Is God in Everything—or Distinct from It All? A Christian Response to Pantheism

Theology
23

My first response is that I’d want to point out that there is a distinction between God is in everything (panentheanism) and everything is God (pantheism). It’s the little interfix -en- that makes the difference.

Pantheism is obviously wrong. There is a radical difference between the Uncreated God and the creation which He made. The Uncreated and the Created are fundamentally different.

The question of panENtheism requires a more nuanced approach. To describe as God in all things has a biblical precedent, but requires a firm definition of categories, and thus requires some very serious theological precision. Otherwise we’re left with just another heresy on our hands.

There is a biblical and theologically orthodox way to speak of the radically other transcendent God as being, in some sense, present through His creation. And we shouldn’t oppose that. But we should oppose unbiblical and heterodox views whenever and wherever they are.

24

A potter may make 10,000 pots. Each one can show the work of his hands. However, he is not in the pots.

25

Ephesians 4:6 has to be addressed someway and somehow. If we simply say “God is not in His creation” in anyway whatsoever, then how does that jive with:

“one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Ephesiasn 4:6)

Since this is a statement in Scripture, it has to mean something. We have to at least attempt to make sense of what “all” means here, at which point the “of” “through” and “in” statements come into play.

εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν

one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all

Though looking at a comparison of critical Greek texts (here) I’m noticing some manuscript traditions add ὑμῖν while others omit it. This clearly does change the meaning from “in all” to “in you all” if it is included. This would certainly be an example of how our exegesis of the text depends a great deal on what our source text reads–the inclusion or exclusion of ὑμῖν is almost certainly important if we are going to faithfully exegete the passage.

26

Just my 2 cents here @TheologyNerd

in you all — The oldest manuscripts omit “you.” Many of the oldest versions and Fathers and old manuscripts read, “in us all.” Whether the pronoun be read or not, it must be understood (either from the “ye,” Eph_4:4, or from the “us,” Eph_4:7); for other parts of Scripture prove that the Spirit is not “in all” men, but only in believers (Rom_8:9, Rom_8:14). God is “Father” both by generation (as Creator) and regeneration (Eph_2:10; Jas_1:17, Jas_1:18; 1Jn_5:1).

  1. Context of the Passage

Paul’s statement sits inside Ephesians 4:1–6, where he exhorts the church to walk “worthy of the calling” they have received. His focus is not on the universality of God’s indwelling, but on the unity of believers within the one body of Christ.

He writes:

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

This entire passage is Trinitarian in structure:

One Spirit (v.4)

One Lord (v.5)

One God and Father (v.6)

Paul is emphasizing that the same God, the Father, Son, and Spirit, is the unifying source and authority behind the church’s calling. The context is ecclesial and relational, not pantheistic or universalistic.

  1. The Greek Syntax and Key Terms

The clause reads in Greek:
εἷς Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ πάντων, ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.

Let’s break this down:

εἷς Θεός καὶ Πατήρ πάντων – “one God and Father of all.”
The word πάντων (panton), “of all,” must be interpreted by its contextual group. It refers not to all humanity indiscriminately, but to all who are included in the “one body” of verse 4 — that is, believers.

ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων – “who is over all.”
This expresses sovereign authority. God reigns over all creation, including unbelievers. This part indeed shows His universal lordship.

καὶ διὰ πάντων – “and through all.”
Here διά (through) speaks of divine providence and agency, how God works through all His people to accomplish His purpose. It parallels Philippians 2:13, “for it is God who works in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure.”

καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν – “and in all.”
The preposition ἐν (in) here refers to God’s indwelling presence through the Spirit, but again, context limits “in all” to the body of believers, not the whole world. Paul consistently uses ἐν to describe the indwelling of God or Christ in believers, such as in Ephesians 2:22, “you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God in the Spirit.”

So grammatically and contextually, the “all” refers to all believers, not all mankind.

  1. The Immediate Literary Context: The Church Body

Paul has just spoken of one body, one Spirit, and one hope. His “oneness” theme continues to build. The “all” of verse 6 is limited to the same group defined by these earlier references, the redeemed community united in Christ.

To read “in all” as “in every human being” would break Paul’s argument. In the preceding verse (v.5), he speaks of one faith and one baptism, unbelievers have neither faith nor baptism into Christ. Therefore, they cannot be included in the “in all” of verse 6.

This unity is spiritual, grounded in the shared participation of believers in the Spirit (Eph. 2:18; 1 Cor. 12:13).

  1. The Broader Theological Context of Ephesians

Paul already clarified earlier that the unbelieving world is spiritually separated from God:

“You were dead in your trespasses and sins… separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel… having no hope and without God (ἄθεοι, atheoi) in the world” (Ephesians 2:1, 12).

That last phrase, “without God in the world,” directly refutes any idea that God indwells unbelievers. The only sense in which God is “in” all creation is by His omnipresence (Psalm 139:7–10, Acts 17:28), but not by indwelling fellowship. The indwelling presence is covenantal, not natural.

Paul distinguishes these two realities in Romans 8:9:

“Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him.”

Thus, God is omnipresent “over all,” but only personally present “in” those who are in Christ.

  1. The Doctrinal Summary

Over all = God’s sovereignty over creation.

Through all = God’s providential working and sustaining power.

In all = God’s indwelling in the community of believers.

There is one God and Father who rules over all creation, works through His people, and dwells within His redeemed.

  1. The Cross and Application

The reason believers can experience this indwelling is because of the cross of Christ. Through His blood, the barrier of sin was broken (Ephesians 2:13–18). By His death and resurrection, He created “one new man” out of Jew and Gentile, reconciling both to God in one body through the cross. The Spirit’s indwelling presence, described in Ephesians 1:13–14, flows directly from this redemptive act.

So when Paul says God is “in all,” he is describing the spiritual reality of the church as God’s dwelling place (Eph. 2:22), a truth made possible only by the crucified and risen Christ.

In sum.

Ephesians 4:6 does not mean that God is “in” unbelievers in the relational or spiritual sense. God is over all by sovereignty, through all by providence, and in all believers by His indwelling Spirit. The “all” is the redeemed community united by one faith, one Lord, and one baptism. The verse celebrates the unity of the body of Christ under one God and Father, not a universal divine presence in all humanity.

J.

27

Thank-you @Johann for that thorough, and academic dissection of Ephesians 4:1-6. You amaze me.

It seems to me, if I am understanding @TheologyNerd correctly, that he may be suggesting that the last 3 (or 4) words of this passage may compel us to accept that God literally indwells all physical matter. He may be on to something here, as modern science has isolated an elemental “boson” (bearer of some force) particle which was named the Higgs boson (after physicist Peter Higgs, who was one of the first to propose the particle’s existence in a 1964) which is theorized to give other fundamental particles their mass through a process called the Higgs mechanism. Some have labeled this Higgs boson “The God Particle”, probably because of its “omnipresent” and essential nature. Without it, nothing (of mass) exists.

Even so, I doubt that is what The Holy Spirit meant, nor was it what Paul was inferring when he wrote this letter to the Ephesians. The purpose and subject of Paul’s letter is not to expose insights into particle physics, or the undergirding reality of our physical universe, but to encourage these Ephesian believers in the unity which they share in Christ. The passage (quoted below) is about unity within the church; the Holy Spirit that holds all things together. He is not speaking here about holding matter together physically (although He is doing that too), but about holding the church together spiritually.

The subject of Paul’s encouragement is “the church” so grammatically the predicates refer to the subject.

This is how I read the passage @TheologyNerd mentioned:

Ephesians 4:1-6

I, therefore, 
	the prisoner of the Lord, 
beseech you (the body of Christ)
	to walk worthy of the calling with which you (the body of Christ) were called, 
		(the body of Christ should walk) with all lowliness and gentleness, 
		(the body of Christ should walk) with longsuffering, 
			(the body of Christ should walk) bearing with one another in love, 
			(the body of Christ should walk) endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit 
				in the bond of peace. 
(Because)There is (only) 
	one body (of Christ) 
	and one Spirit (who is Holy), 
just as you (the body of Christ) were called in 
	one hope of your calling; 
	one Lord, 
	one faith, 
	one baptism; 
	one God and Father of all, 
		who is above all (the body of Christ), 
		and through all (the body of Christ), 
		and in you all (the body of Christ).

The point Paul is making is that there is a single unified Body, held together by The Holy Spirit of God, in which all who are receiving this letter are members. The infrences to The Holy Spirit of God being the Boson that holds all matter together is interesting, and may be true, but not implied in this passage (IMHO)

KP

28

I hear you @KPuff

1. The context of Ephesians 4:6
Paul is not writing a cosmological or metaphysical treatise on divine essence permeating atoms, but a pastoral appeal for unity in the church. The entire section, from Ephesians 4:1–6, emphasizes “one body… one Spirit… one Lord… one faith… one baptism… one God and Father of all.” The “all” here refers contextually to all believers in the body of Christ, not all created things. This is a unity text, not a pantheistic formula. Paul’s focus is ecclesial, not elemental. He is addressing the one new man in Christ (Ephesians 2:15), not matter or molecules.

2. The grammar of “πάντων” (panton, “of all”)
The phrase “εἷς Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ πάντων” (heis Theos kai patēr pantōn) uses the masculine plural “pantōn,” not the neuter “pantōn” for things.
When neuter is used, it refers to objects or impersonal things; when masculine plural is used, it refers to people. The masculine here means “all persons” who are the referents of God’s fatherhood, namely believers. Paul deliberately chose the masculine to speak of “all of us” who share one Father, not of all physical matter. So grammatically, the “all” cannot mean “all things in existence” but “all believers” in the one body.

image
image942×297 7.1 KB

3. The flow of the prepositions “ἐπὶ πάντων καὶ διὰ πάντων καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν”
These prepositional phrases express God’s sovereign position, agency, and indwelling. “Over all” (epi pantōn) points to His supreme authority, “through all” (dia pantōn) reflects His operational power and providence, and “in all” (en pasin) denotes His personal indwelling presence through the Spirit. Since the masculine plural continues throughout, the “in all” refers to His indwelling in all believers, not in all material reality. Compare this with Ephesians 2:22, “in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” The indwelling is personal and relational, not physical or atomic.

4. The theological coherence of Paul’s doctrine of indwelling
Paul reserves the language of “indwelling” (enoikeō) or “in” (en) for God’s Spirit residing in believers (Romans 8:9–11, 1 Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). He never says God indwells unbelievers or inert matter. God is omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10, Jeremiah 23:24), but omnipresence differs from indwelling. Omnipresence means God is present everywhere in His fullness, yet distinct from creation; indwelling means God’s Spirit takes up residence in the redeemed heart**. To conflate the two leads to pantheism (God is everything) or panentheism (God is in everything)**, both of which Paul’s theology denies (Romans 1:25, Acts 17:24–25).

5. The “Higgs boson” and “God particle” idea
The Higgs boson is a scientific discovery that describes how particles acquire mass within the Higgs field, but this has no theological equivalence to divine indwelling. To call it “The God Particle” is a secular metaphor coined by physicists and media, not a theological statement. God’s sustaining presence in creation is indeed affirmed in Colossians 1:17, where Christ “holds all things together,” but Paul’s use there refers to divine sovereignty and providence, not to a physical embedding of God’s essence within particles. God upholds the cosmos by His word, not by His substance diffused in matter (Hebrews 1:3).

6. The danger of collapsing Creator and creation
The moment we read “God in all” as “God is the fabric of all matter,” we collapse the Creator–creature distinction that Scripture guards jealously. Paul’s theology depends on this distinction: “One God and Father of all” rules, energizes, and indwells His people, but He is not the universe itself. Romans 1:25 warns precisely against this error, where humans “exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” The biblical view is not God is everything but everything depends on God.

7. The cross-centered perspective
God does not unite Himself with creation through atomic presence but through redemptive union in Christ. The believer’s participation in God’s life comes through crucifixion with Christ (Galatians 2:20) and resurrection power (Romans 6:4–5). The phrase “in all” finds its ultimate fulfillment not in the Higgs field but in the Spirit uniting the body of Christ to its Head. The God who is “over all and through all and in all” is the same God who reconciles all things through the blood of His cross (Colossians 1:20).

In summary, Ephesians 4:6 does not mean God literally indwells physical matter. Grammatically, contextually, and theologically, Paul’s “in all” refers to believers in the one body of Christ, united by one Spirit and one faith under one Father. The “God Particle” may describe how creation coheres physically, but Scripture reveals the far greater truth: all creation coheres spiritually in Christ, the crucified and risen Lord who fills His people with His Spirit, not the universe with His essence.

You agree brother?

J.

29

@Johann

Yes, excellent points.

I hadn’t thought of it until I was reading your post, and the careful distinctions you are making about God’s indwelling, and God’s presence. I thought of Revelation 21:1

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.

This verse is Incommensurate with the idea that God indwells “everything” since He will destroy (disintegrate) the universal matter that we know and recreate a New Heaven and a New Earth. How could we imagine God destroying that in which He dwells? What the new heaven and earth will be like in any physical sense, we don’t know, (nor can we conceive), but we do know, in it there will be heard a loud voice, speaking from heaven saying:
“Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.” Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Revelation 21:3-5.

Thanx @Johann
KP

30

Stay strong in Messiah brother and shalom to you and family.

J.

31

I’m not necessarily trying to affirm any position. Rather, I wanted to raise questions.

That said, I think a case can be argued that there is some sense in which God is present through His creation in a general way; or even as St. Paul says (admittedly quoting a pagan poet) that “in Him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

Is there a sense in which God is in all and/or everything is in God a true statement without violating the fundamental ontological separation between the Creator and the creation?

If I am arguing for any position, this is the position I would be arguing in favor of: That there is a radical ontological difference between the Creator and the creation, and yet the Good Creator does choose to be present in and through His creation. There is, in creation, a signpost that points to the Good Creator, “The heavens declare the glory of God” for example; that the innate goodness of creation is a testament to the Goodness of the Creator.

The sunset isn’t God. But can the sunset, in its created beauty, be a testament to the sublime Beauty of God? Not in a sentimental way (though, perhaps in that way too, though that is more subjective); but as true testament-bearing of the radical transcendent Beauty. Of course without faith we cannot know God, apart from God’s specific Revelation of Himself we cannot know Him, as St. Paul says in Romans 1 that though creation testifies to the wisdom and power of God people saw this and chose to worship the creation rather than the Creator. In that sense the testifying power of creation, apart from the supernatural working of faith by the Holy Spirit, cannot lead us to the Creator (for we are fallen, and our innate fallen appetites lead us to idolatry); but with faith we can behold in the goodness of creation the Goodness of the Creator–and therefore honor and worship Him.

There are, I think, two potential dangers we could fall into. There is the pantheistic trap/the idolatry trap, where we conflate the created with the Creator and therefore fail to worship the only One worthy of worship and worship other things instead. But there is also the Manichaean/Gnostic trap, or the Deist trap–a God so far removed from creation and we are failing to recognize the goodness of the creation and the nearness of God. The totally and radically transcendent God is simultaneously immanent–He’s everywhere, even in the bitter pain and suffering of this broken world.

What I also don’t want to do is present a nebulous “God can be found in creation” as though the Incarnation, and especially the Cross, aren’t absolutely central in everything. I cannot know God except in the Incarnation of the Son, the way I know and meet God is at the Cross of Jesus Christ, in His sufferings.

32

I struggle with the notion that God is going to annihilate His creation and start over. When our Lord was raised up from the dead, His body wasn’t annihilated and re-made, the same body that was nailed to the cross, was dead in the tomb, was gloriously resurrected. He even had the wounds of His crucifixion.

Our Lord’s resurrection teaches us that God’s purpose isn’t to destroy and start over; but raise up, restore, redeem, and heal. We can’t separate resurrection from the renewing of creation, because these are intimately connected in Scripture.

33

My 2 cents again @TheologyNerd

You say- “Is there a sense in which God is in all and all is in God without collapsing ontology?”

Yes, but only when distinguished by mode of presence. Scripture speaks of God’s immanence (He is present everywhere in His fullness) and His transcendence (He is wholly distinct from creation). Acts 17:28, “For in Him we live and move and have our being,” expresses dependence, not absorption. The Greek phrase ἐν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν (en autō zōmen) uses en instrumentally or locatively, meaning within the sphere of divine sustenance, not ontological fusion. Paul’s logic is providential, not pantheistic. God sustains all things (Hebrews 1:3, pherōn ta panta tō rhēmati tēs dunameōs autou — “upholding all things by the word of His power”), yet remains distinct as the ktistēs (Creator) over His ktisis (creation, Romans 1:25).

You say/ask- “That there is a radical ontological difference between the Creator and the creation”

This is fully biblical. Genesis 1:1 draws the line sharply: “In the beginning God created (בָּרָא, bara) the heavens and the earth.” The verb bara in Hebrew is used exclusively of divine creative action, never of human craftsmanship, showing an absolute ontological divide. Isaiah 40:25–26, “To whom then will you compare Me, that I should be like him?” The syntax uses mi-tedammĕyūn (Hithpael stem of דָּמָה, to resemble), a rhetorical denial of likeness. The Creator–creation distinction is covenantally and metaphysically guarded. Romans 11:36 encapsulates it perfectly: “For from Him (ex autou) and through Him (di’ autou) and to Him (eis auton) are all things.” The prepositions trace causality, not identity. Creation originates from God but is not God.

  1. “The Good Creator chooses to be present in and through His creation”

True, yet we must clarify in what sense. Psalm 139:7–10 shows omnipresence, “Where shall I flee from Your Spirit?” The Hebrew ’ānāh (where) and mippānêkā (from Your presence) demonstrate relational presence, not material diffusion. God’s Spirit pervades all, not by spatial containment but by sovereign awareness. Jeremiah 23:24 confirms this, “Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (hălō’ ’et-hashāmayim wĕ’et-hā’ārets ’ănî mālē’). The verb mālē’ (“to fill”) is metaphorical of dominion, not of composition. God is present to creation, not present as creation. He works through creation providentially (Psalm 104:14–30), but His being is never conflated with the material cosmos.

  1. “Creation testifies to the Creator’s glory”

Absolutely. Psalm 19:1, “The heavens declare the glory of God,” uses mĕsappĕrîm (Piel participle of sāpar, “to recount”) and maggīd (Hiphil participle, “to proclaim”), indicating continuous verbal testimony. The witness of creation is revelatory but not redemptive. Romans 1:20 parallels this: “For His invisible attributes… have been clearly perceived.” The participle kathoratai (perfect passive) shows enduring perception, but verse 21–23 warns that fallen humanity suppresses this truth. So yes, the sunset reflects the divine artistry, but without faith it becomes an idol (Romans 1:25). Creation bears testimony of God, not divinity within itself.

  1. “Can the sunset be a true testament to divine beauty?”

Yes, as an analogia entis (analogy of being), but never as divine embodiment. Ecclesiastes 3:11 says, “He has made everything beautiful (yāpeh) in its time,” which testifies to God’s aesthetic wisdom, not His essence. The Hebrew beauty is derivative. The beauty of holiness (Psalm 96:9) belongs to God alone. In syntax and concept, the beauty of creation is participatory (by design), not essential (by nature). The sunset points upward to divine transcendence; it is a sign, not a substance of God’s being.

  1. “Without revelation we cannot know Him truly”

Correct. Romans 1:19–21 proves general revelation condemns but cannot save. Saving knowledge comes only through special revelation in Christ. John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” The verb exēgēsato (from exēgeomai, “to make fully known”) gives us “exegesis” — meaning Christ alone interprets God to humanity. Thus, we know God through Christ, not through nature’s splendor. Faith is the Spirit’s supernatural work (1 Corinthians 2:14), enabling us to perceive creation’s testimony rightly.

  1. “Two dangers: pantheism and deistic distance”

Both are scripturally refuted. Pantheism is rejected in Romans 1:25, where worship of creation replaces Creator. Deism is corrected in Colossians 1:17, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” The verb synestēken (perfect tense of synistēmi) indicates continuous sustaining action, God is actively upholding, not detached. Scripture holds both truths: transcendence (Isaiah 57:15, “He inhabits eternity”) and immanence (“dwells with the contrite and lowly spirit”). The same verse unites distance and nearness without contradiction.

God bless and shalom to you and family.

J.

34

@KPuff I see “ADVERTISEMENT” underneath my posts, something wrong here?

J.

35

What to say? @TheologyNerd ?

  1. 2 Peter 3:10–12 — the key verb “λυθήσεται” (luthēsetai, “will be dissolved”)
    Peter writes, “The heavens will pass away (παρελεύσονται) with a roar, and the elements will be dissolved (λυθήσεται) with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up (κατακαήσεται).” The future passive of luō means to be loosed, untied, or disintegrated. The participle κατακαήσεται (future passive of katakaiō) signifies total combustion, not refinement. Verse 12 repeats λυόμενοι, stressing complete dissolution. Peter’s syntax depicts annihilation of form, not mere renovation.

  2. Revelation 21:1 — “a new heaven and a new earth”
    John says, “for the first heaven and the first earth passed away (ἀπῆλθαν).” The aorist active apēlthan from aperchomai expresses decisive departure or cessation, not gradual renewal. The phrase “no longer any sea” (οὐκ ἔστιν ἔτι θάλασσα) signals qualitative discontinuity. The old creation’s spatial and material order is removed; a new cosmos emerges ex nihilo by divine word, parallel to Genesis 1.

  3. Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 — Hebrew “בָּרָא” (bara, “create”)
    Yahweh declares, “Behold, I create (בֹּורֵא, participle of bara) new heavens and a new earth.” The root bara denotes exclusive divine creation, never used for mere modification. Isaiah’s syntax mirrors Genesis 1:1, showing that the new creation is an act of re-creation, not rehabilitation.

  4. Hebrews 1:10–12 — the heavens “will perish” (ἀπολοῦνται)
    Quoting Psalm 102:25–26, the author says, “They will perish (ἀπολοῦνται), but You remain.” The future middle apolountai from apollumi means to be destroyed or ruined completely. Verse 12, “like a garment they will be changed (ἀλλαγήσονται)”, suggests replacement, not patching. The old creation wears out and is exchanged for the new, just as temporal things yield to the eternal.

  5. Matthew 24:35 — “Heaven and earth will pass away” (παρελεύσονται)
    The verb parerchomai means to go beyond, to disappear from existence or transition out of being. Christ contrasts this with His words which “will not pass away.” The syntax sets temporal creation in antithesis to the enduring Word, establishing the perishability of the cosmos.

  6. Psalm 102:25–26 (Hebrew)
    “Of old You laid the foundation of the earth… They will perish (יֹאבֵדוּ, yobedu), but You remain.” The Qal imperfect of ’abad conveys complete vanishing. Creation’s endurance is temporal; God’s is eternal. The psalm’s poetic parallelism underscores ontological decay leading to divine replacement.

  7. Romans 8:19–22 — creation groans for liberation
    Paul writes that “the creation itself will be set free (ἐλευθερωθήσεται, future passive) from its bondage to decay.” The verb eleutheroō here means release from corruption, but the phrase φθορᾶς δουλεία (bondage of decay) implies current entropy. Liberation occurs through destruction of the corrupt order, paralleling 2 Peter 3. The cosmos does not evolve into perfection; it is delivered through cataclysmic renewal.

  8. Revelation 20:11 — the fleeing of creation
    John sees, “From His presence earth and heaven fled away (ἔφυγεν) and no place was found for them.” The aorist ephygen (from pheugō, “to flee”) signifies vanishing in judgment. The phrase οὐχ εὑρέθη τόπος echoes Daniel 2:35’s imagery where the crushed kingdoms’ dust “was found no more.” This cosmic uncreation precedes the emergence of the new heaven and earth in Revelation 21:1.

  9. Supporting witness, Isaiah 34:4 and Nahum 1:5
    Isaiah: “All the host of heaven will rot away (נָמַק, namak, “to melt”), and the sky will roll up like a scroll.” Nahum: “The mountains quake before Him, the hills melt (וַתִּתְמֹגַגְנָה, vattitmōgagnāh).” These depict unmaking, not gentle restoration.

Theological synthesis
The resurrection of Christ demonstrates continuity of identity, but His glorified body is not the same molecular composition as the mortal one. It is transformed (μετασχηματίσει, Philippians 3:21) into incorruption. Likewise, the earth’s “death” in fire precedes its resurrection in glory. The analogy of the body does not negate destruction; it illustrates transformation through judgment.

Thus, the biblical pattern is:

Judgment fire (2 Peter 3:10),

Perishing of the old order (Hebrews 1:11),

Creation of a new heaven and earth (Isaiah 65:17; Revelation 21:1),

Eternal righteousness dwelling therein (2 Peter 3:13).

The syntax of every major text shows dissolution verbs (luō, apollumi, parechomai, namak) describing termination, followed by creative verbs (bara, ktizō) depicting divine re-creation. Therefore, Scripture does not teach repair of the old world but total cosmic transfiguration, a new creation born from the ashes of the old, just as the crucified body of Christ was raised incorruptible by the power of God’s word.

J.

36

NO, it’s not a problem.

The word ADVERTISEMENT is not the bottom of your post, but it’s the top line to a placeholder for an ad in the column. In almost all online platforms, ads are intrusively placed periodically in nearly every available piece of virtual real-estate. It is from ad dollars that our beloved @Fritz and crew get paid. The intrusion of ads is the capitalistic mechanism that keeps the platform “No-Cost” to you and I.

In The New heaven and new earth there are no ad’s (I suspect).

Peace
KP

1 Like
37

I hear you, and I agree, that in a sense we see God in all His works, in much the same way we partially know an artist through his art.
i.e. “He really put himself into that watercolor!”

It is said a great artist loses a part of himself in his work, as Vincent van Gogh seems to have lost his mind in his. God, of course, is never diminished by His works, but is glorified in them.

Psalm 75:1 We give thanks to You, O God, we give thanks! For Your wondrous works declare that Your name is near. You are spot-on when you recite PS 19. The entirety of the cosmos declares the glory of The Creator, day and night the creation shouts “Glory To God in the Highest”. Those who have been given ears, hear.

I agree with you that without faith we cannot know God, apart from God’s specific Revelation of Himself we cannot know Him. This accounts for the different responses to a sunset. To one it is a beautiful accident, and to another it elicits worship.

KP

38

I don’t get the same “teaching” from the ressurection as you do.

Peace in Jesus
KP

39

Scripture presents Christ’s resurrection, our resurrection, and the renewal of creation as connected. In Romans 8 creation is described as longing and hoping, because at present it groans in labor pains because of death. If creation is destined for total nothingness, because God is going to simply start over from scratch, then why would creation long and hope for the resurrection of the dead? (see Romans 8:18-25)

40

@TheologyNerd I’ve already demonstrated from Scripture, along with the grammar, morphology, and syntax, that this is not what the biblical text teaches. When you examine the context carefully and compare it with related passages, the consistent testimony of Scripture refutes your interpretation.

J.

41

I suppose in the same way we do, in the same way we long to be “recreated”; made completely new, free of corruption, free of pain, free of sin, free of obstruction to beholding the face of Jesus. For one to be raised “incorruptible” , he must put-off the corruptible and put on incorruption; for the mortal to be raised immortal he must put off mortality and put on immortality. (See @Johann’s post for the many references to this phenomenon.) Creation “was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;”

“the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”

“For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.”

Not only does creation groan, but even we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the full revealing of our sonship – the redemption (apolútrōsis) of our body, the paid release from mortal captivity.
Romans 8:20-23
In a way, I believe at the revealing of your sonship you will meet the real you for the first time; the full-you in your full potential, the you as you were always meant to be; completely content with yourself.

“Now this I say, brethren, that
flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
nor does corruption inherit incorruption.

Behold, I tell you a mystery:
We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality.

So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality,
then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
1 Corinthians 15:50-54

Soon it will all be perfectly clear to you and I. But today, you and I work with the puzzle pieces we have been given. We have seen the puzzle boxtop however, and it is Jesus.

KP