Accept God as the only Cause and Creator to see no mix of good and bad in creation.

[Accept God as the only Cause and Creator to see no mix of good and bad in creation.]
Metaphysical Application Ideas for the Christian Science Bible Lesson on

“God the Only Cause and Creator”
for Sunday, December 4, 2016

by Kerry Jenkins, CS, House Springs, MO
(314) 406-0041 kerry.helen.jenkins@gmail.com

[Giving Tuesday (November 29th) is tomorrow, but it's never to early (or late) to give for all who hopefully want to show even a token of ongoing appreciation for CedarS Bible Lesson and Sunday School application ideas that are freely-received each week. We have put together an online Giving Tree that features 100 needs of CedarS Camps heading into summer 2017. Items start at $1. Donations made through the Giving Tree are tax-deductible, gratefully received, and put to good use! We hope you'll go to www.cedarscamps.org/giving/tree and discover how you can bless CedarS with just a few simple clicks. Thanks in advance for your needed support and generosity!]

I never paid much attention to the fact that Mrs. Eddy uses the word "only" in the statement of this week's Bible lesson. Yet that could be almost the main point of this subject! Good to know that God creates and causes things, but the fact that God is the only Being in charge of causing and creating, well, that's an important distinction! Everything else that purports to be a creator "…is a liar, and the father of it." (John 8:44) Mrs. Eddy says in her Message '02 "Divine metaphysics concedes no origin or causation apart from God." (7:1-3 ) Accepting the "only-ness" of God as the cause and creator might come gradually to us as we demonstrate this glorious fact by following Jesus' example. This week's Bible lesson reveals several examples from the Master's life that bring this one and only creation and cause more clearly into our view. In particular, it is imperative to our spiritual progress, that we gain this deeper understanding of our own (man's) spiritual origin (S2). Knowing God better as this Cause and Creator, we can't help but know His creation, man, more clearly as well. And closely linked with accepting God as the only cause and creator, is the understanding that there is no mixture of good and bad, spiritual and material in this creation.

"Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty;" we are told in the Golden Text. Almighty, is the only might there is. The fact that this might creates "marvellous and great" things implies to me that His all-power must also be all good! That which appears otherwise is a product of a false sense of material creation. In our Responsive Reading we have the idea introduced, and later expanded upon in John 1:1-3 (B1 and PS#2), of the almighty Creator being represented as "the Word". Think about creation by "word". While the "Word" represents that Christ-thought, and God, even in its vastness it is supremely simple. Think of how matter suggests its own creation. What a complicated process. And most diseases seem to be vastly challenging to treat with assurance or certainty. There are many factors that go into treating disease in matter. But, creation by the "Word" is a creation that is powerful, beautiful, good, intelligent—spiritually-pure and simple.

Section 1: Man was "in the beginning"/the "only" along with God.

Mrs. Eddy also tells us in citation S4 that there is only this "one creation". That means there is no "alternative" or material creation that is separate and powerful that we must contend with. Knowing this leads to spiritual progress, in fact leads to it more directly than any other question that we could consider! (S2). How about that?! When we ponder our spiritual cause we are really moving deeply into the realm of demonstrating dominion over every suggestion of error. Think of it: accident implies that we have a material, breakable, impermanent body that abides by material rules of gravity; genetics leaves us with a host of materially-inherited proclivities and diseases; aging expresses the belief that as material bodies, we decline, decay and so on. Instead, this section [along with citation B6 in next section] affirm that God created us not only "very good", but also with the purpose to praise Him. And He adorned us as "bridegroom" and "bride"—that is with beauty, joy, radiance. (B4) Understanding, even a little of our divine origin, opens our thought to the unlimited possibilities available to us as His children.

Section 2: Because God is almighty (G.T), man, (His creation), must have dominion.

Dominion is a word of power. If man has dominion, he has authority or power over all that is around him. Since we are speaking of God's man, we are not talking about dominating the earth, rather we are expressing authority over all beliefs connected to being made in or of matter. When we express this authority over the false belief of material creation ("The mythologic theory of material life…" S10), we find that we have physical healing, or dominion over our bodies and thought. Just a short time ago our family was headed to a friend’s home for a picnic after church on Sunday. We had been trying to set this up for a long time around busy schedules and were all looking forward to the visit. Charlie, our youngest mentioned that he wasn't feeling great in the morning, but we set off to church expecting that church itself would play a role in his need for healing. After church and on our way to picnic with our friends, he started to cry. He wasn't sure if he could even make it there without us pulling the car over. I prayed sincerely about the right way to proceed, but we were a few minutes from our friend's home and I decided to just go ahead to their house and take Charlie into another room. At first it was all tears, a big pot and a lot of fears. But then I opened Science and Health and we read, very slowly, and using Charlie's name in place of "man", the definition of man (found here in citation S8). When I finished the first reading, I went back and read it again with him. We talked about the hundred pages of healing in the back of Science & Health that came about solely through reading Science & Health and I assured him that he too could have such a healing. First he stopped crying, then he set the bowl aside, then he jumped out of bed, went into the next room and ate a full lunch and played all sorts of games inside and out with our friends. It was an inspiring and quick expression of dominion! God, our Creator, has called us by name (B6), He knows our very nature, our identity, because we are the very expression of His being. (S6) As the very expressions of “God's being”, we must have dominion! [And we must express what Mrs. Eddy identifies as “God’s being”—“infinity, freedom, harmony, and boundless bliss.” Science & Health, 481:3. Four five-foot long signs in the attached picture in the upper right corner of our webpage version of this Met as in-your-face reminders at the start of CedarS world-class Cable Ski starting platform of this mission for our lives as well as for this activity.]

Section 3: Jesus demonstrates that spiritual origins reveal God's power.

We can learn a lot about ourselves as purely spiritual creations when we look more closely at Jesus' origin. He certainly had a unique position and conception. [B8 and PS#4] But he also revealed man's true nature as divinely derived, untainted by matter and its limits. Think about all the diseases and disorders he healed, even raising the dead. This healing work came about through realizing man's spiritual nature and origin, rejecting the mythological theory of man as material or some mixed-up combination of matter and Spirit. It is noteworthy that while Jesus came at the right time for humanity, in the way that he did, the Christ that he embodied, the source of his healing power, has existed eternally. So we have this marvelous example of Jesus quoting the prophecy from Isaiah about himself [B10 and PS#5] and in so doing, showing the timeless nature of this unfolding divine creation. God was revealing this insight more than 700 years before Jesus' birth.

Section 4: God's creation is only spiritual–only good.

It can seem hard to accept that there is only one creation. It sure seems like we live in matter every day. But the suggestion of a mixture of Spirit and matter, good and bad is a trap that leads us away from our inherent dominion and into a realm of bondage. "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above…" is a statement here of divine origin! [B13, James 1:17] The Bible analogy of the mixture of fresh and salt water, or the fig tree bearing olive berries, is a helpful one. [B12, James 3: 11, 12] Those are illogical and impossible proposals. In just the same way, spiritual healing has nothing at all to do with making matter more healthy or material man more spiritual. Healing rests on understanding our spiritual causation (S2). We are not trying to spiritualize or purify matter—not possible. We lift ourselves above the suggestions of material "man", by demonstrating as Jesus did, that man is, in fact, a spiritual, unlimited creation. This creation expresses the harmony and perfection of the Creator. Matter can never mingle with Spirit. Man is wholly spiritual.

Section 5: Our dominion extends to food.

Food is just one example that seems to dominate a lot of thought. Clearly it is not only a modern day consideration either! Citation B21 famously admonishes us to "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat…" [See Matthew 6: 25-31 and PS#7.] I'm sure that Jesus would not have shared this if it weren't a challenge in his day. Then, Mrs. Eddy shares an example, from her day, of an eating disorder. [S23, 221:1] And we certainly know today that food theories are beyond abundant, and such disorders are common place, along with all sorts of other fears that food presents. But in this section we are presented with the spiritual remedy for these fears and disorders. We can use our deepening understanding of our divine origin to demonstrate our dominion over this suggestion that food is either spectacularly beneficial, or inimical to our existence. A brilliant recipe (pardon the food word!) for overcoming food-obsessed thoughts is found in citation S26 [S&H 268:6-9]. It is a belief in a material basis, material origin, that we need to look away from. By consciously turning to God for our satisfaction, provision, sustenance, health—we find food taking a less thought-entangling role. Once again, a clearer understanding of our spiritual cause elevates our experience.

Section 6: Spiritual causation wins.

Our spiritual origin is victorious over a material model of life because it is the truth. This model is infinite in scope and unlimited in expression. Understanding more of how we are a spiritually-conceived and divinely-expressed idea gives us the ability to heal inharmony in every circumstance. We glimpse more of our inherent dominion and authority. We become better followers of Christ Jesus. And what better way, in this season, to understand the Christmas story at its root?!

---

[Warren’s (W’s) PS#1—Cobbey Crisler on Psalms 33:9 (Responsive Reading) “spake & it was done”

“Psalms Chapter 33, Verse 9, we've already alluded to the swiftness of God's treatment.
It’s not a process, according to the Bible. It’s not recuperation. It’s not convalescence, or gradual recovery. "He spake, and it was [done]." In case we have had room in our thinking for a possibility of relapse, it is stated, "He commanded, and it stood fast.” No side effects, no after effects.”

“Leaves of the Tree”: A Prescription from Psalms”, by B. Cobbey Crisler]

[W’s PS#2: Cobbey Crisler insights on John 1.1-3, (B1) “In the beginning…”
“John 1:1. John starts off unlike any of the preceding gospels. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” He starts off, as a matter of fact, as only one other book of the Bible begins. Notice Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Do you think the early readers of his gospel would have recognized that? Do you think that was John's intent? That it should be recognized?

“There is something that is a major clue to studying the Bible. That is, when you get the remotest hint of an Old Testament verse in the New Testament, don't ignore it or put it aside. It’s there for a very deep reason. It probably holds the key to the meaning of the New Testament event, or the author would not have included it. By no means make the mistake which Professor Davies, Professor Dodd, Professor Albright and many others of our top New Testament scholars say we often make. That is, when you find a verse in the New Testament which comes from the Old Testament, either an exact quote or a paraphrase, don’t just go back to that verse. Read the context around it. Study the environment; get deeply involved in the thought and intent of the Old Testament passage. You may be more closely at-one with what the author in the New Testament means. In other words, what do you have? You have a blend of the whole Bible that way. …

“John 1:1 starts his gospel off, "In the beginning was the Word.” The Greek is, en arche hin ho logos. Does arche look familiar to you? It is the root word in "archeology." It's an exciting word. It doesn't just mean when things begin or when they have started in a human way, so much as, translated by some scholars, as "the first principle" of things.

“For instance, when Jerome, in about 400 A.D. translates the Greek Bible into Latin, here’s how he does those opening words. "In principio," which, of course, is our root of our word "principle," in principio. He could have used another Latin expression which is "ab initio, " which would have meant at the initial phases of things, but instead he chooses a Latin word which has a dual meaning which could be "principle," the first principle, the origin, the basis of things.

“If we choose that particular Greek meaning for the opening of both Genesis and John, then it gives it an entirely different connotation. If, in principle, God created the heaven and the earth, or in principle, was the word, it starts out like many mathematical or scientific textbooks which start out with the statement of principle. Everything else derives from it.

… Professor Dodd has said, "It is only in Greek that a term is available which means both thought and word, and that's logos." Only in Greek have you that term that can convey both thought and word. So, when you’re talking about logos, even from the standpoint of word, if we are not giving to it what really is behind it, we're losing something of the message, aren't we?

“Why does the additional concentration on thought add to the definition of word? When you go behind the word to the thought, you're dealing with ideas, concepts, and the meaning. It is where all human languages finally give up their fragmentation and meet, and become one, in a Pentecostal day of infinite communication. The "word" is but an instrument which we must meet at the thought or at the meaning. Then, no barriers, especially language barriers, can stand between us and comprehension of one another, of the universe, its laws, and the source of those laws. … “Do you know where we use logos in the English language? Biology, physiology. Logos is the one that has been used to define the sciences in the English language. This was the comprehension at least of the lexicographers who developed our own language of the Greek term. Look how it's lasted even in our language. We use it all the time without realizing it, taking it for granted. Is there a scientific connotation, then, that "In the beginning,” "In the first principle of things,” there is a scientific unvarying, inalienable, order that's ruling. And that it's not only being uttered as an expression or word, but behind it is the immense thought that also must be based on the same principle. Notice in Verse 1of Chapter 1 that it all related with and to God.

“John 1:3 continues with a statement that is quite absolute, "All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. " Is there any reservation for qualifications? "All things were made by him. That is [an] enormous commitment to make at the beginning of a book. The theology of this book is therefore committed right squarely on what principle if we're now defining the theological principle on which the Bible is based? Not only oneness of God, but the fact He's one, also means He's all. "All things were made by Him.” Everything is created by Him. That also poses problems, because all we have to do is open our eyes and look around us. And what we see, we'd rather not think was created by God. But as of now, we've just started the book. So, let's see what the style of the author is and his theological commitments. "All things were made by Him.”

“He doesn't leave it there. The very next sentence adds, “Without him was not any thing made that was made." Why is he saying that? Why y Him,” doesn’t that take care of the other part? What is the difference? What’s the distinction that he is implanting in his readers' thought right at the beginning of the book? "All things were made by Him.” What would you call that? That kind of statement is an absolute, but is it also an affirmation. It's a real solid plus. This is a plus of the theological view of John. "All things were made by Him."

“What have we got now? Denial. Here is how we're going to deal with the minus element. The minus element is without Him, "without him was not any thing made that was made.” Any hint of a minus existing after the all-things-were-made-by­ him being declared, is removed, because it is the other side of the same coin.

“The plus, the minus, the affirmation, the denial is a mathematical approach. Dealing with the plus, dealing with the minus and ending up with one, not dualism. One, so there’s no doubt that the key to the gospel is monotheism. It challenges the reader’s thought to see if he’s there at that altitude before he continues any further in the gospel. It forces the reader to get to that height in order to remotely communicate with what's in the gospel.”

“Book of John: A Walk with the Beloved Disciple”, by B. Cobbey Crisler]

[W’s PS#3 from Cobbey Crisler’s insights Psalms 8:4, 6 (B5): “made to have dominion”
“Psalms 8, Verse 4. What is the presumption behind biblical therapy? What is its premise? We know it would be based on the question in verse 4 in part, “What is man?” That has been the most elusive answer to any question for the human race, except, perhaps, what is God? Who am I? The great unanswered question. Or does the Bible provide answers that fill that gap in thought, that vacuity? The answer given here biblically is “Thou madest him to have dominion.”
You need to have a premise on which to base the whole idea or concept of biblical healing or therapy. It’s based on the fact that man has dominion. Of course, that immediately recalls to us God’s pronouncement of that effect in Genesis 1 [Verse 26]. If dominion is part of the nature of man, what does that say about man’s ability to get rid of disease? We can’t have dominion and be dominated simultaneously. The logic of that premise requires us to search out more deeply ehat the Bible is telling us about man’s nature as it relates to God because it’s on that basis that we are having these prescriptions filled…
If it’s God’s theology, according to the Bible, it works. God’s theology in the Bible can never be confined to theory. When God spake, what happened? It was done. That’s how quickly His medicine works…
“In biblical terms, [Psalms 8:6], “Thou makest him to have dominion.” What is there about this fact that we can apply? Are the Psalms, in part, the threshold of our discovery of this throughout the entire Bible?”

“Leaves of the Tree: Prescriptions from Psalms” by B. Cobbey Crisler]

[W’s PS#4—Cobbey Crisler insights on Matthew 1:18-23 (B8) “virgin… with child”
“(Verse 18) … we find "the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise." The word "birth" in Greek is our word "genesis." Writing to a Jewish readership, there would seem to be very little question that Matthew was relating a new genesis here. The word would remind his readers of the opening book of the Bible. "The birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph." Our modem term "engagement" would probably best suit that. It was a period in which the couple would promise to one another. It was regarded with as much sanctity as the marriage-period itself. So that any violation of it morally was treated with the same severity as if it had been adultery during marriage.

“When the news reaches Joseph that Mary is ''with child," how do you think the average husband would greet that news? They aren't even married yet. The news comes to Joseph that his wife­to-be in this very sanctified period of promise is pregnant. Under the Jewish law, what would be the most severe measure that Joseph could take against Mary? Stoning. Publicly. He could have chosen and elected to have exposed Mary publicly and had her executed. But Joseph is as important an aspect of this great account of the introduction of Jesus humanly on earth as Mary. We get an insight into his thinking. Remember that Joseph is just you or I in the sense of going through the same reaction that one would have with this sort of news. This shows some of the quality and character of Joseph.

“(Verse 19), It says that "Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example." We see right away that he doesn't want to take the extreme measure, He wanted "to put her away privily," and go through divorce proceedings, but quietly.

“(Matthew 1, Verse 20). "While he thought on these things." That isn't exactly Joseph being a philosopher. The Greek word suggests agony. "While he agonized about these things.'' It gives us a view of what was really going on in his thinking. At that point, "an angel of the Lord appears unto him." "Angel," actually comes from a Greek word, angelos. It means "messenger" and is virtually inseparable from the message that the messenger delivers. It is this inseparable message and messenger that comes to Joseph in what appears to him as “a dream," addressing him as the "son of David" and saying, "Forget what you're thinking," which was a normal conclusion any husband would come to, "Because Mary is with child but what is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost." How many husbands would exactly buy that? It really flies in the face of the entire biological history of man.

“Therefore, this event itself has become one of the most difficult to believe for anyone reading it. The virginity of Mary at the time of the birth of Jesus has been ridiculed by some, accepted religiously by others without question, and many of the rest of the readers somewhere in between. But let's go on with what this message is as recorded by Matthew.

“(Verse 21).”She will bring forth a son," his identity already established to the point that a name is given to him by the angel. That name really is a very common Hebrew name. It's the same name as Joshua received in the Old Testament. Joshua was not his original name. It was first Oshea, "help" or "salvation," (p. 64, J. R. Dummelow, "The One Volume Bible Commentary"). Joshua was a given name. It means something very close to our term "savior." The explanation of the angel is that this name really will define his mission "to save his people from their sins."

“Now we come face to face with one of the characteristics of Matthew. When we look at the gospel from an overall point of view, you see it over and over again. It may reveal to us what inspired Matthew to put pen to papyrus and record the gospel or good news. This is in Verse 22.

“(Verse 22). He explains that "all this was done." What is he talking about when he says "all this"? The virgin birth of Jesus. He is about to give us what he considers absolute proof that the virgin-birth occurred. It occurred as a i:esult of prophecy. Does that tell us at what elevation Matthew holds in prophecy? If he's using this as proof of one of the most unbelievable, incredible, events recorded in the annals of man's history, then how does he view prophecy? Does he view prophecy as a man-product or as revelation from God?

“If he's writing this book for the Jews, it shows he is bringing in his big guns right from the beginning to show his Jewish readers that this is it! We can be fairly assured that he felt that what he is about to say would not be disputed, or at least be a matter of severe controversy in his audience. His famous statement which he says so often "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet."

“Verse 23 is taken from the Book of Isaiah (7:14). We are really in the middle of a controversy. Even at the time Matthew was writing, he obviously felt this was a major point. Look at it from a common-sense point of view. If that particular prophecy was extremely controversial when Matthew wrote this book, do you think he would have included it as his first means of proof of his whole statement in the gospel? Suppose you or I were average Jews of that period, and we'd picked up the gospel of Matthew or heard it read, and he came to this point. If we'd thought it a matter of controversy, do you think we'd even continue the book? We'd probably laugh and close it up right there.

“So, I think we have a very strong indication here that Matthew, at least, felt what he was reading from the Old Testament was proof-positive for his readers. However, in the late first century and early second century, this came a matter of such tremendous controversy that it has lasted all the way up until our day. Even many ministers of other denominations today discounting completely that verse in Isaiah as having any Messianic implications. We find right in the first century Jewish writers responding to the tremendous impact of what Christian thinkers and writers were saying. They go back to Isaiah and say, "Wait a minute, Isaiah really didn't use a Hebrew word that means "virgin" in every case. It can mean "virgin," but he elected a word with more of a general meaning. Therefore, it could just mean "a young girl."

“Of course, there isn’t much news in the fact that a young girl shall conceive and bear a child. Where is the news value in that? … When he begins by saying that the Lord Himself will give you a sign, there is no sign about a “young girl conceiving.” But there certainly is a sign or a wonder about a virgin conceiving because that is certainly unheard of… “Matthew… is definitely convinced that early Old Testament prophesy is a prediction of a virgin conceiving.”

“Book of Matthew, Auditing the Master: A Tax Collector’s Report” , by B. Cobbey Crisler]

[W’s PS#5 from CC insights on Luke 4.14-15, 33-36 (B14): Jesus mission shared
“Jesus appears in his hometown of Nazareth. Here is a hometown boy that has made good, locally, mostly in Capernaum, not far away. He comes back. "His fame has spread." They invited him to do some of the reading publicly (Verse 16). They hand him Isaiah (Verse 17). If they handed him a scroll, he would have had to spend some time unrolling it to find exactly what he was looking for. This particular verse is very close to the end.

“Isaiah 61, Verse 1, is what Jesus is reading. Notice, it's very specifically a prophecy of the Messiah. The word related to Messiah appears in the word "Anointed. " In Hebrew that's the word relating it to the Messiah. "The Spirit of the Lord (is) upon me." Notice, Luke has just said in Verse 1 of this Chapter that "Jesus was filled with the Spirit." Here the prophecy says (in Luke 4, Verse 18), "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.”

“Jesus is saying this in the congregation of the synagogue of his hometown. He's simply reading the Old Testament. If he read Scripture like he cited it spontaneously, like he healed with it, you can imagine you probably would have heard a pin drop in that synagogue. Add to that the fact that Jesus knew he was fulfilling every word of that prophecy in himself and in his own career. Think of the impact in that environment.

“Here, then, is God's definition of the Messiah through prophecy:
Number one, the Messiah would do what? "Preach the gospel to the poor. "
Gospel doesn't just mean "good news," It means, in particular, news of victory.
What's the second one? "Heal the brokenhearted. "
The third, “Preach deliverance to the captives. "
The fourth, “Recovering of sight to the blind. "
The fifth, “To set at liberty them that are bruised. "
And finally, Verse 19, “To preach the acceptable year of the Lord."

---