What is the character of God? Surely Platonic theology must always seek to downplay the plain display here of Yahweh's character that seems at odds with itself. To get a handle on the potency of this passage it is good to read some Christian and Jewish commentary of it. Here is the Geneva Study Bible's commentary on verse 6.
"God never repents, but he speaks in human terms, because he destroyed him, and in a way that denied him as a creature."
If you are a Calvinist (Plato influenced) Christian, the writer of Genesis must have slipped into a "human" mode of explanation since God's thoughts cannot be understood and later Scripture and theology flatly denies that God is capable of repenting his own actions.
Wesley is just as uncomfortable with Genesis 6:6. Here is his commentary.
"And it repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth" — That he had made a creature of such noble powers, and had put him on this earth, which he built and furnished on purpose to be a comfortable habitation for him; and it grieved him at his heart - These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon God's immutability or felicity. It doth not speak any passion or uneasiness in God, nothing can create disturbance to the eternal mind; but it speaks his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners: neither doth it speak any change of God's mind; for with him there is no variableness; but it speaks a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed, Exodus 31:17. and his way towards him was such as shewed him well pleased with the work of his own hands; but now man was apostatized, he could not do otherwise, but shew himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God.
I must hasten to point out that both commentaries are uneasy with Yahweh's unease. "It doth not speak any passion or uneasiness in God, nothing can create disturbance to the eternal mind." Both Wesley and the Geneva Bible manage to miss the point. Yahweh's passion cannot be denied as he repents of his own act of creation, and his subsequent, perhaps even hasty decision to blot out man from the earth in an unparalleled act of human genocide. Any sense of God's Immutability (A Platonic ideal) is deeply called into question by this passage, and I would submit that all of us, of every theological and secular stripe are left disturbed here.
Historically Genesis 6 was probably written by the writer scholars call "J." The early Old Testament was more than likely a combination of complex, subtle and not so subtle edits of various writers designated as J, E, P, and D. J, the Yahwist, because his writings all contain Yahweh or "The Lord" may have been the earliest writer in the Bible. This explains the cognitive dissonance evoked by certain verses, and also why some of Genesis makes more sense when the J passages are separated from the rest.
I was fifteen when I first read Genesis 6, and nothing brought into question the theology of my Christian upbringing more than my own contemplation of Yahweh's character, particularly as it is presented here. Nothing is more anti-theological than Yahweh who will be where he will be, and won't be where he won't (Exodus 3). "Immutable" is a theological concept, and Yahweh does indeed seem to become immutable over time (E, P and D each present a more unchanging Yahweh with less character). Yet even Christian theologians are disturbed by this passage. The "J" verses are often quoted by "Open theists" as proof that God can change his mind, and that he in fact learns as he goes, giving us the choice. God and Man Choose together. This is close to a Jewish treatment of Genesis 6. I recommend Arbraham Herschel's "God in Search of Man." Most Jews by definition would be "open theists" except with-out Christ. It's only the Platonic influenced parts of Judaism that are disrupted by this passage. Kabbalah influenced commentaries seem to ignore it altogether, instead focusing on the numerology of the verses in a complex way. It is easier to ignore Genesis 6 then to face it, particularly if you are theologically driven. If you are a Christian and not an Open theist you may be disturbed by the ramifications of Yahweh's character displayed here. One apologetics website fights Open Theism with this retort:
(Genesis 6:6).. is not a problem for Classical Christian Theism nor is it a proof text for Open Theism. The verse simply tells us that the Lord was grieved and had sorrow in His heart for making man. Why? Because mankind had fallen into great sin and this grieved the Lord. Does it mean that God didn't know that mankind would fall and become sinful? Of course not. Cannot God know that they would become sinners and also be grieved when it happens? Of course. Let me illustrate.
I have children. I love them and provide for them. But, they have grieved me in their various sins -- as any child will do to his parents. I knew they would grieve me when they were born because I know they are sinners by nature. This doesn't mean I was surprised and didn't know they would rebel when it happened. Quite the contrary; knowing they would sin doesn't mean I won't be grieved when their rebellion and sin is finally manifested.
The open theist would have us believe that God was grieved because He was surprised or didn't know the depths of sin to which the world would fall. But surely, even in Open Theism, God knew that people would sin. So, this verse can't be claimed to demonstrate that God didn't know the future choices of people.
This is funny because it misses the point. The apologetics writer here may know that his children are going to rebel against him. But he doesn't decide to drown them out of his foreknowledge! Yahweh is more shocked then we want to admit, and this may be disturbing to some, but I find it quite liberating. "All too human" is a good description of Yahweh as he is presented in "J." We can write whatever we want about Genesis 6, but we cannot change the wording of it. All of our theological disruptions go back to it, and careful readers of the Bible can drown in it, without the ark of theology and later explanation.
6 comments:
"nothing can create disturbance to the eternal mind; but it speaks his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners: neither doth it speak any change of God's mind; for with him there is no variableness"
Would it deny God's character of immutability if He changed His mind? I have to think about that. What is meant by immutability? What does it apply to? I wouldn't say that God learns as He goes, but I think that He can choose to change His mind, way, whatever, if his children ask for it. There are instances in the Old Testament where he was going to destroy His wicked children and instead he had mercy because some of his righteous children prayed for it.
Is it a change in way as Wesley says? Or mind? I don't know. Does it mean that God is not just by carrying through with the penalties that He layed out? I don't think so. I think there are other parts of His character that are always at work in any action He does--in the instances I mentioned, mercy and love. And I'm wondering at the moment if it even matters that our prayers might cause a change in mind. Does that make him less God or does that simply reveal His love?
As far as "nothing can create disturbance to an eternal mind." Where the heck did Wesley get that from? haha That makes God sound like a machine! Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Here's how I view that Gen. 6 passage. To me it goes back to creation. A little was mentioned already about how after each part of the creation process, God took a break, sat back and said, "It is good." Then he kept going.
To me this is true artistry. That's what we do right? I especially think of painters doing that. I can also view God as a gardener. I think tending his creation, his people, is a deep part of God. So he plants a garden that's beautiful, then the garden gets infested with weeds and the flowers become diseased. The garden begins to look terrible. Except the analogy breaks down at this point: God couldn't pull out the weeds or simply eradicate disease like a real gardener, because he has granted freedom. Those bad consequences are apart of bad choices--a part of freedom granted.
So he sees His beautiful work is far from what it was created to be. He decides to uproot the whole thing, except for a few flowers that have managed to retain some of their original beauty (Noah and his family). Who says that an artist, a creator, would not have the right to do that to His creation? I don't know if I can say God doesn't have that right.
So I think I would tend to view Gen. 6 through an artist's lens. It's strange, but there is something about Gen. 6 that makes God very real and relateable to me(looking at it through an artists perspective I mean).
*Side note...I want to hear more of your views about these scholars of the earlier writings. I hadn't heard some of the stuff you were saying.
Interesting article. Loved the food for thought. You're a good writer.
JCrew,
"Immutability" is generally regarded as a theological concept of the unchangeableness of God. The theories are derived mostly from the Church Fathers, who took their ideas from Greek Philosophy, Plato and Aristotle. Perhaps I should have said "personality" instead of "character," when discussing God here. We think of "Personality" as being able to change more than the rigid definition of "character"
The reason I love this passage of scripture, is that it seems to disrupt God's unchangeness. Not only does God repent of his own actions, but he angrily wipes out nearly all of humanity in his rage.
Like you I balked at the irony of Wesley's "Machine" view of God, so easily derived from Greek Philosophy and not early Judaism, which believed and believes in a personal God very much involved, and perhaps very much bewildered by us at times, as we are of him. (An interesting thought!) (God is in search of Man, as Man is in search of God)
I liked your treatment of Genesis 6 as a Garden metaphor as made through an Artist's lens. That is indeed beautiful, and it softens the harshness of this passage considerably. My only point is that the passage isn't easily softened. Like you, I find God to be real when I see him as an artist, but I also find him more real when I consider a God who is balked and bewildered by his own creation, who angrily lashes out. Artists do that too.
Yeah Gen. 6 is very different from the the God of the New Testament who claims to come to earth Himself and die for the humanity he once destroyed! I understand your point--a God who would destroy humanity is a big pill to swallow... especially if one believes in the intrinsic worth of human beings.
I love how people can look at a passage and get something totally different. It's interesting how you see God perhaps more as bewildered and maybe almost thoughtlessly(?) responding in rage. I could see that, though I think it's more probable that it were not rash. (I'm totally putting words in your mouth. ha)
The immutability of God is easy to understand in simple definition, but I wonder after reading your note and others' thoughts of what that would apply to. Does it apply to ever facet of Him? Does He never change in any way? Certainly His ways change. I think Scripture would prove that's obvious. But his mind? If he's also omniscient than theoretically He would have no need to change His mind. Even if He does change His mind as a result of our prayers, then surely He must've known ages ago that He would do that. So is it changing His mind? My head is about to explode. I think that I may never get much further than that on the subject!
Hmmm... not sure why my comment vanished. Maybe I delete messages in my sleep.
Like you JCrew I am mystified by the New Testament's anxious relationship to this passage. (2 Peter 2, 1 Peter 3, Hebrews 11 are interesting). God does not seem to require the spiritual remedy of Jesus with Noah. Nor does he seem aware of it as a possibility. It simply doesn't occur to him.
But the entire episode is turned into a metaphor and an object lesson by the New Testament. Softening the narrative. Demonstrating the power of revision in Biblical Literature.
This passage stands in high anxiety to much of the rest of the Bible, which is why it intrigues me. Who wrote this? Scholars tell us J-- Yahweh (Yahwist), J was most likely the earliest writer, and it is interesting the every Yahweh verse in the Pentateuch suggests a very anthropomorphic (All too human) God.
To demonstrate J and I think P (Two of the different writers in Genesis, read Genesis 1. Then read Genesis 2:4 and read that account. Take note of the differences between the accounts (There are a few)... and the writing style. Also the names of God are different. Scholars think there are two different versions of the same story imbedded by an editor into Genesis. J, most likely wrote Genesis 2:4.
That is a plausible account historically of why the passage exists. But I don't think we can ever know for sure. Much of that is very speculative.
Even so I love this passage, and your comments.
I'm probably too elementary in my understanding of theology to attempt conversation with you on your intellectual level but I'm loving it nonetheless! So thank you for obliging me ;)
I went back and read some of Genesis and I can see some differences as you mentioned. I'd never heard of anyone but Moses who wrote the Pentateuch. However, it seems very possible he could've edited. I'd never thought of that.
The only reason I couldn't readily accept the theory of multiple authors of the Pentateuch (which I know you are merely putting at there as a possibility) is that the New Testament credits Moses as the author and giver of the law in certain places (for example, Jn. 1:17, Rev. 15:3). However, it's interesting and I wanna check that out more.
I know what you mean, God does seem so very human in the Old Testament. Maybe we can see two different sides of humanity by looking at the Old and New Testaments. I hadn't really thought of that before.
So it doesn't seem to you like God thinks of Jesus in the O.T. era as a possibility for future redemption? I mean I can definitely see how one would think so given the fact that he waited so long to send Jesus. It's like if He had thought of that, then why didn't He just do it for the people in Noah's time instead of destroying them.
But what about all the symbols God so obviously planned in the O.T. era that point to Jesus--many of which are reiterated by Jews in the N.T?
Of course I'm no scholar and don't understand everything about Biblical revision. But there are a lot of symbols there in the O.T. writings that I guess would make it hard for me to espouse the Biblical revision theory. To me it seems like God had everything planned quite meticulously. I should probably check out the Biblical revision theory a bit more.
I can't pretend that Old and New Testament fusion is easy to attempt. And there's some CRAZY shit in the O.T. for sure! Love that you've given me stuff to chew on.
Being a Christian myself without a considered denomination, I view the Bible as a very literal and stone doctrine. I take everything it says literally and when I become confused, I search for the opinions of others and try to see if that would make sense. I have heard of the "more than one writer" theory. I first heard it in a secular documentary that tried to point out flaws in the faith. Needless to say, they didn't dig deep enough. One thing that must be considered is that God is viewed as a perfect being and humans are not. They once were (Adam and Eve), but then they sinned and all humans after them thus sin against God.
This is one situation I came up with for the "multiple writers" theory. We all know that there are a lot of Bibles in different languages, translations, editions, levels of language, etc. Way back in the day in Jerusalem, the sacred scrolls were stored inside of the temple. Many times the temple was destroyed and set fire to by other civilizations. Let's say for example that we have a scroll of Genesis: The First Book of Moses from 1000 BC and another scroll from 600 BC. Both scrolls are incomplete and they are thus combined to reform the book of Genesis since the scrolls were all destroyed. In that sense, it could explain the more than one writer theory. Just my two cents. :)
Post a Comment