In the July issue of "The Reformer," a bimonthly publication
out of Phoenix, Arizona, PO Box 10074, 85064-0074 editor Buff Scott takes
issue with some things that have been written lately about the Biblical
promise that in the New Heaven and New Earth there would be no death, no
tears, no pain.
In the April, 1991 "Living Presence," Charles Geiser responded
to an article written by James D. Bales. That article was carried by Olan
Hicks in his monthly newsletter. Geiser pointed out that the best way to
understand the promises of the New Creation is spiritually and not literally.
To literalize means that the Old Covenant prophecies have not yet been
fulfilled and Jesus taught that all prophecy had to be fulfilled before
the Old Covenant could pass. The Reformer's editor took issue with brother
Geiser's view.
This writer does not subscribe to the Reformer nor am I familiar with
Mr. Scott. We assume Mr. Scott sent us an issue because we are one of the
contributing writers to The Living Presence in which Geiser's comments
appeared. It appears that the article under our consideration is only one
of at least four to consider Realized Eschatology. We do appreciate the
tenor of Scott's article. He is not caustic or sarcastic as some writers
have a tendency to be. It appears he simply has addressed what he perceives
as an inconsistency in the Preterist interpretation of the prophecies of
the New Heavens and Earth and is attempting to call attention to it. For
this he cannot be faulted. We are never, at least never should be, offended
when someone kindly challenges what he believes to be error. It is open
discussion that genders and encourages the search for truth, not mud-slinging,
caustic verbiage, or personality assassination.
It might perhaps be brother Geiser's privilege to respond to Mr. Scott;
but hopefully Charley will forgive me for beating him to the computer!
The thrust of Mr. Scott's article can best be summarized as this; Isaiah
65 predicted (s) that in the New Heaven and New Earth there would (will)
be no death. But Mr. Scott says "Believers are dying, crying, hurting,
and sorrowing. I helped to bury a fellow believer the other day. And he
experienced pain before he died." (Emphasis his DKP). Mr. Scott summarizes
by observing that Isaiah predicted infants "would not die young"
and "women will bear no children doomed to misfortune (verses 20-25.)
Has that time arrived? Our brother says yes. Are infants still dying in
infancy? Yes. So whatever Isaiah is teaching, we may rest assured he is
not saying what our brother Geiser is saying." It is self evident
that Mr. Scott takes a rigidly literalistic view of Isaiah's prediction.
Let us take a closer look.
Mr. Scott believes the New Creation has not arrived since there is still
literal, physical death, literal, physical childbirth unto sorrow, literal,
physical pain and suffering. It is obvious he also believes the New Creation
will be sometime in the future.
We shall assume for the moment that Mr. Scott believes Isaiah speaks
of heaven. (It is of course possible Mr. Scott is a millennialist. Even
if so, it will not materially affect what we are about to say.) Can one
interpret Isaiah 65 literally and apply it to heaven? WILL THERE BE LITERAL
DYING IN HEAVEN? (Reader, remember that the Reformer is arguing that since
he helped physically bury a physically dead person recently the New Creation
cannot be present.) Now Isaiah 65 says, "for the child shall DIE (emphasis
mine) an hundred years old" vs.20; and "the sinner being a hundred
years old shall be accursed." The idea is the man who dies at one
hundred years old will be counted as accursed. The point is, in both illustrations
ISAIAH SAYS THERE WOULD BE DYING IN THE NEW CREATION! We dare say Mr. Scott
does not believe there is going to be any literal (AND CERTAINLY NOT SPIRITUAL!)
dying in heaven! As a matter of fact, we dare say Mr. Scott does not believe
there will be any literal PHYSICAL ANYTHING IN HEAVEN!
Does Mr. Scott believe there will be HOUSE BUILDING in heaven? Isaiah
65:21 says in the New Heavens and Earth "they shall build houses and
inhabit them." There will also be farming, the planting of vineyards,
vs.21. Are we to believe this is to be actual physical agricultural farming
in heaven? Will our kind adversary say, "No, those are just spiritual
ideas."? If so, then how does he literalize the no sorrow, no death,
no pain?
An Embarrassing Situation
Does our good editor believe Matthew 22:29ff which contains Jesus' description
of the resurrection state refers to the same as Isaiah 65? If he applies
Isaiah 65 to heaven and Matthew 22 to the end of time as well he is forced
to do so. But if, and we emphasize IF, Mr. Scott so believes, we must state
he has posited a very embarrassing situation indeed for the heavenly state.
Now Isaiah says, "They shall not labor in vain, or bear children
for calamity...." Obviously Isaiah is saying there would (will, per
Mr. Scott) be childbearing in the New Heavens and Earth! But wait.
In Matthew 22 Jesus says in the resurrection, "they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage." We assume Mr. Scott takes this, as he
does Isaiah 65, literally. Please notice the embarrassing situation implied
by Mr. Scott's interpretative method. (Reader, please understand we are
not accusing Mr. Scott of purposely holding the views implied by his interpretation.
We are simply doing as he has done, pointing out what we see as weakness
in his interpretation.)
In the New Heavens and New Earth, which is sometime different from the
present time existence according to Mr. Scott, WOMEN WILL BE BEARING CHILDREN!
The normal view of the New Creation is that it is heaven, therefore, women,
per the view, will be bearing children in heaven; BUT THEY WILL NOT BE
MARRIED!
Jesus said in the resurrection (heaven, per the traditional view) there
will be no marrying! But the traditional view of Isaiah 65 is that it refers
to heaven; and Isaiah says in the New Creation women will bear children.
Mr. Scott has interpreted Isaiah 65 literally when he denied the preterist
construction of the New Creation and insisted that since women still give
birth to children who suffer we cannot be in the New Creation. This implies
that in the New Creation women will still give birth to children, but the
children will not suffer!
But again, Jesus said in Matthew 22 (according to the traditional view)
there will be no marrying in heaven, therefore we state again that Mr.
Scott's view implies that there will be children being born to unmarried
women in heaven!
Will these be illicit children?; Will these be virgin births?; Or will
there actually be conjugal relations in heaven?; What will the purpose
be of these children born in heaven? These are but a few of the serious
questions raised by the literalistic interpretive method employed by Mr.
Scott.
We would observe that the premillennial view does not fare any better
in its view of Isaiah and Matthew 22. That school, at least many of its
advocates with whom I have studied, believes the resurrection takes place
and the resurrected ones enjoy the blissful conditions described by Isaiah.
Therefore amillennialism and premillennialism have the same implications,
they just shift the scene. Amillennialism has Isaiah 65/Matthew 22 in heaven;
premillennialism has it set on earth.
Some Alternatives--But No Help!
There is an alternative position by which it is possible to avoid the
embarrassing view above.
One could argue that Isaiah 65 and Matthew 22 do not speak of the same
situation. In other words, one could hold that Matthew 22 speaks of an
end of time situation, while Isaiah 65 speaks of an in time situation.
Of course to do so one then would be forced to some alternate methods of
interpretation.
He would have to believe that Isaiah 65: 1.) Is not a Messianic prophecy;
2.) Or if it is Messianic it must either be interpreted spiritually; 3.)
Or refer to some Utopian world on earth before the supposed end of time
suggested by Matthew 22.
View number one is difficult because of what the New Covenant has to
say about the prophecy. More on this in a moment.
The second view points one in the direction of Realized Eschatology.
The third view points one in the direction of post-millennialism.
In reality these alternatives, except the second, do not offer much
help at all. In fact, they only compound the problems when one considers
what the New Covenant has to say about Isaiah's prediction.
Isaiah and John on the New Creation
Undeniably, John, in the Apocalypse, speaks of the New Heavens and Earth.
Reader, a question: Is the New Heaven and Earth predicted by Isaiah the
same as that predicted by John in Revelation 21? Few commentators deny
the connection.
John tells us in no uncertain terms that he is writing of the fulfillment
of all that the prophets have spoken, Revelation 10:6-7. Revelation is
concerned about the fulfillment of Old Covenant prophecies!
In Revelation 21-22 we have the description of the New Creation. It
follows the resurrection in chapter 20. In chapter 22:6 God assures John
that the God of the prophets, who spoke about this New Creation he has
been describing, will bring them to reality very soon; they are in fact
"the things which must shortly take place."
What we see then is that John is told that his New Creation is that
predicted by the Old Covenant prophets. And who among the Old Prophets
foretold a New Creation in which there would be no need of the sun; there
would be no sorrow; there would be no curse; there would be life and peace?
It was Isaiah.
The undeniable link between Isaiah and Revelation poses this very perplexing
problem. John was told that what he saw "must shortly come to pass";
and, "the time is near." It was so imminent, in fact, that the
Revelator used an idiomatic saying to express the absolutely last hour
situation: "let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and let the
one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still
practice righteousness...Behold, I come quickly..." vs. 11-12. In
other words, the time for change was over (not forever and always; just
in that situation), the Lord was coming soon to reward and judge, vs. 12.
Compare Matthew 16:27-28.
Our point is this: if you associate Isaiah's New Creation and John's
(or Peter's in II Peter 3:13), you are faced with the undeniable fact that
John was told the New Creation was at hand; it "must shortly come
to pass." That was over two thousand years ago! And what about the
word "MUST"? Did that only mean "maybe"?
The situation is this then: Jesus said in the resurrection world there
would be no marrying, Matthew 22. John, in describing the resurrection
world calls it the New Heavens and Earth of which the prophets spoke, Revelation
20-22. Isaiah says that in the New Heaven and Earth, which is John's resurrection
world, in which Jesus said there would be no marriage, women would give
birth to babies! Therefore, it seems inescapable that if one literalizes
the promises of the New Heaven and Earth, the resurrection world, as does
our friendly editor, it means that in the New Heavens and Earth there literally
will be unmarried women bearing children!
There is a good deal more about Isaiah 65 and our friendly editor's
view that we could explore. We believe, however, that we have demonstrated
that the literalistic interpretation of the text poses some very serious
consequences indeed.
We believe the only view which does not pose such serious interpretative
snafus is that which sees the New Creation as the consummated Kingdom of
our Lord in which those who believe in him do not die, John 8:51; in which
there is peace, Phil 4:4ff; there is eternal life 1 John 5:13; in which
God's new people, Ephesians 2:12ff; wearing his new name, Is. 65/I Peter
4; offer up spiritual sacrifices in the New Temple, I Peter 2:5; Heb. 13:15f.
This New World was consummated when God destroyed his old people, Isaiah
65:13ff, the Old Jerusalem; the Old Heavens and Earth of Judaism, Isaiah
51:15-16; bringing to a close the Old World (Age, Matthew 24:3) and bringing
to glorious perfection, 1 Cor. 13:8, the New World. That time was when
Jesus returned and destroyed the capital and hub of the Old World, Jerusalem,
in AD 70.