“General Richard Taylor, in one of the best Confederate memoirs,’Destruction and Reconstruction’, related what happened as he surrendered the last Confederate troops east of the Mississippi in 1865;
A German, wearing the uniform of a Yankee general and speaking in heavily accented English, lectured him that now that the war was over, Southerners would be taught ‘the true American principles.’ Taylor replied, sardonically, that he regretted that his grandfather, an officer in the Revolution, and his father, President of the United States, had not passed on to him true American principles. Yankeeism was triumphant.”
Christian Plumbing?
Recently, discussion has occurred (again) at certain environs on how ridiculous it is to make a distinction between a Christian plumber and a non-Christian plumber.
However, I protest.
The reason I protest is that when we concede that Christian plumbing and non-Christian plumbing are exactly the same since both the pagan plumber and the Christian plumber are turning the same pvc pipe, using the same tools, and patching the same leaks we fail to comprehend how it is the case that the pagan plumber has stolen huge amounts of Christian capital in order to even think about plumbing in an orderly fashion. Remember, if the pagan plumber was being consistent with his Christ hating worldview there would be no order nor structure, nor rhyme nor reason to anything, including plumbing. Non Christian worldviews, if consistently thought through and acted upon would be complete and total, time plus chance plus circumstance random chaos. A Christ hating plumber, who was consistent with his worldview, could very well run your plumbing so that every time you turn on the stove water spurts forth, or alternately he could charge you for making your problem even worse.
At this point someone might protest and say .. “But that wouldn’t really be plumbing.” To which I would respond, “Apart from a Christian worldview what is plumbing?” “Apart from a Christian worldview what is a wrench?” “Apart from a Christian worldview what is a leak?” “Apart from a Christian worldview what is pvc pipe?” You see, before the plumber can even begin to plumb he has to make certain assumptions about the world and his plumbing role in it. If he is a Christ hating plumber, who is consistent with his Christ hating worldview, you’re going to get a far different finished repair job then the Christian plumber who is consistent with his Christ affirming worldview.
Now, I’m glad to concede that non Christian plumbers often do Christian plumbing, in the sense that they borrow capital from a Christian worldview in order to approach plumbing needs with a sanguinary amount of skill. However, to deny that, in principle, there is no difference between Christian plumbing and non Christian plumbing is to misunderstand the powerful influence that worldviews have on every facet of life — including plumbing.
If we lived in a world where the antithesis between Christianity and non-Christianity had arrived closer to a terminal point I think we would see more easily how it is legitimate to speak of Christian and non Christian plumbing.
Maybe if the former Soviets had had some Christian plumbers on hand Chernobyl would have never happened?
A Slightly Different Narrative
“The Slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and glory of all their wealth. The Mother lulls the child to sleep with notes of triumph of an enemy reduced to slavery.”
Black African King — King Gezo of Dahomey
1840
Upon hearing of the United Kingdom’s ending of the Slave trade The King of Bonny (now in Nigeria) was horrified at the conclusion of the practice and said,
” We think this trade must go on. That is the verdict of our oracle and the priests. They say that your country, however great, can never stop a trade ordained by God himself.”
Contra Tuininga
Are Christians Under the Ten Commandments?
Over at Mr. Tuininga’s blog he discusses some propositions that he and Mr. Mark Van der Molen agreed upon regarding R2K. I take up to examine Mr. Tuinga’s reasoning on these matters.
R2K Practitioner
“In practice I don’t think most people have any trouble distinguishing between the Ten Commandments as given and the moral substance of those commandments as timeless. After all, the commandments specifically address the covenant people of God (I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt), make promises unique to the covenant people of God (that you may live long in the land the LORD your God has given you), and provide reasons unique to the covenant people of God (for the LORD brought you out of a land of slavery). Such covenant language could not have been transferred to ancient Egyptians or Canaanites any more than it can be transferred to contemporary Tibetan Buddhists or even to American Evangelicals.”
Of course the paragraph above is inconsistent with what the Westminster Larger Catechsim teaches,
Question 100: What special things are we to consider in the ten commandments?
Answer: We are to consider, in the ten commandments, the preface, the substance of the commandments themselves, and several reasons annexed to some of them, the more to enforce them.
Understand what is being advocated by our R2K Practitioner is the idea that the Ten Commandments themselves serve as a kind of shell (husk) within which one finds the kernel of “moral substance.” In the new and better covenant, according to this theory, the shell of the ten commandments has fallen away and we now have only to do with the kernel of moral substance. This is the same way that the Barthians argue about the word of God as a whole. The Bible contains the Word of God (kernel) but it is not itself the word of God, but only the shell. How do the Barthians get to the kernel? By way of “encounter.” How does the R2K chaps get to the kernel of moral substance? No one quite knows yet.
Our R2K devotee talks about all the uniqueness that “proves” that we no longer have to do with the Ten Commandments themselves and yet, St. Paul, in the book of Ephesians seems not to agree with that argument. In Ephesians 6 the Holy Spirit does indeed transfer the covenant language of Exodus 20 to a Gentile congregation in Ephesus.
6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”
Now why does the Holy Spirit bring up the husk of the commandment to the Gentile Ephesians if He was only going after the kernel of their necessity to obey the moral substance? Clearly He wouldn’t and didn’t.
Secondly, when our R2K Practitioner divides the people of God this way, it sure seems he is going all Dispensational on us. He is telling us that the promise of the 5th commandment no longer applies and it only applied to Israel. However, a reading of Ephesians 6 with a different eschatology could as easily see that the promise of the 5th commandment still applies to God’s people today in as much as the land God’s people are to inherit is the whole earth.
Thirdly,our R2K friend disconnects us from our covenantal brethren of the Old Testament. As Christians are we no longer to consider the delivery from Egypt as part of our History? Does that make any more sense then saying that I am no longer to consider myself an American because I wasn’t alive at the signing of the Declaration of Independence? True, the greater delivery has come with the finished work of Christ that has delivered that Church, come of age, from the slavery of our sin. Yet, the fulfillment, doesn’t negate the fact that part of my History, as a member of the covenant community, is the reality that God delivered my people from the hand of Pharaoh, and his house of bondage and that promises were made that still remain in force.
R2K practitioner
“Why not? Because the Ten Commandments are the centerpiece of a specific legal document, a covenant often referred to by theologians as the Mosaic Covenant and described in the New Testament simply as “the Law.” Neither Jews nor Christians have ever received them simply as a timeless statement of ethical principles, which is why Jews do not view the sabbath law as binding on Gentiles, and why Christians do not hold to the seventh day sabbath. If Christians literally believed that the Decalogue was given to all people in all places as a timeless statement of moral law, we would all be Seventh Day Adventists, seeking the reward for our obedience to our parents by relocating to the land of Israel.”
Our R2K Devotee fails on the 4th because the Church has always believed that the day was changed to Sunday by God, according to a hermeneutic where the good and necessary consequence of the Sabbath change was deduced from Scripture. The New Testament church, under the tutelage of the Apostles, changed the day of one in seven observance relative to the secular calendar. The change, like the change in the sacraments from Passover to Table and Circumcision to Baptism, was one where the substance remained while the form had changed. With Christ the re-creation age had come and in the re-creation age we find new and better sacraments and a new and better day of Worship. The first day of the week was lighted upon most probably because it was the day on which Jesus had been raised from the dead (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 25:1; John 20:1). Also, the risen Lord also chose the first day of the week on which to manifest himself to his disciples when they were gathered together (John 20:19,26). Regardless, it seems that the first day of the week probably came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10), and seems to have been the day on which the church gathered with the approval of the Apostles (Acts 20:7), an approval that reflected their unique office. Certainly, our R2K Practitioner isn’t implying that the day was just kind of changed on authority that was independent from God’s authority? Such thinking would leave the Apostle’s incredulous.
If we follow the rationale of our R2K friend we might ask ourselves what other aspects of the Decalogue are we allowed to change by our own authority. If we changed worship from Saturday to Sunday on our own authority are we allowed to Honor only our Father’s but not our Mother’s on our own authority? Who is to say we are not allowed? By what principle?
Also, if his reasoning holds, and this idea of being governed by the substance of the moral law (as opposed to the ten commandments) is true, then not only in the common realm but also in the Church realm we are to be governed by Natural law (which he equates with the substance of the moral law). I mean, of all people it is Christians in the Church realm who are operating with the change in the 4th. At this point Natural law comes in and is the authority for the Church in the Church realm. How can he escape the idea that Christians are normed by the Natural law in the realm of grace?
R2K Practitioner,
“Most of us follow the lead of Christian theologians going back to the middle ages and distinguish between the moral substance of the Law – which we equate with the principle of love, or with natural law – and the covenantally contextual elements of that Law, usually described as the judicial and ceremonial law, which no longer bind us.”
Note here that this looks to be another move to dispensationalize the moral law. What we have now is that not only does the general equity of the judicial law not apply but also now the moral law as the moral law does not apply. What applies instead is the “principle of love.” It sounds to me that what he is doing here is defining the law by “love” as opposed to the more Biblical stance of defining love by law. Jesus Himself defined love by law when he said, “If you love me keep my commandments.” Are we to think that the commandments of the incarnate 2nd person of the Trinity were other than the Ten Commandments?
We have learned from what he has written that “principle of love”, “substance of the moral law”, and “Natural law” are all synonymous. These three abideth but the greatest of these is no literal Ten Commandments.
R2K Advocate,
“In addition, we follow the logic of the theologian John Calvin, who distinguished between the rigor and contractual legal force of the law, which no longer binds Christians, and the truth or teaching of the law, which is always profitable for moral instruction.”
As long as we understand that the Same John Calvin said,
The French Confession
XXXIX. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates,[1] so that some restraint may be put upon its disordered appetites. And as he has established kingdoms, republics, and all sorts of principalities, either hereditary or otherwise, and all that belongs to a just government, and wishes to be considered as their Author, so he has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the first as well as against the second table of the Commandments of God. We must therefore, on his account, not only submit to them as superiors,[2] but honor and hold them in all reverence as his lieutenants and officers, whom he has commissioned to exercise a legitimate and holy authority.
1. Exod. 18:20-21; Matt. 17:24-27; Rom. ch. 13
2. I Peter 2:13-14; I Tim. 2:2
And again,
But this was sayde to the people of olde time. Yea, and God’s honour must not be diminished by us at this day: the reasons that I have alleadged alreadie doe serve as well for us as for them. Then lette us not thinke that this lawe is a speciall lawe for the Jewes; but let us understand that God intended to deliver to us a generall rule, to which we must tye ourselves…Sith it is so, it is to be concluded, not onely that is lawefull for all kinges and magistrates, to punish heretikes and such as have perverted the pure trueth; but also that they be bounde to doe it, and that they misbehave themselves towardes God, if they suffer errours to roust without redresse, and employ not their whole power to shewe a greater zeale in that behalfe than in all other things.
Calvin, Sermons upon Deuteronomie, p. 541-542
R2K Advocate,
“In taking this approach to the Ten Commandments we follow the Apostle Paul in Romans. Paul argued that Christians are no longer under the Law, having been freed from it and bound to Christ just as a woman whose husband has died is free to marry a new husband. At the same time, he called Christians to love one another, declaring that by doing so they fulfill the moral substance of all the commandments.”
It is difficult to see how this is not a anti-nomian reading of Romans 7. The point of Romans 7 is not that Christians no longer have any relationship to the law. The point of Romans 7 is that Christians no longer have a relationship to the law in its capacity to condemn since with Christ they died to the condemning power of the law. Our R2K Practitioner sounds like some kind of dispensationalist who, in saying , “we are no longer law but under grace,” what he means is that we no longer have to consider God’s law word as a guide to life.
What does our R2K Devotee do with the Westminster Larger Catechism?
Question 99: What rules are to be observed for the right understanding of the ten commandments?
Answer: For the right understanding of the ten commandments, these rules are to be observed: That the law is perfect, and binds everyone to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin. That it is spiritual, and so reaches the understanding, will, affections, and all other powers of the soul; as well as words, works, and gestures. That one and the same thing, in divers respects, is required or forbidden in several commandments. That as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden, the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatening is included; and, where a threatening is annexed, the contrary promise is included. That: What God forbids, is at no time to be done;: What he commands, is always our duty; and yet every particular duty is not to be done at all times. That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded; together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and provocations thereunto. That: What is forbidden or commanded to ourselves, we are bound, according to our places, to endeavor that it may be avoided or performed by others, according to the duty of their places. That in: What is commanded to others, we are bound, according to our places and callings, to be helpful to them; and to take heed of partaking with others in: What is forbidden them.
R2K Advocate,
“Everyone involved in the discussion agrees that the moral law as presented in the Ten Commandments is binding on all people and all places, and (as far as I can tell) everyone agrees that the elements of the law that were covenantally specific to Israel are not. Nevertheless, given the consternation of some Reformed Christians regarding those who try to explain why this is the case, the point clearly needs clarification. I hope this post has helped to provide just that.”
Understand what is being said here is that the moral law is binding on all people and all places but the Ten Commandments are not. Remember Husk and Kernel. Remember that our R2K friend equates the moral law with Natural law. It is Natural Law that is binding on all people and all places, not the Ten Commandments.
Yes everyone agrees that the elements of the law that were covenantally specific to Israel are not applicable but we do not agree what elements of the law were and were not covenantally specific to Israel. For example, many Reformed people believe, along with Westminster XIX:4, that the general equity of the judicials remain.
That this has long been an understanding among Reformed folk is seen in Gillespie saying,
“Though we have clear and full scriptures in the New Testament of the abolishing the ceremonial law, yet we no where read in all the New Testament of the abolishing of the judicial law, so far as it did concern the punishing of sins against the moral law, of which heresy and seducing of souls is one, and a great one. Once God did reveal his will for punishing those sins by such and such punishments. He who will hold that the Christian Magistrate is not bound to inflict such punishments for such sins, is bound to prove that those former laws of God are abolished, and show some Scripture for it.”
George Gillespie – Westminster Divine
Wholesome Severity Reconciled With Christian Liberty
Notes and Thoughts on Isaiah 65 / II Corinthians 5:17f
17 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing,
And her people a joy.
19 I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people;
The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her,
Nor the voice of crying.
20 “ No more shall an infant from there live but a few days,
Nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days;
For the child shall die one hundred years old,
But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
They shall not plant and another eat;
For as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of My people,
And My elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain,
Nor bring forth children for trouble;
For they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the LORD,
And their offspring with them.
24 “ It shall come to pass
That before they call, I will answer;
And while they are still speaking, I will hear.
25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
The lion shall eat straw like the ox,
And dust shall be the serpent’s food.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,”
Says the LORD.
This passage has been surrounded by a great deal of debate as to when we can anticipate such blessedness. Pre-millennialist insists that this description comes to pass in the Kingdom that Christ establishes once He returns. A-millennialists insist that this description comes to pass in the eschaton. Post-millenialist insist that all that Isaiah speaks of has been inaugurated by and in Christ, and so will come progressively in Christ as His Kingdom (His new creation of heaven and earth) like the Mustard seed, increasingly reflects what it has already established in an inaugurative fashion, with the consummation being the fulfillment of what has been inaugurated and all that is becoming true progressively.
The problem with the Pre-millennialist vision is that it hasn’t grasped the reality that Christ is King now (I Cor. 15:24-25, Col. 1:13, Mt. 28:18, Rev. 1:5, Eph. 1:22-23) and has inaugurated a Kingdom that has brought the age to come to overcome this present wicked age. Premillennialism fails to see that Christ’s inaugurated and present Kingdom is like leaven that will spread throughout this present wicked age so that the Kingdoms of this World will be the Kingdoms of the Christ. Pre-millennialism fails to see that Christ as King has brought the age to come and deposited it in the Church so that the Church, because it is the community of ‘the age to come’, is the ‘age to come’ equipping institution that sends forth its Captains to victoriously assault the gates of hell as those gates, protecting various realms and lacuna of this present wicked age, stand in usurping defiance against the Crown Rights of King Jesus and the extension of His Kingdom. In the Pre-millennial vision Isaiah 65 awaits some far future day because it can’t be true now because until Christ returns defeat is the expectation and lot of the community of the ‘age to come’ (The Church) .
The problem with the amillennialists vision as it pertains to Isaiah 65 is that the language in Isaiah 65 doesn’t fit the glorified state (consummation) and that is exactly what you will find the typical amillennialist arguing. First, in Isaiah’s description you have people still dying (vs. 20). I Cor. 15 teaches that death is the last enemy to be defeated, but defeated he will be in the glorified state. Therefore, contra amillennialism, Isaiah 65 can’t be describing the glorified state because in the glorified state people don’t die.
Second, just as Isaiah describes dying in this new heavens and new earth so he describes giving birth (23). I know of nobody who teaches that in the eternal state unmarried women (Matthew 22:30) will be giving birth.
Third, the amillennialist vision, like their pre-millennialist counterparts is one of defeatism. The amillennialist believes that the Satan and Christ’s Kingdoms grow together until the end, but they insist that the growth of Christ’s Kingdom is primarily Spiritual (read invisible) while conceding that the growth of Satan’s Kingdom is both Spiritual and Visible. According to the Amillennialist Christ’s Kingdom is keeping pace with Satan’s Kingdom but like Harvey the Rabbit nobody can see it. Amillennialism’s approach doesn’t correspond to Daniel’s Rock (Daniel 2) that crushes all other Kingdoms in absolute triumph, nor does it offer a reasonable explanation of how it can be that Satan’s Kingdom grows correspondingly to Christ’s Kingdom when one of the effects of Christ’s death was to plunder Satan’s goods (Mark 3:27).
27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.
If the two Kingdoms are growing correspondingly how can it be said that Christ has plundered Satan’s Kingdom? In the Amillennial vision Isaiah 65 awaits the eschaton because it can’t be true now because until Christ returns cultural and civilizational defeat is the expectation and lot of the community of the ‘age to come’ (The Church).
In the Biblical (postmillennial) vision Isaiah 65 is a perfect picture of what Christ is accomplishing and will accomplish because of what Christ has accomplished. Postmillennialists see Isaiah 65 tracking well with New Testament passages like II Corinthians 5:17
“Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.” 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself
Scholars such as Calvin, Torrance, Beale, and Bruce, find Isaiah 65:17f to be the conceptual background text for II Corinthians 5:17f. Note the parallel between the new heaven and new earth in Isaiah 65 and the new creation in II Corinthians. Note Isaiah’s mention of the “Former things” and St. Paul’s mention of the “ancient things.”
The thinking among some is that the idea of reconciliation that Paul mentions here is a overlapping idea of Isaiah’s vision of restoration. The idea being that as one is reconciled to Christ (II Cor. 5:17), one is placed into the new creation age which is the same restorational age that Isaiah speaks of in Chapter 65. We are reconciled in Christ who is the one who stands at the Head of this restored age of which Isaiah prophesies.
So what we find in II Cor. 5 is St. Paul’s expression that the Lord Christ is the one in whom the New Creation takes place and is the one in whom the inaugurated fulfillment of the Isaiah 65 restoration takes place. To be reconciled to Christ is to begin to live in the age to come that Isaiah describes.
Calvin can write,
“By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; as if God has said that he has both the inclination and the power not only to restore His Church, but to restore it in such a manner that it shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world. These are exaggerated modes of expression; but the greatness of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming.”
Five Centuries after Calvin, G. K. Beale could echo that Calvin sentiment by writing,
” … Against the Isaiah background both his (Christ’s) death and resurrection can be viewed as inaugurating the true Israel, the church, into the presence of God. We suggest that just as Christ, the true Israel, was separated from the Father because of His vicarious death on behalf of His people (II Cor. 5:14-15, 21) and was restored from the exile of death to a relationship with God by means of the resurrection, so likewise is the Church restored from the exile of sinful alienation through corporate identification with Christ…. Simply put, Paul understands both “new creation” in Christ as well as reconciliation in Christ as the inaugurated fulfillment of Isaiah’s promise of a new creation in which Israel would be restore to peaceful relations w/ Yahweh.”
The emphasis here in II Corinthians 5 is that the believer is united with Christ who is the Second Adam and in whom one becomes part of a new humanity as part of the new creation. And that new humanity is described as it lives life out on earth in Isaiah 65
Obviously, some might protest that those who are new creations in Christ don’t look so new — their old way of life clings to definitively to them — but to say such a thing misses that what the Apostle is bringing to the forefront here — and that is because of Union with Christ what can be predicated about Christ can be said of the one united to Christ. Because Christ is raised he who was formerly in Adam but who is now in Christ is now raised (Romans 6:5). Because Christ is seated in the heavenlies he who was formerly in Adam but who is now in Christ is seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6). Because Christ in His triumph has been invested with a Kingdom, he who was formerly in Adam, but who is now in Christ, has been translated to reside in that Kingdom of His Savior (Col. 1:13). We can well see why Paul says that ‘all things have become new.’ All of these things are declared as true of the redeemed individual, who as a member of Christ’s new humanity takes his place in the new heavens and earth that Christ has brought. As members of that new creation the Holy Spirit is progressively working in them to reverse the effects of the fall so that they increasingly personally correspond to what is true of them, in principle, because of their union with Christ. As that salvation becomes progressively true of and in them so that they increasingly become what they have been freely declared to be they take that salvation into every area of life wherein they have been called by their Savior and so being saved they bring th4e aroma of salvation to all their living and so, being salt and light, they extend Christ’s Kingdom.
The same kind of reasoning holds for the Isaiah 65 passage. In the resurrection, ascension, session, and vindication of Christ in AD 70 His always coming Kingdom has come in principle and so is coming progressively and will come consummatively, and so Christians dwell in a new heavens and earth which have been created by Christ’s victory. The former heavens and earth — which should be understood as the OT economy in the redemptive drama of Christ — have been shaken and what remains is the new heaven and earth that can’t be shaken (Hebrews 13:25f). What is not remembered in Isaiah 65:17 is who we were in Adam as well as the former ceremonial legislation, which was the shadow covenant.
Some will object to insisting that the idea that the creation of a new heavens and earth that is mentioned in Isaiah 65:17 should be equated with the end of the OT economy and the bringing in of Christ’s Kingdom. Amillennialist especially will insist that what is required by the ‘new heavens and earth’ language of Isa. 65 is a literal new universe. However, we have seen already that this can’t be true because of the insuperable difficulties that attach themselves to that kind of reading.
(Is this new physical universe going to have death in it? Will there be child-birth in the Consummated age?)
Therefore since Isaiah 65 can’t be referring to a recreated physical universe we must look elsewhere for an explanation. Such an explanation is found by understanding that the creation of a new heavens and new earth is prophetic language for God’s instituting His Messianic New World Order.
—————————————————————————–
John Owen helps us here as we consider God’s Messianic New World Order
In commenting on II Peter 3:15-17 which speaks about the heavens and earth being reserved for fire John Owen could say,
“On this foundation I affirm, that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition upon ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of the heaven and the earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical Church and state;…
Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, vs. 13, ‘We according to his promise look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isaiah 65:17. Now, when shall this be that God will create these ‘new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?’ Saith Peter, ‘It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the Gospel, that I foretell.’ But now is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chapter 66:21-22, that this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of the Gospel ordinances to endure forever. The same thing is expressed in Hebrews 12:26-28.”
Similarly the Puritan John Brown commenting on Matthew 5:17-18, which likewise uses the language of heaven and earth passing away, could say,
“‘Heaven and earth passing away,’ understood literally, is the dissolution of the present system of the universe; and the period when that is to take place, is called ‘the end of the world.’ But a person at all familiar with the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and heaven.”
So we conclude that when Isaiah speaks of the creation of a New Heavens and a New Earth what is being referenced is the establishment of God’s new world order known as the renewed and better covenant as brought by our Lord Jesus Christ and not a literal new physical creation.
All of this is reinforced even more by passages like Romans 8:19-23 and James 1:17-18. In both passages we read of the recreation that has already begun.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.(Jam 1:17-18)
Both Paul and James, teach that Christians as new creatures are the firstfruits of the New Creation mentioned in Isaiah. Believers, because of the finished reconciliation work of Christ, are proof that this new creation exists now. So, in this passage we see that Christ is presently ruling and by faith we are convinced that one day this complete and total reign will be brought to a complete and total fulfillment in time and space.
Moving on we would say that the reason that Isaiah can say in vs. 17b that ‘the former shall not be remembered or come to mind’ is because of the exceeding excellence of that new order that Christ brings.
Actually, the new heavens and new earth that Isaiah speaks of in chapter 65 is the second of three re-creations that are anticipated in Isaiah 65. Before the promise of a new dwelling in vs. 17 God’s people are promised a new name in vs. 15. With the promised new name and a promised new dwelling God promises a new environment in vs. 18-23.
New name — 15
New dwelling — 17
New environment — 18 – 23
But we must keep in mind that all these realities (the new name, the new creation, the new environment) have a ‘now, not yet’ (inaugurated – yet to be consummated) component to them. We are not what we once were but we are also not yet what we will be. So, all these realities are true.
We do live in a new creation (Col. 1:13)
13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,
We do have a new identity (Mt. 28:19)
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Col. 3:3 — For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God
and we do experience a new environment (Hebrews 8:10f)
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts,
and I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.
11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities,
and I will remember their sins no more.”
but being completely true in principle they will one day be consummatively true in the glorified State. All of this is in such a fashion that what is true in a inaugurative sense is becoming progressively true as we are sanctified and anticipates a day when it will all be consummatively true.
The ‘not yet’ of this Isaiah prophecy is seen in the fact that though, as we have seen, the recreation has begun; Isaiah 65 describes time yet future in this ongoing recreation, when all enemies except death will have been conquered. And so now living in the New Heavens and New Earth and experiencing the new environment and having been given a new name we still look forward to the day when the voice of weeping shall be heard no more and where an infant shall no longer live but a few days.
Before wrapping up we should consider though that where the name of Christ has been spread and widely embraced things like life expectancy (20, 22) and social and familial stability (21-23) have been at their zenith. The embrace of the Gospel, which yields a life that takes seriously God’s Law Word, leads to people groups being attended with God’s blessings. (Which doesn’t mean that they still won’t face periodic hardship and trials.)
The understanding that we have advocated here complements well a passage like I Corinthians 15:25-26 where we are told that Christ
“Must reign till he has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.”
Christ is now reigning over the new creation but there remain defeated but yet to surrender enemies to be brought into subjection. Isaiah 65 reveals a time when most of those enemies have been brought to heel with only the last enemy of death being on the lam – and even he’s considering suing for terms of surrender. The Spirit anointed preaching of the Gospel, and the discipling of the nations is what brings these defeated but yet to surrender enemies to swear oaths of allegiance to King Christ and so is converted the Kingdoms of this World to the Kingdoms of our Lord and the knowledge of the Lord covers the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Addendum
Vs. 25 is often cited against the position offered in this treatise. There are those who read this text without taking into consideration prophetic type speech and so they look for wolves and lambs to dine together and for a day when hay needs to be pulled down for the lions as well as the cattle. Because this isn’t happening it is insisted that there is no sense in which Isaiah 65 is presently true.
We should note that similar language that we find in vs. 25 is found earlier in Isaiah 11:6f. Isaiah 11 is a Messianic passage describing the future reign of King Christ. The fact that language in Isaiah 11 is repeated in Isaiah 65 should give us a hint that what is being spoken of in Isaiah 65 corresponds in some way to what is being spoken of in Isaiah 11 and that is exactly the argument that we have sought to elucidate here. In Isaiah 65 there is a new creation characterized by peace and in Isaiah 11 we learn that during the rule of the Messiah there is peace and tranquility. The Shalom that Jesus brings to His New Creation that He rules over is pictured both in Isaiah 11 and 65 by carnivorous animals dwelling with their former dinners and by carnivores that are now herbivores. In both cases what is being portrayed for the readers is the Shalom that the Messiah brings to the new creation.
To continue to tease this out in a way consistent with what we have done above we would insist that in the New Creation that is the Church we find wolves lying down with lambs as Gentiles and Jews are reconciled together and find peace in Christ’s one body (Ephesians 2:14-18), as they realize a Spiritual unity that was previously unknown. Only once man’s warfare against God has ended can his warfare against his neighbor end. Only once man has peace with God can he have peace with his neighbor. In Christ we have peace with both God and neighbor. The wolf can lie down with the lamb and the lion can munch on straw. Shalom is present in the new creation.