God at a Distance

Chapter Three

God Made Known to Man

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Man's awareness of God corresponds perfectly with his ability to choose between serving God and denying Him. To preserve this freedom, God does not overwhelm man with a direct manifestation of Himself. Just as a piece of metal that is too close to a magnet cannot resist being drawn to it, man could not avoid believing in God if he were to experience the unveiled essence of deity. On the other hand, if man had no revelation from the Creator, he would be incapable of finding and serving Him. Between these extremes is a knowledge of God made possible by a uniquely balanced mode of revelation. This revelation renders the knowledge of God neither against man's choice nor beyond his grasp.

The knowledge of God conveyed by revelation makes rational choice possible. Without this knowledge, the basis for the exercise of free will is lost. Intelligent choice entails knowing and weighing the alternatives. Volitionally balanced revelation is the foundation of human freedom, providing a basis for other aspects of our world in which this principle occurs.

God Revealed in Nature

If human freedom has real meaning, knowledge of God must be possible. But through what means does this awareness come? One idea is that knowledge of God is innate or inborn. This view is quite old, appearing in the writings of rationalistic philosophers such as Plato and Rene Descartes. Plato believed that we possess certain ideas prior to birth which we lose upon entering the world. The remainder of our lives are spent trying to regain this knowledge. Rene Descartes held that nothing in our experience gives us the concept of God, so the idea must be innate. It should be noted, however, that Descartes' concept of God was far different from Plato's. Descartes believed in the traditional Catholic view of God while Plato drew primarily from the standard Greek concept of divinity.

The view of an inborn knowledge of God also surfaced in the Reformation. In the opening pages of the Institutes, John Calvin insisted that "there exists in the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity." This idea of God is "stamped on the breast of all men" and "inscribed on every heart." But this naturally planted idea is not the only means by which knowledge of the Creator is conveyed. Calvin also believed that God's existence was conspicuous in the creation. The tragedy of this opportunity, as he put it, is that most men "walk blindfold in this glorious theatre."

No sooner does Calvin stress the importance of these avenues of knowing God, however, than he depreciates them. Because of our selfishly corrupt nature, he argues, we give little attention to these modes of knowledge and thus derive little benefit from them. Only the Scriptures can give a clear idea of God, and this idea can only be grasped by those who have been enlightened by the Spirit. Calvin likens this situation to an aged person whose sight is defective. This person is aware of a book that has been placed before him and may even read some of its contents. But he can read it distinctly and comprehend it fully only when he puts on his glasses.

Calvin's view of the nature of man set the stage for a more recent movement known as presuppositional apologetics. As taught by Cornelius Van Til, this view holds that man cannot in his natural state know that God exists from a consideration of nature because sin has blinded his heart. Only by a special act of God's grace -- an enlightening from the Holy Spirit --can he attain this knowledge. He cannot reason from the "brute facts" of creation to the existence of God. Thus, the unregenerate man merely presupposes that God exists until the Spirit opens his understanding. In addition to being an unbiblical view of the work of the Spirit, this view denies plain statements of the Scriptures regarding natural revelation.

The view that knowledge of God is inborn, though a common one, is lacking in any real biblical basis. God provides man with sufficient evidence of Himself and with the rational ability to correctly deduce His existence from that evidence, but there is no reason for believing that the knowledge of God is innate rather than freely discovered.

Distinct from the view of an inborn idea of God is the theory of an innate inclination or tendency to believe in God. People in all cultures of every age have displayed a religious "nature," and this fact is often cited as evidence of an inherent predisposition toward the supernatural. Whether this inherent inclination exists is debatable since the Scriptures do not appear to address the topic. However, it is false to argue, as John Hick does, that such an inclination is absolutely necessary to securing for man the possibility of freely responding to God. He writes,

"If mankind had no such bias toward a religious response to life, if the idea of the Supernatural found no spontaneous hospitality in the human mind, then only a quite overwhelmingly unambiguous self-disclosure could reveal the divine to man; and this revelation would be received by a compelled and not a voluntary awareness." He argues that to be free "we must possess an innate tendency to recognize his presence behind the phenomena of life."

There is no reason to limit the alternatives to either an innate religious tendency or else an overwhelming manifestation of God. Why is it not sufficient to affirm that God communicates the knowledge of His existence through the creation and that He gave man the capacity to correctly interpret this information?

Students of natural theology contend that the physical universe serves as a medium through which knowledge of God is conveyed. The manifestation of God's existence through nature is appropriately called natural or general revelation in contrast with supernatural or special revelation. Interestingly, philosophers from vastly different belief systems have used some form of this argumentation. Plato (Greek), Avicenna (Moslem), Maimonides (Jew), and Aquinas (Catholic) all appealed to the physical universe as proof that God exists. Though they differed in their views of the nature of the Supreme Being, these writers were united in the belief that the world can only be explained by His existence.

Long before these philosophers cited the evidence of creation to prove God's existence, the Scriptures had declared the validity of this reasoning. David wrote, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork" (Psa. 19:1). So clear is this evidence that David also said, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psa. 14:1). Because of the universal availability and genuine clarity of this evidence, the Bible does not, as many have rightly observed, argue the question of God's existence at length. It generally presupposes His existence since it is sufficiently declared in creation. But it does confirm the soundness of reasoning from creation to the Creator.

The New Testament also points to creation as evidence that God exists. Preaching to the Gentiles in Lystra, Paul stressed that God "did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness" (Acts 14:17). One of the most detailed sections on this topic occurs in the opening chapters of Romans. To establish the universal need for the gospel, Paul condemns the ungodliness of the Gentiles

because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20).

Since they knew that God created the world, the Gentiles knew that God was the author of the natural order. As a result, they were without excuse for idolatry, sexual perversion, and other sins (Rom. 1:21-32). They could know that such things were wrong even without a written code from God such as the Jews had. They recognized "by nature" the "things contained in the law" -- the moral principles in the law of Moses that were also discernible from nature (Rom. 2:14-15).

The availability and clarity of this evidence leads to an interesting question. If God's existence can be "clearly seen" so that man is "without excuse" and one who denies His existence is called a "fool", why do some not believe in God? How could atheism be possible in a world which so distinctly reveals God? The prevalence of this question is reflected in the title of R. C. Sproul's book If There's a God, Why are There Atheists? How could an established fact be denied by otherwise rational people?

An important aspect of this problem is the mode of knowledge conveyed by natural revelation. This awareness of God is mediate, not immediate; it is indirectly given through creation, not directly given by a direct manifestation of the divine essence. The creation mediates an awareness of God by revealing the effects of God's nature rather than that nature itself. In Farrer's analogy, the world "screens out" the overwhelming glory of God. Direct contact with God's essence would overpower man, intimidating him so that his free will would be impeded. In this situation, fear would be the sole decisive motive for serving God. While fear is a part of our motivation to serve Him (Matt. 10:28), fear alone is not a proper motive. Without faith and love we cannot please God (Heb. 11:6; I Cor. 13:1-3). At the judgment, every man will experience the awe of the divine essence. At that time "every knee shall bow" and "every tongue shall confess" (Rom. 14:11). But in the probation of earth life, man experiences a less imposing situation in which knowledge of God may be possessed by man without being forced upon him.

Skeptics ignore the function the physical world serves when they demand physical proof of God's existence. God is a pure spirit being (Jn. 4:24). He is incorruptible, immortal, and invisible (I Tim. 1:17; 6:16). He cannot be discovered by the five senses because the physical senses discern physical objects, not spiritual entities. To question or deny God's existence because it cannot be verified by the senses is to fail to grasp this distinction. This reliance on the senses as the ultimate criterion of knowledge has been prevalent since the time of eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume. This view, known as empiricism, is the dominant philosophical trend in the Western world. Empiricism, however, falls by its own criterion. It asserts that all knowledge must come through the senses, but the theory itself cannot be derived from the senses.

These facts contribute much to our understanding of faith. In light of the teaching of the Scriptures on the evidences of God's existence, faith is not, as is popularly supposed, an irrational leap in the dark. Faith is not mere knowledge that God exists, but it does include it. Faith is a chosen response to this evidence, consisting in an intellectual, emotional, and volitional resolve to serve God. Based upon adequate though not empirically verifiable evidence, faith is conviction in things not seen (Heb. 11:1).

While God is beyond sense experience, natural revelation is sufficient to inform man of His existence. This evidence has been successfully utilized in different versions of the cosmological, teleological, and moral argument for the existence of God. It is not my purpose to defend these assertions by explicating such arguments. Such a defense would take this work far beyond its original direction. Instead, I am arguing that the soundness of these arguments logically follows from the basic thesis of this book. If man is to have a truly just opportunity to make a responsible and rational choice for eternity, knowledge of God's existence must be possible.

It is possible for something to be a proven fact yet not be accepted by all. It is not true that proof of God's existence would eliminate unbelief. Some have wrongly argued that free choice would be impossible "if we had definite knowledge that God was present and recording our every action. How much choice do we have to speed when we know a police car is present?" On a very basic level, free choice is present in this situation: criminals may speed because they know a police car is present, as in the case of a bank robbery. Also, the constant presence of a police car might hinder free choice, but the abiding knowledge of the law and of the reality of policemen would not.

Free moral agency makes it possible to deny any assertion in spite of the weight of evidence. Atheists ignore the power of free will when they insist that God, if He existed, should have made Himself known in a manner incapable of leaving room for doubt. Carl Sagan suggested that God should have written the Ten Commandments on the surface of the moon or have placed a giant crucifix in the sky. But would Sagan believe in the God of the Bible if such signs were present, or would he attribute them to travelers from other galaxies? Bertrand Russell shared this disposition. When asked what he would say to God if death proved atheism to be wrong, Russell replied, "Why, I shuld say, 'God, you have us insufficient evidence.'" What kind of evidence would have been adequate to convince Russell of God's existence?

I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then proceeded to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence.

If this statement accurately represented his view of the matter, then no demonstration in the earthly realm could have guaranteed that Russell would have believed in the God of the Bible.

If a person is determined to disbelieve in God, no amount of evidence will persuade him to change. God will not force such a person to believe. The problem in this situation is not a lack of evidence or intellectual inability but a rebellious disposition. In viewing our battle with atheism in society, we should not be naive to the power of prejudice. Does this mean that all atheists are dishonest and that it is a waste of time to try to convert them? Does not the Bible instruct us to shun those who show nothing but contempt for the Word of God (Prov. 23:9; Matt. 7:6)? The context of Romans 1 shows that many atheists are dishonest. But some are not, as evangelistic efforts in former communist countries has shown. Some in these places have been indoctrinated in unbelief, but upon being challenged by the evidence for God's existence they have acknowledged the truth.

In light of these considerations, is a study of Christian evidences of any spiritual value? It might appear that this thinking is too theoretical to have any effect on the heart. How can the cold intellectualism of formal logical arguments motivate us to be closer to God? The problem here is one of emphasis. Concentrating solely on the mechanics of the reasoning process can indeed be a dry endeavor. But focusing on the sheer marvel of the evidences themselves can produce a sense of wonderful awe. We are often fascinated by the accomplishments of our technological age without being aware of the complex theoretical thinking behind them. We enjoy the convenience of air travel without taking a course in physics; we rely on computers and television without being mathematical geniuses. In the same way, we often marvel at the wonders of God's creation without writing them in precise logical form. Viewing the stars, witnessing the birth of a child, or experiencing a breathtaking mountainous scene has an unequaled effect on us. In these natural wonders God's existence may be "clearly seen." A study of Christian evidences strengthens our faith and enables us to better defend the faith in a skeptical world.

Though the evidence of God's existence is not only adequate but abundant, man is free to make whatever use of this evidence he desires. If faith in God were the only possible reaction to this evidence, such faith would not be commendable. As a result of this freedom, men respond to this evidence in different ways. Some reject the evidence, claiming that counter evidence outweighs it, especially the argument from the problem of evil. Others take a middle stance in regard to the evidence, holding that it is insufficient to decide either for or against God. Others are practical atheists because they believe in God but this belief has no significant effect on the way they live. A few accept the evidence out of a sincere heart and serve God with love and faith. Each person makes a chosen response to the evidence, and each person is responsible for that response.

God Revealed in Scripture

The first difficulty encountered in a study of written revelation is the problem of communication. Since man is in a sense removed from God, he must come to serve God by discovering His will. But since man is in a different realm of existence than God, He cannot easily relate to God or the realm He occupies. How can man, whose experience is confined to the physical world, understand a message from a realm in which nothing is physical? How is communication possible between two beings and two realms so markedly different?

The idea that such communication is impossible is in reality a denial of the omnipotence of God. If God is all-powerful, He can certainly speak to man in an understandable manner. If He created man, He can certainly communicate with him.

Communication between foreign parties begins with items of knowledge shared in common. Imagine a meeting of two people from radically different cultures, neither one of which can speak even a single word of the other's language. Communication between them could occur only by finding common ground. This common ground might be a gesture, a sign, or a sound mutually accepted by the parties. It must be found, however, if communication is to occur. A meeting of minds precedes the relationship that follows.

Another helpful analogy is teaching the gospel to the lost. The process of conversion involves beginning with people where they are and leading them to a fuller knowledge of the truth. The lost vary considerably in their knowledge of the spiritual. Some believe that Christ is the Son of God but know little of His Word. Others may not even believe that the Bible is from God. But in any case, the evangelizing of the lost means beginning with them where they are spiritually. Paul, for instance, established a meeting of minds with the Jews in Antioch (Acts 13) on a different basis than he did with the Gentiles at Athens (Acts 17).

If God is to communicate with man, a similar meeting of minds must occur. God must communicate in terms of things with which man is familiar. He must speak in terms of man's level of understanding. This manner of speaking is precisely what we find in the Scriptures. God is accommodatively described in human terms. Anthropomorphisms ascribe bodily forms to God such as a hand or an ear (Isa. 59:1). Anthropopathisms ascribe human passions to God such as jealousy (Exod. 34:14) or repentance (Gen. 6:6). Heaven and hell are also described with items taken from man's experience on earth: pure water and precious stones, everlasting fire and perpetual darkness (Rev. 21-22; Matt. 25:41; Jude 13). This communication by way of analogy is even seen in the common definition given to a parable -- "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning."

The "gap" between man and God, then, is in part bridged by the knowledge of earthly things possessed by both. Special or written revelation incorporates and builds upon man's knowledge of the world. But just as the evidence the world offers is precisely proportioned to man's free will, so is written revelation. Omniscience is so far above human intelligence that God could easily overwhelm our minds with a flood of information. He could just as easily deliver a revelation with too little information.

The biblical property of being neither overly specific nor overly vague appears in several important areas. This precise medium is particularly evident in Bible prophecies. Unlike the predictions of false prophets, prophecies in Scripture are specific in form and have a distinctly identifiable fulfillment. They are not so general as to be liable to a number of interpretations, none of which is certain. For instance, the writings of sixteenth century French astrologist Nostradamus are believed by some to contain predictions of future events. But these utterances are much too vague to be true prophecies. Consider the following example:

The great man will be struck down in the day by a thunderbolt. An evil deed, foretold by the bearer of a petition. According to the prediction another falls at night time. Conflict at Reims, London, and pestilence in Tuscany.

This particular prediction supposedly refers to the assasination of the Kennedy brothers, John and Robert. How it came to be applied to them is a mystery indeed. Like the claims of modern horoscopes, the predictions of Nostradamus are much too general to be given serious consideration.

In sharp contrast to these pseudo-prophecies are the prophecies of the Scriptures. One striking aspect of biblical prophecy is the element of remoteness. The fulfillment of Bible prophecies was sufficiently removed in time from their declaration. Prophets of God spoke of future events so distant that they could not be discovered by the efforts of the prophets themselves. Unlike Joseph Smith's "prophecy" of the Civil War, Bible prophecies were often spoken centuries before they were fulfilled.

Another unique aspect of Bible prophecies is that they are specific. They contain sufficient details for a definite fulfillment. Prophecies of Christ, for instance, involve such specific items as the place of His birth (Mic. 5:2), the price of His betrayal (Zech. 11:12), and the circumstances of His death (Isa. 53:5-12). The abundance of detailed prophecies in the Old Testament cannot be explained on the basis of coincidence. As a result, prophecy is one of the strongest evidences of the inspiration of the Bible.

At the same time, however, God was careful to avoid supplying too many details in these prophecies. Suppose the following prophecy had been delivered to the Jews:

On the eleventh day of the second month in the third year of the Roman emperor Tiberius, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary, will enter into the house of Simon Barjona's wife's mother. At the fifth hour, being assembled with His twelve disciples, He will touch her right hand with His left hand, and her fever will depart from her.

Had prophecies of Christ been delivered in this manner, the enemies of Christ could have easily defeated His mission. They would have known in advance His every move. They also would have removed the need to search for their meaning and fulfillment, thus taking from man a beneficial spiritual exercise.

The result of this unique character of Bible prophecies is that some believe them while others reject them. The unbelieving Jews because of their prejudice failed to see the fulfillment of the very prophecies they read every sabbath day (Acts 13:27-29). They were blind to the meaning of the prophecies because Jesus was not the type of king they wanted. Others, realizing that these prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, became Christians (Acts 2:14-47). The difference between the two groups lies in the chosen response of each.

This fascinating balance is also seen in Jesus' common method of teaching -- the parable. In addition to other reasons behind their frequent use, parables served a dual function: to reveal truth to those seeking it and to conceal truth from those opposed to it. This purpose is seen in Jesus' answer to the disciples' question "Why do You speak to them in parables?" (Matt. 13:10):

"Because it has been given to you yo know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given...Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand" (Matt. 13:11, 13).

To the earthly minded, the parables of Jesus are nothing more than stories about everyday life. Many of the Jews took Jesus' figures of speech literally because of their worldly mindset (Jn. 2:19-21; 3:3-5; 6:51-52). To sincere seekers of truth, the parables convey some of the richest and most profound lessons in the Scriptures. These illustrations are sufficiently clear to be understood by honest souls. But their lessons are transmitted indirectly through the medium of earthly things so that only those who are looking beyond this world will appreciate them. Their nature, then, corresponds perfectly to the purpose of man's existence.

The wisdom of God in preserving man's freedom is also seen in the nature of biblical instructions. As in other aspects of the Scriptures, these directives are neither overly explicit nor obscure. Consider the implications of a Bible containing commands such as the following:

You, John A. Christian, will rise up at 6:30 am on Monday, March 15, 1996. You will upon rising pray for three minutes and forty-five seconds, at the end of which time you will be interrupted by your wife's voice. After responding to her in kindness, resume praying for two more minutes. You must then read and meditate on Proverbs 15-17 for seventeen minutes and five seconds while you eat breakfast...

In addition to being practically non-feasible because of its length, a book of such instructions would impede the exercise of the will. Each person's entire life would be written, making tests of faith impossible. Also, no room would be left for man to search for and figure out his duty to God. Though we may at times find ourselves wishing that God had been more explicit in His Word, we should realize the implications of such a revelation.

God was at the same time careful to give directions that were sufficiently clear. The Bible is not so vague as to be incapable of distinct interpretation. Paul spoke of the mystery which upon being read could be understood (Eph. 3:3-4); Jesus promised that anyone who is willing to do His will could understand His teaching (Jn. 7:17; 8:32). Though even Peter admitted that some parts of the Scriptures are hard to understand (II Pet. 3:16), those things which are essential to salvation may be understood by any sincere, accountable person. Otherwise, God would be unjust. God has delivered a revelation with the precise degree of explicitness necessary for challenging man's free will without infringing upon it. The instructions of the Bible are explicit enough to be understood by the sincere but brief enough to be rejected by the rebellious. We must use our power of reason to se that the Scriptures apply to us. As a result, those who do not want to accept the true meaning of Scripture simply pervert it (II Pet. 3:16). For every correct interpretation of the Bible, a number of misinterpretations are available. For instance, consider the command "Love your neighbor as yourself." These words are clear. However, a certain lawyer, after hearing Jesus stress the importance of this command, "wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, 'And who is my neighbor?'" Luke 10:29). By subtly redefining the word neighbor to refer exclusively to the Jewish neighbors (Matt. 5:43), the Jews had relieved themselves of any benevolent actions toward the Gentiles. Regardless of how clear a divine command is, room is always left for avoiding its intended application.

In the written Word as well as in the world there are seeming contradictions. Some seize these difficulties and claim to have logical proof for disbelieving the Bible, ignoring the positive evidence in behalf of its inspiration. Others realize the challenge offered by these difficulties and use them as stepping-stones to a higher degree of faith. As with alleged obstacles in the world to faith such as the problem of evil, the alleged discrepancies of the Bible are carefully purposed by God to challenge man's will without overwhelming it.

Men are free to interpret the Bible just as they are free to interpret the evidence of creation. This freedom carries with it the possibility of conflicting interpretations. The present state of professed Bible-believers is a frustrating reminder of the liability involved in such freedom. The sectarian condition of those who claim allegiance to the Bible poses an old problem. If the Bible can be understood by all, why do so many contradictory beliefs exist? How can unbelievers be drawn to Christ in the face of such confusion? The Catholic way of dealing with this problem is simple and well-known: deny to the people the right to interpret the Bible for themselves and insist that they conform to the teaching of the Catholic church. But forced or uninformed consent is not faith, and the Catholic boast of unity on this basis is a delusion.

The fact that many people interpret the Bible in conflicting ways does not overturn God's promise that the Scriptures can be understood. In fact, rather than viewing these contradictory beliefs as a weakness of the Scriptures, we should see them as proof of the free will of man. For man to truly be free, the possibility of his mishandling the Word of God must be real. The only way for God to guarantee the single correct interpretation of the Scriptures by all would be to remove man's freedom.

God Revealed in Christ

That God lived on earth in human form is one of the most profound teachings of Christianity. As the focal truth of the biblical message, the Incarnation is described in the New Testament as historical fact. John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (Jn. 1:1, 14). Prior to the Incarnation He existed "in the form of God" but was then made "in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:6-7). In Christ, God walked on the earth, experiencing fatigue, hunger, thirst and even pain and death. At a casual glance, He appeared to be merely human. But upon close inspection, His words and deeds declared Him to be God.

To protect man's freedom, God did not arrange Jesus' appearance to project an unmistakable image of deity. In fact, He was not even the beautiful physically beautiful person many artists depict Him as being. The sole biblical reference to His outward appearance, spoken centuries before His birth, indicates the opposite: "He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him" (Isa. 53:2). Jesus could not be identified as the Messiah by mere outward appearance. Had this been the case, everyone who saw Him would have been forced to admit that He was God. As Pascal observed, the veil of human flesh left His deity concealed. Kierkegaard spoke of the Incarnation as the divine incognito, as when a policeman appears in plain clothes. Though Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" theology is contrary to the biblical truth that Jesus' deity could be known (Jn. 10:24-25, 37-38), the policeman figure offers an interesting analogy.

Jesus' entrance into the world was not attended by a spectacular display of power and glory. Had God desired, He could have sent Christ with a legion of angels and mighty signs that would have left His identity literally beyond dispute. This splendor will accompany His second coming (Matt. 25:31), but His earthly life was comparatively inconspicuous. His birth, for instance, was not a public spectacle. The circumstances surrounding it did not impose upon men's free will but rather left room for men to come to Him in genuine faith and love.

Even the manner of His conception reflects God's desire to challenge man's will. Had we been in charge of deciding the nature of the Messiah's entrance into the world, we would have avoided any circumstance that might have been misunderstood. We probably would not have decided for Him to be some time in the womb of an unmarried pregnant woman, since some might get the wrong idea. Of course, if Jesus had been conceived after Joseph and Mary were married, some would have said that He was merely the earthly son of Joseph. But God ordained that Christ be conceived in a way that was sure to be misrepresented. As a result, this transition to earth life is a test of man's will, with some accepting the evidence of His virgin birth and others reaching the blasphemous conclusion, as the some of the Jews apparently did (Jn. 8:41), that He was born illegitimately.

The place of Jesus' birth was announced centuries before He was born (Mic. 5:2). But as with other Messianic prophecies, this prophecy was characterized by a certain divine restraint in regard to its explicitness. Because of this manner of expression, the Jews were divided over its application. Some took Micah's prophecy to mean that the Messiah was simply to be born there, while others believed that it meant He was to grow up there. This divergence is seen especially in the following case of their response to His teaching:

Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, "Truly this is the Prophet." Others said, "This is the Christ," but some said, "Will the Christ come out of Galilee? Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" So there was a division among the people because of Him (Jn. 7:40-43).

The fact that Jesus was revealed yet concealed also characterized His earthly ministry. This was necessary for two reasons. One is that a self-evident manifestation of the Messiah would have prevented Him from fulfilling His mission. This is the basic theme of John Locke's work on Jesus' life. Locke makes several interesting observations regarding the concealed aspect of Jesus' mission. He notes that had Jesus openly proclaimed Himself to be the Messiah at the beginning, the Sanhedrin would have seized Him before He was able to complete His work. Also, an open claim to be the Messiah would have required regular miraculous intervention by God to deliver Him from the mob attacks of the Jews. Furthermore, a direct revelation of Jesus as the King of Israel would have led the Jews, already disenchanted with Roman rule, to declare open rebellion against the authorities.

Instead, Locke emphasized, Jesus gradually and carefully revealed His identity. Since His miracles and teaching already strongly pointed to His deity, Jesus was careful to avoid an overabundance of public acclaim. His Messiahship was thus "shrouded under the obscurity of a mean condition and a very private simple life." After Peter confessed Him as the Christ, "He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ" (Matt. 16:20). Because of the danger at Jerusalem, He "went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret" (Jn. 7:10). These cautions were necessary to prevent His premature death.

A more fundamental reason that Jesus' deity was not self-evident was to insure a free will response in those who saw and heard Him. Jesus' physical presence did not emit a mysterious force that irresistibly drew His listeners to Him. The evidence for His deity was sufficient, but it could only be a means for knowing Him to honest hearts. The mixed reactions to His words and deeds show that free will was not suspended in those who saw Him: "And there was much murmuring among the people concerning Him, for some said, 'He is a good man'; others said, 'No, on the contrary, He deceives the people'" (Jn. 7:12). While not eyewitnesses of His life, we have a divine record of Christ which is precisely proportioned to render our response to Him as freely chosen as those who lived in the first century.

Even in His death Jesus avoided too great a show of divine power and glory. He could have called twelve legions of angels to deliver Him (Matt. 26:53). Instead, He marched to Calvary as a lamb led to the slaughter. He was then challenged by the Jews to "come down from the cross, and we will believe Him" (Matt. 27:42). Had Jesus accepted their challenge, His mission would have remained incomplete and volitional balance may have been upset. May have been, I say, since some of the Jews were hardened beyond believing (Jn. 12:37-41).

The manner of Jesus' death, like the circumstances of His birth, did not produce an involuntary response of faith in those who witnessed it. As His entrance into the world was lowly, so was His death. Men responded to His manner of death according to their desires. Some saw in the crucifixion the love and wisdom of God; others considered the idea of a humiliated Messiah to be unacceptable.

"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God" (I Cor. 1:22-24).