This is an answer to an anonymous response I received a couple of weeks ago to my essay “And I will give to each one a white stone, and on the stone will be engraved a new name…”. The issues that the writer raised are very important, dealing with the identity of Yahweh and Jesus. I will be publishing this treatise in two separate posts because the information is extensive.

First, let me say that I am not disturbed by what I am characterizing as “God’s Paradoxical Nature.”
I don’t really believe that God is a paradox or that He contradicts Himself in any way or at any time.
I am quite happy with the nuance of God. This really gets to the “nitty-gritty” of my theses in this web log “Theology of Nuance.”
And it is my contention that God does not teach or demand issues of “black or white”, “right or wrong”, “good or bad” per se. If this sounds shocking or too much like heresy, then you should probably read on, because you will likely find that I am not really saying anything outside the bounds of what holy scriptures tell us. Don’t stop reading because you are offended, please.
In other words “good deeds”, done with wrong motives are not “good.”
Remember 1 Corinthians 13:1ff

• “If I could speak in any language in heaven or on earth but didn’t love others, I would only be making meaningless noise like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal.”

So, “right and wrong” are not just personal actions, but they are a matter of intent as much as deeds. Human or carnal wisdom tells me that ‘If one does such and such, then he is GOOD. But, if one does the antitheses of such and such, then he is BAD.’
God’s wisdom is therefore, different than carnal wisdom. It is “Nuanced” and appears, to humans, to be a paradox.
This issue is similar to a debate that I am having with a good friend on another of my essays. What is the value of a soul? My point to my friend is that the Creator of the soul is the only one who has the authority to determine the value of a soul.
Here, in this discussion, humans should not use the term “paradox”, with respect to the modus operandi of our Creator. Ultimately we are the “paradox” to God, because He is the standard.
But, for the purposes of our carnal nature, I am using and embracing the “paradoxes/paradice of our Creator” knowing that this is in-fact a paradox ‘in and of itself’.

Look at Luke 12:51-53, because this speaks to the purpose of Jesus and it is a paradox, that cannot be denied or ignored.
Can we say that there is no paradox between (Galatians 5:22-23)‘love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control’ and the following verses?

• (Luke 12:51-53)51 Do you think I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I have come to bring strife and division! 52 From now on families will be split apart, three in favor of me, and two against—or the other way around. 53 There will be a division between father and son, mother and daughter, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.”

Therefore, it is certainly a paradox to my carnal nature that Jesus/God was willing to give up His position as the creator of all things (Colossians 1:15-23) and lay down His life for us His creation. Read this passage and you too shall see the paradox to the wisdom of humankind.

• 15 Christ is the visible image of the invisible God. He existed before God made anything at all and is supreme over all creation. * (Greek He is the firstborn of all creation.)16 Christ is the one through whom God created everything in heaven and earth. He made the things we can see and the things we can’t see—kings, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities. Everything has been created through him and for him. 17 He existed before everything else began, and he holds all creation together.
  18 Christ is the head of the church, which is his body. He is the first of all who will rise from the dead,*(Greek He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead.) so he is first in everything. 19 For God in all his fullness was pleased to live in Christ, 20 and by him God reconciled everything to himself. He made peace with everything in heaven and on earth by means of his blood on the cross. 21 This includes you who were once so far away from God. You were his enemies, separated from him by your evil thoughts and actions, 22 yet now he has brought you back as his friends. He has done this through his death on the cross in his own human body. As a result, he has brought you into the very presence of God, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault. 23 But you must continue to believe this truth and stand in it firmly. Don’t drift away from the assurance you received when you heard the Good News.

Anonymous, I have a feeling from the explanation that you gave for the distinction between Eloahim and Yahweh, that you believe that these are either two disparate entities or that Yahweh was no different than the idol/gods of the many other Neareast city-states. The city-states possessed gods as their patron. (Incidently, I believe that this was Jacob’s plan in that wrestling match with the angel. Genesis 32:24-30 Jacob requests the name of God, so that he may possess God as his patron, just as all other families did, look at Gen 31:19 as Rachel stole her father’s household gods. I did not highlight this point in that essay, however one should take note; that God DID NOT tell Jacob His name, when asked. God’s name is not revealed until Moses asks, out of pure motives, at the bush that appears to burn. Why do you suppose God made the commandment about “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain…”? God is warning the Hebrew people about assuming that they have power to “invoke” the name Yahweh to do their personal bidding. Yahweh does serve man…, but never for useless carnal pleasures as humans might be tempted to call on, for selfish desires.)
I do not believe that this can be supported by a biblical or an extra-biblical study of the several factors involved in your thesis.
Some of these critical factors are:

1. Knowledge of the culture for each of the writers of biblical text.
2. Knowledge of, or at a minimum, a familiarity with, the distinct languages that the biblical text was written in, as well as knowledge of the spoken languages of the individuals that are written about.
3. Knowledge of language translation processes.
4. Knowledge of literature types that are used by the human agents.

Look for the continuation in Part 2.

God Bless,
DSM

Sphere: Related Content

Related posts:

• Place related post plugin php here...