Four Views on Heaven

by Michael E. Wittmer (Editor), Stanley N. Gundry (Editor), John S. Feinberg (Contributor)

Discover and understand the different Christian views of what heaven will be like.

Christians from a variety of denominations and traditions are in middle of an important conversation about the final destiny of the saved. Scholars such as N. T. Wright and J. Richard Middleton have pushed back against the traditional view of heaven, and now some Christians are pushing back against them for fear that talk about the earthiness of our final hope distracts our attention from Jesus.

In the familiar Counterpoints format, Four Views on Heaven brings together a well-rounded discussion and highlights similarities and differences of the current views on heaven. Each author presents their strongest biblical case for their position, followed by responses and a rejoinder that model a respectful tone.

Positions and contributors include:


Traditional Heaven - our destiny is to leave earth and live forever in heaven where we will rest, worship, and serve God (John S. Feinberg)
Restored Earth - emphasizes that the saved will live forever with Jesus on this restored planet, enjoying ordinary human activities in our redeemed state. (J. Richard Middleton)
Heavenly Earth - a balanced view that seeks to highlight both the strengths and weaknesses of the heavenly and earthly views (Michael Allen).
Roman Catholic Beatific Vision - stresses the intellectual component of salvation, though it encompasses the whole of human experience of joy, happiness coming from seeing God finally face-to-face (Peter Kreeft).
The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

Genres: Theology, Nonfiction, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Religion, Spirituality, Christian

224 pages, Paperback

First published April 6, 2021

About the author

Michael Wittmer is currently Professor of Systematic Theology at GRTS in Grand Rapids, MI. He is the author of Heaven Is a Place on Earth, Don’t Stop Believing, The Last Enemy, and Despite Doubt. He and his wife, Julie, live in Grand Rapids, Michigan with their three children: Avery, Landon, and Alayna.

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Of the Zondervan Counterpoints volumes, this is one of their better ones. It addresses one of the most practical of subjects, but it also shows the current outlooks on heaven among conservative scholars. The scope of the book is on the final destination of believers, not on the intermediate state. John Feinberg represents the traditional view, Richard Middleton the New Earth view, Michael Allen a heaven on earth view, and Peter Kreeft the Catholic view.

The four views are:

Traditional: John Feinberg. This chapter is the most disappointing in the book. Whatever the traditional view of heaven might be, Feinberg has written a chapter on timelines in dispensational eschatology. When he actually discusses heaven, I agree. He affirms an intermediate state, a body-soul duality, and a resurrected body that will exist in the New Heavens and New Earth. All of that is good.

Neo-Kuyperian: J. Richard Middleton. His actual position is “New Heavens and New Earth,” but it is better seen as a Neo-Kuyperian view. 80% of his essay is quite good. He points out, no doubt in line with scholars like Beale, that God is constructing the earth as a cosmic temple and that is where we will be in the New Earth. To be sure, for Middleton, we will only be on the New Earth. Whatever the New Heavens is, and he is not sure, we will not have access to it. This is where his problems begin, as will be evident in the responses. He also rejects the idea of the soul and intermediate state.

Feinberg’s response: Middleton says we have no access to the New Heavens because, as he notes, Scripture’s language about the New Heavens is metaphorical and we cannot draw any inferences from that. Feinberg points out that he misunderstands what metaphor means. All metaphors have a referent, and we have cognitive access to this referent. Middleton’s desire is to avoid being too literalistic, yet he also admits that language about the New Earth is metaphorical, yet this does not prevent him from saying we will live there. He cannot have it both ways.

Allen’s response: Middleton should be careful not to dismiss a key teaching of the church without any interaction with the thinkers from that view and the actual texts themselves. Jesus’s words to the thief clearly teach an intermediate state. Sure, I can grant that Paradise refers to a Garden-like existence, but Jesus actually tells the thief that “today” you will be “there.”

Like many Neo-Calvinists, Middleton downplays the church and corporate worship.What will we be doing in heaven? Cultural activity. Any kind of worship then (and now) is merely to prepare us for that cultural activity. Middleton’s argument is that the prophets condemn any kind of worship that neglects justice. However, as Allen points out, the admonitions to justice in the prophets do not actually tell us how to worship God, and in any case the prophets called Israel back to the covenant, not to justice in the abstract.

If I can make an aside. We all know that there will not be sex or marriage in heaven. That is a given. However, on the Neo-Calvinist gloss there will still be cultural activity, including “healing the nations” and the “wealth of nations,” if read literally. So, there will not be sex but there will be business transactions. Or so they say.

Heaven on Earth. Michael Allen. Allen’s position is close to Middleton’s, but with a few key differences. Both say we will be in resurrected bodies on the New Earth. For Allen, however, we will also have access to the Beatific Vision and probably to the New Heavens. I side with Allen in this volume.

Roman Catholic. Peter Kreeft. Half of Kreeft’s essay is a riff on his lifetime of musing about C.S. Lewis, and for that half it is quite good. The other half is Purgatory. That is not good. Kreeft’s argument falls apart if the Reformed claim that “believers at their deaths are made perfect in holiness.” If I am made perfect in holiness, then I do not need Purgatory.

I truly enjoyed this book and it made me want heaven even more.

[Bob · Rating 4 out of 5]

Summary: Representatives of four different views on heaven respond to ten questions and each other’s responses.

For many, if asked their view of heaven, they would be hard-pressed to say much more than that they hope to go “there” when they die. Among theologians and biblical scholars, as you may suspect, there is a much more extensive discussion, and some disagreement. This work presents four views representative of those shared by many thoughtful believers. It might be noted that the four contributors to this work all agree on three important truths: the Return of Christ, the bodily Resurrection of believers, and the Restoration of creation, a new heaven and new earth.

Following an introductory historical survey of the doctrine of heaven, worth the price of admission, Michael E. Wittmer lists ten questions he had asked each of the contributors to address. Some referenced the questions specifically while others formulated responses reflective of those questions:

Where is the final destiny of the saved?
What will we be there?
What will we do there?
How, what, and who will we see of God?
How does your view of our end relate to the intermediate state?
How does your view of our end relate to our present life?
Will we possess special powers?
Will we remember traumatic events in this life or loved ones who are not with us?
How will we relate to our spouses and other family members?
Will we be able to sin in our final condition?

The four contributors and a summary of their views are:

John S. Feinberg represents a traditional evangelical reading along the general lines of dispensational premillenialism. He would affirm an intermediate state of believers’ spirits going to be with the Lord, a “rapture” of the saints before Christ comes to defeat evil and inaugurate his millemnial reign, followed by the great white throne judgment, and the new heavens and earth.

J. Richard Middleton emphasizes that our ultimate destiny is not to go to heaven but that in Christ, heaven will come to earth in his return and we will reign with him on the renewed earth, engaging in the normal activities of life, participating in that renewal. Middleton traces the temple theme throughout scripture, seeing in Revelation 21-22, the renewal and final form of God’s temple.

Michael Allen represents a Reformed corrective to Middleton’s position, focusing on a beatific vision of God in a new creation, a radically renewed heaven on earth.

Peter Kreeft, in what I thought the most engaging of the essays, represents a Roman Catholic understanding including the affirmation of Purgatory as the “washroom” for believers before they enter the joys of fellowship with a holy God. Kreeft is the only one who explicitly answered all ten questions, including what we remember and how we will relate to our spouses and others in our family.

Each essay is followed by courteous but substantive responses from the others that point up the differences of their approaches, followed by a short rejoinder. Feinberg’s are the most scripturally focused (although I don’t think he fully reckons with his own theological premises). Middleton reflects the temple theology and neo-Calvinist focus on the renewal of the earth. Allen offers a reformed corrective to others from a theocentric perspective while Kreeft reflects explicitly the combination of scripture and tradition of the Catholic Church.

Several things stand out as quite wonderful in this discussion: no matter the specifics of our final destiny of believers, it is wonderful. It is filled with the presence of God in Christ that will occupy us forever. We will have resurrection bodies with enhanced but not omnipotent capacities. While there is disagreement, there will be work fitted to our faithfulness and gifted capacities. Sin in our lives and the creation is vanquished and death is no more.

This work both fosters our awareness of our glorious destiny as well as the details over which disagreements remain, which may help in clarifying our own understanding. It is also marked by the generous courtesy of each toward all the others, a quality of interaction that serves as a model for theological discussion, and indeed all discussions between Christians.

____________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.

[Jeff Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5*

I struggle knowing the best way to review Four Views on Heaven. On the one hand, as is the case with the rest of the Counterpoints series, I benefited greatly from the structure of the book. The way each author has an opportunity to write and respond to each other is a great way for the reader to think through biblical subjects. This is the first volume I've read that included a rejoinder at the end of each essay, which was a helpful way to fill out the conversation. I often find the responses just as, if not more, stimulating than the actual essays (I did think Feinberg clearly missed the point in one or two of his responses). All four of these authors were kind and charitable in their correspondence with each other, which is refreshing and not always the case in other volumes.

While Michael Wittmer (the editor) included a helpful "very short history" of the subject, he could have done a better job introducing each of the four positions and made it more clear for the reader what made each position distinct. He does highlight areas of agreement and disagreement in his conclusion, but I wasn't always sure what each author was specifically defending in his essay (especially essays 3 and 4).

In my opinion, the most glaring weakness is what was considered the "Traditional Evangelical Protestant Perspective," written by John Feinberg. Wittmer admits in a footnote that Feinberg did not choose this title and that Wittmer assigned the word "traditional" to this essay because "his view seems to represent the most popular evangelical position today" (p. 43). Wittmer claims that Feinberg writes for the "traditional" view because his position holds that "our final destiny is largely discontinuous with our present life" (p. 20). But the discontinuity, it seems to me, has more to do with Feinberg's dispensational framework and his understanding of the millennium/intermediate state than it does his view of the final, eschatological state. At the end, though there will be a great amount of discontinuity between this present earth and the future earth, Feinberg still holds that there will be a renewal of creation (p. 33). A final renewal of creation is something Wittmer claims is an area of agreement between all four authors (p. 206).

The problem I have with this is that, while I personally believe there will be a renewal of creation (and find myself aligning mostly with Middleton, save his denial of the intermediate state), I don't think Feinberg represents a traditional perspective of heaven in the evangelical world (Again, this is not a slight to Feinberg himself, as this was not a claim he made.) It seems to me that the traditional view of heaven would be an ethereal, spiritual, non-material heaven that is someplace other than this (or any) earth. Proponents of this view will especially emphasize Peter's destructive language in 2 Pet 3:10 and claim that there is no continuity between the present earth and the final state and that heaven somewhere else is the final resting place for the redeemed. (Of course, it's easy to assume the view you heard growing up is the "traditional view," so I may just be off on this one.)

In other words, I think it would have been helpful to have Feinberg's essay specifically target a dispensational premillennial view of heaven and have someone else write an essay that argued for the final state to be in a nonmaterial heaven (or if material, at least somewhere else beyond the azure blue). Again, this is not the view I hold but it is the view I have heard the most, and it would have helped me in my own study if an essay was dedicated to that view.

With all of that said, I will always recommend any book from the Counterpoints series because each time I walk away from it with new questions and plenty to think about. And whatever position one takes on this specific question, any chance to consider the final state where the redeemed in Jesus will live with God is a time well spent.

[Doug Van Meter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting to read four, in some ways, very different understanding of life after death for Christians and how that will look on the eternal eschaton. Lots of speculation while seeking to ground in Scripture.

[Preston Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to read theologians argue about whether or not we will defecate in the afterlife, this book is for you.

[Tyler Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

I entered this book being rather solidly in the “New Earth perspective” but I think (if these 4 views are a good representative of the options) heaven on earth is now my view since it better emphasizes a God-centered approach. Since Middleton rejects an intermediate state altogether, his view is off the table for me. But I do think we need more emphasis on the goodness of creation, a correction or gnostic spirituality, and redemption of the cosmos rather than less.

[Kevin Brown · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd never really read anything like this before and appreciated the opportunity to hear different viewpoints on the subject. The interactive format was especially helpful. For the audio book, I think it would really have helped to have a different narrator for each contributor.

[Jeremy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most appreciate Middleton and Kreeft's perspectives.

[Josh Olds · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love a good debate, which is probably why I own all of the Counterpoints books and have read most of them. Biblical/theological positions aside, the Counterpoints books stand as an example of how to debate and how to disagree within Christianity. Every single volume is full of irenic, measured discussion that exhibits both a passion for their topic and respect for their colleagues who have come to different conclusions. Four Views on Heaven is no different, bringing together four different contributors with four different perspectives on Heaven.

The contributors to this volume are:

John Feinberg (representing the traditional evangelical Protestant perspective), a professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical.
Richard Middleton (representing a New Earth perspective), a professor of biblical worldview and exegesis at Northeastern Seminary.
Michael Allen (representing a Heaven on Earth perspective), a professor of systematic theology at Reformed Theological.
Peter Kreeft (representing the Roman Catholic perspective), a professor of philosophy at Boston College.

Each author is given some guiding questions for their initial essay. In this case, the questions guiding the contributors were:

Where is the final destiny of the saved?
What will we be there?
What will we do there?
How, what, and who will we see of God?
How does our view of our end relate to the intermediate state?
How does your view of our end relate to our present life?
Will we possess special powers?
Will we remember traumatic events of this life or loved ones who are not with us?
How will we relate to our spouses and other family members?
Will we be able to sin in our final condition?

After the initial essay by each contributor, the three other contributors write a short response. Then the original author is given a short amount of space to respond to those responses. Initial essays are about 20-30 pages each; responses are 5-8 pages; with the final rejoinder being around 5 pages. Michael Wittmer, professor of systematic theology at Grand Rapids Theological serves as the book’s editor.

Feinberg chooses to begin his essay with an overview of End Times events from a premillennial viewpoint. After this, he discusses the intermediate state—the period between physical death and bodily resurrection. He then moves into a discussion of the Rapture and the Millennium. Are you seeing the problem? It is not until 10 pages into his 18-page essay that Dr. Feinberg actually begins a discussion of Heaven. Feinberg makes the peculiar claim that, in the New Heavens and Earth “all distinctions based on ethnicity, race, gender, etc., won’t matter.” He does not explain this claim, and the phrase “won’t matter” is exceptionally vague. Given that Revelation speaks of a diverse group of people worshipping God in heaven, I think it same to say that ethnic and gender distinctions will continues to matter—but in the sense that they will be positively celebrated. Overall, Feinberg’s focus on his dispensationalism means that his argument for the traditional Protestant perspective isn’t very good or compelling.

Middleton’s perspective on heaven involves the New Earth being central to what Heaven looks like. He writes that we will engage in ordinary cultural pursuits that God intended from the beginning. In other words, Heaven will be Eden restored—humanity on earth the way God envisioned from the beginning. He spends a lot of time developing the idea that creation is God’s cosmic temple and the heaven is about God’s permeating presence. Middleton also makes sure to directly address all of the questions in the prompt, concluding his essay by summarizing answers to questions answered in the essay proper and providing short answers to ones not answered prior. In my opinion, this is the most well-written response.

Allen’s perspective isn’t too much different than Middleton’s though he takes a much stronger view on all things being done for God’s glory (as a good Reformed theologian would). Like Middleton, Allen addresses all the questions in the prompt, making the essay more easily contrasted with the other contributors. His high view of God’s glory and lack of desire to imagine what we might do in heaven outside of Scripture explicitly says limits his answers to many of the questions.

As a Roman Catholic, Kreeft’s perspective is markedly different from his Protestant friends. His perspective is also marked by the fact that he is a philosopher by training rather than a theologian. Both of these differences are immediately apparent in Kreeft’s essay, as is his more laconic and relaxed writing style. Kreeft takes the ten questions in turn and gains my interest with the sentence “Life is a game, a bowl of cherries, a work of art, a war, a dance, a mystery, and many other things, but above all it is a story.” The main difference for Kreeft is his belief in the doctrine of Purgatory. While he doesn’t quite convince me, this was the most compelling and understandable treatise I’d read on the doctrine and I learned much from it.

In the end, I find myself somewhere between Middleton and Allen. Kreeft offers an intriguing response. Feinberg, however, goes rogue with the assignment and offers an essay about eschatology that ignores many of the given prompts. Like all Counterpoints books, Four Views on Heaven is an intellectual journey that will likely alter or deepen your views on some of these important second-order doctrines.

[Matthew Le Croissette · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars. The essays were helpful in mapping out some different perspectives, but the interactions between the authors were weaker. Feinberg’s contributions were just a bit weird, and Kreeft’s were about 50% “It’s a pity you’re not Catholics/Thomists, but hey, at least you like C.S. Lewis”. The essays and interactions of Middleton and Allen were actually really helpful and clarifying.

[Mlie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gelezen voor een werkproject, samen met Four Views on Hell. Dit werd door de uitgever 'The cheerier companion' genoemd ':D wat vrij treffend is. Interessant om te zien wat er nu écht in de bronteksten staat over dit onderwerp en ook vooral hoe weinig we echt weten en hoe de teksten elkaar soms tegenspreken.

In dit boek verdedigen vier auteurs hun visie op dit thema, waar Feinberg stond voor het letterlijk lezen van teksten in de Bijbel (van deze visie komen ook films als 'Left Behind' vandaan), Middleton voor het meer lezen van de teksten in de context van de hele verhaallijn van de Bijbel en de historische context (deze theorie herkende ik het meeste uit mijn kerk en kwam me ook een stuk logischer over) en Peter Kreeft de meer katholiek/protestante versies beschrijft (Dit vond ik het meest interessante stuk. Hij schrijft echt leuk en mooi (al quote hij wel weinig uit de Bijbel zelf), met heel veel humor en C.S. Lewis, waar ik fan van ben. Ik wil sowieso meer van hem lezen!). Het gedeelte van Michael Allen vond ik vooral heel vaag. Ik vond het moeilijk om te volgen wat hij precies wilde zeggen en hij dwaalt heel veel af. Volgensmij hadden ze zijn bijdrage beter kunnen vervangen voor een Oosters Orthodoxe visie (die, zoals Kreeft terecht opmerkt, nu mist in dit boek) of een visie waarin de voorspellende teksten in de Bijbel al eerder zijn uitgekomen (en dit onze hemel op aarde zou moeten zijn, wat in deze tijd ook een beetje onwaarschijnlijk voelt).

Hoe dan ook, ik vond het interessant om te lezen en mijn visie is dat ik geen idee heb ':D haha, maar dat de visies van Kreeft en Middleton me het meest logisch overkomen, als er überhaupt zoiets als een hemel bestaat. Einde.

[Jared Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great introduction to Christian thinking on heaven.

The first author, feinberg, represents a standard evangelical view of the rapture, after which God destroys and re-creates the cosmos. His chapters are the weakest, but his conviction and passion are clear.

Middleton, the second author, forms the standard rebuttal to this- that heaven is Gods presence, which is slowly filling all of creation, until the ultimate culmination and the inauguration of the fulfilled kingdom of God on earth. He believes cultural artifacts from our current age will be preserved in the future ages, and that various cultural identities will be represented and people from all nations will worship together in unique ways. He believes cultural creativity will continue to flourish. He brings a unique perspective as an Old Testament scholar.

Michael Allen is similar to Middleton, but with a more reformed bent and a heavier emphasis on our time spent worshipping Christ in the eschaton. His chapter is edifying, and encouraging.

Peter Kreeft takes the Catholic position, emphasizing the need to be made ready for heaven. He speculates with the great Christian thinkers and philosophers about what sorts of abilities we may have in the new creation. He is by far the most eloquent and imaginative of the bunch, and his essay was a delight.


A good read. I agree with kreeft that it would have been nice to see an Eastern Orthodox perspective represented, but otherwise no real complaints. Feinberg often seemed to respond to points the other authors never made, but that’s not the fault of the editors.
Highly recommended.

[Nathan Marone]

As is the case with most of the books in the Counterpoints series, this volume serves as a nice launching point for understanding disagreements among Christians about "heaven."

For my money, J. Richard Middleton wins the debate, because he takes the whole of the biblical record into account more than the others. His view is the most cohesive.

That said, this is a topic drenched in speculation, so it is best to hold opinions lightly.

My main disappointment was with Peter Kreeft's (Catholic view) essay. Though I found some of his stylistic choices off-putting, my biggest gripe is that he didn't talk about purgatory much. I would guess that belief in purgatory is the single biggest difference between Kreeft and his Protestant counterparts. Because he didn't cover it in and depth, I turned to Jerry Walls' book on the subject.

Overall recommended.

[Mary Pat · Rating 4 out of 5]

More like this, please. 4 theologians/philosophers (well, one is a Catholic philosopher and the other 3 are Protestant theologians... I think) have a structured debate over the nature of heaven/the Eschaton. Some of this I was familiar with (I'm Catholic, and grew up in the Bible Belt South), but some concepts were entirely new to me. I gotta say, when I did RCIA, my favorite part was discussing Aquinas's thoughts on our glorified bodies in heaven, and we decided mothers would have stretch marks. We finally understood the joy of discussing angels dancing on the heads of pins. It's more fun than you would know.

[Will Cunningham-Batt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I just read the chapters by Middleton and Allen. Middleton emphasises the “earthliness” of heaven, whilst Allen seeks to correct this with a more “heavenly” approach. There’s much to appreciate on both sides, but I didn’t find either view entirely persuasive and at some points they are just talking past each other. But it’s a helpful window into a debate among brothers. As for the rest of the book, the other perspectives are dispensationalist (strangely labelled the ‘traditional evangelical’ view) or catholic (read purgatory).

[Marty McSkywalker · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first Counterpoints book and I enjoyed it very much,a very slow,deliberate read for me as I would often stop to ponder viewpoints and re read the Scriptures for myself. I don't think I 100% agree with any one debater but probably came closest with Michael Allen's views. I Aldo appreciate the Catholic (which I am not) views of Peter Kreeft,I enjoyed his wit and writing style and his views gave me many moments of consideration.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting counterpoint installment. With a dispensationalist, a Wesleyan (Middleton), a Reformed guy, and a Catholic, what we see is that there is significant overlap without also notable differences. In some ways, it could be said that, minus, for example purgatory, Middleton and Allen actually are closer to the Catholic position than the dispensational. I always enjoy books from this series and those like it even if, ultimately, they only scratch the surface.

[Blake Western · Rating 4 out of 5]

You might think there were not so many views on Heaven. If you read this book, you will realize that there are many. Each author presents his views, then the others respond to him, followed by the first author's conclusion.

[Philip Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was enjoyable. Mainly agreed with Michael Allen. J. Richard Middleton had some good insights too.

"The best is yet to come!"

[Bevin Hayward · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book brings to light the need to challenge and discuss the many assumptions Christians have around the nature of the eternal state. Great introductory resource.

[Keith · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this volume of the Counterpoints series. As always, all of the contributions were valuable and thoughtful. Personally, I was most impressed by Peter Kreeft, feeling that he most closely represents my own views and writes with elegance and flair. I want his essay on heaven read at my funeral. Bravo.

[Zach Korthals · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars—I agree with Middleton most of all (have for years) with some Kreeft and Allen emphasis thrown in for good measure (I am Anglo-Catholic at this point haha)

[John B · Rating 4 out of 5]

No solid answers

They all leave room for wonder. There’s wrestling between some very distinct doctrines and an openness to allow a little of each of their views take hold then let go but over all a very informative read.