Faith and Reason in Jesus

                                                          It is but natural to inquire how Jesus looked at the question of faith and reason in his dealings with the people of the times. Although Jesus was all for complete faith in God and in himself from those who approached him , he never made light of the role of reason in our relation to God and people. He knew that discarding reason in the name of faith was the sure means to mislead people to superstitions and practices irreconcilable with true faith in God. There are instances when Jesus questioned the practices of the Jews of the time declaring them not in conformity with reason, although they were believed to be coming from Moses and therefore from God Himself. Among such practices, the pride of place is to be given to the duty of every Jew to observe the Sabbath without any excuse whatever. The interpretation of this obligation at the hands of the Jewish authorities had gone to such an extent that Jesus had no choice but to challenge their concept of the Sabbath and revert it to its original meaning intended by God Himself.
                                                        We have in Matthew 12: 1-14 two instances of breaking the Law of Sabbath by Jesus in violation of its understanding by the Jewish authorities who were the acknowledged interpreters of the Law of Moses. Jesus did not claim to use divine authority in his teachings and therefore had to resort to reason in explaining his actions seemingly contrary to the established laws and practices. Thus we have the justifications for a different view of the very meaning of Sabbath introduced by Jesus. The Jews could not understand how a pious Jew could pluck the corns and eat them on the Sabbath, although eating by itself was permitted. Jesus countered their argument by citing history in what David did when he was hungry and the current practice of serving at the altar by the priests without breaking the Law of Sabbath. The whole point of Jesus has its compelling force from what he said about the presence of something greater than the temple right in their midst referring not only to himself but to the whole humanity subsumed under the title of Son of Man. As against those who would still insist on the inviolability of the revelation of God concerning Sabbath, Jesus challenged them to go and learn the meaning of a very important piece of revelation expressed through the prophet Hosea in chapter 6:6 "I require mercy, not sacrifice". In the light of the above reasons, Jesus laid down the rule about Sabbath observance that contained its real inner meaning thus: "He also said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for the sake of man and not man for the Sabbath: therefore the Son of Man is sovereign even over the Sabbath'" (Mark, 2:27-28). Matthew's Gospel adds a warning to the Jews that if they knew the meaning of the text in Hosea, they would not have condemned the innocent.
                                                    In the next incident about the healing of the withered hand of a man in the Synagogue on a Sabbath, the three Evangelists have slightly differing versions. In Mark and Luke we see the Jews waiting to see if Jesus would cure the man on the Sabbath so that they could frame charges against him (Mark,  3: 1-6; Luke, 6: 6-11). Matthew 12: 9-14 presents the incident in a better pedagogical manner, the reason for its difference from the other two Gospels, where it is the Jews who took initiative in asking the all-important question about the legitimacy of healing on the Sabbath. Here again, like in other Gospels, their intention was to frame a charge against Jesus, added as a side remark by Matthew. Their question elicited a counter question from Jesus, one of his usual methods of teaching, about a sheep owned by someone falling into a ditch on a Sabbath. He asked them whether there was one among them who would not catch hold of that sheep and lift it out on a Sabbath. Next Jesus made the cutting edge remark that surely a man was worth far more than a sheep! The conclusion , therefore was that it was permitted to do good on the Sabbath. In Mark and Luke it is Jesus who asks the question whether it was lawful to do good or to do evil on the Sabbath, to save life or to destroy it. The Jews held their peace and Mark adds that Jesus looked round at them with anger and sorrow at their obstinate stupidity, proceeding to heal the man of his withered hand on the Sabbath. We shall see in the next Post how Jesus corrected the false way of practicing the Sabbath through its violation in order to teach its true practice.       

The Centurion's servant and the Canaanite Woman

                                                          Here we have an incident narrated by both Matthew (Mt., 8:5-13) and Luke (Lk., 7:1-10) about the faith of a Centurion intimately connected with his rational way of understanding the structures of this world and its ways of working.While Matthew presents the Centurion directly before Jesus for requesting the healing of his servant, Luke makes it more dramatic by the action of the Centurion in sending some Jewish elders to Jesus for requesting to heal his servant who was nearing his death. Later we see that the reason for this action of the Centurion was his self-assessment that he was unworthy to present himself directly before Jesus, a proof of his complete faith in him. The Jewish elders deputed by the Centurion did an admirable job of their mandate by persuading Jesus to help him who was a friend of their Nation and who built a Synagogue for them due to which he deserved this favor. Without a word in reply, Jesus went with them and when he was not far from the house the Centurion sent his friends to Jesus to request him not to enter his house for which he was not worthy and there was no need for the same to heal his servant. The logic of the Centurion was derived from his position of authority with soldiers under him ever ready to do his bidding and from his experience of life he was convinced that it was enough for Jesus to command and his servant would be healed. The underlying rationale of his logic was that as he had authority over his servants, Jesus could command everyone and everything , including seas and waves, sickness and death as he is Lord of all! Usually it was the people who used to admire Jesus for what he used to say and do, but in this case it was Jesus who admired the Centurion seeing his faith that he could not see even in Israel. This faith of the Centurion was supported by his experiences in the world, although it did not originate from his experiences as genuine faith is always a gift of God that is totally gratuitous. It is an example of how Faith and Reason can not only co-exist, but also support each other without any loss of their proper characteristics.
                                                    We shall continue with our discussion of the compatibility of Faith and Reason, by looking at another beautiful example reported by Matthew (Mt., 15:21-28) and Mark (Mk., 7: 24-30) how faith works wonders without abdicating reason  It happened in the territory of Tyre where a woman whose young daughter was possessed by an evil spirit approached Jesus for driving out the spirit off her daughter. Mark specifies the nationality of the woman as a Phoenician of Syria, a Gentile; whereas Matthew only mentions that she was a Canaanite. Both the Evangelists wanted to forewarn the readers about the context of Jesus' negative reaction to the woman's request culminating in her unshakable faith in the supremacy of Jesus in dealing with powers beyond the rationality of this world. Mark wrote his Gospel from Rome for the Gentile Christians who were outside of Palestine and therefore had to explain the nationality of the woman the way he did. Matthew, on the other hand, wrote for the Christians who were originally Jews from Palestine who would have immediately realized the connotation of the term 'Canaanite'.
                                                    There are differing opinions about the historicity of the reaction of Jesus to the woman in need as some think that a compassionate Jesus would never use such offensive words as 'dogs' for human beings. Therefore some scholars would explain the whole incident as a ploy by the Evangelists to teach the Jews about the universality of the message of Jesus by this kind of harsh reaction from the part of Jesus against the narrow mentality of the Jews. By conceding to the request of the woman, Jesus showed that he did not discriminate between human beings for whatever reason and that was the lesson he wanted to teach the Jews, according to this view. The main difficulty with this view is that although it could be true with regard to the Gospel of Matthew written for the Jewish Christians, it does not explain the incident in the Gospel of Mark, written before Matthew's Gospel, for the Gentile Christians for whom actually it was derogatory. Our view is that it was originally coming from Jesus himself, but it was not meant as an insult to the woman from the fact that she did not take it as one. She understood the full import of the simile used by Jesus and knew how to handle that kind of use of language without being least bothered about the words used that could be construed as an insult by someone less astute in the use of words in language. That is why it helped her to come out with a piece of logic irresistible even to Jesus who immediately granted her wish then and there. An insult understood as such would have incapacitated her quick thinking and the situation would have taken an entirely different color. If it was not from Jesus himself, there was no reason for Mark to invent something unfavorable to the Gentiles who could be alienated by such discriminatory remarks against them. It means that not only those who heard Jesus but also the Gentile Christians to whom Mark addressed the Gospel took it well as it was only a forceful use of language supplanting unnecessary and lengthy explanations that might also miss the point. That Faith and Reason can co-exist and support each other even in ordinary people is clearly manifested by the unassailable logic of this woman whose faith in Jesus, like that of the Centurion, was couched in incontrovertible facts of life.     

The Raising of the Daughter of Jairus and the Son of the Widow of Nain

                                                            The interplay of faith and reason is very well brought out by the raising of the daughter of Jairus by Jesus as well as the incident of the cure of the woman with an issue of blood at the beginning of his journey to the home of Jairus (Luke, 8: 40-56). The woman was beset with the problem for 12 years and spent a lot of  money on physicians, none of whom could cure her according to the Evangelist Luke, himself a physician. Mark in his Gospel goes a step further and notes that there was no improvement in her condition in spite of spending all that she had on doctors and in fact her condition grew worse with the treatment! (Mark, 5:26). In the Gospel of Mathew, importance is given to what she thought in her mind about just touching the edge of his cloak and getting cured without mentioning the history of her illness (Matthew, 9:21).One might wonder how the Evangelist could possibly know what the woman thought in her mind as Matthew is silent about many details about the incident. We know from Mark that the woman heard about Jesus from others and came from behind Jesus and touched his cloak saying to herself the reason for her faith. It is Luke who gives us the details about how the Evangelist could come to know of her secret thoughts. Confronted by Jesus after her cure, the woman explained before the crowd the secret thoughts  that led her to act in the manner she did. From the experience of this woman it becomes clear that faith in Jesus for her was the culmination of her struggle with the rationality of this world of exploitation and lack of concern for her welfare however she tried to contribute to the requirements demanded from her by her surroundings. She had no doubt in her mind about the efficacy of her encounter with Jesus, having heard from others about him. Here we have all the elements required for genuine faith germinated in her from hearing the words of those who had experienced the goodness of Jesus, given the background of her exploitation by the wise people of this world. Jesus recommends her as a model of true faith as her internal  disposition was spotless although she venerated only his cloak through which his power oozed out. From this and similar instances in the life of the Apostles the practice of venerating the relics of saints in the Church took its origin. However, the custom of grand displays of such items with an eye on monetary gains vitiates the whole atmosphere rendering the venue of such items into a supermarket!
                                                        The case of Jairus himself is another example of genuine faith in the face of formidable obstacles posed by the rationality of this world. Although Jairus was the president of the Synagogue of the place, that did not prevent him from throwing himself down at the feet of Jesus for saving his only daughter who was dying. His position in the world and conformity to its ways of thinking could have held him back from prostrating before someone who was not an official representative of his own religion. Faith in the person of Jesus enabled him to forsake the rationality of the existing system in view of his great need of saving his daughter. As Jesus was still speaking to the woman who was cured of her illness, a messenger informed Jairus that his daughter was already dead and there was no further need of bothering the Master. This messenger is a typical example of a person totally ruled by the rationality of this world so as to advise the president of the Synagogue that there was no need of any further action in the matter as everything was over since the girl had already died. The only antidote to the situation was to have faith and that is what Jesus advised the president to inculcate, although the whole atmosphere was not conducive to the same. In order to help Jairus to revive and maintain his faith Jesus took drastic actions like dismissing the raging crowd around him and ejecting the sympathizers at his home declaring that the girl was only sleeping. For Jesus who was always in touch with the entire reality death was but a mere sleep, whereas for the worldly wise it is the end of everything. Jesus raised the girl to life again without any fanfare in order to keep the meaning of life and death in their proper perspectives, giving Faith and Reason their just roles in our life.    
                                                      That real faith may be expressed in many ways without any show or pretenses may be seen from the instance of the raising of a young man, the only son of a widow, whose body was being carried away for burial. We see this only in the Gospel of Luke (Luke, 7: 11-17) and in this case Jesus did not demand any visible act of faith from the widow, usually a pre-requite for his extraordinary interventions in human affairs. The very context and the silent and composed demeanor of the mother of the dead boy evoked compassion in Jesus to such an extent that without a word he proceeded to do what she could never have dreamt of in all her life. Her very attitude of submitting herself to the Will of God with dignity was better than any outward expression of faith that could have ruled her conduct. Jesus acknowledged her attitude as genuine faith in God and responded accordingly. Faith teaches us that death is not the end of everything and that it is not irrational to have hope even in the most trying circumstances. In the case of this widow, she seems to have understood that the rationality of this world inevitably ends in death and destruction, liberation from which is possible by faith alone silently expressed by her sorrowful but meek attitude.  

The Raising of Lazarus

                                                          In order to highlight the uniqueness of the resurrection of Jesus, let us consider the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus during his public ministry. Among the Gospels, John alone has this incident narrated in detail in the whole chapter 11 of the Gospel. There are critics who would not like to admit that it really happened during the life of Jesus and see it as a mere throwback from the experiences of the disciples of Jesus being intoxicated with their new vision gained from his resurrection memory. What goes against this theory are the graphic details in the narration of the raising of Lazarus beginning with Jesus who was not in Judea at the time where Lazarus was living with his sisters Mary and Martha. Even the sympathetic emotions of Jesus are recorded by the Evangelist to the point of noting that Jesus wept (John, 11:35). If the disciples were so out of the world because of their new experiences, it would not have been possible for them to make up incidents like raising a person dead and buried for four days with descriptions of such concrete details of everyday life!  
                                                         There are , however, indications to show that it was written after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus followed by the reception of the Holy Spirit by the disciples as they would not have understood , during his public ministry, the implications of what he said to Martha about his being the resurrection and life. It only means that their power to grasp what Jesus taught through his words and actions was enhanced after the experience of his resurrection and not that they imaginatively fabricated incidents that did not take place. Actually, the relevance of the fact of the raising of Lazarus is two-fold, namely, that the return to life of Lazarus is of entirely another order compared to the resurrection of Jesus and that even in the case of Lazarus the interplay of theology and history or Faith and Reason is evident. While the return to life of Jesus was permanent and eternal  whereby death has no more hold on him , Lazarus was destined to die again as his return to life was only a temporary measure aiding in the ministry of Jesus. Even eating and drinking after their re-entry into life had totally different connotations for Jesus and Lazarus. Although Jesus did not need to nourish his risen body with the food we eat, he ate before the disciples in order to help them verify the actuality of his identity before and after the resurrection. His glorified body did not depend on doors to enter a room and he could appear and disappear at will whenever and wherever he wanted to. The resurrected body of Lazarus did not have any of these qualities and that is why the chief priests were able to think of doing away with him after he was raised to life along with Jesus before his resurrection (John, 12:10).  
                                                       If we want to further probe into the elements of faith and reason in this incident, we might consider the attitudes of Martha and Jesus in looking at the sad fact of the death of Lazarus. Martha was bound by the rationality of this world and life it can sustain when she tells Jesus that if he was present there at the time Lazarus would not have died. To the words of Jesus that he will be raised again, Martha thinks of the resurrection on the last day of which she had no doubt and , so to say, not concerned about right now as she was paralyzed with sorrow on the loss of her brother. Martha, it seems, tried to shove faith away from the present concerns of daily life and placed it securely for the end of times. Now as we live in this world, the demands of the world should be the determining factor of our present life, according to Martha, without denying faith in the ultimate concerns. This is the logic or rationality of even a believing person like Martha in the goodness of God  against which Jesus introduces faith as an absolute requirement for life even in the life we lead in this world. The Evangelist is careful to bring out the response of Jesus in identifying himself with resurrection and life as the solution to Martha's dilemma of the ultimate reality and the present temporal needs by demanding faith in him from her. Our human tendency to cling to this world is transformed by Jesus by asking for faith in him and thus both Reason and Faith are allotted their proper places and functions when we are faced with ultimate questions.     

Faith in the Resurrection

                                                          We shall now deal with the question of faith in the resurrection as something contaminating the purity of a historical fact. As we have mentioned in the previous Posts, "pure facts" are the products of our imagination since all facts are already interpreted ones in some way or other. The reason behind this assertion is that no one can escape from one's own self-understanding that stands as the bulwark for understanding anything else whereby everything is tacitly interpreted under the tutelage of one's self-understanding! Since this well-known and general hermeneutic principle applies to all sciences, there is nothing wrong in interpreting certain historical facts with the aid of the light of faith as it brings out the significance of such facts for the benefit of the general public. Faith is not something that springs out of Reason or historical facts, but is a gift of God freely given to anyone He chooses to. Faith is thus enmeshed into one's self-understanding on the basis of which facts may be legitimately reported as anyone else does with one's own self-understanding without the fear of corrupting the fact reported. God cannot be partial in His gifts and yet there are certain basic dispositions like our attitudes to life that might help or prevent our acceptance of the free gift of God. For example, the guards at the tomb of Jesus were not suitable candidates for accepting any free gift from God as their minds were totally blocked by the power of greed for money. This is in consonance with the advice in the Bhagavad-Gita that the secret gospel of the Gita should never be imparted to someone who lacks penance, nor to the one wanting in devotion, nor even to the one who lends not a willing ear. In addition, in no case should it be imparted to someone who finds fault with the Lord Himself. Besides, the Gita advises that the means not to be contaminated by our actions is not to crave for the fruit of those actions (Bhagavad-Gita, 4-14).
                                                        It is clear that there were ways accessible to the human spirit to remain independent and original even under tremendous pressure arising out of intimate experiences like those seen in the resurrection appearances. We have ample references in the Bible about hardening one's heart against the word of God, about the need to keep the jewels and pearls from the swine that might trample upon them and turn against us to tear us apart. On the contrary, the centurion at the cross of Jesus, who was in charge of the execution of crucifixion, declared the crucified to be the Son of God on seeing the manner in which Jesus died on the cross. Similarly, we have the case of the two thieves crucified along with Jesus, where the one on the right had the right attitude to receive God's gifts and the one on the left could not open himself up to anything beyond himself. About the right attitude or disposition, although we don't know anything about the centurion, we have an inkling from the conversations of the two thieves on their crosses. When the one on the left challenged Jesus to do something to save them, the one on the right rebuked him saying that as they had committed crimes they deserved their punishment whereas Jesus was innocent. This shows that even in great suffering he had the habit of distinguishing between the right and the wrong and a sense of justice did not allow him to blame Jesus for their miserable condition!  
                                                     Does faith add anything to the historical facts of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus as a result of which the facts themselves are distorted? There is no distortion, but only sublimation of those facts by the light of faith giving us their significance that is called their theology. Sublimation of a fact cannot do away with or distort the fact concerned as the sublimation tacitly refers to the fact for its own survival. If someone insists that man is a mere animal without any potentiality for spirituality leading him or her to God and one's own destiny that is bound by and within the confines of this material world, we must admit that we are talking a strange language when we mention 'theology' to such a person! All others will readily admit that being human necessarily entails the assistance of the divine in our lives and for them faith in God is something that elevates us to our true potentiality gradually to be realized. Here the question of what it is to be human comes to the fore and the attempts of Philosophy and Sciences in segregating the human from animals by the capacity to think, speak, laugh, make tools, observe rituals, create cultures and arts aesthetically etc. are weakened step by step as some animals too are taught to imitate such pursuits. What then is the distinguishing characteristic of the human that sets him or her apart from the animals? We firmly hold that the openness of the human to the divine, expressed as the image of God in the Holy Books of religions, is the indelible mark impressed on every human at the very moment of conception that stands as the distinguishing characteristic of the human from the animals. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus is a very special manifestation of our faith in the living God Who raised Jesus from the dead and is most suitable to build up the image of God latent in every human being. This faith effectively resists the temptation to create a god in our own image that cannot save us from our crooked and devious ways. Like Incarnation, the Resurrection is a threshold reality that is neither purely historical nor purely transcendental and may be termed as historical as well as trans-historical.

The Resurrection of Jesus

                                                       The crux of the whole problem with History and Theology boils down to the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Was it a fact that Jesus rose from the dead after his crucifixion and burial or was it only a myth created by the believing community of Christians? If it was a fact, it could be counted as part of history and could be verified like any other historical fact. If it is claimed that it is anything beyond history and the present world we are in, it is presumed to be suspect as a part of mythology created by the people involved. When we search the history of religions, especially the ancient ones, we see that whenever God or angels are referred to, they are inevitably couched in mythological language. No one will claim that all of them are historical facts, and yet we seem to demand historicity to similar descriptions of God and angels in the Bible. What is the distinguishing characteristic that separates the historical from the mythological narratives?  The proximity of the witnesses concerned to the events narrated or reported and the possibility of their verification should be taken as the distinguishing characteristic of the historical as against the mythological. Using this criterion, we may say that the resurrection of Jesus is historical, although it is also trans-historical, while the creation narratives in the book of Genesis and the visit of the Magi to the baby Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew are mythological. We must immediately add here a note of caution that mythological does not mean fictional or imaginary as they are only ways of expression of certain truths otherwise inaccessible to people in general. A mythology does not lay claim to a particular mode of a happening , unlike history, as it itself is only a mode of expression of something vital to the identity of a community.
                                                     The resurrection of Jesus reported in all the four Gospels was something which was verified by the Apostles and disciples personally when Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection. The resurrection itself happened when no one, except perhaps the angels, was present at the tomb if we discount the guards who were sleeping as per their own testimony. The guards could not be witnesses to the resurrection even if they were wide awake as we realize that only believers could take in the reality of resurrection. They could not be true believers as we see that the guards did not have the disposition required for true belief since they easily succumbed to the power of greed for money for acquiring which they were willing to bear false testimony. This incident clearly manifests the nature of the reality of resurrection, which is not a mere crass material event exclusively to be presented as historical and belonging to the confines of this world. It is a reality that transforms the believer for which certain basic human dispositions are presupposed making it also trans-historical and eternal.
                                                     The guards at the tomb admitted that the body of Jesus was missing from the tomb and they blindly interpreted it to mean that the disciples came while they were sleeping and removed the same from the tomb. If Pilate was in a mood to closely cross-examine them, the guards would have been at a loss to explain how they could be certain that the disciples of Jesus removed the body though they were sleeping at the time! Mary Magdalene at the tomb was also thinking of the removal of the body by someone as it was not in the tomb when she visited, although she was not motivated by the power of money unlike the guards. However, it is clear that she had the right dispositions for belief in the resurrection from the fact that she recognized the transformed Jesus when he addressed her "Mary!" (John, 20:16). Peter and John ran to the tomb on hearing the news to find only the clothes lying in the tomb where the body of Jesus was placed. They too did not come to the conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead on seeing whatever evidence was available for his missing body. All of them were sure of only one indisputable fact that the body of Jesus placed in the tomb on Friday evening was missing on the morning of the ensuing Sunday! The experiences of these people tell us that no one was in a mood to believe in the resurrection without further evidence and proof lacking which Peter and John along with some other disciples returned to their old profession of fishing as per the Gospel of John. There they had the incontrovertible proof supplied by Jesus himself that he was alive by means of the miraculous catch of fish. For fishermen who toiled all night without catching any fish, just one casting of the net at the command of Jesus with the result that the net came up with full of fish was proof enough that Jesus was alive again. Not only that, the loving care with which Jesus served them breakfast was reminiscent of their experiences with him before his death. John adds that this was the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after his resurrection from the dead (John, 21:14).
                                                   Add to this all the other appearances of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection providing them proofs by eating with them, allowing them to feel his body to dispel their possible doubt that they might be seeing a ghost and conferring his power upon the Apostles for continuation of his mission. If all these experiences of the witnesses who proclaimed later the fact of resurrection were not good enough for history, can there be any historical fact at all that may be reliably reported? The initial resistance to belief in the resurrection of Jesus even from the Apostles and closest disciples of Jesus effectively takes care of the objection of some critics that the experiences of the appearances of the risen Jesus were mere hallucinations based on their deepest aspirations. In fact their aspirations were thoroughly dashed by the crucifixion of Jesus and that too pertained only to his being the expected Messiah. They did not even understand what is meant by resurrection, although foretold by Jesus, and some even doubted the authenticity of all this even at his ascension (Matthew, 28:17). They found it very difficult to give up their notions of the kingdom as late as just before the ascension of Jesus in spite of being taught about the Kingdom of God for forty days after his resurrection (Acts, 1: 3 and 6). Given the above scenario who could ever think that the Apostles and disciples were under the tyranny of their own hallucinations except those pseudo-scholars who want to remain in their own obstinate stupidity? If they are tacitly thinking that the element of faith that has entered into the Gospel narratives polluted them making them unworthy of history, we have already answered them in the previous Posts. Yet again the next Post 'Faith in the Resurrection' shall attempt to address their concern once more.
      

Christ of Faith

                                                               The division of 'Jesus' and 'Christ' into two sections is meant only for a better understanding of the reality of Jesus Christ in accordance with the historical quest of Jesus and theological investigations of Christ engaged in by the Rationalists and Theologians of the 19th century. Martin Koehler in 1892 was the first person to distinguish between the historical Jesus and the Christ whom the Church proclaimed through the Gospels, expressed by the title "The Jesus of History and Christ of Faith". It is essential for us to understand the connection between the historical Jesus and the Christ proclaimed in the New Testament for a genuine picture of Jesus Christ. Ultimately it is a question of his personality and relevance to the world today. The Church always looked at Jesus Christ as a whole who is both historical in virtue of his Incarnation and trans-historical in virtue of his Resurrection from the dead. Our intention in providing the two separate sections is only for a clearer understanding of the issues involved, especially after the controversies of the Enlightenment Period of the past centuries. In this spirit, we shall treat the issues involved under the topics of 'Faith and Reason' and 'The Language Problem' since these are the offshoots emanating from the enlightenment mentality causing a division between 'the historical Jesus' and 'the Christ of faith'. For this purpose we have to go deeper into the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, its difference from the raising of the dead by Jesus, experiences of various Gospel personalities who encountered Jesus etc. As for the language problem, a clear analysis of language to bring out the meaning of words, usages, expressions etc.would be attempted. This would be done by means of only a few cases as mere specimens after tackling the larger and irrational assumption that only scientific language is really meaningful in communicating any kind of knowledge. Language of science is useful and meaningful in scientific domain alone and the moment it steps out of its territory and tries to legislate conditions for meaningfulness in general, it has to be shown the way back to its proper field of study by Philosophy.
                                                              What we want to investigate at the moment is about the compatibility of faith and reason that may also be applied to religion and science and, in our study, to theology and history. The traditional method of doing it was to adduce reasons for the justification of our faith with the assistance of Philosophy, which did not mean Philosophy or Reason was the foundation of our faith. The foundation was and will always remain in the Word of God heard through its proclamation culminating in the announcement of the Good News that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His Gospel is not something different from himself and is proclaimed as the solid foundation for the solidarity among the humans producing the fruits of divine love, joy and peace.    
                                                             We shall not question the usefulness of Fundamental Theology that deals with the inter-relation between Reason and Faith, although our own method is different from it. Our method is in trying to understand the Word of God in the Bible as well as in other religious texts analyzing them to see how Faith and Reason can co-exist and be meaningful. By this method we shall, so to say, try to beard the lion in his own den by taking the battle into the enemy's camp. The enemy here, the Rationalists of the post-enlightenment era, who tried to divide the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith, shall be shown to have erred as the two are inseparably united in all available sources. If we bring up the question of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead again and again, it is not without good reasons for the same. The fundamental question that silently provokes the Rationalists and people of the same ilk to cast doubt on the Gospels themselves is the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Hence, the same deserves to be studied from all possible angles as we try to do. This should make it easier for everyone to understand the profound problems involved in a simple manner and apply them to one's own life for a true and genuine spiritual life.      

The Meaning of History

                                                  It is important for us to have a clear idea of the meaning of history and its function in the formation of the Gospels in the context of the rationalistic vilification of their historical authenticity. As we have seen from the dates 6 B.C. to 37 A.D. given in the previous Post on 'The Real Jesus of History' , all of them do not have the same historical value and yet none of them can be rejected as unhistorical. This is because even those dates that may be doubted as to their historical accuracy are unreservedly supported by those that are clearly historical.
                                                  The crucial point we want to make here is that even genuinely historical events will be useless to us unless their interconnections, relevance, other events related to them etc., are presented to us by the historians themselves. The reason for this is that it is the historians alone, who had witnessed the events reported by them , who are able to see through those events and bring out their meaning for us. This means that some kind of interpretation of facts, supported by the self-understanding of the historian, is inevitable in every kind of historical narrative just as in our our everyday communication of ideas. In other words, there are no 'bare' or 'pure' facts to be scooped up by anyone! The biblical authors, especially the evangelists, had taken care to bring out the meaning of the facts they reported.. They expressed the significance of what happened in and through what happened using each one's peculiar views and style called their theology. In other words, they interpreted events to reveal their meaning that is of essential help in our own understanding of the same. Since this is the case even with secular history, how much more would it be applicable in the case of sacred history that does not restrict itself to time and space, but extends itself to the spheres of eternity too!
                                                We refer to three historical events mentioned in our last Post, namely, Pilate was appointed by Tiberius Caesar in A.D. 25 as Prefect of Palestine, Sejanus was executed by Tiberius in A.D. 31 and Pilate was deposed and exiled by Tiberius in A.D. 36. Though they are seemingly three separate events, some connections and clarifications will assist our understanding not only of these events, but also of the nervousness of Pilate in the judgement of Jesus for crucifixion. Pilate was a friend of Sejanus who himself was friendly with Tiberius Caesar. This fact throws light on how a mere equestrian captain, the position of Pontius Pilate at the time, was suddenly elevated to the exalted status of the Prefect of a Roman Province. Due to some reason when Sejanus was suddenly executed by the Caesar in A. D. 31, Pilate found himself helpless without his political godfather in Rome. A ruler who was unsympathetic to the Jews till then doing what he wanted with them , Pilate found himself suddenly under immense pressure to keep his position safe when the case of Jesus came up for hearing. This background helps us to understand the ambivalent posture of Pilate with regard to the guilt of Jesus, especially as reported in the Gospel of John. Under the circumstances, the last thing Pilate wanted to hear was the insinuation from anyone that he was no friend of Caesar. The Jews took full advantage of this weakness of Pilate and solemnly announced that he was no friend of Caesar if he let Jesus go free who made himself a king. Although Pilate found Jesus to be innocent , he was forced to accede to the wishes of his accusers in order to keep his position as well as his life safe. However, since Caesar was fed up with complaints from the Jews about Pilate he had to depose and exile him to Gaul (France) in A.D. 36.
                                                  Before we end this section on the 'Jesus of History', a word of caution about our understanding of the Bible is in order here.It makes a lot of difference whether one views the Bible as the Word of God or otherwise, considering it like any other written text. It does not mean that being the Word of God no scientific rigor in investigations should be applied to it; on the contrary, the strictest methods of sciences are applied to it in the following manner. When it is taken as the Word of God we have to deal with two authors of the Bible, the divine as well as the human. Yet, usually we get to the intent of the divine author through the human author whose work may be submitted to all available scientific apparatus and methods available and appropriate for the scrutiny of the texts. By this method the intention of the human author we arrive at is also the intention of the divine author. The only exception we have to make is in the case of a few texts with a fuller and deeper meaning as in the case of prophecies, where the fuller meaning may not be immediately apparent even to the prophet although it is implicit in the texts themselves. This kind of intention of God would be made known in the fullness of time when the earlier texts take on a new meaning so far hidden from our understanding. The main example for this kind of texts is to be seen in those dealing with the mystery of Jesus Christ both in the Old Testament and in the New.  
                                                 In this context,we must say that those who try to analyze the biblical texts purely as products of mere  human authors are bound to be off the mark. A prime example of this kind of understanding may be seen in "The Da Vinchi Code" of Dan Brown. Although it is not a commentary on the Bible, but a novel at the end of which in the epilogue the main protagonist is made to see the whole experience as a dream, the air of scholarship injected into the discovery of the "Holy Grail" is truly deceiving. The author seems to be incapable of understanding any human relationship without the tag of sexuality attached to it even in the case of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Here we see how one's own self-understanding , standing as the basic tenet one necessarily falls back on for the purpose of every other understanding , is operative in the case of Dan Brown in his views on human relationships. As for his presumption that the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. under the influence of emperor Constantine imposed the four Gospels on the Church rejecting all others, we have already seen in our previous Posts how the four Gospels were selected as authentic by the whole Church much before the council of Nicaea. In this connection, we may point out the importance of intellectual honesty of scholars if they have really taken the pains to scan through historical records. Although David Strauss in his book "The Life of Jesus Critically Examined" roots for a mythological understanding of the Gospels, he has the intellectual honesty to admit that they derived from the Apostles. He notes that Irenaeus, Clemens of Alexandria and Tertullian testify that by the end of the 2nd century the four Gospels wee recognized by the church as writings of the Apostles and their disciples. This is in addition to the testimony of even earlier authors both in their own works and in quotations by other authors.    
                                            Having completed this section on "The Jesus of History", we shall move on to the next section on "The Christ of Faith" in the coming Posts with the warning that the two should not be seen as divided, but only distinguished for the sole purpose of analysis and understanding! 

The Real Jesus of History

                                                   Some historians are adamant in demanding historical proofs of the existence of Jesus independently of the biblical references to him. It is worth noting that we have both Roman and Jewish sources mentioning the existence and activities of Jesus in Palestine. The Roman sources are: Pliny, Suetonius, Claudius, Nero and Tacitus. The Jewish sources: Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria and the Talmudic literature. Let us add here that if the same method used by some authors to discredit the historicity of Jesus Christ is applied to others as well, one could prove that personalities like Julius Caesar or Alexander the great never existed!. Let us give approximate dates pertaining to the birth and life of Jesus:
6 B.C. Birth of Jesus. The Roman monk Dionysius Exiguus of the sixth century made a slight mistake in calculation working out Jesus' birth to 1 A.D. Certain details of the birth in the New Testament may not be historical. Mathew's Gospel makes use of the imageries from the Old Testament like the virgin birth, calling the son from Egypt, the massacre of the innocents etc., along with the arrival of the Magi from the East all of which are irretrievably mingled with what really happened. The use of imageries from  the Old Testament in the case of the virgin birth, for instance, does not mean that it is from one's imagination as the question of inspiration to the author cannot be ignored. On the other hand, the reference to king Herod has placed the event of the birth of Jesus in history. Similarly, Luke's Gospel refers to emperor Augustus and the census ordered by him, which we know is historical placing the birth of Jesus at a definite place and time.Mathew only mentions that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, whereas Luke gives us the reason why Joseph and Mary had to travel from Nazareth, where they lived, to Bethlehem. From Mathew's perspective, it was not important to indicate where Joseph and Mary came from that turned out to be crucial for Luke in the context of the census, which was really held under the orders of emperor Augustus when Quirinius was governor of Syria from 12 to 6 B.C.
5 to 4 B.C. Flight of the Holy Family to Egypt and slaughter of the innocents.
4 B.C. Death of Herod the Great. This date corroborates the historicity of the New Testament story involving Herod.
6 A. D. Jesus visits the Jerusalem Temple as a child in the company of his parents.
12 A. D. Augustus makes Tiberius co-regent.
14 A. D. Tiberius becomes Caesar.
25 A. D. Pilate and Caiaphas appointed to their respective offices.
29 A. D. The ministry of John the Baptist begins.
30 A. D. The ministry of Jesus begins when the ministry of John almost ended.
31 A. D. Tiberius executes Sejanus who was the political godfather of Pilate.
33 A. D. The crucifixion of Jesus.
36 A. D. Pilate dethroned and exiled and Caiaphas deposed.
37 A. D. Tiberius Caesar dies.
                                                   Some might wonder about how these details of secular history are connected to the real Jesus of history. The connection is that one who accepts these facts of history cannot at the same time deny the details about Jesus' life in the Gospels as they are intertwined! The main objection of those who deny the historicity of Jesus and the Gospels is that these are not historical records, but theological views based on faith. The objection derives from the notion that there can be 'pure history' without any perspectives, which we have countered in the previous posts. However, for further clarification, our next post 'The meaning of History' may be referred to.       

The Transformation of Jesus

                                                        People find it difficult to accept that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead could be part of history. It is true that by resurrection the dead body of Jesus was transformed into a spiritual body suffused with the Holy Spirit as a result of which it may seem that the transformed Jesus could not be part of history. This problem shall be dealt with extensively in our future posts about the Christ of faith and the interaction between faith and reason in the Gospel narratives. Here we just want to call attention to the fact that the risen body of Jesus is neither purely historical nor purely transcendental, but a harmonious blending of both in such a way that it is at home both on earth and in heaven  His appearances after the resurrection to the disciples and the modes of his interaction with them prove this point. Some biblical scholars like Rudolf Bultmann were ready to easily accommodate the Rationalists by keeping 'history' at a safe distance from 'faith' as is seen from their distinction between 'historie' (' the events of the past as they are' in German) and 'geschichte" ('the meaning and relevance of past events for our life' in German). As a result, Bultmann was willing to concede that the resurrection of Jesus was historical in the sense of "geschichte", but not of "historie" where it did not take place. We shall not be surprised by this kind of distinction given the rationalistic assumption that resurrection of Jesus meant a resuscitation of his body like in the case of Lazarus, for example. These two kinds of returning to life are qualitatively different as in the case of Jesus it was a permanent state, whereas for Lazarus it was only temporary as he was destined to die again. Not only that the risen Jesus is in a permanent state, but also his body was transformed from the physical to the spiritual plane, unlike in the cases of resuscitation of bodies. Bultmann arrived at such conclusions as he took over the concept of 'myth' propounded by D. F. Strauss a century earlier and applied it to interpret the New Testament without defining the concept of 'myth', thereby losing focus on the import of the Bible texts interpreted. We have already shown in our previous posts why history and meaning of history cannot be completely segregated  as they belong together, although they may be distinguished for the purpose of analysis.
                                                     Webster defines history as "acts, ideas or events that will or can shape the course of the future". Given this definition, it is clear that there are no better historical records with us than the New Testament and especially the four Gospels. However, the allergy shown by some scholars to those records arise from the fact that they are written from a perspective of faith in Jesus Christ that is their theology. We are of the view that there is no history worth its name without some perspective or other and a theological perspective in the Bible does not detract from its historical value. This is particularly true as we are aware of those perspectives, which helps us to pinpoint the truly historical elements in those texts. It does not mean that each time we may succeed in sifting through the texts of the Bible in order to locate the historical as distinct from the statements of faith. It is enough that we know those statements are rooted in, though not caused by, historical facts in their general outlines. Historical facts can only be an aid or an occasion for faith that always comes from God as a gift that is not based on merit but always as grace out of His mercy. An historical investigation cannot destroy faith as faith is about the meaning of history and not about the facts of history. This is true in reverse too in as far as faith cannot destroy historical facts since it neither adds nor takes away anything from history, but only supplies meaning to historical facts.
                                                   As for the method of verification of the fact of the risen body of Jesus, unlike that of Lazarus, for instance, we shall hold the view that it is restricted to the believers in the crucified Jesus  and not immediately open to the general public that refuses to follow the way of the cross. If the message is meant for all without any distinction of religion, caste, language, sex, culture etc. why is it restricted to believers only? Because all are welcome to follow Jesus by self-denial and carrying one's own cross to find fulfillment of one's own life(Mark, 8:34) and they are the true believers in Jesus Christ. The primary aim of verification is to establish the meaningfulness of the proposition that Jesus has risen from the dead after which alone the fact of resurrection can be approached. For meaningfulness of any proposition , including those of empirical sciences, the requirement is the possibility of verification and not actual verification of the propositions concerned.(See John Padinjarekutt,"Meaning and Verification in Wittgenstein", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1974). In this regard, the meaningfulness of a proposition of the type "Jesus rose from the dead" has the same verifiable value as that of  "Julius Caesar was a Roman emperor".
After a proposition is seen to be meaningful, one may proceed to its actual verification for establishing its genuineness as belonging to the body of knowledge we have constructed. (See John Padinjarekutt, "The Meaningfulness of Theological Statements", in BEIJDRAGEN, 1975).  

The Mind of Jesus

                                                        The apprehension that perhaps the Church has failed to transmit the mind of Jesus authentically to us in the process of proclaiming his message in writing after a gap of incubation at its beginning and later mutations in various forms for 2000 years is without foundation. We should read the Gospels in the spirit in which they were written. This means that we should not be intent on retrieving the history behind the Gospel narratives, as some Rationalists tried to do who were beaten back by Albert Schweitzer, ignoring the understanding in faith of Jesus' life , passion, death and resurrection manifested in them. The first Christians gathered together for remembering mainly the passion of Christ interpreting it in the light of Scripture (Old Testament), praying together the psalms and for breaking bread  with the experience of his resurrection fresh in their minds. When it was written down , each evangelist tells the story of Jesus' life in ways specific to each of them because they were written for different communities. Besides, each of them had a distinct style and a particular point of view or theology. Like true artists, each evangelist produced a masterpiece of the mind of Jesus Christ although the Gospels were bound to be diverse in outlook and character.
                                                      As regards the beginning of the Church, in spite of the fact that the Apostles and the disciples were fundamentally transformed into new persons through the resurrection and Pentecost experiences, they did not forget their life with Jesus before his death. That is why we have the events and teachings recorded in the Gospels where the face of Christ comes out in its original form. What had changed because of their transformation was the way they looked at those very events and teachings  as a result of which they were able to understand them just as Jesus understood them. In fact, one of the main concerns of Jesus was how far even his disciples, let alone the people in general, were able to correctly understand what he taught as well as the entire import of his whole life. His sole consolation was that they would properly understand them once they receive the Spirit after his death and resurrection. This is what really happened in the first christian communities when their human way of understanding things was changed into a divine way of understanding them. This means that what they projected through their preaching and teaching was exactly the mind of Jesus and not their own ideas about him. Even the 'form criticism' propounded by Rudolf Bultmann cannot contradict this view as the 'kerygma' of the believing communities was not meant to literally quote the words of Jesus ignoring their meaning and relevance to their current situations.
                                                    The second part of the apprehension about the failure of the Church in projecting the mind of Jesus always and everywhere down through the past 20 centuries is something which we have to attend to. We have the tools in our hands to redeem any such failures in as far as the Bible as the Word of God has to be the criterion of the renewal of the Church under the guidance of its teaching authority. The Church authority always seeks the guidance from the Church Fathers of the first centuries who were closer to the beginning of the Church. Besides, the biblical experts have an important role in correctly bringing out the intended meaning of the message conveyed through the Bible. The correct meaning is that which is intended by God Himself as well as the human author whereby the questions of inspiration and inerrancy  play a part here. The teaching authority in the Church too is under obligation to renew itself taking guidance from the Word of God in the Bible without which its own guidance may go astray. The Church has no business of existing in this world if it is not able to reveal the mind of Jesus without any flaw.   

The Universal Relevance of the Bible

                                                   The relevance of the Bible must be understood not as an imposition of one set of ideas against any other, but as an invitation to the fullness of life offered to everyone. The whole Bible is geared to this invitation to hear the Good News (Gospel) of God's benevolence over the human race. The Good News is encapsulated in the person of Jesus Christ who made it possible for us to enjoy the fruits ensuing therefrom for which the entire human race, on its own, was incapable. What are the fruits of the Good News? Life in its fullness (John 10:10) deriving from our freedom from everything that threatens our humanity like slavery to dehumanizing conditions of life, blindness to true light, deafness to Truth itself, oppression etc. Jesus announced this good news to the poor and the oppressed by allowing them to go free and declaring the year of the Lord's favor (Luke, 4:18). Why to the poor? The human race itself is poor as it is incapable of reaping these benefits by its own effort. Who is the rich excluded from enjoying the fruits of the good news? Those who feel self-sufficient and arrogant after accumulating ill-gotten wealth or misusing power over others whereby they cannot be poor enough by being truly humble before God and their neighbors. Jesus being God Himself took the human form not only to pay our dues through his own suffering and death on the cross, but also to invite us to follow in his footsteps and this message is addressed to the entire human race. Why and how the entire human race is included here? Because to follow in the footsteps of Jesus one has to only deny self, take up one's own cross and follow him till the end (Mark, 8:34). This is the present lot of humankind whether we like it or not. Why not transform the necessary evil of suffering and humiliation to sources of new and vigorous life? Jesus has gone before us and we only have to follow him. Some people do not like following anyone and they want to chart out their own path in order to be independent. It is alright unless it is uncharted territory where we are likely to get lost. Even in our ordinary life, don't we need coaches for swimming and driving lessons whom we have to follow if we want to continue to live in this world? All the more a model and leader is necessary when it is a question of gaining life in its fullness whom we have to follow without any reservation known as belief or faith in the person.
                                                More than an idea the Good News is concentrated in a person, Jesus Christ, whom we have to accept or reject freely. The importance of the Old Testament for Christians is that it is geared to the understanding of Jesus Christ in the context of God's revelation to the people of Israel that prepares for His entry into human history in a unique manner. The self-revelation of God in the New Testament does not negate that in the Old Testament, but rather qualitatively enhances the depth of His involvement in human history. The same may be said about other religions and their Scriptures as well as the cosmic revelation of God through nature encompassing the whole of humanity. What happened in a small corner of the world in Palestine is not meant to deny values that are ingrained in other kinds of manifestations of God from the very beginning of humankind. In fact, the Church Fathers are explicit in acknowledging the workings of the Word of God through His Spirit from the very beginning of the world.
                                               The problem about the universal relevance of the Bible and of Jesus Christ originates from a defective understanding of the Church about herself down through the centuries. It has to do with the expression of the nature of the Church both as visible and invisible where the visible element seems to have overshadowed the legitimate rights of the invisible element. This defect has permeated Christology as well resulting in a vision of the mission of the Church clearly unacceptable to the Church herself after the second Vatican Council. The feeling of superiority breeding contempt and intolerance of others is totally alien to the spirit of Christ whom the Church represents and who is the sole reason for her existence.

Why Only the Four Gospels?

                                                       Why did the Church accept only the four Gospels as canonical rejecting even the Gospels under the names of Peter and Thomas and other Apostles? Here we come across the need to locate the criterion used by the Church to accept some and reject the others. The Church did not have to look elsewhere for the criterion used as the Gospels were themselves products of its own life for about 40 years before they were written down. Any written material, therefore, should have reflected its own image as in a mirror. Any failure to do so would be a good criterion to reject such texts as spurious. This is what we have seen in a previous post in the case of Marcion and the Christian Community in Rome in the case of the Gospel of Luke. The community as a whole took the decision to reject Marcion's proposal to modify Luke's Gospel as it already knew the real Gospel. The final decision of the Church leaders about the canonical Gospels was arrived at as late as the Council of Carthage in 392 A.D. although a beginning was made in the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. It was but a natural outcome of the sense of the Church as a whole and not the result of manipulations by any section of the Church. On the other hand, even the Gospel of Thomas discovered in 1945 does not help us in any way in quest for the historical Jesus as we have there only the sayings of Jesus. Some of those sayings are not in conformity with the Canonical Gospels, a reason good enough for the Gospel of Thomas to be branded as apocryphal. Th same may be said about the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, recently upheld as genuine by some, that was already in 180 branded as apocryphal by no less an authority in these matters as Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons in France.
                                                    Did we unwittingly play into the hands of those who oppose our views on the matter and assert that being the products of the first believing communities the Gospels were necessarily distorted versions of what really happened. According to this view, it would have to be admitted that any historical data get contaminated by the personal mode of thinking of the historians themselves and are thus distorted. The best remedy to avoid this pitfall is to dig out the data from the original witnesses whose very life forms are shaped by those historical events. This is what happened in the first Christian Communities where the believers heard the Gospel events directly from the Apostles and disciples who were constantly in the company of Jesus. They experienced them in hearing the Word of God, participating in the Eucharistic Liturgy and prayers that changed them into new persons. Thus they were at a vantage point to look back at the original events for the purpose of comparing their new state with the Gospel events. In this new perspective, the Evangelists recorded the events and sayings of Jesus after a period of 40 years. Was anything changed in this process? The change was only in better understanding the meaning and significance of events and sayings that were opaque to them earlier. This kind of understanding the meaning and significance of historical events in the context of revelation is called theology. Therefore, there was no distortion, but clarification that enhances the value of those historical events. Those who are uncomfortable with the involvement of the first  believing communities should be reminded that according to Linguistic Analysis, no language is meaningful without being rooted in some kind of forms of life that generate the appropriate language games giving meaning to language itself. The Gospels are, therefore, well placed as historical records even within the parameters of the strict modern criteria of meaning as use of words and sentences in language. This process had the advantage of checks and balances of the original facts by a group of people instead of an individual or two with their own prejudices as happens in usual history writings.
Therefore, the presence of theological perspectives in the Bible in no way diminishes its historical value.
                                                  Some people argue that writings other than the 4 Gospels were weeded out as they supposedly contained certain secrets revealed by Jesus to his close circle of disciples. The only secrets alluded to by Jesus were the "Messianic Secret", referring to his own person as the expected Messiah, and the secrets of the Kingdom of God. Although the parables about the Kingdom of God were addressed to everyone, the general public did not have the time or inclination to be attuned to listen to them. The Apostles themselves were instructed by Jesus by explaining the meaning of the parables. The only other group to whom these types of secrets are revealed are children and that too directly by the Father Himself. For this reason, children are best suited to enter the Kingdom of God. Paul in his Letters tells us about the mystery God had kept in His mind from eternity and revealed gradually to us in fullness of time. This mystery is Jesus Christ himself in us (Col.1:25-27). These are the types of secrets we have in the Bible, unlike any in Gnosticism or other secret cults.The Bible is meant for revelation of God Himself and not for hiding things from our view and understanding!