Sit, Walk, Stand
The counsel of YHWH stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations. Psalm 33:11
Stands – How shall we read this verse? If we read from the perspective of Greek metaphysics, we will read it as Millard Erickson explains: “God is described as unchanging. . . . This divine constancy involves several aspects. There is first no quantitative change. God cannot increase in anything, because he is already perfection. Nor can he decrease, for if he were to, he would cease to be God. There also is no qualitative change. . . . Therefore, God does not change his mind, plans, or actions, for these rest upon his nature, which remains unchanged no matter what occurs.”[1]
It’s a very good thing that Erickson titles his book, Christian Theology, because it certainly cannot be a Hebrew theology. We know that the description Erickson suggests could mean only one thing in Hebrew thought – such a “god” does not exist. Yet the fundamentals of Erickson’s analysis are found in Christian theologians from the 3rd Century to the present day. There seems to be only one conclusion. Whatever Christian theology is talking about, it is not YHWH.
The Hebrew verb here is ‘amad. As a verb of dynamic action, ‘amad is the completion of a movement, from rising to establishing a place or position. “To stand” is part of a continuum which begins with “to rise.” In other words, it is not possible to conceive of the action of standing without imaging the spectrum of motion which results in establishing a position. For the Hebrew, there is no such thing as inactive being. It is simply not possible to conceive of God as static, unchanging and immutable. What is static, unchanging and immutable does not exist.
This is exactly what we would expect from a phenomenological language. After all, point to one single living thing in the world that does not move or change. In fact, those things which we designate as animate beings are dead when they stop moving or changing. Since Hebrew describes the world as it is, the conception of a god who defies everything known about living things is simply inconceivable. Well, not quite. The Tanakh does describe gods who do not move or change. It calls them idols.
Imagine the conversation between an orthodox Jew who embraces a fully-articulated Biblical worldview and a Christian. What do you suppose the Jew will think when the Christian begins to talk about God’s immutability? He will draw the only conclusion he can. Such a god is an idol. Such a god must be rejected because a god who does not and cannot change can’t be alive. The argument is over. It won’t do any good to try to explain a living god who never changes. That is simply a contradiction in terms.
Christians think they believe in the god of the Bible, but their own theologians describe this god in terms that can only be applied to false gods. Who do you suppose it closer to the truth? What perspective did David have when he wrote about the counsel of YHWH? Do you think David believed in the doctrine of immutability?
Topical Index: stands, ‘amad, Psalm 33:11, immutability
[1] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker Book House, 1985), p. 278.
I wonder how the theologians explain G-d’s bargaining with Abraham over the fate of Sodom (I think it was that city)… He seems to change His mind several times there. 🙂 Just because we don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it isn’t so.
So what you are saying when David wrote, “The counsel of YHWH stands forever,” is that what he really means is ‘The counsel of YHWH stands forever,’ which is subject to change.
No, that’s not what I am saying. The use of “stands forever” implies temporal permanence. The continuum moves from lying down to standing up, but David asserts that God’s counsel will always stand – will always be reliable, firm and established. We should think of this as continuously renewed, not as statically fixed.
OK – gotcha’ Thanks. You weren’t kidding when you implied that we were going to get into something that would cause “A whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on here!”
Then what would you say about what He says in Hebrews 13:8 and James 1:17, Malachi 3:6.
The verses you have chosen emphasize the constancy of God’s reliability and faithfulness. We see His continuous trustworthiness in His gracious acts toward men. However, there are two ways to look at what these verses say. The first way is typical of theology since the influence of the early Church fathers, and in particular, Augustine. For these men, perfection entailed immutability – a state of unchanging being. The concept goes back to Parmenides. The argument (articulated clearly by Aquinas) is simple: if something is perfect, nothing can be added or taken away from it. If something can be added, then the object wasn’t perfect to being with. If something can be taken away, then the object wasn’t perfect either. Therefore, whatever changes cannot be perfect and since God is perfect, God cannot change. Of course, this implies that God cannot have new thoughts, change His mind or (shockingly) feel anything (this is called impassibility). In spite of these logical implications, conservative Christian theology – both Catholic and Protestant – have followed this Greek metaphysics and applied it to biblical passages.
In radical contradiction, Hebrew thought views God as known in His acts, acts which are in a constant state of change. So, attribution about God’s unchanging nature cannot be descriptions of the way God acts in the world. They must be about something else. And in Hebrew thought, these attributions are about His trustworthiness, not about His interactions with men. His character never changes, but that is not the same as saying that He doesn’t change in this thoughts, deeds, decisions, feelings, etc.
There is a LOT more to say about all this.
Now this is just my picture of what you are saying, but to me when I think of His perfection, nothing can be added or subtracted from that perfection, but that is perfection of righteousness and character in all that He is and does. I don’t see where that implies that He can’t think or act, but I do not believe He can change His mind or is going to think up something new here when He says He is the beginning and the end and has seen from the beginning to the end, and already knows us, His plans, and what we are, and will do, and what He will do from the beginning to the end, and He has no end. Now after this life He may have other ideas we have not seen, and may do more, but I don’t see how a perfect plan from a perfect, all-knowing mind would need to be changed. I don’t see how that subtracts from His ability to perform action according to what He infinitely knows. Perhaps I am not understanding your view yet.
Kay
From my understanding of His reponse to Abraham about Sodom was He was letting Abraham see His righteousness in the situation. God already knew who was righteous and who was not that was left in Sodom and what He was going to do was righteous judgment. The conversation also brings out Abraham’s heart of mercy that wanted to understand Father God’s mind and character in that situation.
Skip … very interesting take on unchanging perfection … and you will receive no debate from this corner. Based upon the actions of ELOHIM we know that “perfectly immutable” pertains to The LORD’s essential attributes. HOLINESS, FAITHFULNESS, RIGHTEOUSNESS and so forth (praise HIM forever and a day) … But this does not mean that The LORD does not go from “pleased to unhappy with us and our efforts” for example … as was the case with Israel! Just accepting that YHVH has emotional change mandates the existence of a “dynamic G_D”.
As such we can be assured that The LORD’s covenant and promises still stand! We can be assured that HE HAS DONE IT! Now for the tricky part which Skip is commenting upon … The LORD is doing it right now and The LORD will continue to do it forever … in a very real time manner. I like to use the following passage from the Book of Isaiah to best understand this dynamic:
43,25 I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake; and thy sins I will not remember.
From a literal perspective is there cause for us to not believe YHVH? Why do we not believe that HE will specifically cease to remember (remove from existence) our transgression? It seems clear that YHVH is declaring a new condition for HIMSELF … a change from: “remembering to not remembering.” (Let us not forget … HE is all knowing … the only way that He can forget is to remove it from existence)
Oh most certainly we can theorize that YHVH will simply not hold us accountable for our transgressions for the sake of Yeshua … that YHVH is declaring grace! … Yet it does seem that there is more … it does seem that we are talking about a complete removal of transgression … as if it never existed … as if YHVH is removing it from even HIS realm of comprehension … HE creates and apparently HE can un-create!
I am not sure that we need to get hung up on the issue of a “dynamic G_D” … it does not change the character or essential attributes of YHVH … nor does it change the outcome of HIS Promises or Covenants or Plans … understanding the dynamic nature of YHVH only makes me realize just how much HE wants us (individually and communally) to influence existence.
Regarding the Orthodox Jewish thought … well let it be sufficient that there are “some things” which they do need to get but how is a Gentile going to drive a Jew to jealousy if everything we do is foreign and nothing that would be expected of an Israelite?
Hi Drew,
I just finished reading May 1st and May 2nd teachings. I’m a little behind. Just wanted to thank you for your comments. They helped me tremendously in being able to wrap my mind around some of the complex teaching and blogging that was going on. I was beginning to wonder if I’d been worshipping an idol all these years. :-)))
This is heavy but good teaching. I feel so blessed to be a part of it.
Thanks again…Judi
Shalom Judi,
Very kind commentary and always remember … if there is subject matter that does not confuse “all of us” at some point there is definitely something very wrong with our perspective! 🙂
We are blessed indeed … by this site … and by each other! And in the midst of all this there really is something very special going on … the movement of persons being called toward a deeper understanding of Yeshua. An understanding that is certainly designed to help strengthen and spread the Kingdom for HIS glory!
Think about it for a moment … 20 or even ten years ago contemplating this site as it stands today and commentary being shared … who could have thunk it? LOL
“a change from: “remembering to not remembering.” (Let us not forget … HE is all knowing … the only way that He can forget is to remove it from existence).” Interesting comments, but I can’t help but think that someone who is standing outside of time, can, if they so desire, turn to a point in that ‘time’ that they are observing as an outsider where those transgressions do not exist.
Ah, the problem is the spatial fallacy of being “outside” of time. That treats time as space, with local extension or points on a line. All of that is Greek. If time is the dynamic of relationship action, then it does not have spatial dimensions. It is not “located” on a line. We have to rethink, and this is very, very difficult because our language and metaphysics are all wrapped around space. Consider the fact that God does not sanctify space. He sanctifies time (Sabbath). That should tell you something.
If there are no points in time, like points on a line, then how can One know the end from the beginning? Or, how can One santify (which here I mean separate) the time of the Sabbath without knowing the previous and following periods of time (days)? Additionally, for me time has been considered a limit, and since God is limitless He is outside of time, not hindered by its limit.
Hi Fred,
Remember what Bruce Lee says in Enter the Dragon: “a finger pointing to the moon.” 🙂
Sorry, I missed that one; I guess I’m showing my age (70 in a couple of days).
“how can One santify (which here I mean separate) the time of the Sabbath without knowing the previous and following periods of time (days)?”
Hi Fred,
Sorry for the cryptic response, forgot to put your question up there, then meant to get back to you sooner.
Anyway, I think they determine the Sabbath by the phases of thr moon.
Remember that it is not time without relations to other moments (before and after). The Greek image is time as if it had spatial position (the river). That is the problem. The Hebrew view is time as motion – the relationship of the change of one thing to another – a constant in our world. But the Greeks believed this world was a corrupted reflection of the true, eternal world where nothing every needed to change (perfection). So, we end up with a dualism where this world is illusion. Not so with Hebrew thought.
The problem is difficult and perhaps a bit esoteric. We tend to think of space by location. So, the location of my church is at Main and Hook street no matter where I might be or where anyone else might be. The frame of the location is the space-dimentional world. (I am going to leave aside the complex issues of frame-relativity for this discussion). But time doesn’t work like that. My relationship to an event is determined by “before” and “after”, not north, south, east, west or left or right, up and down. In other words, “points” in time are all relative to each other. They don’t exist as fixed positions because the position always depends on the relationship to the observer. All things in the past are past in accordance with their relationship to me, but obviously not in relation to Abraham. The Greek idea of space dominates our concepts of time – so we tend to think of time in spatial metaphors, like the future is “ahead” of me and the past is “behind” me. That pushes our concept of time onto the spatial matrix of a fixed sequence of events, like the flotsam on a river. Thus the Greek talked about time as if it were a river and only the position on the river bank determined the “present.” If this were true, then we could speak of God as “outside” of time (exactly what that means is very unclear). What we most likely think is that God somehow “sees” all of the temporal river at “once,” because we think of the events as linearly fixed. Of course, the great paradox with this view is any clear articulation of free choice.
When we read the Hebrew text, we do not encounter language that suggests anything like a God “outside” of time. In fact, we find just the opposite. God is integrally involved in the temporal relationships of life. So, where did the idea of an ex-temporal existence come from? Well, it didn’t come from the Bible. It came from Greek philosophy – particularly the idea of perfection. And thus, the issue.
Skip, I appreciate your patience with me because I know you’re a busy man. I have for a long time been intrigued by the idea of space and time as creations of God, and under-graduate philosophy didn’t really cover that subject in any depth. Is there anything that you could recommend on space and time from a Hebrew perspective?
Hold on while I think about this.
All Skip is pointing out is that a Hebraic viewpoint does not … and can not impose a human understanding of ELOHIM outside the auspices of Revelation and actions taken, defined within our perceptive reality. What we know of ELOHIM is what HE has told us and what we can validate within the confines of our existence.
G_D is ALIVE, REAL and DYNAMIC. LIFE is ALIVE, REAL and DYNAMIC! How G_D insures the outcome of HIS creation within a framework of variability, change and free choice is for me a function of faith (not theology) … I do not need to understand the how (HIS ways are not like ours; our minds can not fathom HIS thoughts) … but it is important that I understand the why?
And as for the why? ELOHIM is a loving creator …. HE is a forger of design, actions and outcome. (This He has revealed and proven by deed) … We are made in HIS image and likeness and so we too affect existence … some will affect the outcome in accordance with HIS plan … others sadly will not and will ultimately be swept away!
Life is to be viewed in the context of: “is my relationship with The Lord such that my actions are driven by this relationship and lead me to working for HIS desired outcome or against it” … how else can we balance what Paul declares: work out your salvation in fear and trembling? Paul’s declaration supports a dynamic scenario … certainly working in fear and trembling is not static nor is it presumptuous of a supreme being that is lax in temporal interaction.
I think the key to these commentaries which Skip is being inspired to provide are not designed to have us “mentally get it” or to … “figure it out”. The intent is to understand that it is not about mental acumen or elegant theology … it is about dealing with YHVH on a regular basis and exercising our G_D given gift to bring about His desire for humanity and in so doing bring HIM glory. “Well done good and faithful servant” is not the result of chance or The Lord exercising dominion over a person’s free will!
And if G_D is not dynamic then why would we even pray? Like Paul I need G_D now and at all times … for who will rescue me from my wretched self?
Forgive my rambling … I suppose theology (especially the traditions I was trained in) just hits a nerve!
Skip … if I am mis-representing your intentions please reach out and correct where necessary …. it ain’t like I got all the answers! 🙂
When you think about it some of the people who say God does not/cannot change believe that the God who once chose Israel as his own believe God changed his mind on that issue. They believe that he changed his choice from Israel to what they view as a distinct new entity: the church.
A supercessionist would be inconsistent if they took the Christian position Skip lays out here.