The Creation Poetry
Slice of Laodicea received this transcript from Rob Bells new NOOMA video, Open.
…Now to understand why Jesus prays like this, we have to understand that Jesus took very seriously the creation poem Genesis, that the Bible begins with. And in this creation poem God creates, but God creates things that are capable of creating more, and so God creates trees but then gives trees the ability to create more. God creates animals and plants and fish but then empowers them to create more. And then God creates people, and gives them the ability to create more. So everything in creation is essentially unfinished, God leaves the world unfinished, and invites people to take part in the ongoing creation of the world. Now, when you create, you always run the risk that what you’ve created, won’t turn out how you wanted it to, it may go a different direction, it may not be everything you intended it to be. It may veer off course, and it may break your heart…
Her comments on the excerpt will leave readers scratching their heads.
Rob Bell begins his video with the same emotional storytelling that his other emerging peers like to use. While there are still tears on the face of his readers, he inserts something heretical and wraps it all up with some devotional idea that nobody would argue with.
I am not sure how to take this. Is she saying that everything he is saying is completely biblical, but deep down inside he is secretly harboring heretical teachings? I mean, if nobody would argue with his devotional idea, then where is the problem?
We participate with God in the creation of the world? This is rank heresy that abounds in New Age teachings. The idea that we are co-creators with God is a key tenant of New Age belief. We are all co-creators with God, they say. God needs us to carry his creation forward.
Of course we are co-creators in the world. Ingrid created a blog and a radio show that has the expectation of creating what the world (specifically America) should look and feel like. We create churches, ministries, political organizations, small groups, blogs, and television stations all to CREATE a different future. By simply bringing a child into the world, we dramatically change the landscape of the world in which we live. If we actually believed that what we do has no effect on creating the future, we would not get up in the morning. Also, just because the new age movement believes in something, does not make it heretical. The new age movement believes that God is ultimately good, and has an unconditional love for humanity. Should we dismiss that as heretical, just because they believe it?
Creation is unfinished, Bell says, even though Scripture records God as calling His work “good†as he concluded the 6 days of creation. In Rob Bell’s world, Genesis is not a literal account, it is a poem.
Did God mean that all creation was finished by calling it good? That is a far stretch. Also, where did Bell say that he did not believe in a literal creation account? Even if he did, there are several credible reasons to believe that the Genesis account might not be a literal one. Lastly, anyone who has done any type of study on Genesis would know that it is written in ancient poetry form, closely resembling the literary style of early writings and oral tradition. If this statement negates the validity of the scriptures, then calling Psalms a song collection, or Ecclesiastes a framed wisdom autobiography would do the same. It is a far leap in logic to say that becasue Rob Bell bleives Genesis is written in poetry form, he denies the literal account of creation.
Ingrid closes her piece by quoting the famed new-aged guru Dick Raucher, and informing the world that Rob Bell IS moving towards this theology. If that is the case, then Ingrid is quickly moving towards a Fred Phelps theology (since we are all saying whose theology we are moving towards). I have to chuckle at all the attempts these guys make to catch Rob Bell in their nets. Apparently he is now responsible for Christian witchcraft. Sometimes they are really stretching it.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
And in keeping with my flawed attempt to be completely impartial, I find Bell’s teaching to be Biblically unattractive. Stronger words sometimes appear on my tribute to sophistry that I call a blog. Tim sometimes culls out a section in a misguided attempt to indict me along with an illegal attempt to plagiarize thoughts unattainable by his intellect and to circumvent my no comment policy.
The latter is being vigorously pursued by my legal team without regard to Paul’s admonition about suing a brother which I believe was not in the original manuscripts.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:59 am
It’s things like this that really make me question the intelligence of some of these people. So because some New Age dude takes a Christian concept and corrupts it, that automatically makes the original concept bad.
The concept of us working with God to bring about a desired end is very Biblical. There are all sorts of admonitions throughout Scripture.
Actually, one person who talked a lot about man’s creative abilities was Francis Schaeffer, whom Ingrid seems to idolize. Check out these quotes:
February 26th, 2008 at 11:07 am
But in full disclosure, and without seeing the entire video, I find his remarks in the section Ingrid provides as somewhat doctrinally benign. I did not see where Bell said we were “co-creators” and the fact that God gave us the ability to continue parts of His creation is obvious. However even this is firmly under the sovereign foreknowledge of the Almighty.
Go ahead, wrap you pea-brains around that!
February 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Wow! I’m emerging and I’m a peer of Rob Bell’s. I didn’t know either of those things.
So glad that someone knows me better than I know myself. And here all this time, I thought that someone was God.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am
A couple more Schaeffer quotes:
He sounds like a man-loving, semi-Pelagian, stinkin’ Emergent!
February 26th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Great quotes, Phil. I can hear Schaeffer now,
“This cultural sewage makes me and God sick!”
February 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hey Chris, Phil just gave me an idea for you guys. Spurgeon is quoted by the ODMs as if he proves their point, and yet I once provided a sermon in which he castigates infant baptizers as “Romanists”. Why don’t you quote some of these guys with things they’ve said (like Schaeffer) that goes against what the ODMs espouse? I would guess there would be quite a menu.
That would be fun research!
February 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
this is interesting.
i’m a composer/pianist/singer, and i’ve always considered the act of composing to be “co-creation”…because i think some songwriters are arrogant and feel that they’re the only ones writing…
but no. there’s something else there.
on the flip side, i’m the channel, so it comes through my perspective, my filter, so i’m the co-creator. it wouldn’t come through anybody else the same way.
very specific example, i know, and a bit tangential, but it seems like the idea of “co-creation” is essential. otherwise, why did God make us all so unique?
February 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Of course creation isn’t finished. If it was, then why evangelize? That is the main tenant in their theology is that we are sinners and sin sends you to hell. So, if creation is good (perfect) why did Jesus have to come and die for our sins. Just a question that needs to be asked.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Its utter silliness and demonstrates again that they’re closer to an online lynch mob than they are interested in discerning truth.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
And just to put things in perspective, is Ingrid implying that we don’t create sin? That is our greatest export! (and very creative too - INVENTORS OF EVIL THINGS!)
Chris L. is an object lesson on wicked creationism!
February 26th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
well Calvinists believe God pre-ordained sin, do they not?
in which case, God is reduced to…um.
i won’t say it.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
You guys are missing a key ingredient in your little discussion.
When God created, as a one with infinite power, he speaks and absence of anything becomes an amazing, intricate creation.
When humans create, we merely arrange components of the universe previously created by God.
What I am trying to say is this: there are two nuances of the word “create.” In God’s case, he creates ex nihlo, or out of nothing. Humans are incapable of such creation. Thus, theologically speaking, God is the creator and we are but created beings, in the sense that we cannot create ex nihlo.
If we want to take and call ourselves “creators,” when in fact, we are merely re-arrangers-cultivators-stewards of what God has already created, then go ahead if that makes you feel important. However, to call ourselves creators in the same context as God’s creative act, without distinguishing between the nuances of the words, is careless at best. I would argue that it is a manifestation of a prideful heart, which is the foundation for almost all sin.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
You are right, Dave. But human births do not just rearrange the creation. And God is still sovereignly involved with our “subset” creations. But maybe sin was a creation all our own?
It is worth noting that these terminologies can be significantly distorted and used in many aberrant ways.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Dave,
In a sense you are correct. Of course we can’t create matter or energy from nothing. I don’t see anyone claiming that we can.
What about abstarct things like ideas, songs, stories, etc. It seems that in a sense these are created from nothing. I’m sure someone could say, “well God ultimately inspires those ideas”. That’s true, but even in that sense we are co-creating with God. He is using humans to bring about His creation.
Ingrid’s whole argument is such a non-sequitor, really. I just think it’s another matter where Ingrid is trying to play “gotcha” by an old guilt-by-association argument.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Actually, the Hebrew perspective on Genesis/Creation is that God created from the chaos, first creating from nothing (days 1-3) and then bringing forth from creation (days 4-6, with 4 parallel to 1, 5 to 2, and 6 to 3), and that Adam’s role was then to create - bringing forth from what was created days 4-6 - which started with the naming of the animals (because to name something is to subdue it). Man has always, in the Hebrew mind, been given the job of creating from creation, and that this creative bent is a key aspect of being made “in the image of God”.
It is not prideful creation when its source is recognized (as Bell does in the “offending” paragraph)…
February 26th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
dat’s what i said!
as i said, when i write music, i’m not so arrogant as to say “look at me, look what i did!”
but at the same time, it’s going to come through me differently from the way it would come through any other songwriter.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Evan - I am also a keyboard player/singer/songwriter. And as such, you will agree I’m sure, that some songs seem to be inspired by the Creator and others have no such geneology.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
there seem to be a lot of musicians around here.
but honestly, for me, and maybe it has to do with methodology…i’m not one of those who can sit down and say “i’m going to write a song now.” i have to discipline myself to spend time at the piano every day, but it’s not with that specific idea in mind, and really, i call it Source…sometimes i’ll get just a phrase, or a couplet or something, and then i have to trace out the song-shape that’s in there. so that’s my part. i guess the way i look at it is: when a song is completed, that’s a result of the co-creation…when there are random lines strewn about the music room and the stairwell, that’s me not getting it yet. or an indoor tornado. or both.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“What about abstarct things like ideas, songs, stories, etc.” - Phil Miller
Ideas - God created within us the ability to think, etc.
Songs - God created music.
Stories - God created language.
My point is that to both nuances of the word “create” in the same exact context without giving adequate explanation is simply provocative for the sake of being provocative. I would call it theologically careless at best (a charge that I believe can be leveled at Bell time and time again).
Chris L, I would like to see a credible Hebrew source which substantiates your claims. I don’t think anyone would get that meaning from the text from reading it, either in Hebrew or various English translations. Furthermore, I am glad that we don’t espouse current Hebrew interpretations of much of the Old Testament. If we did, we would sure be in bad shape when it comes to anything messianic, which, obviously is the crux of our faith.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I am a creationist. Does that count, Dave?
February 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Dave,
Probably the most prominent is Genesis Rabba, which was begun approximately 100 BC, and compiled in the third century. AD. Additionally, the oral Torah held this, as well, the section of which Paul references most prominently with the reference to the “seventh heaven”.
The Dead Sea scrolls, I believe, also show the belief in “deep calling to deep” and God’s relevatory process demonstrated in the poetry of Genesis 1. Examine for yourself the structure of days 1-3 and their parallels in 4-6. God continually calls His creation “good”, but he never calls it “complete” - instead, he gives man a purpose in continuing this process - “subduing” the earth (which begins with naming). This is also the reason that God never gives His name - just saying “I AM” - the giving of a name submits the named to the namer, and God submits to none of His creation.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Bell didn’t say anything new - that teaching is older than Jesus, who never contradicted it even though it was a basic belief in the religion he practiced.
February 26th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Wow, Dave’s signing his own name now. Good for him.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Maybe I’m just not smart enough for you guys. Why, even if the sources you cite, Chris, are valid, would the conclusion be that we, as humans, create? Why wouldn’t the conclusion be that we subdue-work, etc. the creation? What’s wrong with just using the biblical terminology? I still think it’s pretty dangerous to take the 1 Century BC Hebrew sources as completely authoritative. It is valuable to understand what they believed at that time, but it is hardly authoritative for today as Jesus had major problems with many of the Hebrew interpretations of the day. Arguing that Jesus didn’t refute this understanding is a weak argument. I could just as easily argue that Jesus did not believe the teaching was important because He never restated it in Scripture (You are going to need to do a little better job explaining your Paul reference to being caught up in the heavens and how it applies here). How many false understandings of spirituality did the Hebrews of the 1st century hold? Probably way more than could be refuted within the confines of Scripture.
Rick, I’m glad you are a creationist and don’t buy into the garbage about the creation account being poetic myth. You should be proud of yourself.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I believe in a 6 day creation. Can I ignore clear(ly) Biblical teaching and be proud of myself too?
February 27th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Stating the obvious.
You missed the joke which again mirrors your first statement.
All of the above was humor, but I do agree with you, Dave, that the terminology “co-creator” is misrepresentative and may lead to, as in the name it and claim it theology, some really bad heresies. You “sub” word is good, maybe earthen conduit for divine creation may also be useful as it suggests any creative force within us is still God. Maybe?
February 27th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Just an aside…(maybe a bit nitpicky)
I don’t think we can say that God created music directly. I don’t think we can say God created geometry, etc. in a direct sense.
God created a world that has discernable order in it. Rational capacities in the human self and the expression of those capacities (in conceptual frameworks like geometry, etc.) are deeply related to our being made in the image of God.
To say otherwise is like saying God created “automobiles” and “ipods”.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:16 am
No argument here
February 27th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Really quickly -
Bell doesn’t use the term “co-creator”.
He states:
Hebrew sources (oral Torah, traditionally given at the same time the written Torah was given) - which should not be dismissed out of hand, per Paul’s discussion in Romans 11 - completely support this.
God NEVER declares the world ‘finished’, but rather ‘good’, and he gives man purpose, which is a continuation of that creation. Day seven does not end with ‘evening and morning’.
Hogwash. A false dichotomy on the part of Ingrid, and a mistrepresentation on your part, Dave.
Nobody in this conversation has suggested that it is a “myth” (in the common vernacular that “myth” equates to “untrue”). Just because it is written in the form of poetry (which it undeniably is, except to folks who can’t handle the concept of poetry describing truth), doesn’t imply it is a ‘myth’ (or at least an ‘untrue myth’).
I would note that God creates ex nihlo on days 1-3, but that He creates from creation on days 4-6 (paralleling 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6).
So, when you write:
Humans are acting in God’s image as creators - creating from creation.
God created thought - men create ideas from the though
God created music - men create compositions
God created language - men create stories
You’ve not contradicted Bell at all, and Bell has not contradicted the Bible.
Certainly, we can debate whether the creation was in six literal 24-hour days (as we experience 24 hours today), or whether it was over periods of time, or whether the nature of time itself has changed (where 24 hours today was the equivalent of 6 billion years on the first ‘day’ of the young universe). In the end, the most important aspect of the creation account is not its literary form (which, in Hebrew IS a poem), but rather the first vers - “God created”.
Ingrid’s response to Bell, and that of her sycophants, is j ust more gracelessness from those who have been shown grace - seeking to create disunity in the body for their own self-gratification and sense of false piety.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:23 am
nc,
Sorry maybe I should have said that communication originated with God.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Genesis is not a myth and it represents a literal account, however it is a general account with wide interpretive generalities and to suggest that, for instance, the 24 hour six day creation view is the open and unambiguous view is simply holding the fort where there is no fort. And the New Testament makes no mention those aspects of the Genesis account.
I mean many fundanmentalists have placed a tortured “gap” between verse 1 and verse 2. They may be right or wrong, but no one can speak with authority about it or you run the risk of losing Biblical credibility in other areas that are clear.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:32 am
I’ve never understood where get people get the idea that because we’re calling it poetry, that it somehow means we’re saying it’s not true. Now I guess, we can argue whether or not it “literally” true, but that’s another thing. I don’t see calling it’s literary genre out for what it is even comes into play.
The fact is that whether they know it or not, or acknowledge it or not, Ingrid and those like her have bought into a form of gnosticism that says that only spirititual entities can be good and material entities are bad. Nothing a human creates can be good, and it’s all going to burn anyway, so why even try?
I find this type of thinking really colors and affects all aspects of their version of Christianity. Why is being in “professional ministry” held up as the highest calling a human can pursue? It’s because this, of course, is focusing primarily on the spiritual. Why do they have such issues with dancing? Because this is a physical thing and clearly it must be bad.
It’s really quite interesting to see it play out.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“A false dichotomy on the part of Ingrid, and a mistrepresentation on your part, Dave.”
Chris, actually I didn’t understand Rick’s post, as evidenced later. That being said, I recently read a book entitled “The Art of Biblical History,” written by a fairly conservative author. I really enjoyed the book and have consequently been thinking much about the area of myth in the OT, etc. That being said, I did not intend to say that Rob believed that the first several chapters of Genesis are myth. I no evidence on this issue and therefore would not make such an accusation. I do, however, have major problems, again, with people using a word like “myth” and attributing it the first several chapters of Genesis. Whether they believe that it is true or false myth, is of little consequence at that point.
I still can’t go along with using the word “Create.” I think we are going around in circles here, so I challenge you to cite one biblical reference where the biblical authors use the word create in reference to human activity and thus end this conversation. I’m okay with being wrong — it’s not about me — it’s about truth.
I took issue with Rob when he used this language with Mary in his message “Mother Mary and Her Only Son.” The way I read Romans 1 (wasn’t sure about your Romans 11 reference) I get that we are the creation and God is the Creator.
I have not even said a word about Genesis 1 being poetry. I don’t have Hebrew in front of me to ascertain. I am not arguing that point. I, for one, am a huge proponent of identifying genre. I need to look into this, but on the surface I have no problems with Genesis 1 being written in poetic form. Poetry is communication and is a suitable biblical genre.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Poetry is NEVER literal.
See, all figurative.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Rick, you’re being funny, right?
February 27th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I provided a literal poem by Longfellow about Paul Revere to disprove that dumb assertion. BTY, Dave, the Greek uses a derivitive of create (3 times) to describe how God used John the Baptist to create/prepare a way for the Messiah, and Hebrews uses the same word (several times) to say the priests created the earthly tabernacle.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Joe,
I think Rick is, well, just being Rick - so, yeah, I think he’s being funny.
February 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Rick, I recognize the existence of cognates and nuances. I thought the goal was to use theologically precise language?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Dave - yes, I agree, but you asked:
I provided that but I still agree with your perspective that the word create suggests some human power outside God’s sovereignty.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Phil - I’ve tried being Joe Martino but I didn’t like it so I just can’t be anybody but myself. I never even considered trying to be Chris L., way too shallow and mercurial.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Rick, I meant that someone should provide a place where God attributes the act of creating (within the same nuance) to humans
February 27th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
In this instance I do not take Bell’s words to insinuate that man creates as a “little god”. Through our words we can create fear and chaos and love and all sorts of emotions and even actions by others. That is far different than creating the universe out of nothing.
I would suggest that some would feel more comfortable if we said man has the god given ability to use the created universe to refashion or reorganize parts of it and “PRODUCE” something different. Sometimes these “PRODUCTS” are pleasing to God and sometimes they are not.
That is somewhat better, no?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Shock to the system going from you to being this good looking?
February 27th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Yea, and I suddenly couldn’t read large words.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
that’s a lot better Rick
February 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I don’t follow the argument that says humans cannot create. On what is that assertion based?
Neil
February 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Look, Neil, you cannot jump on the caboose and demand a seat in the engine! Like the big tomato who stomped the foot of the little tomato and said “Ketchup!”.
=)
February 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Sorry Henry, I guess I missed the memo prohibiting one from asking questions after the train has left the station…
Neil
February 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Just kidding. You may call me Rick. Can you tell me how to change my moniker on my comments.
Internet idiot am I.
February 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
That’s simple. It’s based on the “we don’t like him because he doesn’t look like us assumption.”
February 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
More accurately, Joe, it’s based upon the misinterpretation about which the word create can be vunerable. I think that Dave’s concerns are legitiamate and I can understand them, however in this case I understand what Pastor Bell is saying although that isn’t always the case.
February 27th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
(Chris L)
What about Exodus 3:15? “I Am,” Yahweh, IS God’s name. God gave this name to Moses when he asked God what name he should give the people of Israel when he informed them that he, Moses, had been sent by God to them.
God says of “I Am,” “Yahweh,” “This will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations.” (Ex 3:15b) NLT
I would take the preceding scripture as truth before I would accept any Rabbinic interpretation that denies it.
Certainly most Jewish people see it as His name. Many will not speak the name “Yahweh” because it is “too holy.” The call the name “Yahweh” “hashem,” which means “the name.”
(Chris L)
Genesis 2:1 says that the creation of the heavens and the earth was completed. Hebrew “waykullu.”
Here’s the Tanakh translation of that verse: “The heavens and the earth were finished in all their array.”
The specific word “bara’” meaning create is only used with God. So I think it’s different than how we use create in English, since we don’t have a special word for God creating as opposed to man creating. I can see how people create - music, literature, art, relationships, etc. But to say that we are “co-creators” with God seems to be putting our ability to “create” on the same level as God. And I would be wary of any teaching insinuating that. I would ask “why?” and “what does this person really mean?”
February 27th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Amy,
Good thoughts!
Only thing, you wrote, “But to say that we are “co-creators†with God seems to be putting our ability to “create†on the same level as God.”
In fairness, Rob didn’t actually say that in those words. However, I do believe that his usage of the english word “create” for humans in the same context as his usage of the english word “create” in relation to God is very careless, at best.
Your study in Hebrew illustrates the problem with Rabbinic interpretation. Sometimes it doesn’t even correspond with the text!
February 27th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Amy,
As far as the name thing goes, I have seen other commentaries say what Chris is saying as well. Peter Enns (who is firmly in the Reformed camp) actually says something very close in his commentary. Actually, God telling Moses to say. “‘I AM has sent me to you” seems like it may be God speaking out of frustration in a sense. Earlier, God says, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” This should have been enough - the Israelites (and Moses) should have accepted this answer. However, Moses being somewhat dense and stubborn forces the issue.
Also, I will add this. As far as God being done with Creation, when the Bible says God rested, it does not mean He quit working. The word for rest as it’s used in the context in Genesis, is referring to God’s presence finding a place to dwell within his Creation. So it’s not that it’s saying that God created the Earth and walked away. It’s more saying He created an environment suitable for Him to work His ongoing plan in.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
God reveals Himself with many names. The seventh day rest was ultimately reflective of salvation through Christ. We find our rest in Him. The creaton continues to create, Astonomers have watched the creation of new stars even in our lifetime. Of course all this is using the material made in the initial creation. All “creation” now operates under the canopy of the original creation.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ingrid misses that as was state we do participate with in creation… Adam and Eve walked with God and was told to go forth and multiply… to procreate… and to create offspring to subdue the world…
Even the dictionary will show that procreation is participating in “creating”:
To beget and conceive (offspring).
To produce or create; originate.
To beget and conceive offspring; reproduce.
God reproduced Himself in mankind to be His Image on earth to represent Who He is… in that all life come from God as we give life to a child, which God created, we are participants in that very creation.
But, again there is more… As I have heard that God “stopped” creating after he sat and rested. Yet, that then denies the Incarnation and the purpose of Jesus coming… that the New Man or Last Adam… Jesus, would usher in the New Creation.
So God never stopped, but “rested” so as was stated, to show us the Sabbath Rest, which as we learn later is Jesus Christ Himself our Sabbath Rest.
If anyone is teaching heretical doctrine at this point it is Ingrid. She needs to be corrected and rebuked. Her claim that this is “new age” misses that, yes it is… it is the New Age that was ushered in when Jesus rose from the grave. This phrase “New Age” is ours… it was never the pagans… they stole it.
iggy
February 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Rick,
I would disagree, as i see all creation now operates under Christ and the New Creation… at least since He rose from the grave.
iggy
February 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Amy,
I would echo what Phil has said - “Yahweh” MEANS - “I AM”, which to a Hebrew asking for a name is not an actual answer, but an answer which says “none of your business”. So, for lack of a name, that is what God is called.
If you examine the names of most all OT persons, their name gives a peek into their nature. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Benjamin, etc. - their names all give a peek into their nature. Their names describe them, a Hebrew would say. Even Jesus’s name is such - “God’s Salvation”.
God, on the other hand, when asked for his name is “I AM” - which gives no insight into his nature, because He IS, and cannot be pigeon-holed.
But look at the first job given to man by God:
The very act of naming was a creative act, which God did not do himself. And, in the giving of names, man completed the first act of subduing the earth. Did man create the animals? No - he created from creation, but he was ‘creating’ nonetheless…
Going out on a limb here, but:
In the Hebrew view, the opposite of God is chaos/emptiness (tohu a vohu which resides in the abyss). So - the opposide of God is nothingness and chaos. When God’s creation is fully finished, we read in Revelation that there will no longer be any abyss.
While many westerners struggle with the line of argument: ‘God created everything, but sin entered the world - does that mean that God created sin?’, the Hebrew mind does not struggle with this.
When God created the world, He went through iterations (thus the parallels between Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 4-6), and he created man to continue this iterative process, to gradually eliminate the chaos through the continual process of iterative creation (naming, subduing, etc.).
Man, though, chose chaos over creation by eating of the tree, ‘breaking’ the process that God had put him in place to fulfil. So - sin and tragedy exist in the world because chaos still exists, and man makes decisions (sin) to increase chaos (ex. divorce leads to chaos in relationship rather than becoming echad - one).
For the scientists among us, it is like the famous example of heat and cold. In science, there is no such thing as “cold” - heat is the only such dimension which impacts temperature, and “cold” is just an absence of heat. Likewise, with God and sin, “sin” is not a separate created entity, but rather an absence of God (chaos).
Thus, when we live in the way taught by Jesus, we are following in the way of God - a way that leads to creation, not chaos - and we fulfil the role given to us by God. We will never complete creation in our current state, though our calling is to continue the process in the direction of creation, not chaos. When Jesus returns and God judges, creation will be complete and there will be no more chaos, and God will give us a new purpose.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Iggy - apples and oranges. We are new creations spiritually but we wait for the New Heavens and new earth.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
And why did God talk about the name Yahweh using the terms that he used?
“”None of your business!” will be my name forever; it has always been my name, and it will be used throughout all generations.†????? This is “overkilling” what you said; but really, I don’t see why God would have said all of this if He was basically telling them “none of your business.”
And again, why do many Hebrews refuse to use the name Yahweh? Because God was using it to tell them it was none of their business?
I’ll look at the rest of what you said later.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
If it is germaine to this discussion, God says His name was YHWH. When we say Yahweh we have actually created His name. Ironic.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
As a matter of fact, when we say “Jesus” we are using a name that we have created. English wasn’t handed down on tablets, we created it. Just sayin…
February 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Rick,
I am a New Creation now… and so are you Rick… This is not apples and oranges or cherries and grapes or whatever else is in that fruit basket of yours = )
I might add that we already are seated with Christ in the Heavenly realms…
Now again, i am not sure what is in your doctrinal fruit basket, but I see that in mine is the richness of Christ that was, is and and is to come… and forever will be…
iggy
February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Iggy - You are so ethereal!
February 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
My apologies - saying that your name is “I AM” is LIKE saying “you have no business in having my name”. God is, and He is not to be subdued by us (which is what a name implies). Please forgive not identifying the simile with emphasis…
From Exodus:
I realize that much of the humor in the Bible misses us, but God’s answer to Moses is pretty darn humorous.
That is His initial answer, and THAT is downright funny. The answer God gives Moses is one that has the import of putting Moses’ tail between his legs for even asking it in the first place.
And then God tells Moses to tell the Israelites that they should call Him “I AM” for all of history, pretty much nailing the point of who is the Master and who is not.
To name someone in the ancient cultures is to put them in a box (’who they are’ and ‘what they are’). This is even touched upon in Revelation, where God says to the church at Philadelphia “I will give you a new name”.
Any other nits to pick?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Yes. His Name is YHWH. You continue to “create” a created facsimile. Stop it.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
BTW - The entire Bible is presented in a created human language. Germaine?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Actually, Rick, it’s not even that, as you’ve used an English alliteration. Even the vowels I’ve added, per the standard convention, don’t reflect the actual pronunciation.
Certainly YHWH is the name we are to call Him by, but it is not a name in the conventional sense by which all other things are named.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
(Chris L)
In Adam’s naming of the animals, he is naming them. In the above case Moses would not be naming God, but rather being told by God what God’s name was.
These are two different types of things. If the latter were always true in this time period then a person would not have told his name directly to anyone whom he did not want to be over him. Was that the case in this culture? How do you know?
If it was the case, absolutely, then are we to assume that God in speaking to Moses would have gone by all cultural norms? And why would Moses, who was afraid to look at God in this passage have been presumptious enough to ask God for His name? Would he be somehow assuming that he could be “over” God if God told him His name?
It would seem that if it were the cultural norm for a person to NOT give his name to someone below him, then Moses’ asking this question would have been Moses’ trying to gain some kind of advantage, superiority, rulership over God. I find that hard to believe of Moses, who in the presence of the blazing fire talking to him, is afraid to look at God.
It just doesn’t fit.
Moses immediately begins to use this name which is given repeatedly to him (Ex 3:16, 18), (translated, unfortunately, “LORD” instead of Yahweh in most Bibles.) In Exodus 4:1 he says, “They’ll just say, “Yahweh never appeared to you.” If God was essentially telling Moses “it’s none of your business” then why did Moses just pick up the name and start using it?
February 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
So my point about man having some limited creative influence even as it pertains to the language we use in Scripture is correct? The truth and the words were inspired/directed by the Spirit, but did He not use human language? Did Gutenburg make the press? on and on.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
(Chris L)
But you have demonstrated very well how “I AM” does indeed give insight into his nature: “He IS and cannot be pigeon-holed.”
February 27th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Amy - didn’t the angle tell Mary His name would be called Yeshua? Who then calls Him Jesus and why? Did we not construct/create a name understood in our own created language?
February 27th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Correction: Exodus 3:14 is actually “I Am” ‘eHYeH”
Exodus 3:15 is Yahweh “He is.”
Same root, different prefixes.
The translation of Yahweh both into English and into other languages has become a significant issue in Bible translation. A lot of people do believe that it is the personal name of God, and that there is no good reason we shouldn’t use it. And the history of it becoming the norm for it to be translated as LORD derives from the fact that many Jews believed that it is God’s personal name.
(Chris L)
Are you not interested in discussing different sides of issues? You made some statements that I don’t believe Scripture supports. I can only conclude that you believe that your detailed analysis is indisputable fact and my analysis is nits not worth looking into.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
The problem with picking a nit with Chris L. is you always get a deluge of information that you never bargained for. The guy lives in a Hebrew prayer shawl!
He sees things in an Hebraic context. I am convinced that the only way to accurately understand the Scriptures is through a Belgium context.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You might take that up with the Israelites who must have had it wrong in your book for the past 4,000+ years…
The name God gave Moses is a play on words, and the first stating made that clear (”I am who I am”). (Also, in the actual text, YHWH is the same in all cases in Ex 3:14, even though the verb tenses change.)
Not in an authority sense, but in a sense of limiting God by the constraints of his name - like all of the other ‘gods’ in the Middle East at the time.
Again, it is very much in line with the culture to be so bold - examine Abraham’s interactions with God in Genesis 15, or Moses’ later interactions with God.
The commentary on Exodus, Exodus Rabba, compiled from 300 BC - 50 BC (roughly), though the earliest existing record is from centuries later, is a commentary linked to the Oral Torah, which was traditionally given at the same time as the Written Torah. Numerous records (both Hebrew and non-Hebrew Mesopotamian) have commentary on naming and names.
I’m sorry that you don’t seem to allow God to make plays on words, but don’t fault me - fault the people who’ve believed this and taught it (traditionally) since God gave them the Torah in the first place…
February 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
And here I thought you were against profanity, Rick…
February 27th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I’m in the process of tearing out Job 38-41 because He gets rather sarcastic there.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Joe - faithful are the sarcasms of a friend…
February 27th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Rick,
“These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.”
Our only and true reality is found in Christ Jesus.
be blessed,
iggy
February 28th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Chris L,
You wrote,
“In the Hebrew view, the opposite of God is chaos/emptiness (tohu a vohu which resides in the abyss). So - the opposide of God is nothingness and chaos. When God’s creation is fully finished, we read in Revelation that there will no longer be any abyss.
While many westerners struggle with the line of argument: ‘God created everything, but sin entered the world - does that mean that God created sin?’, the Hebrew mind does not struggle with this.”
So, in your view, chaos (which you seem to make roughly equivalent to sin) was present at the time of creation? To me this is an even bigger problem than your afore stated dilemma. Now, you have chaos/sin eternally existing with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is troubling.
February 28th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hey Dave, how come Tim Challie’s blog is on your roll. I’ve never been there but doesn’t he graze in a different pasture?
Just asking, I really don’t know except what Inrgid says about him. There’s real research on my part, huh?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:14 am
In which pasture do I graze?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:17 am
You and I frequently graze in the same pasture even if not side by side. I enjoy your blog. Is Challies different than Camp?
February 28th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Challies is on my roll because I respect him as a Christian and as a person. I enjoy his blog; when I have time (usually about once a week), I read it. That’s why it’s under “Blogs I Read.”
February 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Infinity has no opposite. Think outside the box.
God has no opposite.
Oooooh…
-Joe C on lunchbreak…
February 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Joe,
Infinity is just and abstract concept that cannot exist out side the realm of abstract.
If you take all the numbers that exist and run them on one side to infinity, then take all the odd numbers on the other side and run them to infinity… they will not be equal… to we have the issue that an infinite amount of numbers that are not equal… but still only in concept are infinite.
Yet, we need realize with God all things are possible which leads us in the a major segue of Open Theology… which allows for all possibilities to exist at one time where and unequal infinite equation can exist in parallel with each other.
Or something like that… LOL!
iggy
February 28th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
It’s the person that is changing, not the tense. It’s first person, “I,” as opposed to 3rd person, “he” in verse 15. Simply God is “I am” when He refers to Himself and “He is” when referred to by others.
And just what written 4,000 year old source are you citing?
And why is the name God treated as so holy that it can’t be spoken if the name He gave them was simply a joke?
Of course God makes plays on words. That doesn’t mean that God has to be making a play on words in the case of Yahweh. Your whole argument is based on your belief that God would not give Moses His name here because He didn’t want to show submission to Moses.
And are you assuming that God would have followed cultural constraints? Why would God “bow” to Moses’ thinking that he could have some kind of control over Him by refusing to appear to give him that control?
Yes “I Am” seems like a strange name. So does “the Lord added” “Heel-grasper” “Not-my-People” “Bitter” and many other Hebrew names. They were nonetheless, names.
And are these commentaries inspired by God? Do you accept all of the interpretations in these commentaries as absolute truth? It surely appears that way.
February 28th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Dave,
“Chaos” is an absence of existence, so to say that chaos was present at the time of creation is an oxymoron.
You, specifically, recognized that God created ex nihlo (from nothing) in the beginning, which would acknowledge that God created from the chaos (the nothingness - the abyss):
So, unless you want to argue that everything was created before God created it, then Genesis 1:2 confirms that chaos “existed” before God created from it.
Actually, Elohim (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) already existed in the beginning - before there was a before. As noted, chaos does not ‘exist’ as an entity any more than ‘cold’ exists as a measurement. Just as “cold” is the absence of heat, “chaos” is the absence of God (He hovered OVER the abyss).
Part of the problem here is that you are thinking too much like a Westerner (in definitions and abstractions) than like a Hebrew - to whom this was first written! You need to look at the picture presented, not the definitional abstractions.
In the beginning, God creates from the chaos. Then, He creates from creation. Then he gives man the job of creating from that creation. Each time God or man ‘creates’ something, more of the chaos is replaced by creation. Man screws up, though, destroying instead of creating, and ursurps the job given to him by God. Thus, creation retreats as the fault of man, and we still live in a world where chaos often intrudes in the form of sin, death and destruction. Jesus, though, triumphs over death and sin, setting the stage for all things to be made new, and to complete creation, so there there will no longer be chaos (there will be no abyss, per Revelation, and death and hades are cast into the lake of fire and destroyed).
Sin did not exist until man chose chaos over creation - until that point, creation was continuing. Sin, though, is not a “thing” that was created, but rather an absence of creation - chaos - an absence of God.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The oral Torah.
Not submission to Moses - but submission to man. Again - like Dave - you’re trying to bring western cultural analysis to bear toward something written/spoken 1,500 years (give or take) prior to the existence of western culture.
My argument is based upon what is believed to be the Hebrew understanding of the giving of names at the time Moses lived.
The reason this is “nit picking”, and Dave’s questions are not, is because you’re taking an INCREDIBLY minor tangent in the discussion of the OP and trying to play “gotcha”, when there’s nobody alive to be “got” on this one - it’s 4,000 years old.
Not a joke - an ironic rebuke. Quite humorous in its structure, though.
They are no more ‘inspired’ by God than a Bible commentary written by John MacArthur (though they are absent the silly Calvinist spin), though I suspect they contain a whole lot more accurate observations on context, since they were written by (or spoken by) first-hand parties, rather than through a lens of eisegetical systematic theology.
February 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Actually, each of those names you’ve given have specific meaning to the people to whom they were given and the events in their lives.
“I Am” on the other hand, is completely different than any name - especially the name of a ‘god’. The other ‘gods’ with names were limited in their sphere of influence, and their names (or the sounds of their names) were often symbolic with their prescribed limits.
To try and put it in western terms, if you were to go to a party with people you didn’t know, you would put on one of those badges with “Hi! I am” at the top, with AMY written in the great big white space. God, on the other hand, were He physically present at the party would also put on the name badge with “Hi! I am” at the top. In His case, though, the badge would be blank, because He is too big for a single badge to hold or describe.
The Jews certainly treat the name YHWH very reverently, as God said This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation. This is highly ironic, as it is not a ‘name’, but rather the absence of a name.
“I am who I am” is definitely a play on words, and as an answer to the question “What is his (God’s) name?”, it is incredibly humorous - not as a “joke”, but from both the irony in it (that it’s not a name) and from the implicit message (”I am who I am”) that who “I am” is, is bigger than what you can hold or understand. It rings of the same voice that earlier said to Job Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge?
Maybe you just are incapable of seeing it and I should just give up, but it is all pretty transparent to me - even in the English - particularly when you examine the picture painted by the words…
February 28th, 2008 at 7:32 pm</