Paradise, the Intermediate State, and the Restoration of Heaven and Earth

The Christian understanding of heaven has been shaped as much by centuries of religious imagination as by the biblical text itself. Images of departed believers entering an ethereal world, inhabiting celestial mansions, or spending eternity in an exclusively spiritual existence have become so familiar that they are rarely questioned. Yet when the biblical narrative is examined within its ancient Near Eastern setting, its Second Temple Jewish development, and the eschatological expectations of the earliest followers of Jesus, a considerably different picture begins to emerge. The biblical hope is not ultimately the abandonment of the earth for heaven, but the restoration of creation and the complete reconciliation of heaven and earth under the reign of God. This raises several important questions. What happens to believers immediately following death? Is that experience the same as the final resurrection? Will we recognize one another? Will our memories, personalities, relationships, and creative capacities continue? And perhaps most importantly, what does Scripture actually reveal about the eternal future of humanity?

N. T. Wright has been particularly influential in recovering the distinction between what he calls life after death and life after life after death. The former describes the intermediate condition of believers who have died in Christ, while the latter concerns bodily resurrection and participation in the renewed creation. Wright’s distinction is not an innovation but an attempt to recover the Jewish and early Christian framework in which resurrection was understood as God’s ultimate victory over death, rather than simply the survival of an immortal soul. [1] This distinction provides an important starting point for understanding the biblical hope.

Heaven and Earth in the Ancient Near Eastern World

The ancient Near Eastern world generally understood reality as encompassing divine and human domains, although the precise relationship between these realms varied considerably among cultures. Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite traditions associated divine presence with particular cosmic regions, sacred mountains, temples, and heavenly assemblies. The distinction between the divine and human realms was not necessarily understood as a division between the material and the immaterial in the later philosophical sense. Sacred space provided points of intersection between the divine world and the ordinary world of humanity.

Israel’s understanding of creation both participated in and challenged these cultural frameworks. Genesis 1 presents the heavens and the earth as the comprehensive work of one sovereign Creator, while Genesis 2–3 depicts Eden as the place where humanity enjoys direct communion with God. The garden is not merely a primitive agricultural setting. Its sacred geography, divine presence, precious materials, and imagery of life anticipate features later associated with Israel’s tabernacle and temple. The cherubim guarding Eden in Genesis 3:24 find conceptual parallels in the cherubim associated with the ark and sanctuary. The movement from Eden to tabernacle, temple, and ultimately the New Jerusalem forms a significant biblical-theological trajectory. [2]

The resulting theological picture is important. Humanity’s original vocation was not to escape material existence but to live faithfully within creation in the presence of God. The rupture introduced by human rebellion affected relationships between God and humanity, human beings and one another, and humanity and the created order. Consequently, the biblical account of redemption is not simply concerned with relocating human souls after death. It concerns the healing of those ruptured relationships and the restoration of creation to its intended purpose.

This helps explain why the final vision of Revelation is not humanity ascending into heaven but the New Jerusalem descending from heaven. Revelation 21:3 announces the dwelling of God with humanity, echoing covenant promises throughout Israel’s Scriptures. The direction of the imagery is deliberate: God’s presence fills the renewed creation. Heaven and earth, previously distinguished, are brought into complete harmony.

Sheol, Death, and the Development of Israel’s Resurrection Hope

The Hebrew Bible does not present a fully developed doctrine of heaven as the immediate destination of every righteous person at death. Instead, the earlier texts frequently speak of Sheol, the realm of the dead. The Hebrew term sheʾol refers broadly to the condition or domain of the departed and should not automatically be equated with the later Christian concept of hell. Passages such as Psalm 88:3–12, Job 14:10–14, and Ecclesiastes 9:10 reflect the mystery, finality, and apparent silence associated with death.

Yet the Old Testament also contains important movements beyond this conception. Psalm 16:10 expresses confidence that God will not abandon his faithful one to Sheol, while Psalm 73:23–26 presents communion with God as more enduring than bodily life. These passages should not be treated as fully articulated descriptions of the intermediate state, but they establish the relational foundation from which later Jewish hope develops. The central confidence is that death cannot ultimately nullify God’s covenant faithfulness.

By the time of Daniel 12:2–3, resurrection hope becomes explicit. Those sleeping in the dust awaken, and the wise shine with heavenly brilliance. Isaiah 25:6–9 likewise anticipates the defeat of death itself, describing a future divine banquet and the removal of tears. These texts are not simply concerned with the continued existence of a soul. They envision divine action overcoming death and restoring life.

Second Temple Jewish literature reveals how these expectations developed in the centuries surrounding the emergence of Christianity. Wisdom of Solomon 3:1–9 places the righteous in God’s hands and anticipates their vindication. First Enoch 22 portrays differentiated places of waiting for the dead prior to judgment. Fourth Ezra 7:75–101 describes postmortem conditions preceding the final judgment, while Second Baruch 49–51 explores the transformation of resurrected bodies. These works do not speak with a unified voice, and some were composed after the New Testament period. Nevertheless, they demonstrate that Jewish thinkers could distinguish between the condition of the dead and the future resurrection. [3]

This distinction is essential when approaching Jesus and Paul. Their language emerged within a world already wrestling with the relationship between present death, continuing existence, divine judgment, and the ultimate restoration of creation. Christianity did not invent resurrection as a vague promise that life continues after death. Its distinctive proclamation was that Israel’s anticipated resurrection had already begun in Jesus the Messiah and would ultimately embrace those belonging to him.

Paradise and the Intermediate State: What Happens When Believers Die?

One of the clearest New Testament passages concerning the immediate condition following death appears in Luke 23:43. Jesus tells the repentant criminal that he will be with him in paradise. The Greek term paradeisos derives historically from an Iranian word associated with an enclosed garden or park and entered Jewish and Greek religious vocabulary as a way of describing an extraordinary place of life and blessing. In the Septuagint, the term is also used in connection with the garden of Eden. The significance is intriguing: Jesus does not provide a detailed geographical description of the afterlife but promises the dying man personal communion with himself in a place evoking the goodness of God’s garden.

Wright understands this paradise as an intermediate resting place rather than the final destination of the redeemed. His reasoning is grounded in the narrative sequence itself. Jesus promises paradise to the criminal, yet his own bodily resurrection occurs subsequently. Therefore, paradise and resurrection cannot simply be treated as identical experiences. In this reading, paradise is an expression of security, peace, and communion with Christ while awaiting the resurrection of the dead. [4]

Paul provides complementary language in Philippians 1:21–23, where he describes his desire to depart and be with Christ. The Greek expression syn Christō einai, meaning to be with Christ, places the emphasis upon relationship rather than geography. Similarly, 2 Corinthians 5:1–10 contrasts the fragility of present bodily existence with the enduring life God has prepared. Paul expresses confidence about being at home with the Lord, yet his imagery of being clothed rather than found naked also reveals a deeper longing for transformed embodiment.

The interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5 requires some caution. Scholars disagree about whether Paul’s heavenly dwelling refers to an immediate postmortem body, the future resurrection body, or the secure heavenly reality of the resurrection promise. His language cannot settle every question about the precise nature of intermediate existence. Nevertheless, Philippians 1 and 2 Corinthians 5 together provide substantial grounds for believing that death does not separate the faithful from Christ.

Revelation 6:9–11 offers another suggestive image. John sees the souls of those who have suffered martyrdom beneath the heavenly altar. They speak, receive white robes, and are instructed to rest while awaiting the completion of God’s purposes. The passage is apocalyptic rather than a literal architectural description of heaven, but its theological significance is considerable. The martyrs are remembered, their suffering has not been forgotten, and their vindication remains connected to God’s future judgment and renewal.

The intermediate state, then, may be understood as real communion with Christ in which the believer is secure, at rest, and awaiting the fullness of resurrection. Its exact experiential qualities remain largely undisclosed. Scripture does not provide enough detail to describe its physical surroundings, the ordinary passage of time, or the activities of departed believers with confidence. Alternative interpretations, including forms of unconscious waiting until resurrection, have also existed within Christianity. Yet the cumulative force of the passages concerning being with Christ gives substantial support to conscious fellowship with him beyond death.

The Christian hope is therefore not merely that believers survive dying. It is that those who belong to Christ remain his, and that death cannot prevent their future resurrection.

Isaiah 65 and the Creation of a New Heaven and Earth

Isaiah 65:17–25 is among the most important texts for reconstructing the biblical understanding of eternity. The passage announces God’s intention to create new heavens and a new earth and proceeds to describe a renewed Jerusalem characterized by joy, security, meaningful labor, abundant life, and harmony within the created order.

The Hebrew verb baraʾ, meaning to create, is particularly significant. It is the same verb prominent in Genesis 1 and appears repeatedly in Isaiah 65:17–18. The literary connection invites readers to understand the promised future as an act of divine creation. Yet Isaiah’s vision is not detached from the historical experience of Israel. Within the context of exile, imperial domination, dispossession, and threatened communal identity, the promise that people will build houses and inhabit them, plant vineyards and enjoy their fruit, and no longer labor in vain addresses recognizable human suffering.

Isaiah 65:21–23 presents a remarkable picture of restoration. The people are no longer displaced from their homes or deprived of the fruit of their labor. The covenant curses associated with oppression, insecurity, and the failure of agricultural life are reversed. The imagery recalls Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26, and Genesis 3. What was once characterized by frustrated labor and vulnerability is transformed into enduring peace and flourishing.

The theological implications are considerable. Isaiah’s future is not characterized by the rejection of ordinary human existence. It includes meaningful work, creativity, belonging, community, and the enjoyment of God’s material creation. The prophetic imagination does not regard houses, vineyards, land, and embodied life as temporary embarrassments to be discarded. Rather, these become expressions of God’s restored purposes.

However, Isaiah 65 also presents an exegetical difficulty that deserves careful attention. Verse 20 contains language concerning death at a hundred years of age. If this passage describes the final eternal state, why does death appear to remain possible? Some interpreters, particularly within premillennial traditions, understand the passage as referring to an intermediate messianic kingdom preceding the final elimination of death. Others argue that Isaiah employs familiar categories of human longevity to communicate a transformed reality that ultimately transcends death altogether.

G. K. Beale has defended the latter approach, arguing that Isaiah 65:20 should be understood within the broader context of eternal new creation rather than as evidence of a temporary kingdom in which death continues. His argument draws upon Isaiah’s creation imagery, the reversal of Genesis 3, the defeat of death in Isaiah 25:8, and the interpretation of Isaiah’s language in Revelation 21–22. [5]

This reading deserves serious consideration because prophetic literature frequently communicates realities beyond ordinary human experience through images drawn from the world known to its original audience. A prophet announcing the complete defeat of death to an ancient community devastated by infant mortality, warfare, famine, and premature death could communicate extraordinary restoration through the imagery of remarkably long life. At the same time, the original language of Isaiah 65:20 should not be dismissed simply because it complicates later theological formulations. Read within its own literary and historical setting, the verse describes longevity rather than explicitly declaring immortality. The movement toward a final state without death becomes clearer when Isaiah 25:8 is read alongside Revelation 21:4.

This represents a useful example of textured hermeneutics. The historical meaning of Isaiah, its prophetic literary form, its place within Israel’s developing eschatology, and its later reception in Revelation must all be considered without collapsing the distinctions between them. Isaiah’s immediate horizon concerns restoration in categories meaningful to Israel, while its canonical trajectory contributes to a larger vision of cosmic renewal.

Will We Remember Our Earthly Lives?

Isaiah 65:17 raises another important question by declaring that the former things will no longer be remembered or come to mind. Does this mean that believers will lose all recollection of their earthly existence? Will relationships, experiences, personal history, and even memories of loved ones disappear?

Such an interpretation faces several difficulties. The Hebrew term zakar, commonly translated to remember, frequently carries covenantal and relational significance beyond the simple retrieval of information. When God declares in Jeremiah 31:34 that he will remember sins no more, the statement does not imply a loss of divine knowledge. Rather, it concerns the termination of sin’s covenantal consequences. Likewise, Isaiah 43:18–19 calls Israel not to remember former things immediately before announcing God’s new work. The emphasis is not necessarily the destruction of historical memory but the arrival of a reality so transformative that the former conditions no longer define the community.

Randy Alcorn has made a similar argument regarding Isaiah 65:17, maintaining that the elimination of painful recollection is not equivalent to the erasure of personal history. He points to the continuity of redemptive memory within the biblical narrative, including the visible wounds of the risen Christ and the commemorative symbolism of the New Jerusalem. [6]

This distinction is especially important when considering personal identity. Christian resurrection theology presupposes some meaningful continuity between the person who dies and the person who is raised. Jesus’ resurrection provides the paradigmatic example. His glorified body is transformed, yet his identity remains recognizable. He remembers his disciples, refers to earlier events, and bears the wounds associated with his crucifixion (Luke 24:36–43; John 20:24–29).

Although these passages do not definitively describe the memory of every resurrected believer, they strongly suggest that transformation does not require the destruction of personal identity. It may therefore be more appropriate to distinguish between remembering suffering and remaining enslaved to suffering. The resurrection promise does not require God to erase the story of our lives. Rather, it anticipates the transformation of our relationship to that story. The sorrow attached to an experience need not remain the defining power of that experience. The redeemed person may remember loss without remaining captive to grief, recognize former wounds without continuing to suffer their destructive consequences, and understand past failures without being condemned by them. The biblical promise is not necessarily that we will forget everything that happened. It is that the former order of sorrow, evil, and death will no longer possess the power to govern our existence.

Resurrection, Embodiment, and the Continuity of Human Identity

One of the most persistent misunderstandings of the Christian afterlife involves the nature of the resurrection body. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul contrasts the present psychikon body with the future pneumatikon body. These terms are frequently translated as natural and spiritual, leading some readers to conclude that the resurrection involves the abandonment of material existence.

Yet the contrast is not straightforwardly between a physical body and a nonphysical spirit. Paul’s argument concerns the transformation of human existence from its present mortal and corruptible condition into a form of life empowered by the Spirit. His agricultural analogy of the seed and plant emphasizes both continuity and discontinuity. The resurrected body is genuinely related to the present body, yet it is transformed beyond its present limitations. The risen Jesus demonstrates this tension. He is recognizable, speaks, interacts with others, and eats with his disciples, yet his resurrection life is no longer subject to the ordinary limitations of mortality. The Gospel narratives do not present his resurrection as mere resuscitation. They describe the inauguration of a transformed mode of embodied life.

This also raises questions concerning relationships, marriage, and biological identity. Jesus’ response to the Sadducees in Mark 12:18–27, Matthew 22:23–33, and Luke 20:27–40 indicates that marriage as presently constituted does not continue in the resurrection. However, the comparison with angels concerns the conditions of resurrection life, particularly freedom from death and the marital arrangements assumed by the Sadducees. It does not necessarily mean that resurrected humans lose their embodied humanity or become angels. Ian Paul has explored this question by examining early Christian reflection on bodily identity, sexual differentiation, marriage, and resurrection. His analysis draws attention to an important distinction between the continuity of human embodiment and the continuation of every social or biological function associated with mortal life. [7]

The New Testament does not provide a comprehensive description of resurrected biology. Speculation about reproduction, biological development, or the precise nature of bodily differentiation therefore needs to remain tentative. What appears considerably clearer is that resurrection restores rather than obliterates human personhood. We should expect transformation without assuming the loss of everything that makes us recognizably human.

The New Jerusalem: Temple, Eden, and the Dwelling of God

Revelation 21–22 brings several major biblical themes into a single eschatological vision. John sees a new heaven and new earth, the descent of the New Jerusalem, the removal of death and mourning, and the restoration of the river and tree of life. The imagery combines Isaiah 65–66, Ezekiel 40–48, Genesis 2–3, and numerous prophetic promises concerning Zion and the presence of God.

Particularly striking is the absence of a temple building in Revelation 21:22. This does not signify the abandonment of sacred space but its universalization. God and the Lamb are the temple, and the city itself participates in the divine presence. Its cubic dimensions recall the Holy of Holies, suggesting that the entire renewed dwelling of humanity has become sacred space.

Gregory Beale’s temple-centered interpretation of Revelation has been influential in understanding this imagery. The movement from Eden through the tabernacle and temple to the New Jerusalem reflects the expansion of God’s dwelling until creation itself becomes the setting of unhindered communion.

Raymond R. Hausoul’s interdisciplinary comparison of Karl Rahner, Jürgen Moltmann, and Beale provides a valuable contribution to this discussion. Hausoul examines the relationship between biblical and systematic theology in interpreting the new heavens and new earth, emphasizing the importance of both continuity and transformation. The new creation should not be reduced to the annihilation of the present world followed by an entirely unrelated replacement. Rather, the biblical vision points toward the glorification and consummation of God’s original creative purposes. [8]

The language of Revelation 21:1, particularly the declaration that the sea is no more, also requires attention to ancient symbolism. Throughout the Hebrew Bible and surrounding ancient Near Eastern literature, the sea can represent chaos, danger, hostile powers, and threats to God’s ordered creation. The imagery of the sea’s removal may therefore communicate the complete elimination of chaos and evil rather than the literal absence of every body of water in the renewed world. This interpretation is strengthened by the life-giving river flowing through the city in Revelation 22:1–2.

Similarly, the description of nations bringing their glory into the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:24–26) suggests the redemption of human cultural life rather than its wholesale elimination. The imagery leaves room for understanding the diverse contributions of human society as purified and brought into the worship of God.

The final biblical vision is therefore neither an empty spiritual realm nor a return to ordinary mortal life. It is an embodied, relational, communal, and cosmic restoration in which God’s presence permeates creation.

Will There Be Work, Creativity, and Relationships in the Renewed Creation?

Isaiah 65:21–23 and Revelation 21–22 invite consideration of whether meaningful human activity continues within the eternal kingdom. The biblical evidence does not allow us to describe the precise occupations or ordinary routines of resurrected life. Nevertheless, the consistent affirmation of creation’s goodness provides grounds for questioning the assumption that eternity consists exclusively of passive contemplation.

Work itself precedes the fall. Genesis 2:15 presents humanity’s vocation in the garden through the language of service and care. The Hebrew verbs avad and shamar, commonly understood as working or serving and keeping or guarding, also appear in contexts associated with priestly responsibility. Humanity’s original task was therefore more than agricultural productivity. It involved faithful stewardship of sacred space.

Isaiah’s renewed creation includes the enjoyment of productive labor without exploitation or futility. Revelation presents the servants of God as engaged in worshipful service and reigning (22:3–5). While these descriptions should not be turned into speculative schedules of heavenly activity, they indicate that redeemed existence involves meaningful participation in God’s purposes.

Human relationships likewise appear within a transformed communal context. The New Jerusalem is populated, the nations are represented, and God’s people share a common life in the divine presence. The resurrection does not promise the permanent continuation of every institution that belongs to the present age, but neither does it present salvation as the isolation of individuals within private spiritual experiences.

There is considerable theological reason to anticipate recognition, fellowship, and a redeemed continuity of personal relationships. Yet questions concerning the precise form of those relationships should be approached with humility. Scripture provides the promise of communion more clearly than the details of its organization.

What emerges is a picture of eternity in which human life is neither diminished nor rendered meaningless. Creation, community, worship, and vocation reach their fulfillment in a world no longer governed by decay and death.

The Kingdom Already Present and the Creation Yet to Come

The distinction between the intermediate state and the final resurrection must also be placed within the New Testament’s inaugurated eschatology. The kingdom of God is not exclusively a future reality. Jesus announces its arrival, demonstrates its power through healing and deliverance, and identifies his resurrection as the decisive beginning of God’s victory over death.

Paul describes believers as participants in new creation in 2 Corinthians 5:17, while Romans 8:18–25 presents the entire created order as awaiting liberation from corruption. The Spirit is described as the firstfruits of the coming restoration. The Greek term aparchē, firstfruits, evokes the initial portion of a harvest that anticipates what is yet to come. The presence of the Spirit is therefore not merely evidence of individual spiritual experience but a foretaste of the future toward which creation is moving.

This means the present Christian life has an eschatological character. The church lives between the inauguration and consummation of the kingdom, participating already in a reality that will one day be fully revealed. Acts of mercy, reconciliation, hospitality, justice, faithful stewardship, and covenant love are not substitutes for the coming kingdom. They are expressions of the kingdom’s present reality.

Wright has repeatedly emphasized the implications of this understanding for Christian vocation. The promise of resurrection does not encourage indifference toward the present world. Instead, it establishes the significance of faithful work within God’s creation. First Corinthians 15 concludes its extended treatment of resurrection not with an invitation to withdraw from ordinary life but with an exhortation to remain steadfast in the work of the Lord, knowing that such labor is not in vain.

This provides an important corrective to forms of Christian eschatology that portray the future primarily as escape from a doomed world. The biblical story is not fundamentally one of divine abandonment but divine restoration.

Conclusion: Heaven Is Not the End of the Story

Perhaps the most beautiful aspect of the biblical hope is that death is neither the final word nor the ultimate destination of the believer. Those who die in Christ are not forgotten or abandoned. They belong to him, and nothing, including death itself, can separate them from his love. Yet even that extraordinary promise is not the conclusion of the Christian story. The resurrection of Jesus declares that God intends to do more than preserve our existence beyond the grave. He intends to restore what death has broken, heal what sin has wounded, and bring creation into the fullness of his presence. This changes how we understand grief, how we approach suffering, and how we live today. The relationships we nurture, the people we love, the mercy we extend, and the faithfulness we practice are not meaningless activities within a disposable world. They belong to a kingdom that has already begun breaking into the present. We may not know exactly what paradise looks like or how the renewed creation will feel beneath our feet, but we know the One who has promised to make all things new. Our hope is not simply that one day we will leave this world and go to heaven. Our hope is that God will finish what he began, and heaven and earth will finally become what they were always intended to be.

We are not waiting to escape creation. We are waiting for its restoration.

And until that day, we are called to live as people of the resurrection, bringing the life of the coming kingdom into the world around us.

---

Notes and References

1. N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: HarperOne, 2008), especially chapters 3, 7, and 11; Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003).
2. See Genesis 2:8–15; 3:24; Exodus 25:17–22; 1 Kings 6:18–35; Ezekiel 47:1–12; Revelation 21:1–22:5. For the broader temple theology, see G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004).
3. Wisdom of Solomon 3:1–9; 1 Enoch 22; 4 Ezra 7:75–101; 2 Baruch 49–51. These sources illustrate the diversity of Jewish eschatological reflection and should not be treated as a uniform doctrine or as possessing the same canonical status across Christian traditions.
4. Wright, Surprised by Hope, especially his discussion of paradise and the intermediate state. See also Luke 23:43; Philippians 1:21–23; 2 Corinthians 5:1–10; Revelation 6:9–11.
5. G. K. Beale, “An Amillennial Response to a Premillennial View of Isaiah 65:20,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 61, no. 3 (2018): 461–484. Compare Isaiah 25:8; 65:17–25; Revelation 21:1–4. Interpretations differ concerning whether Isaiah 65 describes the final creation, a millennial kingdom, or prophetic restoration language subsequently expanded in the New Testament.
6. Randy Alcorn, “Does Isaiah 65:17 Mean We Won’t Remember Our Previous Lives When We’re in Heaven?” Eternal Perspective Ministries, November 20, 2020.
7. Ian Paul, “Will We Be Male and Female in the New Creation?” Psephizo, July 2016. See also Mark 12:18–27; Luke 20:27–40; 1 Corinthians 15:35–49.
8. Raymond R. Hausoul, The New Heaven and New Earth: An Interdisciplinary Comparison between Jürgen Moltmann, Karl Rahner, and Gregory Beale (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2020), especially chapters 5–7.
9. For the Isaianic connections between exile, restoration, creation, and the reversal of the Genesis curses, see Isaiah 11:6–9; 25:6–9; 43:18–19; 65:17–25; 66:22. See also the discussions of Isaiah 65 in Working Preacher, Luther Seminary, particularly its treatments of the restoration of Jerusalem and Edenic imagery.
10. N. T. Wright, “Heaven Is Not Our Home,” Christianity Today, April 2008; and Wright, “Apocalyptic and the Beauty of God,” sermon delivered at Harvard Memorial Church, October 22, 2006. Both address the relationship between new creation, resurrection, and Christian participation in God’s restorative purposes.
11. Paul develops the already-and-not-yet character of new creation in Romans 8:18–25; 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, 42–58; and 2 Corinthians 5:1–21. These texts must be read within Paul’s wider understanding of the Spirit, resurrection, and the reign of Christ rather than as isolated descriptions of the afterlife.
12. N. T. Wright, “The Great Story of the Bible Is Not About Going to Heaven. It’s About God Coming to Us,” Bible Gateway, February 17, 2026. The essay develops the relationship between the divine dwelling, the New Jerusalem, and God’s intention to renew creation rather than abandon it.