 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/22/2001 4:39 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi all-
I’m in Dallas working with our translation committee (for the Arabic study Bible we’re doing) this whole week. Today we had a lively discussion about Gen. 2.2-3 (RSV):quote:
2 And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation.
We had a difficult time finding a good word in Arabic to render “rest.” God rested? The Hebrew (where are ya pia?) is shabat (where we get the Sabbath), meaning to rest in the sense of ceasing work or abstaining from engagement in work. The words commonly used in Arabic for “resting” involve the notion of rejuvenation of depleted strength and have been used by Muslim apologists to suggest that the Bible teaches that God “spent energy and needed to rest” to “regain” his ability, the idea being that at the end of the sixth day God was “less capable” to perform than he was when he started creating or after he rested. If God “resting” suggests an expenditure (i.e. loss) of energy which resting restores to him, then are we not suggesting a fundamental change in God’s power? Not the sovereign willful limiting of the exercise of his power which relating to contingent free-will beings entails, but something more fundamental.
I suggested that shabathere connotes merely to the cessation of work. Everyone was happy and we moved on. But then we stumbled (by my design) into Exodus 31.17:quote:
It is a sign for ever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested [shabat], and was refreshed [nephesh].'"
The later verb, nephesh suggests much more than “ceasing” or “stopping” one’s work. It suggests something more along the lines of “refreshed himself.” What, pray tell, might this mean? If it’s anthropomorphic, what’s it anthropomorphic of? Seems to suggest that God “gets tired” or “becomes weak.” If it doesn’t suggest this, then is the door opened to understand ALL anthropomorphisms in a less than literal, reality-depicting way?
Pia, I don’t have Fretheim’s book with me. It’s at home. Does he say anything about either Gen. 2:2.3 or Ex. 31.17?
Why isn’t T. Fretheim a member of this forum? Somebody get him in here!
Blessings,
Tom
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
 |
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/22/2001 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | I’m supposed to be writing a midterm, but I couldn’t resist this one.…
Tom, Fretheim doesn’t write much about God’s rest (I will pass your question on to him), but here’s a snippet of what Brueggeman has to say in his commentary on Genesis: “The creator does not spend his six days of work in coercion but in faithful invitation. God does not spend the seventh day in exhaustion but in serenity and peace. In contrast to the gods of Babylon, this God is not anxious abut his creation but is at ease with the well-being of his rule.…” (p. 35). He goes on to discuss the Sabbath as an expression of God’s will for a new humanity, devoid of grasping, exploitation, etc., and Jesus as Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28).
But theologically, if God self-limited divine power in creating autonomous (i.e. with power of their own) creatures, then maybe God really was tired? Like a mother resting with a newborn child, in joy and peace—and without the pain women are cursed with in childbirth, but also not without creative effort and ingenuity and dreams about the on-going process of growth in the years to come. Hmm. Probably not a very helpful trajectory for your Arabic translation.…
I’ve always found the fact that God rested on the seventh day very comforting.…  I never thought about the theological implications for omnipotence and the exegetical implications for anthropomorphisms until you brought it up.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 10/23/2001 3:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Oy vay. NOW we want to say that the "omnipotent" God actually TIRES and loses power??? I quit...
PS: Tom said:
quote:
If it doesn’t suggest this, then is the door opened to understand ALL anthropomorphisms in a less than literal, reality-depicting way?
Ya think?
Edited by - mephi2K on 10/23/2001 08:42:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/23/2001 5:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Oy vay. NOW we want to say that the "omnipotent" God actually TIRES and loses power??? I quit...
Self-limiting power is not the same as “losing” power. If we are guilty of naïveté for entertaining the possibility that God rested because God wanted to be refreshed, then so is the author of Exod. 31:17.
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 10/23/2001 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | | Pia,
My point is this. How far can "self-limitation" of omnipotence be taken before we call a spade a spade and just say that God is, for all practical intents and purposes, FINITE in his power? The term "omnipotent" is becoming without meaning to me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/23/2001 7:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
My point is this. How far can "self-limitation" of omnipotence be taken before we call a spade a spade and just say that God is, for all practical intents and purposes, FINITE in his power? The term "omnipotent" is becoming without meaning to me.
If God is all-powerful, then God is only-powerful—I mean, nothing else can have any power. God is infinite in duration (Alpha and Omega), presence (God is even present in the depths of Sheol according to the Psalmist), knowledge (God keeps track of the sparrows and the number of hairs on our head), love (God so loved the kosmos), and God was unlimited in power—until God decided to create something other than Godself.
I think that’s the difference between your theology and mine—you explain (our perception of) evil by saying “God won’t”—thus you’re okay with God as limited in terms of (our perception of) goodness. I explain evil by saying “God can’t”—thus I’m okay with God as self-limited in terms of power. We all pick our poison.
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/23/2001 7:54 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm with Mephi on this one. I'll be back later with a great quote to this effect.
"to be neurotic is human, to be psychotic is sinful...."
Paul Tillich | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/23/2001 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry Modes. I think I’m a realist.     Are you going to come back with a quote from Kierkegaard? I hope so, cuz I think Søren’s on my side on this one. pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren
Edited by - pia†desideria on 10/23/2001 1:15:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
MrIndifference
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144
| Posted 10/23/2001 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | I just think that rest in that sense is that God sat back, relaxed, and meant to enjoy what He created. Child birth was not meant to be painful, but instead the pain came with the knowledge from the fruit. I read an argument once about how when Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge that the new knowledge they recieved made their cranium grow. From that larger cranium child birth became painful. Interesting thought.
Mr I. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 10/23/2001 10:28 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB" The later verb, nephesh suggests much more than "ceasing" or "stopping" one’s work. It suggests something more along the lines of "refreshed himself." What, pray tell, might this mean?
Doc: Isn’t the root meaning here something like "to breath deeply"? Does it necessarily have the connotation of "recuperation"? When I finish a task I’m proud of, I sometimes look at it and take a deep breath of satisfaction – as if to sigh "ahhhhhhh." If I’m correct, the passage IS an anthropomorphism, for God doesn’t literally breath. But it has a meaning. It signifies God’s satisfaction at what he just accomplished.
TGB If it’s anthropomorphic, what’s it anthropomorphic of? Seems to suggest that God "gets tired" or "becomes weak." If it doesn’t suggest this, then is the door opened to understand ALL anthropomorphisms in a less than literal, reality-depicting way?
Doc: If the word MUST mean "recuperate" in this context, then we have a serious problem. For, on the assumption that God DOESN’T recuperate (an assumption I share), the anthropomorphism that says he DOES "recuperate" MEANS NOTHING. This is precisely the problem classical theologians face with regard to passages that say God changes his mind or regrets or experiences disappointment or surprise or speaks and thinks of the future in terms of maybes. If God DOESN’T do any of these things, the phrases are not anthropomorphic ways of depicting the reality of God. They are anthropomorphic ways of denying the reality of God.
Mephi: How far can "self-limitation" of omnipotence be taken before we call a spade a spade and just say that God is, for all practical intents and purposes, FINITE in his power?
Doc: As I said, I am not advocating that God got "tired "from creation – though the Bible certainly depicts him as getting "weary" of other things. For example, in Jere. 15:6 the Lord says "I am weary of relenting." This aside, there is no incompatiblility between saying "God is omnipotent" and saying that "for all practical intents and purposes, [God is] finite in his power." For all intents and purposes IN THIS PROBATIONAL EPOCH, God is, BY HIS OWN DESIGN, finite in his power. This is what it means to say God LIMITED himself. He originally possessed all power. He shall again when this epoch is over. But right now, he has given some of this "say-so" away to other beings (esp. spirits and humans).
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2001 4:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi friends-
Keep it going friends. I’m listening!
One the one hand proponents of the OV insist (rightly so) that anthropomorphisms like “God regretted” or “God rejoices” are literally true in the sense that there is a fundamental similarity between “regret” and “joy” as we humans understand it and the “regret” and “joy” being attributed to God. Otherwise, as Doc says, it’s not an anthropomorphic depiction of the reality which is God. To be consistent here, OVers need to grapple with Ex. 31.17. God “resting” or “ceasing” (shabat) is less a problem than God being “refreshed” (nephesh), which in itself suggests (on the human side) that in terms of his omnipotence God came to be in need of “recuperating.” I think we all (Pia?) would agree, as Doc says, that this would be a huge problem. It takes us outside the limits of omnipotence by any definition. [Interestingly, this is one example of bring to a text a previous understanding of God and allowing that understanding to limit the possible interpretations.]
The sort of self-limitation Pia has mentioned (and which I mentioned in the opening post) doesn’t suggest a rejuvenation of depleted ability, but in this case neither does it provide a meaningful interface to account for the needed “similarity” OVers want to posit in metaphorical language.
The answer rests (no pun intended) with knowing the possible meanings nephesh might have had. Doc has suggested that we begin with “take a deep breath.” The nominal form of this word does indeed mean “breath.” Doc suggests we understand the sort of breath one breathes when satisfied with having accomplished his goal. This may be the way to go. In may be all we’re left with. In this case, in Ex. 31.17 (=Ex. 23.12) God “ceased his work” (shabat) and “took satisfaction” (?) (nephesh) in it; kind of what Genesis gets at with the phrase “God saw that it was good.” This is cool. However, nephesh can hardly have this meaning in 2Sam. 16.14, "And the king and all the people with him arrived at their destination exhausted. And there he refreshed [nephesh] himself." This is obviously “recuperation.” These are the only three OT texts which use nephesh as a verb. Slim pickins, but it’s all we have to go on.
What points of similarity exist between nephesh as WE understand it (which exegetically can only be informed by 2Sam. 16.14 since it’s the only non-metaphorical passage we have to base our understanding on) and an omnipotent God as we understand him? This is the rub. Points of similarity have to be established in order for the metaphor to have meaning. I guess I’d like to find harder exegetical reasons for preferring “took satisfaction in” over “recuperated” for nephesh when used of God. We’re basically assuming on theological grounds brought in from elsewhere that nephesh cannot mean for God in Ex. 31.17 and Ex. 23.12 what it clearly means of the king in 2Sam. 16.14. We have to deal with what we have in the text and what we know about God from the rest of Scripture. Doc’s “a breath of satisfaction” (as opposed to a breath of recuperation) rescues us, but there’s no direct evidence for it (neither is there evidence against it). I’d just like to have harder linguistic evidence from the passage itself. Oh well.
Lastly, if by “anthropomorphism” some mean to suggest that there’s nothing about nephesh in Ex. 31.17 as we humans understand it that corresponds to something in God (being here attributed to him, or her!), then I suggest that this part of the text of Ex. 31.17 does not actually “communicate” anything about God. This is where much of the argumentation about anthropomorphic language on the part of OV opponents takes us, as Doc has pointed out. To these I ask, Is there much difference between a God who speaks of himself in meaningless (I’d say misleading) ways and a God who needs to recuperate?
Tom 
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor
Edited by - tgb on 10/23/2001 9:41:43 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/24/2001 4:01 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Interestingly, this is one example of bring to a text a previous understanding of God and allowing that understanding to limit the possible interpretations.
Exactly. If we assume this text is anthropomorphic because it does not fit with our presuppositions about omnipotence, then we end up with an interpretation that reveals nothing about God, other than God’s desire (or the priestly writer’s) to establish a precident for humans to keep the Sabbath. Once again, God is merely going through human motions—just like every other time God is the subject of a verb in the Bible. Sheesh.
Hey Tom, is there any relationship between ruach and nephesh? Like breathing out and breathing in? My imagination is misbehaving again…
pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2001 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: "My point is this. How far can "self-limitation" of omnipotence be taken before we call a spade a spade and just say that God is, for all practical intents and purposes, FINITE in his power? The term "omnipotent" is becoming without meaning to me."
From the rear of the peanut gallery...."God is, for all practical intents and purposes, FINITE." (Did that too! Bethlehem. )
(o)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/24/2001 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: The term "omnipotent" is becoming without meaning to me."
POT-"WOW": the OMNI's in themselves are very human creations. (and macho at that--subject to criticism of being used to reinforce domination-based views. Pia?) The Omni's have devotional value, perspectival value in that a saying like that God rules "heaven and earth, the seas and all that is in them" (the opening my pastor uses on Sunday morning in our CRC church) can lead me in both worshiping and trusting such a good, great, and big God. That's an ant's eye perspective. The Orthodox "Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages" is also very big. WOW.
But left by itself that might become an idol!
The other perspective is "God is with us". "God is the Lord, and has revealed Himself unto us. Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord" (to the Russian tune that begins the 1812 overture). And, "Thou it was Who brought us from nonexistence into being, and when we had fallen away didst raise us up again,and didst not cease to do all things until Thou hast brought us up to heaven and has endowed us with Thy Kingdom which is to come."
That is not the world of seen Omni-s; of distance. That is the world of "face to face."
My two cents.
PotOnWheel
(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/24/2001 12:00:56 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/24/2001 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
the OMNI's in themselves are very human creations. (and macho at that--subject to criticism of being used to reinforce domination-based views. Pia?)
Ya think?
I was wondering if I was way out on a theological limb in this thread, until I started reading for one of my classes. Check it out: “Existence is power by very definition.…An omnipotent reality would have to be the only reality.…In bringing a world into being, God has chosen to share power.…Perhaps our own obsession with power has led us to think it the best of divine compliments to attribute total power to God, but perhaps we are wrong.…” I’m not alone!
Okay, I admit it, this was written by a process theologian (Marjorie Suchocki, In God’s Presence), but as one of my professors is fond of reminding us, “You can stand on a slippery slope.…” LOL! Yeah, and you can fall over the edge.… Don’t worry, on Christ the solid rock I stand and I don’t plan on going anywhere. pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 10/24/2001 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | | For anyone wondering (huh? what modes?) the quote I promised is found in the new thread I started on omnipotence and derived free creatures.
Looking for some hard core thinking on that when ya'll get the chance. 
"to be neurotic is human, to be psychotic is sinful...."
Paul Tillich | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 10/25/2001 4:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Michael Welker says that for the lover, “the free self-withdrawal that characterizes the relation to the beloved persons is not perceived as a burden or a loss…because it makes possible the continuation and increase of love and of the freedom mediated by love” (God the Spirit, 249). Does this make sense? Does it help? pia
~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
If I have ventured wrongly, well, then life helps me by punishing me. But if I have not ventured at all who helps me then? § Søren | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/26/2001 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey Tom, is there any relationship between ruach and nephesh? Like breathing out and breathing in? My imagination is misbehaving again…
pia
Hey Pia,
Good question. You’d have to take a look at all the uses. nephesh (as a noun) usually signifies something like “soul” (as a human being), right? ruach can mean “spirit,” “breath,” or “wind.” I don’t know of any examples of ruach being used to mean “breath out” or “breath into.” Gen. 2.7 comes to mind. There you have an entirely different verb (napach) used to describe God “breathing into” Adam the breath (nasham, a different work again!) of life.
Tom
“Christianity is all for practice, and so much time as is spent in quarrels about it is a diminution to its interest. We inquire so much what it is that we have but little time left to be Christians.” Jeremy Taylor | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|