About
the Book
Table of Contents
Part I
Part II
Part III
PartIV
Part V
Part VI
Part VII
Part VIII
|
Part II: Nature as Part of the Kingdom
of God
Chapter 3
God Within Man
IN HIS BOOK
Escape From Freedom, (59) Erich Fromm has examined
in a new way some of the more serious conflicts which stem from
the fact that man appears to have freedom of will in certain
critical life situations. Out of this circumstance arises a particular
phenomenon of human history which finds a spectacular expression
in the field of politics.
Fromm suggests that in any state
with a continuous history extending over a sufficient length
of time, political opinion as represented by the feelings of
the majority will tend to swing from an extreme form of democracy
to an extreme form of dictatorship, sometimes passing from one
extreme to the other violently and sometimes through a series
of intermediate stages. The cause of this, he holds, is that
people demand the right to choose their way of life for themselves
until they find that this introduces so many conflicts and so
much confusion that a state of national emergency develops, at
which point depression, insecurity, and general disillusionment
reach such a level that the society begins to search for a dictator
who will rescue them and restore order and bring back prosperity.
Having tasted the consequences of being perfectly free to choose
for themselves and having discovered that there is no guarantee
that the choices made will be good, people begin to search for
someone who will relieve them of this burden of freedom and tell
them what to do. So societies may oscillate between two extremes,
for the dictatorships accepted with such relief soon turn out
to be equally intolerable and men begin to cry once more for
freedom.
Whether as a useful analogy or
whether because he believes the story to be factual, I do not
know, but Erich Fromm suggests that man's deep conviction that
he ought to be free to choose for himself coupled
59. Fromm, Erich, Escape From Freedom,
Rinehart, New York, 1941.
pg
1 of 11
with an equally profound
distrust of his ability to use such freedom of choice wisely,
finds its earliest reflection in the Garden of Eden. Adam and
Eve, unlike the other animals, were given freedom of choice in
certain very critical matters. They were advised what was best
for themselves, but they were left free to accept or reject the
advice. Augustine with profound insight observed that in his
unfallen state man could freely choose to be righteous or unrighteous,
but that having once made the wrong choice, he thereafter acted
freely only when he was doing the wrong thing. In short,
man is no longer acting according to his true nature when he
chooses to do right but only when he chooses to do wrong! Dostoevsky
put it so aptly, "Man commits sin simply to remind himself
that he is free." (60) Thus man now finds pleasure in wickedness rather
than in righteousness because it is a true expression of what
remains of his own free will, and he sins because by so doing
he is proclaiming himself to be a free man.
In his personal
life, the consequences of this freedom are serious enough to
the individual. In national life these consequences are greatly
multiplied and become even more tragic, lying at the root of
all international tensions and wars as well as all community
strife and disharmony.
In spite of Tennyson's picture
of Nature, we do not find in the animal kingdom anything at all
comparable to the social evils which plague mankind. Somehow
animals are wise in their relationships with one another and
are able to meet each life situation with an appropriate form
of behaviour which seems quite beyond man's power to emulate.
Animals know without being taught how to build their homes, how
to select the appropriate diet, how to communicate with one another,
how to make provision for the future, when to fight and when
not to fight, how to raise a family, and even -- as in the case
of the fox with the broken leg -- how to care for themselves
when injured. They walk, run, swim, or fly by instinct. In contrast
man is, as Kipling put it, indeed a poor frog. It has been questioned
whether he has a single dependable instinct except that of swallowing,
even breathing at first may have to be induced.
How does it come about that the
crown of creation should be so poorly equipped by contrast with
the rest of Nature? Some writers have hastened to point out that
man's very weakness is the source of his strength for he has
been forced to make up by his wits what he lacked in other respects.
But this is only part of the truth. I believe that Erich
60. Dostoevsky, F., Letters from the Underworld,
quoted by D. R. Davies, Down Peacock's Feathers, Bles,
London, 1942, p.10.
pg.2
of 11
Fromm by his appeal to
the story of Eden gets much nearer to the heart of the matter.
In so far as animals are guided by instinct they are guided by
the law of God written within them, as it were. In the essentials
they have no freedom whatsoever in the human sense, but by being
obedient to this perfect law of God they are in another sense
completely free, for perfect obedience to perfect law is perfect
freedom.
Now it follows
that man, too, could be perfectly free if he also were perfectly
obedient to the law of God. But for natural man the law is not
written within, as instinct, but is presented to him from without.
Since the day that Adam exercised complete freedom of choice
and chose wrongly, man has never been able to gain perfect freedom
because his obedience to this perfect law has always come short
of perfection. This is the nature of sin. It is the tragedy of
all human philosophies that they are almost right. The
more nearly they are true, the more deceiving they are, and the
more dangerous. The whole of human history is a record of the
consequences of this "almost."
But why is it that in spite of
the increasing clarification of his ideals as witnessed, for
example, in the Charter of the United Nations, man comes no nearer
to achieving those ideals than when he was a forthright barbarian?
The ideal becomes clearer but the achievement is as far away
as ever. I think it is because in his fallen state he cannot
see, he cannot understand, what his own nature really is and
therefore what God really wills him to do as a first step towards
the achievement of his ideals. We must go one step further still
and say that he would not choose the will of God in his present
state even if he could understand it. Something has to be done
to internalize this perfect law in such a way that without destroying
his free will he desires only to be guided by it. When this happens,
he becomes obedient to the same system of perfect law which governs
Nature, and thereby he becomes, with all other creatures, part
of the kingdom of God and thereby truly free. Only, in his case,
obedience has become conscious, an expression of free will rather
than unconscious and an expression of instinct. In this respect
he is raised far above the rest of Nature.
This distinction in rank between
man and the animals resulting from the fact that he may be granted
the capacity to obey the law of the kingdom in a deliberate and
conscious way, is the one fundamental characteristic which according
to Scripture sets man above the animal creation. The granting
of this capacity is one of the essential features of the New
Covenant as revealed in Hebrews 8:10, and until he has it man
is not true man at all.
To my mind, one of the strongest
evidences of the inspiration of Scripture is the fact that from
Genesis to Revelation its writers have
pg.3
of 11
been led to use particular
words with very special meanings and have apparently "agreed"
to this though separated from one another by hundreds of miles
and hundreds of years. Moreover, nowhere is there any specific
statement by any one of them that they have consciously entered
into this agreement. The agreement, therefore, is tacit. The
casual reader is given no special clues that such an arrangement
exists. It is possible to read the Bible from end to end and
never make this discovery. But when the deeper meaning of any
one of these words is once perceived, it suddenly assumes a new
significance in passage after passage, and there appears at once
a marvelous concordance throughout Scripture, a concordance that
seems to me clear evidence of its inspiration by a single Agent.
As an example,
consider the word "understanding." Let us examine some
of the passages in which it occurs. Let me say to begin with
that I believe this word is used to signify the one possession
by which a man is raised far above the animals in the kingdom
of God and without which he is less than man by God's definition.
It is commonly thought that artificial
respiration is a modern practice. In actual fact, it goes back
a very long way. Scripture records four instances, three of which
are in the strict sense historical, the other is not. The three
historical cases are to be found in 1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34,
35; and Acts 20:10. The last of these has been variously interpreted,
but because the report was written by Luke, a physician, it is
felt by some authorities to be a valid instance. This leaves
one case which we may term "proto-historical" -- it
is recorded in Genesis 2:7. Here it is written:
And the LORD
God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Man's first
breath was drawn from heaven: his first consciousness was God-inspired.
With this act man received according to the original Hebrew "the
breath of lives (plural)." It is a remarkable thing how
Scripture uses certain terms in such a subtle way. A further
illustration is to be found in the Hebrew word for "face"
which also takes a plural form, since man clearly has more than
one face.
Turning, then, to Job 32:8 it is
written, "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration
of the Almighty giveth them understanding," a statement
which appears to mean that when the Spirit of God comes into
man, he receives understanding. At this stage, this interpretation
may seem fanciful, but when we come to consider other passages,
for example, such as John 20:22 taken with Luke 24:45, the interpretation
will become quite reasonable.
pg.4
of 11
In
Psalms 49:20 there is the well known passage, "Man that
is in honour, and understandeth not, is like the beasts that
perish." This statement seems to imply that the uniqueness
of man as man lies in the possession of understanding. This understanding
is not merely what we commonly think of as intelligence, because
the Psalmist is careful to add the words "that is in honour,"
by which I gather he means that even a man of distinction if
he has no understanding is not truly man. Intelligence, per
se, does not make a person a man in God's sense of the word,
because intelligence is not a uniquely human possession -- since
animals also have it. 2 Peter 2:12 speaks of men who "understand
not" as being like "natural brute beasts," and
the psalmist (Psalm 94:8) calls upon those among the people who
are "like brutes" to "understand." Evidently
this understanding has something of a spiritual quality to it,
something which is not shared by the animals. It is clearly,
then, not to be confused with intelligence. In Psalm 53:1 and
2 it is written:
The fool hath said in his heart,
there is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity:
There is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon
the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand,
that did seek God.
In this passage
there is the implication that lack of fellowship with God is
associated with the lack of understanding in some way. This is
borne out by a confession made by a certain Agur, the son of
Jakeh, in Proverbs 30:2 and 3 in which he says, "Surely
I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding
of a man. I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of
the holy (One)." This is evidently something more than lack
of fellowship, however, for it is also a lack of knowledge of
God. Manifestly, fellowship with God is not possible unless we
know Him personally, but knowing God personally brings much more
than fellowship for, among other things, it begins to make sense
out of life. For, knowledge of God has a special meaning in Scripture
which is not limited merely to the knowledge that God exists
but has a much deeper significance -- in fact, knowledge of His
will. Thus in Ephesians 5: 17 Paul writes, "Wherefore be
ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord
is."
One of the oldest problems in theology,
a problem which has issued in many lengthy debates, is the question
as to why, if God is omnipotent and His will is done in the world
by the ungodly and not merely by the godly, He can be justified
in punishing the ungodly. Is it ever right for God to punish
a man for some deed performed according to His will? Superficially
the answer is obviously, "No, and He never would."
In actual fact, He does. For example, those who crucified the
Lord of Glory did so because it was part of the express will
of God that
pg.5
of 11
the Lamb should be slain
in this way (Acts 2 :23; 4: 27,28): yet those who performed this
deed were called wicked and were punished for their wickedness.
For what were they really punished? For doing the Lord's will?
I think not. They were punished because what they did was what
they wanted to do. The motivation was a purely sinful one. It
was not done because they had any real understanding of God's
will and did it for this reason.
As we show in another
Doorway Paper (61)
men are neither punished nor rewarded for doing the will of God.
Scripture is full of illustrations of this fact. A man is not
rewarded for doing the will of God, but only for choosing
the will of God; and the sin of the world is not that it does
not do the will of God, but that it does not choose it.
This is a point of fundamental importance. No man can choose
the will of God unless he first understands what that will is,
and accordingly there is no reward possible to the man who has
no understanding of it. God works in the Christian to will His
will, as Paul put it in Philippians 2:13, "For it is God
who worketh in you both to will and to do [in this order] of
his good pleasure." This seems a very simple statement but
actually it is a very crucial one. For the completion of God's
master plan for His creation, it is essential that His will be
done, but this could be achieved quite easily by simply overruling
the actions of men so that, willy-nilly, they did what was required
of them. There is no need for them to know they are doing His
will, any more than that the animals should know, and in Scripture
there are many instances of ungodly men who fulfilled God's purposes
in just this very way, i.e., without realizing it. They were
servants. But if in some way God could have broken through their
consciousness and said to them, "This is what I want you
to do," and they had forthwith knowingly set out to do it,
the same objective is achieved but God would reward them in some
way. In the first case reward is inappropriate, as it would be
inappropriate to reward a kindness unwittingly performed by someone
who had no intention of performing it.
On the other hand, a man may find
himself required inescapably to perform a certain task, yet if
he also happens to want to perform this particular task, there
is a very real sense in which he does it of his own free will.
Thus, if God can so move in our hearts that we choose to do His
will, we can perform it as a perfectly free act. This is another
way of saying that perfect obedience to perfect law is perfect
freedom. We do it because we want to; and this is the real reason
why we do it, even though we cannot do otherwise because He has
so determined. Something which one must do becomes nevertheless
an act of free will. In
61. Custance, A. C., "The Omnipotence
of God," Part IV in Time and Eternity, vol.6 of The
Doorway Papers Series.
pg.6
of 11
this we see a distinction
between the Christian as a member of the kingdom of God and animals
as members of the same kingdom. They do His will perfectly, unconsciously;
we may do His will perfectly, consciously. But to make this possible,
it is necessary to know what His will is, and this knowledge
is what Scripture terms understanding, man's unique possession
as true man. It is this understanding of God's will which renders
man no longer a servant, but above a servant, a friend. This
is explicitly stated the Lord Jesus in John 15:15:
Henceforth I call you not servants;
for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called
you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I
have made known unto you.
Consequently,
it is not surprising to find that after the Lord had said, "Shall
I hide from Abraham that thing which I do" (Genesis 18:17),
this same Abraham was called, in a special way, God's friend
(2 Chronicles 20:7).
When Paul was writing to the Ephesians
he pointed out how God had made known unto us the mystery of
His will (Ephesians 1:9), and he concluded subsequently (in Ephesians
4:17,18):
This I say therefore, and testify
in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk,
in the vanity of their mind,
Having the understanding darkened,
being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that
is in them. . . .
And John re-affirms
the positive side of this when he says, "and we know that
the Son of God is come and hath given us an understanding, that
we may know Him that is true. . ." (1 John 5:20).
There is a remarkable instance in Scripture
in which the loss of manhood through lack of understanding is
likened to being turned into an animal, for animals do not understand
God's will in the way that a Christian may. In Daniel 4:16, after
judgment had been pronounced against Nebuchadnezzar for his pride
in supposing that his own will had secured for him his greatness,
God says, "Let his heart be changed from a man's, and let
a beast's heart be given unto him." And this came to pass,
quite literally, the stricken monarch assuming even some of the
habits of a dumb animal. But in due time his punishment was fulfilled,
his humanity was restored, and the king uttered these significant
words (Daniel 4:34-36):
And at the end of the days I
Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding
returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised
and honoured him that liveth for ever whose dominion is an everlasting
dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
pg.7
of 11
And all
the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth
according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants
of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What
doest thou?
At the same time my reason returned
unto me. . . .
In other words,
the king had perceived something of the nature of God's will,
and in doing so he acknowledged His kingdom, regained his understanding
and with it the heart of a man.
Sometimes we behave as true man,
and we understand and choose the Lord's will (1 Corinthians 14:20);
but there are many occasions when we do not. Unlike the animals
which are guided by God from within, it is sometimes necessary
for Him to guide us from without by the force of circumstances.
At such times He secures our obedience to His will in much the
same way that we achieve control of animals by such means as
a whip, a goad, or reins. But God much prefers to convey His
will to us without the use of such externals. Thus David tells
us how God had said to him (Psalm 32:8,9):
I will instruct thee and teach
thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with mine
eye.
Be not as the horse, or as the
mule, which have no understanding: whose mouth must be held in
with bit and bridle, lest they come near unto thee.
When we began
this Bible study, we proposed that Job 32:8 meant in effect that
man receives this understanding by inspiration, that is, by God's
in-breathing, and that Adam received it when he drew his first
breath, thereby becoming true man. Of course, he lost it when
he rejected what he knew to be the will of God, so that he, like
all other fallen men, needed a new in-breathing of God before
it could be restored. This is what happens when a man is born
again and the new law is written within his heart, when the will
of God becomes internalized, and when he has the kingdom of God
within him (Luke 17:21). Only, for man, in contrast to the animals,
this is a conscious possession. The Lord Jesus performed such
an in-breathing upon the disciples. In John 20:22 it is written,
"When He had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto
them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit." And in Luke 24:45 we
are given some further details of this same occasion where it
is written, "Then opened he their understanding."
Scripture has a beautiful consistency.
Just as without this understanding, without this internalization
of the law of God, a man is not truly man, so a group of people
are not really a people. In Hebrews 8:10 and 11 it is written:
pg.8
of 11
For this
is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after
those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind,
and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God,
and they shall be to me a people.
And they shall not teach every
man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
This passage
is full of light. The new covenant is now fulfilled when the
law of God is written within. It is not, however, merely written
in the mind that it may be known and understood, but on the heart
that it may be chosen freely. And when this happens, there is
a sense in which it is not necessary for men to tell others what
to do, for they will know.
So many things hinge upon this
experience. Even the psalmist says, "For God is the King
of all the earth: sing ye praises with understanding" (Psalm
47:7). Again and again in Scripture we find the association of
these ideas: the kingdom of God, the understanding of His will,
the internalization of His perfect law, and the achievement of
true manhood. All these things depend upon the new birth. Except
a man be born again he has no part in this kingdom: except a
man be born again he has no insight or understanding of it (John
3:3,7). And what is needed when a man is born again is a renewing
of the mind (Romans 12:2; Ephesians 4:23). The spirit is reborn
to give a man membership within the kingdom, and the mind must
be renewed to give him insight into it.
It is quite possible to read too
much into Scripture. It seems to me that one is doing just this
when it becomes necessary to interject all kinds of words and
phrases and sentences into a passage of Scripture in order to
"elucidate" its meaning. By such a method of interpretation,
Scripture itself tends to become almost incidental. But there
is one passage where the clear association of ideas is difficult
to draw out except by elaborating the text. This passage is Matthew
6:25-34. The association of ideas here is rather striking. The
Lord is telling the people how God insures that grass shall grow
to provide the basic food for all earth-bound creatures (verse
30), and how the fowls of the air are equally the subject of
His watchful care (verse 26): and how God is concerned also with
those elements of Nature which beautify it and perhaps serve
more for its adornment than its sustaining. And so the Lord mentions
the nurturing of lilies as things of pure beauty (verse 28).
He then draws from this a practical lesson and warns His listeners
that if they will make sure first that they belong to the kingdom,
the kingdom of God, they too will find themselves cared for as
is the whole realm of Nature. The essential requirement is to
be a member of the kingdom of God, and this membership, for man,
is achieved only by being born again.
pg.9
of 11
The experience of the
new birth is a completely transforming one, lifting a man out
of Satan's kingdom into God's. Thenceforth the agents of Satan
are barred from dominion, though at times such entry may be sought.
Satan has never had to ask permission for his spirits to enter
the heart of an unredeemed man, for such a heart is rightfully
within his jurisdiction. But with the saints the case is different.
And it is different with the animals also -- an important point
to observe. Satan did not ask the Lord if he might have Judas,
but he apparently did have to ask for Peter, a request which
was, of course, denied (Luke 22:31,32). Even the dead bodies
of the saints appear to be inviolate against possession, for
Satan found himself opposed when he sought for the body of Moses
(Jude 9). Likewise when the demons had been cast out of the man
of Gadara, they had to ask permission before they could enter
the swine. These swine, "unclean" as they were for
food, were nevertheless still part of the kingdom of God. One
can only suppose that the Lord knew it was quite safe to allow
these demons embodiment in them, for, perfectly guided by the
laws of God written within them, the swine instinctively took
the necessary action to rid themselves and the spirits were again
rendered bodiless. These animals had no fear of death, and it
was in no sense a punishment to them that their lives were brought
to an end abruptly. The purposes of God had been served perfectly.
Many other animals
in Scripture have declared themselves members of God's kingdom
by their actions. Balaam's ass (Numbers 22:21f.), the raven which
fed Elijah (1 Kings 17:4f.), the lions in Daniel's den who obeyed
the restraints of God (Daniel 6:22), the whale which preserved
Jonah alive and restored him to safety (Jonah 1:17f.), the fish
which, refraining from swallowing the coin in its mouth, surrendered
it to pay the disciples' dues (Matthew 17:27), the ass's foal
which offered no resistance to its very first mount (Matthew
21:5), and the wild beasts which shared the Lord's wilderness
without molesting Him (Mark 1:13) -- all these showed themselves
to be obedient members of the kingdom of God.
There is a beautiful illustration
of the obedience of the animal world to the governance of God
in 1 Kings 13:24-28. It seems to me that this must have been
written specifically to point up this wonderful truth. A certain
messenger who has clearly disobeyed explicit instructions of
the Lord is riding home on his ass, evidently feeling he got
away with it. But he is attacked by a lion and slain, and his
carcass lies beside the road. The ass, we are told, did not run
away but remained standing by his slain rider. "And, behold,
men passed by, and saw the carcass cast in the way, and the lion
standing by the carcass: and they came and
pg.10
of 11
told it in the city.
. ." And when the prophet, whom the slain man had served,
heard about it, he said, "It is the man of God who was disobedient
unto the word of the LORD: therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn
him, and slain him...And he went and found his carcass cast in
the way, and the ass and the lion standing by the carcass: the
lion had not eaten the carcass nor torn the ass." Here
is a clear case of one of God's creatures acting with complete
obedience as His servant, performing a mission of judgment, even
as the lions in Daniel's den had obediently refused to act in
judgment where everyone assumed they would. So obedient to the
Lord's command was this lion that, according to his nature, he
slew the prophet, but, contrary to his nature, he did not slay
the innocent ass: nor was the ass afraid enough of the lion even
to run away. This is a beautiful illustration of the law of God
written within. In Nature such inscription in the heart, or perhaps
more appropriately in the mind, is what we term
instinct. And Henri Fabre said, perceptively, that instinct
is nothing less than "inspired activity." (62)
I cannot leave
this subject without one more observation. I think it worthy
of notice that when God spared Nineveh, He gave as part of His
reason the fact that He had in this city children who had not
yet reached the age of accountability and animals (Jonah
4:11). We know that such children still belong within the kingdom
of God (Mark 10:14); and now we see that the same applies to
animals. To me, this is a wonderful truth in which to rejoice.
When man, quite convinced by an
evolutionary philosophy that he, too, is of a piece with the
rest of Nature, argues from it that if he will only act naturally,
he will achieve the kind of society he wants on the ground that
the present ills stem from the artificial patterns of behaviour
which culture has imposed upon him, he deceives himself completely.
For Nature's nature is unfallen, but man's nature is not. And
when he attempts to live in this way, his life becomes chaotic
and ultimately totally lacking in that kind of freedom which
he mistakenly supposes he will enjoy. The freedom from anxiety
that living creatures in Nature have, results from obedience
to God's law within. But natural man is in rebellion against
this law whether he realizes it or not. Man can only become a
member of this kingdom by a new birth, and only then can he experience
the sense of being a part of the kingdom of God, of which the
realm of Nature is another part. Only then does he really understand.
62. Fabre: quoted by W. R. Thompson in a Convocation
Address on "The Work of Henri Fabre," reprinted in
Canadian Entomologist, vol.96, 1 and 2, 1964, p.70.
pg.11
of 11
Copyright © 1988 Evelyn White. All rights
reserved
Previous Chapter *
End of Part II * Next
Chapter (Part III)
|