The Sermon on the Mount: Law or Gospel?

You've heard the expression, "The devil is in the details?" When people say this they mean that small things in plans and schemes that are often overlooked can cause serious problems later on. Some have suggested that this idiomatic phrase was derived from the supposed original statement that "God is in the detail." The truth in either idiom is the same however: details, sometimes even small ones, are important! It's the small details of something which can often muddle or confuse someone's judgment about something very important.

This is especially true in theology I think. When it comes to interpreting the Bible in preparation for preaching, unfortunately, I've discovered that the failure to be attentive to seemingly small details in a passage can derail an entire sermon. Clearly, even missing the detail of a single verse in your sermon could have a drastic outcome in the perception by the congregation of your interpretation not only on the passage you are preaching from, but on your entire take on the Gospel!

I recently heard a sermon where the pastor interpreted Matthew 5:48 in such a way that it suggested that he was at least confused about whether the Sermon on the Mount as a whole was to be understood as being in reference to the Law or the Gospel. This confusion occurs frequently enough I suppose, but it is alarming none the less because it means that as a church body we generally do not have any foundation regarding the necessity of clarifying this distinction between Law and Gospel.

Fleshing out the Necessity of Making this Distinction

We live in a day when few professing Christians bother to seek to understand either the law or the gospel as they were intended to be understood, much less their relationship to each other.

This distinction that the theologians of old were convinced needed to be clarified in preaching was that the Law condemns, threatens, and brings no good will to men; and the Gospel gives life where the Law brings death. This must be communicated clearly in a sermon otherwise the hearer fails to find the wrath and condemnation of the Law, which is intended to drive him to Christ; nor do they find the mercy and grace in the Gospel. If the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the seriousness and inescapability of the condemnation of God's law, then it must not be suggested that anyone can be perfectly obedient to it as it requires; or that Christ was suggesting that anyone could obey it as it was intended to be obeyed when He said in Matthew 5:48, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Just as God is perfect, just, good, unchanging, etc., the same is true of His law -- it is a perfect, unchanging expression of His character.  There is a universal application of God's law too.  It refers to all people, of all nations and all ages.   

Jeremiah 6:19; Romans 3:19; Leviticus 24:22; Psalm 47:2-9. 

Another aspect of the law is its universality.  There isn't more than one standard for obedience.  The law that was revealed to Moses is Christ's law.  It didn't originate with Moses. It was God's law revealed to him:

God's law (Jeremiah 31:33) =

the law of Christ (Matthew 5:17) =

the law of Moses (10 Commandments Deuteronomy 4:13)

John Murray said

"The law is the moral perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of life and conduct."

In The Life of St. Paul, James Stalker writes

The law has no creative power to make the carnal spiritual. It cannot change an unrighteous heart into a righteous one. The purpose of the law is rather to aggravate the evil; it multiplies offenses. It is fully able to describe the sins of human nature, but rather than serving as a roadmap to avoid them, the Law turns into the temptation to sin.

The whole history before Christ could aptly be described as God allowing time to prove that fallen man could never reach righteousness by his own efforts, and when He had demonstrated that man’s righteousness was a complete failure – He brought in His secret weapon: The righteousness of God.

This is Christianity. This was the sum of Christ and His mission – the conferring upon man as a free gift, of that which is indispensable to his blessedness, but which he himself had failed to obtain by the keeping of the law. It is a divine act; it is grace; and man obtains it only by acknowledging that he has failed himself to attain it and by accepting it from God; it is got by faith only. It is “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon them that believe.”  The law was no part of salvation. It belonged entirely to the preliminary demonstration of man’s failure .

Martin Luther said that the law ought never to be preached apart from the Gospel, and the Gospel ought never to be preached apart from the law.

"If any man be not a murderer, an adulterer, a thief and outwardly refrain from sin, he will swear that he is righteous and presume on his good works and merits.  Such a one God cannot otherwise mollify and humble, that he may acknowledge his misery and his damnation but by the law; for that is the hammer of death and the thundering of hell and the lightening of God's wrath to beat to powder obstinate and senseless hypocrites."

[Grace in Galatians, Rev. George Bishop, 1912, p. 52]

William Perkins explains how confusion stems from a failure to distinguish whether or not a passage is speaking about the Law or the Gospel:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it…. A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them….

By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works.… The Law is, therefore, first in order of teaching; then comes the gospel. [William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 54.]

Theodore Beza said the same:

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings… "'The Law'" is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." "The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own 'righteousness.' Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." [Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien].

Calvin also discussed this issue, showing us why we needed to understand which one was being brought forth in God's revelation:

...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him." [Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, tr. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10].

"Thus," Calvin observes, "Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is 'a compensation for their lack,' not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.” [Calvin, 1559 Institutes 3.14.13, italics mine].

Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ. [Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author].

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that

the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the Holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein." [Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.]

Louis Berkoff stated that this distinction is not merely to be understood as being in either one or the other of the testaments either:

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus.

[Pasted from <http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/a-treatise-on-the-law-and-the-gospel/> ]

Let me conclude this section with some observances that the Rev. George Bishop makes in his commentary on Galatians regarding the purpose of the law:

 = The law has its place, (if a man uses it lawfully -- i.e., according to its proper design and intention) although it cannot save or help to save any man…

= The law serves the necessary purpose of showing what sin is, and the impossibility of fallen man's obedience.  It was added … in order to bring sin to light and [severely and well-deservedly] condemn it.

= …the harder [man] works for salvation, the more surely he damns himself.  The law then comes in like a hammer and knocks this snake on its head … the law smites the doer of the law for righteousness whether it be doing in whole or in part.

= The law locks the door on the sinner; Christ unlocks the door and sets it wide open. 

= This is how a man becomes a child of God -- not by keeping the law, nor by trying to keep it, but by simply believing on Christ. (pgs. 49-55)

Though the Reformers were most careful to clarify and make this distinction in their preaching, this is by no means critical only if one is interested in Scripture from a Reformed perspective. This does add credence to the argument however, that in general, Reformed theologians are more careful in their understanding of theology with respect to a systematic approach to the Bible. Making this distinction is hard work, and can be easily overlooked by beginner theologians, more so by beginning Christians.

The Verse  in Question

Why is Christ's first recorded sermon characterized by Law and not by grace? Why are the themes of God's mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, compassion and grace absent from the Sermon on the Mount?  Why isn't there even a thread of explanation of grace?

Because you need to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience to His law, and that you are utterly incapable of accomplishing that before you can ever understand the extent and the need for His grace.

The passage in question was Matthew 5:17-48.  The verse in question is Matthew 5:48: "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." In the context of the entire passage of the Sermon, should this verse be understood as Jesus speaking about the absolute condemnation inherent in the Law?  Or should it be understood as explaining the grace of the Gospel?

Charles Erdman, in his Commentary on Matthew, wrote

"The Sermon sets forth the fundamental laws of the Kingdom … and it fills the heart of the hearer with bewilderment and despair.  It reveals a divine ideal and a perfect standard of conduct by which all men are condemned as sinful and to which men can attain only by divine help … Its theme is the righteousness which the King requires.

A little homework about how many modern scholars interpret the Sermon on the Mount shows that most don't see any reference to the Gospel in it at all! Though Bill Bright's conclusions and perspectives are Dispensational leaning, I do believe the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ has addressed the interpretational problem correctly by noting that the Sermon on the Mount is devoid of grace!

“It could not be that Christ was addressing the Christian Church in the Sermon on the Mount ... There is nothing about the Holy Spirit, our position in Christ, [or] redemption through the blood of Christ in this sermon ... As a way of salvation it is useless.... It is legal, not gracious in character, and is full of judgments and threats (Matthew 5:22-29).  It offers no salvation to any man.  The non-Christian world, which so admires this sermon, is condemned to hell by it.  As a way of sanctification it is useless.... the motive is fear, not love.... The way of grace is not here.”

I would contend that his comment that 'As a way of salvation it is useless' is perhaps shortsighted. It might be better to say that without a proper grasp of the severity of the law as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no sense of one's need to run to Christ for salvation. So the Sermon in itself is useless to save, unless it is seen as the catalyst for man to see his complete failure to observe the perfect requirements of the law and seek salvation in Christ alone. This is why it is critical to keep a proper perspective on the intent of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

It appears that the Pharisees Jesus was referring to were thinking that the Law wasn't that hard to keep. All you had to do was not commit adultery, for instance, and you had kept that aspect of the law. But Christ shows us clearly that the intent of the law was much more serious. Its intent was to show you that you couldn't keep it! If you had lustful thoughts in your heart for a woman, you had already committed adultery with her. It wasn't about whether or not you could get close to keeping the law either, and yet still be righteous.

The purpose of Christ’s comments about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount is to show us our inability to keep the Law perfectly, with the intention of having us flee to the mercy of Christ as Savior. For a pastor to conclude his sermon on this passage by suggesting that Christ's last comment in this section (5:48) was a plea for us to radically obey the Law, by saying, “In what way should we imitate God? Radical obedience to the law and loving others," clearly suggests that he missed making this important distinction.

The issue that Jesus was demonstrating in his discussion of the law in the Sermon on the Mount was that it is impossible to keep the law, regardless if you were attempting to keep it in a Pharisaical way, or as a believer. This is why I am suggesting that Jesus' remark "You shall be perfect just as your heavenly Father in heaven is perfect" is not a command for us be more obedient, but rather, the final nail in our coffin of self righteousness delineating our condemnation that the law presents.

Jesus concluded this section of the Sermon with the words "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." The pastor said that verse meant, "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." In other words, he was suggesting that Jesus was commanding that the hearer actually be perfect in his actions as God is perfect!  Now if that were possible, one certainly would not need Christ or the mercy found in Him alone.

I believe Jesus was actually driving a nail into anyone's self-righteous coffin with this statement! He is actually saying that the Law demands complete perfection -- and therefore, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to fulfill it by any human effort! If this is what Jesus meant, one can only wonder why the pastor would have said it means "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." This interpretation, it seems, is simply a moralistic platitude.

Granted, it isn't often that we hear pastors in evangelical churches make statements like this. An ex-Mormon who heard this sermon was deeply troubled by this pastor's take on this verse -- and rightly so. Taken at its face value, she thought his statement was about as close to Mormon doctrine as one can get. After all, Mormon doctrine would interpret this verse just like this based on their understanding of theology!

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

"Christ [Was] Not Begotten of [the] Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing with the Mormon church.

Pasted from <http://carm.org/teachings-of-mormonism>

Now please understand that I am not suggesting that this pastor intentionally meant to teach a doctrine anything like the Mormon doctrine of man becoming God. It just so happened, that his interpretation at this point was virtually identical to Mormon doctrine. What I am saying is that his presentation was unclear enough to suggest that he at least inadvertently misrepresented Matthew's intent with his interpretation because of his failure to make the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Hence, the importance of clearly defining how we understand the law/gospel distinction in our sermons. For an ex-Mormon to walk away from this sermon not knowing what the pastor intended to mean is at least poor communication.

What about Obedience?

Part of the distinction we are talking about also means that we are not suggesting that the Law has no significance in the life of the Christian believer any longer either. It is critical to remember that even Christian so called 'obedience' to the law is sinful and imperfect. It is not that the Law should now be ignored (antinomianism), or that it should become our means of salvation (legalism), but rather that it becomes the Christian's guide to understanding the will of God.

… the unparalleled tendency of the historic Reformed faith [is] to ground its adherents in the vast and glorious freedom of the Gospel, and always in such a way as not to minimize a life of practical holiness, but rather to excite and encourage true piety and devotion [due to the grace received in the Gospel] http://www.reformedbooks.net/review_lawgospel.php.

Michael Horton wrote that

we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness [The Law & the Gospel, Michael S. Horton, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996].

Horton further clarifies the need to be most careful in our explanation:

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself.

While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). In fact Calvin took this thought even farther by writing that

The logical consequence of [the] doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is that never, not even after the remission of our sins, are we really righteous. On the contrary, we have noted that the sanctification which accompanies justification, or at least begins with it, enables us to become precisely more and more aware of our sin [Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of his Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1950), 258-259].

Calvin says the same thing here as well:

For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification. Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal for holiness and innocence. But where consciences are worried how to render God favorable, what they will reply, and with what assurance they will stand should they be called to his judgment, there we are not to reckon what the law requires, but Christ alone, who surpasses all perfection of the law, must be set forth as [our] righteousness. [Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.18]

The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

 Jesus was putting the final nail in the coffin of our doom with this statement in 5:48 by meaning that all of us are subjected to the death, condemnation and misery inherent in the severity of God's law, which he just articulated in the Sermon on the Mount in 5:17-48.  Didn't Jesus mean that thinking we have somehow kept the Ten Commandments means that there can be no escaping His judgment?

The pastor's comment then that “The intent of the law is to bring life,” at the close of the sermon, clearly reveals a failure to understand this distinction between gospel and law. In 2 Corinthians 3:7 it is clarified that the Ten Commandments are the ministry of death, not life, as this pastor said.

This particular exposition of Second Corinthians 3:2-18 clarifies this.

"The law is literal, it rests on written documents … and what is spiritual is the Gospel…. The Apostle says he is drawing a parallel … between the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former 'kills,' inasmuch as it denounces death without hope on all who disobey it; … the spiritual system of the Gospel brings life and immortality to light, and affords the means of salvation, it imparts life, new life, by the Holy Spirit… [Law and grace] are contrasted as to their tendency: that of the Law was punishment: that of the Gospel was reformation, rather than punishment; salvation rather than condemnation." [Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament with Notes, vol. ii, 186].

In summary then we must note what the failure to clearly make this distinction implies:

“The law and the gospel are the principal parts of divine revelation; or rather they are the center, sum, and substance of all the other parts of it. Every passage of sacred Scripture is either law or gospel, or is capable of being referred either to the one or to the other . . . If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth. If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.” —John Colquhoun

Pasted from <http://www.monergismbooks.com/A-Treatise-on-the-Law-and-Gospel-p-18409.html

There is an excellent book on this topic called A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun, ed. Rev. Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999) that is well worth the time to read.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A 'LITERALIST'

Let me say something unequivocally about what it means to interpret something ‘literally:’

It is probably fair to say that, when it comes to Bible interpretation … there is no such thing as a ‘literalist'!

This is a curious notion really, and many fail to give this any serious reflection.  This is especially true in light of the question I hear frequently from my unbelieving friends: “You don’t interpret the Bible literally do you?” My answer is usually that I take it literally, depending on the context.

So as not to appear to let my theological predisposition taint the discussion, (as if to assume that Amillennialists might have a better grasp on the definition than Dispensationalists), here is a quote defining literal interpretation from J. Dwight Pentecost, a solid Dispensational Premillennialist from Dallas Theological Seminary, from his book, Things to Come 'A Study in Biblical Eschatology':

“The literal method of interpretation is that method that gives to each word the same exact basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary, customary usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.”

This concern for interpreting the Bible literally is not just an issue that comes up between unbelievers and believers.  First, let's think about what it means to say that we want to "give each word the same basic meaning it would normally have" in interpretation, and then I’ll examine more closely other problem areas that occur in our literal interpretation of Scripture. 

The Problem with Interpreting the Word All Literally

It shouldn't be surprising that this issue of literal interpretation finds its way into the heart of the ongoing interpretative debate between Calvinists and Arminians, as depicted in this comment:

The Calvinistic effort to limit this word [all] to “all the elect” constitutes one of the saddest chapters in exegesis. The Scriptures shine with the “all” of universality, but Calvinists do not see it. Their one effort is to find something that would justify them to reduce “all” to “some.” Calvin himself says that all = all kinds, all classes, rich and poor, high and low, rejecting no class, taking some of each, but not all in the sense of every individual. [R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians, (Minnesota: Augsbury Publishing House, 1963), 1029].

No wonder there are so many issues with interpretation! Christians can’t even agree what the words all and many mean.  If we say we want to interpret these words consistently or normally or ordinarily, and not contextually, in order to get at the literal sense, we run into all kinds of trouble. 

Looking closely at the use of these two words in just two verses of Romans chapter 5, we find that Paul used each of the terms all and many to mean both ‘each and every individual’, and ‘some individuals,’ depending entirely upon the contextual usage and not by interpreting it normally, ordinarily, consistently or literally.

^{NKJ Romans 5:18-19 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men [every existing individual], resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men [all who believe], resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many [every existing individual] were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many [all who believe] will be made righteous.}

Clearly, Lenski's comment that Calvinists fail to interpret the word all in its ordinary, consistent and normal use is surprising.  Would he suggest that Christ's obedience made every individual person righteous before God, even the unbeliever?

What is the Literal Interpretation of Prophesy?

This problem of interpretation also exists between Amillennialists and Dispensationalists.

Almost all of the problems associated with why there are different views of the book of Revelation are buried beneath the question of literal interpretation. And using words like normal and plain for the basis of our understanding from the definition above, depends radically on context; and not just context of the verse. When we interpret any passage anywhere in the Bible, we need to consider:

The particular words being used; the verse the words appear in; the paragraph the verse is in; the chapter the paragraph is in; the book the chapter is in; the Testament the book is in; and the entirety of Scripture, in order to get the meaning in each context.

Even more importantly however is that no matter how plain or how literal we think we are in our interpretation, if we do not arrive at what the author intended to say, no degree of plainness or literalness will help us arrive at a correct interpretation.

What the author (being moved by the Spirit) meant the verse to mean is what it literally means, regardless of whether or not we interpret it in a literal or figurative sense. And we must concede up front, that the author had one specific intended meaning when he wrote. Whether or not we think we have the literal or plain meaning is not the issue it seems to me.

Naturally, there are certain liabilities to using the words literal and plain to describe how we understand certain Scriptures. Claiming to and adhering to a literal translation in all cases of prophesy, for example, as most every Dispensationalist is prone to do, would make for some untrue interpretations, would it not? Daniel 9:26 is a good example:

“...And the people of the prince who is to come

Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

The end of it shall be with a flood.”

First, we need to be sure about which period of time this occurs in: is this prophesy referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (as most commentators agree that it was)? If so, did Daniel not rather speak spiritually or figuratively here by using the word 'flood' and mean that the city would be flooded with the soldiers of Titus? Wouldn’t interpreting the passage literally and in the normal and plain use of the word 'flood' make that prophesy untrue?

What about the promise of God to Abraham that his descendants would possess the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates (Gen. 15:18)? Some Dispensationalists suggest that this prophesy has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled at some time in the future.

^{NKJ Genesis 15:18-21 On the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: "To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites."}

According to my reading of the Bible, this promise was fulfilled under the leadership of Joshua 600 years after the promise was given to Abraham! Read Joshua 11:23. Every major version of Scripture says "whole land." Deuteronomy 1:8 says that "you are to go in and possess the land which Jehovah swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to give to them and to their seed after them." Read Joshua 21:43-45. All versions are similarly interpreted: “Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel.” Those verses seem to me to sum up that the promises of the land have been fulfilled.    

What is the Literal Interpretation of the Everlastingness of God’s Promises?

Understanding the everlastingness of God's promises presents us with another example of the difficulty of interpreting passages literally: What about the aspect of  'everlastingness' in the promises God made? Is there an obligation on God's part to fulfill what were clearly 'everlasting' promises?  Does our fascination with literalness bind us to making God have to deal with Israel in a particular way in the distant future because God still needs to keep His 'everlasting' promises to Israel?

Can an Old Testament promise be said to be eternal, yet cease to be in effect? Apparently so. The Old Testament use of the word "eternal" must be interpreted according to the radius of time being dealt with. For instance, each example listed below was instituted and pronounced by God Himself to be an eternal promise given to Israel. I've given you the verses so you can read for yourself that these are eternal promises:

Sabbath- Exodus 31:13-16; Ezekiel 20:12ff

Circumcision- Genesis 17:11-13

Priesthood- Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:13

Perpetuity of Solomon's house- 2 Chronicles 7:16

There are a couple of preliminary issues to keep in the back of our minds as we proceed here: One is whether the word eternal means something like 'completed in the distant-and-as-yet-unknown-future' only?  Or does the word eternal mean 'without ceasing from the moment I give the promise until time ceases'? Or does eternal mean 'until the fulfillment of the promise as God deems fit' comes, regardless of whether or not human beings think that that fulfillment has taken place?

I would suggest the following ways to pursue evaluating these difficulties:

(1) Though the Sabbath was an eternal promise given to the people of Israel, they repeatedly profaned it.  For those who would suggest that the giving of and the literal  keeping of the Sabbath are meant to be observed by Israel perpetually, regardless of what the Church deems proper, and regardless of how Israel responded centuries ago, Calvin suggested that Sabbath keeping was never intended by God to be perfected in Israel's practice of keeping one day set aside to observe God's rest. 

The Sabbath would never be perfected until the Last Day should come.  For we here begin our blessed rest in Him … it will not be consummated until … God shall be 'all in all' [1 Corinthians 15:28]...  It would seem that the Lord [was trying to] make them aspire to this perfection by unceasing meditation upon the Sabbath throughout life ...  There is no doubt that the ceremonial part of this commandment was abolished …  [Sabbath keeping] is not confined within a single day but [is intended to] extend through the whole course of our life … Christians ought therefore to shun completely the superstitious observance of days [2.8.30-31].

(2) Circumcision, according to Calvin, was likewise intended to be fulfilled in Christ.

… [circumcision] was a token and a reminder to confirm [to Israel] the promise given to Abraham of the blessed seed in which all nations of the earth were to be blessed [Genesis 22:18]… Now that saving seed (as we are taught by Paul) was Christ [Galatians 3:16], in whom alone they trusted … circumcision was the same thing to them as in Paul's teaching it was to Abraham, namely, a sign of the righteousness of faith [Romans 4:11] [4.14.21].

(3) An eternal priestly promise was in effect just as long as the Levitical priesthood existed for the time God intended it to remain in use.  The high priest was

… a mediator between God and men, to make satisfaction to God by the shedding of blood and by the offering of a sacrifice that would suffice for the forgiveness of sins.  This high priest was Christ [Hebrews 4:14; 5;5; 9:11]; he poured out his own blood; he himself was the sacrificial victim; he offered himself, obedient unto death, to the father [Philippians 2:8] [4.14.22].

In addition to this, we have the New Testament declaration that we Christians who have come to Christ are considered a 'holy priesthood … through Jesus Christ' [1 Peter 2:5].

(4) 2 Chronicles 7:16 says God promised to live in Solomon's house forever. Yet that house was destroyed and does not exist today. Did the God of eternal promises break His promise? Or did "forever" mean not 'from the time I instituted the promise till the end of time,' but "for as long as the house stood"? Or should the literal interpretation of these promises be to interpret them according to the radius of time in which they were issued and intended?

Promise with reference to the temple was binding upon God until the very second the temple ceased to exist; an eternal promise under the old covenant was in effect only during the life of that old covenant. To say the least, theological pandemonium has blossomed out of the attempt to make promises made under the law binding upon God long after the initial intent of the promise has served its purpose in God's program.

A legal eternal promise was in effect only as long as the ceremonial and civil law was in effect; an eternal promise to national Israel was in effect only as long as God dealt with Israel as a nation (and here there is quite a discrepancy, as the dispensationalist says God is till is waiting to finish dealing with Israel, and the Amillennialist says that there is no distinction between true Israel and the church; but again, it is a matter of one's hermeneutic).

Conclusion

It is theological pandemonium to attempt to take an "either-or" approach to all of Scripture, and as long as all of us are willing to admit that we are not unequivocally certain on every point as to which approach is the one the author intended, we are headed in the right direction. But let's not pick and choose either when it's convenient for us to do so, while not allowing someone else to do the same. Let's be intellectually honest in the process.  My point is that all of us at one time or another interpret some passages of the Bible figuratively or in a "spiritual" manner, and some we interpret as literal. 

The objective in Biblical interpretation should be to determine what the author intended the passage to mean when he wrote it. That is our only objective, not trying to determine whether or not a passage should be understood literally or symbolically by the degree of absurdity we believe the passage contains either.  One blog I read tried to establish this type of methodology: "Does it possess a degree of absurdity when taken literally? Example: Isaiah 55:12 “the trees of the fields will clap their hands.”  Aside from the fact that this is not a great example, this type of approach is entirely subjective.  Perhaps a more pertinent example might be "For if God  … cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness to be reserved for judgment [2 Peter 2:4].  Should chains of darkness be considered an absurdity here?  I'm not sure that anyone knows.   

This same blogger wrote, "a symbolic view of 1000 years does not possess a degree of clarity," yet they fail to see the humor in this comment!  If the author was concerned that that particular symbolism led to a lack of clarity, and his one focus was to be clear in the passage, wouldn't he have chosen some other form of expression so to avoid the confusion?  Furthermore, who is confused? The author or the reader? Again, we are to determine not whether or not the author was clear in his language by our subjective considerations, but rather attempting to fathom, using the language that he used, what the author meant?  This is especially the case in light of the fact that he could have used other language if he thought lack of clarity would be a problem.  Perhaps the writer used '1000 years' with the intention of being purposefully unclear, meaning something like "a heck of a long time." Then again, maybe he meant exactly 1000 years to the day, and not 1000 years and 1 day!

The Abyss and the Myth of Evolution

Evolution says life is Godless:

"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion."
-- Sir Julian Huxley


Evolution says Life is Purposeless:

"Life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."
-- Richard Dawkins


Evolution says Life is Meaningless:

"There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death.... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans."
--William Provine


The incredulous evolutionary ‘molecule-to-man’ theory, assumes that all organic life arose from a materialistic evolutionary process, from a single source, which itself arose from a non-living, inanimate world. The following quotation from Life Nature Library reveals the extent to which this startling notion is accepted.

"When Darwin started his career, the doctrine of special creation could be doubted only by heretics. When he finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason. He demolished the old theory [special creation] with two books...On The Origin of Species, and The Descent of Man ... at two strokes Darwin gave modern science a rationale, a philosophy, an evolutionary, and thereby a revolutionary, way of thinking about the universe and everything in it... But at the same time, he dealt mankind's preening self-esteem a body blow from which it may never recover, and one for which Darwin may never be quite forgiven. For it is one thing for man to be told (and want to believe) that he was created in the literal image of God. It is quite another thing for him to be told (and have to accept) that he is, while unique, merely the culmination of a billion years of ever-evolving life, and that he must trace his godhood down a gnarled and twisted family tree through mammals and amphibians to the lowly fish and thence to some anonymous, if miraculous, Adam molecule." (Life Nature Library, Ruth Moore and Time-Life Editors, 10).

In contradistinction, the creation, or ‘according to its kind’ theory, assumes that all basic plant and animal types (created kinds, or species) were brought into existence by the acts of a supernatural Creator Who willed their creation to be so, and the bringing into being of those life forms was via sudden creation, not an evolutionary process.

The Evolutionist's Challenge

The incredible molecule to man theory assumes that science and imagination are capable of rendering a trustworthy explanation for the origins of every form of life, from the simplest to the most complex, and from extinct forms to existing forms, without the need for any type of miraculous intervention by an intelligent Creator, and without any specific purpose or reason for the existence of those life forms.

The Creationist's Challenge

Creationists accept that limited variations have taken place within a distinct species, but such variations have not led to the origin of a different form of life, or even another species. Their challenge is whether it is provable, for example, that a dog, a bird, a fern and a cricket all arose from the same ancestor. That the theory of evolution has been proved to be a reliable scheme to describe how life came into existence can only be assumed. The supposed research of some scientists is not directed toward discovering if evolution has actually taken place, but toward proving how that which must have taken place did take place. Yet the hypothesis of evolution is accepted as a fact not because it is based on a scientific explanation of the data, but rather on faith. Countless examples could be expressed that show how evolutionary scientists acknowledge a total lack of "scientific" proof for their claims of evolutionary development, but the following two examples from the writings of Charles Darwin should suffice.

1) In a letter written to G. Bentham in May 1863, Darwin wrote

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not." (Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Clark and Bales, 96).

2) Darwin wrote in chapter six of The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man, entitled "Difficulties of the Theory," that

'Some [of the difficulties in my proposals of evolutionary theory] are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; ... First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?' (Origin of Species, 124).

Essentially then, the "philosophy" which lies behind evolution claims that it must be true even though scientifically there are grave problems with its basic propositions. Perhaps the most fundamental problem for the originator of the hypothesis, and one that to this day cannot be satisfactorily answered, is that if the theory truly represents how life began, then the presence of thousands of transitional fossils from one species to another should be plentiful.

The Evolutionist's Conclusion

1) The Evolutionist's claims are not based on fact but on conjecture
The evolutionist does not require that his theory be based on facts.

'Science does not claim to discover the final truth but only to put forward hypotheses based on the evidence that is available at the time of their presentation. Well-corroborated hypotheses are often treated as facts, and such a fact is that of organic evolution ...the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and there is no known fact that either weakens the hypothesis or disproves it'.(Human Evolution, "An Introduction to Man's Adaptations", Campbell, 1).

Apparently the fact of the absence of a fossil record which demonstrates the progression of one life form to another as Darwin himself realized is not enough of a deterrent to this hypothesis for Mr. Campbell. As another writer clearly illustrates, Darwin made up his mind about the "evidence" of evolution without even using the most accessible physical scientific evidence available, the fossils of living forms.

'Darwin reached his conclusion [that there must have existed in the past an ancestor common to all primates, including man,] that the mechanism of evolution must act upon man as upon other life forms. To Darwin, there was no other feasible explanation for the observed similarities [between man and primate]. Darwin never utilized the human fossil evidence that was beginning to accumulate in various parts of the world. Thus he ignored two of the most important areas of evidence in support of his theory--genetics and fossil man material. Yet these and other, later developed studies have yielded what must be considered proof of the evolutionary process. Evolution in theory becomes evolution in fact.' (Human Origins, "An Introduction to Physical Anthropology", McKern, 31).

Though Darwin never availed the fossil record in an attempt to show the veracity of his evolutionary theory, McKern and other evolutionists believe that the truth of evolution stands in spite of the failure of Darwin and others to use the fossil record to bolster the supposed evidence. In spite of Darwin’s personal disbelief that the fossils prove his theory, note what this same author remarks about "the facts" of evolution at the beginning of the next chapter of Human Origins entitled "Evolution -- In Fact."

'The evidence for the evolutionary process is derived from many separate and diverse fields of inquiry: comparative anatomy, embryology, geography, genetics, and many more. In all cases the evidence is based on inference. There is simply no way in which to prove events of the distant past.' (Human Origins, 33, italics mine).

According to my American College Dictionary, the word "inference" is defined as:

The process of arriving at some conclusion which, though it is not logically derivable from the assumed premises, possesses some degree of probability relative to the premises.

Remarkably enough, other brilliant scientists conclude the same thing, namely, that even though evolutionary theory is ultimately merely a sketchy conjecture, it nevertheless must be a fact.

'Formation of the [initial] self-reproducing particle, whatever might have been its precise chemical makeup, was, at least potentially, the dawn of organic evolution. Although at present self-reproduction is not known to occur except in nucleoproteins, self-reproducing units of other composition might have occurred on earth or in other parts of the cosmos.
Our understanding of the fundamental life phenomena is admittedly sketchy, and the hypotheses about the origin of life are only conjectures set up to promote further thinking and experimentation.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Dobzhansky, 19).

Nucleoproteins are "any one of a group of substances [proteins] present in the nuclei of cells and viruses, consisting of proteins in combination with nucleic acids."

Increduously, Dobzhansky admits that

'Not only nucleoproteins but even their constituent amino acids and nucleic acids are synthesized exclusively in living organisms and never spontaneously from inorganic substances. Spontaneous formation of these energy-rich compounds is highly improbable on the basis of physiochemical conciderations. Nevertheless, several scientists....have tried to visualize conditions under which chemical substances now formed only in living organisms could have arisen without the intervention of life.' (Evolution, 'Genetics, and Man', italics mine, 18).

Though evolutionists admit they have no real answer to the problem of the origin of the first protein arising from an inanimate world, they cannot answer the remaining problem that now confronts them. Proteins are only ever formed in nature by living organisms, yet those organisms themselves depend upon proteins already existent for their own existence. In other words, when confronted with this problem of how life arose from their conjectured inanimate world, scientists must resort to faith for their answer: "At the time when life did not exist, how did substances come into existence which today are absolutely essential to living systems, and yet, can only be formed by those systems?"

In 1947, a French scientist named Lecomte du Nouy, studied the probability of one protein molecule forming by chance. His conclusion: 10 to the 243rd power billion years.

Even if that one protein molecule happened to form by chance, how much more time would it be before millions of protein molecules were made so that somehow a single cell could come into being by chance? Furthermore, all those proteins would somehow have to have enough time to form into all the necessary and vital parts of cellular functions, such as: mitochondria, chromosomes, chloroplasts, vacuoles, the endoplasmic reticula, ribosomes, centrioles, and other parts which are extremely complex in themselves?

Yet the facts remain the same: PROTEIN DOES NOT PRODUCE LIFE as the evolutionist hopes to have us believe. There is plenty of protein at meat markets and in graveyards that has never produced the smallest speck of life!

2) Evolutionist's claims must deny science
According to evolutionary thought, religious theories about human beings are empty promises. Man has no soul, he lives here and now without an eternity, he has no accountability to a Master who created him. Man has no dignity, no hope for salvation from the reality of sin, and no bright, utopic future other than the possible hope of evolving into something better over great periods of time, though his final destination is extinction. In the process of maintaining his claims, the evolutionist must deny the realities of basic science to adhere to his claims.

On the one hand, scientists acknowledge that life comes only from living things. Even the 1963 edition of The American College Dictionary says:

"abiogenesis, [spontaneous generation], is the hypothetical production of living things from inanimate matter."

The fact that scientists still hold to this absolutely incredulous stance on spontaneous generation, is fantastic, because there is not a shred of scientific evidence to prove it is true. On the contrary it has been proven to be false through the scientific process. And strangely enough, evolution cannot be true unless the premise of spontaneous generation is true!

'The theory of abiogenesis, thus gave way to that of biogenesis, which maintains that all life arises from preexisting life ... geologists tell us that at one time, long ago, life could not have existed on the earth. The doctrine of special creation, that is, that each species of animal was specially created, is sufficiently refuted to the satisfaction of most biologists by the facts of organic evolution. Life must, therefore, have originated on the earth from non-living matter, or it must have been brought to the earth from some other part of our universe. The latter idea, known as the cosmozoic theory, is so improbable as to be hardly worthy of consideration... The dominant theory now (to account for the origin of life on earth), is that when the environmental conditions became suitable for life, certain molecules became organized into the first living system. Even now, life might conceivably arise from non-living matter if the various elements contained in protoplasm were to unite in the proper quantities, in the proper relations to one another, and under favorable conditions; but actually we have no real evidence of this.' (College Zoology, Hegner, italics mine).

Again, this is exactly what all evolutionists must buy into to maintain their theory of evolution, even though it is absolutely unreasonable to do so! Irving Alder, a Ph.D. from Columbia University, absolutely contradicts himself within ten pages of his book How Life Began.

"It is the law of life that living things come only from living things, and like produces like." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 15).

"The first living cells must have developed from dead matter, on the earth, some time over two billion years ago. Figuring out how it happened is the greatest detective story of all time." (Irving Alder, How Life Began, 25, italics mine).

3) Evolutionist's claims require millions of years
The introduction of eons of time into the formula of the evolutionary equation is necessary to render what science has proven to be the impossible, as at least a highly remote feasibility.

'If life comes only from life, then every living creature which exists now is a direct descendent of the first bit of living protoplasm which appeared on earth... The origin of the first life of necessity is a highly speculative issue. Indeed, our inability to observe spontaneous generation in nature or to bring it about artificially in laboratory experiments shows that life must have arisen under some conditions which no longer obtain at present and about which we can only make the vaguest guesses... Even so, spontaneous formation of complex proteins and nucleoproteins is a most improbable event, at least in terms of short term intervals. Given eons of time, a highly improbable event may, however, take place somewhere in the universe. Such a "lucky hit" happened to occur on a small planet, earth, a mere speck in the vast cosmic spaces. As soon as a particle appeared that was able to reproduce itself, that is, to engender synthesis of its copies from materials present in its environment, the evolution of life was launched.' (Evolution, 'Genetics and Man', Theodosius Dobzhansky, Columbia University, italics mine).

Donald E. Chittick writes that Darwin finally found the ultimate escape hatch for a failed system of reasoning which cannot be held together on the basis of science.

'Time, however, is the escape hatch from the clear implications of the improbability of life arising by natural processes' (The Controversy, 228-229).

George Wald, a well-known scientist and evolutionist, proves that the evolutionist clings to his faith desperately, not because of scientific evidence, but because of a preconceived mind set.

Writes Wald,

'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait: time itself performs the miracle.' (The Controversy, 230).

The Creationist’s Conclusion

1) Evolution does not fit the definition of "science"
Science is defined as:

"A branch of study that is concerned with a connected body of demonstrable truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less bound together by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain." (Oxford Dictionary).

One's decision to accept evolution is not, then, based on science, which is limited to the study of physical phenomenon and processes as they exist in the present.

The Creationist's conclusion is that evolution is not a science, in the true sense of the word, but rather a philosophy. Actually, it would be better to call it a myth! It remains in the true sense of the word, a "theory." (A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact).

2) Evolution does fit the definition of a philosophy
Evolution is not universally accepted because it is proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because its alternative, special creation, is not only incredible, but would involve our accountability to the Creator.

'Man is alone in the universe, and he is the result of an impersonal, unconscious process, and he is his own master and must manage his own destiny.' (Dr. G.G. Simpson, Prof. of Vertebrate Paleontology, Harvard University).

The only factual explanation for the fossils that do exist is that there was an explosive appearance of highly complex forms of life, recorded by the fossil record, without the evidence of great epochs of time where transitional forms gradually linked one basic kind to another. Thus, the indication of development from simple life to complex life over millions of years is an unreliable fallacy.

Aquinas's 5 Proofs for God in the Abyss

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum005.htm

I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way 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 towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the 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 to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the 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 the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or 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 of God.\

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence---which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some 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 hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in 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 beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.