On the Enigmaty of Jesus
Jesus garbed His full identity as God in mystery upon mystery. He admonished those who recognized His divinity to remain silent about it. It is astounding that God Incarnate, the promised Messiah of old, would not shout his arrival to reign as King from the rooftops! Furthermore, He could have gone to much greater effort in asserting His divinity, particularly to His detractors. He could have simply come to Earth and lived conspicuously as God, and dispelled all doubt as to His identity and mission.
But He didn't. Why must this be?
Jesus and Paul both answer this question bluntly. It is so that those who otherwise would not have faith indeed would not believe and be saved. He would by no means cast the Pearl of Great Price before faithless swine. The terms he specified for eternal life with Him are singular: complete, simple faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
So the reluctance so pervasive in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' self-disclosure of His identity is not to surprise us, much less cause us to question His complete divinity. Rather, it communicates fully the terms on which humans may come to Him for eternal life, which Paul later elucidates so starkly and pervasively.
"And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven''" (Mark 4:11-12).
But He didn't. Why must this be?
Jesus and Paul both answer this question bluntly. It is so that those who otherwise would not have faith indeed would not believe and be saved. He would by no means cast the Pearl of Great Price before faithless swine. The terms he specified for eternal life with Him are singular: complete, simple faith. "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed."
So the reluctance so pervasive in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' self-disclosure of His identity is not to surprise us, much less cause us to question His complete divinity. Rather, it communicates fully the terms on which humans may come to Him for eternal life, which Paul later elucidates so starkly and pervasively.
"And he said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven''" (Mark 4:11-12).
This version of Christianity seems to smack of Gnosticism. Those who have access to some singular knowledge are saved; the rest are condemned. And, it seems by your account that they are condemned precisely because of their lack of faith; God has set up the situation precisely so that people could be blamed for this ("t is so that those who otherwise would not have faith indeed would not believe and be saved").
ReplyDeleteWhether or not faith is this necessary knowledge, it absolutely requires it (as you said in another post, "Certainly if one truly believes, he or she fully believes," and belief is always belief in something, and furthermore this something always includes some piece of knowledge).
Finally, you refer to those without faith as the "swine". This would seem to imply that this disbelief (and disbelief throughout the ages, not merely to those who were direct witnesses of Jesus) is a moral vice in and of itself. However, as I commented on a different post, there isn't necessarily all that much evidence available to everyone. So, let's say that we have a person, for whom the Gospel simply looks false after intense, soul-searching scrutiny (a wonderful ideal, but simply not historically accurate), and furthermore who notes that Christians by and large really don't look that much better than people of other religions; in fact, the Buddhist Sangha down the street is much more full of compassion, love, etc. that any churches around. So, you would be telling me that this person, by sincerely following the True and the Good insofar as it has been revealed to her, is morally vicious precisely for doing just that, and would be praiseworthy for ignoring what is True and Good to save her own skin and calm her own mind by having faith in the Gospel? It would seem that God is condemning her, not for her sins, but for what she has actually gotten right, and this can't be just.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this [faith] not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8,9 (NIV)
ReplyDelete"As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks after God."" Romans 3:10 (NIV)
"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion....But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it [him] 'Why did you make me like this?' Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some for noble purposed and some for common use?" Romans 9:14-15, 20-21 ff (NIV)
Now Michael, you know that I know that you're more aware of the tenets of Gnostic thought than you're letting on here. ;-) But I get your point: Why does God put so much weight on knowledge, as opposed to, say, morals or faithfulness to one's conscience?
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, despite a number of biblically- and philosophically-rigorous reasons proposed by excellent orthodox theologians, the "why" question is unable to be answered with complete certainty. For who knows the mind of God? But in my devotional reading this week, this jumped out at me: "'For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16, emphasis mine).
Saving faith does not require knowledge of the "why", nor will every (any?) believer completely comprehend it. But many do comprehend it by means of the Spirit, even if they cannot rigorously argue their reasons. It is a test of the Christian, however, whether he or she will trust God's goodness and justice when it flies in the face of our own wisdom. When we try to impose our criteria of justice or fairness on God, we run into trouble. You'd be hard-pressed to look at the Bible as a whole and come out with a notion of divine justice as equal opportunity and equal treatment for all. I'm not a Calvinist, yet that glares at me from start to finish. We ought not equate divine justice with fairness at all, because the latter is a human invention. Terms like "harmony" and "reconciliation" are better, but they don't necessarily (or actually, in biblical terms) square with the Western/democratic notion of fairness. Sometimes inequity is what is most harmonious in the divine economy. Sometimes inequity puts everyone and everything in their proper place (i.e. reconciles them).
My "pearl before swine" analogy was very purposeful. The nature of faith has unfortunately been stripped of its fullness by much of Protestantism (and evangelicalism in particular), who cast it in exclusively cognitive terms. Perhaps this is what you're reacting to by calling it "Gnostic". If so, you're in good company with me. But the problem with this "gnostic" faith is not that it requires specific knowledge. Biblically, there's simply no way around the fact that faith requires a specific, discernable object. The problem is that faith does not end with simple intellectual assent, i.e. "This seems like the most probable answer to life's biggest questions, so I'll choose it."
Faith necessarily involves the response of one's whole being. Faith is seeing Jesus Christ for who and what He really is, and not just that, but who and what He is for us who believe the Gospel and receive His gift of eternal life. Faith is falling on one's face in utterly devastated awe at the gracious gift of God in Christ offered to sinners who otherwise stand condemned. It is the burning passion in the heart of one who recognizes what an infinitely costly gift has been offered him in spite of his infinite unworthiness. It is the act of the whole volition whereby we renounce everything but Christ and embrace Him as our supreme treasure! God simply will not allow the infinitely most precious gift in the history of the universe to be trampled by pigs (or dogs, as he elsewhere calls them) who refuse to even acknowledge the gift, much less receive it! You cannot consciously accept a gift that you are ignorant of--at least not this one. Overwhelming, pride-crushing gratitude for Christ's sacrificial gift of mercy is faith, and that is not possible if one is ignorant of the nature of the gift.
Grace and peace,
There's a lot that you've given to be interacted with, but I'll just take two of the points for the time being.
ReplyDelete"It is a test of the Christian, however, whether he or she will trust God's goodness and justice when it flies in the face of our own wisdom."
But the problem of faith is that of establishing trust in God's goodness and justice in the first place, and re-establishing it in times of cognitive crisis. When a Christian is struggling with faith, and finds the typical arguments for Christianity to be lacking (and so realizing that her faith is not really well supported), then the next test is the internal rationality of the faith. When Christianity throws out "God said so" for everything, deliberately thwarting attempts to understand, this believer is going to start looking elsewhere. And why shouldn't she, if she honestly is pursuing the truth? Those firmly in the faith seem too easily to value "mystery" for its own sake, which is a downright cruel perspective to show to pretty much anyone not fully convinced.
"We ought not equate divine justice with fairness at all, because the latter is a human invention."
I beg to differ. Doesn't God send rain upon the just and the unjust? Aren't we to be like our Father in heaven precisely in our forgiveness of all who sin against us? Isn't our own lack of favoritism to be based upon God's impartiality?
There seem to be two cases in which fairness can be compromised with justice remaining intact. In the first, it is because there is a deeper level of fairness which is more important. For example, in the classroom there may be both an average student and a special-needs student. Now, fairness in method would demand the same treatment, but this must be sacrificed for fairness of education and opportunity: the special-needs student needs more help to get anywhere near the level of the average student.
The other scenario would be where there are limited resources, such that they cannot be evenly distributed (or where even distribution might cause problems, for some reason). In such a case, it is perfect just to allow some to partake while others do not; there is no need for all to suffer because of some, and those who are better off may need to be chosen arbitrarily.
Now let us look at God's work with regard to salvation. We're not talking about distribution of candy in elementary school, but rather of salvation and damnation. People will suffer eternally as a result of God's actions (yes, as a result of their own too, but it is God who does the damning). There seems to be no reason why some have to be damned; God doesn't have limited resources at hand. Also, there is no underlying, more basic fairness accomplished.
But despite this, are we to say that God simply favors a relatively small number of individuals, infusing them with faith so that they can meet His arbitrary standard? And that if all this is true, then God doesn't explain Himself, but simply leaves those who want to seek Him in the dark and acting against their better inclinations in order to believe?
My point with the story of the person choosing between Christianity and Buddhism, though, makes yet another point: God would seem to be judging against this person insofar as what they are doing is right. Now, we can say that people are judged for their wrongdoing, and their good actions can never equal the scales, as it were (I might have issues with this too, but that's a different story). But there is no way that judging against a person for doing what is right could be just.