Chapter 4 of the book probably caused me to think the deepest and longest. Here's a paragraph:
"As I look back on the three temptations, I see that Satan proposed an enticing improvement. He tempted Jesus toward the good parts of being human without the bad: to savor the taste of bread without being subject to the fixed rules of hunger and of agriculture, to confront risk with no real danger, to enjoy fame and power without the prospect of painful rejection—in short, to wear a crown but not a cross. (The temptation that Jesus resisted, many of us, his followers, still long for.)" [1]
I think that's an excellent assessment of the narrative in Matthew 4. However Yancy's conclusion is troubling. He writes, "The Temptation in the desert reveals a profound difference between God' s power and Satan' s power. Satan has the power to coerce, to dazzle, to force obedience, to destroy. Humans have learned much from that power, and governments draw deeply from its reservoir . . . God' s power, in contrast, is internal and noncoercive. "You would not enslave man by a miracle, and craved faith given freely, not based on miracle," said the Inquisitor to Jesus in Dostoevsky' s novel. Such power may seem at times like weakness. In its commitment to transform gently from the inside out and in its relentless dependence on human choice, God's power may resemble a kind of abdication. As every parent and every lover knows, love can be rendered powerless if the beloved chooses to spurn it." [2]
One cannot help but see Yancy's theology and presuppositions. Are we faced with observing a loving God, somewhat like a passionate suitor who constantly makes appeals to his reluctant objects of affection, hoping that their supreme characteristic, their human will, will someday bend to his favor? Is God dependent upon the human will? Does that not make the Creator the pawn of the creature?
Is God an impotent, vexed but patient lover hoping that someday, somehow, those whom He loves will surrender their obstinate will and accept His free offer of love? Is the effectiveness and power of God's love "rendered powerless" by my exceptionally omnipotent will? Would this notion not be treated as heresy in years past?
Yancy's aim in this book is to reveal to us the humanity of Jesus. It's a good goal and there is a lot of excellent insight in this book. But when we assess the humanity of Jesus by our human ideals and notions, we compromise not only His Incarnation, but His Deity. We must also comprehend His humanity through the spectacle of Divine inspiration. Indeed our Savior showed us in the Temptation that there are no shortcuts to be fully human. There is but one path and that is via dolorosa. It is only through faith in the perfectly human, substitute Savior, who is risen from the dead and reigning that we can be fully human. And this Redeemer is in no way handcuffed by human volition to save all whom "the Father has given Him."
Or as Charles Wesley so theologically and profoundly wrote:
Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray,
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.[3]
The "diffused" eye of Almighty God is more than able to set captives free -- indeed captives to their own "free will". The jesus that Yancy portrays in Chapter 4 of this book is not a Jesus I knew either, nor a Jesus the Bible reveals.
__________________________________________________
1. Yancy, Philip, The Jesus I Never Knew, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 1995, Page 40-41
2. Ibid, Page 43
3. https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/296
No comments:
Post a Comment