Jesus is generally thought of as a meek and mild man. That's our general image, I think. I don't think that's wrong. But there were a few times in His earthly ministry when He wasn't quite so ... easy-going. Remember the visit to the Temple where He overturned tables and broke out a whip? Not so meek. Or how about the time when He took on the Pharisees near the end of His life? Let's see ... cute little phrases like "whitewashed tombs", "full of robbery and self-indulgence", "hypocrites", "brood of vipers" ... you know, heart-warming pleasantries. Yeah, not so warm and friendly then, either. One of the other times was when He was sending His disciples out on their mission trip. He told them to wipe the dust from their feet if they weren't accepted and warned, "It will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city." Then He launched into what I can only call a tirade.
"Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades! The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me" (Luke 10:13-16).Umm, yeah, not so meek and mild there, especially if you understand the Hebraic concept of "woe". Some might have been tempted to warn Jesus about overdoing it a bit. You know, more flies with honey than vinegar ... that kind of thing. But He said it.
Look, though, at what He said. There are things hanging there that I've never heard in a sermon. Take, for instance, the certainty that Jesus had about what would have been. Not what was, but what would have been. Apparently God can know what human choices would be even if they didn't make them.
But it's a two-edged sword. Look at it! "If the miracles had been performed in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago." What do we know from this beyond the fact that God knows what would have been? Well, if miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. Really? Wait a minute! What about our basic premise that God wants to save as many people as He can? He knew that sending miracles to Tyre and Sidon would have resulted in their repentance and He didn't do it. What happened? This strikes a real blow at that cherished idea. It also puts a real hole in the Middle Knowledge concept. He knew what it would take to produce repentance and He didn't do it.
You will conclude what you want, of course, but what do I conclude? I conclude that God owes no one salvation. I conclude that His choice "does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy." I conclude that "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires." Yeah, yeah, I know. That sounds a lot like "double predestination". But that's what I conclude. I wonder if it's time to reexamine some of those popular ideas ...
3 comments:
This is a good argument, and it's the first time I've ever heard it. You should ask it ask a question of the week to Bill Craig on his Reasonable Faith web site. I double-dare you! You might even win him over!
My answer would be that the miracles might be too coercive. There is a point where God can show too much of himself so that the relationship becomes less about the free choice to respond to his love, and more about self-preservation. He doesn't want that.
Read Matt 23:37 for an example where Jesus desires something yet the objects of his love resist his will for them. I'm sure he could show them something to coerce them, but then that would not be love anymore. Love can't be coerced.
Still, it's a good job. Only someone who understands the argument can make an argument like that.
Another great way to put bad theology in it's place.
BTW, I used the image of meek and mild in my sermon this weekend, talking about the fact that He is the final judge. No meekness there.
Blessings
I love that one. I've heard more times than I can recall. "In order for love to be genuine, it has to be a free choice." First, I'm wondering the source of the claim. Like so many other claims, it seems to come out of thin air. Second, it misses the point. No one is suggesting coercion. But that's not the point here.
In this case it's like saying, "If you are too wonderful to the girl you are courting, you might coerce her to love you, so don't be too nice." Odd.
But there's a problem with the "miracles might be too coercive" concept. They weren't. They had no effect on Capernaum. Here, think of it like this. I've actually heard skeptics say this: "If God would do a miracle in front of me I'd believe." So what was the reaction of the Jews when they saw Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? I mean, it was in front of their eyes without question and without possible denial. It was as "coercive" as it gets. Their reaction was to seek to kill Jesus and Lazarus. Speaking of Lazarus, Jesus Himself disagreed with the notion that miracles were coercive. In the story about Lazarus and the rich man He concludes, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead" (Luke 16:31).
But I'm pretty sure Dr. Craig isn't interested in this question (based on the rules of the question of the week stuff).
Post a Comment