On the knowledge of good and evil XVII

How does God know that he is God?

This post shall shed some light on how God actually knows himself. Much in the series on the knowledge of good and evil, and the rest of this blog so far centers around the question about how God knows that he is all-knowing and how he has self-knowledge in the first place. How does he know that he is the only necessary being and there are no foreign powers lurking in the darkness beyond him? How does he know that beyond him is only nothingness? These are questions this blog has been dealing with thoroughly. But this post shall give an additional answer.

God the father knows that he is good, because the son tells him so. Only after doing good can anyone know that he is good. The knowledge of one's own goodness presumes having done good, of course. Nobody can know that he is good unless he has done good, which means surrendered his life as an act of love. When we consider God alone, no world, no angels, no creation whatsoever and ponder the queston how God knows that there is nothing save himself, then the only way to solve this question is by Christ. The Father loves the son and this is how he knows himself. He couldn't know that he is the all-loving and omnipotent God if he hadn't loved the son and lived in communion with the son after his self-sacrifice. Why could God not know otherwise? Because if he hadn't loved the son the way he did, he would not be God at all. This is how the true God is identified. A being which remains solitary isn't the true God. Consequently, such a being couldn't possibly truly realize that he is God. Hence, God knows himself as God with all his attributes only on the basis of his relationship to the son, only on the basis of this love for the son. The father loves the son is the mystery revealed which is the mark of God. Imagine God alone, only the father. Is he all-mighty, all-good and all-knowing? Yes! But when we ask how God is all-mighty, all-knowing and all-good and how he has this self-awareness to begin with, then we don't get by without the son! Like Adam was fully equipped with all knowlede in the Garden Eden, not lacking any information and hence without any fear and anxiety, so we must assume God the father in the beginning to be fully equipped with all knowledge. As soon as we try to understand how this works, the eternal relationship of love comes into play. The father loves the son is the answer how God is actually God. In other words, without the son the God couldn't know himself as God and hence, wouldn't be God at all. The reason why this is so is found in the fact that the son is the logos, the realm of reason and comprehension. And if someone wants to understand, to know about the transcendent God, this is only possible via the logos who is Christ the son. Any understanding of the otherwise unfathomable and unapproachable transcendent God must be based on the logos. And this holds true for God himself! The transcendent God couldn't know himself as God despite the omission of his son, because God would not be God to begin with.

More on omnipotence and the Logos

Often the question comes up whether God can surrender his omnipotence and take it back or limit his omnipotence and then restore it again. If God surrenders his power, where does it flow? To another god, who then becomes omnipotent? In the case of the God of the bible, he surrenders his power to his son who is the Logos, the realm of reason, knowability and rationality. Suppose the transcendent Father God surrenders his life to the Logos, and hence gives birth to the Logos. Thereby He gives His power to the Logos. In fact, as has been thoroughly explained on this blog so far, giving one's life entails giving one's power. So we imagine the transcendent God surrendering his life and the fulness of his knowledge and power to the son who is known as logic and clarity. Now we seize the question from above whether God can take his power back. In other words the question is, whether the transcendent God can take his power back from the Logos. Can he? Can the irrational spring from the rational? While it is true that from a rational point of view the existence of transcendence can be thought of, it is obvious that the transcendent, irrational cannot be obtained from there. Reason and rationality cannot build up transcendence but only acknowledge its reality. We presage that there is some supreme realm beyond reason and rationality, the origin of logic which in itself must be superior to logic. This is God the Father, the transcendent God. But now, since he decreed for himself to dwell only in Christ, in the Son, in the Logos, and since this is an irreversible and eternal decree, it is impossible to go back from there to the realm of transcendence. This is the deeper reason why our rationality and logic cannot produce the transcendent. Reason gives only birth to reason. Transcendence cannot be constructed from the Logos. Only its origin can be acknowledged from the Logos position. Whatever isn't revealed by the Logos, is dead. Transcendence is never known, and hence irrational events and things don't occur in the world ever. So God could principially restore his once surrendered power if he had given it to some irrational recipient. But since he gave it to Christ, the Logos who is the realm of logic the question whether the transcendent God can take his power back, must now be answered from the perspective of the Logos. And here the answer is no, transcendence cannot arise from logic and irrationality not arise from rationality. This is due to God's immutable self-predestination to be known and knowable only in the Logos.

The parable of the wedding guests (Matthew 22:2-14) -- An interpretation

The fulness of the parable of the wedding banquet is often neglected and consequently, the impact of that parable underestimated. This post shall provide an interpretation of this judgmental saying of Jesus which aims at going deeper and beyond the all too common quick and superficial understandings thereof. The narrative is divided into several stages:

-The private invitation
-The repeated call
-The rejection of the private group called
-The public invitation
-The judgment of the guests

The actors in this narrative are the king, his son, the servants and the king's privately chosen guests and the publicly invited guests.

In the beginning the king is organizing the wedding feast for his son. He foreknew a particular group of people that he invited to the wedding banquet. They seem to be acquaintances of the king, at least the invited ones constitute a private circle. The banquet is intended to be non-public.

The king sends out the servants to pronounce the invitation to the chosen persons. However, they reject the invitation.

The king repeats the call, but the called ones react even worse, they mistreat and kill the messengers.

The king in turn forsakes these unworthy and even criminal people, sends his army to destroy them.

Since the wedding is at hand and everything has been prepared, there would be a wedding without guests now. Therefore the king issues a new invitation, this time a public one. The servants are sent to pick up the anonymous masses from the streets and bring them to the feast in order that the wedding hall be filled. As the first invitation was respecting individuals, this one is without respect of persons. Everyone is called to attend the king's wedding banquet.

The king judges the attending persons and notes someone who isn't dressed properly and cannot account for his presence at the banquet without proper attire. The king in turn has this man bound hand and foot and thrown out into the darkness.

The parable concludes with the bottom-line that while many (all) are called (invited), only some are actually welcome.

---

Like all of Jesus' parable, this one is clearly forensic in purpose. Parables are always related to the judgment that was going to come and meant to convey truth while concealing it at the same time.

The participation at the Lord's wedding supper is salvation and eternal life. It is the joyful life in the kingdom of God, which is going to become the kingdom of God's son. Taking seat at the banquet as a welcomed guests means to be accepted in the kingdom of God, staying there forever.

The first group invited clearly refers to Israel, the Jews. They were first chosen out of all nations of the world. They were called to be God's people. Yet they rejected their prophets and in the end even their messiah. As a consequence, the gospel of the kingdom of God (invitation to the wedding supper) was carried to the gentile world. The masses on the streetcorners are the heathen nations of the entire world ("all you can find"). The gospel that was previously restricted to Israel is now extended to the whole world. There was a reason why the king forsaked the private, first group: their unworthiness and iniquity. The king couldn't tolerate them and hence, ripped the guest list. The second invitation is without any explicit conditions. Anyone may come. Yet it wil become clear that the king doesn't tolerate sinfulness anymore this time than before.

The bottom-line of the narrative is the announcement: For many are called but few chosen.

---

What's the meaning of the parable of the wedding banquet and the guests? The first group called is Israel, which engaged in disobedience to God leading up to the murder of God's son. Consequently, the gospel of the kingdom of God went out to the Gentiles. They are "those on the streetcorners". They are brought to the king and the hall is filled. This would make a good ending, but the parable takes a surprising peripety. What is the mystery about the man without the wedding garment?

First of all, it might come as a surprise that there is the necessity of a proper dress here. After all, the king had called the riff-raff from the streets and knew that he wasn't calling guests according to his own standard and hence, should have sensed that these persons would not come with attire befitting the king's rank. Rather, the gathering of anonymous persons from the streetcorners was happening under some time pressure, the wedding was ready and the hall had to be filled quickly. Are we to expect the beggars and even outlaws from the suburbs would manage to get proper clothing instantly? Or was the king providing the garments at the entrance for every attendee? This is at least a widely accepted notion, that is said to have historic support. Hosts used to provide wedding garments for their guests and hand them out at the beginning, so that the obtainment of the proper clothing was not the guests' concern. In this case, the man without the wedding garment would obviously just have refused to wear it. Given this understanding, he would have regarded his own clothing better and so severely insulted the king. While this custom might be historic, it is unsure whether this is the intented meaning behind the story. Since the story doesn't give us further information, all we can say so far is that anyone at the banquet was expected to be wearing the wedding garment and someone didn't meet this obligatory condition. We must figure out the meaning of the wedding garment. What does this metaphor stand for?

In Revelation 19:8-9 the saints are said to be clothed in bright, white linen which is a symbol of their righteous deeds. Isaiah speaks of the righteousness of God as “garments of salvation” and “robes of righteousness” (Isa 61:10). The wedding garment is the righteousness of Christ who is the bridegroom.

So me may conclude that the wedding dress stands for the guest's righteousness. Only righteous persons are welcomed to the banquet. That's no wonder, after all the king had made bad experiences with the first group. They engaged in severe iniquity resulting in their condemnation by the king and their rejection as unworthy guests. If the king didn't tolerate the sinfulness of his acquaintances are we to think he would tolerate the sinfulness of an anonymous stranger from the streets any more? Certainly not. If the king did not spare the privately elected persons but sent his army to destroy them, he surely doesn't intend to invite other folks of the same kind. Note, the king's public invitation was based on his judgment that the invited ones were unworthy. In other words, we must conclude that the king was now intending to have worthy guests. If someone is unrighteous he is clearly not a worthy attendee at the king's banquet. However, we read that the king nevertheless pronounced the public call without any prerequisites attached. "Anyone you find" was to be compelled to come to the wedding. That's an absolutely general, unconditional invitation. And consequently the servants gathered both bad ones and good ones. Were there any prerequisites as to a dress code explicitly mentionend when the servants gathered the masses? Was everybody informed that there would be a dress code at the banquet and that only those with proper clothing would be admitted? Since some guests were obviously wearing a wedding garment, did these guests know more than others? If so, how and whence this knowledge? It is significant that the narrative is absolutely silent here. This is why the peripety at v.11 comes as such a surprise. It seems there is some omittance in the plot. The narrator seems to presuppose something every one who hears the parable should take for granted. Or is the silence regarding the whatabouts of the dress code a key issue of the parable itself? Is the silence intended? Note, parables are mostly forensic in purpose, telling truth but without being clear. In such case it is up to us, the hearers, to make sense of it.

The king's coming into the hall at verse 11 is clearly speaking of judgment. The king comes to see the guests. The clothing is an outward sign, indicating membership to a society. Conforming to a societal dress code means to belong to that society. Being dressed inappropriately makes one feel excluded. It is a very shameful feeling to be in a society without the proper attire. Probably everyone has made the experience of being at an occasion and without the right clothing. One simply feels not belonging to that group at all. Actually one always feels like naked. Everybody reckognizes your nakedness by just giving a snap glance at you. The clothing is an identification mark. It is something for the eyes -- one reckognizes the affiliation immediately at glance. The king glances the persons present in the hall, thereby reckognizing immediately who meets his social standard and fits to his community. This is the acquittal. Those in proper clothing pass the judgment of God. They aren't taken to task at all. Their righteousness is simply noticed. Remember here Revelation 19:9, which says the linen is bright and white. The brightness is appealing to the eyes, something to see. Those who are seen to be good don't have to give any account just as nobody has to give an account for doing right. Only wickedness requires an explanation, righteousness does not. Iniquity is detected as something abnormal like the dirty spot on a white cloth. One wouldn't ask why a white cloth is spotless but a spotful white cloth is abnormal and must give an account. The situation here in this judgmental scene is germane. The man without the wedding garment is direclty addressed because of his blemish.

The parable is about the wedding of the king's son. But the son plays no part in this narrative, he is never mentioned. Everything revolves around the king and the invited guests. Note, the one without a wedding attire, obviously doesn't care or doesn't know what the feast was all about. The guest without wedding clothing seems to be there on his own business. He doesn't seem to have any relation to the actual occasion, namely a wedding that is celebrated here. He comes to have his belly filled. However the person of honor in this narrative is really the son. He is the leading character, even if he stays in the background throughout the story. Whosoever comes without a reference to the wedding, obviously dishonors or ignores the person of the king's son and comes in his own name. If someone ignores the son, he will not be justified.


Another thing about the end of the parable is noteworthy. The bottom-line of the parable says For many are called, but few are chosen. This is the ultimate reason why the fellow is thrown out and it can be considered the conclusion of the parable. But if few are chosen, why is there only one individual caught without wedding clothing in the large wedding hall? Actually, we are not told whether the respective man was the only one who was condemned here. The passage vs.11-14 about the man without the wedding garment, might treat of the case of a single individual for the following three reasons.

First, the fact that the king seems to be noticing an outstanding individual within a mass of good, approvable individuals points to God's ability to detect evil even if it attempts to adorn itself with the righteous. Evil can neither hide itself nor can it utilize personal connections and benefit from the community with the good. God detects the wicked even if they are accompanied by the saints. He finds the proverbial needle in the haystack. Many a wicked man has tried to adorn himself with a nimbus of goodness and disguised his wickedness with the appearance of goodness, trying not to be convicted of his real intentions. The discovery of the individual without wedding clothing within a mass of bright and clean looking guests shows that God will detect any evil at the judgment. No sin will be hidden.

Second, the narrative's use of a single man without wedding clothing shows that the judgment will be individual. The invitation to the banquet, that is the calling, was collective and without respect to persons. Anyone the servants could find should come to the king's. There was no respect of individuals. Yet the judgment is not corporate. Every individual must stand before God for his own sins. There is no collective condemnation of a group, but an individual examination. This is also indicated by Rev. 20:11-15, which emphasizes that judgment is indivdual, without any considerations of corporate afiliations The caught man is addressed personally by the king.

Thirdly, a dress code is an identification mark of a society. An exception from the rule is outstanding only if it is really an exception. In other words, if many persons were around without appropriate attire then this would not be considered a blemish, rather the society would just be different. If, say, fifty percent of all attendees at the banquetwere wearing street clothing, then the community formed like this would be another one. If the attire identifies the community in any way and there are overly well-dressed persons, average persons and also poorly clothed folks mixed together, then the event would be some common fair. There would be no class distinctions. Nobody would have to be ashamed because there would be enough fellows around to compare with. A poorly dressed guy could simply point to his neighbor who isn't looking any better. However, the shamefulness of an inappropriate clothing only unfolds if someone is a lone exception with his poor appearance. A poorly dressed person feels the more ashamed and the more misfitting in the community, the more obviously he is the only one in that miserable situation. With reference to God's judgment, a sinner might deem it possible to have comparable examples of people who did the same sins as he himself. Being accused of a particular sin one might want to say: But the others did this, too! in expection to find understanding. But in the judgment of God it won't be possible to excuse oneself by pointing to one's contemporaries that didn't behave any better. Rather, the accused will find himself in the position of a lone, shameful appearing eyesore without anyone around far and wide to compare to.

Now, another question the parable leaves open is the one the kings ask the man: How did you get in here without a wedding garment? Now we are getting to the key to the parable and the core of the mystery about the wedding garment and the guy that wasn't wearing one. How indeeed did the man get into the wedding hall without the required attire? Let us ponder the possibilities. We know that the king ordained that "anyone you find", could come to the wedding. So the nearby answer would be that the man simply got in like all others: Through the main entrance. In other words, the closest answer how the man came in would be that he passed through the public gate, being one among the many. The problem is, the king doesn't seem to agree with this. If the doorkeepers admitted him, why is the king taking him to task? It seems that man did not enter through the public entrance. The other possibility is that he sneaked in through a window, a back door or some secret chamber in the hall. In this case he would be an intruder, entering the house like a burglar. Is this option plausible? Now, notice the man's reaction when faced with the question: He was speechless. He cannot answer. Does his speechlessness indicate that he crept in like a burglar? Is he convicted? Well, he is surely convicted of sin, but the question how he got in is still open. Is it possible to be get into heaven and be kicked out afterwards? Lets proceed.

Remember that the king walks through the rows glancing the guests and thereby he sees that one of them isn't wearing wedding clothing. Now, the question is valid why the king doesn't command his servants right away to bind him and cast him out. The king doesn't condemn him right away, he doesn't immediately have him cast out after noticing his blemish. No, instead he takes him to task asking the question: How did you get in here, not wearing wedding clothing? And note, the man doesn't respond. He doesn't reveal to us the mystery how indeed he entered the wedding hall. And it seems that this speechlessness is the ultimate reason for his condemnation. Somehow it seems his lack of a wedding garment is not in itself the sufficient basis for his being cast out. Rather his missing response renders this verdict. If the man had given the right answer, would this have spared him from being banned from the supper? Why didn't the man speak?

As we have seen, the lacking wedding clothing symbolizes lacking righteousness, in other words the man is a sinner. How is guilt detected or how are the wicked convicted in judgment? In a trial the wicked are reckognized by their missing alibi. An alibi is an explanation of how one is innocent. It is a rational explanation that exculpates the accused from the indictment, showing his innocence. In other words, the alibi is a justification. On the other hands, guilty culprits have no valid alibi, they have no convincing explanation that they are not guilty. (Assuming a perfect justice system, there cannot be any true and convincing alibi if the charge is true. ) They have nothing to say that would exculpate them, thus they cannot justify themselves. They cannot fend off the indictments charged against them, so they stay speechless. Sinners in judgment will not be able to provide credible arguments explaining why they lied, why they cheated, why they committed all the sins they did. They cannot defend themselves because there is no way to fend off the blames. They will be convicted of sin.

The man caught by the king is in the position where he is unable to explain his sin. Particularly, the man is condemned because he cannot explain how it was possible for evil to enter into God's dominion. The king in this story has dominion over the wedding hall. God has dominion over the world he created. How then, was it possible for evil to be present within God's world? Did the king permit the man to come through the public entrance, like everyone else? -- Did God call evil into his world by his own will, thereby being the author of evil? Then God wouldn't be holy. A God of love is certainly not the creator of evil in any way. God certainly didn't want sin to enter the world. Did the king oversee any security lacks so that the wicked man could creep in secretly against the king's will? -- Did evil enter the world as an unforeseen accident? Then God wouldn't be almighty. That is not an option either. Nothing can thwart God's power or happen without his knowledge. How then, was it even possible for evil to come into a world dominated by one holy, loving and almighty God? This is exactly the question the man without the wedding garment has no answer to. And it is the question the parable leaves open for us. The man cannot tell how it was possible for a sinner like him to be in God's world. He cannot explain the existence of sin in God's world. Consequently, he cannot explain his own sins. He has no alibi. He cannot justify himself. Therefore he is found guilty. The consequence is his ban from the feast, hand and foot tied lest he climbs in right away.

The parable of the wedding feast shows us, that there will be no sinners in the kingdom of God. Neither are they admitted through the main gate, nor is it possible for them to intrude elsewhere.

The book of life

In the bible we read about the book of life, which is a registry of all the righteous. At the last judgment, the book of life will be mustered to find individual names written in there. Whosoever is not found written in that book will be condemned. What is interesting is, that there is no "book of wickedness", or "book of evil", no record of the names of the wicked that are condemned. Rather, wickedness is detected by a failed lookup in the book of the good ones. In a book of evil, one might find someone's name on page one and then the issue would be settled, the sentence could be spoken. But instead, the book of life must be mustered from cover to cover, in order to lookup that sinner's name. It must be searched from cover to cover for every particular sinner. The language used carries significance as well. The text says that some persons' names are not found in the book. It doesn't even say, there aren't there. Furthermore, it says "If anyone's name...", denoting the conditionality. Perhaps everyone's name will be found there. Yet "if" seems to be used to mean "each time, someone was not found...", rather than to emphasize the ambiguity. Anyway, it is remarkable that there is no record of evil, only a record of good. That is, evil isn't written in eternity past, it has no ground in God. It won't be accounted for at the judgment seat, but only appears in the indirect way of not being found written in the book of good. Evil is only conceivable as a negative. It has no substance like a written book with names. It is the absence of such a substantial reality. This is why evil cannot be detected by a certain name written on page 1 or page 13 in the book of wickedness. Where would that book originate and who would have to have authored it? Did God author evil? Surely not. (We have solved the mystery of evil on this blog). Therefore there cannot be a book of wickedness to assist the judgment. The absence of a particular name in the book of life is conceived of in terms of an unsuccessful search only, not in a positive statement. That means, there is no constatation that someone's name is not written, but only that the name isn't found to be written. An ultimate constatation that someone's name is most definitely not contained in the book of life, is not made.

God, the Logos and omnipotence paradoxes

For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him (Colossians 2:19)

This is a truth of tremendous significance and impact. God decided to dwell only in His son, Christ and be knowable only through Christ. God (theos) is transcendent, he isn't conceivable by our finite minds. He is beyond our comprehension, which is bound to the laws of reason. Transcendence is inaccessible because we can only comprehend rational truths. The only thing we can tell about transcendece is that it is inscrutable. It is inscrutable by definition. And again, it is our reasoning, our rationality which is based on words and terms, that makes such a definition. There are some famous omnipotency paradoxes like the question whether God can create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it. Or a square circle. Or a married bachelor. And the like. Does omnipotence include the ability to do the logically impossible? Basically, yes. Yet God was pleased to dwell only in the Son, who is the Logos. Much has been said about the Logos, the Word of God, throughout this blog. First of all, the Logos is Christ, the Son of God (John 1:1). Logos means word but also reason, articulation, clarity and rationality. The term "logos" is the origin of our word "logic" and of the suffixes in various science names like bio-logy, psycho-logy, theo-logy and so on. Now the Logos is God's only revelation channel. Hence any secret in God is always received in accordance with reason and common sense. However, the Logos is also God's power, all creation was wrought by Him. The Son of God has been given all power for all eternity, a transaction which is never undone. This is of awesome importance with regard to the omnipotence paradoxes as sketched above. Since God only works in accordance with logic and is mentally accessible only in agreement with logic, He just doesn't do anything beyond the laws of logic. An instance of an act that runs counter to the laws of logic from eternity past to eternity future never occurs. Such an act never happens. God in the very beginning decreed to work and exist only in the realm of reason, that is, only in the Logos. Thus, God is not subjected to the laws of logic in the sense that these were an eternal restriction of God's freedom. There is no "godess Logic" who God must share His power with or, worse, is subordinate to. Rather it was God's own decision to be restricted in the realm of reason. And if we were to ask God to draw a square circle, we wouldn't even know what we are expecting and what such an object would look like. Everyone could draw some fantasy picture and tell us that this is in fact a square circle! Thus, demanding an illogical act from God only rebukes us back to the realm of reason to see that such a task is meaningless to ask for. No truth beyond reason can ever be detected. This is because God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him.

On the knowledge of good and evil XVI

Why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed instead of he offering himself on his own initiative? Why was God in the Garden Eden angry at Adam's transgression and why did this result in the ongoing exhibition of God's wrath, if Adam was really doing "what the Father does"?
------

There is yet more to be packed into the series on the "knowledge of good and evil". There are just new insights. In the quest for the meaning of suffering, sin and their origin there have still been left open some questions. If Adam's transgression in the Garden Eden is ultimately known to be a good act of love for the son of God, then why is God angry at this act of Adam's? If indeed there is ultimately no moral evil, if everything proves to have been in accordance with righteousness from the beginning, didn't we suffer without reason? While moral evil can show to be non-existent from the beginning and prove to be indeed an act of goodness (leaving one's life for others, self-sacrifice), how then do we account for the wrath of God? This is an important and so far open question that hasn't been really resolved here.

First, I am repudiating the notion of God's offering himself completely for Adam in the beginning as I have written. Adam was indeed given all of God that was desirable for him. Lets ask the questions again, what the tree of knowledge symbolizes, what the commdment not to eat from it means and what God's immediate reaction after Adam's transgression tells us.

Adam didn't need to know "good and evil" in order to be fully contend. When we desire to know prophets by their fruits and to be shown other fellows's faith then we presuppose some mistrust to begin with. The one demanding signs or a self-sacrifice of the spirit has already reasons to fear, is familiar with dangers and therefore legitimately mistrustful. Now, Adam in the beginning had no such grounds for mistrust. He knew no fear. He wouldn't have been discomposed by his lack of knowledge. So we cannot apply the argument that God would have to have revealed Adam the "knowledge of good and evil" in order to calm Adam and be righteous Himself. By the transgression Adam forsaked what is good. He discarded God. However, he did so in order to know the good, that is Christ. He discarded good in order to give birth to good. He forsaked good to know good. This is crucial! To be good means to sacrifice your life for others. You give your best, your life for others. Then you're good.

Now another aspect is important again. The self-knowledge, the knowledge of oneself. We've been discussing the question of how God knows himself, how God knows that he's God in the first place. Lets pick that question up again. God is good. This means he must do what is good, otherwise He isn't good. God knows what good is but He also is good. In order to be good, one must do good. It is one thing to know good, yet another thing to be good oneself. So when God knows Himself, he knows that he is good. He has done what is good, offered His life. God knows Himself in the Son, when He has already offered Himself, when He has done good! There is a difference between knowing something and knowing someone. The first is like knowing what it means to be good. If someone tells us that laying down one's life for others is good, that's fine then we know what "good" means. The second is to know a person to be good. If a person has done good then he can be known as a good person. Now, if anyone knows to do good and doesn't do it, it is sin for him (James 4:17). If God knew the meaning of good and still not do good, he would be evil. Goodness wouldn't be one of His attributes. So again, in order to know oneself as a good person, one must first do what is good therefore, God sacrificed His life for the son, who in turn shows the Father who and how He is. That He is Himself good among other things. So God to sacrifice Himself, surrendering all that is good (God Himself!) in order to know Himself as being good. There is nothing to hold back. To do good means to surrender all good you possess and that includes your power. You give the best you have. You give what is good in order to be good. So God knows Himself because His Son tells Him what He is like. No-one is good unless he has done a good work.

With regard to Adam this means that Adam also surrendered his life, including his knowledge of and presence with God, because he is good also. Now, why did God place the tree of knowledge in the Garden? Because Adam should know all of God, including what is good and evil. Yet suppose God had simply told him what it means to be good. Suppose God had simply given Adam the knowledge of good and evil. This is what the serpent suggested should be the case. Then Adam would know that God is good (because he loved Christ before the foundation of the world). He would know that being good requires to die in the first place. Thus, he would have been in the position where he knows good without being himself good. He would have to conclude that he is evil! This was the serpent's foolish suggestion. As mentioned above, Adam didn't need the knowledge of this tree since he knew no mistrust. He was absoultely contend in this state. But if goodness implies to do good, does this mean that Adam wasn't good from the beginning? No, not at all. Only if you know what being good menas and still don't do it, you are bad. For an aspect of goodness is, that it doesn't demand anything from others. If a persons surrenders something good to a beloved beneficiary, then this doesn't demand any work from the beneficiary. Goodness means to give freely, without any obligations attached to it. So if someone sacrifices his life for his friends, then he doesn't demand the friends to sacrifice their lives in turn. So while Adam had been freely given the treasures of God in that he was absolutely free to (bearbeiten) the Garden Eden and sustain it, he was not demanded to die for others. He was regarded as good by God, yet he himself wouldn't understand the meaning thereof. This wouldn't be necessary at all. On the other hand, God didn't deny Adam the opportunity to do good and that is the reason for the plantation of this tree. God told Adam everything about this tree. That he would have to die, because he would be demanded to do good after knowing what this means. For nothing evil can be in God's presence. God told him after the fall that his shamefulness was due to his eating from the tree of knowledge. This means, that Adam's new state was caused by his own volition. God told Adam, that the transgression of the commandment meant an abolishment of what is good. Adam was informed that he had forsaken good. Everything God told him was right and sufficient. Adam had to die for two reasons. First, Adam had to die because he voluntarily had forsaken good (in order to receive the ultimate knowledge through Christ, that he is good!). Second, he had to die because it would have been impossible to implant the knowledge about being good in his mind while restraining him from doing good. For this would convict him of sinfulness. So it was necessary to have the tree of knowledge in the Garden because man was made in God's likeness and not an animal. However, it was also necessary to impose a ban on the access to the tree of knowledge because man shouldn't be forced to "do good". After all, a forced act of love is no love at all. Moreover God's own goodness requires that He doesn't demand any good acts from his beloved. Adam was still regarded as good by God. Until he knew about good and evil, he was completely innocent in his simplicity.

What about suffering? If someone forsakes what is good then he suffers the loss thereof. This means that God's goodness is a necessity. It is a must. Nothing can be without goodness. If the surrender of good didn't cause suffering on the side of the giver, then the giver obviously wouldn't really surrender all of his power. He wouldn't really give all of himself. Yet if the giver doesn't suffer, he obviously withholds some power to sustain himself. Yet suffering is the lack of power. Everyone who suffers is in a helpless and powerless state. Thus, suffering is the clear sign that one is losing everything that is good and that this goodness is an absolute necessity. Now the first question at the beginning of this post about Jesus' voluntariness in His death has been touched on as well and will be dealt with in the next post, Lord willing.

New insights! -- important new thoughts on the reason of suffering and God's wrath

Since I'm working on a book on the problem of evil, I was reminded of some open questions. Why was it necessary for Jesus to be killed instead of he offering himself on his own initiative? Why was God in the Garden Eden angry at Adam's transgression and why did this result in the ongoing exhibition of God's wrath, if Adam was really doing "what the Father does"? These questions aren't really answered in this blog so far and I think they are crucial. For they lead to important differing conclusions to the ones drawn so far. While most things I've elaborated here stay exactly the same, some interesting and new insights are gained, which also answer the two questions above. More on this in the next post.....