Something on the "New Heavens and New Earth"

Steve has a question about the “new heavens and the new earth” . . .

The phrase occurs four times in scripture (cf. Isa. 65:17; 66:22,23; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1).

Let's work with the Isaiah passages first and work our way forward into the NT use of his text, since it is his strand that influences Peter and John and provides a template for them to use . . .

First, the prophets are NOT always predictive. I mean to say that they, at times, just “dream” of a new tomorrow. If you were an OT, exilic fellow, what pieces of furniture would you expect if somebody just told you about a “new tomorrow”? Wouldn't you expect to hear things, ideally, about a new temple, new David, new united kingdom, etc., etc., etc. All of the old images of peace and bliss get “picked up” by the prophets as they each contribute to a collective portrait of idealism. They “imagine” the Messianic era rather than predict all these little snippets. Let me go a bit further with two analogies . . .

In 1941, Walter Kent writes a piece while Hitler and his goons are bombing London night-after-night, and he writes something like, “There'll be bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover, tomorrow, just you wait and see. There'll be love and laughter and joy ever after tomorrow, when the world is free. The shepherd will tend to their own little sheep again and Jimmy will go to sleep in his own little room again. There'll be bluebirds over the white cliffs of Dover, tomorrow, just you wait and see.” Certainly, we don't expect Kent to be “predicting” – he's not miraculously endowed! – No, instead, we hear him “dreaming” of an ideal day, a day of reversal, when Hitler's whole regime is gutted.

See, we often, incorrectly, try to interpret the prophetic texts with this “one size fits all” model of either 1) literalism or 2) allegorization, but while the “literal” interpretation simply must be ditched because of far too many problems, the “allegorical” interpretation, where every little piece of furniture gets “itemized” and gets some figurative/symbolic treatment, must be ditched, too. The allegorical approach is NOT the only “figurative” way of reading the prophets, and there are just as many problems with it as there are with the “literal” approach. For instance, Isaiah paints of the ideal day under the Messiah, but in one place he has peaceful lions (Isa. 11:6,7) while in another he insists that there will be no lions there (Isa. 35:8,9). Isaiah often speaks of Gentile incorporation into the covenantal people of God under the Messiah (Isa. 2; 19; 60; 65; 66) but others speak of Gentile extermination (Eze. 44:9; Zec. 14:16-21). Now, are these “conflicting” statements?! Well, if taken literally or allegorically, they CANNOT be reconciled. BUT, if taken another way, they can be. Again, we're committed to reading the prophets “figuratively” but “allegory” is not the only way to read “figuratively.” More in a moment . . .

Imagine that you “dreamed” of the ideal day . . . What would it involve? A morning of sleeping in? Waking up to a nice big breakfast, cooked by your loving and beautiful wife? A fresh, hot pot of coffee? Having the day off of work? Taking time to play a round of golf? Meeting up with the family for lunch and an outing? Doing dinner at a nice restaurant? Ending the day by seeing a film at the theatre? Would that suit your fancy?! Now, what would you think if time didn't permit you to do all of that . . . and what if your “ideal day” didn't allow you to “sleep in” as long as you'd wished? or, what if you had to skip that nice big breakfast just so you could get the round of golf in? If certain pieces of the furniture/details were not literally/allegorically fulfilled, would you say that the whole enterprise had been wrecked?! Well, I suppose if your ideal day was INTENDED to make a list where all of those things needed to get done, then, yes, it would be. But, if you were just “dreaming” of the KIND of day where the ideals were right and appropriate, then, even if some of the pieces here-and-there fall out – well, the ideal day could still be fulfilled anyway.

See, if the prophets intend to speak literally or allegorically, then that's one thing . . . But, when it comes to the day under the Messiah, that's hardly what they're doing. No, against their own dark and dismal backdrops under oppression, they “dream” of the Messiah's ideal era that would eventually break forth because God had promised. No more than Kent literally or allegorically speaks of a “tomorrow” or “shepherds” or “bluebirds” or “Jimmy” do the prophets speak literally of all of these things of the Messiah . . . See, we know that Kent is just “dreaming” of the new tomorrow, a KIND of day, as contrasted with the old day under Hitler. He doesn't have anything specific, predictive, in mind when he speaks . . . And if, in the day of Hitler's fall, it isn't literally “tomorrow,” or if bluebirds dosn't literally fly over the white cliffs or if . . . well, Kent isn't thinking allegorically of the day of Hitler's suicide or the day of the Nuremburg trials or anything of that sort . . . He's just dreaming of the KIND of redemptive day as contrasted with the oppressive KIND of day. And the prophets do this too . . . All of the prophets contributed to this collective portrait under the Messiah (cf. Acts 3:22-24).

So, the “contradictions” within the prophetic texts aren't really all that bothersome. Why?! Because the prophets aren't interested in presenting the Messianic era with precise, literal or allegorical details. Instead, they all contribute to “the big picture.” The same point is being made by talking about peaceful lions or no lions at all – both characterize the peace under the Messiah; the same point is being made by talking about Gentile conversion or Gentile extermination – both characterize the kind of peace imagined under the Messiah. See, the prophets aren't outlining human history . . . They are DREAMING of the day under the Messiah, and if there are conflicting images in the portrait, well, they're all contributing to the same big picture anyway and were never intended to be anything other than “imagination” anyway. Like with Walter Kent or our ideal vision of what the perfect day might look like, if a few of the little contributing details don't get fulfilled “down to the letter,” well, the intent was never that way in the first place. We often “miss the forest for the trees,” and as one said, “We often see brush strokes where we should be seeing entire portraits.”

How does all of this bring us to Isaiah and the “new heavens and new earth”?

Well, Isaiah has an “old day” at his back: the Assyrian-Babylonian exile. And, against that backdrop, Isaiah begins to imagine idealism under the Messiah. All of the features that Isaiah includes in his collective portrait of the “new heavens and new earth” are just that: “imagination.” He's not predicting literally or allegorically: he is dreaming. And, for whatever this is worth, the “new heavens and new earth” simply is part of the Messianic imagination. Isaiah dreams . . . and he imagines the whole world being set right. Why, no wonder he “imagines” the world as being like Eden again (Isa. 11 paired up with 65:25); no wonder he talks about babies not dying before they reach 100 years of age – he's hardly emphasizing that death will still take place in the “new heavens and new earth” (65:20); and he imagines the wicked dying before they reach 100 years of age (65:20), but what are they doing in the “new heavens and new earth”?!

See, all of these little details contribute to Isaiah's big picture . . . the Messiah is coming to reverse the OPPRESSOR'S WORLD. At some point, Assyrian-Babylon will be judged and the Messiah's era will nicely be ushered in (cf. Isa. 13:13). And, with an imagined era set over against Assyria-Babylon, Isaiah speaks of “new” things all over; he speaks of “new songs” (42:9,10), “new things” (43:18,19), “new names” (62:2,4,12) and “new heavens and earths” (65:17; 66:22,23). All of these things stand over against the old world of the oppressor, and so, in the prophetic dream/imagination, the Messiah's day (painted in figurative speech that would have resonated to the OT Jews) is collectively drawn up and imagined by all of the prophets (like Isaiah).

Now, there are two more things that I need to say . . .

First, interpreters conflict on how to work out Isaiah's text . . . One view insists that Isaiah's vision was fulfilled in the end of the Babylonian exile. That'd put the fulfillment around 536 B.C. when the Jews came home. Another view insists that it all speaks of the NT church and the coming of the Christ. Another view insists that it's all still yet to be fulfilled in our future. Of course, you can see how each of these views would require a blend of literal and figurative interpretation – the arbitrariness of when to see things as literal or figurative gets quite messy I think. BUT, if we see Isaiah as “imagining” an ideal day as contrasted with the oppressor – and if that is his intention – then we don't have to commit ourselves to either a literal interpretation (which has loads of problems) or an allegorical interpretation (which has loads of problems) or even to a blended interpretation (which suffers the severe problem of arbitrariness and toggling between the two views at the pure subjectivity of the interpreter). No, instead, if we hear Isaiah IMAGINING the IDEAL DAY UNDER THE MESSIAH, then it wouldn't shock me if SOME of the images/furniture/details surface literally in the return home from Assyria-Babylon but that still doesn't capture the full essence of “the big (Messianic) picture.”

See, Isaiah (and the others) “telescope” the Assyria-Babylonian crisis and the coming of the Messiah into one nice big event. (Daniel makes it clear that 4 empires must come-and-go before the Messianic kingdom actually surfaces [2 and 7].) But, I'm saying that Isaiah ultimately is IMAGINING the Messianic era against the Assyrian-Babylonian oppression/domination.

The problem with the allegorical view, that Isaiah is predicting the NT church in figurative terms, simply misses on a few things . . . First, it arbitrarily provides allegorical/symbolic meaning to items. Second, it contradicts in the interpretation of those items because they, taken allegorically, contradict. Third, it loses touch with the actual context of the prophets and the people to whom they minister. I'm convinced that a “prophetic imagination” of a coming Messianic day solves all of these problems. Think about it . . .

But, there is a second thing that needs to be noted . . . Isaiah is working with an OLD TESTAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. That is to say this: Isaiah's “eschatological expectation” differs from ours. He is working with the assumption of a physical Jerusalem, a physical Messiah and a physical restoration after the oppressor's era. He knows nothing of a SECOND coming of the Messiah – only the first and final one, as he thinks of it! – knows nothing of acapella singing, Lord's suppers, end of the planet, bodily resurrection, etc., etc., etc. So, if Isaiah is to speak of a day after the oppressor, how might you think he'd have done it?! He will use furniture and expectations that suit him!

See, it wouldn't shock me if, for Isaiah, he is painting a picture that blends together 1) the era after the Assyria-Babylonian crisis, 2) the era under the Messiah and 3) the era of the final stage of the world. So, when interpreters select one of the three (at the expense of the other two), I think that they're flattening out Isaiah's own eschatological expectation. For Isaiah, he's seeing those three things as blended together. When we only see one of those three, problems start to surface. We just simply need to be aware that Peter and John are not insisting that Isaiah's fulfillment lies in their own future. If we go that way, immediate problems start to arise. And, taken allegorically or literally – as many are inclined to do – those problems are numerous and heavy.

See, a popular view that is arising (again) is that the prophetic vision has not been fulfilled and that John and Peter are speaking of the same thing that is yet to come in our future. Look, that's just not going to go. There are conflicting images between them if taken allegorically or literally. Ezekiel talks about the coming era's having a temple (47:1), closed gates (44:1,2), no foreigners (44:5-9) and death (44:25), but John says the opposite of each of these things (Rev. 21:4,22,24,25). Then, there are problems that arise when the prophets speak of OT images that are supposed to be present in the Messiah's era, the “new heavens and new earth,” such as the Zadokite priesthood (Eze. 43:19; 44:15), the OT festivals (Eze. 45:17; 46:1-12), the Passover (Eze. 45:21-25), etc., etc. And, then, there are the problems with the book of Revelation itself; one text says that they'll serve “day and night” in God's temple (7:15-17) but then later John says that there'll be no night there and that there is no temple (Rev. 21:22,25). Look, again, the literal and/or allegorical interpretations simply fail. BUT, if each is making a contribution to an IMAGINED IDEAL ERA, then we have possibilities . . .

So, as I try to bring this to a close, let me suggest what John and Peter are doing . . .

John and Peter see Isaiah as presenting an ideal image (as imagined under the Messiah) as contrasted with the oppressor of his own day (Assyria-Babylon). Isaiah's whole “imagination” stands over against the oppressor's world, so he paints a collective portrait of a new tomorrow under God's redemption. Well, now, John (with Rome) and Peter (with Jerusalem) speak of a “new era” after the oppressor's world falls. After the crisis, God's redemption will break forth and the oppressor's world will be shaken once more.

John isn't saying that Isaiah hadn't yet been fulfilled. Peter isn't saying that Isaiah hadn't yet been fulfilled. Isaiah spake of a DAY – why, they all did; see Acts 3:24. That “DAY” reached its full realization in the breaking forth of the Jewish Messiah. John and Peter use that same template/model to say that their own oppressors, too, would be overcome by God's redemption.

We need to commit ourselves to an interpretive method . . . I'm suggesting that the allegorical and literal views are filled with inconsistency and can't be maintained. Maybe, if we take the route I've suggested, the problems will fade away and all of the little details will start falling into their appropriate places?

I've written a short little piece on this; if you're that interested in pursuing this for 300 pages, you can find it here: https://cadleonard.com/books

If this is all still complex and you've got further questions – I do! – pursue me on it.