Rethinking the Destiny of the Earth: Christ Death was not just to Redeem Humanity
Again, heaven must be considered one wonderful excursion but not our final destination—as pulpits and hymnals have led us to believe.
May the LORD cause you to increase,
both you and your children.May you be blessed by the LORD,
the Maker of heaven and earth.The highest heavens belong to the LORD,
but the earth he has given to humankind.(Ps 115:14-16, TNIV, emphasis added)
God decided to extend his kingdom to earth through humankind (Gen 1:26-28; Ps 115:14-16). He did just that, but his vice-regents, Adam—the first man and woman—abdicated their authority by yielding to the will of Satan.
So Christ came to restore to humankind what was originally theirs. You see, part of the good news is dying for our sins, but it is not all there is to the good news.
The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. (Rom 8:19-21, TNIV, emphasis added)
The earth—mankind’s original home—has to be redeemed so that redeemed humanity can return to his redeemed, rightful home.
Redeemed humanity in their redeemed crib—now that’s good news to me!
Good thoughts – our ultimate future is not discarding earth for heaven, but having heaven come & renew the earth.
That is one of my favorite passages in the REB. My favorite phrase is:
…freed from the shackles of mortality…
Good thoughts, TC!
Please feel free to check out some similar thoughts I have on how the good news of the kingdom has often been truncated in evangelical Christianity on my blog especially here, here, and here.
If the fall was humanity’s estrangement from God, why does the earth need redemption? I don’t see that in Scripture.
Good thoughts – our ultimate future is not discarding earth for heaven, but having heaven come & renew the earth.
Matthew, that is what I see at the end of the drama too.
Stan, I’ve come to love that text in the REB: “and is to enter upon the glorious liberty of the children of God” (v. 21, REB).
Stuart,thanks for the links. I’ll definitely check them out. Yes, the message has been truncated. I’ve found that to be the case.
If the fall was humanity’s estrangement from God, why does the earth need redemption? I don’t see that in Scripture.
Vlad, I understand. But let me ask you, Where did the estrangement take place, heaven or earth?
This is helpful theologically because as Christians, we will see that the earth is given to us by God and have been made stewards over God’s creation. Maybe we won’t be the actual redeemers of the earth but it’ll certainly encourage us to take care of it.
The estrangement is between God and humanity, and the act of disobedience that precipitated it was on earth, but that does nothing to the Earth anymore than to Mars. I don’t think the fabric of the universe was affected; it was all “good.” The sun and moon are still as perfect as when God made them in his good pleasure.
Vlad,
Try Romans 8
Vlad, there’s also a thing called
Sin
In
Nature
The earth has been ruined because of sin.
This is helpful theologically because as Christians, we will see that the earth is given to us by God and have been made stewards over God’s creation. Maybe we won’t be the actual redeemers of the earth but it’ll certainly encourage us to take care of it.
Kevin, it’s right there in Genesis.
The estrangement is between God and humanity, and the act of disobedience that precipitated it was on earth, but that does nothing to the Earth anymore than to Mars. I don’t think the fabric of the universe was affected; it was all “good.” The sun and moon are still as perfect as when God made them in his good pleasure.
Vlad, try Hebrews 1:10-12.
Richard, Romans 8:19-23 is unmistakably clear on this issue.
Ferg, that’s a good point.
In Romans 8 “creation” is metonymic for the “children of God,” not to mention that I don’t see how the dirt beneath my feat can’t have freedom like children of God can. I’d be very interested how this works conceptually; where was the earth before the fall, and where is it after? How can there be an estrangement when there is no sentient reciprocity?
I appreciate the irenic tone here…this is a good group, TC.
In Romans 8 “creation” is metonymic for the “children of God,”
Vlad, we enjoy you too. How can the “creation” be metonymic for the “children of God” when Paul clearly has two different categories in mind: 1. the creation that has been subject to decay; and 2. the children of God who are awaiting their redemption.
In fact, the creation’s redemption is linked to that of the children of God.
I’d be very interested how this works conceptually; where was the earth before the fall, and where is it after? How can there be an estrangement when there is no sentient reciprocity?
Mankind was chased out of his home because of rebellion. True there is no sentient reciprocity from the earth, but it’s ruin, I believe, is to highlight the extent of mankind’s rebellion against a Holy God.
Mankind needs to get back to him home, and he will eventually get back there.
I see your point, but it’s still figurative to me whichever way I look at it. It’s like saying that “the earth was corrupt” in Genesis 6.11 meant that something was wrong with the planet. But I don’t mean to belabor the point.
I’m not sure what to make of “its ruin…is to highlight the extent of mankind’s rebellion.” God made it ruined to make a point? I can go with that, but then there would be no organic connection between man’s fall and the earth’s, which I don’t think is what you want to say.
On another note, I just read your Ehrman post. I used to be a big fan of his, but now he just irritates me.
Vlad, Is Heb 1:10-12 figurative?
Well, Ehrman is irritating to a lot of people these days.
Vlad, if you haven’t yet, try and spend some time listening to the lectures here especially this one and these.
I think it’s extolling the glory and unchangableness of the Lord, and that has to weigh significantly when reading the text, but if it isn’t figurative then it seems to me it’s pointing to the destruction of all creation including the heavens. For what reason it doesn’t say.
N.T. Wright is THE MAN, relatively speaking, of course.
Vlad, even that is the case, it still must be deemed literal. There is no exegetical harm in that.
Peter speaks of the New Heaven and the New Earth, which are going to replace the old.