Why Does Heaven Have to Pass Away?

One of the fascinating things about listening to sermons is that no matter how many you have listened to, and believe me, I have listened to a LOT of sermons, you just never know what you are going to hear.

Tonight, I was listening to a sermon entitled Blessed, preached by Ernest Imler. The sermon was based on Psalm 1, and I was nearing the end of the message. I thought I had a pretty good idea of where things were going. Then, suddenly, the pastor said something that made me stop.

Wait. What?

I actually had to back the sermon up a little to hear it again.

Here is what he said:

“And the heaven that we know now will not be the heaven that will be because there’s been sin in that heaven. That’s why it’s going to pass away.”

He continued:

“A new heaven and a new earth where the devil’s never touched. Where sin has never entered. Where it’s never come before God. But only righteousness will be there.”

You can listen to the original sermon here:

Blessed – Ernest Imler | SermonAudio

Now, I want you to think carefully about what was just said. The pastor is not simply saying that the Bible teaches there will be a new heaven and a new earth. That would hardly be controversial. He is making a specific claim about why the present heaven must pass away.

Heaven must pass away because there has been sin in heaven.

That is an entirely different proposition, and it raises some fascinating biblical, theological, historical and logical questions.

Let’s begin with what Scripture actually says.

Revelation 21:1 declares:

“And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”

Second Peter 3:13 tells us:

“Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Isaiah 65:17 declares:

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.”

There is no question that Scripture teaches a new heaven and a new earth. But where does any of these passages tell us that heaven must pass away because Satan sinned there?

That is the issue.

We have taken something the Bible explicitly teaches and attached an explanation to it that the Bible does not explicitly provide. Then, in the middle of a sermon, that explanation is presented as though it were simply another biblical fact.

But there is an even more fundamental hermeneutical question we need to address.

Which heaven are we talking about?

The word heaven does not have the same meaning every time it appears in Scripture. Sometimes it refers to the sky. Sometimes it refers to the realm of the sun, moon and stars. Sometimes it refers to the dwelling place of God.

In Genesis 1:8, God calls the firmament heaven. In Genesis 1:14–17, the heavenly expanse contains the lights that mark days, seasons and years. In Matthew 6:9, Jesus teaches us to pray to our Father in heaven. In 2 Corinthians 12:2, Paul speaks of someone being caught up to the third heaven.

We cannot simply find the word heaven in two different passages and assume that both passages are describing precisely the same thing.

Consider the context of 2 Peter 3. Peter is discussing the creation, the Flood, the earth, the heavens, fire and the elements. He draws a comparison between the world that perished in the Flood and the present heavens and earth that are reserved for judgment.

The context is cosmic. It concerns the created order.

Is Peter telling us that the spiritual dwelling place of God must be destroyed because Satan once sinned there? Where is that argument in the passage?

It isn’t there.

In fact, Revelation 21 presents an interesting distinction that we should not overlook. John sees a new heaven and a new earth in verse 1. In verse 2, he sees the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.

What is the relationship between the heaven that passes away and the heaven from which the New Jerusalem descends? That is a question requiring careful interpretation, not an assumption that every reference to heaven must describe the same location or realm.

This does not mean that the Bible has nothing to say about evil in the heavenly realm.

Job 1 and 2 describe Satan appearing before God. Revelation 12 describes war in heaven and the expulsion of the dragon and his angels. Ephesians 6:12 describes spiritual wickedness in heavenly places. Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 refer to angels who sinned or abandoned their proper position.

There is certainly biblical material that must be considered when discussing angelic rebellion and the presence of evil in the heavenly realm.

But even here, we need to exercise some hermeneutical caution. The traditional account of Satan’s original fall frequently draws from Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, passages directly addressed to the king of Babylon and the king of Tyre, respectively. Whether those passages also reveal the history of Satan is a matter of interpretation. Revelation 12, meanwhile, places the heavenly conflict within a larger vision involving the Messiah, the defeat of the accuser and the victory of the Lamb.

We should not pretend that Scripture provides a simple, comprehensive chronology of everything that happened in heaven before the creation of humanity.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the pastor’s premise. Let’s agree that Satan sinned in heaven.

Does that establish that heaven must be destroyed?

No.

We have established that a sinful being existed in a heavenly setting. We have not established that the setting itself became irreversibly contaminated, that God could not cleanse it, or that its destruction became necessary.

Think about the implications of the argument.

If sin occurs in a location, does the location itself become sinful? Does the presence of a sinful being contaminate the place where that being stands? Does the removal of that being fail to remove the problem? Does God have to destroy everything that has ever been touched by sin?

And, perhaps most importantly, where does Scripture establish such a principle?

Consider Job. Satan appears before God, speaks to God, challenges the integrity of Job and receives permission to act within certain limitations.

Does Satan’s appearance contaminate the presence of God?

Does God’s holiness become compromised because a sinful being stands before Him?

Certainly not.

God is not made less holy by the presence of a sinner. If that were the case, we would have an enormous theological problem with the incarnation itself. Jesus Christ entered a sinful world, lived among sinners, touched those considered unclean and remained absolutely sinless.

The presence of sin does not necessarily mean that everything in proximity to sin becomes sinful.

Of course, Scripture does speak of places being defiled by sin. Leviticus 16 describes the cleansing of the sanctuary because of the sins and uncleanness of Israel. Leviticus 18 describes the land being defiled by the conduct of its inhabitants.

But notice something important: the sanctuary could be cleansed. Its defilement did not require its destruction and replacement every time Israel sinned.

And that brings us to one of the most fascinating passages in this entire discussion, a passage that we have recently been examining here at Theology Central.

Hebrews 9:23:

“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

The heavenly things themselves require purification?

Why?

What are these heavenly things? How have they become defiled? What does their purification involve?

This is not a question I want to dismiss, because the author of Hebrews actually raises it. Unlike the specific causal explanation offered in the sermon, here we have an explicit biblical statement about the purification of heavenly things.

And this is where our investigation into the history of the pastor’s idea becomes interesting.

The notion that Satan and the fallen angels have defiled heaven is not something Ernest Imler necessarily invented. It has appeared in Christian theological discussions, particularly in interpretations of Hebrews 9:23.

The nineteenth-century Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary, for example, discusses how human sin introduced disorder into the relationship between God, humanity and the heavenly realm. It also connects Christ’s atonement with the expulsion of Satan from heaven.

Read the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary on Hebrews 9.

In the twentieth century, some commentators, including Otto Michel, connected the purification of heavenly things more directly with Satan’s expulsion. The idea is that the presence and activity of evil in the heavenly realm created a condition addressed by Christ’s victory.

Steven Cole, in his discussion of Hebrews 9:23–28, identifies this as one of several interpretations offered by commentators. He ultimately favors a different explanation, relating the purification to God’s people as His spiritual dwelling place.

Read Steven Cole’s discussion of Hebrews 9:23–28.

There are other interpretations as well. Some understand the purification in terms of the inauguration or consecration of the heavenly sanctuary. Others relate it to humanity’s access to God through Christ’s sacrifice. Still others understand the language in connection with the cleansing of God’s people or their consciences.

So there is a genuine history of theological debate surrounding the idea of heavenly defilement.

But notice the difference between those discussions and the statement we heard in the sermon.

Hebrews 9:23 speaks of purification through a better sacrifice.

The pastor speaks of heaven passing away because sin has occurred there.

Those are not necessarily the same thing.

In fact, if Christ’s sacrifice purifies the heavenly things, wouldn’t that raise an additional question? Why would heaven subsequently need to pass away because of the very defilement that Christ’s sacrifice has addressed?

The two passages may be addressing different realities. Purification and the final renewal of creation need not be mutually exclusive. But that is precisely why we cannot simply connect these concepts without doing the necessary exegetical work.

What about the history of the specific claim that heaven must pass away because Satan sinned there? Is this a common Christian teaching?

I have not been able to establish a definitive historical origin for that exact claim. Nor have I found sufficient evidence to identify it as a standard teaching throughout Christian history.

The broader teaching of angelic rebellion is certainly widespread. The expectation of a new heaven and a new earth is foundational to Christian eschatology. The idea that sin has affected heavenly realities has also appeared in theological literature.

But combining those ideas into the assertion that God’s present heavenly dwelling must pass away specifically because Satan sinned there is not something Christians have universally taught.

In fact, some influential Christian teachers have understood the relevant passages quite differently.

Augustine, writing in the early fifth century in The City of God, Book XX, discusses the new heaven and the new earth in terms of the transformation of creation. He describes the present world’s corruptible qualities being replaced by conditions appropriate for resurrected, immortal humanity. His discussion of 2 Peter 3 focuses on the world and its heavens, rather than on the destruction of God’s dwelling because of angelic sin.

Read Augustine’s discussion in The City of God, Book XX, chapters 16 and 18.

More recently, John MacArthur, in his 1987 teaching on the New Jerusalem, distinguishes the present created heavens, including the celestial bodies, from God’s heavenly dwelling and describes the future renewal of the universe.

Read John MacArthur’s teaching on the New Jerusalem.

Interestingly, the evangelical apologetics website GotQuestions, in its discussion of Satan’s access to heaven, explicitly rejects the idea that Satan’s temporary presence before God contaminates heaven.

Read: Does Satan still have access to heaven?

These examples do not establish that the pastor’s explanation is unique or that nobody else has ever taught it. They do establish that his explanation is not the only Christian understanding of the relevant passages, and we should not mistake it for an unquestioned biblical doctrine.

There is another issue we need to consider. When Scripture speaks of the present heavens and earth passing away, does it necessarily mean that God completely annihilates the existing creation and starts over?

Christians have long debated the relationship between destruction, transformation and renewal.

Second Peter 3 compares the coming judgment with the Flood. The world that existed before the Flood perished, but the earth itself did not cease to exist. There was both judgment and continuity.

Romans 8:19–23 describes creation being subjected to corruption and anticipating its liberation. The creation that is presently groaning is the creation that will be delivered from its bondage.

Revelation 21:5 declares:

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Notice that the language speaks of making all things new. That is not, by itself, a complete explanation of the mechanics of the new creation, but it is certainly consistent with the idea of renewal and transformation.

The point is that the pastor’s statement raises questions not only about the reason heaven passes away but also about what passing away actually means.

And now we arrive at what I think may be the most fascinating logical problem in the entire discussion.

The pastor says the new heaven will be a place where the devil has never touched and where sin has never entered.

Wonderful.

But wasn’t there a time when the original heaven was also a place where sin had never entered?

If we accept the traditional Christian account of Satan’s rebellion, there was once a heavenly realm that had never experienced sin. Then sin entered that realm.

So how does creating another heavenly realm that has never experienced sin solve the problem?

The first heaven had no history of sin. Yet, according to the argument, sin occurred there.

The new heaven will have no history of sin. What guarantees that sin will never occur there?

The absence of a previous history of sin is not the same thing as the impossibility of future sin.

This is not an argument against the eternal security of the new creation. Scripture gives us every reason to believe that the final state will be permanent, that Satan will be defeated and that God’s redeemed people will enjoy eternal fellowship with Him.

But the explanation cannot simply be that God has created a new place.

Something more fundamental must distinguish the final state from the original state.

Revelation 20:10 describes the final judgment of Satan. Revelation 21:27 tells us that nothing defiling will enter the New Jerusalem. Revelation 22:3 declares that there will be no more curse. First Corinthians 15 describes the resurrection of the dead in incorruption and the final defeat of death.

The Christian hope is not merely that God will relocate us to a place that has never experienced sin. It is that God will bring His redemptive work to its consummation. Satan will be judged, death will be defeated, the redeemed will be glorified and creation will be delivered from corruption.

Our eternal hope rests in the victory of Christ, not in the previous history of a location.

And that brings us back to the sermon.

What began as a message about being blessed through delighting in God’s Word ended with a statement that made me rewind the audio and begin investigating an entirely different theological subject.

This is one of the reasons I continue to listen to sermons. You never know what you are going to hear. Sometimes a sermon introduces you to a passage you have never seriously considered. Sometimes it challenges an assumption you have held for years. Sometimes it presents a theological claim so casually that you almost miss how much is being asserted.

And sometimes the most interesting part of a sermon is something the pastor says in its final two minutes.

The Bible teaches that the present heavens and earth will pass away. It teaches the reality of angelic rebellion. It teaches the purification of heavenly things. It teaches the final defeat of Satan and the promise of a new creation in which righteousness dwells.

But does it teach that the present heaven must pass away specifically because sin occurred there?

That is the claim we still need to establish.

The problem is not that the pastor offered a possible theological explanation. We should explore possible explanations. We should ask difficult questions. We should develop hypotheses and test them against Scripture.

The problem is that the explanation was presented as an established fact without the biblical argument necessary to establish it.

There is a world of difference between saying, “This is what the Bible teaches,” and saying, “This is how I think we might explain what the Bible teaches.”

And perhaps one of the greatest services we can render to the church is to insist that we never lose sight of that difference.

Because if we genuinely delight in the Word of God, as Psalm 1 tells us we should, then surely we should be equally committed to distinguishing what God has actually said from what we have concluded, inferred, assumed or simply heard someone else say.

Even if it means stopping a sermon, backing it up and asking one more time:

Wait. What?