All references from NASB.

In the year of Jesus’ death, Thursday was a very important holy day in the Jewish lunar calendar.  The week of the Passover (or Pesach) was under way.  According to Leviticus 23:3, there was a Sabbath day to be celebrated every week on the day called Shabbat which commemorated the seventh day of creation – the day God rested from all His work.  However, there were a number of other “holy convocations” that were held throughout the year.  Every Shabbat was a holy day, but these other holy days were really “high” holy days.  They might be called “great” Sabbaths (John 7:37).  Please consult Leviticus 23:5, 23:7, 23:21, 23:24, 23:27-32, 23:35-37 for more insight, paying particular attention to verses 31-32.


In a previous blog, The Science Box, I looked at the problem created when God is considered from a scientific perspective.  The scientific method has evolved over time to assure that all persons who are called scientists can find common ground for discussing scientific findings.  That method limits or constrains two important aspects of science.  First, it channels the lines along which various theories are allowed to develop.  In so doing it disallows some channels.  Second, it provides fairly strict rules for the pursuit of knowledge that either supports or refutes various claims made from the theories.  Within the context of science itself, this is a very reasonable arrangement. 


I want to briefly examine why there seems to be such a conflict between science and perceptions of God.  In reality there should be no conflict but we need to understand why there should be no conflict in order to appreciate what science is and is not and how that relates to our notions of God.

Let’s start by thinking of science as a sort of box for a moment.  That box is not a simple box as we think of such things but we can think of it that way anyway.  The reason that is handy is because a key property of a box is that it can hold things.  Not all boxes can hold all things.  A box may fail to hold something because the box is too small to hold the thing in question.  The box may be large enough to hold the thing in question in terms of its overall capacity, but some dimension of the thing to be held may exceed the capability of the box.  For example, a small box may be 4 inches by 4 inches by 4 inches in its dimensions.  It volume capacity is then 64 cubic inches (4x4x4).  We may have a small object that is only 45 cubic inches in size.  Obviously, 64 cubic inches is quite a bit larger than 45 cubic inches so the small object should fit in the box.  But if the object is 3 inches by 3 inches by 5 inches (and rigid in structure) it will not fit into the box because the 5 inch part won’t let it fit no matter which way you turn it. 

In all fairness, science is not a box with rigid sides in the sense we just discussed.  Its “sides” (and there may be many) may be quite flexible and its capacity will probably expand over time.  But it is still a thing of limited capacity.  It will only hold so much.