I am, granted, a bit undecided on the profundity and utility of this argument, but I find it one of the more entertaining ones, if I may, as it regards aesthetic judgments we use frequently in everyday life. Perhaps, it is those aesthetic implications within this argument which, in my mind, make the characterization of “entertaining” appropriate.
Aquinas states:
“The fourth way is taken from gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and less good, true, noble and the like. But ‘more’ and ‘less’ are predicated of different things according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is the hottest; so that there is something which is the truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is the uttermost being; for those things that are the greatest in truth are the greatest in being, as it is written in [Aristotle’s] Metaphysics ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all other beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.”
–Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I. ii. 3.
Quite briefly, we’ll take notice of the Argument From Cause being present in Aquinas’ explanation, and the prior causal exploration may help in illustrating how this works. In Aquinas’ statement here he speaks not only of causality for being but also of cause for the attributes within a thing. It is these attributes and adjectives where gradation is applied, and a relative relationship assumed.
Aquinas cites Aristotle, who wrote:
“It is right also that philosophy should be called knowledge of the truth. For the end of theoretical knowledge is truth, while that of practical knowledge is action (for even if they consider how things are, practical men do not study the eternal, but what is relative and in the present). Now we do not know a truth without its cause; and a thing has a quality in a higher degree than other things if in virtue of it the similar quality belongs to the other things as well (e.g. fire is the hottest of things; for it is the cause of the heat of all other things); so that [which] causes derivative truths to be true is most true. Hence the principles of eternal things must always be most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is their any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth.”
–Aristotle, Metaphysics, II, 1.
Implicit in both Aquinas and Aristotle are a few forms of being, and each form has a truth value, based on an ability for change. A thing is labeled most true, or properly True, if it remains in a constant state, not affected, but producing an effect in everything else. A thing is less true if it is sometimes true and sometimes not, such as found in gradation. A thing might be more good or less good depending on a relative object, thus its attribution of good would be subject to change. This places it firmly in the plane of gradation. In addition, these imply something less true, or even never true, something impossible and by being impossible, unable to produce effect.
An example of one argument borrowing from Aquinas’ fourth way is called the Argument From Beauty. We will start from the premise of finding something beautiful in nature, say a mountain, glen, forest, or meadow. You might look at these things and say to yourself or another, “That is beautiful.” However, let us further suppose you are on a hike, and you encounter another scenic overlook, and you declare, “This is more beautiful than the other.” The Argument For Beauty states these words and distinctions have no meaning unless there is some ultimate beauty responsible for gifting beauty in other things and is therefore the most beautiful. These gradations of beauty and indeed other gradations wouldn’t exist if their maximum wasn’t found in something.
We might say there is not an ultimate object of gradation, and we need not recognize ultimate beauty, even if it did exist, since, after all, even the Bible suggests nobody has completely experienced it. Yet, Aquinas and Aristotle might argue there is a difference between the superficial relative judgments between two things and the implications of those judgments beyond the practical and present. A difference between temporary epistemological beauty and eternal ontological beauty. They reason these judgments would not exist without the ultimate beauty, truth, or what-have-you, existing, nor would we even be able to conceive of them without the source object of gradation giving them to us.
I suppose, regarding my own thoughts and initial impressions on the arguments from gradation and beauty in particular, I might well be in error. Some find the arguments from beauty to go quite beyond personal tastes to negatively afflict those who paradoxically find beauty in its absence. It may not be as harmless as it seems, though it could reasonably be pondered if it is the cause, or merely symptomatic. Francis Schaeffer (1912-1984) saw this movement of the degeneracy of the arts arise and reasoned it falls in step with the state of culture and people. He dated the emergence of this to be parallel to the rise in prominence of the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831).
William Lane Craig writes:
“According to Schaeffer, there can be traced in recent Western culture a ‘line of despair,’ which penetrates philosophy, literature, and the arts in succession. He believes the root of the problem lies in Hegelian philosophy, specifically in its denial of absolute truths….In Schaeffer’s view, Hegel’s system undermined the notion of particular absolute truths (such as ‘That act is morally wrong’ or ‘This painting is aesthetically ugly’) by synthesizing them into the whole. This denial of absolutes has gradually made its way through Western culture. In each case, it results in despair, because without absolutes man’s endeavors degenerate into absurdity. Schaeffer believes that the Theatre of The Absurd, abstract modern art, and modern music…are all indications of what happens below the line of despair.”
–William Lane Craig, “Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics.” Third Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. Page 70.
When regarding Aquinas’ five ways, the absence of the Moral Argument is glaring. There are numerous apologists, such as Frank Turek, who cite the Moral Argument as being one of the most important arguments for the existence of God today, and its absence from Aquinas’ five ways might seem as some sort of shortfall. It must be remembered, though, this argument wasn’t formally formulated until Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Kant didn’t seek to prove God’s existence by it, only His necessity for justifying morality. Yet gradation is not necessarily absent altogether either, since the Argument From Gradation does indeed specifically reference what is “good” and what is “noble.”
Immanuel Kant
While the Moral Argument does more than address its relative distinctions, as morally good, better, or worse, it does go beyond by reaching a God or Supreme Mind for the existence of moral judgments. Yet, in many of these arguments, say from Kant, C.S. Lewis, and Hastings Rashdall, who was purportedly the first to use the Moral Argument to construct a proof of God, they all use elements of gradation in their syllogisms and logical constructions.
In essence, extremes must exist for things to be judged on a spectrum, or through gradation. The true, good, and beautiful extreme is what we call God.
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 ispotentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be atonce 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 trulyI 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.
Here, Paul, as he does in later verses (see my note concerning Galatians 1:11-12, “On Paul’s Source and The Shifting of Name”), reveals His source of the Gospel, and He who sent Him to the Gentiles to preach the message of reconciliation. This message He did not get from any man, but rather through direct revelation from Jesus Christ. In fact, according to Galatians 1:18-19, Paul didn’t meet any of the apostles until three-years after his ministry had begun. By this verse, we also see that Paul didn’t regard Jesus Christ as a mere man. This is not only important in the context of Scripture, but also in response to the popular belief that Christ was a mere man, though possibly a prophet of some sort.
"The Conversion of Saul," by Caravaggio. oil on canvas. c. 1600
Yet, Paul states, that he was neither sent by men (the apostles), or by a man (a mortal Jesus). Rather, his knowledge came from the Son of God, and the Father, who raised the Son to a life surpassing mortality, due to His obedience and righteousness. In addition, we who are in Christ, have our passport stamped so that when our mortal bodies pass away, we, in a likeness of Christ, will arise to life, worthy by grace and covered in the blood of the Lamb.
“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” -1 John 1:7
“Then go quickly and tell His disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” -Matthew 28:7
In my previous entry (see my note concerning 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, “On a Brief Overview of The ‘Historical Christ,’ Contradiction, and Biblical Omission”), I discussed some of the paradox among the Gospels concerning the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It was my hypothesis that all the Gospels meshed together to form a perfect narrative. One of the assumed contradictions, has to do with Mary Magdalene and her companions encounter with an angel outside the tomb. Yet, in Luke 24:4, it says there are two angels and they speak to the women inside the tomb. However, when we read Mark 16:5, only one angel inside the tomb is recounted.
Many theories concerning the reconciliation of these encounters have been offered, including that there are multiple groups of women, or that Mary Magdalene ran to tell the disciples after being spoken to by the angel outside the tomb, who sat upon the stone that had been rolled away. She is at times said not to enter the tomb until later. Yet, I concluded after some prayer for illumination, that the angel on the outside spoke to them and they entered the tomb where they encountered at least one more heavenly being. As for how many angels were in the tomb, I address that in my previous entry as well.
The Lord led me back to this verse, and I found some more evidence suggesting that my interpretation, at least in this case, may be correct. Let us closely examine the angel’s words. In Chapter 28, Verse 6, of Matthew, the angel says:
“He (Christ) is not here; He has risen, just as He said. Come and see the place where He lay.”
To me this sounded like an invite to see the evidence which was visible within the tomb, but my cited indications advocating this truth essentially ended there. However, the beginning of Verse 7 may contain a bit more evidence. It may not be earth shattering, but adds a little extra confirmation that my interpretation concerning this event may be correct. When we look at Verse 7, it begins with the word, “then.”
"Angel Seated on The Stone of The Tomb," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1886
What this means to me is that the angel in reality did invite or command them into the tomb, in order that they may “see the place where He lay.” The term, “then,” suggests further instructions by the angel, that immediately after viewing the tomb they should embark on and hasten to tell the disciples, for Christ is said to be going ahead of them. When they finally reach the disciples, after seeing Jesus themselves, they tell them of the empty tomb. They were disbelieved, but regardless Peter and John ran to the tomb to investigate Mary’s claim. If Mary and her companions did not yet enter the tomb, as some believe, then only their encounter with the angel would have been mentioned along with their encounter with Christ. They would’ve lacked seeing the evidence with their own eyes that His body was missing.
"Saint Peter and Saint John Run to the Sepulchre," by James Tissot. watercolor, c. 1884-1896
As Christ had first went into Galilee ahead of the women, so too does He go ahead of us, preparing a place for us in His Father’s house, and when we get there, we will likewise see Him. Though Christ had a new glorified body, the Firstfruit (see my note concerning 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, “On The Chaos of Reason, The Firstfruit, and The Transfiguration”), we see that this body isn’t bound by physical laws, or even death. Christ was able to move throughout Israel at His own will, without traveling in the manner of a mortal man. He would simply appear. This gives us some clues into what our new bodies will be like once they are granted unto us, through faith in the Son.
Stained Glass Window in The Duomo, Florence, by Paolo Uccello. c. 1443
I would like to thank the Lord that when we come to Him and pray over His word, He illuminates the Scriptures beyond our mere mortal understanding. His faithfulness in answering such prayers is truly amazing. Thank you Lord for revealing the mysteries of your Word, unto the likes of me, a disobedient sinner. May this glorify You, and may You put a hedge of protection around my heart, that in your revelations I may not grow prideful, but rather give you the praise and see myself in sober judgement always. May your name be revered, blessed, and worshipped for all eternity. In Christ’s name, Amen.
"Resurrection of Christ and the Women at the Tomb," by Fra Angelico. fresco, c. 1440
Thank you Lord for blessing me with Terie, a fantastic “Editor-in-Chief.” 🙂
Brandon Devotional 