Monday, October 23, 2006

The Hidden Son of Man

Rene Magritte (1898-1967) was a Belgian artist known for his unusual style.

Three years before his death he painted a work he called "The Son of Man". The picture features a man in a suit with a bowler cap. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the piece is the fruit that seems to be floating over the man's face.


Most of the objects in the painting look fairly ordinary. The suit was probably an ordinary thing for a person to wear in Magrittes' day. The wall, the sky, even the fruit seem like ordinary walls, skies, and fruits.

The apple over the face is a little unexpected, though.

Magritte's comment on the piece is:
Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see, but it is impossible. Humans hide their secrets too well...

Camus writes in The Myth of Sysaphus that it is hard to tell what is going on inside a person. One does not know whether a woman crossing the street is in high spirits or whether she is simply a good actress.

Like the Son of Man painting, people often had a hard time seeing the real Jesus Christ. When looking at Jesus some saw a future political leader. Others saw Moses or Elijah.

In Mark 8 Jesus asked Peter who he found Jesus to be. Peter answered, "You are the Christ". In other words he believed Jesus was the Messiah - sent specifically by God to save His people. Jesus told Peter, "Flesh and blood have not revealed this to you."

In the same way that we cannot see the man in the Son of Man painting with our eyes, we cannot see Jesus Christ with our physical eyes of flesh and blood.

Magritte finds that is impossible to see who is really there underneath everything. The recognition of another person's identity is truly a miracle. And to see oneself, one must not look at the exterior (as the world sees the apple), but as God sees oneself.

"By their fruit you will know them."

The most we can see about the Son of Man in the painting (other than his hands and clothes) is the fruit blocking his face from our view. We do not have the priviledged perspective of the painter who sees his subjects barefaced.

Jesus tells us the best we can do now to recognize others is to see their fruit. This is not the same thing as seeing people as they are before God ... to see their hidden thoughts and underlying priorities.

The fruit one bears is an indirect communication of the spirit cultivating the fruit. When Jesus manifested himself to people on earth, he usually wasn't clothed in the luminant shining robes of heaven -or however you fancy they dress in heaven. His clothing was regular human clothing that did not directly express his divinity.

In his earthly ministry, Christ's expression of his identity was in the way he cared for others and served them through healing, teaching (usually parables), and demonstrating a righteous life.

So too a disciple of Christ cannot effecively assert his association by loud proclamations and ingenious super-human arguments. Jesus told his disciples: "They will know you are my disciples if you love one another." A disciple of Christ must learn to communicate his standing before God indirectly: by loving God and his neighbor.

Labels:


4 Comments:

Blogger Soul Food Dude said...

Hey dude, I just saw your comment. Wow, strange, you're young man, a Kierkegaard fan, who loves The Brothers Karamazov, and you're married to a woman named Elizabeth.

All of these things are true of me as well.

To answer your question about Paul boasting in his weakness, my best guess is that Karl Barth would say that Paul is twisting the meaning of "boast." The glorying remains, but it is no longer glorying over oneself for what one has or can accomplish, but it is glorying over oneself, because one is what God has, and one that God can accomplish great things in. And it is boasting "in weakness" because this is the mystery of God, that he displays his power and compassion in the weak, the downtrodden, the godless, the poor, the hopeless. It is boasting in the scandal of God's will, that "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."

So it's not boasting in one's power or possession. Nor is it boasting in one's LACK of power or possession, insofar as HAVING this lack can be used by oneself to justify oneself before others, insofar as it is still having a possession of significance that is truly one's one. Barth says, "No! There is nothing about us to boast about. There can only be Christ in us, as God working in us, that can be boasted about, and this is no play on words...truly it is God's hand in our affairs that is to be boasted in, and in that, we are but a voice of praise, not claim."

BTW, is Fear and Trembling good? I have it on my shelf, but haven't read it yet. I've read Sickness, which is great, Practice in Christianity pt 1,2, and Provocations. And Dostoevsky...well, for me, he's the man.

peace,
Jathan

Tuesday, 24 October, 2006  
Blogger Soul Food Dude said...

Hey, a comment on the post...

Perhaps the fruit is a reference to the forbidden fruit? The knowledge that we were curious about, just had to have. And once we got it, our "eyes were opened," and then what did we do? We went and hid from God.

Tuesday, 24 October, 2006  
Blogger Micah Hoover said...

Thanks, soul food dude. Sounds like we have a lot in common.

Fear and Trembling is like a stick of dynamite. Kierkegaard goes into severe detail in describing how far Abraham was willing to go to sacrifice his promised son. He does this to express the absurdity of Abraham believing God would give Isaac back to him.

Johannes de Silento is a stylized writer (perhaps this is why SK writes in his journals that Fear and Trembling would guarantee he would be read by posterity), one of my philosophy teachers went so far as to say, "His style is his message."

I would recommend you set aside an evening, find a firm chair, and just zero in. Kierkegaard's descriptions are easy to identify with, but are often times agonizing to view in relation to one's own life.

Fear and Trembling is definitely one of his most powerful works. I strongly recommend it. The first part of Either/Or was very good (but they should be read together).

Tell me about Practice and Provocations. Were they edifying for you?

Friday, 27 October, 2006  
Blogger Micah Hoover said...

Sounds like Barth and I are on the same page.

I like the way you say "Paul is twisting the meaning of 'boast'", because this is exactly what the writers of the Bible are doing ... stealing away language and using it for other ends (in some ways using it to destroy itself).

See my article on 'spiritualizing language'.

Friday, 27 October, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home