38 comments on “Wonder

  1. I believe Jesus was fully man yet fully God and whilst he laid down his will and submitted to God the Father in heaven, he also had access to all of God’s power through his perfect relationship with Him in the trinity. Eg. The woman at the well- Jesus knew things about her that she hadn’t disclosed.


  2. Interesting thoughts, Paul. I think his 40 days of temptation proved that he had to face his humanity like the rest of mankind, but he did so without sinning… I can agree with the answers both Merryn and readinpleasure gave above.


  3. I don’t think he ever had to wonder. He knew, and therefore he became one of us, lived as one of us, and, in complete understanding, died for all of us. This is what I believe. 🙂


  4. I loved this, I often wonder what he wonder about but also how he felt through all those things he went through for all of us. I’m so thankful 🙂


  5. I think Gethsemane tells us he wondered. Only someone fully human could seek to avert impending pain and death. His humanity wondered while his divinity accepted the will of god. And I think those ‘lost years’ between being found in the temple and beginning active ministry must have been his growth years, working as any man among people, learning about life as a man, wondering about life as we all do. I’m pretty sure he was ‘grounded’ after the temple stunt! Way too early to begin the task and worrying his parents in the process. Typical teenager! I’m inclined to think he still wonders even while he understands.
    I always wondered whether Jesus laughed and my mum found one for me a number of years ago. Someone had sketched my wonder. You can still find it online.
    The real wonder, I think, is that we were found to be worth the sacrifice. That’s when I know we are seen as children – always worth the sacrifice even why we wonder why sometimes. Love is a wonderful motivator.
    So much to wonder about here, Paul. Got my wee brain in a tizzy. 🙂


  6. Jesus as an extraordinary human was/is able to be Godlike. As we recall from the ancient texts, Jesus is perceived as needing time of solitude to regenerate his human energy (Bios/matter in Greek). This time of solitude is practicing of mysticism in all world traditions. However, many world traditions have become law rather than the Truth. When Jesus was immersed in silence, just like any of us can do, Jesus slowed down his thoughts to access His heart that is inaccessible by the intellect. Through His heart, Jesus humbly accepted the breath of the Holy Spirit to disregard the thought, allow emotions and feelings to flow and “observe” them with loving attention to allow for their “birth”. Excerpts from the works of Issler (2012), Natkovich (2014), Khan (1974), and Bohm (1985) evidence that with all due respect to all traditions, religious and secular, human search for meaning leads us to the same place. The place is not a destination but a journey to a better understanding not through our conceptual minds but through our hearts. In my most recent paper, I justify my position of the role of spirituality as a conduit to ethical leadership by illustrating that Issler (2012) refers to this journey as a “heart flow work” (p. 56), Natkovich (2014) uses a reference of the “universalistic model of self-comprehension as a foundation for spiritual work” (p. 48), Khan (1974) refers to it as “losing all identity to the absolute self or seeking the personal God” (p. 220), and Bohm (1985) uses the term of “super-implicate order” (p. 122), the cited authors through different linguistic structures speak the same language – the language of human heart. While our conceptual minds can place in front of us perceptual barriers given our frames of reference, as Bohm (1985) asserts when we express ourselves linguistically, our words are not chosen in a linear fashion but flow from our intentions to express linguistically what we mean in our hearts. The author further posits that the flow of our thoughts from our intentions to assume the linguistic structure is actually a cooperation of the processes of enfolding and unfolding. The author also emphasizes that we immediately sense the meaning of the linguistic structure of our expression because meaning and intention are one and the same and connect us to the greater whole – the implicate order, which for us is direct, immediate, and pervasive. Since our actions flow from our intentions, how do we ensure that we fill our consciousness with meaning that mirrors our relationship with the implicate order (God) rather than crowding it with explicate meaning that flows from outside of ourselves and tends to be self-serving? Since knowledge tends to be limited (Bohm, 1985), and religions can assume the role of a ritualistic “fossilized state” (Khan, 1978, p. 220) in practice, what role, if any, does spirituality have in seeking higher meaning in our existence, or as Khan (1978, p. 223) puts it “seeking God’s footprint in the marvel of the universe”? The answer to this question depends on who is asking it. If the question is asked by the mystics of the Buddhist, Carmelite Christian, Hindu, or Sufi traditions, spirituality assumes the role of a conduit to forgo any personal incarnation to merge with the ultimate self or as Bohm would explain to align our intentions with the implicate order for reality making. However, if the question is asked by an orthodox religious follower or a scientist, spirituality may assume a limited role of an instrument for reality making based on external sources such as limited knowledge or a ritual, without questioning the reasons or motives. To explore the role of spirituality as a conduit for ethical leadership from the broadest perspective, spirituality as the manifestation of the self that serves as the command center of human awareness encompassing stable and unstable characteristics of the paradoxical nature of human condition (Layder, 2004) must be considered.

    Jesus’ experience in the Garden of Gethsemane (John 15) illustrates Jesus’ “frail humanity” (Issler, 2012, p. 50). Matthew 26:38, Mark 14:34, Luke 22:44, and John 11:33; 12:27; and 13:21, show us Jesus’ extremely distressed state/”a troubled heart” (Issler, 2012, p. 51) and seeking reassurance three times. Then, Jesus looked to God – the Father just like we can do in times of need.

    Below is a summary of Issler’s book that you will find helpful in conceptually understanding the
    5 gaps that hinder us from living into the life of Jesus:
    1. Disconnected gap (not regularly abiding in Jesus) – gaps 1 and 2 are foundational and prevent us from recognizing gaps 3-5.
    2. Distressed gap (an initial moment of troubling emotional stress – Jesus experienced it even though he never sinned)
    3. Dismissive gap (resistance to the Truth that seems impossible)
    4. Discrepancy gap (professed values that are not character deep)
    5. Distracted gap (a lifestyle slowly drifting off course)

    Our worldview beliefs cannot be changed instantly by a heartfelt commitment of our will at any time we want. But they can be changed indirectly over time, with God’s grace.

    4 steps can helps us make progress regarding inner heart formation (“heart flow work”, p. 51):
    1. Awake to the gaps.
    2. Admit with honesty.
    3. Ask for formation grace.
    4. Act, taking the first step.
    Since Jesus faced the distressed gap, we need not feel we are sinning when we initially encounter it. We can then follow Jesus’ example to address this particular gap and keep from sinning.

    Our core beliefs form our character, which is the source of our thoughts and actions.
    Affective elements of character:
    • Attitude
    • Desires
    • Disposition
    • Feelings
    Cognitive elements of character:
    • Beliefs
    • Imagination
    • Internal dissonance
    • Knowledge
    • Pre-theoretical aspects

    “When I remind you what you already know, we are both blessed.” – Rabbi Rami Shapiro


    Bohm, D. (1985). Hidden variables and the implicate order. Zygon, 20(2), 111-124.

    Issler, K. (2012). Living into the life of Jesus: The formation of Christian character. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

    Khan, P. V. I. (1974). Sufism in the dialogue between religions. Cross Currents, Summer/Fall 1974.

    Natkovich, S. (2014). Elisha ben abuya, the Hebrew faust: On the first Hebrew translation of faust within the setting of the maskilic change in self-perception. Naharaim, 8(1), 48-73.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s