[athanatos]

From what I understand, I believe I was taught that God's going to make this earth and the heavens cease to exist, and replace it with a new creation from scratch, by the word of His mouth. Eschatologically speaking, we were supposed to be taken off this planet because it is going to cease to exist from God's wrath, and put in the new Heaven he makes, meanwhile making a new earth -- with new humans who haven't fallen, perhaps? Or perhaps they aren't even carbon-based, and operate wholly unlike us. Lots of speculation.

In the last few years, I have been adopting an alternate view: that the destruction is not annihilation (reducing to nothing), but rather a complete tearing down and purging -- as was with the Flood, which is said to have destroyed the world. That the new heavens and new earth are made new, akin to before the fall; a renewal or restoration, wherein the curse on the ground is lifted and all evil is purged from God's creation, both in Heaven and on Earth.

First, it is not obvious what Scriptural basis I had for the first view. Second, the latter view makes oddly more sense to me in expecting a fix or improvement to a problem, rather than abandoning a project and scrapping it.

Also, this goes from a "get me outta here" mentality to a sense that this is our home, but not everything is right in our house.

[edit]
This seems like the most obvious support I can find for the former view:

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. [a]

[...]
12 That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.
13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

[a] or some manuscripts be burned up

[Chrysostom]

Berkhof says that the former view (destruction and recreation) is more popular among Lutherans while the latter (renewal) is characteristic of the Reformed. I assume that he knows what he's talking about, and I suspect that this division reflects some very deep theological commitments.

Several significant commentators have read the language of "burning up" as referring not to the fiery cleansing of the Creation but rather to the fiery destruction of the world of the Old Covenant, which is now replaced. I don't know how legitimate that is, but it's something some people have said.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Several significant commentators have read the language of "burning up" as referring not to the fiery cleansing of the Creation but rather to the fiery destruction of the world of the Old Covenant, which is now replaced. I don't know how legitimate that is, but it's something some people have said.

A bit like the old Narnia being destroyed at the end of "The Last Battle" and the Narnia that goes on and on and on, yes?

[Role Modlin]

In both Psalm 102:25-26 and Isaiah 51:6 we see a metaphor describing the earth as wearing out like a garment. Some non-canonical literature supports this view as well (2 Esdras 7:75 and 1 Enoch 45:4-5). There is extensive biblical support for the idea of the earth "passing away" and being replaced. Isaiah 34:4; 51:6; Matthew 24:35 and Revelation 21:2 all mention this "passing away" as a future event. 2 Peter 3:13 talks about us waiting for a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness will dwell. Isaiah 65:17 suggests that our new dwelling will be so wonderful that we won't remember the previous one. New Jerusalem is said to descend into the new earth.

I've read a couple of commentaries that suggest the 2 Peter passage (which mentions the old earth burning/melting) is describing God reducing all of creation to its basic elements and the rearranging it to its original, perfect form. This would seem to go along with what the OP is suggesting.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Ridley's Own

A bit like the old Narnia being destroyed at the end of "The Last Battle" and the Narnia that goes on and on and on, yes?

I have a confession to make. I don't really know anything about the Narnia books. So... I'll have to take your word for it!

Hope you're well, I. My wife was actually in your neck of the woods not long ago; her grandmother lives in Kingston.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by athanatos

In the last few years, I have been adopting an alternate view: that the destruction is not annihilation (reducing to nothing), but rather a complete tearing down and purging -- as was with the Flood, which is said to have destroyed the world.

It seems highly unlikely, given the covenant God made with Noah, that our eschatological end will be analogous to the Flood.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Nate

It seems highly unlikely, given the covenant God made with Noah, that our eschatological end will be analogous to the Flood.

I would tend to agree here. I did some more reading after making my post and it seems that a good number of scholars believe that (at the very least) the earth will be completely destroyed and something new (and better) will replace it. The reading I did gives me the impression that our new bodies will not be perfect versions of of current physical ones so we shouldn't assume that the new earth will be a perfect version of this one. We're talking about creation of a different order and we really don't know what that will encompass.

[earlessdog]

Weren't more specific specifications for the new Heaven scaled out somewhere in Revelations? Or is that all metaphorical?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by earlessdog

Weren't more specific specifications for the new Heaven scaled out somewhere in Revelations? Or is that all metaphorical?

New Jerusalem is described in Revelation 21.

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by Nate

It seems highly unlikely, given the covenant God made with Noah, that our eschatological end will be analogous to the Flood.

Why would it not be analogous, given the covenant? The covenant stipulates that He won't do it again with water; however, people usually insert that it is done rather with fire.

Originally Posted by Leboman

I would tend to agree here. I did some more reading after making my post and it seems that a good number of scholars believe that (at the very least) the earth will be completely destroyed and something new (and better) will replace it. The reading I did ...

Would you mind sharing?

The reading I did gives me the impression that our new bodies will not be perfect versions of of current physical ones so we shouldn't assume that the new earth will be a perfect version of this one. We're talking about creation of a different order and we really don't know what that will encompass.

It seemed like a consistent hope that our bodies would be redeemed and made imperishable and glorified, rather than replaced with something fundamentally (or elementally) different that has generally the same function (yet way better, don't get me wrong). Am I misunderstanding your statement?

As I laid out the above, it seems like it is a decent analogy for the new earth, as all Creation groans in eager expectation as well. However, the verses that talk about vanishing ... that requires an exaggerated or subjective-reference-point interpretation (much like the moon turning blood red). ...Gives me less confidence in the view I laid out.

This is the passage that comes to mind most relevant to the view I was leaning toward:
Romans 8:18-23
[18] I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.
[19] The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
[20] For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope
[21] that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
[22] We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
[23] Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Originally Posted by earlessdog

Weren't more specific specifications for the new Heaven scaled out somewhere in Revelations? Or is that all metaphorical?

Both...?

[athanatos]

Okay, so double-post time.

I was thinking about how sensical it is that earth would get burned and leveled by fire, then made new; instead of burned into nothing and something replaced it. Kinda like Christ restoring the man's shriveled hand: does he heal it instantly, or does he destroy it and then bring it to perfection? Of course, there are some relevant dissimilarities; but the fact is that Christ just restores it. Now, with all the talk of burning up and all that jazz, it seems like it isn't a restoration or renewal, it would be a replacement.

But then I thought, "what about 1 Cor 15, where things come alive only after they have died first?" making me wonder to what extent the new Earth may find parallels/how far we can take it. I'd hate to take the passage out of context and mistreat it.

[edit]
To prevent a triple-post, of the claim that we'd get different bodies altogether, I think this verse may lend support to it:

1 Cor 15:50
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Making me think we won't get a restored, improved body that we've always had, but a new one that replaces it... without flesh or blood.

And yet.....

Job 19:25-27
25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

In His flesh, he'll see God?

[Thrash]

I am at work, so i dont have proper reaources, but i do think that it is important to note that the concept of resurrection is one which evolved in Jewish thought, and therefore scripture. NT Wright makes that point clear, at least...

I think it would also be beneficial to study the accounts of Christ's resurrection. His glorified state is called the firstfruit of what we are to inherit, so that leads me to think our existence will be similar to his. He ate food, chatted it up with his compadres, but he also appeared in locked rooms and floated up to heaven... Idk.

[RipVanWinkle]

Originally Posted by Thrash

I am at work, so i dont have proper reaources, but i do think that it is important to note that the concept of resurrection is one which evolved in Jewish thought, and therefore scripture. NT Wright makes that point clear, at least...

I think it would also be beneficial to study the accounts of Christ's resurrection. His glorified state is called the firstfruit of what we are to inherit, so that leads me to think our existence will be similar to his. He ate food, chatted it up with his compadres, but he also appeared in locked rooms and floated up to heaven... Idk.

I also wanted to bring up NT Wright. For him, it is THIS earth that will ultimately be renewed by God, and that as Christians (in the mean time), it is our responsibility to "put the world to rights" as much as we can

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Okay, so double-post time.

I was thinking about how sensical it is that earth would get burned and leveled by fire, then made new; instead of burned into nothing and something replaced it. Kinda like Christ restoring the man's shriveled hand: does he heal it instantly, or does he destroy it and then bring it to perfection? Of course, there are some relevant dissimilarities; but the fact is that Christ just restores it. Now, with all the talk of burning up and all that jazz, it seems like it isn't a restoration or renewal, it would be a replacement.

But then I thought, "what about 1 Cor 15, where things come alive only after they have died first?" making me wonder to what extent the new Earth may find parallels/how far we can take it. I'd hate to take the passage out of context and mistreat it.

[edit]
To prevent a triple-post, of the claim that we'd get different bodies altogether, I think this verse may lend support to it:

1 Cor 15:50
"I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

Making me think we won't get a restored, improved body that we've always had, but a new one that replaces it... without flesh or blood.

And yet.....

Job 19:25-27
25 I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!

In His flesh, he'll see God?

I will answer your original pst and this as well.

As for the eternal order of things-- we will just have to wait and see if ti a renewal or a brand new universe. There is Scripture that speaks of both so we will have to wait.

As for this- Yes this mortal body breaks down to dust but when resurrected it is made a glorified immortal body. What that body is composed of is unknown but we do know it will never die and for the redeemed we will no longer be plagued by the presence, power and penealty of sin- I will take it whatever that flesh is. As Paul says it is a flesh body- just a different one than the mortal one we are contained in now.