Welcome to the Kitopedia. All entries are © 2001-2007 Christopher Sunami, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. These entries are NOT publicly licensed. No entries may be reproduced without permission and attribution.
NOTE: Most essays on this site represent original theoretical work. If you find these articles interesting, inspiring or helpful, please let me know. If you refer to them, please give me and this website credit. In addition, links back to this page in blogs or from other sites are always appreciated!


Search



Forums


New Articles

Updates
•Websites 7/12/08
•Mandelbrot Set 6/24/08





Hero For Christ

Christianity in History



by Christopher Sunami



Does Christianity unfold in history? In other words, does God’s will --and the way it manifests-- transform through time, or does it remain unchanging as history progresses?

There are two basic answers to this line of questioning, one conservative and one radical. The conservative answer denies the possibility of change in God's will, and can be summarized as follows:

1A - God’s relationship to humanity is unchanging, therefore his laws are perfect and eternal, the same in every time and place, and equally applicable, without alteration, to all people. Accordingly, there is nothing of importance unique to the current era; and we can best address modern problems by imitating the past.

At first appearance, this statement has two important advantages: First, it conforms to common sense and intuition. We know God to be perfect, eternal and unchanging, so the same should logically be true of God's laws and relationship with humanity. Second, it has support in the Bible. One passage to this effect is found in the Old Testament:
Ecclesiastes 1:4-11 (spoken by King Solomon)
One generation passes away, and another generation comes:
but the earth abides for ever.
The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it arose.

The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north;
It whirls about continually,
and the wind returns again according to its circuits.
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full;
unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again.

All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it:
the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that has been is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there any thing of which it may be said, See, this is new?
It has been already of ancient times, which were before us.
There is no remembrance of former things;
Neither shall there be any remembrance of the things that are yet to come
by those that shall come after.
A passage with a similar message can also be found in the New Testament:
Matthew 5:17-18 (spoken by Jesus)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For truly I tell you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
Neither one letter nor one stroke shall pass from the law,
until all shall be fulfilled.
At first this seems like more than adequate support for the statement. There is, however, comparable evidence for a statement with the opposite viewpoint:

1B - God’s relationship to humanity is not the same in every time and place, and God’s rules, guidelines and expectations for human behavior are also subject to change. Accordingly, God’s will is different for us than it was for our ancestors; which means that understanding the current era is the only avenue towards understanding our relationship to God and that the guidance of the past is irrelevant.

This statement implies changeability very near to the foundations of our religion, and yet both common-sense and Scriptural arguments can be found to support its contentions as well. As regards the former, we note that it is counterintuitive for a Christian to argue that the relationship between God and humanity was exactly the same both before and after Christ’s earthly existence --such a statement would deny the paramount importance of Christ. For the latter, it can be shown that both the Old and New Testament record changes in religious law. In the Old Testament, God spoke to Moses in the following words:
Exodus 34:6-7 (spoken by God to Moses)
I am the LORD, the LORD God,
merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,
Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
yet by no means clearing the guilty;
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
and upon the children's children,
unto the third and to the fourth generation.
In the time of Moses, therefore, an entire family could expect to suffer for the sins of its ancestors. In the time of Ezekiel, in contrast, God announced a clear and explicit change of religious law:
Ezekiel 18:20 (spoken by God through Ezekiel)
The soul that sins, it shall die.
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father,
neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:
the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him,
and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
In the same way, Peter reported in the New Testament that God had announced to him a change in the laws separating one person from another:
Acts 10:28 (spoken by Peter)
…You know that it is an unlawful thing
for a man that is a Jew to keep company,
or come unto one of another nation;
but God has shown me
that I should not call any man common or unclean.

At this point we have two opposite statements which both appear to make intuitive sense and to have Biblical support. How can we prefer one to the other? Or is there a way to resolve the apparent contradictions?

One possible line of argument is that the seeming changes in God's relationship to humanity (or in God's laws) are illusionary. This idea is supported by the Gospel of John, which tells us that Christ is eternal.
John 1:1-5 (in reference to Jesus)
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness; and the darkness comprehends it not.

John 8:58 (spoken by Jesus)
…Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
If Christ is eternal, then the earthly advent of Jesus was not an actual change in the way God relates to humanity, but only an apparent change, the visible manifestation of a state of affairs that had existed all along. This would seem to support the conservative view that the way God relates to humanity does not change.
On the other hand, however, Christ clearly brought about a change in the way humanity relates to God, as indicated by the same gospel:
John 14:6 (spoken by Jesus)
…I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man comes unto the Father, but by me.
If you had known me, you would have known my Father also:
but from now onwards you do know him, and have seen him.
This second passage seems to support the radical view that the relationship between God and humanity does change. Rather than introducing a new contradiction, however, these two passages, when considered together, guide us to a partial resolution of our difficulty. Even given that the way God relates to humanity is unchanging, we can still assert that the way humans relate to God can and does transform.

By analogy, we can picture God as a stable lighthouse built on an island, and humanity as the boat on the sea. Even though the lighthouse does not move, the spatial relationship between the lighthouse and the boat changes. Why? Because the boat is in continual motion. In the same way, even though God’s love for humanity has remained constant, the way human beings experience that love is not always the same.

Another of understanding this situation is by picturing God and humanity as existing at different levels of reality. Because God’s reality is more profound, it is stable and eternal. Human reality, on the other hand, is more superficial, and thus more illusionary and subject to change. This way of thinking also provides insight into the question of the law. If we accept that human reality encompasses illusions, we must acknowledge that any humanly comprehensible interpretation or codification of religious law --even as contained in Scripture -- is not and cannot be identical with God's perfect eternal plan (which contains only truth).

This accords with the following passages, which show that human wisdom is limited, and not of a kind with God's wisdom:
Ecclesiastes 2:15-16 (written by King Solomon)
Then I said in my heart,
“As events happen to the fool, so too do they happen to me;
“and why was I then more wise?”

Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.
For there is no eternal remembrance of the wise any more than of the fool;
since in the days to come shall all be forgotten.
And how dies the wise man? As the fool.

Job 36:26-29 (spoken by Elihu)
Behold, God is great, and we know Him not,
neither can the number of His years be searched out.
For He draws up the drops of water:
and pours them down as abundant rain
Can any understand the spreading of the clouds,
or the thunder of His tabernacle?
By extension, God's works are forever beyond human understanding, which is also attested to by Scripture:
Ecclesiastes 8:17 (written by King Solomon)
Then I beheld all the work of God,
that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun:
Though a man labor to seek it out, yet he shall not find it;
and more; though a wise man think to know it,
yet shall he not be able to find it.
Therefore no version of the law that can be conveyed through human agency and made comprehensible to human minds can encompass the perfection of God. This line of proof is further supported by the Book of Job as a whole, which demonstrates that the actions of God cannot be judged by any human standard, even the standard of the law. This is shown by the fact that Job was "blameless and upright" according to the law (and even exceeding its demands):
Job 1:1
There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job;
and that man was blameless and upright,
fearing God, and turning away from evil.
Even so, when Job insisted upon the perfection of his innocence, his friend rightly chastised him for believing in his own righteousness (under the law) more than he believed in the righteousness of God (which exists before, above, and beyond the establishment of the law).
Job 34:5-10 (Elihu chastises Job)
Job has said,
"I am righteous: yet God has taken away my rights
"and accounted me a liar
"My wound is incurable
"although I committed no transgression."

What man is like Job, who drinks scorn like water?
Who goes in company with the workers of iniquity, and walks with wicked men.
For he has thus said:
"It profits a man nothing to delight himself with God."

Therefore hearken unto me, you men of understanding:
far be it from God, that he should do wickedness;
and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.
Similarly, the New Testament shows us that the (divine) understanding Jesus had of God's plan differed significantly from the ordinary human comprehension of the law, even as interpreted by the scribes and Pharisees, who were the foremost experts on the law (in their time). For example, here are two passages from the time of Moses about the Sabbath:
Exodus 16:25-26 (spoken by Moses about manna in the wilderness)
…Eat that today; for today is a sabbath unto the LORD:
today you shall not find it in the field.
Six days you shall gather it;
but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, there shall be none.

Exodus 20:8-10 (from the law of Moses)
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shall you labor, and do all your work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
in it you shall not do any work,
Neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter,
your manservant, nor your maidservant,
nor your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates:
The application of these regulations by the Pharisees matched the most obvious interpretation of the law:
Matthew 12:1-2
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn;
and his disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the ears of corn and eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him,
Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Nonetheless, Jesus disagreed sharply with their judgment:
Matthew 12:3-5 (Jesus replies to the Pharisees)
But he said unto them,
“Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry,
“and they that were with him;
“How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the hallowed bread,
“which was not lawful for him or for those who were with him to eat
“but only for the priests?
“Or have you not read in the law,
“how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath,
“and are blameless?”
In addition, there are places in the Bible where God's law was shown to apply differently for different people in different places at different times. One of these was in the time of Ezra when the Israelites were forbidden to marry foreign wives:
Ezra 10:10-11
And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them,
“You have transgressed, and have taken strange wives,
“to increase the trespass of Israel.
“Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers,
“and do his pleasure:
“and separate yourselves from the people of the land,
“and from the strange wives.”
This was despite the fact that God had previously blessed the marriage between Moses and an Ethiopian woman:
Numbers 12:1-2, 5-9
And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses
because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married:
for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses?
hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.
…

And the LORD came down in the pillar of the cloud,
and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam:
and they both came forth.
And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you,
I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision,
and will speak unto him in a dream.

My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently,
and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold:
wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
Similarly, in the New Testament, Peter was instructed to uphold the law of circumcision among the Jewish Christians, but Paul was allowed to preach Christianity to the uncircumcised Gentiles without such restrictions:
Galatians 2:7-9 (written by Paul)
But contrariwise,
when they saw that a gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me,
as a gospel for the circumcised had been committed to Peter;
(For he that wrought effectually in Peter the apostleship of the circumcised,
the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars,
perceived the grace that was given unto me,
they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;
that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcised.
All of these passages imply that there is a difference between God’s eternal plan and the human reflection of it in the law. A further proof can be constructed with the help of the Book of Job, which informs us that violations of the law are really transgressions of humanity against humanity, rather than humanity against God.
Job 35:5-8 (Elihu chastises Job)
Look unto the heavens
and behold the clouds which are higher than you.
If you sin, what do you do against God?
or if your transgressions be multiplied, what does it do to Him?

If you are righteous, what have you given to God?
or what has He received from your hand?
Your wickedness may hurt a man such as yourself;
and your righteousness may profit the son of man.
This is further confirmed by Jesus, who said the following (in regards to a foundational element of the law):
Mark 2:27 (spoken by Jesus)
…The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
Thus we see that the law was created for the benefit of humanity. This implies that it postdates humanity’s creation, in contrast to God’s plan, which encompasses the creation of humanity, and thus predates it. Furthermore, since what composes a benefit to humanity may change (in response to incidental circumstances), the law (in order to continually benefit humanity and thus fulfill its purpose) must be subject to alteration in a way that cannot be true of God’s plan. Therefore although the law aligns with God’s plan, it cannot be identical with it. In other words, the law reflects a level of reality deeper than its own existence, yet nonetheless functions at the level of human reality and must be considered as forming a part of that reality.

A similar line of argument helps us understand the passage from Ecclesiastes which initially seemed to support a purely conservative point of view:
Ecclesiastes 1:9 (written by King Solomon)
The thing that has been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done:
and there is nothing new under the sun.
This is clearly not a truth entirely about everyday reality as we experience it, because we encounter so-called “new” things in daily life all the time –new technology, new products, new relationships, and so forth. However, it also cannot wholly be a truth about God’s reality, because God (as the Creator) is capable at any time of bringing truly new things into existence, as attested to in the Book of Isaiah:
Isaiah 42:8-9 (spoken by God through Isaiah)
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another,
neither my praise to graven images.
Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.

Isaiah 48:6-7 (spoken by God through Isaiah)
You have heard and seen all this; and will you not declare it?
I will show you new things from this time forward,
even hidden things, which you did not know.

They are created now, and not in the beginning;
nor even before the day in which you heard them;
so that you could not say, “Behold, I knew them.”
Therefore we are forced to understand the truth of the passage from Ecclesiastes as somehow existing between God’s reality and ordinary existence. This makes sense particularly when we remember that the Book of Ecclesiastes never claims to express God’s wisdom (as spoken through King Solomon in his role as a prophet), but only the human wisdom of King Solomon himself (in his role as a philosopher). As such, it makes sense to view it primarily as philosophical truth, which makes an effort to mediate between God's eternal truth and the lesser truths of ordinary reality.

Thus when we read the phrase “there is nothing new under the sun,” it guides us to look beyond the superficial surface of ordinary reality in which “new” things seemingly happen all the time, to a deeper level where much of what seems to be new is illusionary, insignificant, or a repackaging of something old. In this way, it leads us towards contemplating the unchanging and eternal nature of God as the source of all. We must nevertheless remember that God can bring new things into our world at any time he wishes --including new covenants, new religious laws and new freedoms.

This still leaves one remaining passage in support of the idea that the law itself is eternal. Yet when read again with the proper emphasis it holds a very different message:
Matthew 5:17-18 (spoken by Jesus)
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For truly I tell you,
Till heaven and earth pass,
Neither one letter nor one stroke shall pass from the law,
until all shall be fulfilled.
Jesus did not say that the law was eternal, but rather that the law must be fulfilled, and that the law could not be changed until it was fulfilled.

At this point it can be seen that both the conservative and the radical statements of religious history held elements of the truth, but that a more valuable perspective can be found by combining them both.

1C - God is eternal, perfect, and unchanging, and so is God’s plan; but humanity's relationship to God progresses through time, and the laws that reflect that relationship progress as well --to the point that contrasting interpretations of God’s will may be valid in different times and places, and in reference to different people. Therefore considering both the past and the present are important to understanding God’s will.

This new statement integrates truths found in both original statements, aligns as well as either with common sense and intuition, and accords with all Scriptural evidence examined thus far.



©2005 Christopher Sunami. All Rights Reserved.
Comment on this Page or Read Guestbook