Two of the Bible stories that haunt my memory years after having last read the Bible in its entirety or gone to church regularly-- and I don't even know if I remember them correctly or if my mind has modified them into some more poetic version in the years that they've been stored away-- are the stories of Doubting Thomas's reaction to Christ's resurrection from the dead, and of Saul of Tarsus's conversion to Christianity. The Doubting Thomas story is at John 20:24-29. Saul's conversion story is at Acts 9 if you want to check. I am not going to bother for the moment.
Both stories-- at least as I understand them all these years later-- depict God/Christ presenting himself to human criteria for belief. I always felt sympathy for Thomas and the horrible moniker hung on him by believers; his doubt that a man he had seen crucified would rise from the dead three days later seems reasonable to me. But what is touching to me is that Jesus appealed both to his belief and his unbelief. He appealed to his belief by appearing to him as Jesus the Nazarene, whom Thomas well knew; and he appealed to his unbelief by presenting his wounded palms to Thomas for examination. By doing so, Christ expanded Thomas's vision of him to include "Lord" and "God," which Thomas called him after he saw the holes in his hands. Christ gave him proof. That strikes me as sympathetic, coming as it did from the same Jesus who had often refused to perform miracles on demand. Once Thomas saw the wounds, his doubt gave way to a faith that transcended the evidence.
In the story of Saul's conversion, too, Yahweh revealed himself to the man in a way that fitted with his conception of who God was, at once fulfilling and transcending it, if only so that Saul would recognize him. Like Thomas, Saul's understanding of God was not so much incorrect as it was incomplete. He saw Yahweh as a God of vengeance and of judgment, and therefore saw it fit to mete out that judgment on Christians. This was, after all, the same Yahweh that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, flooded the earth, and sent plagues on Egypt. Yet it was also Yahweh who spared Lot and his sons from Sodom, who rescued Noah's family and all of the animals of the earth from the flood, and who led the Israelites to the Promised Land.
God did not condemn Saul for his lack of understanding. Instead, when he met Saul on the road to Damascus with a blinding light from heaven, he appeared within Saul's understanding of his character, as a God of vengeance. God inserted himself into Saul's framework of understanding and then enlarged Saul's concept of who he was; he expanded Saul's vision of God to include the Christ whose followers Saul had been persecuting. When a voice called out to Saul and said, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?," Saul perceived that it was God who was addressing him and that he was unacquainted with his full character.
Both Thomas and Saul encountered a God who matched their limited understanding of his character and who subsequently transformed their understanding, broadening it to encompass a more complete view of his nature.
What you yourself would like from the addressee of your gratitude?
ReplyDeleteLiked this very much, Dani.
Perhaps.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the second half of the Thomas story something about "blessed is he who doesn't need evidence to believe"? That's the "lesson" I was always taught from this one, at least. Believe the unbelievable without any proof. I really should've gone into the Oklahoma beachfront real estate business...
ReplyDeleteThose are Jesus' own words to Thomas, and that is what most teachings on this passage focus on. It is clearly a rebuke. But Jesus' actions in the story seem to convey more grace and understanding than his words do.
DeleteIt's a kindness that you re-frame the story that way, and who knows... the Bible has seen enough revision that I suppose it's possible that the rebuke was added. But I don't think it's fair to simply put aside what is one of the most unnatural aspects of Christianity.
DeleteWhat aspect would that be? Christ's resurrection from the dead or the idea that we should believe in things apart from all evidence?
ReplyDeleteThe latter.. though the story does become a lot more compelling without it.
DeleteI don't think that that aspect of the story (and of Christianity) can be ignored, as much as it rankles me, but I think that Jesus conveys something with his actions in this story that goes beyond what his words express. I don't think that can be ignored either. So much of what Christians understand about God comes through Jesus' actions and not just his words.
DeleteJust wanted to say that your post was powerfully insightful re: God presenting himself within Thomas and Saul's frame of reference. There have been many contemporary reports of Muslims receiving dreams and visions of Jesus and subsequently converting, which correlates with your theme. For example: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/insider-movement-islam-wheres-jesus.html
ReplyDeleteThanks, Joel!
ReplyDelete