George,
In Scripture, a phrase repeated a few times (in several variations) is,
" ...you shall be my people, and I will be your God." Therein is an
implicit reminder that God existed prior to (or otherwise outside) any
commitment to the Hebrews. Moreover, there is nothing in the language
that would suggest that this relationship would be henceforth exclusive,
...inaccessible to any other person or people except via the Hebrews. I
think there is a common notion abroad that God was somehow thereafter
dedicated solely to and only accessible through by the Hebrews. But
surely a moment's reflection would lead one to understand that God
almost certainly must transcend that sort of constraint.
Another Hebrews passage reads in part, "...therefore God is not ashamed
to be called their God: the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob..." Again,
the language suggests that God has a transcendent existence that
preceded and continues to range outside any agreement with man. And yet,
it says in a supremely complimentary note, he is OK with, even
volunteers (promises) a special reciprocal relationship with the
Hebrews, but surely not one that binds him from his way of being and
doing in his own domain of existence.
Perhaps it is unwise to press any of these passages alone too hard, but
taking them collectively, and in the company of some thought about what
sovereignty or transcendence means, God must surely still be, act and be
accessible as he chooses, and even as others choose, notably not captive
to an exclusive relationship with the Hebrews. God is the designer and
appreciator or the entire universe, and it just strains credibility to
imagine that he would commit himself to a relationship that makes him
inaccessible and unavailable to any other portion of his Creation.
You certainly have theology credentials that I lack, and I learn
something virtually every time you respond to these posts. But I am
clearly troubled by the apparent notion that God agreed to be the
Hebrews' God only, and that if called by any other name, or appreciated
in any other way, by any people other than those with Abrahamic roots,
he takes no notice and the utterances are by default idolatrous.
So I guess I find myself sharing with Mike the hesitancy to label as
idolatrous (they are worshipping a different God, not mine) others who
with integrity and devotion akin to ours seek to understand and interact
with the Creator, however different their names, understandings, and
traditions might be.
Oh, and what was the first sentence under 3) supposed to say?
JimA [Friend of ASA]
George Murphy wrote:
> We got into the topics of the divine name, idolatry & worship from a
> discussion having to do with science (evidence for God &c) but things
> have since gotten pretty well disconnected from the science-theology
> dialogue. In order to keep things from spreading out into a lot of
> off-topic threads I'm going to say the last I will have to say here on
> these matters (though I may make some off-list replies if called for)
> & will try to keep it as brief as possible. In part I'm responding to
> comments others have made on the present thread but will not try to
> identify each correspondent. You know who you are.
>
> 1) It is fundamental to Christian faith that the God of the Old
> Testament is the God of the New: The redeemer is the creator. The
> church has insisted upon this since it rejected the ideas of Marcion
> in the 2d century even though some (e.g., Harnack) have wanted to
> resuscitate Marcionite ideas. Of course the God of the OT is
> sometimes pictured as vengeful but also as "slow to anger and
> abounding in steadfast love." OTOH the God of the NT can be pictured
> as wrathful at times - check out Revelation. The notion that there is
> a simple contrast between the nasty God of the OT & the nice one of
> the NT is incorrect & making such a claim puts one well along
> the Marcionite track. This is, of course, not to say that we can't
> see in the Bible some evolution in the understanding of the divine
> character.
>
> 2) The God of the OT, of the people of Israel, was YHWH, which was
> probably vocalized as Yahweh. That is not the only designation of God
> in the OT but is a very prominent one & in fact was the name of God
> used in the cult of Israel. It may not seem familiar to some people
> because they hardly encounter it in scripture but that is because the
> Jews, to avoid misuse, eventually adopted the practice of reading
> 'Adonai, "Lord" whenever the divine name occurred in a text, and in
> the Masoretic text the vowels of 'Adonai are placed with the
> consonants YHWH. Most English Bible translations indicate this by
> printing LORD in all caps in those places. Thus every time you see
> LORD in the OT - & you'll see it a lot - the original text is
> YHWH. (There are some variations when the original was 'Adonai YHWH,
> "Lord YHWH," &c.)
>
> The practice of not saying the divine name was, however, a fairly late
> development. The fact that even the later texts of the OT have YHWH
> (to be precise, yod-he-waw-he) show that. & look at all the
> references to "the name of the LORD" in the OT. The commandment "You
> shall not take the name of YHWH your God in vain" would be meaningless
> if YHWH were not a name. I am belaboring the point but it apparently
> needs that: YHWH was a name & functioned as a name for the people of
> Israel. When they "called on the name of the LORD" they were calling
> on the name YHWH.
>
> Names for the Hebrews (as for many peoples) were not arbitrary labels
> but were thought to say something about what a person really was.
> There is an indication of such an idea in Exodus 3:13-15, where the
> name YHWH is connected with the Hebrew for "I AM" though the multitude
> of intepretations of 'eheyeh 'asher 'eheyeh ("I am who I am," "I will
> be who I will be," "I am he who causes to be" &c) makes it difficult
> to pin down just what the name was thought to mean. It is just as
> likely that the name was known first & the connection with the verb
> "to be" was made later. That's a very interesting topic but
> discussion of it should not obscure the fact that, when all is said &
> done, YHWH was in fact a name & was used as a name.
>
> Which doesn't mean that Christians today have to use Yahweh as the
> name of God.
>
> 3) The issues of worship & worship are closely connected but not in
> the way some people think. What is really fudamental is where we put
> our ultimate trust - who or what we look to as the source of our lives
> & of whatever good we may have. & that is what the 1st Commandment is
> really about. Luther explains this well in his treatment of the 1st
> Commandment in the Large Catechism. (The following is from
> http://www.bookofconcord.org/largecatechism/3_tencommandments.html .)
>
>
> The First Commandment.
>
> Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
>
> 1] That is: Thou shalt have [and worship] Me alone as thy God. What is
> the force of this, and how is it to be understood? What does it mean
> to have a god? or, what is God? 2] Answer: A god means that from which
> we are to expect all good and to which we are to take refuge in all
> distress, so that to have a God is nothing else than to trust and
> believe Him from the [whole] heart; as I have often said that the
> confidence and faith of the heart alone make both God and an idol. 3]
> If your faith and trust be right, then is your god also true; and, on
> the other hand, if your trust be false and wrong, then you have not
> the true God; for these two belong together, faith and God. That now,
> I say, upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly
> your god.
>
> 4] Therefore it is the intent of this commandment to require true
> faith and trust of the heart which settles upon the only true God, and
> clings to Him alone. That is as much as to say: "See to it that you
> let Me alone be your God, and never seek another," i.e.: Whatever you
> lack of good things, expect it of Me, and look to Me for it, and
> whenever you suffer misfortune and distress, creep and cling to Me. I,
> yes, I, will give you enough and help you out of every need; only let
> not your heart cleave to or rest in any other.
>
> 5] This I must unfold somewhat more plainly, that it may be understood
> and perceived by ordinary examples of the contrary. Many a one thinks
> that he has God and everything in abundance when he has money and,
> possessions; he trusts in them and boasts of them with such firmness
> and assurance as to care for no one. 6] Lo, such a man also has a god,
> Mammon by name, i.e., money and possessions, on which he sets all his
> heart, and which is also the most common idol on earth. 7] He who has
> money and possessions feels secure, and is joyful and undismayed as
> though he were sitting in the midst of Paradise. 8] On the other hand,
> he who has none doubts and is despondent, as though he knew of no God.
> 9] For very few are to be found who are of good cheer, and who neither
> mourn nor complain if they have not Mammon. This [care and desire for
> money] sticks and clings to our nature, even to the grave.
>
> 10] So, too, whoever trusts and boasts that he possesses great skill,
> prudence, power, favor, friendship, and honor has also a god, but not
> this true and only God. This appears again when you notice how
> presumptuous, secure, and proud people are because of such
> possessions, and how despondent when they no longer exist or are
> withdrawn. Therefore I repeat that the chief explanation of this point
> is that to have a god is to have something in which the heart entirely
> trusts.
>
> The term "idolatry" is sometimes understood only in its most obvious
> sense, the worship of statues &c. As I pointed out before, that is
> not the way Ezekiel 14:3 sees it. What you have there is the
> realization that the basic question is what you set your "heart" on,
> not whether it is a physical representation of some putative god or
> goddess. But use of the term "idolatry" is not essential. Instead we
> can simply use Paul's phrase, "worship the creature rather than the
> creator" (including creatures of our imagination) for vilation of the
> 1st Commandment.
>
> & to repeat: The 1st Commandment says that we are to have "no other
> gods" beside "YHWH your God, who brought you out of the land of
> Egypt." It is not a statement about abstract monotheism or some God
> we discover by ourselves & give a name to. It is about the God who
> made himself known in the event of the Exodus.
>
> 4) The concept of worship, to which I've already alluded, is closely
> connected with the 1st Commandment. Unfortunately people tend to
> think of worship first of all as something that we do for God - as
> aspect of the general human tendency to think that we are to gain
> God's favor & earn God's blessing. In reality, worship is 1st of all
> reception & only then response with praise and thanksgiving. The
> basic elements of Christian worship are Word and sacraments -
> i.e., receiving what God wants to give us in the gospel. & so worship
> is connected with that basic element of trust that Luther speaks about
> above in connection with the 1st Commandment - i.e., we are to look to
> the true God made known in Christ as the source of forgiveness, life
> and salvation. That aspect of worship is essentially passive - we
> receive. Of course there is also the active aspect in which we ask
> for God's gifts and give thanks and praise God but that is a response
> to (or anticipation of) God's action. Supposed "worship services"
> which consist only of singing "praise songs" miss the point.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/ <http://web.raex.com/%7Egmurphy/>
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 1 23:24:12 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 01 2007 - 23:24:12 EDT