The Rapture and the Church in the Book of Revelation, Part Two: The Chronology of Revelation

This is part two in a series of articles examining pretribulationist arguments concerning the church in the book of Revelation as put forth by Dr. Robert Gromacki. For part one in this series, click here.

Is the Church “pictured” in Heaven?

As mentioned previously, while it is not directly referenced as being in heaven during the Great Tribulation, Gromacki believes that the church is nonetheless “pictured” as being present there:

Where is the church during the seven-year Tribulation, as outlined in Revelation 4-19? If posttribulationism were correct, you would expect to see the church mentioned as being on earth during this time. However, that is not the picture one sees in Revelation 4-19…the church is pictured in heaven with Christ, having been raptured before the Tribulation began. (source)

Gromacki offers a number of points in defense of his view that the church is “pictured” as being in heaven with Christ during the Great Tribulation. I will examine these arguments in turn, beginning with one that he spends the least amount of time on but which is foundational to his interpretation of the book and its symbolism.

The Chronology of Revelation

Gromacki writes:

The typical futurist interpretation of the book contends that chapters 4-19 describe what will take place in the seven years preceding the second coming of Christ to the earth (19:11-21). Consistent advocates of premillennialism hold this position regardless of their particular view on the rapture of the church.

This is a key aspect of dispensationalist, pretribulationist interpretations of Revelation, and I believe that it is demonstrably false no matter how widely accepted it may be, even by other schools of prophetic interpretation.

Consider the opening of the book:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to his bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and he sent and communicated it by His angel to his bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. – Revelation 1:1-2

The term “revelation” is translated from the Greek word apokalypsis. Vines Expository Dictionary defines it as meaning “an uncovering, unveiling (apo, “from,” kalupto, “to hide, cover”), denotes a revelation, or appearing (Eng., apocalypse).” Thus, the “revelation” of Jesus Christ could be either the revealing of Christ himself or else something revealed by him. The latter is strongly indicated in Revelation 1:1-2, as we are told that the revelation is given to Christ by God, meaning the Father. This is a crucial point that is often overlooked in studies of the book. The entire book is usually taken to be “the revelation,” when we’re told in the first two verses that the revelation is actually something quite specific. It came from Jesus, after being given to him by God the Father, and was then communicated to John.

Note the progression: The revelation was given by God the Father, to Christ, who then communicated it to John, who went on to share it in the letter he wrote to the seven churches. This transference is actually pictured in the book of Revelation, and it clearly shows us where the future events are “uncovered” or “unveiled.”

In chapter 1, after introducing himself and the purpose of the book, John describes a vision he had of Jesus Christ while being held in prison on the island of Patmos. It was during this vision that Jesus dictated the letters to the seven churches, which comprise chapters 2 and 3. Then, in chapter 4, the scene shifts:

After these things, I looked and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things.” – Revelation 4:1

John then says that he was immediately “in the spirit.” I do not take this to mean that he experienced some kind of “out-of-body” event, but simply that he was caught up in a new vision after writing down the letters to the churches as he had been instructed. Several times during the revelation, John is told to “write” what he has seen or been told (Revelation 14:13; 19:9; 21:5), and one occasion he was about to write something down and was told not to (Revelation 10:4). These things indicate to me that he was still physically on Patmos during the revelation.

The voice that speaks to John “like a trumpet” is the voice of Christ, who is identified by this description in chapter 1, verses 10-18. John then sees a throne and God the Father seated upon it while angels, various “living creatures,” and twenty-four “elders” worship him (4:2-11).

We then move into chapter 5, where John writes:

I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, ‘Who is worthy to open the book and break its seals?’ And no one in heaven, or on the earth, or under the earth was able to open the book or look into it. – Revelation 5:1-3

John begins to weep because no one is able to open the book, but then one of the twenty-four elders tells him to stop weeping because “the lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals” (5:4-5):

And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a lamb standing, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God, sent out into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. – Revelation 5:6-7

The Lamb (Christ) takes the book from the Father, after which the angels, creatures, and elders all fall down and worship both the Father and Christ (5:8-14). Christ then begins to open the book:

Then I saw when the Lamb broke one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with the voice of thunder, “Come and see.” I looked, and behold, a white horse, and he who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to him, and he went out conquering and to conquer. – Revelation 6:1-2 (NKJV)

So, let’s summarize what we’ve seen here:

The word “revelation” refers to “unveiling” or “revealing” something. The book begins by telling us that an “unveiling” is given to Christ by God the Father to be shown to John and conferred to those to whom John would write. At the beginning of chapter 4, Christ tells John to “come up here.” Why? Because “I will show you what must take place after these things.” We then see John’s vision of heaven, a vision in which God the Father gives a book to Christ, who alone is able to open the book and view its contents. Christ then opens the book, “unveiling” or “revealing” its contents, and John is told to “come and see.”

Thus, the future portion of Revelation—the “unveiling” or “revealing”—does not begin with chapter 4 when John is told to “come up here.” It begins with chapter 6, when Christ opens the book and “unveils” or “reveals” its heretofore hidden contents to John. Before this, nothing is “unveiled” or “revealed.” Chapters 4 and 5 depict the setting of the revelation and the ceremony that surrounded its giving, but they are not part of the revelation itself! The events of chapters 4 and 5 are not future; they occurred two thousand years ago when John was given the revelation, and this fact is crucial to resolving misunderstandings that have arisen in regard to the book and its prophetic content (including where the identity of the “24 Elders” is concerned, as I will demonstrate in part three of this series).

Some might object that the “revelation” begins by “revealing” what is going on in heaven prior to the beginning of the Great Tribulation, but I note that Christ says specifically that he will show John what will “take place after these things.” When John first sees the throne room, Christ is not visible and does not speak to John. It is only after no one is found who can open the book that Christ appears, and it is only after Christ opens the book that John is told to “come and see.” It is Christ who told John that he would show him what was yet to come, and in the opening of the seals we see that very thing depicted. The content of the book is the “revelation,” not the scene in heaven that precedes its opening.

Click here for part three.

* Unless otherwise noted, all scripture references are from the NASB.
** If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the author so that he can create more such content, you can donate via PayPal to rhawes73@gmail.com (or send an email to this address if you would like to donate some other way). Thank you for your support!

*** Click here to visit my YouTube channel.

The Rapture and the Church in the Book of Revelation, Part One: The 'Missing' Church

Among the various issues that separate believers with regard to the timing of the rapture and other eschatological matters is the question of where the church appears in the book of Revelation. Due to the highly symbolic nature of the book, the answer to this question is not immediately evident, and much disagreement has arisen concerning it.

In this series of articles, I will focus on the contention between two prophecy schools: pretribulationism and posttribulationism—where this issue is concerned. I will be defending the posttribulationist viewpoint against arguments put forth by pretribulationist author Dr. Robert Gromacki.

The Case of the Missing Church

In an article for the Pre-Trib Research Center, Gromacki writes:

The word “church” or “churches,” so prominent in chapters 1-3 do not appear again in the book until the last chapter (22:16)…there is a strange silence of the term in chapters 4-19. That fact is especially noteworthy when you contrast that absence with its frequent presence in the first three chapters. One good reason for this phenomenon is the absence of the true church and true evangelical churches in the seven years preceding the second coming. The true believers of the church have gone into the presence of Jesus Christ before the onset of the seven-year period. The church is not mentioned during the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments because the church is not here during the outpouring of these judgments.

In my experience, this is usually the first point pretribulationists will make while laying out their case with regard to the church in Revelation. As Gromacki says, if the church is on earth during the events of chapters 4-19, why is it not mentioned as being on earth?

In response, I would say that I believe this argument really boils down to a type of theological confirmation bias: an exercise in interpreting scripture in such a way as to confirm what the theologian already believes to be true. Gromacki demonstrates this here in three ways:

A Strange Silence?

First, note the use of his terminology. He points out that the words “church” and “churches” are “prominent” in Revelation chapters 1-3, and goes on to contrast this prominence with a “strange silence” in chapters 4-19. He then refers to this comparison/contrast he has set up as a “phenomenon.” In this way, he leads the reader to believe that there is a mystery here, one that strongly suggests that a pre-tribulation rapture must have removed the church from the earth before the events of chapters 4-19.

In response, I would argue that it is difficult to see why there is any mystery here at all.

We must remember that Revelation is a letter that was written “to the seven churches that are in Asia” (Revelation 1:4) to describe events experienced by its author, the apostle John. John begins by introducing himself, the purpose of the book, and the book’s intended audience. He tells his audience that he is writing to share his vision of the Lord, how the Lord dictated messages to each of the seven churches, and how he received a general revelation of events related to the end of the age and the second coming. He then shares the content of his vision of the Lord, conveying Christ’s individual messages to the churches as well as a general admonition to the faithful in all of the churches (those who have “ears to hear”) to heed what they have been told. Finally, the letter ends with an epilogue of sorts in which believers are once again urged to heed what they have read.

In light of these things, the prominence of the churches in chapters 1-3 (and their reference again in the closing remarks of chapter 22) should come as no surprise at all. Once again, the book is a letter written to convey the author’s experience, and it reads very naturally as such given that the intended audience is directly addressed at the beginning and in the closing, with the author’s experience comprising the middle portion of the book. This is a pattern that is repeated throughout the books of the New Testament, the bulk of which are also letters. Even today, our own letters and electronic messages to one another often follow this format. Revelation does not read uniformly because it is not structured uniformly; its approach changes between chapters 1-3 and chapters 4-21, because the content changes. The same thing then happens once again chapter 22, beginning with verse 6, where John shifts from conveying the revelation to concluding admonitions.

And while John stops using the terms “church” and “churches” after chapters 1-3, we should note that he begins using another word, one which appears twelve times in chapters 5-19. That word is “saints.” “Saints” is translated from the Greek word hagios, which Vines Expository Dictionary defines as follows:

…from the same root as hagnos (found in hazo, “to venerate”), fundamentally signifies “separated” (among the Greeks, dedicated to the gods), and hence, in Scripture in its moral and spiritual significance, separated from sin and therefore consecrated to God, sacred.

The word “saints” is repeatedly used in reference to Christians throughout the New Testament, and given its literal meaning, could be alternatively translated as “holy ones,” “sacred ones,” or even “those consecrated to God.” The “saints” of Revelation are clearly located on the earth, as the Antichrist persecutes them and kills many of them.

“It was also given to him [the Beast] to make war with the saints and to overcome them… If anyone has an ear, let him hear. If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.” – Revelation 13:7, 9-10

“And he causes all, the small and the great, the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name… Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, ‘If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb… Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.’” – Revelation 13:16-17; 14:9-10; 12-13

Now as you consider this, think back on the content of the letters to the seven churches for a moment.

With the exceptions of Smyrna and Philadelphia, Christ finds something for which to rebuke all of the churches. With some, he is quite harsh. He threatens “war” against those in Pergamum who hold to the teachings of Balaam and the Nicolaitans, and promises to kill the “children” of “Jezebel,” the false prophetess of Thyatira. He vows to come “as a thief” against those who are “dead” in Sardis, and warns that he will vomit out the “lukewarm” of Laodicea. The Lord commends others who are walking in faith and obedience in the various churches, but even these he counsels to “hold fast,” “keep my deeds,” and “be faithful.” All of the churches are promised that those who heed his word and go on to “overcome” will:

• Eat of the tree of life (3:7).
• Receive the crown of life and not be “hurt by the second death” (3:10-11).
• Eat of “the hidden manna” and receive a white stone with a new name (3:17).
• Receive authority over the nations and be given “the morning star” (3:27-28).
• Walk with Christ in white, be clothed with white garments, not be erased from the book of life, be confessed before God the Father and the holy angels (4:4-6).
• Be kept from “the hour of testing,” keep their reward, be made a pillar in the temple of God, be marked with the name of God and of the New Jerusalem (4:10-12).
• Sit down with Christ on his throne (4:21).

 Thus we see that the seven churches were amalgamations of faithful and unfaithful persons, and the Lord’s counsel to the exceptional congregations in Smyrna and Philadelphia necessarily implies that even they could still potentially lose their good standing if they did not continue to be faithful. Those in the churches who “overcome” are promised many wonderful things, but those who fail to overcome are promised only that they will be judged according to their deeds (Revelation 2:23).

Who are the Overcomers?

In light of these things, is it not obvious why John would switch from using the general terms “church” and “churches” in chapters 1-3 to using a term that applies to people that are “holy,” “sacred,” and “consecrated” while describing the Great Tribulation? There are two reasons for this:

1. Believers will not stand or fall in the judgment as church congregations, but rather, as individuals. The churches were mostly mixed bodies, with some in obedience to the faith and others in rebellion.
2. The fates of those to whom John was writing were not yet decided. Those in rebellion might yet repent, as Jesus counseled them to do, whereas the faithful had not fully persevered, as Jesus told them they needed to do.

It is not the churches that will overcome the Beast; it is the saints—the holy ones, the sacred ones, the consecrated ones—who will overcome him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony. Individuals, not congregations, are in view in chapters 4-19. Look again at the excerpt I shared from Revelation 13: “Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.” It is clear from Christ’s messages to the churches that not all in their midst were obeying the commandments of God or keeping the faith. In fact, some of the churches were characterized by their failure to do so.

In light of these things, why would John reference “the churches,” or even specific churches, as “overcoming” when it is clear from Christ’s words to them that many in their midst did not qualify as overcomers at that time? What impetus would the rebellious have to repent if it appeared to them that their overcoming was assured? For that matter, might not even the faithful potentially drop their guard if they thought that their overcoming was assured as well?

Pretribulationists maintain that the “saints” referenced in Revelation are a distinct class of persons who will become believers after the church is raptured to heaven. For this reason, they refer to them as “tribulation saints,” in contrast with “church saints.” In response, I’m constrained to point out here that there is no reason, apart from dispensationalist assumptions, to maintain this. Here we have a term that is consistently applied to believers throughout the New Testament and is fluidly (without any qualification) carried over into the book of Revelation, yet we’re told that it must represent another group of people entirely.

I find the explanations I’ve offered above far more compelling in accounting for the absence of the terms “church” and “churches” in Revelation chapters 4-19 than a supposed pre-tribulation rapture, as they are explanations that arise from the structure and themes of the book itself rather than from imposing theological assumptions upon it.

A Reversible Argument

The second way in which Gromacki demonstrates a theological confirmation bias in his contention that the absence of direct church references in chapters 4-19 constitutes a “mystery” is through a simple logical error. His argument is entirely reversible, and therefore proves nothing in and of itself.

If, as Gromacki suggests, the church must be directly mentioned in order for us to ascertain its whereabouts, then not only can it not be on earth but it can’t be in heaven, either, because we never see the term “church” or “churches” applied while describing anyone or anything depicted as being in heaven in chapters 4-19. The church is not mentioned during the seals, trumpets, and bowls—either on earth or in heaven. Thus, the absence of such references really tells us nothing of significance as to the church’s location during these events. In fact, considered apart from dispensational assumptions, it doesn’t even imply anything of significance.

In his article, Gromacki states that the church is “pictured” as being in heaven with Christ during the events of the Great Tribulation, so he does at least implicitly acknowledge that more is needed to support his case than direct references to the church throughout the book. I will examine some of the evidence that he believes supports his claim at a later time; however, I have heard this argument about the lack of direct references to the church on earth in chapters 4-19 repeated so often that it’s clear to me that many have been unduly impressed by it. For that reason, I felt it necessary to demonstrate why it is very weak when taken solely on its own merits.

“The Church” is not mentioned at all in Revelation

A third evidence of theological confirmation bias in Gromacki’s view of the church in Revelation stems from a simple, but consequentially profound, exegetical error.

When Gromacki says that he believes that “the true believers of the church have gone into the presence of Jesus Christ,” he is referring to the “church” in the sense of all living believers (what we might call “the universal church”). Yet, the term “church” is never used in this sense in the book of Revelation. Where the singular term “church” appears in Revelation, it always refers to a local, first-century congregation, specifically to one of “the seven churches that are in Asia,” to whom John addresses the book in Revelation 1:4; and where the plural term “churches” is found, it is always a corporate reference to those same seven churches. A simple search using a site like Bible Gateway or Blue Letter Bible will confirm this.

So, it is not just a matter of “the church” in the universal sense being absent from Revelation chapters 4-19; it is not referenced anywhere in the entire book! Gromacki is basing his argument on a usage that does apply to the book of Revelation at all, even in chapters 1-3. In fact, in all of the writings of the apostle John, the terms “church” and “churches” appear only in the epistle of 3 John and the book of Revelation, and only in one instance do we find what may be a reference to the “universal church.”[1] When John refers to believers in general in his writings, he uses the terms “brethren” (12 times total, 4 times in Revelation) and “saints” (13 times, all in Revelation). Both terms are used throughout the New Testament in reference to Christians. As mentioned previously, in the book of Revelation, the “saints” are clearly located on the earth, where the Antichrist makes war on them and many are martyred (Revelation 13:7-10; 14:12). They are never depicted as being in heaven.

Click here for part two in this series.

---

[1] This is 3 John 1:5, where John writes: “Beloved, you are acting faithfully in whatever you accomplish for the brethren, and especially when they are strangers; and they have testified to your love before the church.” I stress here that this may be a reference to the universal church; it is also quite possibly a reference to the church that John was overseeing at the time (which may have received reports from those who had visited the ones to whom John was writing in this epistle).

* All scripture references are taken from the NASB.
** If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the author so that he can create more such content, you can donate via PayPal to rhawes73@gmail.com (or send an email to this address if you would like to donate some other way). Thank you for your support!

*** Click here to visit my YouTube channel.

Earthly Things versus Heavenly Things: Jesus talks with Nicodemus

"Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; this man came to Jesus by night and said to him, 'Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." - John 3:1-3

Jesus' discussion with the Pharisee Nicodemus in John chapter 3 is a landmark passage in the New Testament, and one of the most familiar stories in the entire Bible. John 3:16 may be the most quoted scripture of all, with only Genesis 1:1 or parts of Psalm 23 giving it any real competition. As familiar as the story is, however, I've seen comparatively little attention given to what Jesus had to say in verses 5-8, after he declared "you must be born again":

"Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?' Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

The statement Jesus makes here about the wind seems rather strange. What does that have to do with being 'born again'? The answer is given to us in two other portions of the same chapter, illustrating two pillars of biblical interpretation: 1) Understanding the full, immediate context of a scripture is essential, and 2) Always look for similar language used elsewhere in scripture, especially when employed by the same author, to get a complete picture of what is being said. Look first at verses 9-13 of John 3:

"Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can these things be?' Jesus answered and said to him, 'Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man."

Now skip down to the second half of the chapter (obviously, you'll want to read the whole chapter, but my focus here is on understanding the comments in verses 5-8). In the second half of the chapter, the apostle John tells us about an incident that took place involving John the Baptist and his disciples. John is confronted about the growing ministry of Jesus, likely because his disciples were concerned about him being overshadowed by Jesus. John answers them that this overshadowing is exactly what they should expect and what needs to happen: "He must increase but I must decrease."

I want to direct your attention to the verses that follow this discussion: that is, verses 31-36. At times, it's difficult to know where direct quotations end in scripture and this is an example of such an instance. At first, it may seem as if verses 31-36 continue John the Baptist's response to his disciples, but I believe they are actually commentary by the apostle John. Either way, they help explain what Jesus meant in verses 5-8:

“He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has set his seal to this, that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” - John 3:31-36

Here are the key phrases from both passages I've quoted:

"The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” 

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." 

“He who comes from above is above all, he who is of the earth is from the earth and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony."

As with many of the teachings of Jesus, there are multiple layers to consider here. The words spirit and wind mean totally different things to us, but both are translated from the same Greek word: pnuema, which makes the comparison between "spirit" and "wind" all the more compelling in this discourse. In a way, you could say that one is a wind that proceeds from the Earth while the other is a 'wind' that proceeds from God out of heaven. Further, the words again (as in "born again") and above (as in "from above") are also the same Greek word: anothen. Used elsewhere, they would have entirely different applications (which would be determined by grammar and context), but here I believe the usage is comparative for the sake of illustration: to be "born again" is to be born "from above," for the Spirit, which makes the new birth possible, comes from above.

Bearing these things in mind, and connecting the phrases I quoted, here is one possible (admittedly loose) paraphrase of what Jesus meant by what he said to Nicodemus. I hope this will be of help to any of you who may have wondered about this:

"You hear the wind blow, but you cannot tell where it came from or where it's going because you cannot see it; it is hidden from you, and you cannot understand those who are born of the Spirit for the same reason. You are of the Earth; you think and speak of earthly things and in earthly ways because that is where you are from and what you know. But when I speak of the Spirit, I am not speaking of earthly things and earthly ways; I am speaking of heavenly things and heavenly ways, things which are as hidden from you as the wind you cannot see. Yet, I *have* spoken to you of earthly things, which you should have understood because you are of the Earth, and you did not believe me. Since you did not believe what I told you about your own realm, how will you believe what I tell you about heavenly things? You have never been there. No one has been there except me, for that is where I am from. 

"How can you be an esteemed teacher of God's people and not understand that there is a difference between earthly and heavenly things, and between earthly and heavenly ways? When I said, 'You must be born again,' you immediately thought I was speaking of earthly, physical birth, although that is absurd because you know that no one is born twice physically, so you should have known I was not speaking of a second, physical birth. You should have known it was a spiritual reference. You yourself admit that I am a teacher who has come from God. Does it make sense to you that God would send me from heaven to bring you an earthly message, and an absurd one at that?"

* Scripture citations are from the NASB.

** If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the author so that he can create more such content, you can donate via PayPal to rhawes73@gmail.com (or send an email to this address if you would like to donate some other way). Thank you for your support!

*** Click here to visit my YouTube channel.

God and Time before Creation

“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.” – Job 38:4

A question that arises frequently in discussions about God has to do with his eternal existence. It usually goes something like this: “If God has always existed, what was he doing in all that time before he created the universe and the world?”

This is an intriguing question on many levels, and I wish that I could provide a detailed answer to it. Unfortunately, the Bible is virtually silent on the matter.

The only thing we know with any certainty is that the Father and the Son shared a fellowship in which both were glorified. Jesus speaks of this in John 17:5, where he asks the Father to glorify him with the glory “which I had with you before the world was.” The Greek word translated “world” in this passage is kosmos. At times, kosmos is used in scripture to refer to what we might call “the world of man,” meaning human society at large, such as when the apostle John cautions us against “loving the world” in 1 John 2:15, but it can also refer to the entire created order, as it does in 1 Peter 1:20, where we’re told that Christ was known of the Father “before the foundation of the world.” I believe that this latter meaning is what is intended in John 17:5; Jesus was speaking of the relationship he enjoyed with the Father before creation.

Beyond this relationship between the Father and the Son, scripture tells us very little about what might have occurred in what some have chosen to call “eternity past.” Certain passages do seem to indicate that angels existed prior to the creation, however.

In Job 38:7, God says that when he created the Earth “all the morning stars sang together and the sons of God shouted for joy.” “The sons of God” is a term used elsewhere in scripture for angels (see Job 1:6; 2:1, and, likely, Genesis 6:2-4). Thus we know that angels definitely existed at least prior to the creation of the Earth. The apostle Paul, writing in Ephesians 3, provides a subtle hint that their creation took place even earlier, however:

“To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ, and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things; so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms. This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord…” – Ephesians 3:8-11a

If God is demonstrating something to the angels in regard to his eternal purposes, which he is carrying out in Christ (through whom, John tells us, everything was made that has been made), then it would make sense to me that the angels were probably present from the very beginning of the universe, when Christ began to carry out the Father’s “purposes.” This would make them witnesses of the entire creation/redemption process.

Jesus’ reference to “glory” in John 17:5 also lends credence to this interpretation. The word “glory” is translated from the Greek word doxa, which in the New Testament always refers to something held in a position of honor. For the Son to be held up in a position of honor with the Father “before the kosmos was” implies that others were present from whom the Son was differentiated and before whom he was exalted. Therefore, these others must also have existed “before the kosmos was.” Angels are the only other created beings who fit the bill here.

Beyond the question of what may have occurred before the existence of the universe, however, we should be careful in our use of the word ‘time’ in reference to it.

 ‘Time’ is a measurement of duration, of how long it takes something to happen. You could say that it’s the ‘space between events,’ and these events are defined by processes in the material, physical world around us. Nature is full of ‘clocks’: most notably, the familiar cycle of day and night, the monthly phases of the Moon, and Earth’s ‘yearly’ orbit around the Sun. All of our artificial clocks are based on these and other natural systems. For instance, atomic clocks—the most precise clocks currently in use—keep time based on the motion of atoms.

There are other, more subtle ways of ‘telling time’ as well. We tend not to give them any special thought because they are so commonplace and necessary in our conceptual scheme (the way in which we view and relate to our world) that we take them for granted. For instance, if you see an adult with a child, you know that those two people cannot be the same age because of the characteristics of the human aging process. By the same token, if you find a rusted-out car, you know that it wasn’t made yesterday. This is because you’re familiar with the fact that the processes that reduce a vehicle to that condition ‘take time.’

As physical beings, we need ‘clocks,’ both natural and artificial. They’re essential to how we understand and relate to our environment and to one another. This is why dreams can be so disorienting: they give us an illusion of the passage of time, a sense of events taking place, but they happen outside of the clearly-defined boundaries of time that are such a fundamental part of our makeup. In a dream, you may find yourself a child again, you may find yourself shifted from one location to another without any sensation of having traveled, or you may ‘experience’ things that appear to take place over years, only to wake up and find that you’ve been asleep for a mere hour or so.

It’s important to understand these things because when we ask what God was doing in ‘all that time’ before he created the universe, we’re making a subtle but crucial error in our reasoning: we’re extending time, which is based on the composition of the universe, back to a point when the universe did not exist. Before the universe existed, there were no physical processes occurring, and because time is a system of measurement based on physical processes, if there are no physical processes occurring then there is nothing to measure and therefore no time in any meaningful sense.

For this reason, time—at least ‘time’ as we understand it—did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. There were no days, no weeks, no years, and no ages. Consequently, to ask what God was doing ‘in all that time’ before he created the universe is to ask a self-contradictory question, as it assumes time before time existed. It’s rather similar to asking what someone was doing before they were born. Even the statement “God has always existed” makes this mistake. “Always” is a time reference, and there was no time before creation.

When we examine these matters in detail, it’s easy to see how this mistake is made. Physical time is so fundamental to our reality that we unconsciously impose it on God, but we must remember that God’s nature is fundamentally different than ours.

We are material beings living in a material reality. We are bound by natural law, which includes the passage of time. By contrast, God is an immaterial being, meaning that he is not ‘made’ of anything; this places him outside the confines of nature and, therefore, outside of time. As mentioned previously, it is incorrect to say that God “has always existed.” It is more correct to say that he simply “is,” which, interestingly enough, is how God chose to make himself known to the ancient Hebrews. The Hebrew name for God, Yahweh, is taken from the root word hayah, meaning “to be.”

“God said to Moses, ‘I AM who I AM; and he said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” – Exodus 3:14

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.’” – John 8:58

In Christian theology, we tend to think of “eternity” as something that is yet to come, such as the “eternal state” spoken of as following the Millennial Kingdom of Christ and the Last Judgment, but the reality is that we already exist in eternity; our material-based conceptual scheme prevents us from realizing it, however. We speak of “past,” “present,” and “future” as though they are actual, physical locations, when the truth of the matter is that they are merely concepts, and this results in unnecessary confusion.

For example, people often say that “We are in the present” in the same way they might say “I am in my house,” but we must realize that there is a great difference between these two ideas: my house is a limited, physical location that I can move in and out of at will, whereas I am continuously in the present. We can never move in the past or the future, as they do not exist beyond the conceptual realm. Five minutes “in the past” is really just what was present five minutes ago, whereas five minutes in the future is what will be present five minutes from now—or you could substitute “days,” “weeks,” “hours,” “years,” “eons,” etc., as you please. The only real difference here lies in how we measure events in relation to one another. “Past” and “future” are a necessary part of our conceptual scheme, but they are only concepts; they are not places that exist now and might be visited (with all due respect to Captain Kirk and others who have traveled there in fictional settings).

So, in a very real sense, while things change, time is arbitrary and only ‘now’ exists. This then is ‘eternity’: ‘now,’ a perpetual ‘present.’

Again, time is a system of measurement, and to measure something you need at least two points: a beginning and an end. The universe, the world, and each of us—all created things—at one point or another entered (or began to experience) ‘the now,’ if you will; we all have a beginning. The lone exception is God. As an immaterial, uncreated being (“who alone is immortal” – I Timothy 6:16), he had no beginning; thus, there is no way to measure his existence. He is ‘always’ in ‘the now.’ He IS ‘now.’ “I AM that I AM.”

This fact of God’s immaterial, eternal existence represents a conceptual scheme so radically different from ours that it will, in all likelihood, lie forever beyond our comprehension. However much it might tantalize us, our minds and our language are inadequate to do any more than merely scratch the surface of this profound a mystery. We can no more understand the totality of God’s existence than we could fit one hundred gallons of water into a ten-gallon bucket; the necessary capacity simply isn’t available.

What then can we say to all of this? How should we react to the fact that God transcends our understanding? We can rebel against it, as some do, and determine that we will not submit to anything we cannot comprehend and judge for ourselves (this was essentially the sin of Eden); or we can humble ourselves, acknowledge his supremacy, and submit to his guidance:

“Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all generations,

Before the mountains were born

Or you gave birth to the earth and the world,

Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.

You turn man back into dust

And say, ‘Return, O children of men.’

For a thousand years in your sight

Are like yesterday when it passes by,

Or as a watch in the night…

So teach us to number our days

That we may present to you a heart of wisdom.” – Psalm 90:1-4, 12

*Scriptures are taken from the NASB

The Bible and Homosexuality - Why Christians cannot condone Same-Sex Unions

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.