Sound or Sight
Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” Genesis 18:20-21 NIV
See– God knows everything, right? God sees everything without error, right? Then why does God say that, while He has heard the cry, He still needs to go down and seeif what He has heard is true? Does that make any sense to you? It won’t if you have a Western-Greek view of God. If God is the omniscient, omnipresent, perfect Being of theology, then the trip is superfluous. There is absolutely no reason for God to go take a look. He already knows everything about the place. In fact, if this text actually describes God, we should conclude that He is anything but omni-this or that. And since we have already decided that the theology God is the real God, we reject the idea that He needed to investigate in person before He could draw a conclusion. But, of course, that means we have to ignore the plain meaning of the text.
In order to ignore what the text actually implies we have to supply an alternative reading. The first choice is that these words are really just anthropomorphic, that is, they don’t actually describe God as God. They are just there for our benefit, to make God seem more like us. This is a common explanation for all sorts of disturbing verses in Scripture. God really isn’t angry, vengeful, sorrowful, repentant, undecided, emotional, etc. Those are just helpful words for us. God is really omni-everything, totally unlike human beings, transcendental, removed from the world of change and emotion, the grand principle of Being. What we get if we follow the logic is Aquinas’ unmoved mover, C. S. Lewis’ God as idea. To be a person means being subject to change, remembering, planning, experiencing emotions. And since the God of theology is perfect, nothing can ever change anything about Him. If something did change, then either God wasn’t already perfect or He is no longer perfect, and either way, He can’t be God. So none of these transitory states of “person” actually apply to God.
But the Bible doesn’t say this. It says that God came down to see what was true. Why? Because sound is ambiguous. It doesn’t always communicate what is really happening. Is the outcry a party or a panic? Is the screech a crash or a prank? We have to look to be sure. Apparently, so does God.
You might counter with this: “Well, the whole story is a drama played out for Abraham. God sets the stage to see how Abraham will respond.” Ah, but doesn’t God already know what Abraham will do? Then why the charade? Why test Abraham if God knows the result in advance? This answer is as lame as the theological one. The text just says something else. God hears and He comes to look—just like we would.
The Hebrew God of the Tanakh is far more human than we would like to admit. Oh, boy, is that ever uncomfortable. But maybe we are reading the text from the wrong paradigm.
Topical Index: see, Abraham, paradigm, human, Genesis 18:20-21
“The Hebrew God of the Tanakh is far more human than we would like to admit. Oh, boy, is that ever uncomfortable.”
Perhaps, but doesn’t Scripture suggest that He even knows what we are thinking. That’s not mere “human” capability. Yeshua raised the bar on the 10 Commandments when He said that we are guilty for even “thinking” about murder or adultery.
“Do not covet…” Matters #9 and #10, imho, cover that nasty “thinking” thing, which Yeshua reminds us of with his words.
Not sure your point, which is a good one, actually addresses this issue. Of course God knows all that can be known. In that regard He is not like us. But the point of this lesson is that the Tanakh describes God in much more human terms than modern theology, and in ways that are quite uncomfortable for our popular beliefs about the transcendent being.
God is the all seeing, all knowing God
Hmm! You might want to rethink this. Your declaration is basically a Greek philosophical position asserted originally by Parmenides and adopted with theological modification by Augustine, Boethius, Aquinas and most modern theology. Open theism finally recognizes what I claimed 37 years ago in my doctoral thesis. The events percolated by free choice CANNOT be known as fixed fact in advance. They are POSSIBILITIES, not actualities. The Greek view, which in implied in your response, fails to recognize this and consequently creates all kinds of problems for God’s involvement with the world. See Nelson Pike, God and Timelessness, as the seminal work in this area.
I remember thinking as a child, ‘If God knows everything that’s going to happen, then what’s the point?’
Impossible to really understand or figure out!
Could it be like GPS? Like, you didn’t listen so now you will have to deal with what I didn’t want you to go through if you had listened. But I believe He understands why we didn’t. Confusion. Not recognizing He was trying to direct us. Lies believed. The verse that says ‘He pities those who fear Him because He knows we are made of dust’ made an impression on me!
Skip made the point in his book God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience that time is not a static Greek river with predetermined events already arranged in order. Time is interactive because we have free will. In the Greek notion of time, God does not have free will either: time shoves Him around, too. But all prophecy is open-ended, as is the covenantal relationship He shares with us. He knows all PROBABILITIES of choices, but the way I read the Good Book, the end of time itself remains open-ended; dependent upon our end of the wrap-up. He is waiting on us: we are not waiting on Him.
When God came down to check out the Sodom situation, he interacted with Abraham, and allowed him to weigh in on the decision of what to do about the problem. I think Moses must have been remembering that situation when he interceded for Israel generations later. This is a terrifying open end! If indeed we have the capacity to jointly affect the future, as well as the lives of others and perhaps even the fate of all creation, as head of the created order (in our neck of the woods, anyway), won’t we be getting judged for what we DIDN’T do right about all that, as well as what we may or may not have done ‘wrong’?
If repentance is how right relations with my Creator is restored, then I need to know what I have to repent for. If my created purpose is to intercede for that creation, as well as work in tandem with my Creator in establishing order in that creation, then I must needs repent for all I am lacking in those departments before I can be restored to the full capacity (perfection) redemption expects me to be restored to. It’s going to take an eternity to realize that potential! And repent properly for it! I need to start now!
On another note, I have been reflecting about the Greek notion of perfection. The Bible says that we are not “good”: sources of goodness. But, what if we were not created to be good, or, “perfect” (at least by our Greek understanding of that word, anyway) in the first place ON OUR OWN? What if the word means, as Skip says “complete”: as in a completed circuit or a completed puzzle? Then I need to quit scurrying around trying to be “perfect” and start looking for ways to complete my circuit with heaven, myself and the rest of creation.
I suspect perhaps when God came to see what was going on in Sodom, He was completing an interactive circuit that included some joint decision-making about what to do about it. I think a God Who has free will has the capacity to create a universe in which He works in conjunction with His creation to “perfect” a circuit, too. Paul says that we are “perfected” in Christ. I think God may be the other half of a mutual symbiosis; one that is entirely voluntary on both sides. If so, then He has chosen to limit Himself to the choices of His creation, too. He clearly was bargaining with Abraham, who was the high priest for that region. I think of Caiphas, the high priest who disobeyed the orders that Aaron was given ( to never rend his priestly garments) when his sons died, and so brought upon his region the curse (“lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people” Lev. 10:6) that Aaron was warned of. Interactive all the way.
I hope I’m not too completely off base but, I look at perfection and repentance on the terms of holiness. The meaning of holiness as being set apart, different. Set apart in the way I think as in desire to serve and obey what YHVH has placed before us each day. A desire to walk upright with His words before my eyes and in my heart. Set apart in how I view this world and a desire to see the people to reach the inner peace and restoration from a life lived without hope and meaning. Set free from what binds our inner man from experiencing what can set them free from the entanglements from selfish desires and death. Allowing openness into my struggles and sinful nature and experiences.
Repentance on my part from being selfish enough to keep what I have experienced hidden under a basket or turning off my light . I don’t know how to separate what I have experienced and what I walk through with who I understand YHVH is in the scriptures.
I appreciate you perspective, I think it is the way it is.
Laurie, I really liked what you said here. The part about being ‘perfect’ reminded me of an experience I had about 10 years ago. When I woke up in the morning, I had a vision of a digital clock with REV 3:2 written on it. I quickly ran downstairs to get a Bible before I forgot what the verse was. Rev 3:2. Rev 3:2. I kept repeating it until I got a Bible. The version I read went like this: Strengthen that which is ready to die for I have not found your works perfect before God. That really shocked me. What did that mean? What was ready to die? My marriage? Perfect? What did that mean? I found out or was told that ‘perfect’ meant not complete. A relief that was! Not really sure what I was supposed to strengthen. I have thoughts on it but not sure! Because of this experience I really like the movie ‘Evan Almighty’.
In verse 18:16 we see that the 3 men rose and looked towards Sodom Abraham seems to have mentioned it to them.. Next verse states should I hide from Abraham what I am doing. YHWH is having a discourse with the other two men and in chapter 19 its only two that go.It doesn’t appear that YHWH is unaware. Have you ever had a close friend and they come to you and tell you of a bad situation but you already know about it. Do you act rude ,oh I already new that ,usually they will shut down and be offended you did not tell them. They feel betrayed. Many times it’s best to hold my thoughts and opinions before I hear them out . I don’t become interested in doing anything until I fully know how that person feels. I may not even tell them i knew.We have this idea God is really interested in every minutia of every person or group at all times. Being Abraham is a friend he shows deep concern for what is grieving Abraham about Lot living there. He is careing and not condescending to his dear friend he listens just like a friend would do. Maybe it’s not that God doesn’t know but is not interested until we cry out,or make it known or he intercedes in the affairs of men who thwart his will. I often use the phrase ” I am not interested” even if I have knowledge of it. Could it be YHWH has selective hearing or omniscience. I am also fine with the saying(,it is but it isn’t) .That tension is throughout the bible and that’s God’s prerogative his thoughts and ways are surely not ours.
“selective omniscience”? What is that? deciding not to know something you know? Really. You’re not making any sense at all now, but you are holding on to the illogical conclusions of the standard idea of omniscience. Better read my book before you get into any more logical quicksand.
I said (maybe) and it was more for this scriptures you used. There are many others scriptures that prove your pt better. How you think is not something new nor do I need to get your book. Many a scholar before you have drawn the same conclusions and I see no problem with it. I guess I should of said God is but he isnt omniscient at times. The writers of the bible seem to use total,selective,impartial and objective when they speak of God and his omniscience. Where did I say I decided not to know something that I knew , I said I don’t reveal everything I know in a given situation or act on it or even be interested until I listen to the others pt.of view before I speak.
I’m sorry, I think I should say. From your reply it sounds as if you thought I was personally attacking you. I try never to do that. It was the IDEA the I was trying to debate. I’m sure you see the problems with the stronger, and typical, claims about omniscience.
I find that the word (all) in all knowing not to mean all without exception. God seems to make a distinction on what he chooses to know and not to know. He sure did not stop the writers of the bible from conveying that. I heard a sermon on how God knows everything about you including what tooth paste you use. just don’t think that’s high priority on his list of knowing. I also think he does not tell us everything he knows ,obviously ,so the word selective is not contradictory in my usage. There’s a difference in disagreeing with you and being offended by you. If I felt offended all the time or hurt by what you say would of left along time ago??
Great. Glad you’re not offended.
In the Aramaic targums, expressions like “angry, vengeful, sorrowful, repentant, undecided, emotional, etc” are all attributed to the “word of the Lord”. It seems this was done because of the anthropomorphic nature of the emotions attributed to God.
So God had none of these feelings until he created man . hmm.
WAIT! Who determined that the expressions are anthropomorphic? Why did they decide this? Why did they choose this option despite the fact that the biblical text never says this? Why do we think emotions attributed to God are not real? You’re wading in philosophical assumptions here.
Skip if this was a reply to my 12:16 post, here are just a few examples from targums: Deut 28:63 “YHWH once delighted” becomes “The Word of the Lord rejoiced over you”. Another is Lev 20:23 “YHWH abhorred…” becomes “My Word abhorred…” Finally Gen 6:6 “YHWH regretted” becomes “there was repentance before the Lord in His Word”. There are well over 200 cases I found in which Word/Word of the Lord replaces YHWH in the Aramaic targum commentary. I have read that this was done because of concern for anthropomorphisms connected with God in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Interesting. Yes, the rabbis were uncomfortable with the humanity of God in the Tanakh, but so were most Christians in the early centuries. Makes you wonder why they felt the need to removed God from human intimacy.
Skips right if everything is predestined,it throws choice, free will, and possibilities out the window.
I agree that YHWH is perfect but not only does he want to see (He already knows) but wants us to see how His holy emissaries will be received. What a difference from how Abraham receives these beings and how Sodom & Gomorrah received them. It elicits an outcry from me as well and justifies the action He takes. But I wonder, will I intercede as Abraham for the few righteous in their midst?
OK, so if God already knows, then why the charade? Why pretend that Abraham’s negotiation has any REAL meaning? No, now you have entered into a logical quandary that isn’t going to be resolved easily, certainly not by simply asserting that “God knows.” Now you will have to read my book. Then see what you think.
I have wondered if God was not testing or creating boundaries with the Genesis narration…
Were the records in Genesis not mostly narrated to Moses who was but the scribe?
God could have been selective with how and what he communicated. So it could imply what is recorded later in scripture, for a purpose e.g. for the people of the time to test him in certain things, ask questions… Because as you have often reiterated God does or allows things just so that we can ask and grow in wisdom.
He does not leave us in the dark but neither does he provide all the answers. How else are we to grow towards his intent. I doubt if spoonfeeding was God’s choice, it is us that want him to provide everything. Even though the message is… We have sufficient it is our requests that burden us and make us keep God at a distance. If that is possible…
Reading it from a different paradigm. Indeed, it’s not that God is human like, it’s that we have the granted capacity to be “Godlike”. I didn’t say we can be Gods, only Godlike. As Laurita keeps hammering us in regards too, it’s the connection, that is willing and mutual, that makes that possible. The Messiah was/is very Godlike, even to the point of knowing what others were thinking, (I’m not opening up the “Jesus is YHWH debate) but then again, He was perfectly (completely) connected in the Life He lived here. Again I’ll say, when we read that, we’re made in Gods image, our jaws should drop. If we’re contemplative, what does that say of God? No other living thing on this earth has that ability. And there’s an innumerable host of things we are capable of that’s not granted to anything else. But, it’s all about the connection, after all, even our breath is His. That is the part we need to remember, all the rest is overflow.
Thanks, Skip. You have elucidated an uncomfortable insight I have struggled with. As I pondered exactly what ‘God’ I was dealing with, the very uncomfortable thought came, “What if he looked just like anyone? What if he does not reveal Himself because that would be too frightening?”
Thank you Skip!