Knowing an Infinite God
in a
Finite Universe
How you can objectively
know the Truth,
in a not-so-sure world
1993 Eric W. Francke
It has been said that of all man's
quests for greater understanding, none
have been more noble than his pursuit for knowledge of God Almighty. All of mankind's technological conquests and
philosophical undertakings pale next to the surpassing and eternal value of
knowing the true God. What could this
God be like? How is it possible to know
Him? How can we verify that our knowledge of Him is in any way accurate? Philosophers and theologians alike have
always debated such questions. Many
scholars have held to the idea that God is incomprehensible; that our limited
understanding could never grasp or appreciate the fullness of what God is
really like. To this there could be
some truth. Much of the futility of
dogmatic theism (or dogmatic atheism
for that matter) begins with the
presupposition that any Deity that exists must behave and operate within our
current parameters of reasoning. God,
however, cannot be "boxed" by our theologies and theories. Only in the egotistical imaginations of men
could there be a God whose nature, desires and behavior was confined to the
puny perimeter of what we thought was credulous. Yet man has an inherent weakness to systematically order his
universe; to define and to categorize.
Much of this need to systematically order his universe comes from the
primal urge to know and control the future.
From this also many superstitious practices arose in the early days of
civilization. Rituals were mostly
centered around the concept of appeasing an angry god and manipulating his
favors. Spells, hexes, talismans,
charms and the like were created to fulfill this need to control and manipulate
the evident "supernatural" forces and thereby manipulate the future.
Astrology, I Ching, runes, palmistry, and tarot were created to assist in man's
quest to know the unknowable. Even
today, many think of the supernatural only in terms of what they can either
manipulate, or what future event it can reveal so as to help us manipulate our
destinies. God, however, we may find,
has a nature and characteristics quite different than what many would expect or
understand.
God's
Self-Revelation
Many persons throughout history have
claimed to know what God is all about.
Such people have usually enjoyed a venerated position in society; from
the hallowed "medicine man" of antiquity to the "reverends"
of today, we have given those who authoritatively speak of "God" a
special place of honor. From this
exalted position, the priest/minister/shaman have endeavored to reveal the
nature of God and make known His will.
Has this been a futile profession?
To many in the western world, the clergy have become little more than
glorified social workers. Many churches
have realized that merely describing what they know about God has not fulfilled
the ultimate purpose of religion: to make God subjectively and experientially
real to the participants. The
difficulty in this task lies in the fact that we are limited to the terminology
of our language to describe God. Those
words will certainly be lacking in accuracy when we try to define the nature
and characteristics of an infinite God.
The prophet Isaiah described this difficulty quite well in Isaiah
55:8,9 when he wrote
"For my thoughts are not your
thoughts, neither are my ways your ways"
declares the Lord. "
For just as the heavens are above the earth, so are
my ways above your ways and my thoughts above your thoughts."
With this handicap of humanity we have
to recognize that we may not have the monopoly on wisdom and understanding when
it comes to the things of God. We all
would, quite frankly, be totally adrift without any objective basis for knowing
God if it wasn't for one simple fact:
The God of the universe has objectively in history decided to reveal
Himself. It is this Self-revelation
that we can actually piece together like a great mosaic the characteristics and
nature of God. Without knowledge of
these incidents of Self-revelation we could only speculate on God's existence
through testimony of endless subjective experiences by others. We would have no foundation for
understanding our own experiences outside the immediate emotional impact they
might have on us. This objective
Self-revelation of God can be traced through the scriptures of what is called
the "revealed religions" ( i.e. Judeo-Christian tradition). These scriptures are unique since they alone
claim to be "revealed" among all other religious texts ( i.e. The
Vedas, the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, the Tao Teh King, etc. ) and God's Self-revelation can be found in
them, though they do not hold exclusive claim to God's witness on the earth.
Evidences
of God's Self-revelation
It is not necessary to think that any
matters of pertaining to the existence of God must be taken "in
faith". The usage of the very word
has deteriorated from a descriptive quality of trust in God Almighty, to an
emotional "escape hatch" that we can jump in to when reason and logic
threaten to upset our little apple cart of a belief system. Instead, intellectual honesty would dictate
that we fully investigate the evidences ( or lack thereof) for God's
Self-revelation. It is recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles, as the Apostle Paul spoke to the Greek pagans, that he
declared that in all nations God " did not leave Himself without
witness." ( Acts 14:17 ). Even in
nations that have not been impacted by a religion based on theism still have
received some type of witness, or Self-revelation of God. One such witness is the existence of
conscience, or moral law. Very few
people ever think as to why we consider certain actions ethically right, yet
other actions ethically wrong. One
might propose that all morality is imposed by society, either through parental
upbringing, influence of education, or legislative or judiciary action from
government. Indeed, it is frequently
through such means that we eventually define right and wrong, but what makes
them right and wrong to begin with? Why
do we think that peace is somehow superior to war? Why is love a more desirable emotion than hate? Why is helping someone else virtuous? Why should we accept stealing as wrong? Why do we stigmatize the sexual relationships
of immediate kin, like siblings and parents?
These are universal truths that exist in mankind regardless of the
effect of culture. It has been noted
that every major world religion has as a fundamental basis of ethics a variant
of the Golden Rule. Consider these
statements from the scriptures of different world religions as evidence.
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught
unto others which would cause pain if done to you." ( Mahabharata, 5, 1517 )
Buddhism: " Hurt not others in ways that you
yourself would find hurtful." (
Udana-Varga 5, 18 )
Confucianism: " Is there one maxim which ought to be
acted upon throughout one's whole life?
Surely it is the maxim of lovingkindness: Do not unto others what you
would not have them do unto you."
( Analects 15,23 )
Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your
own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." ( T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien )
Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to
your fellowman. That is the entire Law,
the rest is commentary." ( Talmud,
Shabbat 31a )
Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he
desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." ( Sunnah )
Some have tried to explain that all behavior
is based on avoidance of pain and the fulfillment of pleasure. If that is true with regard to the human
species, then why do cultures always develop sexual mores which idealize
fidelity, chastity, and sacrificial love for a spouse? If we did possess only the same innate
behavioral patterns as the other animals, would we not then idealize mating
wherever, whenever and with whatever one could as the highest virtue? Instead, every human culture has developed a
certain moral code that seems to be based on an innate sense that defies
naturalistic explanation. Different
cultures and religions have different doctrinal beliefs, but the basic ethic,
that which pertains to conscience, is remarkably similar. The famous philosopher Emmanuel Kant stated
in his highly acclaimed work A Critique of Pure Reason , page 636, that
There really are pure moral laws
which determine completely a priori
( without regard to empirical
motives, that is, happiness) what is and
what is not done...and these laws command in an absolute manner.
Philosophers use his term "a
priori" ( something inherent, before experience) to describe this
universal standard of reasoning and values that permeate the world. Even societies that developed free from
outside influences still regard as "right" the same core of truths
that all of mankind has always endorsed.
This not to say that any of these cultures have lived up to it's own
ideals with any success, but still, we all have a sense of "right "
and "wrong" even if we ourselves habitually do what is
"wrong". The fact that we do
not live up to the ideals which we universally hold up as "right" is
manifest evidence of the fact that these values are indeed derived from
something greater than ourselves. What
culture would ever create a value system that it knew it could never live up
to? The prophet Jeremiah wrote of this
condition in chapter 31, verse 33 of
his book in the Old Testament. In this
verse, the Lord declares:
"This is the covenant I will
make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord, "I have put my law in their minds,
and I will write it on
their hearts. I will be
their God, and they will be my people." (lit. trans.)
The essence of God's law has been
written on the minds of men for all time.
We all seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong in a general
sense. Yet, we have not been able to
carry out the good and virtuous behavior that we know is right. The significance of having the Law written
on our hearts is indicative of having the ability
to carry out that virtuous behavior.
Notice that the Lord has put
His law on peoples minds, but He will
put it on their hearts. In a
general sense, we have not, up to this point, had the whole-hearted ability to
obey what we mentally know is proper.
The exact same principle is expressed in Confucianism. In one of their writings considered sacred, The
Golden Mean of Tseze, Tseze describes the principle of universal moral law
and man's inability to keep it. He
says:
The moral law is to be found
everywhere, and yet it is a secret.
The simple intelligence of ordinary
men and women of the people
may understand something of moral
law... but in it's utmost reaches
even the wisest and holiest of men
cannot live up to it. ( III:XII )
As a consequence, guilt has been an
unfortunate maladjustment of the human creation throughout time. The abundant varieties of
"sacrifices" to appease a god throughout all of history is a
testimony to the separation that mankind has intuitively perceived between
himself and the divine. Virtually every
culture in the world has some type of requirement of appeasement to a god or
quasi-divine spirit for our own transgressions against the universal moral
law. In short, the existence of a
priori moral law has imprinted our psyche with a definite perception of an immanent ( all pervading ) God, yet our
own shortcomings has beleaguered us with a sense of inadequacy and guilt.
Nature is the second witness that all
nations and peoples have been given as an element of Self-revelation of the
character of God. The apostle Paul says
in his epistle to the Romans, chapter 1verses 19 and twenty, that the
disobedient peoples of the earth have known the truth about God because
God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God' invisible qualities- His eternal
power and Divine nature- have been clearly seen,
being understood from what is made, so that men are without excuse.
This is not to say that everyone on the
earth has at some point looked out their window and were suddenly struck by the
fact that there is a God, but that some specific qualities of Him can be
objectively derived from nature. First
mentioned is His eternal power. Even the
simplest of minds must have wondered, while gazing upon creation, where
everything has come from and why does everything work in such harmony. No one has ever refuted the very basic
axioms of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) which stated quite succinctly that the existence of cause and effect
relationships necessitates a "First Cause". Another common way of phrasing that might be that creation
necessitates a Creator. No one ever
bothered challenging that axiom until Post-Renaissance philosophers like Kant,
Berkeley, and Hume challenged the idea that we can objectively know that
effects necessitate a cause, and that we may very well not objectively know
anything at all. Many scholars accepted
the criticisms leveled by these philosophers, and their modes of thinking,
Subjectivism and Skepticism, were popular for many years. Scientists who were interested in
furthering the world view of the
"Skeptics" usually endeavored to prove that the universe was
"static" and was without basic change, and therefore eternal and
uncreated. Unfortunately, science has
not been very kind to this model. As
science progressed, it became clear that everything happens, from the smallest
chemical reaction, to the detonation of the greatest nuclear warhead, within
very discernible parameters of physical law.
We now have been able to quantify gravitational and electric fields,
accurately predict sub-atomic particle reactions, and observe phenomenon that was predicted by the
hypothesis of Einstein's theory of relativity, and all is based on the premise
that causes have effects.. The one
thing that we can be sure of is that nothing happens in nature
indiscriminately. Everything that
science has ever observed has a
"cause" which can be defined in terms of physical law. As for the
universe, all observable evidence has pointed to the inescapable conclusion
that the universe had a beginning. That
has been a terrible dilemma for atheists.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics requires that, in a closed system,
(i.e. the universe ) everything must go
from a higher level of energy, to a lower level of energy; from order to
disorder. Whether one believes in the
"Big Bang" theory, or an "oscillating" universe, one still
needs the universe to be "wound up" initially to explain the present
state of atomic order and energy.
Recently, the famed physicist Stephen Hawking wrote a best-selling book
entitled A Brief History of Time in which Hawking attempted to explain
how the universe may have begun without a beginning. Far from being an intensely scientific book, as it was hailed by
many critics, it was merely an desperate act by a scientist to get around the
simple cosmological argument that a Creator is necessary to explain the
existence of the universe. The noted
atheist Carl Sagan wrote the introduction to the book in which he states that Hawking was explicitly attempting to
demonstrate that the universe is a
universe with no edge in space, no beginning or end in time,
and nothing for a Creator to do.
( A Brief History of Time, page X)
From a scientific standpoint, Hawking
was unsuccessful in his attempt. All
evidence points to a beginning for our universe, and consequently, a Creator is
philosophical, scientific, and practical necessity.
The other thing that the Book of Romans
said was evident in creation was God's Divine nature. The verse qualifies this phrase by stating that His qualities
have been "seen, being understood from what has been made". The essence of the text is that God has
made it evident that His qualities are clearly discernible as distinct from
creation. When we speak of God as
being distinct from creation, we are referring to the quality of transcendence. Many Eastern religions stress the immanence
and indwelling of God so much that God is actually equated with creation. This is called "monism" or
"pantheism". The pantheist or
monist usually claims that God is in everything, and everything is merely
effluence from mind of God. In such
cases, God does not have any reality apart from creation, for all is one. In this age of science and reason, however,
it is hard to find any empirical or logical evidence to support such a
view. If one were to examine the
chemical or atomic make-up of a rock, we would hardly find the presence of a
Divine Being. There is no objective
basis for the claim that God is in everything and all is part of God. Although the "God-is-all-in-all"
phraseology sounds very deep and pious, it all boils down to a mere escapade of
pseudo-spiritual jargon and mental gymnastics.
Therefore, by all appearances, it can be deduced by observation of
creation that the Creator must be transcendent.
Narrowing the Field
Without ever delving in to the matters
of religion and doctrine, we have established that God is both transcendent, and emmanent, distinct from creation,
yet intimately involved with His creation.
As Creator, His abilities and energies are necessarily greater than the
combined potential energies of all the masses in the universe, since that is
the minimum required to be able to "wind up" the universe to it's
present state of energy. Theologians
use the term omnipotent ( all
powerful) to describe this attribute of God.
These statements about God are neither new nor hotly contended. Most people in the western world will agree,
and find little controversy in such statements. I would like now, however, to become a little more specific with
our definition and description of God.
Up until now, we have been very general with our examination of God's Self-revelation. We have only discussed what is generally
revealed about God from logic and creation.
As mentioned earlier, mankind has a disposition that wants to know
things, particularly, the "unknowable". God has revealed Himself to man to not only satisfy man's need
for knowledge, but, more importantly, to establish the basis for pure, sincere
and accurate fellowship and understanding between man and Himself. We may already believe in an omnipotent
God, one who is personal and just, yet that does not necessarily tell us very
much about the relationship we can have with Him. There are very practical questions about worship and faith that
are not answered without more specific information about God's nature and
attributes. In this country alone,
there are 15,000 different religious sects.
These represent an incredible diversity of thought, doctrine and
practice. Strangely enough, most of
them appeal to the same writings to support their beliefs. Who is to say who is right? How can we tell
which sect, religion or denomination is the most accurate in representing God
in an objective manner? It is beyond
the scope of most people to thoroughly investigate the claims of different
sects and evaluate them. There are some
very general principles, however, that we can apply that will give us a
"spiritual yardstick" with which we can quickly size up the
authenticity and objective accuracy not only of any particular sect or
religion, but also of any practice or doctrine any such religion. One does not need a seminary degree to apply
these principles, nor be able to recall dozens of obscure passages of sacred
text in order to have an objective basis for judgment. What is necessary, however, is that we make
careful note of the progression of God's Self-revelation, and with that we can
provide an accurate "litmus test" of truth and error.
The
Progression of God's Self-Revelation
The key to being able to evaluate what
is true and false in matters pertaining to God is merely following the
"road signs" of God's Self-revelation. The basic principle is this:
God has revealed Himself to a certain degree in the past, and each time
that He has, there is a general pattern or direction of understanding that has
been evident in each case. In each
instance, God allows another of His qualities to come in to sharper focus. By observing the progressive Self-revelation
of His character, we can deduce what the "highest" or at least what the "better" expression
of His character or will might be. It is sort of like the math problem you were
given in elementary school. You were
given a set of numbers and you had to tell what number completed the set. You may have been given (11, 13, 15, 17, __) and were asked what the
next number would be. In this case,
the answer would be 19. One could
deduce that from merely recognizing the pattern that was set forth. It is the same way with God's
Self-revelation. He has revealed
certain qualities of Himself and our recognizing the pattern He sets forth in
each instance will help us determine what will complete the
"set". For the sake of the
illustrations, we will use texts from the "revealed" religions
(Judeo-Christian scriptures), although many similar illustrations can be drawn
from other ancient religious and philosophical writings.
The most important thing to remember is
that God's Self-revelation happens on a progressive
basis. That is, He unveils a little
of Himself at a time. Each subsequent
revelation shows a little more of His character than the last revelation. He does not contradict former revelations of
Himself; instead, He only builds upon
and clarifies the previous disclosures of Himself. Consequently, when examining the value of a religion or belief
system, "older" is not always "better". Many faiths or beliefs make an appeal to
objective worth because they span back into antiquity. The true test, however, is whether a belief
system or value is consistent with the progressive direction of God's
Self-revelation, and it's congruity with universal "a priori"
presuppositions. To look at an
example, take the concept of God's righteousness and holiness. During the days at the dawn of civilization,
there was very little overt revelation of God's moral law. Different societies were slow to recognize
the need to codify the innate moral law that God had hidden within each
individual's conscience. Consequently,
Paul says that God "in the past overlooked such ignorance" ( Acts
17:30). When Israel received the Law of
God from Moses, there was a definite increase in accountability towards
God. God required that those who
received His Law would live by it.
Included in this was the Ten Commandments. A revelation of God's holiness in the form of the Law demanded
that people relate to God on His new terms.
When Jesus began His ministry in A.D. 27, his first discourse consisted
mostly of clarifications and amendments to that law. He addressed the commandments concerning murder, adultery,
divorce, and oaths to name a few, and in each case he "upped the
ante" by demonstrating that the true requirements of the law were indeed
far more demanding than the Israelites had imagined. Feelings of hatred constituted murder, lustful thoughts
constituted adultery etc. Jesus wasn't
trying to make everybody feel guilt-ridden and ugly, but he was manifesting
God's perfect holiness that requires piety in the inward man, not merely in an
individual's observable actions. He also stated in a later discourse that the
law of Moses permitted so much because, at the time it was given, men's
"hearts were hard". ( Mark 10:5).
This clearly expresses how God progressively unveiled His standards of
holiness over the millennia. Every time
God revealed Himself in history, he revealed only as much of His attributes
that He knew mankind could bear, and He demonstrated that His estimation of
righteousness was something out of reach of the natural man. Fortunately, God was also bringing into
focus His heart of mercy and love, which are the attributes that are preeminent
with regard to His righteousness in judgment. ( James 2:12).
The
Progressive Revelation of God's
Attributes
with Relation to Space and Time
Keeping the principle of God's
progressive revelation in mind, we will now turn our attention to the
attributes that will help us discover the key to evaluating all religious sects
and practices. These attributes are the
two that describe God's relation to our space-time universe.
When we talk about God in context of
the space of our universe, we immediately run into some basic conceptual
problems. We are forced to either place
God somewhere "out there" hiding behind some planet, or rethink
exactly what constitutes our universe.
Quite frankly, very few persons have ever tried to make a case for God
possessing a physical body and occupying some planet ( Mormons being the most
well-known of these). Most of us prefer
to relegate the Divine to another immaterial, spiritual dimension. This is a difficult concept since we are
accustomed to occupying and perceiving a universe of only three physical
dimensions ourselves. The situation can
be likened to the dilemma of a microbe that existed between the pages of a
book. This particular microbe was very
familiar with moving back and forth, and from side to side within these
pages. But he had no comprehension of
the concept of "up" since his universe was only two dimensions. If you or I could try to somehow explain
what this third dimension of "up and down" was to him, he would
either scoff or consider it quite incomprehensible. Yet this is exactly the same situation we find ourselves in when
we presume to have insight into the latitudes of God's domain. The one thing that we probably can say with
some certainty is that His mode of existence is quite different from ours. Whereas we are limited in our
three-dimensional universe to occupy only one point of space at any given time,
God is not burdened by such a limitation.
He can exist in multiple points of our space simultaneously. If we were to diagram it, we could draw a
line, and put one point in the middle of it to represent the one point that we
are occupying right now. God would be
above the line, and intersect the line in multiple points. ( See Figure 1 ).
When we speak of God's ability to be in
multiple points at the same time, we use the term omnipresence. This is an
attribute of God that most theologians have always recognized about God.
The relationship that God has with time
is no less unique. Our perception of
time in our universe is that it is a constant; an inescapable juggernaut
sweeping us from the past to the future.
We are hopelessly condemned to occupy only one point in time, which we
call the "present", while the torrent of time continues it's
unfaltering flow. There is no reason,
however, for us to think that God is confined to the same parameters. God exists outside of the confines of our
time. He exists at multiple points of
time simultaneously. When Jesus was
asked by some Israelites what he knew of Abraham, who had lived nearly 2,000
years earlier, Jesus replied "Before Abraham was, I am." ( John 8:58
). Most scholars recognize that Jesus
was identifying Himself with the Lord, who used the term "I Am" as a
proper name ( Exodus 3:14). That is
true, but if we take the words of Jesus at face value, we cannot escape the
conclusion that Jesus was claiming to be concurrently existent at a time before
Abraham, even as He spoke those words!
If we were to diagram this truth, we would draw a line representing time
from past to future. A point
intersecting the line would be representing the "present", and God
would be outside the line, yet intersecting it in multiple points. ( See Fig. 2
).
If we were to coin a term for this
attribute of God, the most appropriate
term would probably be omnichronological;
that is, God simultaneously exists in all points of time. There are numerous references in scripture
that would bear this out. One
frequently mentioned one is the title which the Lord uses throughout scripture
as the "Alpha and Omega", "the First and the Last". (
Isaiah 44:6, Rev. 1:8). God does not
claim that he was at the beginning,
and would be at the end, but that He
is ( present tense) the Beginning
and the End. Being outside of time,
everything is the ever-present "now" to God. Understanding this truth also clears up many
confusing texts for Christians. The
Book of Revelations calls Jesus the "lamb that was slain from the
foundation of the world." ( Rev. 13:8 )
Who did the slaying before the world was formed? Jesus wasn't sacrificed before the
foundation of the world, but since Christ's atoning death that happened in A.D.
30 was just as "present" to God then as it was two million years ago,
in God's estimation it was an eternal "fact" before it ever happened
according to our reckoning. Likewise I
think the numerous debates over the centuries regarding predestination and
God's foreknowledge become moot when we stop to consider God's perspective on
time. Even science has come to realize
this century that time is not truly a
constant. Physicists have discovered
that time becomes warped and altered relative to speed. The faster one goes, the slower the apparent
time becomes. Approaching the speed of
light, all known constants begin to break down, and the space-time universe as
we know evolves into something quite extraordinary. I find it no surprise, then, when I read in the Bible that
"God is light ( 1 John 1:5).
Now that we have two more attributes of
God, His omnichronologicalness and His omnipresence, how does this assist us in
evaluating spiritual truth? Again, the
basic precept is this, God has progressively revealed Himself, and in
successive incidents, has displayed more and more of His attributes. The pattern established predetermines what
the likely demonstration of God's will and mind will be. Let's start by looking for the pattern of
God's omnipresence. If this indeed is
an attribute of God, then we should see it being more and more clearly
established as we start at the beginning of the Bible and go to the end. To help identify the pattern, we will
further break the examination down into three categories: God's pattern of
relation to places, persons, and things.
God's
Progressive Pattern Regarding Places
If we take a survey of scripture
concerning this issue, the pattern is strikingly clear. Going back to the Book of Exodus, we see
Moses standing before the burning bush, and he is commanded to take his sandals
off, "for this is holy ground." (Exodus 3:5). God apparently recognized the sanctity of a
place. That same mountain ( Mt. Horeb)
becomes known as the "Mountain of God". The tabernacle was the next place that was considered holy
because of God's presence. Later, God
apparently ascribes sanctity to the temple mount in Jerusalem. The temple is called the place where the
Lord Himself would cause His name to dwell, yet, by the period of the kings of
Israel, it was already recognized that a physical locale could not truly
contain the full presence of God ( II Chronicles 6:18). Ascribing sanctity to a location was common
among the different nations of the world of that time. At the time, it would be the most tangible
way God could express Himself to people of such a mind set. When Jesus was ministering on the earth
however, He gave witness that God's ways were indeed higher than man's
ways. He was speaking to a woman of
Samaria one day who asked Him very plainly which location in Israel was the
best place to worship. She wanted to
know what plot of land really had been ascribed sanctity by God. Jesus replied:
The time is coming when you will
neither worship the Father on this
mountain, nor in Jerusalem...For the time is coming, and now is,
when
the true worshippers shall worship in spirit and truth. For such
worshippers the Father seeks. For God is spirit, and those who worship
Him must worship Him in spirit and
in truth. ( John 4:21,23,24)
The fact of the matter is that God is
bigger than our superstitious little ideals.
No location actually has an inherent sanctity; God is spirit and the
highest ideal is to recognize His omnipresence and worship Him for who He is,
without recognition to a certain place.
Jesus so clearly taught that the pattern of God's Self-revelation
concerning places is that sanctity must be ascribed to God alone! If we follow through the New Testament, we
see the pattern continuing. The
apostles never venerated a place again.
They didn't set up a shrine on Calvary.
They didn't try to go scoop up the dirt where Jesus' blood was
shed. They didn't go to Bethlehem to
build a church for "pilgrimages".
At the very end of the New Testament, the Apostle John prophetically
records the cataclysmic end of the age when New Jerusalem shall descend from
the heavens. He takes careful note to
point out that " There is no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and
the Lamb are it's temple" ( Rev. 21:22) .
The pattern God has set regarding places is that they are not to be
venerated in any way. The early church
was very consistent in this. In the
beginning of the fourth century, however, Emperor Constantine's mother decided
she wanted to set up some shrines in Jerusalem to honor Jesus. She traveled to Jerusalem and inquired where
the events of the gospel narratives most likely took place. Up until that time, there was very little
interests in the actual location of the events. When the focus of veneration became the shrines and temples
themselves, it represented a tremendous regression from the pattern that God
had slowly revealed over the centuries!
Christianity began to lapse back into a superstitious mind set that was
contrary to God's progression of Self-revelation. Today, numerous religions still show signs of regression in this
respect. Besides some of the more
"traditional" forms of Christianity, Islam venerates it's own
"holy cities", and Hinduism venerates the waters of the Ganges, just
to name a few. The imagined sanctity
ascribed to the land of Israel was the primary impetus behind the bloody
crusades of the middle ages. Even some
Protestants today refer to their church building as "the house of
God" when the New Testament never refers to a building in those
terms. Manifestations of such thinking
is evidence of a immature understanding of the pattern of God's
Self-revelation. The only references in
the New Testament economy to a "holy" temple indwelt by God's Spirit
is the references to the members of the church who are corporately make up the
only physical "dwelling" of God's Spirit today ( I Corinthians 6:19,
I Peter 2:5).
God's
Progressive Pattern Regarding People
If we look at a synopsis of how God
has recognized His relationship with people, we can see much of the same
pattern as we did when examining places.
God, in the Old Testament, set aside for Himself a particular people who
were descendants of Abraham. God's
intention was to have a corporate body of people who were sanctified before
Him, and eager to serve. Human beings,
unfortunately, have a tendency to have very poor performance records when it
comes to serving God. Consequently,
when the Law of Moses was instituted, God specified that only a fraction of all
of Israel was to actually be in service for Him. These were the males who were descended from Levi, and in
particular, from Aaron. These
"priests" were to mediate between the Lord and all of Israel. They offered sacrifices for sin, and were
the teachers of the Law to the other tribes of Israel. During the whole period of the Law, one
could not serve in the Temple unless they were descended from this tribe. It was an exclusive system, reserved for a
certain class. The "laity"
were dependent upon the Levitical class to intercede between themselves and
God. During the period of the New
Testament, however, this underwent a radical transformation. First, John the Baptist declared that being
progeny of Abraham was not grounds for claiming a special relationship with God
( Luke 3:8). Jesus further challenged
the idea that an individual had a unique standing with God because of his or
her physical lineage ( John 8:33-44).
On the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon the
believers, Peter stood up and quoted an ancient prophecy of Joel declaring:
" And it shall be in the last
days" God says "that I will pour forth of My
Spirit upon all mankind, and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy,
and your young men will see visions and your old men will dream
dreams;
even upon my bondslaves both men and women, I will in those days
pour
out My Spirit" ( Acts 2:17,18)
The disciples saw the fulfillment of
God's promise to anoint anyone who humbly came to Him, with the Holy
Spirit. Now, the ministry of mediating
between mankind and the Lord was not the responsibility of a particular
"class" or profession. God
was not recognizing age, sex or social status.
There was no longer to be a unique priesthood as a class. In Peter's epistle, he says that all
believers are a "royal priesthood". ( 1 Peter 2:9). Later, the Apostle John states that the
angels declare of the redeemed from every nation that they are a "kingdom
of priests to serve our God" (Rev. 5:10 ). It is very interesting to note that there was not a separate and
distinct priesthood operating in the church during New Testament times. God was being consistent with His
Self-revelation as an omnipresent God by anointing all who sincerely sought to serve
Him. The early church services were
amazingly open and inclusive, and all were encouraged to deliver a "psalm,
a teaching, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation" ( 1 Corinthians 14:26 ).
There were elders who oversaw the congregation, but they definitely did
not dominate or "lord over" the congregation. It is not until the early third century that
there is any evidence of a "clergy" class of priests arising in the
congregations. This was not only a
clear regression against the pattern of God's Self-revelation, but it was also
prophesied by Paul during his ministry.
He said in Acts 20:29-30 that
I know that after my departure
savage wolves will come in among
you not sparing the flock; and from
among your own selves men will
arise, speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after
themselves.
The immediate result of the rise of a
"professional" clergy to mediate for the people was that the common
believer now became a mere spectator in the Christian faith. Moreover, the believers were now dependent
upon priests as a "go between" in their relationship with God. As the position of "priest" became
more solidified within a growing hierarchical structure, the vitality and zeal
of the common believers was squelched beneath a system that was contrary to
God's unfolding pattern ministry.
Today, many churches are beginning to realize that the
"clergy/laity" distinction has been an artificial, and largely a
detrimental distinction in the church.
God's Self-revelation has been one of continuously demonstrating that He
is not a respecter of persons ( Galatians 3:27-28). Although He recognized only a select few as ministers in times
past, today he universally sets apart and empowers for service all who would
receive it. The faster we can harmonize
our ministries with that truth, the more congruous we will be with God's
Self-revelation.
God's
Pattern Regarding Things
As one would expect, God has
specifically demonstrated a pattern moving away from focusing on objects, to a
recognition of the spiritual and immaterial.
When the Law was given, there were items associated with worship which
were "holy to the Lord."
Among these were the objects in the tabernacle, the lavers, altars, and
the ark of the covenant. The Ark of the
Covenant was considered so holy that a man named Uzzah was struck dead just for
touching it while it was being transported ( II Sam 6:7). Great emphasis was put on the articles
brought for sacrifice: the lambs and goats, the grain, and oil. Usually the priests had a portion of the
sacrifice and the Law went into fine detail how that which was to be eaten
would be prepared. Jesus, however,
dismissed the idea that there is an inherent sanctity in objects. He addressed one particular object in the
tabernacle, the sacred showbread, which He pointed out that David actually
ate. It was technically unlawful to eat
the showbread, yet in the higher understanding of God's will, it was perfectly
lawful.( Matt 12:4). A fuller
understanding of God's nature reveals that God does not consider some objects
"holy" and others "profane". In particular, the whole issue of food came to a head in the
early church, and the issue is still hotly contested today. Jesus had declared that nothing that goes
into a man can make him unclean. For
anything one eats goes into the stomach and then passes through him. ( Matt
15:11 cf.). Conversely, we can then
assume that nothing that goes into a man can make him "clean". Paul confirms this in his first epistle to
the Corinthians when he states that "Food will not make us pleasing to
God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do
eat." ( 8:8). Yet, when it comes to the "Lord's
Supper" ( Holy Communion), suddenly many become convinced that food will
somehow make them more presentable to God.
Many think that there are qualities inherent in the bread and wine that
have been blessed that actually impart spiritual life. This is not to speak disparagingly of the
many who have had deep spiritual experiences during Communion, but should we
think that a "spiritual booster shot" somehow is objectively present
within the elements of bread and wine?
Jesus dismissed this in His discourse regarding the eating of His
"flesh and blood" in John 6, verses 52 to 65. When the disciples were debating exactly how
they were going to actually eat His flesh and blood, Jesus said:
Does this cause you to stumble? What if you should see the Son of Man ascending to where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh
counts for nothing; the words I have
spoken to you are spirit and are life."
(
vv. 61-63 )
The essence of the matter is that
spiritual life cannot be imparted through physical anything. Not through communion bread today. Not through Jesus' physical flesh 2,000
years ago. Only the Word of God, in
conjunction with God's Spirit can impart life.
The concept that the bread and wine itself are inherently holy is absent
in the very early church, and one can carefully discern the development of the
idea in the writings of Christian writers and theologians over the
centuries. It was not formally accepted
and defined by the Roman church until A.D. 1215. The growth of the idea of
the sanctity of the elements ( frequently called the
"transubstantiation) is inversely
proportional to the mature and spiritual understandings of the church. In other words, the whole belief is merely a
digression from God's Self-revelation, and can be considered a lapse into
superstition.
Paralleling this belief was the
sanctity ascribed to the waters used in baptism, or waters otherwise
"blessed" by a priest. After
"blessed" waters and bread and wine were accorded an innate holiness,
a myriad of other items followed.
Blessed salt, medallions, oil, candles, icons and countless other
objects became the focus of the common believers adoration. As the western world slid into it's Dark
Ages, religious relics and artifacts became an integral part of the Christian
churches. Crucifixes, Rosary beads, and
statuettes still are earmarks of the churches that reigned during those
years. In other religions of our
culture, healing crystals, magic stones, "pyramids" and the like
dominate the New Age practices, and all represent the same departure from God's
Self-revelation. They are all merely
demonstrations of man's primitive and superstitious thinking, out of sync with
the pattern that God has objectively demonstrated.
God's
Pattern Regarding Time
We have seen that God reveals Himself in space
as omnipresent and infinite. His
progressive revelation always reflects that.
Lastly, we will look at how God's attribute regarding time, His
omnichronologicalness, affects our evaluation of belief.
If we go back to the very first
chapters of Genesis, we can see God
establishing His principle of the Sabbath.
God rested from His works of the "seventh day". He declared that it was "blessed"
and "sanctified" ( Gen. 2:3).
All of Israel was commanded to keep the Sabbath holy. The calendar of the Jewish people revolves
around observation of the Sabbath, the great feasts, and the different
festivals that are celebrated at appointed times. One cannot read through the Jewish Scriptures without noticing
the tremendous emphasis that the Lord put on the observance of these appointed
rituals. When Jesus lived, being a Jew,
He too observed the Sabbath and other ceremonies. He did, however, make a very candid statement about the nature
and purpose of the Sabbath. He said in
Mark 2:28 that the "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the
Sabbath." Even though He Himself
observed the seventh day Sabbath, it stressed that it was not a practice to be
observed for it's own sake, but it was designated as a period of rest for our
benefit. The early church observed the
Jewish customs, since it was largely of Jewish origin, but soon the habit of
meeting on the first day of the week became the norm. The first day of the week (Sunday) was also called "The
Lord's Day" and it was presumed that since Christ rose from the dead on
the first day of the week, then that day ought to be the accepted day of
congregational gatherings. Many today
mistakenly think that the directives for keeping the Sabbath holy now are
applicable to Sunday. There is nothing
in Scripture that would even hint that the Sabbath is now Sunday instead of
Saturday. But rather, in view of the
fact that God exists outside of our understanding of time, and we would
therefore expect Him to direct our beliefs in a way that would reflect this,
both the "seventh day" sabbatarians and what we might call the
"first day" sabbatarians are in error. The whole matter is clearly answered in the book of Hebrews
chapter four. In the preceding chapter,
the author states that we are to
exhort one another daily, as long as
it is called "Today" , lest any
of you become hardened through the
deceitfulness of sin. ( 3:13)
The day properly named
"Today" is an idiom which is clearly is meant as an expression for
"daily". Every day that we
experience is "Today." In
context, we are to exhort and encourage our brethren every day that is
"Today". This same term is
applied to the Sabbath in chapter four.
The verses 4 through 7 read:
For He has spoken in a certain place
of the seventh day in this way,
"and God rested on the seventh day from all His works." and again
in this place "They
shall not enter my rest." Since it remains that some
must enter it, and to those it was first preached did not enter
because of
disobedience, again He designates
a certain day, saying in David,
"Today",
after such a long time, as it has been said, "Today, if you
hear His voice, harden not your hearts."
This is the clearest example of God's
progressive Self-revelation concerning time.
We are no longer bound to a single sanctified day of the week. Since God is in the "ever-present
now" rather than stuck at one point in time looking forward and back to
the future and past, every day that exists is "Today". In the years before, because of the hardness
of men's hearts, one day had to be set aside each week when we could rest and
meditate on the Lord and His word. But
now God designates another day. It
isn't Sunday. It isn't Christmas or
Easter. It is "Today". The Sabbath was a type or a foreshadowing of
the rest we have perpetually before God in Christ. No longer do we have to "work" for our salvation, since
it was procured by Christ on Calvary.
Paul wrote to the church at Colossi in Colossians 2:16,17 that we should
let
no man judge you in food or drink,
or regarding a festival or new
moon or Sabbath, which are a shadow
of things to come, but the
substance is of Christ.
This new understanding is also carried
out in other New Testament writings. It
would seem that the early church did not put the same importance on the
recognition of special days that many Christians do today. Paul wrote to the Romans that
one esteems one day above another,
another esteems every day alike.
Let each be fully convinced in his
own mind. He who observes the
day, observes it to the Lord; he who does not observe it, to the Lord
does not observe it. (Romans 14:5,6)
The real issue is not which festival
one keeps, but whether the Lord is sanctified in their hearts all the
time. God's omnichronologicalness would
demand that our understanding grow more towards a faith without times, seasons,
and special observances. The pattern of
God's Self-revelation is one moving away from the temporal, to the perpetual
and eternal. As Paul said in II
Corinthians 4:18
For we fix our eyes not on what is
seen, but what is unseen;
for what is seen is temporal, but what is unseen is eternal.
Although the early Christian church did
indeed have traditions and customs about their worship, they did not ascribe a
special God-given significance to those customs. Many of the early Christians of Jewish origin still went to the
synagogue on the Sabbath, yet, it would appear that it was largely because of
the Jewish context of the culture.
When Paul was ministering in Troas, and his "congregation" was
mostly from a "heathen" culture, it would seem that Sunday was very
adequate as the day of the gathering. ( Acts 20:7). Furthermore, it would seem that observing a certain day as matter
of religious "duty" was actually an undeniable sign of apostasy and
backsliding! In Galatians 4:9-11 Paul laments how his converts in Galatia have
returned to "weak and poor elements" by again "observing days
and months"! No can have an
inherent sanctity of it's own. There is
no such thing as a "holy day of obligation". That is contrary to God's Self-revelation. The Sabbath is not to be legally enforced
upon anybody, Christian, Jew or otherwise.
Similarly, observances like Ramadan in Islam, and the observances in
eastern religions have no objective bearing of authority. A religion that attempts to elevate a day as
holy, other than "Today", betrays it's lack of congruity with God's
Self-revelation.
Conclusion
The attributes of God that He has revealed about
Himself progressively over the millennia are not merely a matter of theological
hypothesis. What we conclude about God
has direct bearing on our lives; how we should live and how we should respond
to God. As mentioned in the beginning
of this paper, the end result of any belief system is that it should be
subjectively experienced in the lives of it's adherents. In this case, we know that there is a
personal God, Creator of the universe, who is intimately involved with His
creation, who is waiting for the people He has created to respond to Him. We can deduce that He is holy and just, but
our own inability to obey universal moral law ( i.e. our sin ) prevents us from
approaching God on adequate terms. In
the Judaic tradition, a lamb without blemish used to be sacrificed as an
atoning sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins.
The blood of lamb ( or sometimes a bull) would be accepted by God to
restore man to righteousness before Him.
Similar sacrifices were emulated throughout most cultures and peoples of
the world. This same figure is found in
cryptic symbolism in mythologies, in the signs of the Zodiac and in the
languages of different peoples. The
word for "righteous" in Chinese, for example, consists of two of
their character symbols. The top one is
the symbol for a lamb, the bottom one is the symbol for the first person
pronoun "I". Together, one
could say, the complete symbol carries a coded message declaring that "I,
under the lamb, am righteous." When
Jesus Christ made his debut in Palestine 2,000 years ago, the first declarative
statement about him was John the Baptist's exclamation " Behold, the lamb
of God who takes away the sins of the world!" (John 1:29).
Since Jesus also apparently understood his
mission as one of a substitutionary death for mankind, it is imperative that
all peoples seriously consider the evidence that Jesus is the unique,
once-for-all sacrifice ordained by God to bring the human race back into
relationship with Him. Jesus lived
exactly when the Hebrew prophets had foretold, fulfilled hundreds of prophecies
regarding His ancestry and his ministry, and was put to death exactly when and
in the same manner that various prophets had declared centuries earlier. All mythologies of the ancient world are
capitulated and fulfilled in that one drama of the ministry of Jesus
Christ. Many Greek and Roman
philosophers converted to Christianity in the second and third centuries A.D.
demonstrated quite successfully that all philosophies and mythologies that had
been known up to that time were laden with "seeds of truth" and that
Christ was the object that every belief system was ultimately pushing
towards. The one thing that stopped
what appeared to be the inevitable conquest of Christ over all nations, tribes
and tongues in that era was the regression of the church in the early fourth
century into superstition, irrelevancy, and disregard for maintaining church
tradition in sync with God's pattern for Self-revelation. Had the church avoided the ignorant trend of
feeble minds towards the veneration of places, objects, people, and the
observance of festivals and sacred times, the Dark Ages might have been
avoided. As a matter of historical
fact, the church digressed from doctrinal soundness and instead, concentrated
on temporal reign and power struggles within the Empire. The western world slid into a period of
ignorance almost completely devoid of societal contribution. It wasn't until the Renaissance that the
western world began to reclaim the scientific, philosophical, cultural and
spiritual heritage that maintained during the Greek and early Roman eras.
Today, we have the benefit of being able to critically examine the content and beliefs of virtually any religion or philosophy quite easily. With such resources available to most people in the United States, it is not justifiable to credit all belief sytems with the same intrinsic worth when some are clearly more consistent with God's attributes than others. Since we understand that these attributes of God are objective characterics, it is not "bigoted" or "intolerant" to make qualitative judgements about certain beliefs systems that contradict "a priori" knowledge of God, and historical revelation of God. As for the gospel that Jesus preached, we can safely say that it remains the epitome of what all persons would consider Divine virtue. Jesus "recalibrated" the standard of what mankind's universal conscience would dictate as "Divine". Consequently, even if we were to ignore the claims he made of himself, and disregard the accolades showered upon him by his contemporaries and disciples, we would still have no other logical alternative but to declare that he is indeed God incarnate. And being completely consistent with Self-revelationof God's attributes previously mentioned, Jesus holds the gift of eternal life which he has procured with his own blood. Does he offer it only to the learned? Does he receive only the devotee? No. In keeping with the revelation of God's omnipresence, it is reserved for "whosoever will". All are invited to partake of this free gift. And is it only available at certain times? During special services perhaps? No. Again consistent with God's omnichronologicalness, we are beseeched to receive it "Today" for Paul declares in II Corinthians 6:2: "Behold; now is the