An Unexpected Journey- Examining The Technicalities of Worship, The Law, and More
This post ended up meandering, but it did so along logical lines with a specific purpose in mind, one I was unaware of at the outset. What started with an examination into the nature of truth moved to a deep examination of the definition of worship and the detailed specifics of the instructions on when to do it and when not to do it. This revealed an interesting technicality, left open seemingly on purpose. Then I examined the specifics of the distinction between God, a god, an an idol. It seems this technicality is meant as a loophole, perhaps the loophole, designed to allow thread to be passed through, specifically to allow for the creation of children in full- the ability to generate consciousnesses that are known to be distinct from oneself- even if the one doing so began with omniscience and omnipotence. The reader will see my steps as I move from point to point, making claims in one paragraph and overriding them in the next, please see this as they are intended, not as contradiction in the same state but as walking along the path toward something more, with the state changing around me as I proceed. The incorrect assumptions are left in for the reader's benefit, as trail markers to see the progression of the journey, so it might be walked again more easily, now that the path has been walked and marked.
***
As I am examining this concept it is actually the concept of worship that feels like it is being clarified for me, specifically how "being honest" differs from "worshipping honesty" by my own definition of the term worship. As it stands now, these two things would be the same, but they feel different. It could be that "worship" involves an entity specifically, as this would separate honesty and worshipping honesty into a desired attribute and an invalid term. It could be that the bending of one's will to a concept only becomes worship when one forms an entity around the concept, and in seeing that entity continues the bending of will to them. Then again, this would place many relationships into the category of worship that do not seem like they should fit: family, friends, boss, etc., because in many instances of each of these cases one would reasonably do something one does not want to do, upon request by the other. This now has me thinking that worship may be part of a hierarchy of the bending of will, exclusively the most fundamental part of this structure, in the optimal arrangement. This could be why Jesus said in Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." In this sense one would place the worship of God as "most fundamental" and then would be free to bend their will in any other way along the structure, as long as it does not contradict the worship of God. This structure allows for a number of things, such as the bending of one's will to the needs of family and friends, or even the secondary pursuit of money and other things, without losing structural integrity, because the worship of God is held more fundamentally than these other things. In this way Luke 4:8 "Jesus answered, 'It is written: "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only."'" feels more clear, as in worship one walks with God.
The concept of serving money does not make much sense to me. Spiritual lessons aside, even from a common sense standpoint (granted informed by an education in economics), money is the means by which value is able to flow smoothly; money serves humanity, so we don't have to trade chickens for bricks or what have you, so serving money is illogical. That being said, if you dig even slightly into this concept, it feels as though what people who serve money are truly serving is the accumulation of value, in the most tangible way they can comprehend. It is unclear if Jesus said not to serve money because of the technicality I list, as money is specifically this world's determination of accumulated value, or if Jesus meant to say not to serve the accumulation of value, but did not want to get into a whole economics lesson to explain what he meant. This is an interesting distinction though, because if one worships God and also serves the accumulation of value, then the specific definition of that value by that individual's standards would ultimately be the value to God. It could be that this is why Jesus did not dig into this point deeper, because it is reasonable that serving God and the accumulation of value to God simultaneously would not in fact be serving two different masters. It feels like at the very limit of this concept a distinction might be seen, and philosophical disputes might arise, but it seems to fit that on the whole and in the main, especially without specific instructions to the contrary, that one could best serve God by serving the accumulation of value to God, which feels like it would be directly connected to building one's "treasures in heaven." (Matthew 6:19-21).
While I am examining the realm of technicalities here, I noticed that the phrasing involved in "Worship the Lord your God and serve him only," at least by modern grammatical standards, limits one's service to only God, but does not limit worship to only God. Examining this again, Jesus says one cannot serve two masters, but does not say the same of worship. Additionally, the 10 Commandments indicates not to worship idols in Exodus 20:5, but does not use the term worship in Exodus 20:3 when God says "You shall have no other gods before me." While I fully admit this is a technicality, it seems to be a technicality repeated, which experience has shown me is how one can identify the shape of the veil, or the location of the narrow gate- that which appears to be forbidden, and has been socially reinforced as being forbidden, but is actually not technically forbidden. So now I wonder, what would be the specific thing obfuscated here?
It feels like the answer has to do with the distinction between a god and an idol, as well as the distinction between worship and what it would mean to have "no other gods before me." While not immediately obvious, this feels like this has to do with children, specifically the existence of children in full, as separate verifiable consciousness' distinct from one's self, under The Law. Consider that for this to be true and valid, God must have resolved the issues surrounding omniscience, omnipotence, and the difficulty it presents with recognizing another entity as separate (which is to say the problematic aspects of "I think therefore I am" undone), and my assumption is that the specifics of how that has been accomplished is outlined subtly in The Law. The question is "how would God go about identifying another as "family?" Honestly it seems easier for God to make valid the claim, from a legal perspective, that "you are gods" (John 10:35) than it would be to justify the claim of a son. This is because God could claim another to be a god without agreeing with them in fundamental ways, and simply separate from them; they would be sovereign in the realm where they end up, and God would remain sovereign where God is in Creation, without much additional work required. By contrast, for a son, God would need to agree to keep the son, or would need to be willing to sacrifice the son, or (most specifically, given we already have record of this) both. It is this added layer of persistent association that makes this tricky, as this requires an alignment between God and the Son of God that is not required between God and a god, in order for Creation to remain stable. In order for God to be able to recognize another individual as family, a whole field of agreements must be established, the field being those agreements where if disagreement were instead found then reality would fall apart. I am unsure how large this field is, but conceiving of it, this feels like a large step regardless of the field's size, a step of tethering God to Creation, in the same way as any loving father is tethered to to his son, and the existence which has been established for that son.
This scenario further deepens and becomes more complex if another child is added, and as it is indicated that the goal of this timeline is that we all might be called Children of God, it seems that this complexity is meant to reach its limit, and do so in a relatively short timeframe after the structure of doing so has been established. I imagine that once the first Son of God was established, a subsequent step for the increase in complexity is the first Daughter of God, though I imagine both Daughter In Law and Son In Law of God are additional steps, as is a spouse, in order to form a full nuclear family unit that can develop from there. The way The Law is written, in regards to not having sexual relations with family, I imagine the establishment of this "In Law" arrangement is just as critical as the establishment of the family arrangement, as it is the only way to establish the generations indicated under The Law and allow Creation to continue and develop with its establishment.
So, tying this back to worship, it feels like a primary difference between idols and God or a god, would come down to a matter of "fullness." I believe this would ultimately be a matter of imbued spirit, as the process of a tangible inanimate thing becoming "full" began at man being made from the dust. I imagine God could have made a statue of man much more easily, and this statue could just as easily be called a "dust idol,", using the application of terms as laid out in The Law. Instead, God imbued us with breath and a fullness was achieved, and later in scripture it was indicated that this was not just a man, but a god- essentially adding complexity to the nature of the fullness imbued from our inception, in my opinion this additional layer represents a permanence to that spirit given to man, even if the ending of the man within Creation ended up being a parting of ways. So while it is said not to worship idols, it is not said in the 10 commandments not to worship other gods (though I am trying to recall now if there are other instances where this is specifically said in The Law). While it is said to serve God alone, it is not necessarily said to worship God alone. Even in writing this I feel hesitation, because I do not want my words to be misunderstood. I come from the perspective of incredible hesitance to worship at all- a difficulty in comprehending the term, much less doing so- and worshipping another feels distasteful, by the general way the term worship is used. That being said, if the strict term I propose is used in its place, a term I feel is more accurate that specifically includes fundamentally bending one's will to the will of another, or perhaps more precisely making a blanket determination to bend one's will for a specific other, then "worship" is already established as natural within the concept of family, for family members.
A few things come to mind on this point- first, God was impressed by Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son in worship of God. This could indicate that God wanted a man who would worship God alone, being willing to follow all instruction from God, singularly at the base of that structure. God did not desire sacrifice but the willingness to sacrifice, combined with mercy; perhaps God was looking for a man who could set up the opportunity for God to be merciful in this case. As we have since come to know that this is a stance God has taken ("for I desire mercy, not sacrifice" Hosea 6:6), it could be that God is looking for something more than this obedience as well, as suggested by the theme of servants becoming friends to Jesus (John 15:15) and other references to becoming Children of God. I believe Jesus had the opportunity to take a stance when approaching The Law. While many things were fixed and established, the emphasis of each point, and what was revealed that had been misunderstood by those who interpreted it versus what was left obscured, may have been subtly in Jesus' hands, even though Jesus spoke what the Father commanded (John 5:19). For example, part of my deep examination into the technical definition of worship stems from Jesus' words of prayer in the garden in Luke 22:42 “'Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.'” This examination may not have occurred in me at such a depth or angle without these specific words "yet not my will, but yours be done." Even if Jesus' own words separate from The Father's were limited to this prayer, it could be said that in these small things large changes were seeded.
So what if the culmination of this timeline was for a man to walk this line pertaining to worship and fullness, with a heart for God but without direct information from God outside of what had been made available broadly? In this way a man could be essentially establishing what was needed for a Son In Law contact or agreement, whereas, with direct information in full, Jesus was establishing what was needed for a direct family bond to be established with God, a Son agreement. I write of these things as established in moments in time, but in reality they have a timelessness; it is interesting to consider though when this timelessness is gained, as there is a distinction between things of God and mortal things. Personally I have no issue with a timeless thing having a moment in time when it became timeless, its form suddenly changed. I think the issue in comprehending this concept is due to the fact that once established, evidence of the timeless thing could be traced back throughout the timeline. It feels as though this could be established by a combination of seeding the timeline with a request and then utilizing what we humans might call time travel to fulfill it, though from a perspective that is already timeless it could be that this process is much simpler than what I describe here. It just feels unlikely that the simple route is sufficient in this case, given that communicating the established timeless perspective as valid to those without a timeless perspective is part of making the agreement valid.
As God desires mercy and not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6), perhaps what is needed is for a man to bend their will to the establishment of this family and perhaps worship those in it, in the sense that the man will follow through to the end of seeing family/those in the family established, over what the man might otherwise do. There would be a complexity involved in striking these agreements, as finding a way to place more than one will at this fundamental level of the structure would involve creative problem solving, as the structure would not involve a single will fundamentally but multiple wills. Where these wills are at odds with each other, disputes would likely arise, but for true complex lasting connection with others, it seems that managing such fundamental disputes is a requirement. This dispute management feels like precisely why, as humans, we have this familial structure now. I can only describe what I am picturing for what family is now as a kind of superposition left intentionally unexamined by God during this timeframe, the illusion of family being already intended to become the reality of family, an intention that will not be supplanted. Essentially most do not question the reality of others because God has set the stage so that we generally will not, even though if deeply examined the reality of the existence of others could possibly unravel. This all seems to have been done for man because we are the ones created in order to be able to manage these fundamental disputes, ultimately loving multiple others on this fundamental level, so we will have the perspective to consider these multiple perspectives on the same level field.
For the matter of "you shall have no other gods before me," it feels as though there is complexity further still, if one is intentionally looking to build a complex familial structure from The Law. If we are called gods, then even having a child would be an act of "having another god before God" by common definitions, which would seem to be at odds with "be fruitful and multiply," (Genesis 1:28 the first commandment God gave man in the Bible), so even at face value there must be something specifically distinguishing in the term "before" (or "besides") used, for The Law to be technically sound through and through (which it must be, to stand up against cross examination). It could also be that this is a (likely the, if this is the intended outcome) fault line in The Law, where it might pass away for this specific reason of establishing family, The Law's absence revealing something else (and necessarily somewhere else), as suggested as a possibility by Jesus in Matthew 5:18, when heaven and earth pass away. If this passing away of The Law were the necessary outcome of this timeline, a man would be responsible for establishing and maintaining tension within the structure of The Law for long enough to ensure the proper break. The man would need to withstand the tides that would certainly surge as their position was attacked along other lines along the way, attacks aimed at trying to indirectly move them from this position by introducing doubt along lines which are less heavily fortified or resolved to. If withstood, the resulting position, seemingly combined with the nature and existence of the attacks, could add a child in full to the equation. It may also be that The Law need not break and that a nuance within the meanings of "before" and "besides" can be found that allows for a child to be brought into the equation while simultaneously allowing for the continuation of The Law. Without this nuance discovered, however, it seems that standing before God with any other without being willing to let them go (as we are gods) would be a violation of this point of The Law (Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before me."). While I once said this life is simply one's walk with God, and this has felt true and continues to feel true at least in part, the picture painted by the brush of that assumption is that it is a walk of two together, whereas The Law seems carefully constructed to increase that number through this timeline. It seems that this path of upholding The Law while also seeking to bring a child into the equation would hold quite similar attacks all along it as well, as getting into and maintaining this position without choosing to break The Law and getting into this position and breaking The Law would be the same path until that choice to break The Law or not was made. If one undertook this journey with the right heart, however, and without the specific intention of breaking The Law, even if it were ultimately necessary to do so, I would imagine mercy would abound on this path as well as the attacks, as it feels as though this path is necessary, but also necessarily treacherous.
So while this post certainly meanders, a thread has led me through it from a concept that felt so short and simple to write down as the inability to worship truth, to examining the specifics of worship more deeply than I ever have before, to glimpsing how the careful use of the term "worship" could lead to the structure of reality being complete, if technical precision is combined with a heart for God (heart, soul, and mind); in this way it feels as though worship is designed to ultimately give way to love. I remain excited for the prospect of this phase's imminent fulfillment, despite the chaotic complexity it has held for me, even as of late, and perhaps even, it may seem, because of this increasing unanticipated depth of complexity.
Comments
Post a Comment