Stephen
Terry, Director
"I
Make All Things New"
Commentary
for the March 30, 2019 Sabbath School Lesson
“He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making
everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are
trustworthy and true.’” Revelation 21:5,
NIV
Our lessons close out the quarter with a reminder that
God intends to significantly intervene in our future. The Bible tells us that he
has done so in the past on several occasions. He walked with Adam and Eve in
the Garden of Eden. He inundated the Earth with water in the days of Noah. He
plagued the Egyptians until they let the Israelites go in the days of Moses. He
was incarnated as a baby, born to a humble carpenter and his young bride and
grew up to be executed upon a cross on Golgotha, only to rise from the grave
and return to heaven. For two thousand years since, we have been reminded that
like the Terminator, played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, he will be back. Whether
that return is a good or bad thing depends on two things. First, on whether we believe
he exists, a position that many find untenable for various reasons. Often it is
offered that it is unscientific to believe in God since we are unable to
conclusively prove his existence. But that position itself is unscientific for
many things have been discovered to exist over the millennia that at one time
could not be proven scientifically. Bacteria are excellent examples. Some might
state that in hindsight, we know that such organisms have always existed. We
just lacked the tools to discover them. How then can we state with certainty
that God does not exist and that what we can measure and observe has been
limited simply because we lack the tools to do so? Most definitions of God
would make him omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, attributes which relate
to limitless infinity. We cannot even visualize infinity. We symbolize it with
a figure eight on its side. But the symbol is evidence that we cannot visualize
it, let alone draw a picture of it for others to see. In algebra we can draw a
number line with arrows to indicate that it runs on into infinity, but we
cannot actually visualize that infinity. Once again, we must use the symbolic arrowheads
to illustrate our failure. If we do not have the tools and ability to
illustrate such a basic mathematical concept, why would we assume we have the
tools to reveal God? Of course this cuts both ways. Lacking those tools, why
would we assume that even the Bible accurately defines God? Perhaps the
existence of thousands of denominations founded upon the Bible is evidence that
things are much vaguer than some might be willing to admit.
However, as Blaise Pascal once opined, the person, who believes
in such a being that exists beyond the limits of our ability to prove, loses
little for having done so, but gambles on eternal loss if such a being does
exist, and they chose to ignore the possibility. Such a situation might be made
even worse if they engaged in outright hostility to God. It seems strange to
have such hostility to something that supposedly doesn’t exist, but there are
those that do. They might say that God does not exist because he did not heal
or protect someone they loved and cared deeply about. But then they harbor
hatred for that being that doesn’t exist in their heart, angrily blaming God
for their loss while not understanding how schizophrenic that appears. Either
God exists or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t then anger at him over anything is
pointless, and claiming to be atheist because of it is an emotional rather than
a scientific response. If he does exist then we come face to face with the
problem of theodicy. Why does God allow evil? Merely asking that question is to
leave the bastions of atheism where such concerns are irrelevant. Why ask that about
someone who does not exist? Theodicy cannot exist in a godless universe. But
mankind has been struggling with that question for all of recorded history and likely
before that. Even the Bible is primarily a millennia-spanning effort to find an
answer to the question. And of course, because it continually attempts to
address that question, it presumes the existence of God.
This brings us to our second point, our perspective on
the Parousia. If we accept the concept that God exists, our understanding is
greatly influenced by what we perceive God to be. If, as Deists believe, God
just set things in motion and then indifferently walked away from creation then
we would perceive God as neither an agent for good nor for evil as he is
uninvolved. But that begs the question of why he would come back eventually?
While an intriguing question, it is beyond the scope of this short commentary
to address. Instead we will examine the idea of God being actively involved, a
position strongly advanced with the story of the incarnation found in the four
gospels and repeatedly referenced in the epistles. If God is involved and not
indifferent, then logically he must be either good or malevolent by definition.
The gospels make a case for Gods character to be good as evidenced in the life
of Jesus. But the case for malevolence can be made also through the many destructive
acts in both the Old and New Testaments, not the least of which were the Noahic
flood, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the fiery apocalypse foretold
in Revelation. Perhaps the definition of good depends on which side of those
events we find ourselves on. Those, who are familiar with the numerous small-claims-court-based
television series we have these days, know that seldom do those who are ruled against
admit that the judge was fair, let alone good. On the other hand, those who
prevail in such cases almost universally extoll the goodness and fairness of
the judge. We should perhaps not expect it to be any different when it comes to
divine judgment as portrayed in the Bible.
Those whose behavior toward God and toward others could
be classified as good would likely feel that the promises of the New Jerusalem,
the River of Life, and the Tree of Life are evidence of the fairness of God in
dispensing well-deserved rewards to those who have steadfastly believed and
modeled their behavior accordingly. But conversely, those who felt God never
really made his case for existence might feel the reward that denies them
eternal bliss would be eminently unfair. Strangely, the Bible asserts that even
they will at some point admit their error.[i] But if John’s account of
the apocalypse is reliable, that will not come before a great deal of suffering
comes first. For those facing a more positive future, a fresh start might be
appealing. Noah was granted such a fresh start when the Antediluvians were
swept away by the torrent. The Bible reveals that opportunity was squandered
and so many thousands of years later, here we are again, mired in disbelief,
selfishness, corruption and violence. One might rightly question whether the
new beginning will turn out any better the second time around, especially given
the human tendency toward perverse behavior. The Bible tells us that won’t
happen.[ii] An idyllic existence without
the fear of it all going to pieces eventually does indeed seem heavenly. As
much as we love newborn children and the hope for the future that they bring,
we cannot give them such a promise. With the joy of every birth also comes the
sorrow of knowing that they will grow to know the struggles that life brings.
Some even face those struggles from the moment they are born with congenital
issues. But even then, those newborns remind us that just as our love surrounds
them in spite of any defects they may face, so God’s love reaches out to us,
even when our own defects of body, mind and character make it difficult to
understand what it all means or appreciate that love.
When each baby leaves the hospital, they are surrounded
with the trappings and equipped with the instructions to allow them to thrive.
If their parents were to toss all of that and go their own way, they might be
ignoring what generations of experience have shown results in a positive birth result.
Most of us would be deeply concerned for the baby. But suppose the baby itself refused
those things that would allow it to thrive. For instance, we all know of
breast-fed babies who refused to take to the breast. Frantic mothers
desperately trying to get nourishment into the child know that the child doesn’t
understand the need or the urgency. Maybe in our failure to accept God’s
directions intended to help us thrive, we can identify with that child and
accept that in our failure to understand, there is still the opportunity to
rely on God, who does understand and find our way to the marvelous New Earth
that John says waits for us.
