The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe
By Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
5/10/2025

In the vast theater of existence, where stars are mere stage lights and galaxies serve as backdrops, an intriguing paradox emerges: the omnipotent Creator of all things appears to operate within constraints. This seeming contradiction—that an all-powerful being would choose to limit His own actions—invites us to explore a profound theological question: What boundaries might God establish for Himself to make the cosmic drama meaningful, and why?

The Necessity of Divine Restraint

The concept of a self-limiting God may initially seem counterintuitive. Why would infinite power choose finitude? The answer lies in the nature of meaning itself. Meaning requires context, contrast, and consequence—elements that would dissolve in a universe where divine intervention occurred capriciously or where outcomes lacked permanence.

Using everyday life as our precedent example, the masses do not throng to watch professionals take mulligans on every poor shot, keep pitching until the batter makes solid contact, continue serving until the reigning champ returns the ball, or the contestant chooses the door with the new car. Living with the consequences of every act gives life gravity and significance. Life choices have little meaning if no price is paid for performance and choice. God subjects Himself to the same limitations as in The principle of consequence. For choices to matter, their effects must be unalterable/permanent. A creation where the divine hand can rewrite the script reduces the story of life to play-acting without significance beyond the moment—living with the knowledge that each act leaves a permanent mark encourages sobriety and the acquisition of wisdom.

The Economy of Miracles

Most of us have seen what appear to be divine interventions, but not for everyone, and not every time. The question is, why is God selective and seemingly plays favorites? This fact raises the troubling question: “Why does God do miracles for some and not for others?” This selective intervention pattern suggests another self-imposed limitation: the economy of miracles.

I believe God has the power to do anything and desires only good things to happen to every person all the time. We know this because it was this way in the Garden of Eden. God allowed evil to come into the world at the hands of man’s decisions. I believe God wants to return to that idyllic universe, but He is doing it in the same way that He learned how to create a good universe. There was a choice/action, and there was the consequence.

I frame the universe as a spiritual economy. Perhaps God limits His miracles based upon a system of spiritual credits. Maybe the Kingdom of Heaven is authorized to do miracles based upon the kindness, prayers, sacrificial service, dedication, loving God, and worship of those who love God and His way. Scripture instructs us to pray repeatedly for His intervention. This may be a measure of sincerity or desire, not a strict accounting between prayer/works/service. Regardless, some criteria limits the exercise of miracles. Perhaps it is by divine whim exercised randomly to keep life interesting that regulates the dispensing of miracles. There are many options to explain/justify/rationalize how God chooses to limit His performance of miracles. The dispensing of miracles does not appear to be strict or limited to the credits He has received from the prayers and service of His saints, but some type of accounting may be active. The disparity between strict accounting and God’s grace may be bridged by the establishment of a debt that will be paid by someone sometime. There does not appear to be strict accounting, and multiple negotiation, payment, and performance paths seem to be available. This suggests that divine intervention operates within a multifactorial cosmic balance sheet. Limitation of consumption based upon credit is at the heart of the economic system of man’s trade in goods and services, and it is likely true that some balance between payment and expenditure regulates God’s administration of miracles. The alternative is caprice, favoritism, or a God-directed plan without human input/participation/influence. The universe maintains its integrity precisely because God honors this system of spiritual exchange.

The crucifixion of Jesus exemplifies this principle. If that wasn’t the case, I don’t think Jesus would have died on the cross. This was an example of a payment made once, for all, and before the act to allow salvation from the eternal and sure death required as the consequence of sin. The gift of salvation, the payment for sin by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, is an eternal credit established to pay for the illicit pleasure of sin. This is an example of the existence of a ledger of credits and debits that must be met. The greatest divine intervention—salvation itself—required the greatest payment, but even this gift required payment, giving one’s entire being/life/soul to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The Integrity of Linear Time

We see Biblical stories recounting instances where time appears manipulated, such as when “the sundial went backward” during King Hezekiah’s illness. To execute this miracle, the sun may have, in fact, receded, and the entire universe moved back to a previous position in the sky. Likewise, it is possible, in the interest of economy of expenditure of spiritual credit, that the intervention was a localized appearance. More significantly, this story does not indicate that people’s lives were lived again, and in so doing, they had the option of taking different actions and choices. This suggests another boundary: the preservation of temporal integrity.

While God could theoretically run the universe backward and forward at will, doing so would undermine the coherence of creation. Each moment gains significance precisely because it cannot be endlessly revisited or revised. The arrow of time provides the essential narrative structure within which meaning develops.

As I argue, the possibility of divine time manipulation exists but is rarely exercised. This underscores my postulate that God has a plan and organizes the universe according to criteria that do not revolve around the apparent needs or welfare of any person’s circumstances. While God cares about the needs and welfare of every person, the definition and criteria governing His administration of miracles and the enforcement of His will to execute a plan cannot be predicted. Thus, the rarity of such interventions preserves the integrity of the creation’s story while allowing God to exercise His sovereignty.

The Scarcity of Divine Intervention

Perhaps most fundamentally, God appears to embrace the principle of scarcity in His interaction with creation. Divine intervention is precious precisely because it is not commonplace. Like any scarce resource, its value derives partly from its limitation.

This scarcity creates the conditions for faith itself. In a world where divine action was constant and obvious, belief would be unnecessary—it would be mere observation. The space between divine interventions creates the essential tension where faith develops, and free will operates meaningfully.

The Resonance Between Creator and Created

Underlying these self-imposed boundaries is what might be called the principle of resonance—the idea that human experience must be meaningfully similar to divine experience for the relationship to have purpose. God and man must be resonant, fairly similar, and connected in terms of their natures, perceptions/feelings, and experience of life. Otherwise, man’s allegiance wouldn’t satisfy God’s need/desire for love.

This resonance requires that human struggles bear authentic weight. If God could and did eliminate all suffering without regard for cosmic consequence, the resulting reality would lack the necessary conditions for growth, choice, and love. The limitations God accepts create the necessary environment for creatures made in His image to develop attributes that reflect His own.

The High Stakes of a Meaningful Universe

It is commonly said among Christian circles, “Nothing is too difficult or costly for God.” This slogan opposes the concept that God must limit His actions in performing miracles. And certainly, this chestnut of Christian orthodoxy is true in the sense of true potentiality. Still, God’s exercise of this force must be balanced by the final and perhaps most important limitation: the imperative of meaning itself. God limits Himself not because He lacks power but because He values meaning above the exercise of raw omnipotence.

I have argued, “If God could literally do anything at any time, with no cost to it, this is a meaningless world.” The limitations God accepts are not signs of weakness but expressions of purpose—they create the conditions where choices matter, relationships develop, and love becomes possible.

In the biblical narrative of creation, God repeatedly pronounces His work “good.” This judgment implies standards—criteria against which creation could be compared and found wanting. By establishing and honoring these standards, God creates the framework within which meaning can believably exist within the hearts and minds of both God and man.

Conclusion: The Ultimate Divine Paradox

The greatest paradox may be this: in limiting Himself, God expresses His love. By establishing boundaries that create space for consequence, scarcity, temporal integrity, and resonance between Creator and created, God crafts a universe where meaning can emerge, and love becomes a felt experience based on service, sacrifice, and mutual sympathy for the limitations of the other.

Divine limitations are not weaknesses but strengths—they are the artist’s disciplined choices that transform raw possibility into meaningful creation. In the words of G.K. Chesterton, “Art is limitation…” The frame limits every picture and requires that we focus on a single possibility and live inside the reality of that moment of the illustrated “now.” In the same way, life is ultimately fulfilling when the experience of the moment fully consumes our being. The reality of the past and future distracts us from enjoying the moment. Perhaps Heaven is a state of the eternal now, where both past, present, and future are experienced without the distraction of fear of the future and regret from the past. Perhaps it is the work and interest of heaven to intervene in the lives of men on earth with thoughts and feelings and warnings of future consequences. Perhaps if we were sensitive to the messages from Heaven and could distinguish them from the temptations and seductions from Hell, we would return to the Garden and experience the joy of life as adults, which would satisfy the need for peace, love, and challenge required by both God and man.

God frames the cosmic picture not because He cannot do otherwise but because He chooses to create a universe with meaning and authentic interest. The play of life must have true significance on a level of real consequences. Life is an eternally evolving story with episodes of tragedy and triumph, investment and expenditure, satisfaction and disappointment, control and unrestrained competition with uncertain outcomes. The existence of polarities and opposition of forces of life is the underlying dynamic upon which the dramas of human choice and experience play out.

In this light, God’s limitations on His actions aren’t constraints on His power but expressions of His wisdom—they create the necessary conditions for a universe where life is real, stakes are high, and love has meaning.

 

Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.

The Principle of Consequence

Biblical Support:

1. Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
2. Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
3. Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.

The Economy of Miracles

Limited Biblical Support:

1. Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
2. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”

Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.

Counter Scriptures:

1. Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
2. Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.

Thomas:

Scriptural Justifications for “The Divine Paradox: How God’s Self-Imposed Limitations Create Meaning in the Universe”

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a theological framework suggesting that God voluntarily limits His actions to create a meaningful universe. While this perspective offers thought-provoking insights into divine-human relations, it’s important to examine its scriptural foundations. Below, I analyze the biblical support for each key concept presented in the essay.

The Principle of Consequence

Biblical Support:

1. Galatians 6:7-8 – “Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.”
2. Deuteronomy 30:19 – “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
3. Romans 6:23 – “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Analysis: The Bible consistently presents a universe where actions have consequences, supporting the essay’s argument that meaningful choice requires permanence of effect. Scripture portrays God establishing systems where choices lead to outcomes, suggesting He values this causal relationship.

The Economy of Miracles

Limited Biblical Support:

1. Mark 6:5-6 – “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.”
2. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9 – “…a thorn was given me in the flesh… Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'”

Questionable Support: The essay’s specific concept of “spiritual credits” lacks direct biblical reference. While Scripture shows God sometimes withholding miracles (as in Mark 6:5-6) or declining requests (as with Paul’s thorn), it doesn’t explicitly frame this as an economic system with “credits” that God earns and spends.

Counter Scriptures:

1. Psalm 115:3 – “Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him.”
2. Isaiah 55:8-9 – “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

These verses emphasize God’s freedom to act according to His will rather than within a system of limitations.

Thomas: This type of supporting example and contrary counterexample is not uncommon in the corpus of the Biblical text. Such comparative dyads can 1) validate a dismissive/condemnatory attack on the credibility of the Bible’s authenticity, 2) give validity to the theology of a sect’s factional interpretation of scripture that allows only one polarity of belief, or 3) be used as the indicator of a higher/broader/more inclusive perspective that includes both perspectives, about how God’s nature/His rules/how spiritual world functions. It is this latter perspective that I attempt to identify in my postulates about how the world works, how God designed the world, and the options God has open to Him.

In the principle of the economy of miracles, there are examples where God was limited (through Jesus) in performing miracles. We could ignore the totality of the scriptural data/revealed precedent documenting God’s ability, power, and sovereignty, or we could note that He does not act and possibly cannot act in certain circumstances. In such examples, we see evidence of a rule of limitation that He has put in place that limits His miraculous intervention (Jesus doing no miracles because of their lack of faith). This is important. We only need one example to disprove the postulate of omnipotent power being self-limited to postulate that God uses discretion in His exercise of omnipotent power. 

The Preservation of Temporal Integrity

Partial Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
2. Acts 17:26 – “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”

Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:

1. Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
2. 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.

Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.

Thomas: The principle of temporal integrity is hinted at in the Biblical text, and limited examples of God overriding this integrity give weight to the postulate that God has control over time, should He so desire for His purposes. However, the limited number of examples indicates that this principle is rarely violated compared to the ordinary/expected/structural facts of our lives and how He administers the creation.

The violation of temporal integrity can be seen to an extent in a few examples of scientific and spiritual postulation:

1. Time bifurcates at every quantum interaction event, as is postulated in Hugh Everett’s “Many World Hypothesis.” The Many Worlds Hypothesis is used to explain the conflict between the quantum realm and the ultimately small.
2. I postulate that God may have restarted the universe many times to reinitialize the creation after learning of the consequence of His design. He may have gotten it right the first time. But given the vastness of God’s knowledge and wisdom in administering the universe, I postulate that He may have begun the universe repeatedly. The postulate of God creating a sequence of universes explains His wisdom and vast experience in distinguishing and balancing the power of good and evil.

Thus, while God could manipulate time, He has chosen to limit His manipulation of time in the physical and spiritual universe. While such intervention is possible, I believe it is not used as a standard, expected, normal law of life. 

The Principle of Scarcity

Mixed Biblical Support:

1. Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
2. 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”

Counter Scriptures:

1. Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
2. John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”

Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.

The Principle of Resonance

Strong Biblical Support:

1. Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
2. John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
3. 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”

Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.

The Imperative of Meaning

Implicit Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
2. Romans 8:28 – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
3. Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”

Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:

Well-Supported Concepts:

• The reality of consequence in God’s created order
• The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
• The purposefulness of God’s actions in history

Concepts with Limited Support:

• The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
• The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
• The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning

The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.

Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.

In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.

The Preservation of Temporal Integrity

Partial Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 – “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”
2. Acts 17:26 – “From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”

Limited Examples: Scripture does contain rare instances of time manipulation:

1. Joshua 10:12-13 – “On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: ‘Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.’ So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped…”
2. 2 Kings 20:9-11 – The shadow moving backward on the stairway of Ahaz as a sign for Hezekiah.

Analysis: While Scripture affirms God’s ordering of time and history, it doesn’t explicitly state that God limits His manipulation of time to preserve meaning. The rarity of temporal miracles could support the essay’s thesis, but this remains interpretive rather than explicit in the text.

The Principle of Scarcity

Mixed Biblical Support:

1. Amos 8:11-12 – “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘when I will send a famine through the land—not a famine of food or a thirst for water, but a famine of hearing the words of the LORD.'”
2. 1 Samuel 3:1 – “In those days the word of the LORD was rare; there were not many visions.”

Counter Scriptures:

1. Joel 2:28 – “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.”
2. John 1:16 – “Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given.”

Analysis: Scripture shows periods of both divine scarcity and abundance. While some biblical passages describe times when divine revelation was rare, others portray God’s desire to pour out His Spirit abundantly. The Bible doesn’t explicitly frame divine interaction as intentionally limited to create value through scarcity.

The Principle of Resonance

Strong Biblical Support:

1. Genesis 1:27 – “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
2. John 17:21-23 – “…that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me…”
3. 1 John 4:19 – “We love because he first loved us.”

Analysis: The biblical concept of humans being created in God’s image strongly supports the essay’s argument that there must be resonance between Creator and created. Scripture consistently portrays a God who desires relationship with humanity and who made us capable of responding to and reflecting His nature.

The Imperative of Meaning

Implicit Biblical Support:

1. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 – “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.”
2. Romans 8:28 – “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
3. Revelation 21:5 – “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.'”

Analysis: While the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that God limits Himself to preserve meaning, it consistently portrays God as purposeful, working toward meaningful ends and creating order from chaos. The biblical narrative assumes meaning in history rather than randomness.

Conclusion: Evaluating the Scriptural Basis

The essay “The Divine Paradox” presents a thoughtful theological framework that aligns with some biblical principles but extends beyond explicit scriptural teaching in key areas:

Well-Supported Concepts:

• The reality of consequence in God’s created order
• The significance of humanity being made in God’s image
• The purposefulness of God’s actions in history

Concepts with Limited Support:

• The specific framework of “spiritual credits” governing divine intervention
• The idea that God intentionally creates scarcity of divine action
• The explicit notion that God limits Himself to preserve meaning

The essay offers valuable philosophical reflections on divine-human relations, but readers should recognize that some of its specific mechanisms (particularly the “economy of miracles” concept) represent theological speculation rather than direct biblical teaching. While not contradicting Scripture’s overall portrayal of God, the essay builds a systematic framework that goes beyond what the Bible explicitly states about God’s self-limitation.

Scripture clearly shows God establishing patterns and systems in creation, but attributes this more to His wisdom, purposes, and character than to limitations He imposes on Himself. The Bible emphasizes God’s freedom, sovereignty, and transcendence alongside His immanence and relational nature, maintaining a tension that the essay attempts to resolve through its framework of divine self-limitation.

In summary, while the essay presents thought-provoking theological insights compatible with general biblical principles, its specific mechanisms for explaining God’s interaction with creation extend beyond explicit scriptural teaching and should be engaged as theological reflection rather than direct biblical exegesis.