Is Heaven a Place on Earth? (Part 1)

Sure, we know what Belinda Carlisle thinks (her number one song from 1987 affirms it), but so do a growing number of younger preachers. What’s this new affinity for an old doctrine worth? Not much, but it’s receiving a lot of airplay (as in podcasts, etc.).

A book that is tremendously helpful in sorting through the various interpretations of doctrine that are needed to support the theory is: A New Heaven and a New Earth: Will Heaven Be on a “Newly Renovated” Earth? It was edited by Tommy J. Hicks for the 23rd Annual Lubbock Lectureship; it was published in 2021 by Basic Bible Truths Publications in Dublin, Georgia. Its 439 pages cover nearly every aspect of the topic, including a history of this ideology. The paperback costs $15.00.

What is the controversy about? Anyone entering a study of the topic will soon discover that the adherents of this view differ as to the various details of the theory, but here is your congenial editor’s brief synopsis:

At the end of this current Christian age, Jesus returns from Heaven, and the earth is purged by fire and renovated. God will restore this terrestrial ball to the way He created it in the beginning. Both people and planet (and animals) will live in perfect harmony with one another, and they will all be physical. God Himself will depart from Heaven and come to live on earth with mankind.

Passages are cited to support this view, which will be considered shortly. The above view, however, contradicts the one held by a majority of brethren, which teaches that the universe (all the physical creation) will be destroyed, after which the Day of Judgment occurs. Then people are assigned a place either in heaven or in hell.

Physical Bodies

One is immediately struck by the claim that we will have a physical body and that we will live on a literal earth. One might respond, “Are you sure you have that right?” The following quotes are from Danny Chambers’ book, Bring on Heaven, published in 2022. The author asks and answers the question:

“Is Dan saying that Heaven is going to be a literal new earth?” Yes. That’s precisely what I’m saying (49).

For all eternity we’ll be running around in bodies that are physically perfect, emotionally perfect, and spiritually perfect (57).

God is perfectly capable of making physical things imperishable (166).

But would God actually leave Heaven to live on earth? Chambers addresses that point: “…I also believe God intended to live with us on this visible physical earth in this visible, physical universe” (49).

These bodies are going to be in prime condition and indestructible: “God must make our bodies age-proof, disease-proof, genetic-defect-proof, accident-proof, and death-proof before He tucks us in our forever home” (103). “The point is, my resurrection body will be a perfect version of the body I’ve had all my life” (234). The physical body that inhabits the earth will be in tiptop condition forever.

Do all who hold to the eternal physical earth concept believe we will have a physical body? They may not, but they should. As Chambers points out, “Physical bodies go with a physical creation” (100). If the earth is going to be renovated and remain a physical planet, then what else would we expect to inhabit it but physical bodies—both those of animal and human. And why would not the trees and vegetation likewise be literal?

However, Josh Pappas (in a podcast interview with Wes McAdams) says that those who are saved in their glorified, resurrected bodies will be given a place to inhabit, a role, and function on the literal new earth (Rev. 21). God will be with man. He adds that we will live in a resurrected body like Jesus’ resurrected body. So, which is it—a resurrected body or a glorified, resurrected body? A resurrected body would be one that was brought back to life after death. A glorified, resurrected body would be as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 15:50. Or does Pappas think that a glorified, resurrected body will still be physical?

The Philosophy Behind The Renovated Earth

Why would anyone contrive such a doctrine? It may be that some have just not thought it through. They observe certain Scriptures and construct this doctrine much as premillennialists. They take a patch here and a patch there to come up with what appears to be a seamless garment. Notice: this doctrine does not resemble premillennialism (it does not); rather, the point is that the renovated earth brethren reach their conclusions by using the same technique as the premillennialists—by taking a little Isaiah here and adding it to some Revelation there until, voilà, a doctrine contradicting many verses of Scripture is formed.

Adherents spend a great deal of time talking about the restoration. God created a perfect world, they say, and He desires to re-establish what He had in the beginning. Heaven has received Jesus “until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21).

To say that the restoration of the way things were in the beginning is a huge part of this doctrine would be an understatement. The point is repeated ad nauseum, as is seen in Chambers’ book; restoration is “returning something to the way it used to be.” This point is made four times in two pages (70-71). He adds that “the coming ‘restoration of all things’ is in part, the restoration of all creation to its previous, or original, sin-free state” (72-73).

Josh Pappas, in the same, afore-mentioned podcast, said that the world would be restored, regenerated, renewed, and brought into the pristine perfection that God intended initially. He also refers to the eternal earth as Eden 2.0. Is the second version better than Eden 1.0? If so, how? When God completed the Creation, He said it was very good (Gen. 1:31). One might reply that Satan will not have access to the recreated earth, but everything else will be the same.

This proposal sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? God is going to re-create the world just as it was in the beginning. Won’t it be wonderful? But asserting that such a thing is possible or even desirable is one thing. But how exactly would the reduplication work? Are steak lovers going to be content with the Genesis 1:29 diet, in which God authorized man to only eat every herb and every fruit? Isn’t that the way God set it up originally? Didn’t we hear something about restoration as is “returning something to the way it used to be”?

Okay. So there’s no bacon, ham, pork chops, hamburgers, shrimp, catfish, etc. After all, the animals might grow a little suspicious of our benevolent intentions if we started eating them; such practices might ruin the harmony Adam had with the animals.

This next point is not made in order to be crude, but if we are shooting for God’s original intention, will all the inhabitants of the new earth be naked and unashamed, as in the beginning? There was an emphasis on restoration, was there not? The problem is that we have all figuratively already eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. How does this problem get resolved? And since we will be eating herbs and fruit, will we be in need of thousands of port-a-potties? Or will we have indoor plumbing in our rooms? These predicaments do not arise if we have a glorified body that is not physical.

Contradiction

What happens when we begin to draw conclusions? We must face the fact that contradictions arise. Any doctrine that encompasses contradictions is itself false. If, for example, someone alleged that there is no such thing as a resurrection (as some in Corinth did), then it would, of necessity, be the case that Jesus did not rise from the dead, which is a contradiction of the truth. He was raised from the dead; we are baptized to imitate His death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-5; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Since the “no resurrection” doctrine contradicts known facts and eyewitness testimony, it is false.

The theory is that God is going to restore Eden to its original state. In that state, God told Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. Mankind will, allegedly, be on a physical earth, and they will possess physical bodies. They will possess the best physical shape that they ever had on earth. Therefore, they should be able to have sexual relationships and have children. That’s what restoration demands.

But, wait a minute. Jesus said: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30). Here is a contradiction. Everything cannot be restored to God’s original intent if men and women cannot marry, have a sexual relationship, and produce children. Furthermore, can human beings be like the angels and possess a physical body?

The concept of total restoration is stopped cold by the explicit teaching of Jesus. Chambers is aware of the contradiction, but he thinks he can wave his hand over it, like a Jedi knight, and the simple-minded will be satisfied with his explanation. After hammering over and over again about restoration, he says that there will be differences. 1) Satan will not be there. 2) No one will be getting married or given in marriage.

Is that the explanation for the contradiction? Apparently, he does not see that if there is one exception to the original intention, then there can be dozens. One cannot just shrug off something that disproves the main thesis. This would be analogous to saying, “Pre-millennialism is a sound theory—except for Jesus saying, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The exception nullifies the “rule.”

Heaven

Admittedly, the original Creation cannot be restored because this time 1) Satan will not have access to it, and 2) no marriages or propagation of children will occur. So, how is that a restoration? One does not need to choreograph fancy theological footwork when advocating that Jesus is coming for His saints and will take them home to Heaven, the eternal abode of God. It is a natural progression to go from an earthly body, formed out of the dust to a heavenly body (as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15). This universe was physical; Heaven is spiritual. No, we don’t know what our rooms will be like. We don’t know about nourishment. Who knows what our assigned roles will be or how each of us fits into Heaven’s eternal economy. We don’t need to know those things at this time—and we might not be able to comprehend this glorious abode fully.

But we do know that God wants us to be with Him—and that Jesus paid the price so that we could. And nothing contradicts these truths. Are there verses that need to be examined and explained? Certainly, but how wise is it to hold a position that clearly contradicts the Scriptures. Restoration of the earth as at the beginning is a captivating thought, but what existed at that time—an exact replica—cannot be duplicated.