#STRask - How Does the New Earth Tie in with Going to Heaven After We Die?

Episode Date: June 4, 2026

Questions about how the new earth ties in with the the teaching that we go to Heaven after we die, whether the Isaiah 65:17–25 passage about the new earth is metaphor, whether people in Heaven are aware of things happening on earth, and the prohibition against communicating with the dead.   How does the new earth and the new Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation tie in with the teaching that we go to Heaven after we die, how can we be taken directly into God’s presence if we’re not as worthy as Elijah and Enoch, and are we misleading people about the afterlife because of unbiblical assumptions? Is the Isaiah 65:17–25 passage about the new earth metaphor, especially the part about having babies? Are people in Heaven and Hell aware of things happening on earth? Is the prohibition against communicating with the dead merely against our trying to get them to respond, or should we not talk to them at all, even if we’re not expecting a response?

Thanks so much for joining us on the hashtag STRS podcast. Greg, this first question comes from M. Deo. If the church teaches that we go to heaven after we die, then how does the new earth and New Jerusalem mentioned in Revelation tie in? Also, only Elijah and Enoch were taken directly to God's presence. Surely we are not as worthy as they were. I just can't see that we would be transported directly to God once we die. Scripture hints and alludes to many things about the afterlife, but lacks defining it. Are we perhaps misleading people based off assumptions? This idea was greatly debated until Milton wrote Paradise Lost, then it became generally

accepted. I guess, well, I'm not sure about Milton and Paradise Lost and what was debated, and then something became generally accepted. I think going directly to heaven when we die, as opposed to later on. Okay, there is a difference between heaven and the new heavens and the new earth. Okay? So they're in, and I think this is a fairly standard eschatology, depending on how people may divide it up a little differently, but when we die, we go to be with the Lord. That is, our souls go to be with the Lord. Our bodies stay behind until the resurrection. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Exactly. And Jesus said to the thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise. So, um,

Excuse me. So this is very standard, and to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord is decisive as a statement. So there is no, I think, lag time, no significant lag time. And there may be a kind of an existential journey. You experience something, and people have NDE's near-death experiences. Sometimes we'll talk about things happening before they finally get to heaven and then are sent back or whatever. But basically to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. But you are present in an disembodied state. It isn't until the resurrection that the mortal, the perishable, puts on the imperishable.

This is 1st Corinthians 15, and the mortal puts on immortality. In other words, the dead will rise first, 1 Thessalonians 4. That's the perishable puts on the imperishable, the new imperishable body. And there's going to be a generation that don't die before they receive their resurrected body. That's the mortal taking on immortality. And this happens at the resurrection. Some people make reference to the so-called rapture as a separate event from this. I don't think it is a separate event.

And I think the word rapture, it comes from a Latin word that is out of which a section of or used in transatlantic. of a section of 1st, Thess 4, I think that word is misleading because it makes it sound like the resurrection and the rapture are two separate things, but even in the context of First Thess 4 and verse 515, these are, these things happen at the coming of the Lord. Anyway, so the point is there are, depending on when you die, different things happen. If you die now, then you go to be with the Lord, soul, but your body doesn't. At the resurrection, then you receive your resurrection body, and those who are on the earth now receive a resurrection body, but not having died. I think that's the force of the 1st Corinthians 15 passage. Okay, now what? Well, this is where people have

different ideas. It could be that the great white throne judgment comes later, and you've got a thousand years of a millennial kingdom where different things are happening, which looks like possibly a lot of the promises that God made to National Israel and regarding the other nations will come to pass during that period. But that won't be the end of all things. After the Great White Throne judgment, the end of all things, then there's a new heavens and a new earth that are created. And our place of abode with our resurrection bodies is going to be here on this earth,

but it's going to be a new earth. And new heavens means new atmospheres. I mean, skies, not a new heaven in the sense we think about going to heaven to be with God. The word is used differently in different contexts. So how that all plays out, I think, is confusing. And I think some broad elements can be established as to what takes place. And mostly what I discussed is an example of that, although one particular part, that is the millennial kingdom. is a pre-millennial view.

Jesus is returning before an actual thousand-year kingdom, and things are going to take place there, and then the new heavens and the new earth, and not everybody holds that view. But anyway, broadly, I don't think there's too much controversial about what I just said. But working out the details, that's really hard. And the same thing was true about Jesus' first coming.

As we look back in it now, we can see all of these particulars, these typologies, these prophecies that were, maybe embedded in other texts that didn't seem so obviously in their first reading to refer to Christ, but then it kind of all gets put together, and Jesus talked to the boys on the road to Emmaus and reflected back at all to the prophets and the law, et cetera, and how Jesus was prefigured there. So it's come together more in its fulfillment. And I think we have a similar

thing about the second coming, that the fulfillment will be the final interpretation, is what I'd like to say, and there are different ideas of how this will play out. But when it happens, oh, that's going to be it. That'll be the, that's the correct way to understand it. Before that, I think there's ambiguity and uncertainty, and there are different options. But the ones I just explain that when you die now, you be with the Lord in your soul, spirit, and then after the resurrection, you are with the Lord in a bodily form, a resurrected bodily form. I think that's pretty standard. After that, you know, we'll see. And it's not just standard in terms of teaching. It's also that, that's what the scripture says. It's not just that, because there's some of what of an idea here

that maybe we started off making assumptions based on Milton and that's how this all came about. But you mentioned some Bible verses, and another example would be the martyrs who are with Jesus now between their death and the creation of the new earth. So that's another example of people we see with God now before the resurrection. Hebrews 11 talks about them and chapter 12 talks about this great cloud of witnesses that are some sense beholding what's going on. Oh, and I was talking about Revelation, where they're saying how long until you... Yeah, until you bring about justice. In both cases. Now, I also want to note here, the question, you know, Elijah and Enoch were taken directly

into God's presence. Surely we are not as worthy as they were. Well, two things here. First of all, the special situation for Elijah and Enoch was that they didn't go through death. That was the special thing for them. We know that other people are with God after death because here are the martyrs. And nobody is less worthy than a thief on a cross who has not done anything good after his salvation. But there he is when Jesus is saying to him, today you will be with me in paradise.

So the special thing that Elijah and Enoch got was that they didn't die. They didn't have to go through death, whereas everyone else has. But even beyond that, surely we're not as worthy as they are. Nobody is worthy. Nobody is worthy. God gave them that grace, and obviously they had played huge part in God's plan, and they were certainly righteous people in terms of what's what I'm looking for, of relative righteousness in terms of other people and what they did for the Lord. But we are in God's presence by His grace. Even they were in God's presence by their grace.

By His grace. I mean, sorry, by his grace for them. So the fact that we're being transported directly to God once we die, it's not like after we die, we're going to pay for it in some way, and then we're worthy to see God. The only reason we're with God at all is because of grace. So this idea that our unworthiness means we won't be with God, that is just to miss how we're with God in the first place. And it is by grace. By the way, it's not just Enoch and Elijah, but that entire generation who are alive, at the visible return of Christ will also not taste death, and we talked about that already,

that the mortal will put on immortality in a blinking of an eye, you know, in a twinkling of an eye, and the Trump will sound it. First Corinthians 15 talks about this, so there is a whole generation that will not, and you can't, because these people are alive when Jesus returns. The dead are in Christ rise first, but what do you do? Then they are, in a certain sense, resurrected without having. died. That is, they get their resurrected bodies. It's the moment that many people refer to as a rapture, and there's debate between different people about when that's going to take place.

I think it's just obvious reading the text, which tells you when this event that is called the rapture takes place, and it happens on the second coming of Christ, at the coming of the Lord, which is the second coming, not the first coming, and there's no third coming. So, and that coming is visible, powerful, and conclusive according to the Olivet discourse. Let's go to a question from Julie. Is Isaiah 65-17-12-25 metaphor, especially the part about having babies? In Matthew 22, 29 through 32, Jesus says we won't be married after the resurrection. I'm just curious about your thoughts on this. Yeah. Do you want to summarize that? I'm looking at the Matthew passage says Jesus answered to him, you are mistaken. This has to do with the resurrection. He's being challenged about the resurrection. So regarding the resurrection of dead, let's see, they will neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.

So I take that at face value. After the resurrection bodies may be, in a certain sense, sexed or gendered because human beings are gendered. They're male or female. So I think we are going to sustain that, but we will not have the reproductive capacity. There's no need for that. So there's not going to be any marriage in heaven and that sexual relationship that accompanies it. Something else is going to be going on. Now, the book of Isaiah talks about the new heavens and the new earth and this Isaiah, what, 65 and 17 and following.

and it talks about children there, the children that you won't hear the voice of weeping and the sound of crying. No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days or an old man who does not live out his days. For the youth will die at the age of 100 and the one who does not reach the age of 100 will be thought accursed. So it's clear in this passage that there is something coming. that is going to have mortal people in it, but not affected in the same way by the fall as people are now. But they're mortal because they're dying. And this is, you know, they live out their full days. And if they don't live to 100, people are going to think, that's weird.

This may be something, speaking of the millennial kingdom, where you, at least on one view, you have a thousand-year range. of Jesus on Earth where human beings are still reproducing because there are people after the resurrection. Remember, the resurrection is just for believers when Jesus returned. It seems there are going to be human beings that are humans during this time that can reproduce. But after the end of this reign, there's another rebellion where Satan has released for a time. Now, that's a very particular theological position called now pre-millennialism. It seems to make a lot of sense to me and would make sense of this passage. But just keep in mind as certainly is possible that all of the believers in Christ up until the second coming of Christ who get raised have new

bodies, but that doesn't mean every human being on the earth does. And there are people that come afterwards that don't get resurrected who ended up believing in Jesus. after that resurrection, or at least survive that, and then go into the millennial kingdom in which there is kind of a glorious thing happening where Jesus is ruling over that. These are the parts that are a little bit vague. It's uncertain. And do you think it's possible. It's some sort of metaphor or just creating the idea that there won't be any sadness. There won't be any corruption. There won't be any, I want to say death, but it also says they'll live out their days, which implies a death.

I don't know. I really don't know how I... I guess it's possible, but if it's a metaphor, the question is, what are these details a metaphor of? Could there be more than one fulfillment? Like, this is talking about something in their time, but also something at the end. It's possible. Whenever you have prophetic stuff, there is that possibility of kind of a dual fulfillment, an earlier partial fulfillment, like...

John the Baptist was Elijah, but there's also an Elijah to come, and the Jesus talks like this. So those are all possibilities. And these are also, I think they're all the blessings that are promised in the Old Covenant. So this could just be a way of saying all of the promised blessings will be fulfilled to you. All of my promises will be fulfilled to you. All of the results that were promised for faithfulness will be given to you. Well, there's quite a bit of detail in these, what, eight, seven, eight verses. And I think that lends itself to something more substantial than a mere kind of metaphorical characterization.

But I'd lean in that direction, but I can't be dogmatic about it. These kinds of things confuse me because, again, we're trying to in advance, imagine what exactly is taking place. And that's fraught with difficulty about the future. And as it turns out, like I said, the fulfillment will be the final interpretation. We'll see. Here's a question from trombona at Tramina. It's not uncommon to hear people say at a memorial service or funeral things like so-and-so, the deceased, is smiling down on us. Thoughts? Are people in heaven or hell aware of things on earth?

Yeah, I think. And we made reference a little bit ago to the cloud of witnesses that we see. in Hebrews 12, and also he made reference to Revelation where the martyrs are crying out, how long, oh, Lord, until he executes justice on the world. So whether they're smiling down or whether the individual they're referring to is smiling down, that's another question. People have a way of—this is eulogy, right? You say a good word.

So you assume the best, yeah, well, now they're in a more peaceful place. et cetera, et cetera, and there may not be any evidence in their life that they actually knew Christ and received the forgiveness that would qualify them for heaven and smiling down on us. But in general, I think, yes, I think that's certainly possible. Yeah, I don't know for sure. I think it's probably certainly the case that they have a general idea of what's going on because of what the martyrs say. I think the witnesses could just be, we have all these people we're looking to. So I think that could go either way.

I'm not sure, but I wouldn't rule it out. Here's after chapter 11 in Hebrews, which is the great people of faith, all right. Therefore, chapter 12, verse 1 and following, therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, I guess it doesn't say looking down, but surrounding us, of course, it strikes you. Are they witnesses to God and faith, or are they witnessing us? I think that's the question. Mm-hmm. But it's also surrounding us.

So I don't know. My sense is they're aware, but it's open to interpretation. Let us also, like them, lay aside every encumbrance and the sin, which so easily entangles us, us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus. The author and perfector of faith, who for the joy set before him endure the cross, despising the shame, sat down with the right hand of the father, consider him, except now Jesus is the model. I've read quite a bit there. It's a beautiful passage.

I like it. And so I guess that's open to interpretation, I guess. All right, here's a question from Katie. The Bible says don't communicate with the dead. Does that mean don't try to get them to respond or don't even talk to them even if you're not expecting a response and even if you know response is not them? Well, this strikes me as an easy, an easy thing to answer. Let's just see. Let's say you have children that, let's say you have a daughter and she's had been in a not a healthy relationship. with another person. And you said, you are not allowed to communicate with that person anymore. This is not good.

You've got to move away from that relationship. I don't think a parent expressing that concern would be happy with their not being a two-way dialogue necessarily, but the daughter could still send missives to the guy on a regular basis, or semi-regular basis. No, I think that misses the point. The parents are saying, cut it off. This is over. stop it because you are not, you are vulnerable emotionally as long as you continue to do this. Now, I think that's analogous to the circumstance.

God says, do not call on the dead. And this is necromancy, and it is prohibited. Prayers to the dead are prohibited. It doesn't matter whether the dead talk back to you or not, or whether you're asking them to come back and communicate with you, making an appeal to dead as an occultic practice, a dark occultic practice that is forbidden in the Old Testament. Now, there are legions of people who consider themselves Christians who do this. And I don't understand why it's not obvious to them that this is inconsistent with the scripture teaches

because they are asking dead people to do something for them that only living people are supposed to be able to do, pray for us, intercede for us. That's what we're told in the New Testament, or Jesus himself is supposed to do on our behalf an intercession. And so that kind of cuts off this line. I'd want to see what the justification anybody offers me of praying to saints, for example. in light of that prohibition of the Old Testament, which just seems to me so obviously clear. Now, I know some people have a, there's a church tradition of this kind of thing, and then what they're going to look for is they're going to look for opportunities to justify the behavior with kind of a, you know,

roundabout way of viewing it. And it's like having idols that you, I mean, having statues that you kneel before and pray. Well, we're not praying to the statue. We're praying to the God, the statue, or to the person who the statue represents. That's exactly what happened with the Jews in the Old Testament. Baal wasn't a statue. You can make a statue representing Ba'aul and the astrith, et cetera, et cetera. So it just strikes me that this is obviously wrong in light of Old Testament teaching. And it's not just a legalistic thing like, well, that's the way you interpret it. There's a rationale behind it, connecting one with the day. who are gone and potentially, you know, short-circuiting what Jesus is supposed to do in your life or living people, like we pray for each other, that kind of thing. And it's just straight out prohibited in the scriptures. Well, leaving aside the idea of, say, a more formal prayer or requesting something from them, what about someone who's just saying something like, oh, so-and-so, I wish you were here?

or little Charlie did this today and something like that. Do you put that in the same category or how would you kind of describe that? Well, remember the earlier question of, they're down here, smiling down on us kind of thing. That would make sense of that kind of thing. I guess I guess let me put it this way. I'm uncomfortable with it, but I am open to seeing it as somewhat as an innocent kind of thing. it's more of an emotive thing, you know, even, you know, it might be that people who don't even believe in heaven could say those kinds of things. And I feel his presence or something.

And they're talking about their own emotional thing. I'm watching a series right now called, I can't remember the name of British thing where a boy is murdered. Or, yeah, he's killed. It looks like he's murdered. And they're trying to figure out who did it in a small town. And it's a fast. Broadchurch? Broadchurch, yeah.

Yeah. So good. fascinating and so well acted and written and very mysterious. This is our second time through. So, at least for the first season. And, you know, people are talking about this boy. The grief for him and, you know, in that situation, they might not even be, believe in the soul, whatever. They can talk in a sense about his presence, referring to their memories and the like. So I think there's an, that can be innocent. I wouldn't make a big deal about that at all. But if there was, it was a more directed way.

I mean, some of these movies, they're trying to get the kid to communicate with him. There's another one we saw. They're trying to tell me, you know, yeah, I feel this person. They almost have a seance, I think, and they're trying to get the murdered daughter to speak to the mother. Or there's a line of communication. That's just off the charts. I think the ease in which you could slip from just an innocent speaking things out loud into starting to do more of a prayer type thing. I would just stay away from it.

What I have done in the past is I've asked God, like, can you tell so-and-so this for me? Tell them this. I have done that. I don't think that's quite the same thing. Well, not, no, it's a relay through God. Because I'm asking God if it can. Yeah, you're not calling on the dead. Right.

And that's really what it amounts to. I mean, those who call on the dead, I think, is the wording from the Old Testament. And I think God's concern with this is that he doesn't want us seeking help from other sources other than him. I think that's his main concern. But he also doesn't want us opening ourselves up to other spiritual forces that will be speaking to us lying about who they are. I mean, I think there's all sorts of traps there. Yeah. Well, that's it for today, Greg.

Thank you, M. Deo and Julie and Trombona and Tramina and Katie. We got through four questions. We did. I think one time we might have gotten through five, but I think this is the most we usually get. Sometimes you only get through one because it's so involved. That's great. But thank you so much for sending in your questions. And if you have one, you haven't sent it in yet, send it in.

Go to X, use the hashtag SDR ask, or go to our website at STR.org. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.