The Evangelical Universalist Forum

And the former things will not be remembered

Evangelical Universalism Arguments for Evangelical Universalism
#1

A strong argument for Universalism comes from considering the state of eternal bliss of those who are in heaven.

Revelation 21:4, “and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”

The argument questions how one can be eternally blissful in heaven if sorrow springs from realizing that not all others are there, especially considering the admonition of Jesus to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39). The argument concludes–from the apparent contradiction that would exist between eternal heavenly bliss and earthly memories of loved ones missing in heaven–that all eventually end up in heaven.

A common critical response by those not in the Universalism camp–I’ve even seen it here in this forum–is we won’t have those earthly memories in heaven, as supported by Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former things will not be remembered or come to mind." But this is a clear example of the dangers of taking a verse out of context. When context is provided by just the previous verse, i.e., Isaiah 65:16, such a conclusion is not warranted: “Because he who is blessed in the earth will be blessed by the God of truth; and he who swears in the earth will swear by the God of truth; because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My sight!” Verse 16 is specifically speaking of God forgetting, i.e., “because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My sight.” And verse 17 is likely to be simply continuing this theme. There is a biblical precedent for this forgetting being applied to God, as Jeremiah 31:34 establishes, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Further, God is not really forgetting in the sense that He no longer can remember; it’s that He will not bring these things to mind in holding them against us.)

But there is no biblical precedent for such forgetting being applied to humans. To the contrary, there is clear indication that earthly memories are retained in heaven. For example, consider 2 Samuel 12:23. “But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." David said he would go to his son. Clearly, David assumes he will carry with him memory of his son in heaven.

Also, consider 1 Corinthians 13: 9-12, which seem to show memories are retained when the perfect comes. “For we know in part and we prophesy in part but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” That last statement, “but then I will know fully just as I also have been known fully” indicates that we shall know others as well as be known by others when the perfect (i.e., heaven) comes.

Given that Isaiah 65:17 most likely applies only to God and that the Bible mentions humans who do retain their earthly memories in heaven, as documented above, the application of Isaiah 65:17 to human memory is problematic at best.

#2

Good points and very well written essay, Lancia. Thanks! :slight_smile:

#3

As I understand it the whole scenario ceases to be “problematic” WHEN the passage in view is understood in terms of “covenant” not material creation. There was to be BECAUSE of covenant renewal the removal of all the pain and angst associated with the old covenant mode of existence.

Verse 20 is fairly indicative that this passage ISN’T speaking of post-mortem realities, but rather of life as it was going to be in the here and now with Israel’s resurrection into a NEW covenanted life.

#4

Thanks, Cindy.

#5

That’s an interesting view. But the words in Isaiah 65:17: “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth" strongly suggest an eternal meaning to this part of the chapter. Some commentators, though, see a switching of time frames by Isaiah, who seems to speak of the eternal state in 65:17 and of the millennial earth in 65:20-25.

#6

Yes, and yet IF you then understand Jesus’ rendering of “eternal” in terms of “relationship with God” (Jn 17:3), something inherent within Himself, THEN it is possible to see “if any man be in Christ he is a new creation” – the very goal of the redemptive story.

#7

I suspect there may be something important here, but I can’t quite relate what you say to Isaiah 65:17, if that’s what you intend to do. The “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth” from Isaiah 65:17 seems pretty clear that new heavens and a new earth are created. I don’t see how what I said about this verse relates in a meaningful way to your claim that a man who is in Christ is a new creation. Can you explain more fully?

#8

Let me put it this way… out of all peoples of the earth God chose Israel to be His “special treasure” (Deut 7:6), Israel was formed as “the creation of God”…

Isa 43:1, 7, 21 But now, thus says the LORD, who created you, O Jacob, And He who formed you, O Israel: “Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by your name; You are Mine. … Everyone who is called by My name, whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him.” … This people I have formed for Myself; they shall declare My praise.

Israel and her Temple in prophetic speak or language was “heaven and earth” – heaven = Temple [Presence of God] – earth = Land [place of God]. Thus as a people Israel constituted “the creation of God”. Through covenant disobedience the creation was fallen… however, through covenant faithfulness and renewal (Christ) would come the restoration of “the creation” i.e., “a new heaven and earth”. [Hint… this is what [b]Rom 8:18-23 is really all about]]

Remember, the prophets used colourful and vivid language and were NOT trapped by literal reality. The new creation was not about God literally clearing the chess board and saying “ok that was just a game, now for something different…”.

Besides this, it’s not hard to see Isa 65:17 as described when you consider that IF such was as you say and speaking of tangible reality then “Houston we have a problem”… because DEATH is ever-present in this scenario as per verse 20. And I’m afraid the convenient easy-out in claiming “this is the millennium” just doesn’t stack up to scriptural scrutiny, i.e., there are NO texts saying let alone indicating such a thing.

#9

is really all about]]

Remember, the prophets used colourful and vivid language and were NOT trapped by literal reality. The new creation was not about God literally clearing the chess board and saying “ok that was just a game, now for something different…”.

Besides this, it’s not hard to see Isa 65:17 as described when you consider that IF such was as you say and speaking of tangible reality then “Houston we have a problem”… because DEATH is ever-present in this scenario as per verse 20. And I’m afraid the convenient easy-out in claiming “this is the millennium” just doesn’t stack up to scriptural scrutiny, i.e., there are NO texts saying let alone indicating such a thing.

OK, I see what you’re saying. I agree that your interpretation is at least possible, if not likely. But there is still what appears to be a problem. How do you reconcile the “new heavens and a new earth” wording of Isaiah 65:17,

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind,”

with the very similar “a new heaven and a new earth” wording of Revelation 21:1,

“Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea”?

It would seem Revelation 21:1, as an introduction to chapter 21, refers to post-mortem life. If it doesn’t, we’ve lost a primary source of biblical information in that chapter about post-mortem life. Despite Isaiah 65:20, doesn’t the similar wording of Isaiah 65:17 and Revelation 21:1 at least suggest what is being described in these two verses is the same thing?

#10

Well I agree they DO describe the SAME thing… but you CANNOT with any consistency “Despite Isaiah 65:20” – it’s there in the text and cannot be discounted, disparaged or removed.

IF however said “new creation” IS as I maintain to be understood along “covenant” restoration lines all ambiguity ceases.

Actually when it comes to post-mortem existence the bible is pretty silent on the issue; it assumes such but doesn’t say much. WE tend to read more of this this into the text than anything else.

Understood in terms of Israel’s covenant renewal vs3 answers to the tabernacling of Jn 1:14, with the latter part of vs4-5 reflecting Paul’s 2Cor 5:17

Not only this… but there will be a host of disgruntled deep sea anglers with no marlin to chase given the scenario of “and there was no more sea” – WHAAAAAAAAT!? The ‘no more sea’ motif points to the removal of all “separation”. In prophetic parlance “the sea” was also indicative of “the Gentiles” – again those who were separated from God… well as such all separation “in Christ” ended.

#11

You make a convincing case. I can’t say I accept it, but then again, what I accept or reject is immaterial to the argument. Good job!

#12

Good essay, Lancia! The only thing I see in a vastly different way is the Corinthian passage.

You indicate parenthetically tht the perfect thing that will come is heaven. I’ve heard others who say that Jesus is the perfect one who will return to the earth.

I understand the whole of 1 Corinthians to be speaking of LOVE. Now with only partial love, we have only partial knowledge of other people. Our prophecies about other people are also only partial. With partial love we are like children. We need to mature in love, and obtain perfect (complete) love. It’s like looking into an ancient mirror (which was but a polished shield). It gives a distorted reflection. But when we attain complete love, we will see others as they really are. Now (with partial love) I know others partially. But then that perfect love comes, I will know others fully even as I have been fully know by God (who has perfect, i.e. complete love). I suggest that, by the enabling grace of God, we may attain to that perfect love while we are still in our mortal bodies.

#13

It’s quite interesting, Paidion, that Matthew Henry’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 13:8-13, quoted below, nicely merges your view that the perfect is related to love and my view that the perfect is what is realized in heaven.

“Charity is much to be preferred to the gifts on which the Corinthians prided themselves. From its longer continuance. It is a grace, lasting as eternity. The present state is a state of childhood, the future that of manhood. Such is the difference between earth and heaven. What narrow views, what confused notions of things, have children when compared with grown men! Thus shall we think of our most valued gifts of this world, when we come to heaven. All things are dark and confused now, compared with what they will be hereafter. They can only be seen as by the reflection in a mirror, or in the description of a riddle; but hereafter our knowledge will be free from all obscurity and error. It is the light of heaven only, that will remove all clouds and darkness that hide the face of God from us. To sum up the excellences of charity, it is preferred not only to gifts, but to other graces, to faith and hope. Faith fixes on the Divine revelation, and assents thereto, relying on the Divine Redeemer. Hope fastens on future happiness, and waits for that; but in heaven, faith will be swallowed up in actual sight, and hope in enjoyment. There is no room to believe and hope, when we see and enjoy. But there, love will be made perfect. There we shall perfectly love God. And there we shall perfectly love one another. Blessed state! how much surpassing the best below! God is love, 1Jo 4:8,16. Where God is to be seen as he is, and face to face, there charity is in its greatest height; there only will it be perfected.”

Could it be this simple?
#14

The problem with my position is it’s plausible… :mrgreen:

#15

I’ve been continuing to study Isaiah 65 and have found a very wide variety of interpretations of the verses relevant to our discussion. One reference you might find interesting is this exegesis.