Donate/Tithe with Bank Deposit (direct to Mike Connell)

Form versus Function (5 of 6)

Shane Willard

Page 2 of 10
Doesn't it stand to reason, that if God is Light; and God is holding the universe together; therefore the universe is expanding at the speed of light?

We also know that the function of light, primarily, is to hold pictures; so if the lights were off in here, you couldn't see. Your eyes don't see anything - your brain sees everything. Your eyes simply take high speed camera photos; and transmit the images to the back of your brain; and then your brain tells you what that is: green shirt. Light allows that image to be stuck.

So we know from science that light is constantly moving forward, at 186,282 miles a second. There's a guy that speaks, Chuck Missler, and he's brilliant. I can listen to him for like seven minutes, and then I'm done, because he's done passed me. He talks about this thing they did with this big telescope. They could see pictures of different phases of creation, because they were looking way, way out there.

So if Moses sees the “back side of light”, what does he see? He sees where light had been, which would be the past; so he sees these images of the past, which is how the rabbi said he wrote Genesis, without living it.

Imagine him standing there, seeing the back side of God, writing it down: Oh, in the beginning God created the heavens, and the earth was without form, and darkness... and the spirit of God was... he saw the past.

You see how seeing function, kind of helps things? Like there's this one place in Psalms it says: “Blessed is the man who walks into the presence of the most high, for he is dwelling in the shadow of the Almighty”.

Now that begs a couple of questions... If God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all, then how can one who is pure light ever cast a shadow? By definition, in order to cast a shadow, you have to be darker than something. But is there anything in the world brighter than God?

You have a hard time convincing people of that; so if there's nothing in the world brighter than God, then how can God cast a shadow? It's odd. It's kind of a strange statement: “blessed is the man who walks in the presence of the most high, for he's dwelling in the shadow of the Almighty”. So how do you work that out?

The key to that phrase is: “blessed is the man” - blessed is the man, when he walks into the presence of the most high. He is then dwelling in the shadow of the Almighty.

If a man walks into the presence of God, then whose shadow is actually cast? The man! So when you're in the presence of God, the shadow of the Almighty is actually you!

Can anybody think of a scripture where that comes into play? In the New Testament, Peter's walking along, and his shadow raises someone from the dead. Why? Because he was in the presence of God, so it wasn't his shadow anymore. The presence of God filled every part of him - including his shadow. The shadow of the Almighty was actually him - form and function.

We're such form-thinkers. This is the ultimate Pentecostal form, and since we're all Pentecostals here, we ought to be able to make fun of ourselves right?

The ultimate Pentecostal form is laying hands on somebody. We love that form because, since we're form-thinkers, to lay hands on somebody, what does it mean?

To lay hands on somebody, we actually take our hand and we lay hands on them. Laying on of hands has nothing to do with touching people.

Would rabbis ever have laid hands on sick people? Of course they did, they laid hands on sick people all the time - but did they ever touch them? No - but did they lay hands on them? Yes - but did they touch them? No. See our minds are blown already. Do they, or don't they Shane? Would you just spit it out? Why do you speak to us in parables?

Rabbis laid hands on the sick all the time. As a matter of fact, they commanded other people to lay hands on the sick. Jesus said: Lay hands on sick people, and they will recover. Laying on of hands was an important part of their culture, but would rabbis have ever touched a sick person? No, but did they lay hands on them? Yes. Why wouldn't they touch them? Because they'd become unclean - but did they lay hands on them? Yes. That's because laying hands on somebody, had nothing to do with touching them. It's function, not form.