We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
The Starting Point for “Knowing God”
While it makes sense that Hellenistic philosophers embraced knowledge of God as the simple, necessary and immutable One in an attempt to explain the ever-changing, composite, contingent world (see post here for what this means), it is misguided for Christian theology to do so. By defining knowledge of God’s essence over-and-against creation, we are defining God’s essence over-and-against Christ, the very one who is supposed to be the definitive revelation of God’s essence. The concern with preserving the absolute distinction between God and creation is certainly necessary, but this is not the way to do it. For preserving this distinction is without value unless we are remaining faithful to the revelation of God in Christ by placing our complete trust in it and by demonstrating our trustworthiness in living in accordance with it.
Hence, rather than starting with a concept of God that moves away from becoming, contingency, dependency and suffering, I submit that our knowledge of God must start with the fact that God became a human and suffered at the hands of wicked humans and fallen angels as he suffered a God-forsaken death for us on the cross. From this cross-centered perspective, any who construe God’s transcendent essence as excluding contingency, becoming, dependency and suffering can only be understood as trying to protect God’s transcendent essence from his own self-revelation—as if they know God’s transcendent essence better than God himself!
To affirm Christ as the Incarnation of God is to consider the experiences of the man Jesus to also be experiences of the divine Jesus. This means that the suffering of the man Jesus on the cross must be accepted as the suffering of God on the cross. Indeed God’s self-sacrificial suffering unambiguously reveals his eternal essence. To insert a wedge between the divinity and humanity of Christ undermines the revelation of God in the crucified Christ and uncovers an allegiance to a concept of divine transcendence that is derived from a source outside the crucified Christ.
The only way to remain faithful to the revelation of God in the crucified Christ as we reflect on God’s “wholly other” transcendence is to refuse to speculate about a hypothetical transcendence over-and-against this revelation. Instead we must seek to discern God’s transcendence in the “wholly other” quality of the revelation of the crucified Christ.
As I interpret him, this is close to what Luther was getting at with his first conception of God’s hiddenness. He was noting that the utter incomprehensibility of God is most clearly unveiled precisely when God is most unambiguously revealed. God’s unfathomable distance from us is most profoundly revealed precisely when God stoops an infinite distance to come most close to us, diving not only into our humanity, but also into our sin and our curse.
Hence, the definitive disclosure of God’s “wholly other” transcendence takes place precisely in God’s definitive accommodation of our limitations and sin on Calvary. With his concept of God’s hiddenness in the midst of his revelation, I suspect Luther was, in his own way, astutely observing that the Incarnate and Crucified Christ should at one and the same time serve as the ultimate source of our conception of divine accommodation as well as our conception of divine transcendence.
Image by Joshua Earle via Flickr.
Category: General
Tags: Cruciform Theology, God, Jesus, Luther, Transcendence
Related Reading
Is Jesus Really God?
While it is true that Jesus Himself never comes out and explicitly says He is God in the Gospels, He is everywhere portrayed in terms that lead us to conclude to the same thing. He says things like “If you see Me, you see the Father,” “Honor Me even as you honor the Father,” and…
Don’t Be a Functional Atheist at Christmas
All of us raised in Western culture have been strongly conditioned by what is called a secular worldview. The word secular comes from the Latin saeculum, meaning “the present world.” A secular worldview, therefore, is one that focuses on the present physical world and ignores or rejects the spiritual realm. To the extent that one…
Did the Father Suffer on the Cross?
When I argue that the cross is a Trinitarian event (See post), some may suspect that I am espousing Patripassionism, which was a second and third century teaching that held that God the Father suffered on the cross. While this view was often expressed as a form of heretical Modalism, and while the Patristic fathers…
The Only Thing That Matters Is Love: The Kingdom of God (Part 3)
To say that living in Calvary-quality love is the most important thing in our life is to grossly understate its importance. This stands in distinction from how we typically define the Kingdom of God. But it stands in line with the fact that Jesus is the Kingdom of God. Paul says the “the only thing…
Early Anabaptists and the Centrality of Christ
In a previous post, I wrote about the Christocentric interpretation of the Scriptures espoused by the magisterial Reformers, specifically Luther and Calvin. Their hermeneutic was focused on the work and the offices of Christ, but in my opinion the Anabaptists surpasses their approach because it focused on the person of Christ with an unparalleled emphasis…
Christ the Center
The center of the Christian faith is not anything we believe; it’s the person of Jesus Christ. The foundation of my faith is a person, not a book and a set of beliefs about that book. Rather than believing in Jesus because I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, I came…