"And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."Traditionally, Christians apply this statement to our future life in heaven, not to life here on earth. After all, life on earth - even the Christian's life - is filled with tears, death, sorrow, crying and pain. The contrast is drawn throughout scripture between an imperfect life here and a perfect life that awaits faithful Christians.
"For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life" (2 Cor. 5:4).
"For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Phil. 1:21).Even in Revelation 21, there is a contrast between the "first earth" and the "new earth," and even though I believe much of the book pertained to events of the first century, these final chapters obviously have future application. We are filled with hope, and upon reading Revelation 21-22, we anticipate the fulfillment of these promises - promises of a future state of bliss in the very presence of God. No more tears or pain; no more death or sorrow. How wonderful!
And yet our "parade" is "rained upon" by those who want to contend that the promises of Revelation 21-22 were fulfilled in the days of the apostles. In fact, these same people take ALL of the statements about Jesus' final return and the bliss of heaven and argue that the language is purely symbolic and had first century application. What is their reasoning?
Well, the basis for this doctrine is that the language of, say, Revelation 21-22, was also used in the Old Testament in reference to physical events that occurred then. The prophet Isaiah spoke of a people that would be devastated and yet would once more attain glory and bliss at the hand of the Lord:
"He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth: for the Lord has spoken" (Is. 25:8)There are other comparisons we could examine, but like I said, there are certain religious people that will use these comparisons to rebuff the traditional views of the New Testament promises of Jesus' final return, the final judgment, and the perfection of heaven. I'm not going to get into all of that right now, but I would like to focus on the language of Revelation 21:4 and Isaiah 25:8.
I admit that the two verses are similar. Isaiah, speaking of events that have passed, and John, speaking of this "new earth" that awaits the faithful, both promise that God will "wipe away tears." Does this prove that John's description of the "new earth" in Revelation 21 may have a physical, rather than an heavenly application? Does this highlight the inconsistency of our traditional reading of Revelation 21? In other words, how can we say that Revelation 21 is yet-future and then say that the very same language, found in Isaiah 25, has a completely different meaning? If Isaiah 25 referred to physical events on earth, must we also apply Revelation 21 to physical, or even spiritual events on earth - Jesus' victory over sin, the establishment of His kingdom, the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, etc?
I'm sure that there are some very technical ways to address this controversy, but I'm going to address the controversy by engaging in some teary-eyed semantics. Specifically, I'd like to point out one key difference between Isaiah 25:8 and Revelation 21:4.
In Isaiah 25:8, the point is simply made that God would "wipe away the tears from all faces." However, in Revelation 21:4, not only will God wipe away the tears, but there will be "no more crying" at all.
You see, there are things that happen to all of us on an individual and even a national basis. There are tragedies that afflict us. There is pain. There is hardship. God promises to be there for us, and to help us rise above the problems of this life, to remove our tears and to give us hope. For the faithful, spiritually-focused child of God, relief is on the way. BUT...is it not true that more problems will arise in the future that will cause more tears to fall? Absolutely! Whether you apply Isaiah 25 to Israel's return from 70 years of bondage, or to the establishment of Christ's kingdom in the first century, or to some other earthly event where mourning would be turned to joy, the fact is, this moment of triumph didn't equate permanent triumph or across-the-board triumph.
In Revelation 21, God promises not only to wipe away our tears, but to put an end to tears altogether. Taken in context, this point is strengthened even further.
This may be an overly-simplistic approach, but as I was studying in Isaiah this morning, I couldn't help but notice the subtle difference between the two verses. I do believe, despite some of the Old Testament language used in the New Testament, that we as Christians are promised a life after death that is far greater than anything we've ever known or experienced; based on statements in Revelation 21 and in other places, I can't wait to hear the final trumpet blast, to rise to meet Christ in the air, and to enter that heavenly city.
What are your thoughts?
Are you referring to the Preterist (70 A.D. Doctrine) views?
ReplyDeletePartly, yes. I have encountered a few people that wouldn't ascribe to the AD 70 doctrine and yet they contend that the statements in the New Testament and in Revelation about the end-times are purely symbolc of things that have either already happened, or ARE happening now in the church.
ReplyDeleteNot at all to be argumentative, because I'm still wrestling with Ch. 20-22 of Revelation as far as "church or heaven or both." I'm not a Realized Eschatologist. I'm intriqued by the Jerusalem interpretation of Revelation, but not completely there yet. I still see both Jerusalem and Rome.
ReplyDeleteWith all that said, how would you explain the "soon" and "near" phrases of the prologue (Ch. 1:1-3) and the three times it's used in the final chapter (22:6, 10, 20)?
Again, this is not an argument question. It's a - help me figure this out/piece this all together - question. :-)
Dan, I very much appreciate your question.
ReplyDeleteIt may be easier for me to understand in my mind than it is to articulate to someone else. Simply put, I don't see the difficulty in believing that John addresses events that the early Christians would encounter (whether Jerusalem or Rome), and then towards the end to remind them of ultimate end - heaven, and then to close by restating the main point: Come quickly!
Imagine preaching a funeral. You're going to focus on the difficulty of the loss and so forth for most of the lesson. Then you might say something near the end about being reunited with the deceased one day in heaven, but then close with a comment about the pain of loss and the hope of moving on with the memories of the deceased. I don't know. Is that a decent illustration?