Biblical Nuances and the Mind of God
August 25, 2010
Dear Friends,
Every parent knows that you can’t always explain nuances to kids. We sometimes present information to the immature as absolutisms when, in fact, they are not absolute at all. We say things like “stay away from strangers” and “strangers are bad” when in actuality not all strangers are bad. However, how do you explain the difference between the old family friend and the pervert to a two year old? The answer is that you don’t; at least you don’t until they are old enough to understand the subtle differences on how to distinguish them. In the meantime you expect that you will have to deal with a few problems as your child recoils from people they don’t know but are otherwise OK. It is a compromise you are willing to make as a parent for the safety of your child.
I think that God often presents information to us in this manner. We are presented over and over with very cut and dried information which, as we progress in our understanding, has subtleties and nuances which we might not understand when we are immature in the faith. God’s thoughts are so much higher than our own. He tells us “for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.’ (Isa 55:9) It is impossible for us to comprehend everything He knows so He gives us many generalities with a few indicators of more complex reasoning. Even in the information that He has given us in the Bible, some of its content is intelligible by some and not by others.
Take, for example, the presentation of the sin of adultery in the Bible. The weight of Biblical evidence seems to be that people guilty of adultery will not be in God’s Kingdom. Under the Mosaic Law, there was no sacrifice for sin, but immediate death by stoning. In the New Testament in 1 Cor. 6:9 and in Gal. 5:19,21 we are told in no uncertain terms that adulterers “shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” It seems an open and shut case. On closer examination, however, there are exceptions to this rule – King David being the most obvious.
So what are we to take away from this? Are we to conclude that adultery is OK based on the exception? This would be an absurd conclusion. I think what we are to conclude is that a good rule of thumb is that adultery is about as serious a sin as you can commit. A faithful and sane person will run from this sin with all that is in his being. If we see the rule (as opposed to the exception) that adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, we will be like that small child that runs from strangers. We will be safe rather than sorry. At the same time, the exception teaches us that God can be merciful to the genuinely repentant. If we find ourselves in a similar situation to that of King David, we can cast ourselves on the mercy of God. There are no guarantees in this approach, but we have hope.
We have a similar situation when it comes to doctrinal matters too. Take a simple truth like “there is one God.” Any child can understand this simple concept. Now try to explain the more scholarly concept of God manifested in a multitude or the verses like “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (John 10:34) Almost any simple first principle has this “yes, but” component to it. We are provided with a simple, easy to understand principle followed by a “yes, but”; that is not necessary to understand but can be understood by some who diligently seek God’s word.
There is a real danger here. Like that child who does not pick and choose which strangers to talk to, we can make bad choices. One mistake we can make is to force an understanding of esoteric doctrines on the spiritually immature. Not every doctrine is a first principle nor needs to be understood by the babes in Christ. Similarly, not every theory, unless it violates some important principle, needs to be defended.
At the same time, there is always a danger that the spiritually immature will force their incomplete understanding on those with greater insight. This is very much akin the moral conundrum of meats sacrificed to idols in the Roman church as elucidated in Romans 14. The weak brethren (those who refused to eat meats sacrificed to idols) were trying to force everyone to the lowest common denominator even though they were wrong in their assessment. Paul asks the strong brethren to not force their opinion on the weak. He asks the weak not to demand that their incorrect position be adopted by everyone. This moral model works well in doctrinal matters as well.
Some people cannot stand the notion of ambiguity in their religion. They like things cut and dried and therefore demand that everyone adhere to their imposed limitations of thought. In the face of the evidence about God’s infinite mind, we, as finite humans, have limited options. We can accept that we cannot limit God by our own understanding or can stray precariously into imposing unjust restrictions on believers searching for further understanding.
How great are your works, O LORD, how profound your thoughts! The senseless man does not know, fools do not understand. (Ps. 92:4,5 NIV)
Have a great week,
Comments»
No comments yet.