Theology in the Raw - 850: Should Christians Care for the Environment? Dr. Sandy Richter

Episode Date: March 18, 2021

Dr. Sandy Richter is one of my favorite--and one of the most provocative--biblical scholars, and she comes back on Theology in the Raw for the second time in 10 months to help us think through this important question: should Christian care for the environment? The answer, of course--if you read the Bible--is yes. But why are so many Christians resistant to this question? (Pssst...it’s because we’re often shaped more by American political tribal identities than the actual Bible.) We also wrestle with questions like: What age will we be in the resurrection? Will animals be resurrected in the new creation? And why won’t there be marriage in the resurrection?

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I have on the show today one of my favorite biblical scholars, Dr. Sandra, or she goes by Sandy Richter. Sandy Richter is just an absolute brilliant biblical scholar. She was on the show last summer. I don't know if you remember the episode where we talked about the so-called rape laws in Deuteronomy, and Sandy just did a fantastic job helping us understand the ancient Near East context and the actual biblical language surrounding some of these difficult laws. And in this episode, we dig into her latest book, which is called Stewards of Eden, What Scripture Says About the Environment and Why it Matters. This was a fantastic episode, just digging into the scriptural vision for creation, for why Christians should care for the environment, not out of political interest per se, but out of theological, for theological reasons.

And she makes that distinction really clear. Sandy is a graduate of Valley Forge University, of Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, and she earned her doctorate from the Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Department of Harvard University in the Hebrew Bible. So no, she's a high-powered scholar, a veteran of many years of leading student groups and archaeological excavation and historical geography classes in Israel. She's also taught at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wesley Biblical Seminary, Wheaton College. And she currently is a professor at Westmont University or Westmont College out in California. One of my favorite Christian colleges, by the way, partly because it's in Santa Barbara, one of my favorite cities on earth.

And the book, I came across Sandy's name originally because she wrote a book called The Epic of Eden, a Christian entry into the Old Testament, which I used to assign as a textbook for my Old Testament survey class, because it is hands down the best accessible, somewhat short, easy to read, incredibly thoughtful introduction and overview of the Old Testament that I've ever read. It's so good. And we talked briefly about that book, but we do dig into her more recent work on a Christian approach to the environment. So please welcome back to the show, the one and only Dr. Sandy Richter. Okay, hey, welcome back to another episode of Theology in the Raw. I am here with a guest who has been on the show before in the last year, Dr. Sandy Richter.

Sandy, thanks so much for being on the show again in one year. Oh, it's so awesome to be invited, Preston. Thank you for being interested in what I have to say. Well, our previous episode, we dealt with one of the most challenging passages to my mind regarding rape and women and Deuteronomy and Exodus. And your explanation was just so good and so helpful. And I know my audience, I got a lot of great feedback from that. So when you reached out again and told me about this book that, I mean, this book that, let's see, oh, it came out a year ago, actually, 2020. So yeah, I would love to dive in and talk about this. So it's called

Stewards of Eden, What Scripture Says About the environment and why it matters. So here we go again with another culturally volatile hot topic. There it is. got interested in writing a book like this, then I want to get into the content. And I do, I just have lots of questions, really, because this has become a politically charged question about, you know, if you care for the environment, people want to put you in one political box or the other. And I'm going to guess you're going to resist some of that kind of way of framing things. So, yeah, what led you to write this book, Sandy? write this book, Sandy? Great, great question. And honestly, I launched the introduction to the book with that question. And I am a person like probably many of your listeners who's been interested and in love with God's creation all of my life. You know, this whole business of being able to hike up a mountain or float in the middle of the ocean or hold a wild creature in your hands, work in wildlife

rehabilitation, whatever it is. I've always had just a deep sense that I was encountering the Almighty when I was encountering these things. And of course, our Bible is full of that testimony. The heavens declare the glory of God, etc., etc. So I'd always been that person. But, and here's where this introductory story comes through. story comes through, like so many Christians, I had thought I couldn't incorporate my love for creation and my love for the kingdom in the same space. And so there I was with Professor Kristen Page at Wheaton College. She is an endowed chair of biology. This was a shared value system for us,

and we applied for a faith and learning grant at Wheaton College. And we asked for the opportunity to teach a class on the Bible and biology, environmentalism for the Christian. And we got the grant, which meant we got to co-teach the class because, of course, it's expensive for a college to have two profs in on the same course. Of course, it's expensive for a college to have two profs in on the same course. And we did this very standard icebreaker kind of thing. And everyone who's ever taught a class has done this icebreaker, which is tell us who you are, what your major is, and why you took this class. Like, you know, raise your hand if you haven't used this icebreaker. And we did it just to get the conversation rolling.

and we did it just to get the conversation rolling and as we went around the room of 25 30 students all well-informed um deeply committed biologically skilled uh weedies every one of them gave the exact same testimony and it went kind of like this. I have always loved camping. I've always loved backpacking. I've always loved wildlife, you know, fill in the blank, um, the ponies on Assateague, the beauty of the Ozarks, uh, the dolphins in the channel sound every one of them. And, and I've always loved Jesus, but I didn't know I could love both at the same time. Jesus. But I didn't know I could love both at the same time. And as we went around the room, Kristen and I were just staggered by the fact that every one of them said the same thing. And I looked at Kristen and she looked at me and we're like, yeah, us too. And then every one of them said, I'm so glad you offered this class. So this business of being able to pull biblical theology

into what has become a ridiculously politically charged issue, that became my issue. I wanted to write a book that those college students could take home and say, OK, here's my Bible. And here is biblical responsibility for God's creation. And I wanted to write a book that they could take home and hand to their parents and their parents could do the same thing. And if I'm really good, they could hand to their grandparents and do the same thing. I'm really good, they could hand to their grandparents and do the same thing. Well, that doesn't surprise me because when I read your work, I mean, you're so biblically centered, like you're so unapologetically focused on the text of scripture. It's not like there's no suspicion that you're trying to bend the text around some

political movement or something. You are primarily and ultimately, you are a biblical scholar because you love the text of scripture. And so that doesn't surprise me that people could hand this to their parents who may be out of political, for political reasons, might be suspicious, might be the best word of people who are making too much out of the environment. Would that be the best way to put it? That some Christians are suspicious out of political reasons, maybe, for people that are talking maybe a little too much about the environment? Would you say that's accurate? Yeah. I actually talked through three issues in the beginning of the book as to why the church has become so paralyzed on this topic. And just to give some more backstory, yeah, I gave my first sermon on – sermon from a pulpit on environmentalism in central Kentucky in 2015. Central Kentucky in 2015. Now, if you, you know, if you are plugged in to the various regions of the United States of America, which we are all so glad to call home, you're aware that Kentucky

is not in the top tier of environmentally concerned states. By the way, to your listeners, I'm outside because of a power outage, and you can hear my chickens in the background. So I'm just going to apologize from the get go. Greta and Lucy are fighting over a tomato right now. I'm hearing I'm hearing I'm hearing lots of birds chirping and the visual here for those who are listening to the podcast. I mean, I don't see a cloud in the sky. I feel I'm guessing it's probably 65 degrees and it's mid-February here in Idaho. So yes, I am, as a California transplant

in Idaho, I'm jealous. Anyway, keep going. Yeah. And I'm, I'm sorry. The news is I'm a New England transplant and I miss your snow. So, you know, we can, we can do this right. Okay. So I gave the sermon at, um, Asbury Theological Seminary. I spent 10, my first 10 years as a full professor there, loved every minute. Um, if you're looking for a seminary, check out Asbury. Um, and we had, uh, something that we did annually called a kingdom conference and it was designed to help our seminaries, seminarians connect to global issues. And in a, a great tidal wave of courage, we decided to focus on the environment. And this is, um, did I say 15, 2005?

This is 2005. Yeah, you did say 15. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I say 15? 2005. This is 2005. Oh, yeah, you did say 15. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sorry, 2005. So I was charged with a 25-minute sermon on environmentalism. And I was, A, so passionately committed to doing it right because it mattered so much to me. committed to doing it right because it mattered so much to me. And on the other hand, a little bit terrified that this might blow up in my face. And as I started, first of all, the sermon went really well and my community responded with open hearts and we launched as a result, the community recycling program and institutional recycling program, an institutional recycling

program that remains one of the most effective I've ever seen. So that all went really well. But this is when I began, 2005, bringing this into the church. And as I traveled to the various regions of our country, I just found over and over again that the church is paralyzed on this topic. The church, the historical moral compass of our society is paralyzed. And so I started asking the same question you just asked me. Why? You know, we at our best are the community

that puts orphanages and hospitals in places that no one else cares about. We're the, we first who have stepped into the sex trafficking question and said, not on my watch. I mean, that's Amy Carmichael. You know, this is our heritage. Why are we paralyzed? Why are we not speaking into what's going on in Madagascar with the Malagasy people whose island has been stripped of its forests and these people are starving to death as a result? Why are we not speaking into

Haiti with the exact same scenario? You know, where are we, basically, was my question. And I distilled it down to three issues, and the first one is political. And I think that in American politics, not European politics, but American politics, European politics, but American politics, that environmentalism has been pigeonholed into a particular political agenda that has become guilty by association with the evangelical world. And the deal is that if you are pro-life, supposedly you can't be pro-environment. If you are a patriot, supposedly you cannot also be a conservationist. And this is so hot right now. Dare I say, if you are a Republican, you cannot also be someone who believes in the

of God's good creation. So the political issue is huge. The second one, I think, is characteristic of all social justice issues. We as Americans are privileged enough that we don't see the impact of our own behavior. We're sheltered from it. We don't see that the Ganges River system has been identified by the United Nations as no longer a living estuary. The Ganges River system is essentially dead. We don't see that. We don't see orphans picking through trash piles because they can no longer grow their indigenous crops. And so since we can't see it, we don't recognize it as a moral issue. And then the third one,

and I think this one is very specific to the church, we have somehow taught our people that the earth is going to burn. And since it's going to burn, we should aggressively deploy its resources to save souls instead of Californian condors. So those are, I think, are the three big issues that keep the church silent. Well, the political one, I definitely see that, especially in the last couple of years, because we talked offline before we hit record. And in the last few years, I've tried to pay attention to different sides we hit record. And in the last few years, I've tried to pay attention to different sides of political issues.

And I got so tired of it, I just deleted my news apps. Anyway, but when I was in that, as I do with any issue, I tried to listen to people on all sides of the spectrum. So I'd listen to liberals, conservatives, moderates, whatever. of the spectrum. So I'd listen to liberals, conservatives, moderates, whatever. Um, and it was so almost comical how polarized it is, like how polar, how, how tribalistic it is. It's exactly what you said that, you know, I am Republican or I am Democrat and the other side is my enemy. So whatever they believe, I'm going to believe the opposite. I did see this.

Well, I don't want to even name names and stuff because I don't like, yeah, I'm not going to name names. But I saw a popular conservative commentator who is very smart, very articulate, very sharp. But this individual, when the climate issue came up, they were just like, nope, nope, nope. Nope. It's a conspiracy theory. It's a liberal agenda and all this stuff. And then the the moderator the host was like well wait a minute i think like almost every scientist would say this and and this person was just like in denial like no it will have the counter evidence just kind of like nope and it was like golly are you that tribalistic

like that you're not even gonna at least look if you want to have that view then what's your evidence throw it out let's have a discussion. But just to kind of, you know, just kind of just like resist it. It's like, I lost all, I was, I was like, and I was like, man, this person's really bright and brilliant and has good thoughts. And when it came to this, it was just like, there was nothing there. Um, yeah. I, so, um, here. And just, just to jump in on that, two things about that. One, who really is his tribe? This is what we were talking about before we hit record. We're citizens of the kingdom of God. Where is our identity truly based? So that would be one question I would ask. And the other one is, what kind of tribalistic way of thinking when, you know,

I was raised very conservative evangelical, very somewhat reformed, gospel-centered, biblically-centered, and it was out of those commitments to the power of the gospel and the centrality of scripture as my ultimate authority that led me into embracing a position of Christian nonviolence. And it was, to me, it was a very conservative view to hold because I was taking Jesus's words in a sense on a more literal way. I was trying to follow the movement of scripture and really digging deep into scripture and believing in the power of the cross to overcome evil through nonviolent means, you

know? And so I'm drawing on these really conservative reform themes, but my conclusion was taken as this very liberal conclusion. I'm like, well, wait, what do you mean? But they would say, well, yeah, you're just going to, you're just going to end up, you know, embracing, you know, abortion and you're going to start voting Democrat and all these things. I'm like, where'd you get that from? Like, I don't know what that means, you know? And, but I think this is a similar issue. It's just, it's been wrapped up into this, you know, you're pro-life, you're pro-military, you're anti-creation. And it's just kind of like one package deal. And it's like, well, can't we analyze each of these values on their own?

You know? I like that. I like that phrase package deal too, because again, if we're going to take seriously our identity as Christians, what, what's the package? Um, and, and the package certainly is not American partisanship. You know, it's funny because I see all of these blogs and websites going, um going for the first time talking about Christian nationalism and American politics. I'm like, really? It's taking you this long to start talking about this? Right. I'm thinking about Epic of Eden, right, which I wrote in 2008.

And I put a little addendum on there about the identity of the kingdom of God and where does the current political state of Israel fall into that equation. My editors wanted me to pull it back then because they didn't want to push the big red button. And I was like, you're not publishing this book without it. Good for you. So we pushed it. And it wasn't that big a red button. Because as you're saying, of course, the kingdom of God is bigger than the United States of America. You know, of course, there are citizens of the kingdom in North Korea and South Korea. What are you going to do about it?

Oh, totally. Can you? Okay, let's, I actually do have questions about the current, maybe scientific discussion, specifically about climate change. I'm so ignorant on that whole discussion, but we should probably begin

by maybe mapping out a good biblical theology of creation, really. So like if, what would be your kind of five minute spiel if a Christian said, new Christian said, okay, what does the Bible say about my involvement with creation, with the environment? Like what would be your elevator pitch on that? Which I'm going to assume is probably

the backbone of your book. It is the backbone of the book. And let me say as well that the book is short and it's intentionally short i was shooting more for a tract than a magna opus um partly because i hang out with undergrads these days and uh you make anything bigger than 100 pages give up right okay so yeah yeah okay so the backbone of the book is to to ask the question, is environmental stewardship creation? And it's huge in my theology. Is this a biblical value? That's the big question. And as a student of the text, all of us should be able to take issues like this and walk them through the biblical

text. And if we find a consistent witness that, yes, the God of the Bible, the person who is the creator of the cosmos, is systematically invested and concerned with this topic, then we, the citizens of his kingdom, have to be invested and concerned about this topic as well. So what I do with the book is I start in creation, the narratives of creation in Genesis 1 and 2, because, of course, that's where all biblical theology should begin. And I ask the question, what's the blueprint? a system in which God has created this amazing, perfect ecosphere filled with creatures, flora, fauna, beyond our wildest imagination. And he has placed the sun, moon, and stars in the heavens. He has placed the birds and the fish in the sea and the sky. He has placed the land animals

on the land. And he has placed his steward, the one made in his image, as the authority figure over them all. And a lot of environmentalists are really resistant to the idea of dominion and rulership and authority, and I shout back at them, no, Genesis 1 is all about who's in charge here. And that's why God arrives on the seventh day. He's in charge of everything. Humanity has been placed under his authority over everything that follows. And what is the charge? The charge is God placed humanity in the garden to la'udah, to serve it, and to lashomrah, to protect it.

So this is our calling from the get-go. And so I detail that calling, and then I walk the issue of environmental concern through the Old Covenant. That is what we call the Old Testament. So the story of Israel. I walk it through the New Covenant. That's what we call the Old Testament, so the story of Israel. I walk it through the New Covenant, that's the story of the church. And then we take a look at the eschaton, this is the final plan, this is God's ultimate goal and telos of redemption. What does the new heavens and the new earth look like? Are we still stewards? And what are we taking care of? And as we walk through these

embodiments of the people of God in the place of God, in each of these grand narratives, we find that the creator of the cosmos is instructing, and Israel, it's very specific, because these people are farmers, right? And they're pastoralists. So there's a lot more data to deal with in the Old Covenant than the New, but it's represented in the New as well and certainly reappears in the Eschaton. But over and over again, Yahweh takes the time to say, okay, how are you going to deal with your land? Well, let me tell you, Israel, that your land actually belongs to me, just like the garden actually belonged to me. And you had the opportunity to live in it and enjoy it. But yeah, you're kind of renters. And I'm the landlord. So let me make it really clear that I want everything I've given you to be in as good shape when I get it back as it was when I gave it to you.

And all our college students can hear this, right? You know, what about that security deposit? What about your dorm room? What about your first apartment? If you trash it, you know what happens to that security deposit. And that's what happens to Israel. When they are cast out of the land, it actually states in our Old Testament that God took back the Sabbaths. He took back the Sabbath rest of the land and the animal because Israel disobeyed.

So what I'm saying is that throughout the Old Covenant, issues like sustainable agriculture, issues, humane animal husbandry, environmental terrorism, the care for the widow and the orphan through the proper stewardship of the land. These are front and center in the law codes of Israel. So Israel wasn't allowed to ignore these issues. And when we move to the new covenant, we hear echoes of the same. goes are the same. And when we move to the final story, we see not just a recreation of Eden. Paul, Paul the Pharisee, talks about the resurrection of creation in Romans chapter 8, right next to the resurrection of the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve. So this issue that so many think is either peripheral or foreign to the biblical text is actually woven into it from the beginning to the end. And we as citizens of the kingdom cannot ignore those

realities. No, that's super good and helpful and concise. I've got a few questions. As I, the limited amount of time I've spent maybe as a college professor teaching biblical theology and when the land promise comes up, the way I've articulated this, I would love to hear your thoughts. I don't know if this is like basic, like, oh, no, duh, or, well, that's one possible view, but like the relationship between creation as a whole and the land promise of Israel. The way I framed that was, you know, you have obvious echoes in Genesis 1 and 2 and the Abrahamic covenant of blessing and cursing and land.

And so what you have is this broad vision for Adam, humanity caring for creation in Genesis 1, 1 to 2, 1 to 3, 1 to 11, really. And then that's kind of like narrowed down into Israel caring for the promised land as almost like a down payment, a microcosm, a, I don't know. Reiteration, perhaps. Reiteration. Oh, I like that word. Okay. Yeah. I'll go with that. I should have used that 10 years ago when I was teaching on this. And then when you get to the new, cause the question is like, okay, the land promises everywhere in the old Testament, everywhere. Right. And then where did it go in the new Testament? And the way I try to articulate this is that,

that specifying on the land of Israel gets broadened out again in the New Testament to include all creation again in Romans 8, in Revelation 21, 22, in 1 Peter and other passages. Because somehow there's a relationship between creation as a whole and the land of Israel within the flow of biblical theological narrative. Is that a helpful or accurate way of articulating it? Absolutely accurate and helpful. If your listeners have been tuned into the concept of covenant, and if they haven't, you know, a little book blurb for Epic of Eden, the concept of suzerain and vassal. This is all over our Old and New Testaments that God interjects himself into human history with a paradigm that his audience already understands. And it's a political paradigm that I'm the big king, you're the little king. God is suzerain, Israel is a vassal. This is what's happening on Mount Sinai. And Yahweh is

saying to Israel, if you're willing to enter into a covenant, which in their world would have been identified as an international treaty, if you're willing to step into a covenant with me, I'm willing to become your suzerain Lord. So I'll give you the stipulations. We know those as the Ten Commandments in the book of Deuteronomy. And if you keep them, I'll bless you. And how will I bless you? Well, there's a whole list of those blessings, especially in Deuteronomy 27 and 28.

But the core issue, as you've already said, is you'll keep the land. And here's where it really narrows into environmental stewardship. The land is understood both in the creation narrative of Genesis 1 and 2, and in the Mosaic Covenant, and in the new heavens and the new earth of what we call heaven. This is a land grant. And then the political world of the ancient Near East, it means that the big king has given his subject nation territory. given them fruitful territory for them to go and be blessed and be secure and grow their crops and build their economy and be militarily secure. That's what the whole Israelite covenant is about. And if you keep my stipulations, I'll keep you safe. And I'll give you houses that you didn't build and vineyards that you didn't plant. And I'll make sure that your crops come in and I'll make sure that your animals reproduce. And every man will sit under his fig tree and under

his vine and be blessed. We all know this language. What we haven't done is moved it into a real economy. So this land grant that Yahweh offers to Israel is a reiteration of the land grant that the creator offered Adam and Eve. And it is a foreshadowing of the land grant that Jesus, the firstborn of the father and our king is offering his new tribe, his new nation, that would be the church that we call the new heavens and the new earth. So, the deal is that in every iteration of the relationship between the Almighty and his people, they're the land grant. And in each iteration, the king is saying, I am so happy to give you this land to prosper on and to be blessed by, but don't ever forget that it's actually mine.

And you will live on this land and you will prosper on this land within the boundaries of our covenant. And when you violate that covenant, I'm going to pull the land grant. And in Eden, what happens? Adam and Eve are cast out of the garden, which was their land grant. In Israel, what happens? The people of Israel are exiled from the land of Israel. And in the new covenant, and you and I know this, and this is why we've dedicated our lives to this issue. What will happen if the people of this generation reject the covenant? They'll lose the land grant.

What's the land grant? It is the resurrected heaven and earth. It's what we call heaven. In other words, when someone stands in a pulpit and talks about hell, what they're talking about is a community that has lost the land grant. So this is all over our Bible. It's everywhere. But we don't move it into real space and time. So there's a connection between the Old Testament view of exile

as kind of the ultimate curse. The ultimate curse is you will be kicked out of this land, which is part of the covenant, and that's somehow connected to Gehenna, to Hades, the word, not Hades, but hell, as you will not have a part in the new creation. So the little, the little triad I use in my book, The Epic of Eden is people, place and presence. God's first plan, plan A, was that the people of God could live forever in the place of God with full access to the presence of God.

This was the blueprint. We said, nah, we've got a better plan, right? So we rejected the first plan. It says, same plan, phase two, the people of God, in the place of God, Canaan, with full access to the presence of God, tabernacle. Israel said, no, we got a better plan. So he shows up again. And he shows up again, the word made flesh. And this line in John 1.14 actually always makes tears come in my eyes. And he tabernacled among us. Oh my gosh. And he named himself the temple. And he said, I'm coming again to offer you the presence, full access to the presence of God. If you will agree to be the people of God and I will give you again the place of God.

But the New Testament makes it very clear. Peter is very good at it. You're just sojourners on this planet. The planet you're actually looking for is Revelation 21 and 22. I'm giving you back the land grant and I'm going to resurrect the land grant. So it's just as beautiful and just as perfect and just as old as it was in the garden. And whales will swim in the ocean again. And condors will soar over the mountains again.

And Adam and Eve will be restored to their rightful place. But in this whole story, the planet itself is not ours and and that's the little proverb i use throughout my book um the earth is the lord's and all it contains i have given it to you to use in your need this this i'm not i'm not joining greenpeace. I have given it to you to use in your need, but not to abuse in your greed. And Preston, let me do this little quote for you. I closed the book. Actually, I closed the book with a chapter on resources for the responsive Christian, because, you know, we can commit to this issue all we want. We need some help.

Like, what do I actually do to help? And that's what that very last chapter is. But the conclusion is entitled, How Then Should We Live? And I open the chapter with a quotation from a guy named Gus Speff. And if you're a political person, you might have heard his name before. This guy is the be- and end all of environmental activism. He was the chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality under President Jimmy Carter. He spent his whole life investing in organizations that we would all recognize and a total insider when it comes to political environmental concern. And hey,

President Jimmy Carter, America needs you. You know, this is a man with such integrity who sat in the White House. But this is what Gus Speck has to say about environmentalism. And he says, secular is the day is long. Quote, I used to think that the top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse, and climate change. I thought that 30 years of good science would address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed, and apathy. And to deal with these, we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don't know how to do that. Wow.

Oh my God. Does that just make your pastor's heart explode? That's beautiful. Wow. Golly. A heart chain. Imagine, yeah. And this guy, you said this guy is totally secular.

He's not coming from a religious perspective, and yet he's getting to the heart of where the discussion needs to happen. I have a, I have a couple of questions because you mentioned, well, the creation, new creation, and I've often wondered, and I know this is kind of a debate, I think, The new creation that we're looking forward to, and I do like to call it new creation because whenever we use, I know what people mean when they say heaven. Well, I know what you mean when you say heaven, kind of that's our new crew. But when most people say heaven,

it's this disembodied non-creational kind of sphere. Clearly in Revelation, right? And heaven comes down and there's new heaven, new earth. Is it a renewal of the old earth or a brand new earth? Or do we not know that? And does it matter? I've often wondered that because, because revelation or Romans eight seems to say, um, it's a renewal of the old, like this stuff, that this physical matter will be made new. I will be able to come back to my yard and it will be made new, but it will be the yard that I used to live in, you know? But then like first Peter, second Peter three, which we need to get the

second Peter three, because that raises questions too. It seems to be kind of a brand new earth, you know? Do you have any thoughts on that? Are these legitimate questions? Is there clarity or lack of clarity in scripture on, on which of these two it is? Yeah. Uh, as usual, you, you have put your finger on the big red button. Um, yes, these are critical questions and a chapter seven of the book, seven biblical number, right. Um, uh Deals with the new covenant. And this is the issue, right? People read 2 Peter chapter 3, and they read Thessalonians chapter 5, verses 2 and 3, or Revelation 6, and they're like, hey, team, the whole place is going to burn. In fact, I got invited to the Bob Dutko show in Detroit. I'm sure you all follow him.

And he was completely dedicated to 2 Peter chapter 3, and we couldn't get past 2 Peter chapter 3. So what does it say? It says, like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burnt up. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat? But according to his promise, Okay, so Thessalonians has a similar message. Revelation 6, when the sixth seal is opened, there's a great earthquake, the sun becomes black,

the moon becomes blood, and the world seems to be destroyed. So this is a very reasonable response on the part of the Bible-believing Christian, which is, okay, it looks to me like all of the great blue whales and all of the whooping cranes and Madagascar and Haiti, they're all going to be burned up. So what does it matter that we invest in maintaining their habitats or defending them from illegal practices, right? So first of all, let me launch, before I lose any of your audience, with the fact that Ben Witherington, Colin Gunton, Douglas Moo, Greg Beal, these are all huge New Testament names. Every one of them will argue and would argue, if you want to interview them, that the relationship

between the first heavens and the second heavens is one of continuity, not of annihilation. Okay. They would make the argument and they would argue based on Romans chapter 8 that this earth is going to be resurrected just like you and I are, which means that my body is going to wind up in the new heavens. And we're going to hope that it's going to look a little bit better than it does now. And, um, you know, the, the knee that really needs to be replaced at this point in time, uh, will have all of its original stuff. And, um, yeah, I, my kids ask me this all the time. What age will I be in heaven? We can do that some other time. I know I have that written down.

I'm shooting. Yeah. I'm shooting for like 34, you know, when everything still works, but I'm not stupid anymore. That's what I'm shooting for. So I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on that one. That because the apostle Paul juxtaposes the resurrection of Preston Sprinkle and the resurrection of the heavens and the earth in the same sentence, that Paul is not looking at annihilation and neither is the New Testament. Rather, they're looking for rebirth. a level of value on this planet that it's the same sort of value that we place on that young orphan that we see on our television screen and we pull out our credit card because God values this. Okay. Now maybe I've overstated, um, that orphan has a, um, um, is made in the image of God and has a redeemable soul. But the point being that Paul is putting them in the same paragraph. So what do we do with these other passages that seem to talk about fire and annihilation?

Because either Paul is crazy or maybe he's having, you know, kind of a senior moment. You know, how is he? How are both arguments in your New Testament? So what I do in chapter seven is I introduce my readers to a concept called the Day of Yahweh. And you know about this. I know about this, but they might not know about this. It's called the Yom Yahweh in the Old Testament. It's called the Parousia in the New Testament. It's the same event. It is the moment when the heavens split and the suzerain of the universe steps back into our dimension and says, that's it. I'm done. I'm not waiting any longer. I've expended as much mercy as I can. I have called your name 10,000 times. And it's time for every corrupt government, every pedophile, every serial killer, every human on this planet that has rejected the righteousness of God to pay their dues. We're done. And I am calling all of my own

to my side. I am separating the sheep and the goats. I am separating the wheat from the tares. Today is the day of judgment. And for those, of course, who are citizens of the kingdom of heaven, this is a day where every underground church in China is finally released into freedom. This is the day where every martyr who is languishing in a prison cell sees the door open and the chains break free. But this is also the moment where every perpetrator of evil is called out. This day of Yahweh permeates the biblical text and it is filled with, and sorry, I'm getting into my preaching moment, dial it back. Okay, it is filled with images, fire and destruction, and it has been filled with those images since the first day that God calls Adam out in the garden, yeah, to the prophet Joel when he speaks of the sun being

darkened and the moon turning to blood, to Acts chapter 2 where Peter stands up among the 12 and he announces that this is the day, to the moment when the rider on the white horse arrives with his armies. That's what the day is. And there is a lexicon to that language. And the lexicon has to do with fire and earthquakes and signs in the heavens and on the earth. So when we look at Thessalonians, when we look at Peter, this is what Moo and Gunton and Beale would all tell us if they were sitting on this podcast, these are images of justice and judgment. These are not images of annihilation.

Okay. And if we read these passages with their biblical lexicon and specifically their Old Testament apocalyptic lexicon, we realize that not every man, woman, and child on this planet is going to die. And we realize that this planet is not going to die. Rather, the meta-narrative of our Bibles is that of resurrection. So, it's almost like the fire is almost like an image for the sinful, the dross of sinfulness that is cancered. The creation will be burned away, but it's not talking about destroying the creation as a whole, but more just a sinful. First John, do not love the world or the ways of the world. Um, for everything that's in the world is better than Africa, the rest of the verse, but like the world there is used in kind of a reference to the sinful structures of societies and people. And it's

not talking about the physical material of the world that we're not supposed to love. Right. So, um, is that what you're saying? So, so the fire here is an image referring to kind of the cleansing of creation, not the destroying of creation? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's a major image here. Let me remind us too as biblical theologians that when the flood came, who does God rescue? Right?

Yeah. Is it the planet that's wiped out? Is it the animal kingdom that's wiped out? No, the place is washed clean. But let me also read, because I think this helps us very much to actually hear Romans 8 and remind ourselves who's talking. This is Paul, the Pharisee. This is the first century. This is not a senior administrator in the Nature Conservancy, okay? This is Paul talking, and this is what he says. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. And when he's talking glory, he's talking the new kingdom. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the

sons of god and the reason it's sons and not daughters um is because he means heirs and that means sons and daughters when it comes to gender for the creation was subjected to futility the creation was subjected to futility i.e frustration. frustration, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it. Why? In hope. In hope that the creation itself will also be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, heirs, comma, the redemption of our bodies. I use this passage all the time when I'm trying to shake my undergraduates loose of the idea that salvation is all about fire insurance, right?

That everything about the gospel is just to get them into heaven. No! Creation is reversing the fall. And what happens with the fall? Creation is subjected to futility. Yeah. So the creation is being resurrected right along with us, which means that this creation is no more disposable than we are.

And, you know, Christian ethicists, they often say, oh, what's the phrase? I'm blinking on his name now. Oliver O'Donovan, where we gain our ethics from looking forward to the kind of ultimate end, like the direction where God has taken creation informs our present day ethic. And you see this all over the place in scripture. since what you're saying is biblical and true, like that longing and hope for a new creation should inform our current ethical posture toward that creation. I do have a few kind of like, what about the dinosaurs kind of questions and not the dinosaurs, but although that we could go that direction, but like my kids do ask the age question. I'm so glad you brought it up. Dad, how old will we be in the new creation?

I've had to train them to say new creation, not heaven. And it's still sometimes they'll fall to heaven. But yeah, they're like, I can't, like, am I going to be 34? Like, that's just like, I only know you as a teenager. Okay, you've frozen there. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry about that. So, so yeah, well, the question, the question is, yeah, is there, is it legitimate to ask the question, how old will we be? Or how do you respond to that question? Cause my, my family,

my kids ask me this all the time and I don't know what to say. And how old are your kids? 18, 16, 14 and 12. Oh, I love that. Okay. So mine asked it more when they were small. Okay. And I, and like every kid, um, and you gotta just love the simple design, right?

Like every kid, they were so afraid that they were going to be separated from their family unit, right? And now my kids are 18 and 15, so they're not as nervous. So, my first answer is like, I don't really know. So, let me speculate with you. And as I speculate with you, the only resurrected body I know about is Jesus. So, what do we know about Jesus' resurrected body? A, we know it was perfectly healed. B, we know it was recognizable. C, we know it was transdimensional. I find that one really fun. And it makes me start thinking about C.S. Lewis and Pierre Landre and how do I even wrap my brain

around those ideas. So the recognizable, the perfectly whole, I think those are really good indicators for us. And C.S. Lewis does help me with this, especially the last book of the Narnia series. And The Great Divorce really helped me. Because they helped me to imagine a further up and further in world that I can get my brain around. One of the things I always have to talk to my undergraduates about, and I'm sure you do too, is that we're not dealing with a disembodied, you know, fat little babies floating around the stars, the clouds playing on harps. Gosh, that sounds awful. And when I think, when I think. uh so i am thinking about is a an ideal humanity and this is where i start stumbling. I'd love to hear what you think, too. An ideal humanity, I want some gray heads in there. That perfectly healthy, amazing person who they always pick for the AARP commercials or the J. Jill catalog for the older women in your crowd.

But I wouldn't want to spend the rest of eternity as an eight year old either. You know, I want to be able to mature. Uh, so what do you do with it? I don't know. I mean, I, I, I say, well, I'm going to call Sandy Richter and ask her. I, I, um, I, I just, I kind of default. It's kind of a cliche. It's kind of a cop out, but I mean, it's just that God's gonna, um, resurrect you into the most perfect state of existence that you can be. So if that's older, if it's younger, whatever, it's almost like it's, it's, it's irrelevant, but to a kid who keeps asking, it's very relevant for them. So yeah, I don't know.

You also have Isaiah 65 and 66, which it's almost like, what does it say? It will grow old but not die. Not that, but they do kind of talk about kind of a progression or even the Old Testament vision of kind of the, this world and the world to come, like the world to come didn't, you know, it was kind of like, God's going to intervene, destroy the enemies, renew the land and they're going to live kind of happily ever after. And the kind of understanding of the, um, I forget the Hebrew phrase, but the ace time Iona,

the unto the ages kind of idea. It didn't have this idea of like a stagnant age. Like I will always be 32 and a half, but kind of like, you will just never die out, but maybe there is a progression in age. And I do, I value the diverse, like age diversity is, I think as has intrinsic value. And was that going to be gone away in the new creation? Sandy, I don't know.

I don't. And another one, too, is there's no marriage in the resurrection. And I know you mentioned the Asbury professor who has got a different view on that. Oh, who's the guy you mentioned? New Testament prof. Shoot. Greg Beal. Ben Witherington. Beal, um, Ben Witherington. Ben Witherington, Ben Witherington.

Colin Gutton. Ben Witherington argues, I think, I don't know if he still holds the view, but there will be no new marriages in heaven, but existing marriages will be renewed. And my kids are really excited about that. I don't, I don't, I don't think it can get there from the text in Matthew 22, but that's another question they have. Like, are we, if, if there's no marriage, then you and mom are not going to be married. Does that mean

then we're not your kids and you're not our mother and father? You know, it's like, they're like, and they're like, heaven sucks, dad. Like this doesn't seem, and even the whole idea of like a perfect new creation, they're like, that doesn't seem real life. Like real life has pain and down days and, and sadness. and that's just real. And I want realness. I don't want fakeness. And I love the longing. It's sad to me that when they read about new creation, sometimes they don't get excited.

And I just have a view. The only thing I can say is, especially if we take the Old Testament momentum kind of more seriously, whatever your view of the afterlife will be, it will be much, much more like this life than you think. Waves and ocean and surfing and learning and building and physical structures and houses and ovens and food and good food and good wine and, you know, like all the things that you do like about this earth that you feel like you're not going to get in the new creation you're going to get you are going to get

it's going to be a thousand times better um but beyond that the specifics yeah i don't know yeah let me and let me jump in with that because when i was when i was writing epic of eden um I had a two-year-old and a six-year-old. And they, as you know from parenting, they actually go through kind of a panic stage when they first find out about heaven. Because, yeah, they're scared to death that they're going to be separated from their parents and all that sort of thing. So it dawned on me that kind of that intersection between being a theologian and being a mama was the best way for me to teach heaven was to teach Eden. Yeah, that's good. And that worked very well, both for my own heart and for my children's hearts. See, I don't think we're going to rest. I mean, rest, yes, in the biblical sense of the word, but we've got a mission that we have

not yet accomplished, and it involved reaching the stars. One of my pet visions of my intersection between science and theology, and all my science colleagues are going to roll their eyes right now, is the ever-expanding universe. Yeah. I think a lot of it has to do with a father who never wanted his children to get bored. That there will always be new horizons, new things to discover, new things to analyze and understand, but not destroy. Right? We don't have to. I'm thinking about seventh grade frogs. What is the word in biology class?

Dissect. Thank you. Yeah. We don't have to do that to understand the way an animal functions when we have the creator of the universe guiding our hands and mind. So I would say ideal life. I do know the New Testament speaks about marriage being over. explanation to that is that the level of intimacy in human community will make the level of intimacy in our families obsolete. Yeah. That's where I go with that. Yeah. Um, but I do think an ideal humanity should have multiple ages in it. Yeah. Yeah. Um, uh, we'll, we'll find out. in it. Um, uh, we'll, we'll find out. Okay. I got a couple more questions. Um, animals. Um,

to me, it seems very clear if Genesis one and two and Romans eight means anything, there will be animals in the new creation, but my kids aren't satisfied with that. My kids are, my kids are very much animal lovers. Um, I would say I am too. Yeah, they want to know, will our dog, whose name is Tank, a German short hair pointer with floppy ears, he's super cuddly, they want to know, will Tank be there in the new creation? And I've tried to get around that saying, well, yeah, there'll be German short hair pointers.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Don't do that, dad. Will Tank be there? So will animals be, current animals in this creation be resurrected or will there just be a whole, like all the animals here will be die out and then the new ones will be born and those will be part of the new creation? Or do we know? Is there any kind of theological reasoning you could use to navigate that question? you could use to navigate that question? Well, there's a lot of theological reasoning we can use, but the question really is, how much of your readership do you want to lose in the next three minutes? You're in Idaho, dude. I have about four listeners in Idaho, I think. I think the rest are outside the state.

Okay. Well, I'm in California and I could lose my job over my answer. Are you ready? Go for it. Yes. Love it. You know how folks in SoCal feel about their dogs. Okay. So I would say the theological reasoning is this, and I would say keep it between us, but of course that's foolishness. The audacity of being made in the image of God is that we are made eternal. Our souls will live forever somewhere. And animals are not made in the image. And therefore, they are not resurrectable. I feel your kids pain. And I now, John Wesley totally disagrees with me. John Wesley was convinced that his horse that he rode as an itinerant preacher was going to be in heaven.

So who can argue with John Wesley? Interesting. In this brief moment of foolish hubris, I will say that I think John Wesley was wrong. I don't think his actual horse is going to show up in heaven. But I do think that the animals who show up in heaven, uh, will not live under the abusive hand of Adam. And that is, as you know, there are two chapters in the book that deal with domestic animals and with wild animals and what Adam has done to both. We will be judged for that. No, that's, that's, uh, that, that would be my default answer. Yeah, it does seem to be there's something unique about

the image of God that is necessary for resurrection. I was hoping though, like I just wonder, well, two things. It does say in Genesis, right? that the Hebrew word nephesh, often translated soul, is used to describe animals. And obviously that's not the same kind of nephesh as a human, I don't think. But why, what is, I don't know, there's two, I think two passages, but what do you do with that? Like what's, what's. Yeah. Yeah. Well, there are two.

And this is, this is a great conversation, by the way, and we could spend hours on it. Nefesh, life force, animation. Yes, animals have it. We have it. refuse to recognize the nephesh of an animal with mercy is so anti-God-like. Like, this is not the way we are called to use our dominion. We are not behaving as stewards when we ignore the value of the nephesh. So that in Leviticus 17, when an Israelite sacrifices an animal, which they were allowed to do, like they're raising domestic creatures, they're fattening them up for feasting. When they slaughter a living creature, they have to bring it before the priest first. And my students get so upset at the idea that sacrifice was part of Israelite religion. And I remind them that Israelites ate meat like six times a year. And every time they ate a side of this or land shops, that animal, they raised it in their home. They brought it to a priest.

And they had to slice the juggler and the windpipe with their own hands. They had to consider the nefesh of the creature they consume. So which one of us lacks compassion? So, yes, I think the nefesh is very important, but what makes humanity unique is not the nefesh, it's the tselem. Okay. This is the word for image. And my phone is about to go Preston. So I don't know what you want to do. Well, I actually have another person waiting, another meeting right now, which I got to get to. So yeah, we can go ahead and head out. But so to

summarize, nefesh can be used to specify the unique soul within humans, but it's a broad enough word. It could also just mean life force in general, which applies to, to animals, uh, which gives them a certain level of sacredness, obviously not created in God's image, but there is a, there is a sacred, like, or even, oh man, see, yeah, we got too much to talk about. Maybe I gotta have you you back on. I think maybe it was A.J. Swoboda who talked about, there's several times in scripture where God is communicating or working through animals. I mean, obviously, you know, Balaam's donkey and there's other passages or bringing the animals to the ark. And he kind of says there's, God has some kind of relationship with animals.

Obviously, it's a different kind, but there's something like there is a sacredness to animals that we Westerners often don't respect. Out of fear of being, you know, the weird animal lover, you know, that thinks they're on par with being human or whatever. Well, and I don't think it's just westerners i think it is um the fallenness of humanity we abuse and neglect and i totally agree with aj there is a sacredness um to animal life partly because you and i we can't reproduce it the nefesh is a force that only God controls. And the early Jewish thinkers, the early Christian thinkers, they recognize this. And yes, that animal, its life is sacred. I totally concur. And I think that is marked all over the sacrificial system. And I think we will stand responsible for our lack of attention to it. So I totally agree with that. What I don't,

I don't see is the idea that an animal is resurrectable and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Sandy, I'm going to let you go. I got another interview to get to right now. This we've given our readers enough to chew on, to agree with, to disagree with, to wrestle with. So thank you so much for, I just, gosh, I just love talking with you about these things. Cause I, yeah, for so many reasons. I love talking with you too. You are tons of fun and I love the way you think and I love your podcast. And every time you host me, I get tons of emails saying, oh, my gosh, you know, Preston

Sprinkle. There you go. Oh, thanks for being on. We'll have to do it again sometime. Take care. OK, take care. Bye. Thank you.