On Thomas Aquinas’ First Two Ways to Prove God: Motion, Cause, and Reflections on Time

Of all the arguments for God’s existence, perhaps the most well-known is Aquinas’ Five Ways. His ways are listed as follows:

• God’s existence can be proved by motion
• God’s existence can be proved by cause
• God’s existence can be proved from possibility to necessity
• God’s existence can be proved from gradation
• God’s existence can be proved by governance

This entry will reflect solely on the first two, the arguments from motion and cause.

Aquinas’ First Way: Argument From Motion

“The first…manifest way [to prove God] is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that toward which is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must need to be put in motion by another again. But this cannot go to infinity, because then there would be no first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands as God.”

–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.2.3.

It befits us to regard the first way as not just reasoning from the motion of physical bodies, but the motion from one state of being to another. Let us say p has the potential of becoming q. Now, this could not occur unless this transition is prompted by another agent, say r. We can say this motion is prompted by a thing which in turn causes the transition, and this cause of the transition is one the result will mimic. If q is the outcome, then the attributes of q in its motion from p will mimic or reflect the properties of r. In the example of heat, wood, and fire, wood only has the potentiality of being affected by heat, but if caught alight by means of spark or heat, it resembles and takes on some of the attributes of the heat and fire which existed prior. Even in terms of physical motion, this is played out when a body interacts with another body, transferring a like energy to the other which then produces motion in another, even to the point of stillness or inertia in the cause.

It seems a jump to then reason, ‘this process cannot go on forever, because there would be no first mover,’ which seemingly presupposes the First Mover’s existence and thus disassembles any sound proof since; the conclusion is presupposed in its proof. If left to this statement alone, we would be justified in the conclusion of its falsehood. There is the prompt however to ask, “Why can’t it go on to infinity?” We recall the movement argument talks not of the movement of bodies interacting solely, but a potential quality becoming actual within a thing. This cannot go on forever because there would be no first mover to bring actually in anything, for only potentiality would exist, and potentiality alone does not exist, or cannot exist, as it is bound as a product of actuality.

Thus, for the universe to form, an ultimate actual thing must exist which causes the movement from potentiality to actuality in everything else. Furthermore, we might reason an actual thing, must bring about an actual thing for potentiality to exist (as opposed to an actual thing bringing about a potential thing), for there must be some Actuality free from potentiality since what is potential requires first actuality to come into being, but if Actuality created mere potentiality then this would not allow for motion. Thus, it is reasonable an Actuality created actualities, that by these interactions of what is actual, potentiality would come into being. This Actuality, the Prime Mover of all movement, is what everyone calls God.

A visual aid might help in this understanding and will serve in clarifying not only the First Way but the Second Way, which is related to the First.

The Prime Mover must be a thing Actual so the universe may exist since potentiality alone is nothing if there is no preexisting actuality. Also, it follows, in the beginning, actual things must have been brought into being, not merely potentialities for the same reason. Mere potentiality wouldn’t bring about anything. Also, as seen, it requires multiple actualities for potentiality to exist through their interactions.

Therefore, for the sake of illustration, this chart would be impossible:

If it were the case, the Prime Mover created potentiality, it would go no further. It would remain in a state of nothingness, so while the first illustration continues ad infinitum, the second one would not, and wouldn’t result in anything.

The resulting eternal nothingness of created potentialities.

For the same reason, a potential Prime Mover is impossible:

An impossible flowchart, since everything after the Prime Potentiality would be negated.

Thus, we find the first illustration is the only means by which we can account for the universe’s existence, that there must be a Prime Mover who at the onset of the universe, set actualities into their place, that by their interaction, potentialities may become extant and bring about other actual things. This is why we can’t extend this back into infinity, and a Prime Mover is necessary.

Now we continue on to Aquinas’ Second Way.

Aquinas’ Second Way: Argument From Cause

“The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In a world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or be only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name God.”

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1.2.3.

The second way, Aquinas’ argument from causality, declares it empirically true and observable there exists a temporal element between cause and effect. It is clear a cause must come before an effect and though it may seem a cause and effect can exist simultaneously, it is diverged from by the temporal element. A cause can be an effect itself, but only when due to a prior cause, and this effect shifts from effect to cause when it produces an effect in something else. A process we see repeated ad infinitum. In this process, there are former efficient causes, the intermediate causes, and the ultimate cause, the latter being the last of the order. A notable thing about cause is it’s a necessary condition of any effect (which, as stated, could become the cause of another thing). It is impossible an effect would exist without cause. We see this as an obvious natural law.

If the universe has a cause for its being, then the universe as a whole is representative of an effect, and if the universe is an effect, or what might be called “caused,” it cannot be uncaused and a first cause must exist. It is impossible a “self-caused cause” could exist because it is self-contradictory and akin to saying the cause existed prior to itself. A self-caused effect cannot exist for the same reason, since it follows effect does not lead to cause, but cause leads to effect. It is quite easy to stretch the imagination to its limits and suppose an infinite chain of subsequent causality, but it is much more difficult to do so through infinite regress because of these natural considerations. Regardless, in the end, we must admit the existence of a First Cause, lest those who deny one exists stand in their own “god of the gaps” void.

This topic should be approached on two other grounds, one requiring an even more metaphysical level but will keep with the same notion of cause, and another applying this causality to the Argument From Motion for the sake of illustration (and perhaps to offer an explanation as to why some philosophers conclude Aquinas’ Five Ways aren’t really five ways since some are reducible to very similar arguments).

It is the nature of philosophy that even the lowliest of philosophical ponderers must apply a name to every idea, and being unable to resist the temptation, the first I will refer to as a Causal Argument of Sets. In logical form, suppose we state the whole of causality as cause and effect, with its temporal considerations intact in this manner:

{…c, e, c, e, c, e,…}

Within the brackets is represented the law of causality, cause, and effect, to infinity. Such an illustration might serve as an answer to someone who challenges, despite arguments of First Cause, it is so that causality has extended both into the past and into the future ad infinitum. Hence, a possible utility for this argument will be expanded on.

As mentioned, this is an obvious natural law. No phenomenon exists where someone doesn’t seek out a cause, know the cause, or suppose a cause. Psychologists have found causal relations in the mind, physicians within the body, and sociologists among trends and factions of society. The philosophy of determinism supposes causality in nature, in action, or even, in choice and thought. It seems this law is accepted on all fronts to some degree. In fact, I suggest there is no reason to declare otherwise when considering time itself. A moment in time, no matter how brief and minuscule, is dependent on time existing prior, and thus every current moment is in essence an effect with time prior being the cause. In a way, the effect of tomorrow depends on the cause of today.

As the Greek playwright Sophocles wrote:

“If anyone counts upon one day ahead or even more, he does not think. For there can be no tomorrow until we have safely passed the day that is with us still.”

–Sophocles. (1966). The Women of Trachis and Philoctetes. Translated by Robert Torrance. Houghton Mifflin

At any rate, is it reasonable for one to assume such a law sprang from nothing in and of itself or would be subject to the same principle found within the causal set? While there are many theories where the relationships within the set are not found necessarily outside the set, a metaphysical and philosophical law implies universality and if causality is found in certain things and not others it is not a metaphysical law. Thus, if this law, or any law, is said to exist, then it is bound by the same cause/effect relationship found within the set, and a First Cause is needed. This might be expressed as:

C -> {…c, e, c, e, c, e,…}

We simply restate this by saying there needs to be a Cause for causality. Interestingly, it becomes clear to see the attributes of God which the Bible attests to. Aquinas surprises by not only seeking to show God’s existence but His necessary attributes as well, for without them, nothing that was made could have been made, as the scriptures tell us:

John 1:3, “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.”

It seems apparent, just like in Aquinas’ argument from motion, an infinite regress within the universe is impossible and the set needs to begin with a cause:

C -> {c, e, c, e, c, e,…}

It is impossible for a First Cause to produce the universe by effect at the beginning within the set, like so:

C -> {e, c, e, c, e, c,…}

This would not bring about anything since it is of the nature of things that cause brings about effect, while this would assume the opposite. This is where we can apply the former reasoning of the Aquinas’ First Way. An effect standing alone in the universe, if we could even accurately apply the term to begin with, is nothingness. It is only potentiality since an effect may be realized or not and could or could not be dependent on the existence of the former cause. Effects are not impossible things, nor are they necessary things, but are potential things. Thus, the building blocks of the universe could not have been made from potential effects, but from actuality. We apply the reasoning of actuality to potentiality in the Argument From Movement to cause and effect, with cause being actuality, and effect being potentiality. As actuality is the necessary condition for potentiality, so too is cause the necessary condition for effect. If there is no actuality or cause, there is no effect or potentiality.

Therefore, by our flowchart from before, it fits to put cause and effect in the place of, or alongside, actuality and potentiality. It is seen the First Cause could not have brought effects into proper being, but causes. Multiple causes must exist from the onset of the universe so that by their interaction the effects are made manifest and causality is put in motion as a universal law or first principle.

The set illustration helps us solve an additional problem we might face. If there is a First Cause then it is the case the universe is an effect, but cannot be started as an effect with its own laws, since it would need to exist before itself. Further, if the universe is an effect, it too is potential, but if it is a potential effect then it could not have been or could be. This leads reasonably well into the arguments for the need for the Personality of God, adding to the attributes Aquinas has already alluded to. A personal Being, of Pure Being, who made the choice to cause the universe to be. He is timeless, the Creator, and is Personable since the whole of the universe is only a potential effect.

With these considerations in place, our set may look like:

C -> E(c, e, c, e, c, e…)

What about God? Doesn’t this illustration leave room for God to be an effect? No, the First Cause (and True Actuality) would need to be timeless, which this model implies. True beginnings are not needed outside time, for there is no cause/effect relationship outside time since nothing can come before, nor after. Now doesn’t the universe being an effect imply time outside of the set, and thus both the First Cause and the effect of the First Cause are within time? Yes, but not in the same way we perceive it within the causal timeline set of the universe. The effect includes time within it. There is such a thing as meta-time or, say, a heavenly time, but by definition, it would have to differ and be more complete than our perceptions of time within our timeline.

We can see this by our inclusion in the causal set of the universe, which regulates us to being once removed through causality and kinship from the First Cause. This differs from the heavenly things inasmuch as they are created directly by the First Cause and owe their existence directly to God without a vast chain of regress. It is salvation that God uses to take man from being once removed to being in direct relation to Him by the eventual resurrection and renewal of all things through which God wants to bring back all removed from him. The Scripture makes clear the difficulty of the human mind in contemplating time as it refers to both the heavenly things and the true Eternal God.

Ecclesiastes 3:11; 14-15, “He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man’s heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from beginning to end….I perceived that whatever God does endures forever, nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear Him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.”

“God seeks what has been driven away,” refers not only to original sin but the whole of the universe which currently stands as once removed that through the renewal of the world and the resurrection of man, all things will owe their being directly to God and be united in His presence once more.

Through the explorations of causality and movement themselves, the need for actual things and causes to be at the onset of the universe is clear. The set starts with multiple causes to bring effects into being. So there is no infinite regress of time. On the meta-level however, there are not multiple causes that need to exist to introduce effect, but a singular Cause for their being. Since this Cause must embody Being itself to impart being, as shown in the Argument From Motion, it extends to infinity both toward, say, the meta-past and forevermore. Among heavenly things, all point directly to God without the need for intermediate causes.

But who can fully understand?

2 Peter 3:8, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.”

The fifth-century Bishop of Ravenna highlighted the mysteries that confront us when he said:

“With God, beings who will be born are already born; with God future things have been made.”

–Peter Chrysologus

Another theologian wrote:

“We only see the system of Providence in the making, and not as a completed whole. Therefore, we can only discern the mere rudiments of what shall be; no complete or extensive knowledge being possible to us….We can only see, at a time, but an inconsiderable part of the ocean, so that we can never take a view of it as one great whole. In like matter the ways of God can only be seen in small portions. Their vastness overtakes our powers. Eternity casts upon the whole course of time the shadow of mystery. We have enough light to work by, but not enough for complete revelation. The creature of a day cannot be expected to grasp those vast designs stretching from creation to the final destiny of all things.”

–Thomas Henry Leale

There is only one sense where the existence of meta-time would lead to an infinite regress of causality, but only if we regarded meta-time, the time found among heavenly things, as the means by which our own timeline came into being. This is not what Judeo-Christian doctrine declares, as has, hopefully, been shown in this exploration.

As we contemplate a First Cause, a thing comprised of Being itself, then we have no infinite regress and this First Cause extends or exists unhindered by time and apart. It is fascinating to reflect on this as applied to Exodus 3:13-14, as God reveals Himself as “I AM,” which can be indicative of the attribute of God’s nature of being Pure Existence. Philosophers and theologians have long pondered the essence or the substance of God, and most, quite rationally, say it is unknowable. Yet, I posit, in part, God’s essence is one of Pure Being.

Exodus 3:13-14, “Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, “The God of your fathers has sent me to you,” and they ask me, “What is His name?” what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And He said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel: “I AM has sent me to you.”‘”

Jesus refers back to His divine timeless nature when he addressed the Jews in John 8:

John 8:58, “‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I AM!'”

To simplify all created things must exist in time to some degree since there can be no subsequent or prior without time, and if the created heavenly things and beings were not created, then they would share a place with God which cannot be. So either set, whether in meta-time or our timeline, are ultimately dependent on a timeless First Cause though they differ regarding the presence of intermediate causes.

Can’t it be said the spark that set off the Big Bang existed outside time too? It can, but ironically enough for those who use this argument, it appears it was borrowed from theists, and clearly points to a supernatural origin of the universe. The strict philosophical materialist and the naturalist would be hard-pressed to admit the existence of such a supernatural origin, which is why, I suppose, this argument isn’t very popular, though it does spring up from time to time. It is far from being prominent, however.

Going back to The Causal Argument of Sets, it does one last thing by implying any law which is found in nature, must have been given or impressed upon nature by a Law-Giver. As we see causality as a law within the timeline set, we can fill the brackets with any law you please, laws of mathematics, logic, physics, gravity (as one physicist said laying all of existence at its feet), etc. These universal laws must be attributable to some cause, which denotes the intelligence found in the First Cause. The attributes of omnipotence and omnipresence aren’t ruled out either in the Causal Argument of Sets but are suggested or implied by more thought exercises.

To close out it suffice to say the first two of Aquinas’ ways do rather well in prompting us to behold some of God’s ways.

Psalm 45:7, “On Contented Joy and The Stumbling Blocks of Bad Presuppositions.”

Psalm 45:7, “You love justice and hate evil. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you, pouring out the oil of joy on you more than on anyone else.”

In addition to Psalm 45:7, Ecclesiastes says:

Ecclesiastes 9:8, “Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head.”

If, as in Psalm 45, oil represents a content joy, and we are told never to have this lacking, then it needs to be asked how this content joy can be achieved? Psalm 45 makes the connection between loving justice and hating evil with the blessing of “the oil of joy.” This is an anointing of a “contended joy” if you will. This relation isn’t as explicit in Ecclesiastes, but there can be an alike connection made.

In the Scripture, garments are symbolic of one’s spiritual condition. For instance, sackcloth is representational of mourning or a state of despondency or being destitute, and white garments represent a state of righteousness, that is a condition of being free from sin or cleansed of sin. I believe, then, that Solomon in Ecclesiastes is saying to be righteous always before the Lord, and never let our contented joy be lacking.

Going back to Psalm 45:7, we can render the lesson like this: “If you love justice and hate evil, resulting in a righteousness, then you will be blessed by a ‘contented joy.’” Simply, it follows then that if a contented joy is lacking in our lives, then perhaps we are not clean, or sin is still somewhere manifest in our lives. In other words, our garments are dirty.

For the sake of consistency, we should take the full passage in Ecclesiastes into account. It states:

Ecclesiastes 9:7-9, “Go, eat your bread with pleasure, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart, for God has already accepted your works. Let your clothes be white all the time, and never let oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife you love all the days of your fleeting life, which has been given to you under the sun, all your fleeting days. For that is your portion in life and in your struggle under the sun.”

The Apologetics Study Bible For Students remarks:

“These verses [Ecclesiastes 9:8-9] resemble passages in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh and the ‘Harper’s Son’ from Egypt. Both were composed long before the time of Solomon, and it seems clear that he knew them. It is not troubling to find that a biblical text reflects knowledge of other well-known literature of antiquity; this international character is a feature of Israelite wisdom. Because of Solomon’s extensive international contacts we would expect him to be familiar with such literature, and the similarities to these other passages reinforce the Solomonic authorship of Ec[clesiastes].” —Duane A. Garrett, “Ecclesiastes 9:8-9,” Apologetics Study Bible For Students.

This indeed can become problematic for Christians whenever this kind of thing occurs, but should it be the case? In the specific example mentioned, it should be noted after reading the Epic of Gilgamesh and a few Harpers’ Songs (from the tombs of Intef, Neferhotep, and Inherkhawy) that Ecclesiastes is far from plagiarizing these other sources. There may be similar motifs, but we need to be careful of comparing the Word with other works from the ancient Near East, for some have a tendency to emphasize the similarities but disregard the differences.

The difficulty some may have in these and like examples arises from a couple of presuppositions which Christians and critics alike make, the most prominent being that sources outside of the Bible are necessarily false, while those in the Bible are necessarily true and sanctioned by God. I know how this may sound, but I implore the reader to let me explain. I will refer to this as a “compound presupposition” because one supposition implies the other. Both parts of this supposition can be problematic.

Concerning the former, sources independent of the Bible are necessarily false, we may run into problems when a contemporary or well-known text, of that time, is cited in regard and relation to the truth of God and we let this become a stumbling block. In terms of the latter, that what is included in the Bible is necessarily true, this becomes problematic when we approach it from the position that anything recorded in the Bible must be concluded to be supported by God when this isn’t always the case. A narrative which is tragic and horrific isn’t always endorsed by God, but rather at times arises because of disobedience to God. The latter part of this “compound presupposition” is a tactic frequently employed by critics of Christianity.

An example would be the account of Jephthah’s Vow found in Judges 11:30-40. It has been forwarded by some critics in their argument against the character of God, but as the Christian or Jew may know, God nowhere gives His approval of such a thing and it is indeed a direct disobedience to God! This is the tragic account of Jephthah’s Vow:

Judges 11:30-40, “And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. He said, ‘If you give me victory over the Ammonites, I will give to the LORD whatever comes out of my house to meet me when I return in triumph. I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.’ So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the LORD gave him victory. He crushed the Ammonites, devastating about twenty towns from Aroer to and area near Minnith and as far away as Abel-keramim. In this way Israel defeated the Ammonites. When Jephthah returned home to Mizpah, his daughter came out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. She was his one and only child; he had no other sons or daughters. When he saw her, he tore his clothes in anguish. ‘Oh, my daughter!’ he cried out. ‘You have completely destroyed me! You’ve brought disaster on me! For I have made a vow to the LORD, and I cannot take it back.’ And she said, ‘Father, if you have made a vow to the LORD, you must do to me what you have vowed, for the LORD has given you a great victory over your enemies, the Ammonites. But first let me do this one thing: Let me go up and roam in the hills and weep with my friends for two months, because I will die a virgin.’ ‘You may go,’ Jephthah said. And he sent her away for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never have children. When she returned home, her father kept the vow he had made, and she died a virgin. So it has become a custom in Israel for a young Israelite woman to go away for four days each year to lament the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.”

Again, the account is used as an attack on God’s character by critics, which is based on the presupposition that what is recorded in the Bible is endorsed by God. This despite that God clearly forbids such a detestable practice as human sacrifice:

Deuteronomy 12:31, “You must not worship the LORD your God in the way the other nations worship their gods, for they perform for their gods every detestable act that the LORD hates. They even burn their sons and daughter as sacrifices to their gods.”

Leviticus 18:21, “Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the LORD.”

Leviticus 20:2b-5, “If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death. I myself will turn against them and cut them off from the community, because they have defiled my sanctuary and brought shame on my holy name by offering their children to Molech. And if the people of the community ignore those who offer their children to Molech and refuse to execute them, I myself will turn against them and their families and will cut them off from the community. This will happen to all who commit spiritual prostitution by worshiping Molech.”

It is easy to see that all that which is recorded in the Bible is not endorsed by the Lord, so the Christian should reject this stumbling block outright.

In addition, God’s Word is taught to have supreme authority, which is accurate because it is of God. Thus, when an independent source is included, some may feel this authority is threatened by a lesser authority, one who strictly isn’t God. Yet, we know from the Scriptures that the LORD’s authority stretches beyond the blessed text we hold in our hands. As the apostle Paul implies in the book of Romans:

Romans 2:14-15, “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know His law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. They demonstrate that God’s law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right.”

If even the thoughts of the Gentiles could testify and reflect God’s law, then couldn’t God’s truths be known to them as well, recorded in their literature, and then repeated by men of God without any contradiction taking place? We recall what Paul says earlier in the book of Romans:

Romans 1:19-20, “Since what can be known about God is evident among them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what He has made. As a result, people are without excuse.”

Therefore, we should not be concerned about independent wisdom from independent source material being mentioned in the Scriptures. As a casual student of philosophy, it is not uncommon to see truths that align with the Scripture mentioned by some of the great thinkers. As I might cite or borrow from a philosopher when examining or writing on biblical truths, so too could the writers of the Holy text without negating or challenging the truths of our Lord in Holy Bible which represents the greatest of revelations. We should consider it not to be problematic, but a reinforcement.

If we are assembling a dresser we purchased from IKEA, although it may come with its own instructions straight from the manufacturer, and if we look online to search for further support, we are not invalidating those instructions, but rather with the extra-material, reinforcing that original source material that we may accomplish the task more efficiently with that added understanding others have gained.

Thank you for reading and God bless.

Proverbs 2:1-5, “On The Treasure That is The Knowledge of God”

“¹My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, ²turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding – ³indeed if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, ⁴and if you look for it as silver and search for it as hidden treasure, ⁵then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.”

In my last entry I discussed, or rather the Scripture discussed, the consequences that occur when one doesn’t fear the Lord. What is this fear of the Lord and why is it so profound? I yet do not know in the profound measure it deserves, but I have the understanding that despite the clues I have gotten concerning the fear of the Lord, in truth its much deeper than I can fathom at this point. This is why I have yet to do any recent writing on the topic. I pray the Lord will lead me in discovery about this often wondered about phrase? What is it to fear the Lord? I invite the reader to stay tuned. One thing we do know about the fear of the Lord, however, is that it is elsewhere too aligned with a knowledge, which again speaks to its profound nature. Isaiah 11:2 says,

“The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him – the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.”

An interesting thing occurs to me. Both in Isaiah and the aforementioned Proverbs 2:5 mention BOTH the fear of the Lord, understanding, and a, or the, knowledge of God. In addition, how Isaiah talks of it suggests it being a fruit of the Spirit.

Regardless, despite the missing profound variable about the fear of the Lord, I believe there are a number of conclusions and important points we can extrapolate from these verses. First, to dissect the collection of verse a bit, there are eight conditions, or antecedents, and two consequents. The eight conditions are, to accept the Lord’s words, store up His commands, turn your ear to wisdom, apply your heart to understanding, call out for insight, cry aloud for understanding, seek it as silver, and search for it as hidden treasure. The two consequents are, an understanding of the fear of the Lord, and finding the knowledge of God.

I would like to do something a little different for this current entry and analyze the Scripture by these conditions and consequents. First, I will cite the conditions, slightly paraphrased, and immediately after write upon them. After the conditions are finished, I will then do likewise for the consequents mentioned in Proverbs 2:5. I pray this translates well into a blog post.

Accept The Lord’s Words

I believe there are quite a few of us guilty, including myself, of approaching the Scripture with a presupposed message in hand. Simply, we go through times in our life where we encounter challenges, reap calamity, are distressed, brought low, and seemingly trampled underfoot by any number or matter of things. Of course, being of a somewhat juvenile in faith, as even the most faithful can be at times, outside Christ, we turn to our Bibles to bring us a positive message or, at the very least, one that will make us “feel better” somewhat. In a time such as this, we may be in danger of not accepting what the Lord is really trying to tell us. We find something scary, or something convicting, and we turn the page. Searching for that other verse to give us our needed exhortation. If this isn’t describing you at all my friend then God bless you!

However, I only write from personal experiences and I know the tricks of the self, as well as the enemy, are not original temptations at all. For, as Ecclesiastes 1:9 says:

“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”

When getting a Word from the Lord sometimes we don’t want to hear it and we fool ourselves in thinking that intuitive scripture that came to us must be mistaken or misheard. Yet, we are called not only to accept those things which make us feel good, like grace, but also those things which frighten us, like judgment. However, this is all for our own good. The Lord doesn’t want calamity to fall upon us and gives us stern warnings in order that we might have it “the easy way” rather than the “hard way.” This is simply due to his unfathomable love, much like how a parent might warn and discipline their children when they have done wrong.

Store Up The Lord’s Commands Within You

To tap into a little bit of my own testimony, I attended a Christian private school while I was in high school, but didn’t become a Christian until after. At the time, while in school, I found one of the most ridiculous academic activities to be memorization. This ranged from vocabulary quizzes and exams to even, dare I say it, Bible verse memorization. Be assured I feel ashamed for this now, and certainly you can tell how depleted my ability to reason was at this time in my life. I mean, why would I need to memorize the Bible if I had to always have it on me anyway? Surely, the Holy Word would warrant an open book test right? Now its easy to see from my vantage point where the ridiculousness really lied.

Certainly, some of this came from just a sluggard kind of lifestyle and its paramount laziness, but whatever the causes, the effects were the most important. That whole time when I could have been soaking in God’s Word, I disregarded its importance, and thus missed out on an opportunity to be more versed than I am currently in biblical doctrine or writ. In addition, it is obvious to me, that I missed out on a great opportunity to build up a surplus of faith, which would have helped me out more during those times when I crawled through the darkness, often of my own accord.

Not only must we accept all things God reveals in His Divine Revelation, but we must also store up His commands in our hearts. This is not only for conviction purposes as one might suppose by the word “command,” but rather they are also means of following God’s perfect advice, and means of attaining blessing in our lives. This seems paradoxical that a command might act as a blessing. In and by our simple humanity, it remains a fact that we often do not like to be told what to do. Yet, we should not be so hesitant about following what the Lord tells us to do, for in that there is the aforementioned blessing. If the Lord didn’t want us to know that was the case, He wouldn’t have told us. Yet, since He did, we can have complete assurance in what the Lord says is truth. To simplify, we need to store up His commands in our hearts that we may avoid trouble and be blessed by our observance.

Turn Your Ear To Wisdom

I recall as a small child getting in fights with my sister. On one particularly inspired mature moment, I covered my ears as she spoke and mumbled something like, “La,la,la,la,la…” to drown out her counter-argument. Whatever that might have been. Regardless, there are those times when we don’t want to hear what wisdom has to say. Moreover, we have a choice to listen to wisdom, or ignore it and drown it out. There is action and choice in this, which is made evident in Proverbs 2:2 when it tells us to turn. To turn towards something is to turn away from something else. This is much akin to the message of true repentance.

Apply Your Heart To Understanding

The message here, to apply one’s hear to understanding, is one of commitment. We should commit to understanding. There are those questions that arise when studying the Holy Writ which are difficult to understand. We human beings tend to get discouraged or write off questions if we do not understand them. Indeed, I too went through a season where questions arising from study were discouraging to me, in the vein that such questions would arise the ever more dangerous question if what I believed was false. I had not yet understood that just because I had not the answer, didn’t mean there was no answer to be found. This is not a commitment to understanding, but rather a fleeting faith which is void of understanding and even the possibility of understanding. We are called to something much greater. A commitment to understanding that though questions arise, the Lord has many ways in which to deal with questions. These range from an understanding to a greater faith despite our questions. We almost live under the presupposition that if truth exists then we must have all the answers pertaining to that truth. Yet, the very idea of faith is that in spite of our questions we yet do still believe. Thus, we must not only commit to understanding, but to faith as well despite a

ll the unanswered questions that may arise within us. Let us have a greater faith in the Lord that He surpasses our questions and our abilities to understand. For as the scripture states, let us not lean upon our own understanding, but transcend it as the Lord transcends all.

Call Out For Insight

Insight is more than a knowing, it is a discernment which grants us an aptitude for both the answers to questions and the direct application of the lessons found within, which can be understood as a wisdom. However, to call out for insight is to acknowledge a lack of insight and to call upon God in steadfast prayer for holy inclination. We acknowledge our lack of Godly insight, for His insight is as infinite as He is, and us being creations of His are necessarily below His enormity. So we are not to call out to the sciences, but rather God Himself who surpasses all human knowledge and man’s practicality. There are, of course, those insights of worldly or practical matters, but how much greater are those insights of spiritual matters which apply to everything? For God is everything! To call out is to desire in earnest. We don’t mutter or have some intellectual arbitrary want for insight, but we call out in a fervent heartfelt aspiration.

Cry Aloud For Understanding

This is much similar to the one above, that is to call out for insight. It reiterates the above committing us to the importance of the lesson, that we should in earnest cry out for understanding. Furthermore, are we are not to consider it being ever fully gained, for the understanding of the Lord is as limitless as He is. Let us, therefore, take refuge in our Lord when we come unto a situation that demands further understanding. Moreover, let us be discerning in being able to identify those areas in which we lack in understanding, not lean on our own, and may the Lord grant us the understanding to be able to approach any subject or situation in a Godly knowledge which far surpasses that knowledge of man.

Look For it as Silver

To look for something as silver is to already understand its intrinsic value and worth. Beneath the earth lie vast amounts of precious metals which when mined produce a vast storage of wealth. Likewise, at times, this understanding remains hidden from us in the same vein as one of silver or gold and we must be steadfast in our approach to find these caverns of wealth and understanding. Let us not rush after the gold of fools but rather those precious gems and metals which line outcroppings of knowledge and wisdom.

Search For it as Hidden Treasure

There are those who dedicate their lives to the seeking of vast fortunes of wealth which have been lost over the ages. Such people invest their time, their money and even their wellbeing in order to discover hidden treasure buried within soil, sand or under the oceans. These treasure seekers not only find a thrill of discovery in such efforts, but also know that if successful then their endeavors will be greatly rewarded. Our endeavors will be greatly rewarded if we seek understanding like those who seek the treasures of old.