Imagine a world in which the existence of air was the subject of debate. Those who believe in air are fully aware that it is invisible, whereas those who reject it argue that its invisibility is a fantastic confirmation that it doesn't exist. Naturally, we would regard this as quite the foolish argument. Air, by its nature, is invisible, a fact for which we can be quite grateful. Air is in constant contact with our very eyes, meaning if we could see air, we couldn't see much of anything else.
As unlikely as this scenario is, it is analogous to a very real debate in the modern world. As atheism increases in popularity, so also does its chief argument: Divine hiddenness. God, unfortunately, is quite conspicuously inconspicuous. Throughout history, He has appeared to His people in various ways. He appeared as a burning bush to Moses. He guided the Jews through the wilderness as a pillar of fire by night, and smoke by day. Most significantly, He entered creation through the womb of a virgin; the fullness of Godhead dwelt bodily in the Man, Jesus Christ. But if you ask Him to appear before you, your chances of receiving a direct answer are significantly low.
To many atheists, the fact that God rarely reveals Himself to mankind, especially on command, is proof positive that He doesn't exist. They may admit, especially when pressed, that this is not a logical argument for all things. Nevertheless, they argue that for God, in particular, His apparent absence is better explained by His non-existence. He is, after all, all powerful - He can prove He exists, and He certainly wants people to believe He exists, so He is motivated to use that power. Thus, the fact that He does not is at least consistent with the idea that He doesn't exist.
But an essential element of any debate on God's existence is taking Him as He is, in His entirety. It is not sufficient to only take into account the attributes of God that you can weave together into a convenient argument, while intentionally ignoring the attributes that disarm that argument. That is a fallacy called a "straw man" argument.
When we study Scripture, we do see that God is omnipotent, although we get a very different understanding of what that actually means. We also see that He desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:1-4). But what if God has other reasons for withdrawing Himself from us?
First, it is arrogant, at best, to assume if such reasons existed, we would necessarily know them. We are so limited, we often struggle to understand even our fellow man. How, then, can we be expected to fully understand God, whose thoughts are higher than ours, and not even to a small degree?
One thing we do understand is it's possible to have conflicting desires. It's such a well known concept that in English, we have our own proverb describing it: "You can't have your cake and eat it too". This phrase refers to the impossibility of simultaneously fulfilling two mutually exclusive desires. If you eat your cake, it is gone, you can't have it anymore. By His own nature, God is a logical being; He is not immune to the law of non-contradiction. In other words, it is possible for Him to possess, but not simultaneously fulfil, mutually exclusive desires.
We see this in the lead up to the crucifixion, when Jesus prays "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will." (Matthew 26:39), and again a second time, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done." (v42). Here, Jesus expresses two mutually exclusive desires, or "wills". The first is to escape the fate He was about to endure; the full wrath of God against the sin of mankind. The second is to obey His Father, enduring the very wrath He had just prayed He might escape.
It is worth noting that in Biblical theology, God is triune. That is, there is only one God, but He exists in three distinct, yet coequal persons. The Father, to whom Jesus prayed, is one person of the Trinity. But Jesus Himself is another. This means when Jesus says "not as I will, but as You will", He is saying "not as God wills, but as God wills". This adds a second layer to the mutual exclusivity of God's desires regarding the crucifixion.
An obvious third layer is that the Trinity is perfectly united in love for Himself. Thus, we can surmise that the crucifixion was not entirely within the Father's will either. In fact, the whole ordeal is described as a sin on the part of those who ultimately crucified Him. Thus, it was simultaneously the Father's will to see Christ crucified, and to free His beloved Son from such a cruel fate.
Thus, we see three layers of mutually exclusive desires within the heart of God. Save Christ, or save mankind. God could do one or the other, He couldn't do both. Thus, while God could save Christ, even sending a legion of angels to protect Him, He chose to endure the cross.
The same principle explains divine hiddenness. God can prove Himself beyond all doubt, reasonable or unreasonable. But it's possible He has other desires that conflict with such actions, and as we're about to see, Scripture tells us He absolutely does.
In Scripture, faith is described as a great moral virtue, actually being among the "big three". "So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13). While love is greater, faith is so highly valued by God that "...without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." (Hebrews 11:6, emphasis mine). With this in mind, divine hiddenness makes perfect sense. Even though God can reveal Himself in many millions of ways, and certainly wants us to believe, He actually wants us to do this on the basis of incomplete evidence.
Now notice, I did not say no evidence. As both a Christian and an apologist, I firmly believe the evidence we have for the Christian faith is more than sufficient to convince a reasonable mind that God does indeed exist, and that we will be saved by confessing Jesus as His risen Son. However, one should not have to actually see God to believe He exists, any more than one should have to personally shake the hands of the Wright Brothers to believe they really did invent the first successful aircraft.
Interestingly, there are mutual benefits here. Faith brings great blessings when it isn't based on direct sight. We see, for example, the famous "doubting Thomas", who insisted "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." (John 20:25). This is a privilege he was ultimately granted, as 8 days later, Jesus directly appeared to him as to the other disciples and allowed him to inspect His wounds. And so we read "Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”" (John 20:28-29). From this, we see that those who come to faith with less evidence will, indeed, receive a great blessing. For us, as Christians, it is better not to have seen God directly.
But there is a flip side to this. Just as we are given greater blessings for faith in lesser knowledge, we are given greater punishments for rejecting faith in greater knowledge. In Luke 12, we read of a parable, the conclusion of which is "And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more." (Luke 12:47-48).
During His life, Jesus did many miracles. He fed thousands of people with the contents of a child's lunch basket. He waltzed alongside boats as if they were on solid ground. He turned water into wine. He made demons beg for mercy in the sight of those they tormented. He healed those who were sick, in ways we still cannot replicate with our advanced science and technology. He is even the only person in history who literally made enough noise to wake the dead. The power of Christ was a great spectacle, inspiring awe in some people, and great fear in others. Some begged Him to stay in their town. Some begged Him to leave theirs. Some wanted to follow Him everywhere He went. But the most extreme response was from those who wanted Him dead. To these people, He wasn't the Son of God, sent with the express purpose of bringing them everlasting salvation, but a blasphemer worthy of the ultimate punishment.
To those who rejected Him, Jesus warned: The judgment will not be pleasant. In fact, there are several Scriptures similar to this one: "“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you." (Matthew 11:21-22).
In the modern day, atheists insist that if God would just show Himself, they would believe. In Jesus' day, God did show Himself, but they nailed Him to a cross. Such is the nature of the human heart. We are not all equally stubborn, but I dare say, the kind of person who will reject all other evidence if it is not supplemented by direct and personal revelation is certainly the kind of person to whom Jesus would say "it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you."
Interestingly, many prominent atheists flat out admit they are this kind of person. Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and Matt Dillahunty, are just three examples of atheists who have said nothing could convince them Christianity is true. Dawkins said he would blame aliens if God arranged the stars to send him a message. Atkins said if he agreed with evidence for God, that would prove he'd gone mad. Dillahunty said he wouldn't believe even if someone had their head cut off and rose from the dead.
With such stubbornness, God is actually being merciful even to those who will go to Hell, simply by not giving them the evidence that will increase their knowledge, and therefore increase their punishment. But this might prompt atheists to suggest God shouldn't have created them in the first place.
Scripture tells a different story. It describes God's prerogative as Creator in many ways. One of these ways is to describe God as the potter, with us being the clay. This features first in Isaiah 29, where God speaks to the rebellious in Israel, declaring "Woe to those who seek deep to hide their counsel far from the Lord, And their works are in the dark; They say, “Who sees us?” and, “Who knows us?” Surely you have things turned around! Shall the potter be esteemed as the clay; For shall the thing made say of him who made it, “He did not make me”? Or shall the thing formed say of him who formed it, “He has no understanding”?" (Isaiah 29:15-16). Again, in Isaiah 64, we read "But now, O Lord, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand." (Isaiah 64:8).
This analogy comes up again later in Jeremiah 18, in which God sends Jeremiah to a potter's house. The potter is making something, but it goes wrong, so the potter makes it into something else, as he sees fit. The takeaway is that God can do the same with us when we rebel.
The most significant, if theologically charged example of the potter analogy is in Romans 9, where we read "But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?" (Romans 9:20-24).
Admittedly, this is phrased more like a hypothetical than a fact, but we have another conflicting desire that God may have here. On the one hand, as we have previously established, God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. But what if He also wants to show His wrath, make His power known, and demonstrate the riches of His glory to the vessels of His mercy?
With this particular goal in mind, it makes sense that God wouldn't automatically save everyone, even if it is one of His desires that they ultimately will be saved. In fact, with all facts combined, it is the only thing that makes sense. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, so why would He intentionally decrease faith by increasing His visibility beyond necessary levels? Divine hiddenness is also beneficial to humans; for believers, it increases our reward and enables us to exhibit a virtue God values extremely highly. For unbelievers, it decreases their punishment.
Paul's "what if" makes even more sense. While God does not have any needs, He does have certain attributes that can only be expressed in a world in which sin is possible. God is a Savior, but He cannot save those who do not exist. God is a just judge, but how can justice be served if there are no sinners to serve it against? The very fact that there are two paths, mercy or destruction, shows the richness of His glory. Salvation is open to the wicked, but it is not forced, allowing all of these desires of God to be fulfilled.
Ultimately, the purpose of divine hiddenness is, ironically, divine revelation. It is difficult to explain this kind of thing to an atheist, and indeed, even for Christians it literally takes a lifetime of studying this massive book we call the Bible. But we are designed to know God, not merely as a big, indescribable, undeniable control system, but far more intimately.
In Scripture, we actually see the analogy of marriage. The Church is described as the bride of Christ. We of course need to keep Biblical sexual ethics in mind here. In Scripture, fornication is a sin. Leading up to a marriage, a couple will get to know each other deeply, but there are limits to how far they are allowed to take it. But on the wedding night, off come the clothes, the couple see each other in their full glory, and they get closer than ever before. In the same way, we get to know God very deeply, but we do not yet get to see His full glory. In time, this will change. As John says, "Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is." (1 John 3:2).
Divine hiddenness, then, is not a valid argument against Christianity, simply because it ignores major elements of God's nature. For now, Divine hiddenness is a part of the purpose for which God created us. It is necessary for now, but it has an expiration date. A time is coming when the insanity of atheism will be permanently cured. But no one, least of all atheists themselves, wants that to be one day too late. Through Christ, God has given us the path to salvation through confessing Him as Lord, and believing God raised Him from the dead. Through Scripture, God has given us sufficient revelation by which to do so. The door is open. Run through it.
AI usage
AI was used to create the angry man in the header image.
Comments