Yuku free message boards

Engelsma throughout this section seems to be unclear in the use of terms such as "earthly," "literal," "physical," "spiritual," etc. Here's an example.

God's calling them "my people" which were not His people does not refer to earthly Israel, as the literalist must hold, but to the spiritual church of Jew and Gentile (cp. Hosea 1, 2 with Rom. 9:24-26).

This is in the context of his attack on the postmil view of Isa. 65, calling it "earthly" and "literal" interchangeably. However, in this quotation, one can see that we must make some proper distinctions.

True, in the NT we see that "my [God's] people" are not equated with literal descendants of Israel, but are broadened to include both Jew and Gentile. However, that does not make them "non-physical." The NT church is very physical -- it exists in a physical world, it has physical impact on the world, etc. While the NT church is "spiritual Israel," the NT church is not thereby non-physical.

Likewise with Isa. 65. I can see non-literal fulfillment of this. For example, I believe the lion/lamb imagery is not referring to zoo animals, but to unclean and clean animals; the fulfillment is in the unclean Gentile nations coming to dwell in peace with the clean people of Israel, as we now see in NT times (the middle wall of partition being broken down). However, that does not imply or necessitate that there are not very physical and visible outworkings of that peace -- earthly peace between nations, universal submission to the reign of Christ, etc. Merely showing that something has a "spiritual" or "non-literal" fulfillment does not thereby prove that it does not have "physical" impact.

Now to another point. Engelsma has been criticizing North for interpreting Isa 65 literally. But now he says,

North, Gentry, and their cohorts cannot even explain the glorious opening words of this important prophecy literally: "I create new heavens and a new earth" (v. 17). A literal interpretation does not vaguely and lamely speak of a "fundamental transformation of the way our world presently works," as North does in the quotation given in the August, 1996 issue of the SB.

Isaiah did not prophesy a "fundamental transformation of the way our world presently works." He prophesied a new world. Such will be its newness, said the prophet, that it will be radically different from the present world. It will be a new world in distinction from "the former" world.

Shortly thereafter he says,

North's interpretation does not do justice to the plain sense of the main thought of this important prophecy, much less explain it literally.

OK, which way do you want it? You criticize North for interpreting the passage literally. But then you criticize him for not interpreting the "new heavens and new earth" literally.

Consider this "new heavens and new earth" concept, in light of the NT (as Engelsma emphasizes). Look at what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, [he is a] new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." The words "he is a" are not in the Greek; Paul literally says, "If anyone is in Christ, new creation!" The fact that the people of God are incorporated into Christ is evidence that the new creation has arrived, and that all things have become (not will become) new. So, according to Paul's interpretation of the new creation, we already live in the new creation.

Engelsma here uses "literal" or "plain sense" interpretation when it suits him -- he wants to use the "plain sense" of "new heavens and new earth" to say we are not living in that time; but he doesn't want to use the "plain sense" of long life (Isa 65:20). Which is it?