Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Interview With Dr. E

Woke up at 6.30am this morning and got myself tidied before meeting Dr. E at 8am. Rushed and prayed all the way to the place because the time wasn't friendly, as being shown on my watch. Glad that the route was safe and smooth. Thus i reached there on time, though one or two minutes late.

Dr. E was already there waiting. We shook hands and he invited me to the meeting room for chat. The chat lasted for about an hour. He was friendly, open, and blunt. I was honest, transparent, and respectful.

It was only 8.40am (my estimation) when Dr. E asked me 2 BIG questions: "Why do you think it is necessary for Jesus Christ to be 100% human and 100% divine? And can you briefly share the passages that hint on the 'trinity-ness' of God in the OT?"

I think i did well on the first question where as the second one is kind of impossible. Here were my responds:

Jesus Christ necessarily be 100% human because only by that, He is able to relate and fully symphatize with human in our weakness, suffering, pain, brokeness and all sort of evil that we, fallen humans, experience. I was refering to Romans 8.1-4 (His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh) and Jurgen Moltmann's theology of hope.

He has to be 100% divine because it is necessary for us to listen to someone who is super-human. Founders of other religion are merely human and if Jesus Christ is just another mere human, why should i give Him my ears? To coin an allegory (i had this allegory in mind but didn't share with Dr. E): all humans are trapped in an enclosed box, the only things that we know are those things within the enclosed box. We might also think that we are well in the box while in reality we are trapped and imprisoned there. If ever a transcendant truth is to be known by us about our own condition has to come from someone who is outside the box. Someone who can see us from a point of view that we cannot see ourselves. And if ever this someone came to tell us something, then He is someone that we should listen to.

Then Dr. E responded that he will 'fine-tune' the last part of my reply (the one on Jesus' 100% divinity). I anticipated excitedly.

He said,"Jesus Christ has to be 100% divine because only a lamb that is without blemish would be worthy to be the perfect sacrifice for God's judgement. So being 100% divine, He is the perfect sacrifice."

With all respect to Dr. E, I don't think that fine-tuned any of my reply. That only shows the necessity for Jesus to be 100% human so that He could, in human form, represents us on the altar to be sacrificed as the price to purchase our salvation.

My answer to the second questions was reference to Genesis (God's spirit hover over the water and God said "Let us make man..") and Daniel 7 (God's everlasting kingdom being established). When i finished replying, in my mind, i knew that i did badly on the Daniel part because i dont really think that hint anything on the trinity-ness within God but referred to the coming of a person who is somehow equivalent with God, perhaps God himself. But my point is that there isn't any passages in the OT that hint on the tri-personhood of God. There are passages on the plurality within one Godhead but not an explicit description of 3 persons in that head.

Dr. E suggested that Genesis 3.15 (... I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel...) answered his question. But then again, with all respect, that doesn't answer anything. The text merely says that God will make Eve's child and the serpent's child hate and destroy one another (some might differentiate that 'crush your head' is deadly while 'strike his heel' is not as deadly but it is clear that the ancient knows that a serpent's strike is as deadly - Numbers 21.6).

Anyway the meeting ended at around 9.10am. I went home and called Nalika before get on with homework.

No comments: