Tohu U’Vohu and the Joker
My wife and I attended the midnight show of The Dark Knight, several weeks ago, and I have to say that Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker still has me a bit perturbed. In discussing the movie with my Christian friends, we’ve all recognized how this particular movie villain seems to be much more malevolent and inherently scary than most others - even apart from Ledger’s eerie performance.
In discussing the movie with my non-Christian friends, I have found a particular opening that not only brings religion into the discussion, but has opened up follow-up conversation, as well.
Chaos and Order
In Genesis 1, we read:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
In Hebrew, the phrase tohu u’vohu is sometimes translated “formless and empty”, and this is its only appearance in the Bible. Before everything was created by God, the earth was chaos - formless and empty. In the picture painted in Genesis, this chaos - this formlessness and emptiness was contained within the deep (theum, which is literally translated “abyss”). In fact, the Hebrew word for the abyss (theum) comes from the Hebrew root for chaos (theu).
Chaos is the absence of everything, a vacuum. In scientific terms, chaos is to God as cold is to heat. There is no such thing as “cold” - “cold” is just the absence of heat. In the same way, there is no such thing as chaos - chaos is the absence of God.
And so it was that God created order from the chaos - He created everything from nothing. (To the ancient Jews, the seas represented the abyss - chaos - which was why so few would venture out onto the sea, and why so many superstitions were part of it.)
In the Beginning
In the Hebrew mind, the opposite of God is not Satan. To view it as such is an outgrowth of Babylonian dualism. In fact, though, to the Hebrew mind, the opposite of God is chaos. In the poetry of Genesis 1, we see the overarching theme of God’s creation, as ‘deep calls out to deep’, where God first creates and separates from nothing on days 1-3:
Day 1: Light and Darkness
Day 2: Sky and Water
Day 3: Water, Land and Vegetation
Then, in days 4-6, God brings forth creation from creation, paralleling Days 1-3:
Day 4: Sun, Moon and Stars
Day 5: Fish and Birds
Day 6: Animals and Man
And then, on the seventh day, God rests, and hands the tasks of creating from creation from creation to mankind - to be fruitful and multiply and to continue to bring order to creation.
And so, in the Hebrew mind, God created from nothing, filling the chaos with order. He then further creates from His creation - further eradicating chaos. Finally, he gives man the job of working and bringing order to all that He created - fully eliminating the chaos.
The Fall
And so, when man sinned, he chose chaos over the order God had created - working in opposition to God’s design. This is where we find ourselves, a world where chaos still “exists” (i.e. where God has not claimed His rightful dominion, and thus is “absent” from the current kosmos - world-view.)
I’ve been asked a couple of related questions more than a few times - “If God created everything, and sin and Satan both exist, then wasn’t God their creator, as well?” and/or “If God is in control of everything, why do tragic events befall people - good and bad?”
Keeping in mind the Hebrew understanding of Genesis and the cosmos, these answers are much more easy to understand, I believe, than when approached from a Western/modernistic mindset.
Sin, in its essence, is a manifestation of chaos - it is a decision that is absent of God, and therefore was not created by God. And so, sin brings about more and more chaos in the world, and it is the effect of this “absence of God” that brings about the tragedy.
As for Satan, he was an angel created for a role of “prosecutor” - maintaining order by accusing those who would choose chaos over order. Because man was created in the image of God, he had the ability to choose between order and chaos, and if he would choose chaos, Satan would be able to accuse him. However, Satan rebelled against God, not only accusing man of sin, but deceiving man and enticing him to sin, as well. (Entire books are written on this subject, so please forgive my over-simplicity)
The Joker
So, what does this all have to do with The Dark Knight and The Joker? I’ll try to explain without spoiling it for both of you who haven’t seen it. (It is not a kids’ movie, BtW - it’s viscerally scary in points and quite violent in others)
In The Dark Knight, the character of the Joker has no real motivation for the chaos and destruction he sows, apart from the sheer delight of it. Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler, comments at one point:
Some men aren’t looking for anything logical, like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
That, in and of itself, is the essence of chaos -tearing down creation just to watch it burn.
As part of his “watching it all burn”, the Joker seeks to bring down the “White Knight” of Gotham, prosecutor Harvey Dent, and Batman, by proving that both icons of justice - within the law and apart from the law - are corruptible. He seeks to do this, not through wealth, power or pleasure, but by enticing them with their own desire for justice at all costs, and despair at failure.
Additionally, he pits two ferries full of people against one another - one full of commuters, the other full of prisoners. Each has a mechanism to blow up the other ferry, and if neither decides, both will be sunk.
While I won’t reveal the outcome of these experiments, I will say that perhaps the reason this character is so truly scary - on a visceral level - is because he is one of the most accurate pictures of evil painted in our modern mythology, as embodied in cinema. He is truly in pursuit of chaos and in testing and bringing despair to the hearts of men.
The End of the Book
The key to the story of chaos is in its fate at the end of Revelation. In Revelation 21:1, we read:
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (NIV)
A better translation of sea, though, in this case would be abyss - the waters from Gen 1:2. This is because when the new heaven and new earth come into being, there will be no chaos - no sin - in the world. God will be in dominion over all of creation, and His kingdom will be all-encompassing. So, by definition, there would be no sea, the abyss.
And, unlike in The Dark Knight, at the end of the book, fear will no longer rule the hearts of men…
August 12th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Chris L.,
As usual, simply a wonderful, deeply thought provoking devotional and meditation. I have read nothing but good reviews of the film. Perhaps tonight after VBS is finished, I’ll go see it. Thank you.
jerry
August 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Such filth…
What would the reformers say?
What would the apostles think?
What would The Lord say to such things?
I hope the Holy Spirit–by which I mean either Chris P, PB or Todd Friel–convict you of your compromise apostasy man-centered circus churchy-ness.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Very nice, Chris. What a thought provoking post.
I am not suprised to see it completley at odds with the culturally irrelevant truth over at truth matters: http://bloodtippedears.blogspot.com/2008/08/dark-knight.html?showComment=1218486780000
What do you think of the early church’s understanding of evil as a privation of the good? You seem to hint at that in your thoughts on chaos. However, privation of the good makes evil seem parasitic (thus, giving it more of a life-like quality as oppossed to just the absence of God). Do you agree with that?
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Although I do not attent the theatre ( a self righteous fundamentalist and all that), I can say with complete confidence that Satan is far more evil and viscious that we could ever imagine and that any movie could ever portray.
But in comparison to the glory of the Risen Christ, we will say “Is this the fellow” in disdain when we see him.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Chris,
Good write. I do have one question though.
You wrote,
and then proceeded to prove that God is not the author of sin or chaos, to which I concur.
But the statement quoted above seems to indicate that chaos was present before God started creating.
From where did chaos originate?
Thanks, brother.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“From where did chaos originate?”
I’m hardly an expert in Old Testament studies but I would venture it most likely came from a very early form of a prototypical ODM.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
That movie was fantastic, by the way, and got me thinking along the same lines as you Chris. Great post, thanks for sharing.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I believe there is only one other occurence of this phrase, in Jeremiah. And it might be only part of the phrase. The translation of the phrase is debated - because of the lack of occurences and thus lack of context to determine what it means.
Yet God was always present, even when there was “formless and emptiness.” Was he somehow not present in that formless and emptiness?
Scripture? Would this have been the “original sin,” (instead of man’s choosing to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) if Satan hadn’t rebelled? What reference are you using for this information? How does the Bible support it?
Were all the elements of “sin” somehow present in the original “formless and emptiness?”
August 12th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
nc’s feeble attempt at humor aside;
we fail to grasp that scripture is neither a western nor eastern construct.
The Bible is a heavenly book, pure and simple.
From the time of the exile in Babylon until now, talmudic commentary and kabbalah have ruled. Both of these are anti-biblical, and occultic in their origin.
The mingling of apostate religion called judaism with the religion of the Babylonian magi is the foundation of western civilization, which is also occultic to the core. Therefore anything outside of the literal scripture must be held up to the light of scripture.
“As for Satan, he was an angel created for a role of “prosecutor” - maintaining order by accusing those who would choose chaos over order.”
Where is this found in scripture? (no talmud please)
The Bible actually says less about satan than we think it does.
Our ideas about satan and demons, their appearance and methods, etc were birthed in the roman catholic church who created a strawman to battle in order to prove that Rome is the one true church.
Unfortunately as always happens, the strawman “became flesh” and dwelt among us, e.g. the satanic mass vs. the holy sacrifice of the mass, both of which come from occultic/man-made roots.
Rome,i.e. the westernized church has been fighting itself for centuries.
All of the nations and cultures of the earth are birthed from God’s judgment at Babel, the confusion of the common language. This gives the actual giving of tongues on Pentecost it’s true importance.
Eastern or western, both sides of the same coin.The fruit of the forbidden tree gives man the desire man to be a god unto himself.
Israel was, and is, a nation (not in the geographical/cultural/governmental sense) that God chose, called out of Babylon, and spoke to.
He does not require a cultural hermeneutic to interpret His words. He does not require man’s ideas or opinions.
If we really want to look into the face of God’s enemy, let’s put on some clown makeup and look into a mirror.
Joker indeed!
August 12th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
God created the heavens, earth, the sea, and all that dwell in them. God is completely omniscient, meaning possessing conplete prescience, Therefore the question of evil’s origin’s is moot.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Amy,
As Chris already noted, entire books have been written on this subject.
The term “satan” means “accuser.” What Chris is just briefly summarizing is the theological extrapolation done over thousands of years by people pondering scripture as it relates to a good and holy God and the problem of evil.
What is it, specifically, that you diagree with or that you find directly contradicts the way you read scripture?
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Chaos cannot be present - it is the absence of presence. So - before God created anything, everything was nothing.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Now we’re getting into a question of dimensionality and location.
If God exists outside of time and space, then there is no need for Him to be present where nothing yet exists.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Ken Silva.
THAT was funny.
Thanks for the laugh.
Seriously.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Yeah, not a lot of people know, but Ken is pretty funny. The websites fight so much that we rarely get to see each others’ funnier sides.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
I’m not very smart.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
No need, and yet a wind from God (spirit) hovered over this chaos. God chose to enter in.
One thing I think we need to be careful about is our desire to want to say much where so little is said. Much of what we say about creation and the genesis of evil is, ultimately, speculation. We can give our best guesses based on the hints and signposts we find sprinkled through scripture but in the end I think we need to be content to relish in the mystery.
There is no need to get dogmatic over an ancient creation poem.
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think I’m more comfortable with the view from Genesis Rabba and other Hebrew commentaries which give sin and evil less anthropomorphic quality. That may just be the scientist/engineer in me speaking, though…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I am still giggling over this.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Me too.
I think the Joker skipping from the hospital in his nurses uniform was the highlight of the movie.
If anyone’s interested, here’s my brief review.
I’m out.
Shalom
August 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Whatever, Chris.
I forgot that the Bible fell out of the sky, absent context of any sort…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I wouldn’t say that (though it was funny in its brevity). It took science several thousand years to understand the profound invention of the zero. Giving nothing a name and using it as a noun makes it seem like something, when it still nothing…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“The mystery of iniquity” is the quintessential Biblical answer about the origin of evil.
However I see no real problem with a little philosophical badminton to pass the time. In the end - a mystery.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Interesting how the equivalent of old “commentaries” by Jews seems to be placed on the same level as the Word of God.
Chris do you use the Kabbalah as a source text?
August 12th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Amy,
Why would you assume this? That is an unfair characterization of what I said and of what I know Chris believes.
I’ll ask again: What is it specifically that you find is in direct contradiction to scripture?
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“do you use the Kabbalah as a source text?”
Only when I speak with Madonna!
August 12th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
lol Rick.
You are so en vogue.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I wasn’t aware that it had been placed on the same level as Scripture…
Not that I’m familiar with… Granted there is no “the Kabbalah”, but rather it’s a school of thought that pulls from the Torah, from a number of 13th century Jewish writings (including, primarily, the Zohar) which incorporate the Torah, oral history, talmudic writings and other ancient texts as a means of study.
So, technically, whenever you’re reading the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT), you’re reading a Kabbalistic text.
Now - if you’re asking if I used the Zohar and the 13th-century writings, no. If you’re asking if I used the Torah, oral history (as later recorded in the Talmud), and commentary (like Genesis Rabba), then yes. If that’s wrong, then perhaps you might mention it to Jesus, as well, since he also quotes from some of these, as well…
August 12th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I only use the “Apostle Paul’s Exhaustive Commentary on the New Testamet Books I Wrote”.
It’s a limited edition.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
ChrisL-
Everyone knows that truth is not found outside of our canonized Bible. If it ain’t in there it ain’t worth knowin’.
I think the more disturbing point of ChrisL’s post is this:
He has NON-Christian friends? Consorting with the other side, being unequally yoked, is an awful thing to do.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
As believers, do you not think that the nebulous, story like narrative in Genesis is the way God desired it? Could it possibly be that we humans could never understand the details of how the Eternal Creator created?
In things like this I am reduced to a child and less.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I understand that “choas” is absolute “nothingness”.
I think what’s tripping me up is this phrase –
“Now the earth was formless and empty . . .”
It sounds like it’s saying that the earth DID exist, it was just empty. Is it saying the earth didn’t exist and there was just nothing? Because if the earth didn’t exist, why does it use the noun “the Earth”?
Lol. I think this is my logical western mind thinking.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I’m disappointed that it took only two comments for this to get sarcastic and nasty. We would all be better served if we address the errors of the ODM’s and their allies.
Neil
August 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
yes.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Merry,
Great question.
Verse one says God created the heavens and the earth (erets).
Verse two then says, Now the “erets” (i.e. that which was just created in verse one) was formless and void. God proceeds to make order out of what is without order.
This is one way to read it. I think it might stand in contrast to the way ChrisL is reading it. What do you think Chris?
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Actually, one acceptable translation would be “the earth became formless and empty” - which led some to speculate that the creation of the angels, the war in heaven in which 1/3 were cast down occurred before the beginning, and that this made the earth become “formless and empty”.
The other interpretation is that, like chaos (when you use a word to describe nothingness), “the earth was” describes a location that came into being during that passage - but how do you describe a location before location exists?
August 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Wow, Chris P. solves the millenia old problem of evil in one fell swoop. Impressive…
August 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
It depends on whether you see two or three versions of the creation story in Genesis 1-2.
Many Hebrew scholars, and some Christian ones, see Genesis 1:1 as a standalone creation story. Then, Genesis 1:2-1:2 as the second creation story. And finally, Genesis 2:3-25 as the third one.
This follows the storytelling pattern of retelling the same story multiple times, each time expanding the scope to focus in on what is of key importance.
In this case, Gen 1:2 is the opening phrase of the second creation story.
However, if you go with the 2-story model, then you still have a just-created earth which still has no form, no light, no dark, no sky, no sea, etc. - it is still chaos.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Wow…I didn’t know that we had Mormons visiting this site. Do you think Moses and Paul had magic glasses too?
August 12th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Chris,
Because of the toledot schema I am inclined to go with the two story model (and I think they are actually two separate stories woven together by an editor). But in any event, how do you separate God from having created the “chaos”? I am asking this based on you saying this:
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Phil,
You forgot…
Chris P is one of the prime candidates to replace the incompetent original Holy Spirit.
He’s just demonstrating that he can lead you into all truth.
It’d be nice to see PB weigh in too and see how he does. I mean it’s obvious there’s a real race for the job in the making.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Good write Chris.
Here’s a little different take on something you said in the beginning. “this particular movie villain seems to be much more malevolent and inherently scary than most others”
The Joker doesn’t make excuses for his evil. He lies about what caused him to the way he is and its obviously part of his “schtick” as the Joker. He nurses and feeds on his own evil and does feel any remorse which makes him even more frightening. There is nothing “socially redeemable” about this character. And he never sees an end. There is no goal. Nolan has created a villain for the ages. The Joker is the most frightening movie character since Harry Powell in “The Night of the Hunter”. (The Powell character ruined for me personally the hymn “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms”.)
August 12th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
How do you create “nothing”?
“Nothing” is what exists before “Something” fills it… Something was nothing before it was something… (I’m sure that somewhere, my HS English teacher would be chastising me by this point in the conversation).
If God’s first role is Creator, then He is automatically opposed to the absence of creation…
August 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Thanks, John! I will have to add “Night of the Hunter” to Suzanne’s list of movies to get from NetFlix…
August 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Chad,
blockquote>Why would you assume this? That is an unfair characterization of what I said and of what I know Chris believes.
I’m not assuming it at all. I’ve been around long enough to see that that is the way it appears to be.
Look at my questions.
You might want to find the whole discussion that we had previously on “Yahweh.” Can’t remember the name of the post.
August 12th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
What do you mean by this?
August 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
There is no “book of Kabbalah” - Kabbalah is a set of practices and beliefs about the mystical aspects of Judiasm.
The most respected book by Kabbahlists is the TaNaKh - the Hebrew Scriptures - the Old Testament. Aside from this, the primary set of books/writings is the Zohar (which I have never read). Also taken into consideration are the apocryphal books (like Tobit, Enoch, Jubliees, Macabees, etc.), the Oral Histories (as later recorded in the Talmud) and other Hebrew commentaries.
So, if you want to be technical, every time you read the Old Testament, you are reading Kabbalistic literature.
So, your original question:
is not all that precise a question.
If you asked - “do you use the Zohar as source texts?” then my answer would be “no”.
If you asked “do you use any books that Kabbalists study”, the answer would have to be ‘yes’, because they study every ancient Hebrew writing- especially the TaNaKh (our Old Testament).
So, I’m not really sure what the point of your question was, so a specific answer was required to prevent the obvious ad homenim that would otherwise follow…
August 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Well, technically, one could argue that since God created the “earth” in verse one and that earth was said to be, in verse 2, chaotic (formless and void) than in that sense God would have created it. No?
Amy-
I don’t know you and I would never jump to the conclusion you did. If you have been around long enough to “know” than you ought to know that ChrisL nor I place commentaries of any sort on the same par as scripture. So again, that is an unfair assumption on your part.
You did not have any direct questions that showed where any of what Chris said contradicts scripture. If you feel strongly that he has, than I am confident you can point it out to me.
thanks,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
…I would also note that I’m not really interested in the Zohar, since it was written in the 13th century and (to my knowledge) sheds no light on the first-century context of scripture (which is my motivation for reading Jewish literature and teaching contemporary to Jesus).
August 12th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Amy,
What I should have said is that I don’t have time to go tracking down old posts from past conversations just so that I can find out the hidden meaning behind your ambiguity.
So when I ask what specifically you are taking issue with I would hope to just get a straight answer rather than sent on a goose chase. I will always try to extend the same courtesy.
peace,
Chad
August 12th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Now we’re definitely moving into Western thinking (definitional/scientific, as compared to visual/experiential), but that’s OK…
God created the earth in verse 1, but the earth had no light, no water or sky, no life - it was a blank slate. Now, while he created the slate, the blankness of it would be “nothing” until He made it into something.
[The concept of the abyss as chaos carries through scripture, BtW, and is referenced several times in the Gospels, as well (see demon-possessed pigs throwing themselves into the abyss, Jesus' illustration with the millstone, etc.), on through Revelation (where it is finally disposed of).]
Amy and I have had the discussion on a number of occasions as to whether or not it’s OK to use first-century Hebrew writings/teachings to examine the context of scripture.
One of the last times, I believe, involved Exodus Rabba and the Talmud, where God’s name (I Am) is seen as a play on words, suggesting that God would not let Himself be named by man (since naming implies a level of control of the named by the giver of the name). But I’m not going back into that discussion, as it’s rather circular and rather far off the topic of the OP…
August 12th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I agree.
I see. It just seemed like it came out of nowhere, especially since she said it in reference to something I said in post #24.
peace.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Ah yes…that pesky contemporary context in which the events of the Bible took place…
It couldn’t possibly inform what Holy Scripture means…I mean our context with assertions about “plain meanings” has to take precedence.
It’s obvious.
And what it does is make me thankful.
Just so thankful that the Lord saw fit to embed values and beliefs that look remarkably like middle class North American social respectability!
What foresight and provision.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Perhaps if you were to say, “interesting how the equivalent of old “commentaries” by Swiss power brokers seem to be placed on the same level as the Word of God” whenever certain people equate penal substitutionary atonement with the sum total of the gospel there’d be less suppressed laughter when you write.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
hmmm….
I like this game.
Let me try:
Interesting when the old commentaries of an angry Brit seem to be placed on the same level as the Word of God.
How’d I do?
Or better yet…here’s one more contemporary since obviously the original context doesn’t matter…
Interesting when the commentaries and sermons of the only acceptable mega-church pastor seem to be place on the same level as the Word of God.
OR
interesting when the cut and paste self-aggrandizing and extensive blog yammerings of that same mega-church pastor’s angry singing sycophant seem to be placed on the same level as the Word of God.
Anyone else?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
It’s interesting when we take Jesus words seriously.
That’s what we should be thinkin about.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I have been thinking about this article all afternoon.
“As for Satan, he was an angel created for a role of “prosecutor” - maintaining order by accusing those who would choose chaos over order.”
Where in the Bible does it say this? Why have I never learned this? If anyone has a reference, that would be awesome.
And I guess I still don’t understand the idea of sin being a manifestation of chaos. Is chaos evil? Is everything absent of God evil? Or is everything absent of God nothing? Is nothingness evil?
I’m kind of confused, sorry.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I guess what I’m trying to ask is, I get the whole chaos=nothing thing. But where does evil fit into that equation?
August 12th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Chaos, in this paradigm would inherently lead to evil. Evil/sin is a manifestation of Chaos in the natural created universe. Man chooses his actions apart from God, and apart from God = Chaos, and so Chaos is like sin in this regard.
Joe
August 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Merry, there is a whole branch of angelology and demonology, which uses the Bible as the source document, but also considers Jubilees and Enoch. I am pretty sure that I can do it very little justice, as I don’t have all of the references, etc. My primary sources are Dr. Stan Lindsay, David Stokes, and Dr. Gwaltney (never knew his first name, my Bible prof at Milligan).
Ezekiel 28:1-19 is considered to be a prophecy against Satan, which reveals that he was not always evil, but was once highly exalted.
Angels are created by the voice of God, each for specific purposes. Gabriel, for instance, is seen as God’s messenger, Michael as his angelic captain, etc.
Satan’s very name means “accuser”, and his role is played out in Job, Genesis and in the wilderness with Jesus.
Evil is defined by sin - which is seen both in the earthly kosmos (world view) in which God is absent (chaos), and in individual sin (decisions where God is absent).
Sin and evil bring about more chaos, whereas obedience brings about order.
Examples:
Divorce - creates chaos within the family and the community.
Murder - creates chaos within the families of the murderer and the victim, along with the general sense of order within the community
Lying - creates chaos in relationships
etc.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Thanks for the sources, Chris.
So evil brings about chaos (I knew that part), but would Nothing/Chaos be something . . . Terrible to experience? Obviously a human wouldn’t experience it because we wouldn’t exist, but would Nothing/Chaos be something terrible for God to experience? I’m going to assume so, since it’s the complete opposite of Him.
Sorry I’m asking all these dumb questions, and no one will ever know the complete answer, but this is just changing my view of everything right now. It’s explaining to me a little bit why the universe even exists, why hell exists, why everything exists.
Somehow, the idea of Nothing being Chaos and being the total opposite of God never even occured to me before.
Major brownie points to Chris L. for writing this article!
August 12th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Maxwell Smart was created by God to take care of CHAOS.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Quick question about Satan (since he seems to be up for discussion a little here):
What are your opinions regarding the names of Lucifer and Satan? It was taught in my school that we can learn several qualities of Satan from Isaiah 14:12-14 (the 5 “I will”’s), but in my further studies online (not exactly totally accurate but anyways…), I came across the teaching that Lucifer is not a name of Satan, but rather the versus are simply pointing at the Babylonian king. If these verses are not included in the biblical description of Satan’s qualities, then what are some of the main verses that talk about his qualities (angelhood, accuser, etc)?
-Aaron
August 12th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Chris L.,
I ducked out of VBS early tonight so I could catch The Dark Knight at the cinema. I just got home.
Wow.
wow.
jerry
August 12th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Well, if hell is a complete and total separation from God, then my guess is that hell itself is chaos - nothingness, which would be truly terrible to experience.
I don’t think so, because He creates from nothingness, so He would just create it away (as He did in Creation), I would imagine.
Yeah, that’s how it was for me about two and a half years ago when I was first exposed to this by Dr. Tim Brown, who is now the President of Western Theological Seminary (a Reformed seminary adjacent to Hope College in Holland, MI).
August 13th, 2008 at 12:01 am
I would tend to agree with the latter view you spoke of, and that Lucifer was the name of a Babylonian King, mistakenly identified by Tertullian as Satan.
First off, Angelology is not my specialty, but the Hebrew word Satan means, literally, “accuser”. In this role, he shows up in Genesis 3, multiple chapters in Job, Zechariah 3:1-2, along with some mention in Chronicles. In the NT, we have him tempting Jesus in the wilderness, and in multiple images in Revelation.
We also have the Archangel Michael confronting him in Jude, with potentially a mention in Daniel, as well…
August 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Agreed. Which is also the Classicalist main line of defense against Open Theism.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Chaos is the absence of order, not the absence of presence. Nothingness is the absence of presence. What am I missing here? The creation was in chaos (lack of order), but there was a creation (i.e., presence). Agree?
August 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
???? Chris, that is a complete non sequitor. Just because a Kabbalist uses the OT as a source it is therefore a Kabbalistic Text? That’s silly. By that logic it’s also a Mormon text. Is that what you really meant to say?
August 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Or, a basic defense of Open Theism, since being apart from Space and Time would allow for multiple-dimensionality of time AND seeing all potential permutations of futures without locking into a specific time-line of “predestination”.
At its basest core, chaos would be both an absence of order and an absence of presence. As order is increased, chaos is decreased, but when creation is at absolute zero, there is no presence, either. (analogous to absolute zero being the point at which there is absolutely no heat (i.e. no sub-molecular movement)).
You are right though, it would be more correct to define chaos as the absence of order.
So, when God rested on the seventh day, the earth was present, and everything created on earth was present, but the kosmos (systems/order) of the world was left for man to work according to God’s plan, and in this man failed.
John - Amy asked if I got any information from “the Kabbalah” (of which there is no such thing). So, in absence of whatever she meant by “the Kabbalah”, I went with the assumption that she meant “writings studied by those who practice Kabbalah”. If that is the case, the OT is still one of those key writings, along with any other ancient Hebrew document (lumping them all together to prevent the converse ad homenim of “you read the Genesis Rabba, which Kabbalists read…” which is just as factual (and relevant) as “you read the Torah, which Kabbalists read…”
Now, if she was constraining her definition of “the Kabbalah” (whatever that is) to the Zohar, then no, I’ve never read it or applied it…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Ahh, but one of those potentalities become a reality in any given timeline of which God has already seen.
But now my head hurts. “Brain, brain! What is brain?!? (10 extra bonus points to anyone who gets that reference).
August 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Chris,
Do you have any scripture that supports this?
It looks like, according to what you wrote, that originally man’s “sin” would have been to choose chaos, in which case Satan could have “accused” him. But he would have done this without Satan tempting him. Is that what you’re saying?
Chris L says
.
I don’t ever recall discussing with you whether or not it is okay to use such writings to examine the context of scripture. That is certainly a misrepresentation of our Yahweh discussion. You took Hebrew writings/teachings and made a point that could not be supported by scripture, and basically complained that I didn’t see it your way. In every way - by your arguments and by your attitude - you demonstrated that you were not examining scripture by first century (or earlier) writings but were drawing facts from them: your Yahweh/joke argument was not to be tampered with. I demonstated to you that your underlying concept of God not using his own personal name was incorrect by showing you several places that it was used in Scripture; you never replied after I showed you that.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Amy, I already asked the same question about the Satan thing and Chris already gave his sources a few comments up, just FYI.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Actually, the plain meaning of the Genesis passage only indicates a serpent…a wise one…that talked.
There’s nothing in the passage itself that says it’s Satan.
So much for the plain meaning of the text…
Can of worms…I know.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
^Lol.
Actually, the Bible doesn’t go into much detail about Satan and angels. All the stories we hear about “Lucifer”, etc, etc, are assumed and not clearly confirmed in Scripture. I think this is because it’s not really what God wants us to focus our attention on. If it was, He would have made it clear.
I’m sure “angelogy” and “demonology” are interesting to study, but a lot of it, I’m sure, is just assumption or speculation. Kind of like the thing about Satan originally being an angel with the purpose of accusing, it’s very likely, and makes a lot of sense, but still just an assumption. Even what nc said about the serpent–it’s assumption, too, that the serpent was Satan.
I guess what I’m saying is, we know what we need to know about the devil and angels, and the rest of it God doesn’t really want us to dwell on.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:29 am
We don’t know if he would have done this without Satan’s tempting Eve. It becomes a game of hypotheticals.
It comes back to names - Satan’s means “accuser” (remembering that names reveal character within scripture), which is also the equivalent of “prosecutor” (considering the Hebrew judicial system).
His role is further revealed in the text of Job, where we see that his role as “accuser” is played out in his treatment of Job.
We also see this played out in Zechariah 3, where Satan is specifically given the role of accuser (with even the play on Satan’s name, meaning “accuser”) of the high priest, Joshua/Jeshua (spelled the same as Jesus’ name) - where we also see Zechariah’s messianic prophecy (and perhaps the basis of Jesus’ name - as the perfect High Priest).
As for extra-biblical sources, the two primary ones are Enoch and Jubilees (which are both quoted by NT writers, and were the primary source document about angels in the first century).
Hogwash. You demonstrated nothing, but your own typical hyper-critical, hypothetical obtuseness… You didn’t show or prove anything worth a reply… (It’s kind of like my 5-year-old son ‘proving’ and ’showing’ me that the moon was made of green cheese because I got tired of the exercise in futility…)
August 15th, 2008 at 12:38 am
I would agree with this sentiment, as well, that the importance of such things is secondary.
As for Satan being the serpent, we are pretty safe to assume that the NT writers assumed (ex. Rom 16:20), particularly by John - Rev 20:2
So, probably the best we can do in understanding angels is 1) by seeing what is in Scripture as authoritative (other sources cannot contradict it); 2) study what Jesus and his disciples would have been taught about angels (of which we have a rather large library, per the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls). And, even then, we can only assume these things to be a probability and not a certainty.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I would say too that the disturbing thing is that in the Garden the serpent wasn’t really lying.
I know…another can of worms.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Merry,
Just like the assumption that the “let us make” in Genesis is a subtle reference to the “Trinity”….
August 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Chris - every time I feel as though you’ve walked to far out on a limb, and I’m ready to publicly dismantle your subjective surmises, you dismantle me with wisdom.
As a brother, though, I must keep attempting to find something with which to accuse you, that is God’s calling. You are very slippery!
August 15th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
nc, no, you’re right, that is disturbing, because that’s exactly how Satan works (whether Satan was that serpent or not). He tells the truth without the consequences.
And I think that would be a can of snakes.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I would disagree - he told enough of the truth to be believable, but he added in a lie:
contrasted with Satan:
nc:
Well, let’s take a look at Genesis 1:1 -
Here, the word for “God” is Elohim, which is plural, whereas God (singular) would have been El. So, I would say that in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1-2 is less than subtle in expressing the idea that God is somehow One, but also plural…
August 16th, 2008 at 8:49 am
actually…they didn’t die…unless you spiritualize an “instant spiritual death” from the plain meaning of the text.
They died later physically, but it could be just as clear that the “die” meant to Eve “drop dead after taking a bite”….
also…the serpent said: “God doesn’t want you to eat it, cuz you’ll be like God and God has a problem with that”.
What happened after the confrontation?
God says…”Look! they’re like me…cast them out of the garden so they won’t eat of the tree of life”.
Clearly, the implication is that God did have a problem with them being like God.
The serpent didn’t lie.
Elohim assuming that God is plural and One means you have to assume a fully developed monotheism when this text was written…
biblical scholarship doesn’t bear that out…I have some good books from non-liberal theologians (in case you’re worried) who affirm this.
You can’t argue for Trinity in Gen. 1.
It doesn’t take into account the cosmology of the Ancient Near East supported even in the biblical texts themselves. You can read it back into the text subsequent, but it’s not the “plain meaning of the text”.
Also…your whole “Satan” is the divine prosecutor argument is based completely on the ancient cosmology of the ANE–i.e. multiple gods, a royal court of divine beings surrounding Yahweh…etc. etc.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
God says “for when you eat of it you will surely die.”
The serpent says “You will not surely die”.
One of the two was lying (or, at the very least being deceptive, which is - *ahem* - a form of lying). I know which one I would place my bet on.
As Paul notes, the consequences of sin is death, so apparently eating the apple DID cause them to die.
The whole “plain meaning of the text” thing, though, is pretty much the literalist (ultra-conservative) treatment of the entire Bible, which is not hermeneutically sound, either.
Considering that it was Moses who recorded the Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), and monotheism WAS well-established by that time (see the shema, Deut 6:4-9), you do have a basis for the paradox of plurality/oneness in Genesis 1.
Which is the same imagery given in all references to cherubim, in Job, and Revelation. With the “Satan as divine prosecutor” narrative, I am not suggesting a scientific, cross-cultural truth, but rather the cultural understanding of Satan at the time the Bible was written. As in all ANE literature, the narrative image is just as important as “the plain meaning” - and in fact, often sharpens the focus of what “the plain meaning” is…
So, IS Satan in the role of “accuser/prosecutor”? The folks who wrote the Bible and who first hear it thought so, and much of the judicial/penal imagery treats him this way, as well. Is this is scientifically how Satan works? We don’t know, because the Bible wasn’t written to be a modernist, scientific document…
August 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
actually God says when you eat of it you will die.
when they ate of it they didn’t die.
the reason why I’m emphasizing the “plain meaning” is to demonstrate exactly your point…
if the “plain meaning” is important…I think to read Gen. 1 actually renders something different than what the “plain meaning” has been asserted as being.
Scholarship doesn’t support a purely Mosaic authorship. I don’t doubt a Mosaic core to the texts, but to say that Moses wrote every word in the form we have it today is, IMO, naive. It doesn’t take into account historical scholarship.
My point about ANE lit is that these texts were not written with a competing cosmology, but within the dominant cosmology of the day.
The OT reveals an interesting negotiation of competing understandings of the divine and the divine realm.
but you and I will have to just disagree…
=)