed be if these events were to be thousands of years future?
Jay, you have provided much food for thought for me regarding the order of events after human physical death, the judgment, and the treatment of damned and of Hell. I am weighing these teachings with their Biblical origins. I must do the same regarding the teaching of the new heaven, the new earth and the new Jerusalem being a restored physical planet earth, the 3rd rock from the Sun. At this point, your view that the apocalyptic and symbolism in Revelation is a mixture of past history and future events is a challenging one for me. Just how is it that one can determine which is which? Just what would lead me to conclude that the vision (would you agree it is a vision?) of chapters 20-22 are to be understood to be future, while some other visions/events in previous chapters are speaking of the destruction of the Roman Empire? It would seem to me easier to accept the all literal view of the premillennialist, which I cannot, than one of picking and choosing by those espousing the traditional historical view.
Consider this view of Isaiah 65&66 where the meaning is that “a new heaven and new earth speaks of a brand new condition with all the troubles behind and only glory ahead.” – From Hallelujah Anyway, A Study of Revelation by Richard Rogers, page 43, Sunset School of Preaching, 1977. This view presents a symbolic contrast to the literal new heaven, new earth and new Jerusalem particularly if you believe it to be the future realm of the faithful.
I stress again that a key to interpreting the message to Revelation is to understand who it was written to and how they would have understood John’s visions. Absolutely guaranteed to be different than the way 21st century scholars are approaching it.
I can understand I that you may not wish to comment on this line of thinking as I am suggesting a view entirely contrary to what you stated regarding the new heavens, the new earth and the new Jerusalem. However, if this view piques your interest at all, I would appreciate a discussion of the points specifically mentioned even if in separate future posts addressing the issue after you have had an opportunity to at least study the position.
Jay,
Do you not believe that the first resurrection is being (born again)? I an thoroughly with you about the understanding of writings of the the men you have provided. By the way, why would you use their ideas in place of explaining it from God’s Word?
Larry asked,
I assume you’re referring to —
I’ve covered the Millennium some time ago. /?s=millennium
I’ve never studied the “first resurrection” language otherwise, but it seems to refer to martyrs in Christ, not baptism. But it would take pages and time I don’t have to sort it all out.
Buckeye Chuck,
1. Penn State 29. Indiana 7. ‘Nuff said. (See you in the playoffs.) (PS — better be sure you have Urban paid enough to keep the Texas alumni away. They whiffed on Saban. Figure your coach is next on their list.)
2. Make fun of Wikipedia if you will, but I know from my Ph.D. in chemical engineering son that many graduate schools have their students write and maintain Wikipedia articles. It’s often more up to date than the textbooks on some very advanced subjects. It’s excellent on biblical manuscript evidence, for example. Very nice articles on nearly all the codices and papyri. So the more technical the subject, the more likely the Wikipedia is to be right.
So the question isn’t the reputation of Wikipedia but whether it’s right. Wherein are the portions that I quote in error? Is it wrong?
3. You wrote,
I read his post. And other posts. I did not buy and read his book. He says,
90% of the post teaches the obvious proposition that the language is symbolic. He then explains that Rev 21-22 is not about the real heaven but the defeat of Rome by the church. So when did this happen? If not Constantine, does he mean when the barbarians overthrew Rome? I have no idea what he’s saying.
On a later page he writes,
If not Constantine, and this has already been fulfilled, when and where did it happen? If it hasn’t happened yet, then it’s the Second Coming. If it never happens, it’s not much comfort to the church. Is Rev just a fairy tale told to comfort the church with vague promises that never come true?
Show me from McGuiggan’s website what I’m supposed to conclude. Because I find him very vague and confusing.
4. You wrote,
I said that the prophecies of the NEW TESTAMENT were partly fulfilled in AD 70 and others not yet. And others perhaps at other times. We greatly err when we assume that every writer is futurist or preterist or -ist anything.
See this post: /2008/07/surprised-by-hope-an-interpretation-of-matthew-24-part-1-background/ and the two that follow. I take Matt 24 as speaking to AD 70 and then changing subjects to talk about the Second Coming. Both events are a “coming.” Does that make me Preterist or Futurist? I’m just trying to read NT apocalyptic language in light of OT prophetic use of the same language. Which McGuiggan does but with extremely vague conclusions.
Why on earth isn’t it possible for an entire book of apocalyptic language to speak of more then one event or periods in history? Why insist on just one?
The NT’s use of “New Jerusalem” language speaks of it being presently in heaven and then descending to earth so that God will dwell with man on earth. I can’t think of a rational interpretation that says this has already happened. The New Jerusalem was still in heaven when Galatians and Hebrews were written. It would be unbelievable to imagine that the destruction of Jerusalem is described as God coming to earth to dwell with man, the tree of life being transplanted, and all mourning ended. So what does the New Jerusalem speak to?
In the OT, the “New Jerusalem” is about God’s promises to be fulfilled with the end of Exile and coming of the Kingdom.
Duane F. Watson, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, 1992, 4, 1095.
So to say that the “New Jerusalem” is symbolic of something or even a “vision” is true but not very helpful. The NT writers said is was in heaven while the NT was being written. What happened later to bring it to earth? I’m with the vast majority of commentators that this is the end the age, the Second Coming, the general resurrection, and the new heavens and new earth.
(I really would rather not have to interpret the whole of the Rev to reach a conclusion on this issue.)
Notice also that the quoted text mentions the use of temple language in connection with the New Jerusalem (the location of the heavenly tabernacle in Hebrews). When it comes to earth, the temple becomes the new heavens and new earth. If Walton is right that Gen 1 is about the Creation being dedicated as a temple for God, then the parallel becomes overwhelming. Rev 21-22 is the restoration of the Creation to become a temple for God in which God himself dwells with man — his image and likeness — and is worshiped.
Rev 21-22 also repeatedly quotes OT prophetic language that speaks of the end of Exile and the coming of the Kingdom. The conventional wisdom is that this means the Kingdom coming in its fullness at the end of the age. We’ll no longer be resident aliens.
Moreover, the Jews thought of the Holy of Holies as a place where heaven and earth joined — so that God dwelled both in the temple and heaven simultaneously. Rev 21-22 therefore describes the Creation becoming the Holy of Holies — the place indwelled by God and his Shekinah (glory), where sin is forgiven, where God is worshiped, where prayers reach God, where God dwells among his people — being all the nations, not just Israel.
The Torah describes Canaan as the Jews’ “inheritance,” but in the NT, the “meek shall inherit the earth” — our inheritance becomes not just Palestine but the Creation — which fits with Rev 21-22 quite nicely.
It fits.
Is it symbolic? Of course. But symbolic in parallel with a range of symbols that stretch cross the Bible, literally from Gen 1 to Rev 22.
I would compare that view to McGuiggan’s but I don’t understand McGuiggan’s view well enough to know whether he agrees or disagrees.
I don’t own much literature from the Sunset School of Preaching. But I agree that the “new heaven and new earth speaks of a brand new condition with all the troubles behind and only glory ahead.” So the Preterist view would be this has already happened.
5. You wrote,
What does “figurative only” mean? That this does not describe an actual event? Or that every word means something else? I don’t understand.
Does this mean that Rev 21-22 happened before the fall of the Roman Empire? If so, when?
6. Given that, as you say, there are multiple schools of thought under Preterism, is it fair to complain that I misunderstand your use of the term when you don’t say which school of thought is yours? I assumed “full Preterism” because I’ve heard nothing to the contrary.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Normative/index.html
http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/fathers-revelation.php
http://www.ldolphin.org/preterism-ice.html
So I understood you and McGuiggan to be speaking of “mild Preterism,” I suppose, largely because I’ve studied Eusebius and Constantine more than Preterism and because I can’t imagine how Rev 21 – 22 could possibly be taken as a reference to AD 70. And because McGuiggan speaks in terms of the church overcoming Rome — which is hardly what happened in AD 70.
So I have no idea how to fit McGuiggan into Preterism if he’s not speaking of Constantine.
Jay, perhaps Preterism or the defense of that system is not the objective of McGuiggan and Rogers. Perhaps their conclusions from the historical texts of Daniel and Revelation lead them to some of the same conclusions of some Preterists. If you must insist on involving Constantine from general summaries you read on Preterism, then please assume they are not Preterists. There is no glory in associating with that name. It was descriptive of their position, not prescriptive where they back-fit into it. They are good brothers in Christ. If you are ever so inclined, I recommend McGuiggan’s commentary on Revelation. If not, then so be it.
You said that “I really would rather not have to interpret the whole of the Rev to reach a conclusion on this issue.” Jay, I must insist that is the breakdown in our discussion, because without doing so as well as Daniel and OT political history of Israel and the nations they engaged, it’s very easy to miss the key purposes for which the book was written and delivered to its immediate audience as well as the proper interpretation of John’s visions. However, please understand that when McGuiggan says that ALL of Revelation is symbolic and refers 100% to historical events in the 1st Century, then that is in opposition to making some of the prophecies about past historical events and some about yet future events.
I’ll leave my question on the floor, just how does one determine which events in Revelation are past history and which are yet future?
This will be my last comment on this post as my objective is not to sidetrack your discussion. I just felt it was a valuable point for consideration.
P.S. As a Buckeye fan, I’m quite used to such comments from SEC fans. Go ahead and dish it out. We can take it because we know who and what we are even if Alabama wins this year and, of course, they just might. BTW, I have zero concerns about Urban heading to Texas or any other college job. Perhaps you didn’t realize Urban is a native Buckeye, grew up in Ashtabula, played football for Cincinnati, head coach @ Bowling Green and was an OSU assistant under Earle Bruce at the same time as Jim Tressel, Pete Carroll, and Nick Saban. Ah, yes, even Bama’s coach has an OSU comnection. Jay, if you are ever in Columbus, I would be honored to escort you to a game @ The Shoe….
Buckeye Chuck,
I would be thrilled to watch at game at The Shoe. I have a friend who talked her way past a guard just to walk inside the stadium. There are some great old stadiums that just ooze history and love of football. That’s one of them.
I’ve been to Penn State and really enjoyed the fans, the stadium, and blocking their field goal on the last play of the game. I’ve been to the Rose Bowl when Bama played UCLA there during the regular season.
I’ve also been the Jerry Jones’ $1 billion stadium in Dallas — and it’s amazing what you can buy for a billion — but it’s not like the grand old stadiums. Although I do appreciate the air conditioning.
Maybe when I retire I’ll travel to the other great football venues.
PS — My third son, the Ph.D. in chem. engineering, just took a job with the Air Force in Dayton, which I understand to be in Ohio. Apparently quite a prestigious thing. He is (sadly) an inveterate Auburn fan (they gave him a free ride, so I couldn’t say no). You wouldn’t know of any congregations in Dayton you could recommend?
Buckeye Chuck,
There is a school of thought that Rev is just a general word of encouragement in apocalyptic language — that it doesn’t refer to any historical events other than the Second Coming. This is not Preterism.
There is a school of thought that it was entirely fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (“Full Preterism” as I understand it). Or that Rev is solely about AD 70 and the Second Coming (Partial Preterism?). Or that Rev was fulfilled in some combination of AD 70 and Constantine (the Preterism of Eusebius, among others. I would say Eusebian Preterism, but I’m not on the naming committee). In fact, growing up, I was instructed in the Constantinian theory as a possibility.
No one disputes that Rev is symbolic. The question is always: symbolic of what?
In the New International Commentary on Rev, Mounce takes proposes a series of visions that cover much the same historical ground from different angles, culminating in the Second Coming.
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 32–33.
I’m no expert on Rev but Mounce makes sense to me and sounds a lot like what you’re saying — except he sees Rev 21-22 are the Second Coming.
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 379.
So how do I figure that Rev 21-22 refer to the Second Coming? That’s how. It fits the over-arching scriptural narrative. Everything points to this. Everything. If Rev were not in the canon, we’d still reach a similar conclusion based on the OT and NT writings that speak of the end of the age.
Jay, my congregation is about an hour and a half from Wright Patt, a little far to drive. As far as Dayton area churches, I can’t say I know much of the current state of churches of Christ there. I would venture to say the majority are more conservative or traditional and I am sure there are some quality Christian people there. Sorry, just not much help. There’s an outstanding Air Force Museum there that you should check out. It’s also about an hour north of Cincinnati.
Buckeye Chuck,
Texas, Southern Cal, and South Carolina are now all looking for the best head coach out there. One’s going to get Chip Kelly from the Eagles. Everyone else needs to be worried. I mean, there’s Saban, Meyer, Kelly, Pete Carroll (who seems to like his job in Seattle), and then who? Interesting times …