Divine Accomodation
Posted: December 20th, 2007, 2:01 pm
Here’s an interesting idea from a book, Discovering God by Rodney Stark.
… one of the most fundamental, yet remarkably neglected, of all Judeo-Christian premises, that of Divine Accommodation, which holds that God's revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend — that in order to communicate with humans, God is forced to accommodate their incomprehension by resorting to the equivalent of "baby talk." This view is, of course, firmly rooted in scripture. In Exodus 6:2 (in the Torah), when God tells Moses that he had made himself known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not as Yahweh, but as El Shaddai, presumably this was because the Patriarchs were not ready to be told more. Or, when asked by his disciples why he spoke to the multitudes in parables, Jesus replied that people differed greatly in what they could comprehend: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
It was in this same spirit that Irenaeus (c. 115-202) invoked the principle of divine accommodation to human limits in order to explain God's tolerance of human failings. A generation later, Origen (c. 185-251) wrote in On First Principles that "we teach about God both what is true and what the multitude can understand." Hence, "the written revelation in inspired scripture is a veil that must be penetrated. It is an accommodation to our present capacities ... [that] will one day be superseded.”
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) agreed: "The things of God should be revealed to mankind only in proportion to their capacity; otherwise, they might despise what was beyond their grasp.... It was, therefore, better for the divine mysteries to be conveyed to an uncultured people as it were
veiled... " So, too, John Calvin (1509-1564) flatly asserted that God "reveals himself to us according to our rudeness and infirmity." If scriptural comparisons, between earlier and later portions of the Bible, for example, seem to suggest that God is changeable or inconsistent, that is merely because "he accommodated diverse forms to different ages, as he knew would be expedient for each ... he has accommodated himself to men's capacity, which is varied and changeable." The same constraints applied to those who conveyed God's words. Thus, Calvin noted that in formulating Genesis, Moses "was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction.... [Seeking to] be intelligible to all ... Moses, therefore, adapts his discourse to common usage... such as the rude and unlearned may perceive ... [and] he who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." The principle of divine accommodation provides a truly remarkable key for completely reappraising the origins and history of religions. Calvin said straight out that Genesis is not a literal account of the Creation because it was directed to the unlearned and the primitive, even though, when they received it, the ancient Jews were far from being truly primitive. How much greater an accommodation would be required to enable God to reveal himself to the truly unsophisticated humans living in the Stone Age? So, it is at least plausible that many religions are based on authentic revelations as God has communicated within the limits of human comprehension and as his message has been misunderstood and erroneously transmitted.
I had never heard the term "Divine Accomodation" before, but it makes sense. However, in my mind, the question remains: Is it the Divine "dumbing down" the Truth for those of us too dense to get the real thing, as the book seems to suggest, or is it that what's Said is the Same always and everywhere, but our mind adapts and interprets as necessary in order to fit it into our ability of the moment to understand it (and, if we are reporting it, as say, the gospels authors were, then -- as jenjulian suggests in another thread -- that is the way we write it)? Thus, the first time we read or otherwise come across some new ideas along our path, we are overwhelmed, dumbfounded. Then, when we come across them again later, we get them and we love them. What's changed? Not the ideas, not the books we found them in. It is we who have changed. Even more, Anna and I can remember re-reading a book we had originally read a year or more previously, and coming across ideas that we had not even seen before. "That paragraph was not in the book before!" we will say to one another. And of course it was (wasn't it?), but because we were not then ready to ingest it, our mind simply edited it out.
Anyway, if -- as it seems (I have only just begun reading this book) -- the premise of this book is that all religions, however apparently primitive or sophisticated, diverse and even sometimes apparently conflicting as they seem to be, could very well be a product of the same Source, to wit, Divine Revelation, and that this accounts for the fundamental similarity among religions, then I completely agree. As for those on the other side of that suggestion, Stark writes, Ironically, the similarities among the world’s religions also are taken as "proof" that they all are human inventions.
As I have written here and elsewhere on TZF, it is increasingly apparent to me that all scriptures, all Teaching, are identical. The differences among them – differences which are perceived only by us from our separative, egoic perspective (“I am me, and you aren’t me”) – are not substantive, despite the appearances. They are purely linguistic, cultural, geographic, and so on. Distill all that out, and what’s left is a Single Idea, and it is the same everywhere. The "proof" of that jumps out at me from every corner of my life more and more every day.
… one of the most fundamental, yet remarkably neglected, of all Judeo-Christian premises, that of Divine Accommodation, which holds that God's revelations are always limited to the current capacity of humans to comprehend — that in order to communicate with humans, God is forced to accommodate their incomprehension by resorting to the equivalent of "baby talk." This view is, of course, firmly rooted in scripture. In Exodus 6:2 (in the Torah), when God tells Moses that he had made himself known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not as Yahweh, but as El Shaddai, presumably this was because the Patriarchs were not ready to be told more. Or, when asked by his disciples why he spoke to the multitudes in parables, Jesus replied that people differed greatly in what they could comprehend: "This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand."
It was in this same spirit that Irenaeus (c. 115-202) invoked the principle of divine accommodation to human limits in order to explain God's tolerance of human failings. A generation later, Origen (c. 185-251) wrote in On First Principles that "we teach about God both what is true and what the multitude can understand." Hence, "the written revelation in inspired scripture is a veil that must be penetrated. It is an accommodation to our present capacities ... [that] will one day be superseded.”
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) agreed: "The things of God should be revealed to mankind only in proportion to their capacity; otherwise, they might despise what was beyond their grasp.... It was, therefore, better for the divine mysteries to be conveyed to an uncultured people as it were
veiled... " So, too, John Calvin (1509-1564) flatly asserted that God "reveals himself to us according to our rudeness and infirmity." If scriptural comparisons, between earlier and later portions of the Bible, for example, seem to suggest that God is changeable or inconsistent, that is merely because "he accommodated diverse forms to different ages, as he knew would be expedient for each ... he has accommodated himself to men's capacity, which is varied and changeable." The same constraints applied to those who conveyed God's words. Thus, Calvin noted that in formulating Genesis, Moses "was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction.... [Seeking to] be intelligible to all ... Moses, therefore, adapts his discourse to common usage... such as the rude and unlearned may perceive ... [and] he who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere." The principle of divine accommodation provides a truly remarkable key for completely reappraising the origins and history of religions. Calvin said straight out that Genesis is not a literal account of the Creation because it was directed to the unlearned and the primitive, even though, when they received it, the ancient Jews were far from being truly primitive. How much greater an accommodation would be required to enable God to reveal himself to the truly unsophisticated humans living in the Stone Age? So, it is at least plausible that many religions are based on authentic revelations as God has communicated within the limits of human comprehension and as his message has been misunderstood and erroneously transmitted.
I had never heard the term "Divine Accomodation" before, but it makes sense. However, in my mind, the question remains: Is it the Divine "dumbing down" the Truth for those of us too dense to get the real thing, as the book seems to suggest, or is it that what's Said is the Same always and everywhere, but our mind adapts and interprets as necessary in order to fit it into our ability of the moment to understand it (and, if we are reporting it, as say, the gospels authors were, then -- as jenjulian suggests in another thread -- that is the way we write it)? Thus, the first time we read or otherwise come across some new ideas along our path, we are overwhelmed, dumbfounded. Then, when we come across them again later, we get them and we love them. What's changed? Not the ideas, not the books we found them in. It is we who have changed. Even more, Anna and I can remember re-reading a book we had originally read a year or more previously, and coming across ideas that we had not even seen before. "That paragraph was not in the book before!" we will say to one another. And of course it was (wasn't it?), but because we were not then ready to ingest it, our mind simply edited it out.
Anyway, if -- as it seems (I have only just begun reading this book) -- the premise of this book is that all religions, however apparently primitive or sophisticated, diverse and even sometimes apparently conflicting as they seem to be, could very well be a product of the same Source, to wit, Divine Revelation, and that this accounts for the fundamental similarity among religions, then I completely agree. As for those on the other side of that suggestion, Stark writes, Ironically, the similarities among the world’s religions also are taken as "proof" that they all are human inventions.
As I have written here and elsewhere on TZF, it is increasingly apparent to me that all scriptures, all Teaching, are identical. The differences among them – differences which are perceived only by us from our separative, egoic perspective (“I am me, and you aren’t me”) – are not substantive, despite the appearances. They are purely linguistic, cultural, geographic, and so on. Distill all that out, and what’s left is a Single Idea, and it is the same everywhere. The "proof" of that jumps out at me from every corner of my life more and more every day.
I have never heard of this before either, it is an extremely compelling concept. I'm drawn to the view that the message doesn't change as much as we do. I think because I have also had the same experiences of reading something at a different time in my life and there are different messages in it. I think of all of the quarreling between religious views and if this idea is correct, how simply silly are we?! The ego must play, mine included...