Why did Jesus take so long?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rben20

Guest
Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity? From a Catholic understanding, did he come originally for the sin of Adam and Eve or both the original sin of Adam and Eve and the entire sins of all people up until that time? I know Jesus came for sins, but I’m just confused as to what sin or who’s sin. I understand God knows the perfect timing to present himself in the second person of trinity, but why I’m still puzzled as to why it took such a long time and it kept so many people out of heaven, continuing to believe in false gods, etc.?
 
Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity? From a Catholic understanding, did he come originally for the sin of Adam and Eve or both the original sin of Adam and Eve and the entire sins of all people up until that time? I know Jesus came for sins, but I’m just confused as to what sin or who’s sin. I understand God knows the perfect timing to present himself in the second person of trinity, but why I’m still puzzled as to why it took such a long time and it kept so many people out of heaven, continuing to believe in false gods, etc.?
All sins of all people of all time. After His death He descended into sheol and ministered to those who had died and were in waiting for the Messiah. Some of these would have chosen Him and been saved, others would have rejected Him and been lost… but Christ came so that all might choose to partake of His goodness.
 
Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity? From a Catholic understanding, did he come originally for the sin of Adam and Eve or both the original sin of Adam and Eve and the entire sins of all people up until that time? I know Jesus came for sins, but I’m just confused as to what sin or who’s sin. I understand God knows the perfect timing to present himself in the second person of trinity, but why I’m still puzzled as to why it took such a long time and it kept so many people out of heaven, continuing to believe in false gods, etc.?
Professor Warren Carroll makes an interesting argument as to why it took so long for God to act to redeem our sins. Namely, He was waiting for us to be ready. According to Catholic teaching, God wants us to participate in (that is, to cooperate with) our own salvation. This requires that we have the capacity to do so. For us today, that means acting so that we surrender our will to God’s–really, to surrender our whole life to Him, see Matthew 16:25 and Luke 9:24 --which in turn requires that we know and understand what God’s will for us is.

Ok, so why does all of this matter in answering your question, “Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity?” Dr Carroll’s reply is that God waited for exactly the right moment in human history to be best able to do this. The Roman Empire was at its apex–meaning, among other things, that messengers could travel far and wide with relative ease to spread a message; that much (though not nearly all) of humanity was united under a common banner–and it was a time of relative peace in the world. Christ wanted His disciples to “spread the good news,” that is, the gospels, to the corners of the earth. This required some semblance of stability throughout the known world, which really occurs only very rarely.

At the same time, human understanding needed to develop enough so that we could grasp this message–this good news. This was done, on the one hand, by the development of philosophy from the Greeks (and the Romans, to a lesser extent), and on the other hand more directly through God’s chosen people (the Israelites, the Jews). Without this understanding, the gospel might be spread, but it would seem as nonsense; indeed, at first it still was (folly to the Greeks and all that).

G.K. Chesterton had another way of describing all of this in his “Everlasting Man.” I’ll quote some excerpts from the relevant chapter, entitled “The End of the World.” The excerpt is a bit long, but the answers to philosophical questions often are–in this case, long, but also a fast read, with Chesterton’s flair for the dramatic. I’ll post it in the next reply.
 
G.K Chesterton:
For the shepherds were dying because their gods were dying. Paganism lived upon poetry; that poetry already considered under the name of mythology. But everywhere, and especially in Italy, it had been a mythology and a poetry rooted in the countryside; and that rustic religion had been largely responsible for the rustic happiness. Only as the whole society grew in age and experience, there began to appear that weakness in all mythology already noted in the chapter under that name. This religion was not quite a religion. In other words, this religion was not quite a reality…At that stage even of paganism therefore the peasant songs and dances sound fainter and fainter in the forest…The heart had gone out of it with its household gods, who went along with the gods of the garden and the field and the forest. The Old Man of the Forest was too old; he was already dying. It is said truly in a sense that Pan died because Christ was born. It is almost as true in another sense that men knew that Christ was born because Pan was already dead. A void was made by the vanishing of the whole mythology of mankind, which would have asphyxiated like a vacuum if it had not been filled with theology. But the point for the moment is that the mythology could not have lasted like a theology in any case. Theology is thought, whether we agree with it or not. Mythology was never thought, and nobody could really agree with it or disagree with it. It was a mere mood of glamour and when the mood went it could not be recovered. Men not only ceased to believe in the gods, but they realized that they had never believed in them. They had sung their praises; they had danced round their altars…Everywhere the sages had degenerated into sophists; that is, into hired rhetoricians or askers of riddles. It is one of the symptoms of this that the sage begins to turn not only into a sophist but into a magician. A touch of oriental occultism is very much appreciated in the best houses. As the philosopher is already a society entertainer, he may as well also be a conjurer. Many moderns have insisted on the smallness of that Mediterranean world; and the wider horizons that might have awaited it with the discovery of the other continents. But this is an illusion; one of the many illusions of materialism. The limits that paganism had reached in Europe were the limits of human existence; at its best it had only reached the same limits anywhere else…It is essential to recognize that the Roman Empire was recognized as the highest achievement of the human race; and also as the broadest. A dreadful secret seemed to be written as in obscure hieroglyphics across those mighty works of marble and stone, those colossal amphitheaters and aqueducts. Man could do no more.

For it was not the message blazed on the Babylonian wall, that one king was found wanting or his one kingdom given to a stranger. It was no such good news as the news of invasion conquest. There was nothing left that could conquer Rome but there was also nothing left that could improve it. It was the strongest thing that was growing weak. It was the thing that was going to the bad. It is necessary to insist again and again that many civilizations had met in one civilization of the Mediterranean sea; that it was already universal with a stale and sterile universality. The peoples had pooled their resources and still there was not enough. The empires had gone into partnership and they were still bankrupt. No philosopher who was really philosophical could think anything except that, in that central sea, the wave of the world had risen to its highest, seeming to touch the stars. But the wave was already stooping; for it was only the wave of the world…The members of some Eastern sect or secret society or other seemed to have made a scene somewhere; nobody could imagine why. The incident occurred once or twice again and began to arouse irritation out of proportion to its insignificance. It was not exactly what these provincials said; though of course it sounded queer enough. They seemed to be saying that God was dead and that they themselves had seen him die. Ibis might be one of the many manias produced by the despair of the age; only they did not seem particularly despairing. They seemed quite unnaturally joyful about it, and gave the reason that the death of God had allowed them to cat him and drink his blood. According to other accounts God was not exactly dead after all; there trailed through the bewildered imagination some sort of fantastic procession of the funeral of God, at which the sun turned black, but which ended with the dead omnipotence breaking out of the tomb and rising again like the sun. But it was not the strange story to which anybody paid any particular attention; people in that world had seen queer religions enough to fill a madhouse. It was something in the tone of the madmen and their type of formation. They were a scratch company of barbarians and slaves and poor and unimportant people; but their formation was military; they moved together and were very absolute about who and what was really a part of their little system; and about what they said, however mildly, there was a ring like iron. Men used to many mythologies and moralities could make no analysis of the mystery, except the curious conjecture that they meant what they said. All attempts to make them see reason in the perfectly simple matter of the Emperor’s statue seemed to be spoken to deaf men. It was as if a new meteoric metal bad fallen on the earth; it was a difference of substance to the touch. Those who touched their foundation fancied they had struck a rock.
 
**We humans are so impatient, like a 2 year old brat!

“So long?”

In the perspective of the “Eternal Horizon” that Pope Benedict XVI has called us to focus on, 2000 years is but a second…**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
**We humans are so impatient, like a 2 year old brat!

“So long?”

In the perspective of the “Eternal Horizon” that Pope Benedict XVI has called us to focus on, 2000 years is but a second…**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity? From a Catholic understanding, did he come originally for the sin of Adam and Eve or both the original sin of Adam and Eve and the entire sins of all people up until that time? I know Jesus came for sins, but I’m just confused as to what sin or who’s sin. I understand God knows the perfect timing to present himself in the second person of trinity, but why I’m still puzzled as to why it took such a long time and it kept so many people out of heaven, continuing to believe in false gods, etc.?
I agree with Mark. God exists outside space and time. What appears hundred thousand years here on earth may be just a blink of an eye in heaven. Jesus knows best. Jesus is the best and Jesus came at the ‘best’ time.
 
Why did Jesus take so long to save humanity?
Biblically speaking, Adam and Eve seem to have been expelled from the Garden into some sort of existing human society (there were entire “cities” in the days of Cain and Abel). The Church has not taught us what this might mean, but historians tell us that these cities would have almost surely been at war with one another. The ancient world was a world of war. Today, we know that this was true in every place for which we have records. It was true in Eastern and Western Europe, and the area of the British Islands, and in South and Central America, and in Japan and China, and everywhere else.

It is difficult to evangelize people if a state of war exists. This was the typical state between ancient regions.

But, along came the Roman Empire, and with it a very unique state of affairs called the Pax Romana, which means the “Peace of Rome.” For the first time in all of human history, a very large portion of the human population was united under a common authority and was at peace. It was possible, for the first time in human history, to travel great distances and reach a great many people without being attacked as a foreign invader.

The era of the Pax Romainus began with Augustus, about 27 AD, and lasted for about two centuries.

It is generally said that Jesus was crucified at the age of 33. But modern scholars say that Pope Gregory’s calendar scholars were wrong when fixing the date of Our Lord’s birth - most say Jesus was born four years earlier. This would put the date of his death at 29 AD, just as the Pax Romana was beginning. It was at this time that the Apostles (and their successors) were able to spread the Gospel message across great expanses of land and to many people in many cultures. This broad exposure allowed the Gospel message to take root and spread, without being extinguished by a single entity.

Jesus did not take so long. He came a soon as he could.
 
Thank you for all your (name removed by moderator)ut! Very insightful.
 
following up on EquusNomVeritas replies: It’s significant that, by the time Jesus came, man had reasoned to the conclusion, by way of philosophy, that God existed. They couldn’t employ reason to know much more about Him than that, but they got that far-and, of course, Jesus revealed the rest we needed to know when He arrived not much later in history.

Man’s thought had reached a point beyond where it could take mythology seriously-even as he still tried to hang on to it since he had nothing else, but even his philosophy could only take him so far and at that point, when hope is fading, only Someone who knows the full scheme of things could remedy the situation. God allowed-allows- mankind to struggle as self-exiled prodigals until we’ve learned enough to come to our senses-and receive Him when He comes.
 
My biology teacher (who was actually a Jew, oddly enough) I think summed it up perfectly: "Jesus was a nice person who came when his people needed someone."

I think this is true by looking at who were the immediate converts to Christianity: those of lower status in the Roman hierarchy. They were mostly slaves, down-trodden people who were stuck as foreigners paying an unlawful tax, or Roman citizens who could not rise in the tier. Who would you think was more likely to convert to Christianity: a Roman Senator, or a slave who was not a subject, but an object, in their law?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top