Cogito Ex Nihilo
Even before there is a word on my tongue, behold, O Lord, You know it all. Psalm 139:4 NASB
Even before– We are fond of claiming that God created out of nothing. The theological term is creation ex nihilo. Although the first verse of Genesis is often read as a proof text for this doctrine[1], theologians also employ other texts in order to justify the idea.[2] Of course, thorough analysis of this doctrine and the texts used to support it will take considerable effort.[3]But today we want to look only at the phrase “even before,” since it hints at much deeper thoughts.
The Hebrew is the conjunction kî and the noun ʾayin. In combination, the text literally might be read as “surely nothing” or “as though nowhere.” There are many other possibilities since both words cover a wide range of English translations. The NASB rendering is an attempt to fit the context of the poem. Essentially the author is trying to capture the idea that God knows everything he is going to say long before the thought finds vocal expression. Here is one of those verses that suggests God reads our minds. In fact, according to this poem, God knows what we are going to say before we even form the words. The end of the verse uses the Hebrew term kōl, a word usually translated “all,” but in this context it can mean much more than simply all the words we might choose to speak. In this context, it’s like a blanket statement. God knows it all! There is nothing He doesn’t know—and, according to kî ‘en (from ʾayin), He knows it all before I can even form the sentence.
This seems wonderful. It’s the reason we are comforted even if we can’t quite say what we desire to express to the Father. It’s also the reason why we don’t need to fear the mischaracterization of the Devil. Satan is not omniscient. He can’t read your mind. The Bible never gives him that sort of power. So God is on our side because He can anticipate everything we might think about.
On the other hand, if God really knows my thoughts ex nihilo, before they are formed, then the implications are rather frightening. If God really does know our thoughts before we think them, then He must have known Adam’s thoughts before Adam thought them. And the woman, of course. That means God created these two human beings knowing that they would think about disobedience, and act on those thoughts. This entangles us in the classic problem of foreknowledge and free will since it leads to the question, “When did God know what I was going to do?” If our interpretation of the psalmist leads us to the claim that God always knew what I was going to do or say, then the consequence is logically inescapable: I could not do or say anything other than what God already knew. He is infallible, after all. And that means, quite simply, I have no freedom to say or act in any way. Maybe we need to rethink this completely.
I have argued that God’s knowledge does not prevent the exercise of human free will.[4] The argument is complicated and the analysis of how we got into this dilemma is long. But what this tells me is that the Psalmist isn’t writing theology. He’s writing about what he feels, and what he feels is that God’s knowledge takes him captive. This does not mean he’s theologically correct. It means he’s emotionally honest.
Perhaps you’ve also felt this way. If God knows everything, then what’s the point of trying? He already knows what we will do and how it will turn out. So life becomes qualunque cosa (“whatever comes next”). The Bible does not paint this picture of human choice, but that doesn’t prevent us from struggling with it. Apparently the Psalmist was just as human as we are.
Topical Index: kî ‘en, even before, foreknowledge, free will, kōl, all, Psalm 139:4
[1]Consider the argument found here: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/creation-ex-nihilo/
[2]”While the actual phrase ‘out of nothing’ does not appear, the idea is clearly taught in the Bible (Gn. 1:1f; Ps. 33:6; Jn. 1:3; Rom. 4:17; 1 Cor. 1:28; Heb. 11:3).” Bruce Milne, see http://tektonics.org/af/exnihilo.php
[3]I recorded more than 6 hours of study on just the first verse of Genesis. Those lectures will be available on my web site some day soon, I hope.
[4]See my book,God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, https://skipmoen.com/books-audio/god-time/
If God knows everything, then what’s the point of trying?
I wonder if, at the bottom of our musings, this is the reason why we don’t fully engage with God. We think tyranny and coercion is the norm, as we both engage and operate in it on a daily basis. Of course we redefine it as terms of loyalty, patriotism, duty, etc….so that seems to transfer into our “relationship” with God. It’s interesting how many times we are told to remember in scripture, so here’s a remembering.
It’s obvious that from the beginning God didn’t “need” us to build a world, He desired us, (stop) to build a world, and with Him at that. Isn’t this the story of the exodus all over again? To free us from the tyranny of our own making, no matter how we defined it, in order to engage with Him and the world around us willingly and with love. (which enables true loyalty, duty, patriotism, etc.) I wonder how the Hebrews reacted when they first heard that they were made in the Image of God? The norm for them was to be consumed by others for the benefit of others (cattle). God doesn’t need cattle, He desires us.
Per your statement, “if God knows everything, then what’s the point of trying? My response, “We don’t know what God knows, so why not continue to move forward and enjoy life as God would like us to.
“It’s obvious from the beginning God didn’t need us to build a world…He desires us.” That is indeed what is profound… “For God so loved the world…”
Skip, thank you for posting the second link. I really enjoyed it!
God has not finished with His creation.
We know He will create “a new heavens and a new earth.”
We know He also offers us a “new life” while we are still
inhabiting this one. Everything is still unfolding.
What is “new” really all about? The old and already existing
is natural. The new and becoming is spiritual or supernatural.
The difference is real, yet beyond man’s ability to explain (which
hasn’t stopped man from trying.) When I come up against the
unknowable, I stand on my gift of faith. “Blessed is the man who
trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him.” Jer 17:7
That soothes my emotional soul. All is well.
My brain is flying a bit. I started reading Skip’s “The Lucky Life”, so I checked the appendix to see if this Jer 17:7 “blessed” is “lucky”. No, so to the Hebrew i go. It is “barukh”. AND this “man” is not “ish” or “adam” or even “zakar”. This man is “haGeber” – forgive me as I am typing on my husband’s tablet and can’t highlight to italicize the Hebrew words – the root verb is “to overpower; control through physical strength” according to Hirsch’s dictionary. In the BDB (Brown, Driver, Briggs) strong, mighty, prevail, confirm a covenant, and on p150 “man as strong, distinguished from women, children, and non-combatants who he is to defend, chiefly poetic…”
“Blessed (by God) is the warrior(?) who trusts in YHVH.” And this trust is “batach”.
Thank you, Rich, for this gives an even deeper meaning to this TW and Ps 139.
Yes, the Psalmist was human; but, as a human, surely he shared with us our propensity to paint God within his/our reference. The Greeks did this with their ideal forms theory, which you begin to discuss in your book (and you convinced me that to try to limit God – function – to form is exactly backwards), but to go on to conclude that free will (which is a function) is an exception to this conclusion by virtue of its dependency upon time/space (which is a ‘form’, if you think about it) is just a little much, isn’t it? I mean, it is only human to want to place God within this ideal form: if nothing else, surely it is because we can see that, within time/space/history, anyway, free will works; but to assume, ipso facto, that because it does work within that frame, it HAS to be limited to that frame (ideal form?) is not a valid argument, even by human standards, right?
I believe the dimensions, including the fourth one of space/time, are a PART of creation, after all, and not ideal forms within which God placed His creation (a point which I believe you hung the premise of your whole book on); and His characteristics – including free will – are surely outside (not subject to) His creation: indeed, creation was made subject to His characteristics. We know for a fact that the spirit is NOT LIMITED by space/time – I mean, even science is catching up on that one – but does that, to follow our ipso facto free will-limited-by-historical-time/space, mean that (in the spirit, anyway) free will is not possible outside that space/time? This one falls flat on the floor for me.
With all due respect (as well as a whole lot of love for your book, too) I am positing that free will – occupying as it does the spiritual realm of God’s character – cannot be limited by the time/space dimensions of creation. We know there are dimensions far above the fourth, where time/space itself is dependent upon higher laws, and we can see that these laws are not subject to the lower laws, either. For example, time/space can ‘violate’ first and second (and even third) dimension characteristics at will, (such as straight ‘lines’ of trajectory bending at the edges of gravity, etc). To ask that God’s spiritual characteristic of free will be subject (limited to) the laws of the physical fourth dimension, if you think about it, limits even our (obviously spiritually derived) free wills, too (by virtue of being a part of being made in His image), but that is another discussion.
Laurita the following messianic teachings come to mind…
Place a guard before your mouth.
What the heart is full of the mouth will spill.
Teach others to keep these teachings.
Then the most striking the response to Peter. Get thee behind me Satan as you think the things of man and not of God…
Then the Greek view of two spirits went out Light and Darkness…
And back to the NT reminder there can be many fathers but only one Master…
Which one do we choose the fathers or the Master’s teachings…
While I DO NOT want to enter into a long philosophical discussion of “free will” here, I note that your assertion that free will cannot be limits by space/time because God, who is not limited by space/time (maybe?) has free will. But God’s free choice is not the issue here. We ARE LIMITED by space/time and therefore, free will as we experience it is also experienced within the space/time continuum, so the issue isn’t how God experiences creation but rather how we experience it. And that’s the problem. If God actually allows us free will within this space/time continuum, then He can’t know IN ADVANCE what we are going to do, and if He does know in advance in this continuum, then we cannot really have free will as we experience it. Whether we are spiritual beings or not has nothing to do with this problem since even if we are spiritual beings we still occupy the space/time continuum. Unless you are suggesting that our “spiritual” component is somehow not inherently spatial/temporal.
Skip now you got me reading…
The God Function: Deus Ex Grammatica
By Morgan A. Brown
Wherein Morgan discusses the relationship between Cogito and Ex Nihilo….
And you are getting me to learn some Latin as well as Greek and Hebrew words.
I don’t think we are arguing. After all, we, as you say, are limited by space/time (in the flesh, anyway) but just because we are limited by it, it does not follow necessarily, as you point out, that God is. Space/time CREATES past/present/future/”know in advance”, but by the same token, is limited by it, too. However, in the great eternal present which is the only ‘time’ you ever find action/function/God (love is that, right?) there can be no “advance”. Therefore, no problem. “Know in advance” is only a problem for those stuck in a time continuum. If history is like a two-dimensional timeline, surely YHVH’s “compassing” action surrounds it all, but at the same time, is not constrained by it. “Advance”, timely speaking, is a constraint, after all: not a freedom from constraint. We can think of “advance” as a form of time travel, but that does not make it freedom FROM time: it in fact makes it a slave TO time. There is no advance in a dance, after all, but we could consider YHVH to represent all possible moves of that dance: to hold them all for us while we pick which trajectory.
I don’t think free will answers to time. We, in the flesh, have free wills limited to the fleshly experience of time MOST OF THE TIME, but they still clearly work outside of that time. The choices people make, say, in vision, for example, are still real choices, even if they are being given visions of past or present as we know it.
Truth sets us free. We only limit ourselves if we insist truth conform to our understanding of it. It is better if we conform our understanding to it. This means I try to throw it all out the window every morning and see what manages to crawl back to the door.
There are two issues for me. The first is, why must the notion of fatalism or determinism be a logical conclusion of prescience or omniscience? If God knows the future, then why is he ultimately responsible for creating or determining it? I’m not sure that is a logical necessity. The Father knew in advance (and so did Yeshua) that Yeshua would be crucified and rise again on the third day, correct? Does that mean that the Father was necessarily the cause of his death? Some Christians would say yes, but I believe that has more to do with their view of penal substitutionary atonement than determinism. Second, the observation of the known universe AND microbiology reveals an extremely complex and ordered system of life–extremely complex and extremely ordered. The level of intelligence is beyond our collective ability to understand. Trying to figure out how much God knows and when he knows it is like an amoeba in a petri dish trying to figure out the complexity of DNA. It ain’t gonna happen.
We are responsible for what we know, for the revealed things. The CEV of Deut. 29:29 is apropos: “The LORD our God hasn’t explained the present or the future, but he has commanded us to obey the laws he gave to us and our descendants.”
Looks like you sometimes learn things, Daniel, the same way I do, by observing the natural world all around us. I’m not a man of high education, and especially not grammar! I like the practical way of looking at things. As far as what God knows and doesn’t know, I believe my attitude is what is most important to Him, not whether He knows the outcome ahead of time.
If we are to understand David in his time and culture, then David was not developing a theological and/or philosophical concept as you have stated. He was expressing his experience with God. For me this psalm tells me that God knows me as only He can. Regardless of what other people may think of me or how they may judge me, God understands my life. In this verse, David could be expressing that a particular circumstance in his life that he is struggling to understand, God already knows before he even speaks it. God is with him and for him.
i know this Psalm ends on a note of self-examination, but I wanted to comment on the overall theme of God knowing me. A drug addicted mother/father is not seen/judged the way a workaholic mother/father is in our society. A murderer is not seen/judged the way an adulterer is in our society. But that doesn’t mean God views us the way society does. Maybe the tenth commandment is there not just for us to consider the danger our thoughts can lead us into but to remind us that God is our ultimate judge. I am not saying murder is not worse than lying. I am saying that God knows the complete circumstances. I take great comfort in knowing this.
Since you mentioned Satan with a capital S, I wanted to comment on this. In Mathew 16, Yeshua calls Peter, Satan. As a believer, I have to decide whether Peter became Satan in that moment, Satan entered into Peter in that moment or Peter was acting in opposition to God’s will so he became an adversary or enemy in that moment and was attempting to block Yeshua from following God’s will. To follow up on your discussion on hell, I guess you would say that people in David’s time would not have believed in satan as a being, but Yeshua would have believed in Satan. My question is, “Can anyone prove this with what we find in the Bible?”
One other point, we know Yeshua did not speak English so we know he never said the word, hell. And there is debate about what language or languages he spoke. As in he might have been trilingual. But for those who believe He taught in Hebrew, are you suggesting He may have thrown in a Greek or Aramaic word when teaching.
The false gods of the nations of David’s time were not false because they were not necessarily real – whether in apparition or in man-made representation of those apparitions: they were false because they were not God. These entities appeared to men in forms that commanded worship. We see this in the apparition of Samuel that appeared in response to Saul’s worship.
The testimony of Mark Cleminson, former Illuminati (find on Youtube) is a modern glimpse of a very real ancient problem. These entities were not being made up (by humans, anyway): they were actually appearing. They still are. Yeshua went head to heel with the problem at its source: one of the chief of creation gone rogue.
Marsha sorry if I cause more confusion. Based on my personal reading of scriptures.
Yeshua seems throughout NT to be referencing to salvation manifesting through anointing.
God’s control and creating ability over his creation all seemed to manifest through God’s instruction not actions… John 1:1-5
It is only found that those anointed enacted or demonstrated God’s will. As animals live out their blueprint, we reshape their conduct through speech and demonstration. Creating in animals actions unto our desires and instructions which are contrary to their initial blueprint…
When God anoints he influences in the same or similar manner directing us through speech and action of other anointed individuals as David is reiterating in this song.
My understanding of Yeshua response to Peter is that even though Peter knew what God’s will with Yeshua was. Peter did not desire the same result and for this he was associated or labelled a Satan. Or rather being contrary to God’s will. I do not believe he became an instrument for Satan or was possessed by Satan for those few seconds. If that was true we may need to consider Yeshua anger and outburst when he cleansed the temple. Was he Satan’s representation for this short period as he did not turn the other cheek or forgive 70 X 70 times… Or was he merely revealing one of the ways that we could experience God’s will in action…
You might consider that the term satan could be more of a “title” than a being. It doesn’t mean that a satan (adversary, as you wrote) doesn’t appear in a physical form or as an entity, it’s just that the particular entity is expressing an opposition to God and His kingdom. Is it the same “entity” that tempted Peter that tempted Adam? Doesn’t have to be, but they performed the same, as did Peter. It’s a lot like sons. (a title) Some who claimed they were sons of God, were told they were sons of the devil. It wasn’t a matter of if they were stuck there, only a matter of their choices at the time, as they were acting in that capacity.
I think when we capitalize the word satan we are saying that this is a being. I haven’t taken a survey but I believe many people do see satan as a being, “Satan”. I mean you may not think he is running around in red tights with a pitchfork, but it gives people the ability to not take responsibility for their actions. If I commit adultery I can blame it on Satan. And it is Peter’s actions, not Satan making him say or act in opposition to God’s will. That’s the way I see it. Would it not be more literal to allow people the choice to decide how to interpret that word just as in the word, hell. Nehemiah Gordon said he had a Christian woman tell him he was going to hell because he didn’t believe in the Messiah. Or maybe she said Jews were going to hell because they didn’t believe in the Messiah. She believes there is an actual place where people will burn forever because of this. I had one man tell me we will be able to actually look from heaven and see people burning in hell. I don’t see that in Scripture. And really for people who do believe in replacement theology, the case is even stronger that the words forever and eternal could be for a period or an age.
Lazarus opened his eyes and sat on Father Abraham’s lap. The rich man opened his eyes and saw Lazarus and asked Father Abraham… I think you may have been referred to this teaching here it seems that there exists a void between heaven and hell which cannot be crossed. But talking between the two places seem possible if we only reference this teaching…
And I think it’s all in the training of those to “see” it a certain way. Technically, (big word) it never says that those who are saved (?) will see those people burning forever, only that they can look upon the place of their destruction forever. (To the age) but it’s not just “satan” and the false prophet, as entities that are thrown into this place, but death itself. I’ve never heard anyone expound to me that death is a being, a living entity. Where does that leave us? Just as a matter of consideration, what is it that would make a person “glory” in the fact that they could come and see another burning and in torment forever? Is that Godliness, or self gratification in vengeance? I don’t find a line between sinners and saints as made in Gods image, never mind the “smear” it attempts to place on the God of Adam. These are some of the issues we need to address in ourselves as well as others. Tough buisiness! But, judgement comes to who first? That’s what makes some of these songs so hard for us., we would rather point out than in.
@marsha … I too have experienced this teaching and believed images of hell (people burning) … This changed when I learned to read scripture with function, purpose, intent in mind “first.” Today I believe the words I “read” are expressed descriptively (form) and are used to paint a picture so to speak. In short, one word does not relay an entire message and when I choose to hang on what the writer says word for word … I oftentimes lose what the writer meant (message). So the message of Satan for me is about obstacles, adversarial stuff. The message of “an awakened soul” in hell (Lazarus and rich man story) is mental anguish of a life not lived in harmony with people and divine purpose. An “awakened” soul refers to one who knewthe good to do but continued to make choices not in ignorance but after/in awareness, enlightenment, consciousness…
Hebrews 6:4-6 … For [it is impossible to restore to repentance] those who have once been enlightened [spiritually] and who have tasted and consciously experienced the heavenly gift and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted and consciously experienced the good word of God and the powers of the age (world) to come, and then have fallen away—it is impossible to bring them back again to repentance, since they again nail the Son of God on the cross [for as far as they are concerned, they are treating the death of Christ as if they were not saved by it], and are holding Him up again to public disgrace.
Regarding the expression, God created “ex nihilo”.
I read the 15 or 20 pages of citations and its own conclusion was, “One may perhaps argue justly that there is nothing in the Bible that indicates a belief in creation ex nihilo [but logic leads] to the conclusion of ex nihilo creation.”
I believe Creationists and Literalists are on the right track, but they are not quite as concise, Scriptural and even scientific as we can be.
First, I agree that matter is not eternal, and God didn’t use pre-existing material in some sort of formless void to organize the universe. That is ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian pagan religious thought. But second, and yet in a similar fashion, to say that God created something out of nothing is along the lines of ungodly magic and as Young says, “At the common-sense level, to speak of making something ‘out of nothing’ tends to turn nothing into something.” Therefore, I hesitate to believe my God created counter to logic and science. But then, what are we left with? Well, there is still one more source. The source of all. Let me start with this verse.
Literal Translation 1Co 11:12 For as the woman is [ek] out of the man, so also the man through the woman; but all things are [ek] from God.
While most translations say the woman is “of” or “from” the man, the Greek word, “ek” primarily denotes, (according to Strong), “origin; from; out”
So, as we know, the woman’s origin came (ek) “out from” the man. And although even this literal translation did not translate as such, the last 2 words of this verse also say, all things are (ek) “out from” God.
This is also consistent with
Concordant Literal 1Co 8:6 nevertheless for us there is one God, the Father, [ek] out of Whom all is, and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom all is, and we through Him.
I believe this harmonizes all issues. Something is not made from nothing, and the Father is literally the origin of everything. All matter is out of God the Father Himself, but through Jesus Christ, who then is also, logically, out of the Father.
Daniel,
I infer from what you wrote that you believe God is eternal, that is, without beginning. If so, I agree. I also agree with your statement that matter is not eternal. Yet in your belief that God created ‘“out from” His Being’ the logical conclusion is that all creation is eternal. That is, if God transformed / metamorphosed part of His Being into something else, the ultimate origins of that ‘something else’ is eternal—it doesn’t cease to be eternal by its transformation. This is monism.
To my way of thinking, creation ex nihilo is the only thing can make sense regarding the origins of the material world.
Agree with your assessment of Daniel’s position, HOWEVER, creation ex nihilo really doesn’t make sense. The only logical position is that matter is eternal. Theologically we claim matter was created “out of nothing,” but, of course, that doesn’t make any sense. It just dogma.
Creation ex nihilo makes as much as sense as their being a Being Who is without beginning. That is, if it’s logical that God has no beginning, how is it illogical that this same Being who simply exists, coming from nothing, can make something from nothing?
Ah, but no one I know argues that God “came from nothing.” As Heidegger said, the greatest question is why is there anything at all. Just because God is always existent might imply that matter could be the same. This is how the Greeks thought about it since they could not conceive of something being generated from nothing. I would suggest that neither can we. There is NOTHING in our experience like this. It is technically inconceivable, although we can say the words. But this is not claimed about God. Forever existing isn’t the same as coming from nothing.
Well, it’s certainly true that one cannot say ‘God came from nothing’, as that is not the definition of eternality. I stated that parenthetical phrase (coming from nothing) incorrectly, for we know that ‘always existing’, is, well, always existing. But my point still stands, which I’ll rephrase: A belief in eternality–that God is eternal–is no more illogical than a belief in creation from nothing. If God didn’t come from something, than why is it illogical to think that God could make something from nothing?
Can someone maybe help clarify what is implied or meant by the scripture records in Habakkuk 3:3 and Malachi 2:15 pertaining to origin of God and manner of creating humans?
Does God have an origin or place from where he originally came? As the other Divine entities…
Did God provide humans with a spiritual portion or did he have excess spirit that remained after he created humans?
If God had a source, He would not be God. Seeker, the following is just what I think and may not help at all. If so, disregard.
“God” MEANS “source of all”.
The word “spirit” is not a noun: like all the rest of God’s attributes, it is a verb: a function. A good golf swing is a function. If I were a great golfer, could I ‘give’ you my swing? Actions can be shared; actions can be enacted UPON; actions can even be replicated (copied) or passed on (think one ball hitting the next one in line), but they cannot be gifted. I think God shares His Spirit with us. David prays for God not to take His Spirit away from him. Yeshua said He would send His Spirit to comfort us, but I don’t think He chopped Him up into little pieces and mailed them like leftover batter for a cake.
God is a function, not a thing. We are made like Him with that function potential (spirit). Without action (would that be life?), in fact, there is no spirit (which is the state of death, of course). I think He made us with the intention of overshadowing the actions (choices) of our spirits with His like a good golfer puts their hands over the hands of another golfer to produce a collective hole in one (pun probably not intended).
Seeker,
In the context of Hab. 3:3, the writer is speaking of known geographic places on earth; it’s not speaking of origins. YHWH came from those places in glory, with that resplendent glory shown in the skies.
In the context of Malachi 2:15, the subject is spiritual marriage (God and his people), using Adam and Eve as a comparison. One cannot press the analogy of “godly offspring” too far. As to “flesh and spirit”, look to Gen 2:7. Recall that “spirit”, ruach, also means ‘breath’, etc.
Craig and Laurita thank you for the responses I appreciate the time you have taken.
Skip,
I’d been thinking about what you wrote regarding the Greek inconceivability of something arising from nothing. I looked up a few of the verses used to support creatio ex nihilo, searching for something definitive—such as a verb for create, build, found in an imperfect tense-form (imperfect t-fs can be used for ingressiveness). But, so far, these verbs are not extant in the imperfect. This would make sense given your claim (which I’m assuming is correct, and not attempting to counter). With this gap in the inflection in these verbal forms, it makes explicitly expressing creation as ex nihilo a bit challenging, though Rev. 4:11 comes very close.
However, John 17:24—especially in conjunction with the near-parallel John 17:5—makes this claim as Jesus expresses his desire to receive again His glory. The final clause is the prepositional phrase pro katabolēs kosmou = before the foundation of the cosmos/before the cosmos’ foundation. The verbal form of the middle noun is kataballō, which prepends kata (“down”) to ballō, the latter meaning “throw”. It can be taken in a strictly literal sense (“throw down”, “strike down”) or more figuratively as in lay a foundation, or “establish”. According to BDAG the verb is used in Plutarch for the founding of a philosophy school. The noun form in 17:24 carries a similar meaning; and, in conjunction with the preposition pro, “before”, preceding it, the usage is clearly in a ‘temporal’ sense (making a concession, and allowing for its usage here in what Christians understand as pre-temporality).
As noted above, this is bolstered in John 17:5: pro ton kosmon einai = before the cosmos existed/was. Without 17:24 it can align with a ‘generated from/out of God’ view, but 17:24 is where the rubber meets the road. Taking other parallel passages with 17:24 in mind (Rev 4:11), they easily help convey creatio ex nihilo. [It also establishes Jesus’ pre-temporality (as “the Word”, since Jesus’ physical body does not predate the incarnation, of course).]
In any case, I don’t see how a view that understands all matter as being eternal escapes a pantheistic sense. If matter is somehow generated from God, then matter is a part of God, of the same essence.
I think you’re right about the implicit pantheism in a proposal of eternal matter, but then that would also be consistent with early Greek thinking. I don’t know if you have a copy of Heigegger’s book on the early Greeks or maybe Guthrie, Jaeger on the theology of the early Greeks, or Kirk and Raven collection. Check them out on this topic. Kirk and Raven actually contains the Greek texts.
I don’t think I have any of those works, though I’d read some of other’s engagement with Jaeger. I’m currently re-reading an essay by Hengel, in which he engages some of this. In any case, while early Greek may have held to pantheistic notions, Platonism steered the way to gnosticism and its inherent dualism of matter and spirit. But the NT promotes neither of those.
BTW, did you see my comment below (Jan 9, 11:36pm) about Orphica? It supports your view.
Yes, I saw that. I also have that 2 volume work although now in storage somewhere and I haven’t read all 2000 pages. I do believe the early Greeks were pantheists (if they were anything at all) but, of course, Plato pushed a dualism that they did not endorse. Anaximander, in particular, seems to have conceived of matter as eternal, but not in the mode like any present form. Others hinted at it, or struggled with it. But none, I would dare to say, ever conceived of something coming from nothing. You might like Heigegger’s work on this stuff.
I’ve not read 10% of Charlesworth’s volumes! Steve Delamarter published a very handy Scripture reference for Charlesworth, which I purchased 8 years ago (for less than 1/2 current rates on Amazon, thankfully). It goes both pseudepigrapha > Scripture & Scripture > pseudepigrapha. Looking up Matthew 1:1, e.g. we find a reference/allusion to Testament of Solomon 1:7. It is by Delamarter’s work that I’d found many of the things in Charlesworth.
Tip: for those unaware, bookfinder dot com is an excellent way to find books at great rates. You can search by author, title, but better is by ISBN.
You’re welcome. I have somewhat of an aversion to Amazon (and other monster retailers that squash the ‘little guy’– like WalMart). I do my best to support, as directly as possible, either the individual author, publisher, or retailer (if that means using Amazon, fine). Amazon is great to look up a work and get its ISBN in order to find it elsewhere.
Abe Books is a decent online book ‘store’, somewhat similar to Amazon but on a lesser budget. After a one year hiatus from buying books or recorded music (budget constraints), I splurged for a book I found in a footnote reference. After getting the ISBN on Amazon I purchased it from Abe Books (seller from the UK–it’s an Oxford UP) for less $$.
In looking for something else entirely, I came across something I’d bookmarked a while back which I think you’ll like. It’s in a work called Orphica (The Short Version [J and C]), ca. 150BC – 50AD (in Charlesworth’s 2 vols. on Pseudepigrapha):
Craig says the only thing that makes sense to him is, creation from nothing, and Skip says logic insists matter is eternal. While I readily confess Craig and Skip can run circles around me with citations of sophisticated but speculative theories regarding the beginning(?) of eternity, well, once again my position is simple and Scriptural, which states all is “out/from/of God”. Material is neither eternal nor out of nothing.
Craig’s problem with my belief is that if anything is part of God’s Being, then it too becomes “eternal”, but that does not necessarily follow. For instance, if all life comes from God then is all life eternal? Good, bad and even animal life? Scripture doesn’t tell us that.
But neither does Craig need to worry that everything material and “out of” God becomes “eternal” in our Greek way of thinking. The Hebrew understanding of the word, “olam” cannot mean endless even though our English versions SOMETIMES translate it, “eternal, everlasting, world without end”. That is a mistake.
“olam” is used over 400 times in the O.T. and so, while its usage varies WITHIN LIMITS, it is quickly shown that it seldom tends towards, “forever”, and quite to the contrary, it can be well argued that it NEVER means eternity in the Greek sense. Olam is derived from the verb, “alam”, universally accepted as meaning, “to hide”, “keep secret”, or, “obscure”. Therefore, the time periods concerned are varied, indefinite, and even mysterious, but they are also limited.
Jonah 2:6 says Jonah was trapped in the fish, in the sea, for a period which he described as “olam”, but he was only there for 3 days. That’s not much of an eternity but he certainly was, “in the dark”,- and I can give examples from every book of the O.T. to show “olam” represents an indefinite, but finite, period of time. The word is used in the singular, the plural, and repeated consecutively. How can that apply to a word that supposedly means, eternal? How many eternals are there?
And even given that God IS eternal, that is still not how the Israelites understood Him. He is the God of the ages, – of old; of now; and, of the definable future. Time periods they could relate to, not something endless that baffles our finite comprehension. (e.g. Try to envision what God doing for all eternity before He created us.)
Daniel I found this earlier TW work by Skip useful in following this TW
Back to bara
By Skip Moen | June 12, 2012
If YHWH is incorporeal, immaterial, then the material world cannot have come ‘out of’ YHWH. That is, unless ‘part’ of the incorporeal essence/being of YHWH were transformed into the material world, which would make the material world of the same essence as YHWH. The transformation does not negate its ultimate origins.
With all due respect, this is circular. All life comes from God in some sense. On that we agree. But the question at hand involves the ‘mechanism’ for how all ‘comes from’ God. If all is generated “out of” God, then all is necessarily ultimately of the same essence/being as God (like begets like), and hence carries the same inherent characteristics, to include eternality (assuming we agree that God is eternal, which we do).
I agree that Scripture does not tell us that the material world is eternal. But we cannot use that position to argue that that which comes “out of” God in a generative sense is not eternal. That is begging the question.
The question should be “how many ‘olams’ are there?”. If an ‘olam’ follows another and yet another endlessly, ad infinitum, then how long is that cumulative time period?
If God, YHWH if the “God of the ‘olams’ (ages)”, and these olams go on endlessly, how long is that?
REPLY to all commenters here: This is an interesting discussion but I notice how easily we get sidetracked from the text of David’s poem. I don’t think he was struggling with ex nihilo creation theories. His is much more personal.
Thanks for the feedback Craig, you and Skip encourage me to keep my paradigms open (even though for the time being I’ll keep them the way they are). And thanks Seeker for the old link. There was a lot of interesting comments there, especially from Christopher Slabchuck and several others.
While it can be frustrating not to be able to nail down a nice tidy answer to everything and to everyone’s satisfaction, I realize that is part of the journey. I should take solace in that God never gave Job the answer he was looking for and my questions are utterly trivial to his.
What is God, anyway? Skip has convinced me that He is the function of love coalescing into determinate nouns that embody that function. Hence, God the Father embodies love’s action of fathering; or, generating, love. Which came first – the chicken or the egg – God or matter – is an argument that created itself: there was a time before chickens or eggs, because time/space, chickens and eggs are all (created) matter, of course. I suspect that time/space itself is created matter that fills a created place (function) where God REMOVED HIMSELF (removed His function) in which to put it. Why? Because if God is love, or total connection, there is no ‘extra’ ‘space’ (see the noun-language-based problem?) unless He alters the way He connects, or functions as Himself, in that place. Obviously, for there to be a place within which nouns, or, things, coalesce there had to be a corresponding EMPTYING of God’s function (of love, or total connection). I think God scooted over, functionally speaking, to make ‘room’ (also functionally speaking) for His creation, but He couldn’t have scooted over materially (which has to do with all the noun things like space/time, matter, etc.) because He is a function (love). That scooting over, or, creating (actions all), had to have been a functional shift, not a MATERIAL one, for materials always show up LAST in creation, not first. First, before any ‘thing’, there is the action of God. The matter (embodiment) of God, too, has to be an end result of His function (love); not the source of it (which also renders the entire argument of the Trinity/One-ity as circular; for me, anyway).
If you start the whole argument (um, many other arguments, too?) from the supposition that God is not a noun verbing (creating) nouns, but instead a verb
(function, or, total connection of love) nouning (speaking into materiality) other functional verbs, or, functions that materialize (matter) to fulfill (through connection, or, love) God’s will (which is that connection, or, intended function), then you could say nouns are the end state, or even left-over material (to borrow Big Bang language) that marks where the intention (or, God’s will) of that love replicated itself. I am saying that matter has to be an (after)effect of the function of love because love creates matter all the time, y’all. Rom. 4:17 tells us clearly the order of operations “calls those things which be not as though they were”. This is the operation of the faith OF the Creator, but this is also love scooting over, or, “humbling” itself for the Other. I think this is why one of God’s characteristics is humility.
The big exception, of course, are sentient beings whom He created to embody (free will) the POTENTIAL of His freely-chosen will. As His will is life and existence, I think the real miracle is the existence of those who are NOT choosing to embody His will. Them folks have to be running on sheer grace, y’all, for existence, or, the noun of matter, is not possible without being connected (love); ‘on its own’, anyway.
“Beset behind and before”? I sure hope so! Especially for us who are insisting on existing so far outside the safety of His will.