New Creation

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.  Revelation 21:1

The prophet Isaiah wrote of the new heavens and earth.

"For behold, I create  new  heavens and a  new   earth ;  And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. “ Isa65.17

"For as the  new  heavens and the  new   earth   Which I will make shall remain before Me," says the Lord,  "So shall your descendants and your name remain.” Isa66.22

The only other reference of the new creation is by apostle Peter.

“We, according to His promise, look for  new  heavens and a  new   earth  in which righteousness dwells.” 2Pet3.13

The new creation could be a renewed creation as opposed to an entirely different one.

The new creation is necessary because this creation was affected by sin, and those effects will be removed.

 “10  But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the  earth  and the works that are in it will be burned up.  11  Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner [of] [persons] ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,  12  looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?” 2Peter 3

Romans 8:18-22  associates the present condition of creation with the effects of sin:  “20  For the  creation  was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected [it] in hope;  21  because the  creation  itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

John the Baptist could have been looking to the outcome on the world because of Christ’s sacrifice:  "Behold! The  Lamb   of   God who takes away the sin  of  the world!”  John 1:29 

Zane Hodges, in his commentary on First John, suggests that John the Baptist looked to this outcome : “because of his sacrificial death, ultimately the world’s sin will be removed from human experience.”   John Darby had the same view in his collected writings.

Through the death of Christ, the effects of sin on the creation will be removed. Man’s world will be changed.  The consequences of sin and sinning will be removed from the creation:  “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."  Rev21.4   

Rev21.8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

Salvation looks to a new world to come in which man is in dominion.

Hebrews 2:5-8  “For He has not put the world to come, of which  we  speak, in subjection to angels.” All things will be subject to man in the new world.

Eldon Ladd:  “Throughout the entire Bible, the ultimate destiny of God’s people is an earthly destiny...biblical thought always places man on a redeemed earth, not a heavenly realm removed from earthly existence.”

The New Jerusalem

The new Jerusalem is called the “bride” and the “lamb’s wife.” Rev21.9  She belongs to Christ, both the city and its inhabitants. 

This city has a glory that is of God.  It shines as light from a clear-as-crystal stone, Rev21.11.

The city is square, Rev21.16,  and has a wall all around, with 12 gates and 12 foundations: the names of the 12 tribes of Israel are on the gates and the names of the 12 apostles are on the foundations, Vss 12-14.  This would suggest that the city is home of all believers of all ages. 

The city is 12,000 furlongs or “stadia” (the Greek word), Rev21.16.  It is often held that this is the size of one side, but it could be the circumference. Ezekiel 48.35 gives the measurement all the way around the Jerusalem of his vision.  If that is the case, then it is 3000 stadia on each side, and the height is also 3000.  The stadia is usual believed to be 600 feet.  That would make the city about 340 miles to a side and same height.   It depends on whether stadia is 600 feet or just referring to a fixed standard of length of the gold reed, Rev21.15.  If you make the gold reed out to be 18’, and this is the “stadia,” and take that times 3000, you will get about 10 miles, which is the same size of Jerusalem in Ezekiel 48, if the “measure” (the word the LXX uses, for “cubit” is added) is the 12’ reed of Ez 40.5.   It’s a big difference.  

The wall is a 144 cubits, over 200 feet.  Is this height or thickness?  That height would fit more with a 10 mile high city than the 340 mile high city (that requires the gold reed to be 18 feet long).

Are the cities of Ezekiel and Revelation the same?  Few would take that view. Time will tell. 

The city may be of a pyramid design and shape.  The stones of the foundation, the pearl gates,  and the transparent gold city and main street reveal the glory of God and that He is its builder, Rev21.18-21.

--The presence of God

There is no temple, Rev21.22.   Those who believe the Jerusalem of Ezekiel is the same as in Revelation have a problem, for Ezekiel says there is a temple, 40.5. 

The solution would be that Revelation uses the Greek word “naos” for the holy place.  It would mean that the temple does not have a holy place, for God and Christ would be the holy place. 

Jeremiah does reveal that there is no ark of the covenant in the future temple:  “16  "Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days," says the Lord, "that they will say no more, `The  ark  of the  covenant  of the Lord.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit [it], nor shall it be made anymore.  17  "At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem.” Jer3

Yet the LXX does use “naos” for temple in Ezekiel such as  41.21,23.  Naos is used for temple and “hagios” for “sanctuary.”  “The doorposts of the  temple [naos] [were] square, [as] [was] the front of the sanctuary [hagios]; …  23  The  temple  [naos] and the sanctuary [hagios] had two doors.”   

No need for sun and moon, Rev21.23.  The glory of God and Christ will give illumination.  Compare this to Isaiah 60.19:   "The  sun  shall  no  longer be your light by day,  Nor for brightness shall the  moon  give light to you;  But the Lord will be to you an everlasting light,  And your God your glory.”

The reference to nations and kings in Rev21.24-26,  with reference to the city seems to place this revelation of the city in a millennial context.  The nations of those saved sound like those nations that survive the Great Tribulation and judgment of nations.  The kings are their rulers who come into the city with their honor and glory.   Those who see this as after the millennium distinguish these people from Israel and the church.  Whatever the case, only saved people will enter the city.

The gates are always open, Rev21.25.  This probably reveals complete safety--no threat from the earthly inhabitants.  There is no night, so no reference is made to condition of the gates.  The gates are always open, and the nations have continual access. 

Isaiah 60.11 speaks of the same circumstances: “Therefore your gates shall be open continually;  They shall not be shut day or night,  That [men] may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,  And their kings in procession.”

No one but saved people will enter it, Rev21.27.  Rev22.14-15  say the unsaved shall not enter into the city, but this doesn’t mean they can stand outside, for Rev 21.8 says they have their part in the Lake of Fire.

More City details: the river, tree, and street

Rev22:1-3:  There is a river that flows from the throne of God.  Eternal life is represented by “living water.”  This river is the “water of life.”  This detail compares to the river in the Millennium—another reason people believe this describes the Millennium.  Ezekiel 47.1-2, 7-12 speaks of a river from the temple and its healing properties.  Zechariah 14.8 also speaks of this living water.

Rev22.2 speaks of the street (Rev21.21), that in its middle, there is the tree of life on both sides of the river.  How do we picture this?   The river must go down the middle of the street, and the tree of life is a kind of tree, that is on each side of the river.  Ezekiel 47.7 gives a similar picture, though no mention of a street.

The leaves of these trees are for healing. Another reason some say this is the Millennium.  

Could it be that our “immortality” is not without maintenance?  There was a tree of life in the garden, Genesis 3.22,24, which Adam and Eve were not allowed to eat of.  Revelation 2.7 says that overcomers may eat of that tree, and 22.14 says the same (or those who “wash their robes,” NU text, cp. With Rev7.13-17). 

John Walvoord says the word “healing” could be “health” of the nations.  The leaves are not for correcting ills that no longer exist, for there is “no more curse,” but for enjoyment of the new creation.  Yet could it be for the maintenance of our immortality?

Rev22.3-5 speak of God’s presence among us.  His name on us probably means we belong to Him. We are both God’s servants and heirs of the new creation.  We will be involved in this new creation, forever, which is a long time.

Life in the new creation is the completion of our salvation—in the “world to come” (Hebrews 2.5).

Conscience and debatable things

If a believer believes it is wrong to do a certain thing, he should not do it.  Even though another believer believes Scripture allows it. 

Romans 14: 22-23:  “Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.”

Scripture may seem to allow, but conscience may not.

Romans 14: 3  “Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat  judge  him who eats; for God has received him.  4  Who are you to  judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.”

Romans 14:10 “ But why do you  judge  your  brother ? Or why do you show contempt for your  brother ? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. ‘

We should not criticize other believers who in good conscience can not do what we believe we can.   He is God’s servant and accountable to Him--not you who is at liberty to do other than he, whether right or wrong.

Is faith a decision?

It is usually said that one must make a decision for Christ to be saved. I question whether the word "decision" is best used in this way.

The decision one should make that may lead to faith is an investigation or availing.

One should choose to avail himself to the word of God. Knowledge and understanding are essential for persuasion.

Consider the Ethiopian treasurer who was reading Isaiah 53 concerning the prophecy of Christ as the suffering servant. Philip comes along to help him understand: 'Do you understand what you are reading?' And he said, 'How can I, unless someone guides me?' (Acts 8.29-31)

Illumination comes by comparing and understanding God's truth. Illumination results in persuasion, conviction, and this is what happened to the Ethiopian with the help and further truth given by Philip concerning the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 in the person of Christ.

Zane Hodges writes in his commentary on James 1.18, page 31, “faith is not an act of the human will, but rather a firm conviction about the truth of God when we are illuminated by it.”

Faith only takes place in a person who has understanding and persuasion.

Romans 4.19: “And not being weak in faith, he did not consider his own body, already dead (since he was about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah's womb. 20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore "it was accounted to him for righteousness."

“Fully convinced” means persuaded, assured--not a partial conviction.

Rene Lopez, in his commentary on Romans 4.19-22: “Paul defines Abraham’s faith as being fully convinced. The term fully convinced is not the best translation. It wrongly implies the possibility of varying degrees of faith (99%, 90%, 80%, etc.) in believing the initial promise. Scripture knows only 2 options when it comes to faith and believing: one is either convinced, or is not convinced. The Greek term … basically means to be assured or to be certain. The entire context refers to faith in the promise of God. Paul clarifies Abraham’s faith as fundamentally being assured or convinced of God’s declared or promised seed. Clearly, this is not an act of the will exercised by Abraham but rather a conviction or persuasion that what God promised is true. No one can ever become convinced by an act of the will if they mentally believe something is false. Even at a basic human level faith is a conviction that something is true.”

Romans 10. 17: “So then faith [ comes ] by hearing , and hearing by the word of God.”

Hebrews 4:1: “Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard [it]. 3 For we who have believed do enter that rest…”

Acts 18. 4: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks.”

Acts 28. 23: “So when they had appointed him a day, many came to him at [his] lodging, to whom he explained and solemnly testified of the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets, from morning till evening. 24 And some were persuaded by the things which were spoken, and some disbelieved.”

Pastors -- a Plurality?

"Pastor” is the traditional designation for the role of “overseer” or “elder.” The word “pastor” only appears once in the plural form in most English translations. ESV and YLT has “Shepherds,” while KJV, NIV, NAS, NET has “pastors” in Ephesians 4.11. The Greek word “poimen” is always translated “shepherd.” The word has it source in Anglo-French from “pasture,” as “one who puts to pasture,” and so you can see the shepherd connection.

It is often believed that the word “teachers” is associated with pastors Ephesians 4:11 (“pastors and teachers”) to represent one role and not two. The word for pastor is not repeated in 1 Corinthians 12:28 as to order of importance in the church, but teacher is listed third. Teacher may be the broader category. The designation “pastor” may be descriptive of the role of teacher as a shepherd.

All elders are a pastor-teacher. But not all teachers are elders. Traditionally, “pastor” is used to designate those who hold an official role in the church, usually of a vocational nature. If a church has a plurality of elders, they are usually not of equal status of that one man called “the pastor.” His position is usually viewed as vocational, while the others are not. There may be more than one pastor, but they are still considered subordinate roles.

The role of pastor seems to be often viewed more like an Old Testament prophet, having a calling from God, and sent to a church for a time.

Ephesians 4.7 says that “to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift.” I believe this “grace” here is with reference to the roles we are to have in the church body for its benefit.

Paul said his stewardship was the grace of God, his ministry was according to the gift of the grace of God, Ephesians 3.2, 7.

Ephesians 4.11 – 12 says that Christ gave certain roles for equipping the church. The 4 roles referenced are of a teacher type category because they are for “equipping of the saints.”

The word translated “equip/ping” only appears here, and must speak of making adequate or sufficient. Greek lexicon says “to put into proper condition, make complete,” YLT says “perfecting,” and Aramaic “maturity.” This is a pastor-teacher role/ function.

The designations pastor, bishop (or overseer), and elder are the same. Should there be only one pastor in a church or a plurality of pastors? If the elders are pastors, and they come up from within the local assembly, then why hire one full time elder from without? Should one elder be supported full time and the rest be unpaid? These are issues determined by tradition, but maybe it's a practical decision too.

There are Scriptural references that indicate that pastor or shepherd is the same as elder and overseer or bishop, though pastor is really a function and elder is an office.

The designation "pastor" (as it is used in Ephesians 4.11-12) does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament except as translated (from the Greek) as "shepherd"--in which it is mostly a reference to Christ's role. It appears in verb form in connection with the function of elders, for example: The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: shepherd [from Greek verb form for pastor] the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseer [Greek verb form for bishop]. (1 Peter 5.1-2)

Peter viewed the elder as responsible to shepherd and oversee the church, and this seems to make it difficult to distinguish certain elders as "pastors" who are specifically gifted to "shepherd" the local church.

Also consider the reference in Acts 20.28 concerning Paul's warning to the elders at Ephesis: Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (bishops), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I’ve heard the claim that not all elders are gifted to be “the pastor”; elders are to shepherd and oversee the church, but some are gifted at this, and they are properly designated “ the pastor.” Usually, that special “gifted” elder who qualifies as “the pastor” comes from outside the church, unlike the rest of the elders, and he is educated with a Seminary degree, or at least a Bible College degree.

If such a claim is true, it can only be maintained by Ephesians 4.11-12. What's difficult about such a claim is that all other references about church oversight and shepherding is addressed to elders. Consider the reference to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20.17, 28: take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God. Also consider that elder and overseer are made out to be the same: Titus 1.5-7: For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you-- if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop [overseer] must be blameless.

One could be gifted at shepherding and yet that does not automatically place him in the office of elder, for he must meet the qualifications. Becoming an elder places the gifted one in the official role.

Instead of saying not all elders are pastors, it should be said that not all who have the ability to pastor are elders, whether by disqualification or personal choice.

What if there is more than one elder who seems "gifted" at shepherding or oversight in a single church? The traditional view forces him to set out and find his own church to pastor, instead of becoming one of the elders. Once “the pastor” is no longer the pastor, he usually has to leave the church, because of possible conflict with the new pastor—and of course, since he is a “vocational” pastor, he has to find another church.

When it comes to compensation, Paul said to let the elders who rule well, who labor in the word and doctrine, be counted worthy of "double honor." (1 Timothy 5.17) Maybe this is the only distinction that should be made among the elders in a local church: if you have some elders who "rule well" and "labor in the word and doctrine," then compensate them "double," and the rest get what is the normal--whatever that is determined to be (maybe by the Deacons or the church body).

If there was to be only one elder in a church, then he would be the only pastor. But Scripture often speaks of a plurality of elders, such as the elders of the church of Ephesus: Acts 20.17. If this plurality was represented by more than one assembly in a certain city, for the early assemblies were identified in Scripture according to the city in which they or it existed, then one could argue for one elder as the one pastor per church, but if there was one assembly in a city, then there was a plurality of elders, and therefore a plurality of pastors in one assembly of a city.

James 5.14 instructs the one sick to call for the elders of the church, and this suggests a plurality of elders in one assembly, unless it is instruction to call for the elders of more than one assembly of a certain city (the singular "church' would have to represent all the assemblies of a specific city).

The pastor should be a qualified man rising up from within the assembly he is to oversee. (Don't we find our elders from within the congregation?)

The Apostle Paul commanded Titus to "appoint elders in every city," Titus 1.5. The exception might be if a pastor first begins as a missionary, or comes from a founding church, and was instrumental in establishing the new local assembly.

Timothy was “urged” by Paul to “remain” in Ephesus, 1 Timothy 1.3, to “charge some that they teach no other doctrine.” He was an extension of Paul’s ministry, as his assistant, but he was not “the pastor” of Ephesus. Ephesus already had elders.

The pastor is not like an Old Testament prophet who is called by God to go from church to church to proclaim the word of God, yet this seems to be the common perception and practice which brings a stranger into the assembly from without. And usually when difficulty arises, he resigns and moves on.

In the early church, pastors were chosen by a higher authority than by majority vote of the local congregation, as we can see that the Apostle Paul commanded Titus to appoint elders in every city, but without apostolic authority after the First Century, such could only be carried out by the pastors/ elders of a founding church. As a church grows and has elders, these elders should appoint the new elders within.

Pastors are to be compensated according to ability to rule and their labor in the word and doctrine, as First Timothy 5.17 indicates, but it is optional as to whether he is supported full time. The Apostle Paul, who was a missionary and not a pastor, chose to support himself and his co-workers, yet he had the right to refrained from working, see First Corinthians 9.6-15. First Timothy 5.17 indicates all elders should be compensated. Is this to be a full time income? Paul said he had the right to refrain from working, but he spoke as a missionary.

Is the role of pastor or elder indicated in First Corinthians 9.7, who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock, or is this just an illustrative point used by Paul concerning the rightful support of the missionary? I believe the following statement by Paul refers to the missionary and not the pastor or elder: the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. The pastor should proclaim the gospel, as should all believers, but Paul had the missionary in view who was an itinerant preacher of the gospel and had the right to live from it.

Each will have to be persuaded in their own mind about these things, but it appears to me that the first century local church had a plurality of pastors, and these were the elders, and the only distinctions among them were according to their ability to rule and their labor in the word, and these things should determine their amount of compensation by the church.

Live peaceably with all men

Romans 12.1-2
Paul exhorts believers to devote themselves to God sacrificially--in light of the salvation God has worked for them, explained in the previous chapters.

He expands on this by explaining that believers should not be conformed to this world, that is, not have the viewpoint and reactions characteristic of this world. Instead, by contrast, they are to be conformed to God’s will. This is the obvious contrast. This is done by being transformed by a renewing of the mind. They are to possess and be possessed by God’s word that they may do and know that God’s will is best (as opposed to the world’s way).

Vss 3-8
Paul expands on this conformance to the divine viewpoint and will as he directs the individual believer to a proper perspective about himself with reference to other believers. He is special but not too specialt. He shares in the common faith with all believers and is only a part in the body of Christ in having a function in edification (building up that body). The believer needs to use his gift/ ministry-function in the church in accordance to that common faith. If this is not being done, then you must either have a wrong perspective about yourself with reference to the body/ Church or the church is failing to recognize you or you are failing to recognize the Divine significance and purpose of the local church.

Vvs 9-21
Paul details conduct becoming a child of God, in keeping with the exhortation to be not conformed to this world but to be conformed to God’s will. Verses 9 through 16 seem to focus mostly on the believer’s duties of love, meekness and kindness towards others, and particularly, it seems to be towards believers. Verses 17 through 21 seek to forbid the indulgence of a contrary disposition of seeking retaliation and revenge, and this seems to expand to all people, saved and unsaved.

Vs 17 Repay no one evil for evil.

It is our human nature to desire to get even, getting back—the way of this world. Getting even, repaying evil for evil should not be who and what we are. It is of the divine nature and will to be concerned about our enemies or those who wish us or do us harm or trouble. When evil has been done to me, ask: “How should I respond to this situation that is in accord with God’s wisdom and that will not give them a reason to retaliate or to be hardened more to the truth?”

Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.

Simply do what is right in the eyes of everybody. It takes spiritual discernment to know how to respond in every situation, but the believer is to be someone who acts in a way that wins the trust and good opinion of all people. You are to have a conduct that makes you approachable. Of course, there will be those who are critical no matter what you do, but don’t give them good cause to be.

Vs 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

We should be peace makers and keepers. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.—Jesus' sermon on the mount. Peace is not always within our control, and so the exhortation is stated in a limited manner. We are not to compromise on the truth, yet we are to avoid giving offence and avenging injuries. In reference to what is in our power to live in peace, we should obey the laws unless the law requires us to violate our ambassadorship to Christ or commit immorality. The privileges we have had are being legally challenged. Obey the Law and work within the law.
Is it not interesting that Chapter 13 follows with the role of Government?

Vs 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance [is] Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Revenge is being conformed to the world. Our vengeance usually goes beyond an equal retaliation. You should seek to do what is best for the one who did you wrong. Your conduct will affect them and everyone else involved. If the law is broken, then let it be dealt with legally, for the government is what God has set in place to avenge and do justice. Know that God knows the situation, and He will do justly when He chooses. “Give place” means get out of the way and leave the situation up to God’s wrath.

Vs 20 Therefore If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.

These are probably only representative of doing something good to those who do you evil. Do what is contrary to our nature to do, what the world would do. Heaping coals on your enemy’s head is the most effectual means of subduing him…it is a punishment no one can bear; he must yield to it.--Charles Hodge. Kindness is no less effective. Your enemy cannot always withstand it. The best way to defeat your enemy. I think of how David spared Saul’s life when Saul sought to kill David. This eventually had the affect on Saul of him ceasing to seek David.

Vs 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

It is human nature, the way of the world, to let the evil that comes upon us to over take us, and we respond with vengeance. The divine will is to respond with good, overcome the evil with good. This requires the transformation by a renewing of the mind in the word of God. This is the supernatural response to evil. The circumstances require discernment at all times. This doesn’t mean the situation doesn’t require something to be done in a proper and legal way. It doesn’t mean, if it is illegal, you must take abuse or allow others to be abused. We are to be people who seek peace, who seek not to be vengeful. When you overcome evil with good, you are commending yourself to the evil doer. You are different. You could be someone they can trust. When they learn this, they may become a friend, and they then can open up to hear the truth of the gospel. When you overcome evil with good, you will discern that it is God’s will and that it is right: Romans 12.2

 Can different belief systems coexist in peace?

Most theologically conservative Christians exist with laws that allow people to believe and do things they disagree with, and yet they mostly tolerate it. Our country is full of false religion, and yet we live beside it. Can you fight and die for the right to believe and practice a lie? I find that difficult to uphold, yet I can fight and die for the right to believe the truth, which requires freedom to believe a lie, since we don’t want government in the place to determine what the truth is when it comes to the things of God or religion. We need a society with laws that protect such rights or privileges.

Am I compromising the truth to have a peaceful society?  There has to be some compromise in allowing differences of belief, or we would always be fighting and eventually destroy ourselves.

Society does decide on certain moral restrictions while allowing great freedom in other areas.  Consider that even in our pluralist society, we don’t allow polygamy, and mostly, we don’t allow prostitution or hard drugs.

What we need is a society in which we can coexist under laws that protect us from doing the other harm, where freedom exists to persuade about religion and social-political matters.

Gap Theory

The Gap Theory view holds that there is a gap of time between the original creation--In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 1.1--and a Divine judgment on the earth--The earth was [became] without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep, Genesis 1.2.

It is held that the original creation was destroyed by Divine Judgment on the angels that sinned who presumably populated the earth prior to Adam. It allows for the assumed great age of the earth and the universe and natural phenomena that is held to require great periods of time (like fossils or coal). This destruction could explain the demise of the dinosaurs. The six-day creation is actually a restoration or recreation of the earth and atmosphere. As far as history from the recreation, the renewed creation and mankind are relatively young, comparable to the young earth view of creation.

Genesis 1.1-2: "In the beginning...": I take this as the beginning of the first day of original creation. God created that space called the heavens, and he created that ball of water called the earth. But I believe Genesis Chapter One gives us details of what God did over a six-day period. The first day was not the creation of the earth in all its character to make it fitting for the habitation of mankind. Even a recreation theory requires six days to may the earth habitable for mankind.

"The earth was ('hayah')...": To interpret the Hebrew word "hayah" as "become," I would need explicit biblical evidence of such a preAdamic world undergoing Divine judgment. None of the suggested references for a preAdamic world and judgment are as explicit as the Noahic flood narative. I really doubt Peter had in view the preAdamic world in 2 Peter 3.5-6: For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world [that] then existed perished, being flooded with water. Jesus never refers to a preAdamic judgment, only the Noahic flood, of which we have a clear historical reference in Genesis. It seems to me that what happened in Noah's day and Lot's day are things people willingly forget (2 Peter 3.5), things which are historically recorded and are a precedent of how it shall be at the second coming of Christ and the Day of the Lord.

"...without form and void...": Since the earth on the first day was just a ball of water, it was without form and void, or, as another translation, "waste and empty". I'm not sure about the use of "waste." (The translation of the LXX has "unsightly and unfinished.") If God creating the earth took six days, then in the final stage, it was not created waste and empty. And it surely was inhabited. This was the intended outcome. The same would be true for a six-day recreation view. Why take 6 days to recreate and not do it all in one instant?

Scriptures seemingly supporting a Gap Theory view...

Isaiah 45.18: For thus says the Lord, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited...

Response: If we take into account the whole six days for the creation of the earth, it was not created a waste, and it was definitely inhabited at the end of the week, which would have been the objective.

Psalm 18.7-15: Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of the hills also quaked and were shaken, because He was angry. Smoke went up from His nostrils, and devouring fire from His mouth; coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down with darkness under His feet...

Response: This text just seems to portray God's wrath using natural phenomena. If it can be determined that the Noahic Flood is not referenced here because of a lack of historical corroboration, I would think the same would be true for a preAdamic judgment on a preAdamic world.

Jeremiah 4:23-26: I beheld the earth, and indeed [it] [was] without form, and void; and the heavens, they [had] no light. I beheld the mountains, and indeed they trembled, and all the hills moved back and forth. I beheld, and indeed [there] [was] no man, and all the birds of the heavens had fled. I beheld, and indeed the fruitful land [was] a wilderness, and all its cities were broken down At the presence of the Lord, By His fierce anger.

Response: This text is like Psalm 18.7-15. Yet it is silent as to whether it was the destruction of a world populated by angels. It seems to be just a very ominous vision of Divine wrath. Thus the vision showed the absense of men and the birds having all fled. The absense of men could be like the vision in Isaiah 6.11, 12: "Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, The houses are without a man, the land is utterly desolate. The Lord will remove men far away..." The reference of there being "no man" seems to suggest a judgment on men, not angels (in Jeremiah), for that seems to be the point in Isaiah. "Without form and void" is used in vs 23. I can see how this could support the idea that Genesis 1.2 is the result of judgment. Such a description could apply for both a beginning phase of creation and a judgment. There were no distinctive land features. The LXX doesn't even say "without form and void." My translation reads: "I looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was not." Again, a reference to a lack of distinctive land features.

2 Peter 3:5-7: For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world [that] then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth [which] are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Response: People willingly forget the Noahic flood as Divine wrath on mankind. I doubt that many have heard of a preAdamic flood. It is the Noahic flood that has significance with reference to the Day of the Lord, for the flood came on unprepared souls as will the Day of the Lord. If such was the case with a flood upon a preAdamic world of angels living on the earth, then why not a clear historical account to consider? We know that the angels sinned, but the details needed to support a preAdamic flood on the earth are vague at best.

So what about Dinosaurs? It has made sense to me to see Leviathan and Behemoth, in the book of Job (chapters 40-41), as dinosaur-type-creatures. And if we have fossils of creatures that live today, then either God recreated the same creatures, or the fossil record does not date back to a preadamic period. If the latest Coelacanth fossil is 70 million years old, and yet it lives today, then the fossil is either much more recent, or God recreated the fish (assuming the fossil belongs to the preadamic world), or it's the fish that got away.

Unsaved resurrected in connection with Christ

There are obvious places where "all" is without exception, as in John 5:28-29:

Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

Some believe that "all" is without exception in 1 Corinthians 15:22, since the resurrection is in view in that chapter, and "in Christ" can mean "in connection with" Christ. 

Christ will raise all people, some to life and some to judgment.  In connection with Adam, all die physically, in connection with Christ, all will be resurrected to physical life.  I think the general tendency is to see the verse as a reference to the spiritual life, the text is about physical resurrection.  So it could be that in connection with Christ, everyone will be resurrected, but not with the same destiny.

"For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive."