Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth

Review of J. Richard Middleton, A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology by Baker Academic, 2014

Reviewed by Mike S. Whitney

Middleton in A New Heaven and a New Earth (Baker Academic, 2014) argues for a holistic eschatology. In this concept he shares both a call to social concerns and a recognition of a preserved earth – a redemption of the cosmos.¹ He begins his support for his theory with the sense that the kingdom of God has been defined within Jesus’ sharing of Isa 61:1–2, as seen in Luke 4:16–20. On that basis, Middleton finds the kingdom defined in the social concerns of the sort expressed in Isa 61:1–2, such as helping the poor, the destitute, the prisoner – at least per my rough recall, but basically a gospel of societal care. Therefore, those who follow Christ basically are called to this goal or obligation. Within such a mindset, the Christian looks beyond a self-focused goal of heaven, which is not elucidated as a destination within scripture. Instead, this millennial era becomes a time of expectation looking forward to a restored heaven and earth, per the words found in Revelation 21 rather than finding the world hopeless and ready for destruction.

Middeleton presents this holistic eschatology targeted to some degree against the dispensationalist rapture doctrine that abandons any interest/hope in preserving and improving the world. In his discussion on eschatology, he does not encompass the details of Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, and Revelation 1–19. Such lack of clear consideration of those notable eschatological scriptures can leave his analysis disorienting. Some of my rethinking of what he shares suggests he builds upon a post-millennial preterist eschatology with a focus on the idea of Jesus having started the kingdom of God in the first century with an emphasis on change through Christian focus on social concerns as inherent to their lives. These concerns then ought to be pursued as the obligation of Christians, as pursued in anticipation of the restored earth or cosmos that Middleton argues to underlie the new heaven and new earth of Rev 21.

He expresses concern that Christians improperly expect heaven to be their final destination. That focus then creates a disregard for the earth and of the promised new heaven and new earth. I would agree that Christians have had the improper sense of heaven as the final destination. Yet, nuances exist. There is mention of paradise with the criminal on the cross. There is mention of those of the resurrection being like angels (Matt 22:30) and God being God over the living. If an interim state exists for Christians who die, this could be paradise or heaven. However, I tend to agree that the deepest meaning of heaven refers to God in all his glory that does not necessarily say Christians are in that realm. It still remains consistent with Middleton’s observation that no passage says Christians go to heaven. It still becomes hard to define what happens to Christians and afterwards what the final destination is.

More than an attempt to simply say that heaven is not the destination, Middleton finds the Christian focus on heaven as an obstacle toward living in accord with the social concerns. Again, he defines that as the goal of participation in the kingdom right now. The first problem arises with the speculative and isolated definition of the kingdom of God he proposes. Without going into broader arguments, the definition of the kingdom should not be this social justice concerns but rather is the rule over the nations, as found in Dan 7:13–28, which seems to be a political sense.² The speculative development from Luke 4 also presents issues. The speculation further extends to requirements or actions supposedly placed upon Christians in a societal context that is not much in focus in the New Testament; more in focus in the New Testament is the brotherly love for each other by which society would know they are Christ’s disciples (John 13:34–35). The societal focus instead conveys to the world that churches are primarily existing to just feed people. (In John 6:26, Jesus spoke of people coming to him because they got free food.) I am content that Jesus called some as fishers of men (Mark 1:17). They are called with different gifts to the body. This is not to disregard the many Christians who have aided the poor, who saved babies cast out by Roman families, who cared for the sick even who were not followers of Christ. It then seems to miss common practices when proposing a concept of holistic eschatology as if not sufficiently being done. However, the generalization of such practices converts everyone to a single member of the body. There may also be basic conforming to the wiles of modern culture.

My inclination gleaned from scripture includes seeing a preservation and continuity of the world. John 3:17 says Jesus saved the world. This uses the Greek cosmos that tends to indicate that the cosmos had faced danger of destruction were it not halted by what Christ did. Christians, at times, may make the world a bit better. The European-American culture also appears to have been deeply influenced by Christian thought and charity, even if being diminished in the current era. Nor does it appear that world peace can be achieved by the Christians. This work must be left to King Jesus. This may come in one fell swoop of the sort found in Revelation 20:7–10. There is no end to the growth of the kingdom which may mean the reach of kindness throughout the world. Christians also may rise again in physical form to the earth. But a big plan of transition to that rejuvenated earth by Christians appears unlikely to make a dent toward improving the world.

Thus far, the concept of a holistic eschatology appears unrealistic – and denying existing realities. This also is an incomplete eschatology due to the lack of addressing the content and relevance of Matt 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, and Revelation 1–19. The ideals of ministry to society’s poor and imprisoned does not seem affected by those events, for example, as if the poor were no longer poor. The role of these events remains unaddressed in this holistic eschatology and makes that theory of eschatology incomplete, at best. Furthermore, the judgments of Revelation 20 remain unclear. Truly, it can be noted the possibility that I merely respond to the tail end of a broader eschatological discussion.

Middleton covered many symbolic and apocalyptic phrases in the OT to help understand NT prophecy. However, he did not cover two elements critical to his discussion so as to include passages on the new heavens and new earth, as well as the kingdom of God. Of the former, some distinctions may apply with passages speaking singularly of a new heaven and those which speak of new heavens. Some consideration must be given of the LXX instances of a singular heaven that replace the Masoretic plural sense. I would add to this my proposal that Revelation 21–22 reflect events that follow Rev 20:4–6 rather than the end of the thousands years reign. In such reading, no developmental phrase or progression can happen from all that trouble of Revelation 1–19 into the new heaven and new earth. I have not studied related passages yet, but the ideas I have so far are that the new heaven and new earth speak of the change of the temple from the physical one to the believers as the temple and secondly the new heaven and new earth are the peace that came after all the turmoil. This area needs more basic ground work.

Overall the concept of a new cosmos does appears unnecessary and inaccurate as a guide to the Christians since sufficient numbers of Christians do help the needy. The kingdom of God concept was insufficiently supported. Certain background concepts from his book are useful if examined afresh, such as the identification of plot lines including, Abraham to Christ, another level regarding the kings of Israel, next was a plot level about Jesus, and one about gentiles. I’m not sure if he made sufficient use of the plot lines but the idea still can be helpful. (His main use seems to be of pointing to an earthly restoration and of placing Israel and its laws as a model toward that.) The appendix also adds a good time line of eschatological concepts held by various writers and groups. The benefits of the book then consists of the plot lines, the argument against a heaven destination, the review of symbology from the OT, and the history of eschatology.

1Perhaps I am at fault for not having read sources he uses in the development of the holistic eschatological view

2There may be an unstated social concern, but that would have to be substantiated using proper scripture passages.