In this passage, Hoekema is reaffirming the same truths that Irenaeus so eloquently defended 1800+ years ago against the Gnostics:
One question we should face at this point is whether the new earth will be totally other than this present earth or a renewal of the present earth. Both in Isaiah 65:17 and in Revelation 21:1 we hear about �a new heaven and a new earth.� The expression �heaven and earth� should be understood as a biblical way of designating the entire universe: �Heaven and earth together constitute the cosmos� (H. Sasse, Kittel�s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, I, 678). But now the question is, Will the present universe be totally annihilated, so that the new universe will be completely other than the present cosmos, or will the new universe be essentially the same cosmos as the present, only renewed and purified?
Lutheran theologians have often favored the former of these two options. G. C. Berkouwer mentions a number of Lutheran writers who favor the concept of the annihilation of the present cosmos and of a complete discontinuity between the old earth and the new (�The Return of Christ�, p. 220). Appeal is made by these theologians to passages such as Matthew 24:29 (�The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken�) and II Peter 3:12 (�The heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire�). It is clear that cataclysmic events will accompany the destruction of the present earth -- events which will constitute a divine judgment on this earth, with all of its sin and imperfection.
We must, however, reject the concept of total annihilation in favor of the concept of renewal, for the following four reasons:
First, both in II Peter 3:13 and in Revelation 21:1 the Greek word used to designate the newness of the new cosmos is not neos but kainos. The word neos means new in time or origin, whereas the word kainos means new in nature or quality (J. Behm, �kainos,� TDNT, III, 447-49). The expression ouranon kainon kai gen kainen (�a new heaven and a new earth,� Rev. 21:1) means, therefore, not the emergence of a cosmos totally other than the present one, but the creation of a universe which, though it has been gloriously renewed, stands in continuity with the present one.
A second reason for favoring the concept of renewal over that of annihilation is Paul�s argumentation in Romans 8. When he tells us that the creation waits the eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God so that it may be set free from its bondage to decay (vv. 20-21), he is saying that it is the present creation that will be liberated from corruption in the eschaton, not some totally different creation.
A third reason is the analogy between the new earth and the resurrection bodies of believers. Previously we pointed out that there will be both continuity and discontinuity between the present body and the resurrection body (pp. 251-52). The differences between our present bodies and our resurrection bodies, wonderful thought they are, do not take away the continuity: it is we who shall be raised, and it is we who shall always be with the Lord. Those raised with Christ will not be a totally new set of human beings but the people of God who have lived on this earth. By way of analogy, we would expect that the new earth will not be totally different from the present earth but will be the present earth wondrously renewed.
A fourth reason for preferring the concept of renewal over that of annihilation is this: If God would have to annihilate the present cosmos, Satan would have won a great victory. For then Satan would have succeeded in so devastatingly corrupting the present cosmos and the present earth that God could do nothing with it but to blot it totally out of existence. But Satan did not win such a victory. On the contrary, Satan has been decisively defeated. God will reveal the full dimensions of that defeat when he shall renew this very earth on which Satan deceived mankind and finally banish from it all the results of Satan�s evil machinations.
In this connection it is interesting to note the words with which Edward Thurneysen described his understanding of what the new earth would be like: �The world into which we shall enter at the Parousia of Jesus Christ is therefore not another world; it is this world, this heaven, this earth; both, however, passed away and renewed. It is these forests, these fields, these citiies, these streets, these people, that will be the scene of redemption. At present they are battlefields, full of the strife and sorrow of the not yet accomplished consummation; then they will be fields of victory, fields of harvest, where out of seed that was sown with tears the everlasting sheaves will be reaped and brought home.� (from �Christus und seine Zukunft,� in Zwischen den Zeiten, 1931, p. 209. Trans. by J.A. Schep in �The Nature of the Resurrection Body�, pp. 218-19). Emil Brunner criticized this statement, thinking it to be far too crass and materialistic, and saying that we have no right to expect that that the future earth will be just like the present one (�Eternal Hope�, trans. Harold Knight--London: Lutterworth, 1954, p. 204). G. C. Berkouwer, however, expresses appreciation for the concreteness of Thurneysen�s hope, preferring this way of stating what the future will be like to ethereal or spiritualized concepts of the future which fail to do justice to the biblical promise of a new earth.