Sunday, February 15, 2009
Jesus and Parables
Last night I read a certain passage that had always puzzled me, and for whatever reason it clicked into place on this latest reading. In Matthew 13 Jesus gives the "parable of the sower" to the masses:
Now the part that had always puzzled me. His apostles ask him, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" and Jesus answers:
Now maybe it was just because of a different translation I had used on earlier readings, but for whatever reason, I always thought that Jesus was saying that He was purposely hiding the true meaning of His words from the masses. And there definitely is some of that going on in the above, especially verses 11-12.
But at the same time, it is clear that these people choose to be "dull." They are not willing to put in the effort to really understand the ways of the Lord. And thus, for these people, Jesus is speaking in parables to teach them as best He can, given the limited effort they will make to meet Him.
However, Christians need to keep in mind the other interpretation, namely that from the beginning of time, these people didn't stand a chance of knowing the mysteries of God; it was not "given" to them.
Here we butt up against another of the thinking Christian's conundrums, namely the reconciliation of free will (and hence moral accountability) with God's sovereignty. If God designed every last quark of the universe, and everything that has happened since the beginning has unfolded exactly in accordance with His will, then it's a bit weird to get worked up about the Pharisees, or to respect the courage of John the Baptist.
I will tackle this (humongous) issue in a future post. For now, let me tease you by pointing out that it makes NO SENSE to say, "I'm not going to worship this 'Yahweh' or accept this so-called 'Jesus' into my heart if we don't have free will anyway, according to this worldview. That makes no sense."
Now, the reason THAT statement makes no sense, is that it presupposes the existence of free will. In other words, if everything really were merely the blind laws of physics, with no higher "meaning," then the people urging you to read the Bible are just globs of cells interacting in ways likely to produce copies of their DNA, and thus there is no "reason" that "you" (whatever that means) should respond one way or the other.
Let me try to make the point a different way: When I was an atheist, certain Christians in my college would say stuff like, "Well that's so bleak. According to your worldview, I shouldn't even look before I cross the street, because I can't control my actions anyway. It's an illusion to think that I can affect whether I get hit by a car."
Now for you atheist readers, can you see why THAT was a ridiculous objection to my atheist worldview? The person was telling me that he was going to CHOOSE not to choose to strive for his survival, because in my worldview choice doesn't exist. But that is a complete non sequitur. If free will really is an illusion, then "choosing" to look or "choosing" to dash headlong into the street, are equally illusory expressions of a collection of cells' metaphorical choice.
Anyway, to wrap up this whole post, let me reiterate: Jesus used parables to get across a watered-down version of His true message, because the masses were not prepared--as His apostles were--to literally discard their old lives and follow Him 24/7. So they couldn't possibly understand what His mission really was.
However, at the same time, Jesus was acknowledging that their decisions were preordained from before they were born. Part of the story God wanted to tell, involved most people not really appreciating who Jesus was even as He cured the lame before their very eyes.
Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside; and the birds came and devoured them. 5 Some fell on stony places, where they did not have much earth; and they immediately sprang up because they had no depth of earth. 6 But when the sun was up they were scorched, and because they had no root they withered away. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up and choked them. 8 But others fell on good ground and yielded a crop: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. 9 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
Now the part that had always puzzled me. His apostles ask him, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" and Jesus answers:
Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
‘Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them.'
16 But blessed are your eyes for they see, and your ears for they hear; 17 for assuredly, I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
Now maybe it was just because of a different translation I had used on earlier readings, but for whatever reason, I always thought that Jesus was saying that He was purposely hiding the true meaning of His words from the masses. And there definitely is some of that going on in the above, especially verses 11-12.
But at the same time, it is clear that these people choose to be "dull." They are not willing to put in the effort to really understand the ways of the Lord. And thus, for these people, Jesus is speaking in parables to teach them as best He can, given the limited effort they will make to meet Him.
However, Christians need to keep in mind the other interpretation, namely that from the beginning of time, these people didn't stand a chance of knowing the mysteries of God; it was not "given" to them.
Here we butt up against another of the thinking Christian's conundrums, namely the reconciliation of free will (and hence moral accountability) with God's sovereignty. If God designed every last quark of the universe, and everything that has happened since the beginning has unfolded exactly in accordance with His will, then it's a bit weird to get worked up about the Pharisees, or to respect the courage of John the Baptist.
I will tackle this (humongous) issue in a future post. For now, let me tease you by pointing out that it makes NO SENSE to say, "I'm not going to worship this 'Yahweh' or accept this so-called 'Jesus' into my heart if we don't have free will anyway, according to this worldview. That makes no sense."
Now, the reason THAT statement makes no sense, is that it presupposes the existence of free will. In other words, if everything really were merely the blind laws of physics, with no higher "meaning," then the people urging you to read the Bible are just globs of cells interacting in ways likely to produce copies of their DNA, and thus there is no "reason" that "you" (whatever that means) should respond one way or the other.
Let me try to make the point a different way: When I was an atheist, certain Christians in my college would say stuff like, "Well that's so bleak. According to your worldview, I shouldn't even look before I cross the street, because I can't control my actions anyway. It's an illusion to think that I can affect whether I get hit by a car."
Now for you atheist readers, can you see why THAT was a ridiculous objection to my atheist worldview? The person was telling me that he was going to CHOOSE not to choose to strive for his survival, because in my worldview choice doesn't exist. But that is a complete non sequitur. If free will really is an illusion, then "choosing" to look or "choosing" to dash headlong into the street, are equally illusory expressions of a collection of cells' metaphorical choice.
Anyway, to wrap up this whole post, let me reiterate: Jesus used parables to get across a watered-down version of His true message, because the masses were not prepared--as His apostles were--to literally discard their old lives and follow Him 24/7. So they couldn't possibly understand what His mission really was.
However, at the same time, Jesus was acknowledging that their decisions were preordained from before they were born. Part of the story God wanted to tell, involved most people not really appreciating who Jesus was even as He cured the lame before their very eyes.
Comments:
Personal Question: Why convert from an atheist to Christianity? Why not Muslim, or Buddhist, or Zoroastrianism? What about the Christian religion makes it any more true than the multitudes of other religions?
As to free will, there are four options that I see.
1) God exists and free will exists. This would imply that God does NOT constantly interfere with mankind’s decisions and manipulate every single thing in the universe. God either picks and chooses his battles, or doesn’t interfere at all. This brings to mind the image of a God who manipulates humanity like a child with an ant farm. Sometimes, food drops from on high, sometimes, rocks. Most the time, we are ignored. Occasionally, one of us is separated out, placed under a magnifying glass, and burnt to a crisp. Very amusing entertainment for a divine being, but not someone I would want to worship.
2) God exists and free will does NOT exist. Then all we think is an illusion and a man who commits heinous acts was predestined to do so. Not to worry, God will forgive him because God set him on this path.
3) God does NOT exist and free will exists. We make our own destiny, our own choices, and the universe doesn’t care one way or another.
4) God does NOT exist and free with does NOT exist. This would imply a predestined course of all matter and energy in the universe, without any randomness. Quantum probability would seem to dispel this option.
I have free will, or at the very least the illusion of free will. I choose not to believe in God. If 1 is true, God probably doesn’t care, or will torture me for all eternity – either way, not someone I find worthy of worshipping. If 2 is true, then he dictated that I be an atheist. His will be done. If 3 is true, I have perceived the universe correctly. If 4 is true, then I have perceived the universe correctly, with the exception of thinking my actions are guided by my own will. I’m interested in hearing your logic for believing in option 1 or 2.
As to free will, there are four options that I see.
1) God exists and free will exists. This would imply that God does NOT constantly interfere with mankind’s decisions and manipulate every single thing in the universe. God either picks and chooses his battles, or doesn’t interfere at all. This brings to mind the image of a God who manipulates humanity like a child with an ant farm. Sometimes, food drops from on high, sometimes, rocks. Most the time, we are ignored. Occasionally, one of us is separated out, placed under a magnifying glass, and burnt to a crisp. Very amusing entertainment for a divine being, but not someone I would want to worship.
2) God exists and free will does NOT exist. Then all we think is an illusion and a man who commits heinous acts was predestined to do so. Not to worry, God will forgive him because God set him on this path.
3) God does NOT exist and free will exists. We make our own destiny, our own choices, and the universe doesn’t care one way or another.
4) God does NOT exist and free with does NOT exist. This would imply a predestined course of all matter and energy in the universe, without any randomness. Quantum probability would seem to dispel this option.
I have free will, or at the very least the illusion of free will. I choose not to believe in God. If 1 is true, God probably doesn’t care, or will torture me for all eternity – either way, not someone I find worthy of worshipping. If 2 is true, then he dictated that I be an atheist. His will be done. If 3 is true, I have perceived the universe correctly. If 4 is true, then I have perceived the universe correctly, with the exception of thinking my actions are guided by my own will. I’m interested in hearing your logic for believing in option 1 or 2.
SweetLiberty,
You make a few assumptions with your #1. First, you assume that because there is a God, that there is a heaven and hell. (I assume this, but not everyone does) Secondly, you assume that God's interference is an irresistable force. God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other. Simply a passage of information where we are able to accept or deny his suggestions. We talk to him and he talks to us (him not audibly, of course).
You make a few assumptions with your #1. First, you assume that because there is a God, that there is a heaven and hell. (I assume this, but not everyone does) Secondly, you assume that God's interference is an irresistable force. God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other. Simply a passage of information where we are able to accept or deny his suggestions. We talk to him and he talks to us (him not audibly, of course).
Hi Brian,
The big three religions define a heaven (and hell), therefore this is not my assumption, but theirs.
You say, "God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other." But he does not do so, even if he could. He remains mysterious and elusive, frustratingly disprovable, so I reject this possibility.
If God does not talk to us audibly, then it is pure subjective speculation on what he is saying. This cannot be objectively verified, therefore should be dismissed.
The big three religions define a heaven (and hell), therefore this is not my assumption, but theirs.
You say, "God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other." But he does not do so, even if he could. He remains mysterious and elusive, frustratingly disprovable, so I reject this possibility.
If God does not talk to us audibly, then it is pure subjective speculation on what he is saying. This cannot be objectively verified, therefore should be dismissed.
SweetLiberty,
I am a Christian, but I do not box myself in with orthodoxy. I am skeptical that so-in-so's aunt's cancer was cured by God. I generally don't pray for physical interventions by God, but I don't reject them carte blanche. The Bible seems to support their beliefs, but I have a hard time comprehending it philosophically so I choose not to participate in that part of Christianity, but leave the door open to the possibililty.
As for heaven and hell, it is again something that I am not certain about for philosophical reasons. I do believe in them, but they aren't a driving motivation for my faith. I find great joy in conforming to the likeness of Christ, and am motivated thusly.
What I credit as God "speaking" to me is revelation during prayer that changes my understanding of reality. Occasionally something will pop into my head that I don't fully agree with, but generally this is not true. I accept only those ideas that make sense to me.
I am a Christian, but I do not box myself in with orthodoxy. I am skeptical that so-in-so's aunt's cancer was cured by God. I generally don't pray for physical interventions by God, but I don't reject them carte blanche. The Bible seems to support their beliefs, but I have a hard time comprehending it philosophically so I choose not to participate in that part of Christianity, but leave the door open to the possibililty.
As for heaven and hell, it is again something that I am not certain about for philosophical reasons. I do believe in them, but they aren't a driving motivation for my faith. I find great joy in conforming to the likeness of Christ, and am motivated thusly.
What I credit as God "speaking" to me is revelation during prayer that changes my understanding of reality. Occasionally something will pop into my head that I don't fully agree with, but generally this is not true. I accept only those ideas that make sense to me.
SweetLiberty:
"You say, "God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other." But he does not do so, even if he could. He remains mysterious and elusive, frustratingly disprovable, so I reject this possibility."
But according to Christianity this is exactly how God chose to interact with us: By in fact becoming one of us and living and teaching among us. The claim of Christianity is that the incarnation and life of Jesus Christ is God interacting with us exactly as we interact with each other.
"You say, "God could interact with us, just like we interact with each other." But he does not do so, even if he could. He remains mysterious and elusive, frustratingly disprovable, so I reject this possibility."
But according to Christianity this is exactly how God chose to interact with us: By in fact becoming one of us and living and teaching among us. The claim of Christianity is that the incarnation and life of Jesus Christ is God interacting with us exactly as we interact with each other.
The problem of why God chooses to remain somewhat hidden is referred to in philosophy of religion as the problem of divine hiddenness. One scholar who has written on this issue for Cambridge University Press and Routledge is Dr. Michael J. Murray.
His argument is that if God reveals himself too much to people, that his immense power and holiness will force people to respond to him out of a sense of self-preservation. God values free will, and so he keeps somewhat hidden in order to avoid coercing the will of his creatures.
Post a Comment
His argument is that if God reveals himself too much to people, that his immense power and holiness will force people to respond to him out of a sense of self-preservation. God values free will, and so he keeps somewhat hidden in order to avoid coercing the will of his creatures.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]