I think the theory of polarisation could be of interest in theology. The principle of polarisation (that I am about to create) is that an inert substance may take on meaning and identity once polarised.
To explain polarisation, think of a magnet. If you bring an ordinary piece of metal near it, and stroke the metal with the magnet, this will cause the magnetic field of the magnet to magnetise the steel, and it will become another magnet. The steel had no particular properties, it was having just an ordinary day, until the magnet came along, and it was changed.
That is PHYSICAL polarisation. Then there is SPIRITUAL polarisation. Ordinary people come into contact with religion, and they become Baptists, Anglicans, Lutherans etc. This is an example of multiple polarisations, although still separate entities.
MENTAL polarisation may be seen in someone who is actually “Bi-Polar”. That is, they have a medical condition that used to be called “Manic Depression”. In this condition a person exhibits extreme mood swings, from elation to depression.
MULTI Mental polarisation is when there are several differing states appearing. An example of this may be so called “demons”, which may be a singular manifestation of extreme religious state, but can also manifest with several different personalities.
ROBOTIC polarisation is where a person is strongly polarised such that they are predisposed to follow a certain order, pattern, or seeming compulsion, without much deviation from their set course. Can be used to describe Jesus in his dependency on the Spirit of God.
Similar in the religious sense is to do with the parable of “The rich man in hell”. Here, says “Father Abraham”, there is “a great gap”. (between heaven and hell). The polarisation exists between the two states of heaven and hell. Unlike the magnet which has an attractive force between its two poles, and we could consider them opposite in name, but attracted in purpose, heaven and hell are in the polarisation of opposition. That is, they are repulsive of one another, mutually exclusive of each other. While the people and their locations are typically polarised.
Now for an additional concept. Just like the magnet used magnetic lines of force to induce the state of polarisation into the steel, we could consider some other influential force to achieve this effect. The mental state could be influenced by ideas. The spiritual state of a “spiritual” person could be arguably altered by some spirit influence.
I want to look at Jesus, but first to say that a person who has been traumatised or medically mentally damaged in some way, especially if they have come under religious influence, can believe and exhibit the symptoms of a “demoniac”.
What I am getting at is there is some influence that can enter and control the behaviour of perhaps a previously “normal”person.
That “influence” that leads to polarisation of or within the person may be seemingly mundane and innocent, such that we can have FOOTBALL polarisation, or SEXUALITY polarisation.
In America perhaps, if you start a conversation in a room full of people, you may see them moving to positions of commonality, because they have allegiances to Republicans or Democrats. In football, fans may group at some positions near the field together to show their common allegiance to their particular club.
OK so now to Jesus. Any “normal” person would be able to hold a “normal” conversation with other “normal” people. They do not normally exhibit obvious polarising characteristics. Although continuing conversations with them may reveal some “traits”. But Jesus was not normal by any means. He was absolutely polarised by his certainty of his identity as the son of God. [and it was on this ground that his “adversary” attacked him.]
His conversations with people were not “normal”. And his conviction of who he was and what his purpose was, that he did not, would not, recognise anything outside of his identity, as being a part of himself at all, was not “normal”.
What I am getting at, is that though he was a partaker of our human nature, and I have to claim that this nature was fallen, was of fallen Adam, just like our nature. – Otherwise what would be the point if he were NOT “in all points as we were” (tempted) and was NOT “made like his brethren”, Otherwise, how could he overcome our problem, our indwelling sin, our fallen nature.
Therefore, he saw anything within him that was not pure and holy, as if it were a foreign entity. Like Paul in Romans 7, who said it was not him but sin that dwelt in him. Whether or not we could say the same thing about Jesus might be a bit (to say the least) arguable, but we surely must concede that he had within him the same sin producing mechanism that we had, “yet without sin”. Otherwise, how is sin to be put to death on the cross?
So Jesus was so polarised in his mission, towards his Father, and in the whole nature of his being, that power was with him. And he could deny temptation, because he knew he was the son of God. Yes he had that advantage over us, the only one, that of his identity.
If we knew our identity in him, and were subject to strong polarising influences such as the Holy Spirit, we too might become strongly polarised such that we had ever increasing power over sin. And we have been given free access to this Spirit, that HE actually is.
When by his inner righteousness he opposed and defeated the inherited (from Mary) power of sin within him, and put it to death, rendering it harmless, he defeated sin and death, and the law of sin and death. He abolished the law by fulfilling the law, both of life and of death. He and his body became a “life giving Spirit”. He became the object of the promise, and the realisation of it. The free gift of life was poured out freely on the world at Pentecost. Come and partake, eat and drink, or stand off afar and remain in darkness.
CROSSROMAN 