Terrific discussion in the comments to the post below on 'Was Jesus Wrong?'. Though I haven't had the time to write my own responses yet, I'll do so tonight - especially as a couple of comments are literally begging for response!
Until then, I wanted to draw attention to an online article by Donald E. Hartley: 2 Corinthians 4:4: A Case for Yahweh as the 'God of this Age.' I read the title and thought, 'you have got to be kidding me!', so this is a note to self to give the article a read!
Here are a few useful responses to my 'Was Jesus Wrong?', though I may have missed some: Here, here and here (which has some amusing discussion in the comments).
(The following paragraph may annoy some folk, so be warned)
One final thought on 'creation out of nothing' (or 'cree-ayshun ää ov nuffin', if you are cockney; creatio ex nihilo, if you are clever): 'Given that Genesis 1 does not make explicit that God created the formless and empty earth, or the deep, the existence of both could be presupposition for what follows [in the Genesis creation account], like the existence of the primordial waters in the Babylonian story' (John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel's Gospel (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003), 81). Right. The most 'explicit conviction regarding' creatio ex nihilo 'was first clearly formulated in the second century A.D.' (ibid., 78), not in Genesis 1 which simply states: 'At the beginning of God's creating the heavens and the earth, the earth was an empty void, and darkness covered the face of the deep' (Goldingay translation, ibid., 80). But did God create 'out of nothing'? Yes, I am happy to affirm so as it is the best way for moderns to grasp God's freedom and sovereignty in creation. But the metaphorical language of Genesis 1 arguably does not teach it. As Pannenberg writes: 'Tatian was the first to insist that God must have brought forth the primal matter (Or. 5.3)' (Pannenberg, W., Systematic theology 2:14).
13 comments:
Chris,
It always puzzles me when folks jettison creation ex nihilo on the basis of the ambiguity of Gen 1 when there are a number of relevant New Testament passages. Off the top of my head:
John 1, especially verse 3: "all things were made through him"
Col 1:15-20, "all things were created in him...all things through him and for him were created" etc.
Nathan
Dear Chris,
If I read your post correctly, I'm not sure how Goldingay could say that the first witness to creatio ex nihilo is not attested until the Second Century A.D. It's pretty explicit in my (Catholic) Old Testament, in 2 Maccabees, when the mother of the 7 sons says:
"I beseech you my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed." (2 Macc 7:28)
Seems pretty clear to me! Is this one of those cases of forgetting about the Catholic books of the OT??
Chris, it is interesting on one of those posts responding to your comments that you get accused of kenotic Christology. This is indicative of the common misunderstanding of two natures Christology which, it seems to, you are working with.
The brilliance of the insight of Chalcedon is that it asks 2 questions, Who is Jesus (his person) and What is Jesus (his nature). Who is Jesus? - the Word incarnate - the one person - the 2nd person of the Trinity. What is Jesus? - because he is the Word incarnate, he is of divine nature, and because he is incarnate, he is fully human. But, Chalcedeon goes on to say, lets not confuse these natures. The Logos remains logos (with all attendant omni's) and the human Jesus is fully human. You might say that these natures operate in different spheres or dimensions (by definition), but be that as it may, what it does mean is that in his human nature, Jesus was a first century Jew.
This is very different to kenotic Christology, which is itself a confusion of 2 natures Christology (i.e. that the logos, in some way, divests himself of his deity).
Anyway, I am sure you are capable of defending yourself. But it does seem to me a shame that there is not a better grasp of chalcedon in Christian circles.
John 1, especially verse 3: "all things were made through him"
Col 1:15-20, "all things were created in him...all things through him and for him were created" etc.
These verses verifying ex nihilo cretion also have profound imolication, in that it dispels the myth of "theistic evolution" When God commenced the acts of Creation, He started with there being an earth void and formless. Such a situation predisposes life before the advent of a formed earth, no longer void of life, and attests to a young earth.
Chris, I guess I will join you in the heresy here. Sometimes God creates out of nothing. Sometimes out of something, as in Eve coming from Adam's rib. There is some ambiguity in the Bible and we are not provided the complete change history of life (or the universe) required for a six-sigma compliant quality control system. Biologists, cosmologists and creationist need to begin to accept this fact.
Being an engineer, sometimes we create from scratch. Sometimes we modify an existing design. Usually we leverage off of familiar design patterns with modifications. We never sit around and expect the design to spontaneously evolve into a better design while we snooze. Maybe scientists do that, but engineers don't!
Anon: I think you are being unfair to scientists. That they see new evidence and are willing to change their view accordingly is a good sign! It shows that our knowledge is limited, yes, but the only reason we can have this conversation on the ‘internet’ in this way is because of science. They only reason you can have good dentistry, medicine when you get ill, a TV ... science, science, science. Ero, I think the wisdom of man is, yes, limited. But the human ability to reason and speculate and think deserves more credit than you give it, I think.
Nathan: I don’t want to jettison creation ex nihilo! But those passages to presume a certain way of looking at the world. I suspect ex nihilo only came on the scene explicitly a little later. But in light of later developments I am glad to read that back into these texts; I think we would be correct to do so, as I said in the post.
Doug: Bit weird that! I get some like that every now and then.
Brant: Great to hear from you! Actually, Goldingay does look at 2 Macc. 7:28. He writes:
‘The statement is an aspect of the book’s stress on monotheism and on God’s absolute sovereignty. But similar language occurs in other Greek writings without implying that creation did not start from preexistent matter, so 2 Maccabees need not have that implication’ (OT Theology. Volume One p .78)
Pannenberg, noting G May’s work on this subject, writes: ‘In 2 Maccabees the phrase does not rule out any forming from existing matter. It simply means that the world was not previously there’ (Systematic theology. 2:13).
Shane: Thanks for your brilliantly comment, Shane, which got me reading my old systematic theology books! I cut and paste it in the direction of my detractor!
Anon: You are reading way too much into those verses – cf. my comments to Brant above.
Justin: THANKS for that link!
Looney: ‘Chris, I guess I will join you in the heresy here.’
:-)
I think this little piece from the Catholic Catechism helps to put the kenotic and Chalcedonian Christology nicely together.
This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, "increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man", and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience. This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking "the form of a slave".
Chris: "Ero, I think the wisdom of man is, yes, limited. But the human ability to reason and speculate and think deserves more credit than you give it, I think."
I loved your last 2 words! Keep thinking! I certainly understand as we become more knowledgeable in science we tend to think out of our little boxes...but from how I read your understanding of it all, it seems there really is no need of Jesus and His purpose of restoration of creation, even though you are trying hard to keep Jesus and His Dad in part of the plan.
Thanks, Jeremy, I read that (I think) on your blog recently - very helpful.
Anon,
"but from how I read your understanding of it all, it seems there really is no need of Jesus!
Well, then read again, cos that is WAY off. Jesus is absolutely essential to the way I have outlined. How can I clarify matters?
Keep thinking!
Chris, I suggested that though you keep Jesus and the Father in the picture...it would seem by the way you believe, there really is no need for Jesus since we evolved from whatever. Taking scripture and using it as moral/social information on how man evolves (when you need that type of understanding) deletes the miraculous creation of mankind and God's purpose to allow man to fall and redeem man from the fall. As hard as I am trying to wrap my brain around your arguments of evolution, I would have to come to understand scripture as nothing more than information and silly stories that really mean nothing.
CREATION EX NIHILO AND THE PROBLEM OF PAIN
Doesn't a belief in creation "out of nothing" make the problem of pain even more of a problem?
Because if everything came out of God's power, mind, and will, and if God was absolutely perfect, whence came imperfection?
Subtract two points if you answer it was the fault of humanity's "free will" because doesn't God also have "free will?" What keeps God from anything "evil?" And why can't that also be true of everything that comes directly out of God alone?
The Genesis account seems to be saying that the Elohim (plural) used what the ancients considered to be the "four primeval elements" which were water, air/wind, fire/light, and earth--controlling them and making something "good" out of them, but such elements are simply assumed to be there by many ancient creation myths as I already stated in my previous entry.
Having everything come only out of a perfect Being's power, mind, and will, means something imperfect entered the scene, but how exactly do you get imperfection when it originates ONLY out of a Being that represents absolute all-powerful perfection?
And then there's the spacial question. If everything including "space," came out of God directly, and out of God alone, then where there ROOM for "imperfection" or something "less than good" to even ENTER THE PICTURE?
'THE STORY OF EDEN' AS METAPHOR? WHEN WAS OUR COSMOS EVEN CLOSE TO BEING 'EDEN-LIKE?' EVEN METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING?
Chris, I'm not a young-earth creationist but there are plenty of articles over at ANSWERS IN GENESIS that address your (and N.T. Wright's) perspective that Genesis should be taken metaphorically by Christians today, and that Genesis has metaphorical value. That group has even produced a book that explains why interpreting the creation story in Genesis as metaphorical rocks the whole Christian edifice since it makes Christianity begin with a metaphorical event yet end with a physical (non-metaphorical) crucifixion for the very real sin of a very real first man, Adam. The book is titled, REFUTING COMPROMISE.
I even read an amusing letter to that effect in a recent issue of CHRISTIAN CENTURY magazine. The letter writer, 'Terry W. Ward' stated in CHRISTIAN CENTURY, April 22, 2008:
It is a difficult task fitting evolutionary ideas into the Christian framework, beginning with Paul's exposition in Romans 5:12 that 'Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned'--not to mention Augustine's more complete formulation into church doctrine of the idea of original sin--which both collapse in the light of evolution.
And what about Paul's thoughts on the direct connection of sin with one man and redemption with another in Romans 5:18, which becomes ludicrous in the light of evolution: 'Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all.'
Was the trespass that Paul mentions above perpetrated by some particularly evil Australopithecus or an especially cunning Homo habilis?
Without original sin and a Fall, what becomes of Christ?
The common modern explanation that Genesis 1-3 is to be interpreted metaphorically. If that is so, why does God require a bloody, horrific, non-metaphorical sacrifice of his Son?
This is the difficult task of reconciling evolutionary thought and Christianity. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin tried to finesse the conflict by arguing about an omega point toward which all creation was straining. But, after witnessing the depradations of the 20th century his ideas of progress seem tragically misplaced. One also has to wonder what it means to live in a 'fallen' world where no such fall has occurred [and where death--including six mass extinctions in the geological past--have never been a 'curse' but simply 'a fact of life' since long before any species vaguely resembling an 'Adam' has ever evolved].
So without an historical creation and an historical Adam and Eve and an historical fall, the problem of natural evil becomes one of even more stark contrast.
The answer to suffering parishoners that we 'live in a fallen world' makes less sense if every living thing was cursed with death--and over 90% of every ancient species was cursed with extinction--long before human beings even showed up in this less than Edenic cosmos.
[I edited some of Terry's letter--Edward T. Babinski]
I wish I had more time to engage with your comments here, Edward. Thanks so much for the info, though. Certainly one should read Enuma Elish to best undersatnd what is going on in the first chapters of Genesis.
Post a Comment