one of the students interrupted the professor asking "Is not God partial in choosing only Israel for a complete revelation of God-self in his son Jesus Christ?"
The Professor primarily noted that this question spontaneously exposes the deep longing in every created thing especially human beings, for the divine. Then he rendered two responses.
1. The choice of God is an exercise of his Freedom, which cannot be questioned. Moreover we need to understand that revelation is grace, a gift which is never merited despite our efforts to move towards it. In such case, the God's choice of Israel for special revelation is not unjust!
2. As it has been revealed in the Bible, our God is a God of the poor, marginalized... (c. Lk 4: 18-21, Mt 5: 2ff). Israel in the history of humanity were no-people, so God choosing such insignificant group is nothing to be surprised, but to be noted as the uniqueness of our God.
But in my understanding of God and the concept of divine revelation, this question is an opening to the questioner’s language game of GOD and HIS REVELATION. The question if carefully analyzed makes possible a decent grasp of the hinge proposition around which revolves the world-picture of the questioner i.e. ‘the God of Israel who has been revealing himself from the beginning of creation in the created things, prophets has fully revealed himself only in Jesus Christ’. The consequence of such a hold is that JESUS is the fullness of Revelation/Truth. There is nothing wrong in such a hold/conviction. Actually it is correct and the truth, I am coming from such a form of life and have experienced it in my life.
The problem however is the doubt whether God has been partial in this endeavor. First, it should be clear as Karl Rahner in Hearers of the Word notes that divine revelation cannot but occur in history. Be it a free gift or merit it can happen only in history, since everyone is ontologically historical. A set of norms, beliefs, culture, customs, behavior pattern, and psyche form an intrinsic part of our making. If anyone wants to truly communicate to the other has to reach him/her in his/her world-picture. Though we can work on it and at times correct/modify it, the fact is that we have our being in history. Thus every communication is an attempt to cross boundaries. This fact makes the divine communication all the more complex than inter-personal human communication. Since it challenges us to rise to the level of the divine which is new, a-normal but not totally align (we are divine in the core of our being – tattvamasi). This realization and transformation, which is the purpose of our life cannot but be achieved through divine communication. For the purpose of communication is communion. So, God comes down to us in our history to meet us, to reveal God-self - the reason for the diversity in our expression of this One Truth/One Being ‘God’. The fact, therefore, that it has happened to Israel in a particular manner is not a point of surprise/alarm.
Second, the tradition (Jews and Christians) that calls it as special love of God is again acceptable and true. Since any love relationship makes the other feel/experience intimacy. How much more intense it has to be when the same thing happens with God, who is all perfect and nothing but love. Therefore the tradition that has had this experience has to feel special, for God loves every individual and every community is unique and special. I would to better explain this through an anecdote from the life St. John Bosco. Fr. Bosco was always noted for his love every boy in the oratory, so much so every boy felt that he was the special friend of Fr. Bosco. One day a group of boys picked up an argument on who was more close and special to Fr. Bosco. Every one gathered there was invariably claiming to be his special friend. Finally, it reached the desk of Fr. Bosco. Fr. Bosco sensing the anxiety and the tension amidst them replied pointing to the fingers of his right hand, “which one of them do I love most?” The boys stood dumbfounded. He continued, “I cannot love one more and other less, I need all the five which are different and unique. So it is with my love for you.” It is the same in the case of every religion/community feeling special closeness to God. God makes them feel special! There is definitely no partiality. Such an attitude, moreover creates a sympathy and respect in our outlook towards other religions/communities and their world-picture. This does not even make Truth plural. I firmly am convinced that Truth is necessarily one. Its revelation, however, cannot but be confined to our limitedness/historicity. Thus we have plurality of expressions. Our journey from the beginning of creation is to transcend it – evolution. Probably that is why God became man in Jesus of Nazareth and lived as both fully human and fully divine to set us an example of God’s world picture to understand His/her revelation and finally become one with it.
Third, I would like to also comment on the unexpressed conviction ‘Jesus is the fullness of revelation’ which was implicit in the question under discussion. This is the consequence of the individual belonging to Christian world-picture. There is nothing to be disturbed about any such expression provided it is a done with love, for the welfare of the other. In the micro/personal level, though it is given, the validity of such basic certainties becomes verified in the adulthood of one’s life. If positive then the dogma/belief transforms into personal conviction. The individual gradually begins to proclaim/speak about the transformation, happiness and meaning one has experienced in his/her encounter with the Truth, to his/her family, friends, neighbours, acquaintances, at times even to strangers. This is evangelization, in the language of the Church. There is nothing wrong in any such sharing of one’s encounter with Truth with due respect to the freedom of the other. Such communication is authentic if it arises out of genuine love for the welfare of the other. The process slowly but surely brings the whole world in communion with the Truth transforming everyone into divine, the final end of every created reality. While it looks simple, in the micro/personal level, the formation of conviction based on Revelation and its expression becomes a lot more complicated and sensitive in the macro/community level. But, one thing that is becoming clear is that evangelization is an eager extension of one’s experience of the Truth. It is, therefore, nothing wrong with evangelizing instead it is fishy when someone fails to evangelize his/her tradition/religion. No wonder the apostles note that they cannot but preach Christ, the Truth that has gripped their lives. Every created reality is invariably groaning for this Truth. Evangelisation, therefore, is
not universalization, but a sharing of one’s personal experience of Truth motivated by love for the welfare (lokasamgraha) of the whole humanity.
Finally, therefore, the question is not whether God is partial or not-partial, nor even whether Jesus is the fullness of Truth or Buddha or Krishna etc., instead is whether one recognizes the deep longing and makes sincere effort to journey towards it. Any deeply convinced Christian cannot but proclaim ‘the Risen Lord as the fullness of Revelation/Truth’, as the way for the salvation. So it is with a Buddhist regarding Buddha, a Hindu regarding Krisha etc. The important point to be remembered, however, is to undertake one such search. The history evidences from the lives of god-men of different traditions that any sincere search is assisted by whole created reality and is graced with an encounter with the Truth – a glimpse of the awaited parousia.
Partiality is a relative term. Experiencing the special love God has for us, we can also say GOD IS PARTIAL. It is from the view of the one who enjoys the love.
ReplyDeleteIt is... till we are only enjoyers; we need to be BEARERS/GIVERS of HIS LOVE. Then we understand, GOD CANNOT BE PARTIAL; NOR WE.