John Mark Hicks

Several friends, in different places and ways, have asked me for a list of resources on renewed earth eschatology.  Below are some books that I think are quite helpful in developing and thinking through such an eschatology in biblical-theological terms. There are, of course, many more resources than these.  Many books on systematic theology (recently Horton, for example), commentaries (I mention a few below), and specialized studies on ecology, creation and eschatology. These are only a few.

N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (HarperOne, 2008)

Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained (Eerdmans, 1985)

Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (Eerdmans, 2000)

Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Eerdmans, 1994)

Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Tyndale House, 2004)

Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology (Baylor, 2010)

Richard Bauckham and Trevor Hart, Hope Against Hope (Eerdmans, 1999)

Herman Bavinck, The Last Things: Hope for this World and the Next (Baker, 1996)

David Lawrence, Heave: Its Not the End of the World  (Scripture Union, 1995)

G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Eerdmans, 1972)

David Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe (T & T Clark International, 2010)

John Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World (Yale, 2002).

Donald Bloesch, The Last Things (InterVarsity, 2004)

Christopher Wright, The Mission of God (InterVarsity, 2006)

Ben Witherington, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World (InterVarsity, 1992)

William Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical Eschatology in Focus (Baker, 1994)

Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? (Biblical Perspectives, 1997)

Jurgen Moltmann, God in Creation (Harper & Row, 1985)

Jurgen Moltmann, Trinity and the Kingdom (Harper & Row, 1981)

Colin Gunton, Christ and Creation (Eerdmans, 1992)

John Reumann, Creation and New Creation (Augsburg, 1973)

See also, Ashby Camp at http://theoutlet.us/OntheMaterialityoftheEternalState.pdf

Specialized Resources on Specific Texts

On 2 Peter 3, read Bauckham, Grudem and Green as well as the following journal articles Douglas Moo, JETS (2006) 449-88 and Heide, JETS (1997) 37-56, and Wolters, WTJ (1987), 405-13.

On Romans 8, read the commentaries by Fitzmyer, Moo, Dunn, Murray, Godet, Meyer, Morris and Barth, for example.  See Harry Alan Hane, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans 8:19-22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (T. & T. Clark, 2006).

On Revelation 21, an important exegetical work is David Mathewson, A New Heaven and A New Earth: The Meaning and Function of the Old Testament in Revelation 21:1-22:5 (Sheffield  Academic Press, 2003).

On 1 Corinthians 15, there are several very good studies of “spiritual body” which make the case for a material body animated by the Holy Spirit so that we live in the full life of the Spirit:  Robert Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology (Cambridge University, 2005) and Mike Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus (InterVarsity Press, 2010).

On the history of the interpretation of heaven, see Colleen McDannell and Bernhard Lang McDonell, Heaven: A History (Yale,d 2001).

The Bible Banner, edited by Foy E. Wallace, Jr. with a masthead reading “Devoted to the Defense of the Church Against All Errors and Innovations,” had a profound impact on Churches of Christ in the 1930s-1940s. Whether it was for good or ill depends on whether one thinks the theological movements and consensus achieved in that era, at least in part through the influence of the Bible Banner, were healthy or harmful. But it seems apparent to me that Wallace’s periodical was a significant player in building a consensus within Churches of Christ on several fonts. Just War advocacy would be one as well as a profoundly positive assessment of the role of human governments.

My interest in this post is new creation theology, that is, the belief that God will renew this earth, unite heaven and earth, and dwell with his people upon that renewed earth for eternity. This was a rather commonly held view among 19th century Stone-Campbell folk though, of course, not the only perspective. It was certainly the understanding of the theological trajectory connected with the Nashville Bible School, particularly in the thinking of David Lipscomb and James A. Haring.

By the end of WWII, however, renewed earth theology had all but disappeared. What happened? One might argue that the more biblical view won out as is just and expected in a movement that wants to follow the Bible alone. Or, one might recognize that hostility toward a cultural and theological movement among Fundamentalists generated a fear that the church had lost its unique role in the redemptive plan of God and this fear enabled an interpretation of Hebrew prophecy that understood renewed earth hopes in the prophets as realized within the spiritual reality of the church in the present age.  I will not argue this in great detail here, but I will offer a few nuggets from the Bible Banner that seem to support that historical reading, or at least suggest that the reason renewed earth theology is rejected is because it was associated with “literal” or “material” Fundamentalist interpretations of Hebrew prophecy.

T. B. Wilkinson in his “Heaven, the Kingdom and Premillenialism” (BB [November 1943] 11-12) links the interpretation of heaven with not only Russellism (Charles T. Russell) but also with premillennialism as a whole. “By premillennialism,” he writes, “I mean everything in that line from Russellism to Bollism, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other intermediate grades.” He rejects any kind material reality associated with heaven and regards any such “literal” interpretation of Scripture as unsuited for immortal saints. Rather, the earth will be literally destroyed by fire.

The Bible Banner‘s assault on premillennialism included an assault on any kind of understanding of “heaven on earth” or a renewed earth eschatology. It is part of Wallace’s critique of R. H. Boll as, for example, when Wallaces advocates a spiritualized and ecclesial interpretation of Romans 8:18-23. The central problem with premillennialism is its new creation theology since it expects a time when the earth will be renewed, when the curse will be lifted, when the kingdom of God will fill the earth, and every one will sit under their own vine and fig tree. Hebrew prophecies related to such expectations as in Isaiah 55:12-13 are fulfilled in the church.

Historic and Dispensational Premillennialism, however, usually expect this during the millennium after which comes an enternal home. New Creation theology argues that the renewed creation is the eternal home where the saints with transfigured, resurrected bodies will live upon a transfigured, renewed earth which will have become the habitation of God for eternity.

But this is precisely the point that many find objectionable on two fundamental counts. First, it means that there are still Hebrew prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled. Amillennialists who deny new creation theology (and there are amillennialists who do not–particularly in the Reformed tradition) interpret all the Hebrew “restoration” texts as either having been fulfilled in the return from Babylonian exile or in the church age. Anything else becomes a “system of rank materialism,” and this includes spiritualizing the resurrection body for some celestial state and the loss of the Abrahamic land promise to believers in Christ.

Second, according to critics, it demeans the dignity of the church to anticipate a future time when the reality of God’s rule will fill the earth in more than a “spiritual” way. The church is the bride of Christ and nothing should detract from her beauty or detract from her role in the present age. A future, material, renewed earth kingdom does just that, according to some.

As a result, whenever I speak on new creation or renewed earth theology, I always hear the objection that I am advocating premillennialism and underminding the role God has graciously given to the church.

The church’s fear and hostility toward premillennialism in the early 20th century culiminating in its practical expulsion from Churches of Christ in the 1940s limited our visions of heaven to a celestial, spiritualized reality. Anything else is tantamount to affirming premillennialism. The denial of a renewed earth was an important aspect of opposing premillennialism. In the imagination of Churches of Christ, a renewed creation theology was functionally equivalent to premillennialism and thus it was generally excised from the body.

By focusing on the Bible Banner I do not mean to imply that this was the only journal pushing these views. Both the Firm Foundation and the Gospel Advocate, by the 1930s-1940s, had also adopted these perspectives with varying degrees of hostility and tolerance toward premillennialism. Nevertheless, the Bible Banner stoked the fires it thought were important to preserve the church from “errors and innovations.”  New creation theology was one of those “errors” that, in their minds, constituted a divisive heresy.

Zechariah’s fourth vision takes him into the heavenly council which mirrors the reality of the holy courts of the temple where priests officiate before the Lord (similar to Isaiah 6:1-3). The earthly temple is the meeting place of the heavenly council. The temple is one place where heaven and earth overlap.

Zechariah sees three persons: Joshua who is the high priest, the satan, and the angel of Yahweh. Others “standing before” the angel of Yahweh are present to carry out the wishes of Yahweh’s angel. The scene parallels Job 1 where the heavenly council (“sons of God”) weighs Job’s faith. Here the question is what to do with Israel’s sin, Joshua’s filthy clothes.

The angel of Yahweh and the satan oppose each other. In a way this is surprising. Yahweh had judged Judah for its sin (Zechariah 1:4-6). The satan, the accuser (which is the meaning of the Hebrew term), is correct. Joshua’s clothes are dirty; Judah has sinned. The temple was destroyed. The satan appears as an angelic prosecutor—he stands at Joshua’s right side to accuse as if in a legal proceeding (cf. Psalm 109:6). The accuser tells the truth about Judah’s sin.

But the angel of Yahweh opposes the accuser. Yes, Joshua is dirty; Yahweh passed judgment. But the satan is not telling the whole truth because Yahweh delights in Jerusalem. Yahweh loves Israel. The satan is rebuked….twice. The repetition is emphatic. Yahweh will not reject Israel; Jerusalem is chosen. When God elects, no one can dispute. It is God who justifies (cf. Romans 8:31-33).

This election is not temporary. God has chosen; the accuser backs down. Grace and mercy triumph over sin. Judah is a “stick plucked from the fire” (cf. Amos 4:11). God has redeemed Jerusalem once again and yet the question (as in Amos) remains—will they return to Yahweh (Zechariah 1:3)?

Though Joshua stands before the angel of Yahweh in dirty clothes, Yahweh chooses him and changes his clothes. The others who stand before God in the heavenly council are ordered to remove the filthy clothes and put “rich garments” on him. The new clothing is a white, costly, festive garment. This is both forgiveness and investment. It is cleansing and adornment. Joshua is reinvested with priesthood and now not only officiates before the Lord and celebrates the relationship between God and the people of Israel.

This priestly investment, however, is not simply about Joshua’s priesthood. It is also about Israel’s role in the world. Israel was called as a priestly nation who would mediate the presence of God to the nations. Israel is a priest for the world so that the nations might be blessed. The nations will become the people of God because Israel is their priest (Zechariah 2:11). Indeed, humans were invested with a priestly function in creation as we represent God in the creation and serve in the temple which God created. Humanity will again become priests serving before God in the temple that is the new heaven and new earth.

Zechariah, excited by what he was seeing, interrupts the scene with a further appeal to honor Joshua. Don’t forget the “turban,” Zechariah excitedly contributes. What is the “turban”? Many think it refers to the headgear of the high priest (Exodus 28:4). But this is not the same Hebrew word. Rather, this word, derived from a verb meaning “to wrap around,” describes the dress of wealthy or prominent people (Isaiah 3:23; 62:3; Job 29:14). It is a sign of favor. It is a further grace that God gives Israel. God has fully clothed Joshua; Yahweh honors his people as the “apple of his eye” (Zechariah 2:8).

Having invested and honored Joshua, the angel of Yahweh now addresses him along with the other priests (and by extension Israel itself). It is, in effect, the message of Zechariah: “return to me.” Joshua, and Israel, must “walk in [Yahweh’s] ways and keep [Yahweh’s] commandments.” Joshua is charged with governing the house of God but only as long as he reflects the glory of God’s presence in that temple. Joshua is called to image God and practice the holiness of God as God’s holy priest. What Adam failed to do, what Joshua’s forefathers failed to do, Joshua is now called to do. Alas, ultimately, he will fail as well. What is a nation to do? What is humanity to do?

The hope of Israel is not Joshua; he is only a sign, a token or, theologically, a type of things to come. Rather, the hope of Israel is Yahweh’s “servant, the Branch.” The oracle of hope following the vision report focuses on the future reality that the “Branch” will realize. The Hebrew “Joshua” appears as “Jesus” in New Testament Greek.

The oracle combines two Messianic traditions in earlier prophets. Isaiah’s obedient but suffering servant (Isaiah 42:1; 49:3; 52:13-53:12) is combined with Jeremiah’s royal, Davidic Branch (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; cf. Isaiah 4:2-5; 11:1). This priestly servant is also invested with royal authority. This coming one—anointed as both priest and king—will inaugurate a new day. That day will be both a day of atonement when Yahweh “will remove the sin of this land in one day” but also on that day everyone “will invite his neighbor to sit under his vine and fig tree.”

The oracle assures Joshua and his priests that the future is hopeful by drawing attention to the inscribed “stone” with “seven eyes” set in front of them. The meaning of this stone is the subject of varied interpretations. Some identify it with the engraved stones of the high priest’s clothing (Exodus 28:9-12) while others identify it as one of the stones for temple-building and the “eyes” are interpreted as divine omniscience. But a more recent suggestion is that the term for “eyes” is better translated “springs” and it refers to seven fountains of water that flow from the stone. Seven fountains would be sufficient as the number is a complete one.

The stone, then, is a Messianic type for cleansing and refreshing water that renews the land or causes the Branch to shoot up out of the ground. Water flows from Eden out to the world in Genesis 2:10 and the fountain of the new temple of Ezekiel 47:1 rises from below the Holy of Holies.

Whatever the case may be the stone represents renewal for Israel and ultimately for the earth. The inscription might very well anticipate the ending of Zechariah when everything upon the earth—even the bells of horses and cooking utensils—are inscribed “Holy to the Lord” just like the headgear of the high priest of Israel (Zechariah 14:20).

The future vision is the removal of sin from the land, from the earth. A day is coming when all the brokenness of the earth will be removed; there will be no more curse and the land will become new (cf. Revelation 21:1-4; 22:1-5). The fruit of the land will mean healing for the nations. Neighbor will invite neighbor—in a reconciled community—to share the joy of the redeemed land. Everyone will have their vine and fig tree which is but a metaphor for a secure, peaceful and fulfilling life (cf. Micah 4:4). That day the nations will live in peace with each other, seek guidance from Yahweh and be called the people of God along with Israel.

On that day nations will, according to Isaiah (2:1-4) and Micah (4:1-5), beat their swords into plowshares and “learn war no more.” May God speed the coming of that day and may the disciples of Jesus, the Branch, embrace that message and lifestyle even now.

James A. Harding (1848-1922), Kentucky evangelist and co-founder of the Nashville Bible School (now Lipscomb University), is a fascinating character. Passionate, opinionated, and faith-filled, he offers a vibrant vision for the mission of the church for both his time and ours. Below are two of my favorite (among many) quotes.

Both illustrate the importance of discipleship for Harding and his skepticism of crusading revivalism. He made these observations after spending twelve years as an itinerant evangelist from Michigan to Florida and Canada to Texas. They say something about his understanding of soteriology, the church and  discipleship.  I have highlighted some key phrases.

I have observed that those speakers as a rule secure the greatest number of accessions who dwell most upon escaping hell and getting into heaven, and least upon the importance of leading lives of absolute consecration to the Lord; in other words their converts are much more anxious to be saved than they are to follow Christ. (James A. Harding, Gospel Advocate 27 [14 September 1887], 588).

Our greatest trouble now is, it seems to me, a vast unconverted membership. A very large percent of the church members among us seem to have very poor conceptions of what a Christian ought to be. They are brought into the church during these high-pressure protracted meetings, and they prove to be a curse instead of a blessing. They neglect prayer, the reading of the Bible, and the Lord’s day meetings, and, of course, they fail to do good day by day as they should. Twelve years of continuous travel among the churches have forced me to the sad conclusion that a very small number of the nominal Christians are worthy of the name. (James A. Harding, Gospel Advocate 27 [9 Feb 1887], 88.)

The seeming popularity of Neo-Puritanism (John Piper and the “new Calvinists”) is concerning to me, but it is also–in some senses–welcome.  Of course, I am concerned about its apparent belligerence and its theology of unconditional election along with a rigid TULIP. However, I welcome a renewed emphasis on divine sovereignty in the context of an Open Theism that is uncertain about whether God can direct all things for good.

The Stone-Campbell heritage, in terms of divine sovereignty, has significant roots in Classic Arminianism (though it would not necessarily have such on other points in that tradition).  Whether we are talking about Alexander Campbell who denied “chance” in the world or Robert Richardson’s series on providence that resonates with Classic Arminianism, we have some valuable roots that express a high view of sovereignty without a Calvinistic (Reformed) eternal decrees determining events in the world. (I know that needs nuancing, but that is not my point here.)

A case in point is David Lipscomb himself. Hear this section from Salvation from Sin (pp. 46-47) in the light of current discussions between Calvinism, Classic Arminianism and Open Theism.

     The nation that God had used more than all other nations to punish and destroy the rebellious nations was in turn punished with a more fearful destruction than any others. [Commenting on Jeremiah 50:23-29, 38-40.] It is folly and deception for a people to think that because they are used to punish other nations and are successful in war, therefore they are better or more favored of God than the nations they conquer. The wicked are the sword of the Lord. As God deals with nations, he deals with families and individuals. God intends to accomplish certain ends and purposes. He created man for a great end. He will use him to accomplish that end. If man is obedient and faith, God will work in and through him, and, in accomplishing the work, will exalt, bless, and honor the man as his faithful servant and beloved child; but if he refuses a willing obedience, God will overrule his rebellion to work out God’s purpose or end, but, while doing this, will crush the rebel down to ruin.

      Man’s liberty is not very wide, yet broad enough to show his character. He must serve either God or the evil one; he can make his choice. He must accomplish the ends of God in the world. The choice is given him of doing it as an obedient servant and of being blessed and honored with God, or he may rebel, and, in rebellion, be destroyed while accomplishing the end. God must rule. The good of the universe and his own honor demand it. The soul that rebels against his authority must perish. God forgives iniquity and transgression and sin, and ‘will by no means clear the guilty.’

     God has the right to rule and direct all persons and all things for his own ends and purposes; all must serve him or be brought to ruin. He is able to direct and control them so as to bring about his desires and purposes. None need gainsay or oppose; none in heaven or on earth ‘can stay his hand or say unto him, ‘What doest thou?” (Dan. 4:35)

There are parts of this that the Reformed person will not like (but not much), but there are more parts that the Open Thesist would not like. It is a high view of sovereignty that places God at the center with the divine mission, purpose and goal as the agenda of the cosmos. There is no risk that God will not accomplish his purpose, according to Lipscomb. That is sovereignty in Classic Arminian style.

I am often amazed at how some contemporary writers–missional and emergent–seem to believe that they have embraced a new vision for the mission of God. It also amazes me that some more traditional writers–some Evangelicals and some New Calvinists–regard the missional emphasis as a new understanding of the gospel.  David Lipscomb (1831-1917) reminds us that such emphases are not new.

Below is an extended section from Lipscomb’s chapter “The Ruin and Redemption of the World” in his 1913 Salvation from Sin (pp. 114-116) which J. W. Shepherd edited from previous writings. As you read, note the emphasis on the physical (material) as well as the spiritual and moral. Particularly important is his focus on the mission of Christ. The mission of Christ is not fundamentally to save the world from suffering in this life or the next. In other words, the mission of Christ is not primarily to save us from pain or hell. That is quite an astounding statement given contemporary versions of the Evangelical and New Calvinist theologies. Lipscomb’s statement is much more in line with Scott McKnight’s King Jesus than John Piper’s Neo-Puritanic, crucicentristic substitutionary atonement theology.

Notice how theocentric his missional vision is. Whatever benefits humanity is secondary to the goal of God’s intent to restore the reign of  God upon the earth.

I will let him speak for himself at this point.  Enjoy, ponder and take up the mission of Christ.

     The object of God’s dealing with man, and especially the mission of Christ to earth, was to rescue the world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, from the ruin into which it had fallen through sin, and to rehabilitate it with the dignity and the glory it had when it came from the hand of God: to restore man–spiritually, mentally, and physically–to the likeness of his Maker, and to reinstate him as a prince and a ruler in this rescued and restored kingdom of God; to displace the barrenness and desolation of the earth with the verdue and beauty of Eden and ‘make the desert blossom as the rose;’ to root out every plant not planted by the Father, and to make this earth again a garden of God’s own planting, every plant planted by a Father’s hand and nurtured by a Father’s love. The mission of Christ is to root up all the briers, thistles, and thorns that grow in the material, moral, and spiritual world, and so restore this home of man to its primitive and pristine relations to God, its Maker and rightful Ruler.  With God as its Ruler, in it God’s Spirit must dwell and God’s blessing and protection abound.

     The leading aim and end of Christ’s mission on this earth was not to make man religious. He was religious before Jesus came. Where Christ’s name is not known, man is still religious. The specific object of Christ was not to make man moral or honest; this was a secondary and subsidiary concomitant and a means to the great end. His leading and specific object was not to save man from suffering in this world or in that which is to come. The world, the religious world, errs here; and this error-the failure to appreciate the leading idea of Christ’s mission–leads to grevious mistakes. Under this idea, much labor is done to induce men to be willing to go to heaven in order to be saved from sufferings, and willingness on their part is taken as an indication that they are saved and will be forever happy. The one great purpose of Christ’s mission to earth and the end of the establishment of his kingdom on earth, and of all the provisions he has made and the forces he has put in operation to affect man’s course of life, were and are to rescue this world from the rule and dominion of the evil one, to deliver it from the ruin into which it had fallen through man’s sin, and to bring it back to its original and normal relations with God and the universe, that the will of God shall be done on earth as it is heaven. The will of God, as manifested in his laws, guides and harmonizes the universe and holds it in subject to and in union with the throne of God. Every intelligence that conforms to the will of God is held in harmony with him and with the universe by the workings of his laws, and is guided forward as a factor and helper with god in the accomplishment of the divine purpose. In becoming a helper and coworker with God, he becomes a joint heir of the life, the home, the glory, and the honor of God himself; an heir of the inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, that fades not away, reserved in the heavens for those who are kept by the power of God, through faith, unto the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (See I Pet. 1:4,5.)

The healing of the blind man in Bethsaida is the last miracle in the first half of Mark’s Gospel. Mark 8:27 begins the second half of the Gospel.

The second half of Mark’s narrative will focus on the passion and death of Jesus. Jesus appears as the suffering servant of Isaiah throughout the second half of the book and provides a model of self-sacrifice that is the cost of discipleship itself. The first half of Mark’s narrative has focused on the kingdom ministry of Jesus—proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God through word and deed. While the second half of Mark depicts Jesus as the suffering servant of Isaiah, the first half of Mark affirms Jesus as the kingdom prophet who practices the good news of the kingdom of God.

This last miracle story in the first half is the second of a pairing that function as bookends in Mark’s narrative (see the parallels in the chart below). The first is the healing of the deaf mute in Mark 7:31-37. Between the healing of the deaf mute and the blind man is the feeding of the 4000. Both are fulfillments of Isaiah 35:5-6 where the Messianic Age envisions the healing of the deaf and blind. Deaf and blind people are only healed in the ministry of Jesus and in the power of the poured out Spirit of God in the Messianic Age. These healings do not appear in the Hebrew Bible. The healing of the deaf and blind are actualizations of the coming reign of God on the earth.

These healings, at one level, accentuate the deafness and blindness of the disciples exhibited in their understanding of Jesus’ healing of the 4000. At another level, reflect the general response to Jesus’ ministry. Everyone loves the healings but few, if any, truly hear and see the message of the kingdom.

Who truly hears and sees the message? Isaiah 6:9-10 lingers in the background, a text that Jesus cited in Mark 4:12 and he alludes to it in light of the disciples’ inability to understand in Mark 8:18. The people see but they don’t perceive; they hear but they don’t understand. They are spiritually deaf and blind. In the physical healings Jesus enacts a parable that embodies his mission—to give eyes to the blind and ears to the deaf that they might turn and be reconciled with God in his kingdom.

In particular, the disciples are deaf and blind even though they themselves have been engaged in kingdom ministry for some time now. They do not yet see or hear clearly. In the next story—the turning point of Mark’s narrative—they will confess Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) but they do not understand what that means. They are like the blind man who needs two stages of healing. They come to “see” in part, but they do not yet fully see. They do not fully see until they see him resurrected and remember Jesus’ words about his suffering and coming glory. Their sight is fuzzy (like the blind man’s) at first but later they see more clearly (like the blind man).

We are all deaf and blind. We only see and hear through the healing and patience of God’s work within and among us. Our journey with Jesus is similar to that of the disciples. Only slowly do we come to “see” and “hear” the true meaning and cost of discipleship. We are the disciples in this story—we see but we don’t perceive, we hear but we don’t understand. And yet through our journey with Jesus our capacity for clear sight and sharp hearing grows.

David Lipscomb believed that eventually the “earth itself will become heaven” (Gospel Advocate, 1903, p. 328).

I recently noticed that someone will be speaking at the Freed-Hardeman lectures on the topic “heaven on earth.” I do not know what he will say, but I think it is at least helpful to know that many of our Stone-Campbell forebearers believed that God would ultimately dwell on earth with the redeemed. Right or wrong, this view is not dependent upon Jehovah’s Witnesses (which I hear a lot–indeed, it predates JWs) and is not some kind of weird, cultish ideology.

That perspective is often radically different from many hopeful expectations among members of Churches of Christ who believe that God is preparing a home in some kind of celestial (immaterial) reality beyond the Hubble telescope. I understand that view and its rationale as I once held it myself. Now I think some of our eminent forebearers had a better understanding of the biblical story than I once did.

Here are just three examples.  First, David Lipscomb in his Salvation from Sin (pp. 35-36):

God is holy. As a pure and holy being, he cannot tolerate guilt and sin. The two cannot permanently dwell together in the universe. When sin came into the world, God left this world as a dwelling place. He cannot dwell in a defiled and sin-polluted temple. He has since dwelt on this earth only in sanctified altars and temples separated from the world and consecrated to his service. He will again make this earth his dwelling place, but it will be only when sin has been purged out and it has been consecrated anew as the new heaven and new earth in which dwelleth righteousness. [Quotes Rev. 21:3-4.]

Second, James A. Harding (“What Are We Here For?” The Way 5 [3 December 1903], 1041):

…the earth is God’s nursery, his training grounds, made primarily for the occupancy of his children, for their education, development and training until they shall have reached their majority, until the end of the Messianic age has come; then it is to be purified a second time by a great washing, a mighty flood, but this time in a sea of fire. Then God will take up his abode himself with his great family upon this new, this renovated and purified earth.

 Third, Alexander Campbell (Christian System, p. 257):

The Bible begins with the generations of the heavens and the earth; but the Christian revelation ends with the regenerations or new creation of the heavens and the earth.  This [is] the ancient promise of God confirmed to us by the Christian Apostles. The present elements are to be changed by fire. The old or antediluvian earth was  purified by water; bu the present earth is reserved for fire, with all the works of man that are upon it. It shall be converted into a lake of liquid fire. But the dead in Christ will have been regenerated in body before the old earth is regenerated by fire. The bodies of the saints will be as homogeneous with the new earth and heavens as their present bodies are with the present heavens and earth. God re-creates, regenerates, but annihilates nothing; and, therefore, the present earth is not to be annihilated. The best description we can give of this regeneration is in the words of one who had a vision of it on the island of Patmos. He describes it as far as it is connected with the New Jerusalem, which is to stand upon the new earth, under the canopy of the new heaven:–[quoting Rev. 21:1-4].

This is not premillennialism; it is new creation theology. Rather, it affirms that God will renovate this present earth. Heaven does not yet fully dwell upon this earth although there are many tastes of it and we continually pray that the reign of heaven will break into the reality of this earth…and it does at times.  Our hope is that God’s reign will fully come to this earth. Our hope is that heaven will come to this earth. And when it does, it will be a fully renewed and renovated reality. This is no mere return to the a past Eden but a glorified regeneration of the earth itself where the redeemed will live in God’s good creation with God.  There will be no need for a temple since the whole earth will be “holy to the Lord.”

Silena Moore Holman (1850-1915) was a remarkable women in the early history of Churches of Christ. Her father was killed in the Civil War and she began teaching at the age of 14. She married Dr. T. P. Holman in 1875 and mothered eight children.

She exchanged multiple articles on multiple occasions with David Lipscomb in the pages of the Gospel Advocate as she argued for a wider role for women in the church.  Many of their exchanges are available at Hans Rollmann’s website.

She also served in the Tennessee Woman’s Christian Temperance Movement for 35 years, 15 years as President. In this capacity she argued for the exclusion of wine from the Lord’s table.

She articulated her argument in the Gospel Advocate (5 March 1903) 146-147. “We who plead for the use of unfermented, nonalcoholic wine at the Lord’s Supper should be read to give a reason for the faith that is in us”–and she does in thirteen points.

1. “The Lord’s Supper was instituted on the night of the feast of the passover, with the same elements as those used at that feast. We think that unleavened bread and unfermented wine were used at this feast.”

2. “Nowhere in the Bible is the drink used at the Lord’s Supper called ‘wine’.”

3.  “‘The consistency and beauty of the sacramental symbols demand the absence of all fermented drinks’.”

4. “Our Savior spent his life in doing good.”

5. “We are warned repeatedly int he Bible against the use of wine.”

6. “It is a temptation to reformed drunkards.”

7. “Sometimes people who have been trained to habits of total abstinence seem to have an hereditary longing for alcoholic liquors.”

8. “It encourages the liquor traffic and the saloon.”

9. “It gives encouragement to the moderate drinker.”

10. Paul does not speak of drunks at the Lord’s table in 1 Corinthians 11, but it refers to excess as with gluttony.

11.  “In the literature of the early centuries there are numerous references which show that unfermented wine was used at the Lord’s Supper in those day.”

12. “Some have thought it would have been impossible for the early Christians to secure the unfermented wine out of the vintage season, but this is a mistake. I have in my possession four recipes–used before, during, and after our Savior’s time–by which wine was preserved in an unfermented state.”

13. “‘Where are we to get the unfermented wine?’ asks a half-converted church member. It can be preserved, like any other canned fruit, in an ordinary fruit jar, by heating it and making it air tight, as other fruit is kept.”

She concludes: “I believe that when church members unite to drive this agent of evil from the inmost sanctuary of the churches the day will have arrived for ridding our country forever of the legalized liquor traffic; but as long as we foster its use in one of the most sacred institutions of religion, just so long will the evil remain to blight our land and ruin the lives of our people.”

Interestingly, the extended argument was needed and pushed by the Temperance Movement because churches generally, until very recently, had all used wine in the Lord’s Supper.

David Lipscomb endorses a society–that is a rare event. In this case, he endorses the creation of the Humane Society in 1887 Nashville.

“Some of the best citizens of Nashville are engaged in a good work in the organization of the Humane Society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.  The Lord has given the animal to us and we are his protectors.  We have no right to cruelly use them. Many a man will be punished for his inhumanity to the dumb brute. The genuine Christian will treat the animal humanely. It is a sad commentary on our people that there exists the necessity for the organization of such a society. Many people in our own beloved land need to become civilized” (Gospel Advocate, June 15, 1887, 379).

Lipscomb displays, on occasion, ecological concerns though we shold not expect that he would have the heightened sense that we have today. I think this is directly related to his understanding of the “new heaven and new earth” which is a renewed earth analogous to a return to Eden. Animals were present in Eden; indeed, they were named by Adam.

In the context of Genesis 1-2, animals were not created as food. They were created as companions though they were inadequate for the kind of intimacy God desired for humanity that would mirror the intimacy of God’s own life. Nevertheless, animals shared Eden with the original couple. They will share the eschaton with humanity as well where the lion and the lamb will lie down together and the child will play among them.

The new heaven and new earth will be like an eschatological petting-zoo. Except the animals will roam free rather than caged.

Animals are not throw-aways. They were created for the joy of the Creator–God has the biggest aquarium in the history!  In the new heaven and new earth, God will still enjoy the creation, including the creatures that fill the sea, walk the land and fly in the air. And these creatures will continue to praise God–“let everything that breathes praise the Lord” (Psalm 150:6).

So, yes, dogs do “go to heaven.”