Thursday, August 23, 2007

I am wrong; God is not relative–unless . . . in the biblical story, God deals with every situation in the same way. But He doesn’t.

Examples:

Genesis, chapter 4.
When Adam and Eva disobeyed and ate forbidden fruit, God drove them out of Eden where they were condemned to sweat and toil for their livelihood. Then when their son, Cain, violently took his anger out on his brother, Abel, God condemned him to be a wandering fugitive, but “put a mark” on him, a mark that would protect him from the violence of others.

Genesis, chapter 6.
When, in the days of Noah, “the Lord saw the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually,” God responded with “behold, I will bring a flood of waters on the earth . . . [and] everything that is on the earth shall die.” (Except, that “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord”).

We could continue in Genesis with the cases of Lot’s wife (a pillar of salt), and Jacob (limping with a wounded thigh). Skipping to Numbers, we could consider Miriam (leprosy), and Moses (forbidden entrance to the Promised Land).

On and on through the Bible we could go, but this has been enough to make the point. When God punished human sin, the punishment was different each time. They were not all driven from their home, drowned, turned to salt, stricken with leprosy, nor forbidden to taste the fruit of their life’s labor. On each occasion, God related differently, his response relative to the situation.

Turning to the New Testament, we observe only a few of the actions of Jesus. Simon’s mother-in-law was healed when Jesus took her by the hand and lifted her up. A paralytic was merely told, “Take up your bed and walk,” and immediately was healed. Apparently, a Syrophoenician woman’s demon-possessed daughter was healed only after she argued about it with Jesus. None of Jesus’ healings followed a fixed pattern. Moreover, it seems certain, at least to me, that his differing treatments were not chosen arbitrarily. Each was relative to the occasion.

None but Nicodemus were told they needed to be “born again.” Only to the Samaritan woman was offered “living water.” Only the “rich young ruler” was told to “sell all that you have and distribute to the poor.” Only the thief on the cross was told, “today you will be with me in Paradise.” We find no specific “plan of salvation.”

In Paul’s writings, some are “saved,” others “cleansed,” “redeemed,” “regenerated,” “reconciled,” “justified,” “received the Spirit,” “set free,” “made alive,” “delivered and transferred”–the language is always relative.
_________________________

In the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments were not given as universal requirements; they were directed only to Israel, relative to God’s special purpose for this, his covenant nation. In the New Testament, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was not addressed to the entirety of the human race, but only to his disciples, relative to God’s purpose for them. Both groups, the recipients of Ten Commandments and of the Sermon on the Mount, have meaning only relative to larger God’s concern for his entire broken creation.
_____________

No, God does not operate by any predetermined, set method. One last example is found in the way God deals with Israel’s enemy nations. In the Old Testament, God almost always uses violent and militaristic means to save his people, Israel. God is a warrior. In the New Testament, with Israel–and then with his New Israel–under Roman oppression and persecution, God the Warrior does not come to the rescue. Rather, his chosen method of response–revealed, exemplified, and taught by Jesus–seems to be suffering, sacrificial, and loving service. This appears to be some kind of major shift in God’s modus operandi.

We may conclude that for us today, God deals with each of us according to our own need, personality, situation, and openness to his help. Accordingly, we should avoid limiting our presentation of God, our way of working with God to any set formula or pattern.

Everything considered and all action taken is always relative to God and to the unique occasion.

More to come.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

God’s method of operation had to shift. World population was becoming more sophisticated. The Romans and Greeks were writing; leaving accounts for future and distant readers. Those people, reading accounts of a God that utterly destroyed whole cities and/or nations, might develop such a fear that intimate knowledge of the saving grace would be hindered.

WRoark said...

Might be.

WRoark said...

You say: God's method of operation had to shift. Do you mean to say that God had to in some sense change, since the world had changed.

Anonymous said...

If God is bound by His desire to let man make his own decisions and if God wants to have intimate fellowship with man, then I think he would “have” to shift.

However, God is God. I believe there is nothing God cannot do. God is not bound by the chronological progression of human history; He can see all of it from beginning to end. Does that mean that God knew (knows) that He would change His mind from time to time? And if He knew before hand, did His mind really change? And if His mind really did not change, then does His modus operandi change at all? If that is so, then, is it only humans that can truly determine our own course?

Anonymous said...

Then again, what if, as a wise man once asked, God know all the "possibilities" and leaves humankind to its own choices while responding accordingly?

E. Scott

WRoark said...

Anonymous,

I suspect that something like that is close to the truth.

St. Upid said...

it seems clear that we are created in relationships. to god. to man. to earth. all creation by its very nature is corporate. so too is god. god is one but one is three - and three are in relationship within one.

its no surprise then that god is relative as you have described him. the need for god to be absolute does not originate in scripture. rather it seems to come from various other sources - too many to speculate on.

but there is a clear desire on the part of many to have absolutes. an absolute god. a consistent formulaic salvation. etc. and i wonder from whence this desire stems.

multi-millennial multi-generational
multi-cultural utter and complete spiritual laziness is my answer.

WRoark said...

st. upid,

Again, not a bad answer at all.

Thanks for your added emphasis.