Where God Isn’t
If I ascend to heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there. Psalm 139:8 NASB
Behold– We’ve looked at this verse several times.[1]Our previous investigations concentrated on the use of She’ol and its distinction from the contemporary idea of Hell. But this time we’ll look at the tone of the verse, recognizable in the exclamatory utterance, šām. No, it isn’t “behold.” That English word has no equivalent in the Hebrew verse. The translator has added the English expression in order to communicate surprise, as if we would not expect God to be in She’ol. Perhaps we wouldn’t, probably because we tend to think of She’ol as Hell. But the Psalmist doesn’t think like we do. He has no concept of Hell. She’ol is simply the place of the dead—all the dead. Therefore, it should come as no surprise at all that God is present in She’ol. After all, the righteous dead are there. The surprise in this verse is not God’s presence in the place of the dead. The surprise in the verse is something much more subtle. It is the relationship between šām and šēm.
Šām has four possible meanings: location; separation of an agent, instrument of location; a directive force and a temporal indication (e.g., “then”). In this verse, the meaning seems clear enough. It is about location. Šēm, spelled in precisely the same way with a change in the vowel pointing, has a much more complex meaning. Kaiser’s remarks in TWOT demonstrate this:
The concept of personal names in the ot often included existence, character, and reputation (I Sam 25:25). Often the plural form of šēm is rendered as “persons,” (e.g. Num 1:2, 18, 20; 3:40, 43; 26:55). Further “to cut off the name” was equal to liquidating the person himself[2]
Of course, the “Name” (YHVH) is a predominate and essential theme of the Tanakh. “In some passages šēm Yahweh is so inextricably bound up with the being of God, that it functions almost like an appearance of Yahweh.”[3]
Only context can determine if the Hebrew term is vocalized with an “a” or an “e.” In this verse, the poet may actually enlist a subtle pun. “You are there” could be read “Your name.” Since the name of God is the equivalent of His character, the Psalmist might be drawing our attention to the whole character of God in these places rather than simply indicating occupying a location. In other words, all that God is is to be found in both heaven and She’ol. Only the reader can decide to read an “a” rather than an “e.”
What does this mean for those of us who are trying to understand the text from the perspective of the original audience? It means that location is not the issue. In fact, location cannot be the issue. If God is spirit, His presence as spirit is without location, that is, He is everywhere. But “everywhere” is a location. Rather than think of God as everywhere, we are perhaps led to think of His character, His (and now words fail us) fullness throughout all creation—and beyond. But, of course, all of these are location descriptions, only showing us how paltry our language is when it comes to understanding God. Most of us naively commit a spatialization fallacy when we speak about the relationship between God’s eternity and His knowing. In other words, we tend to describe God’s omniscience in spatial terms when, in fact, knowing is a function of temporality. But perhaps we commit a similar fallacy when we think of omnipresence because technically God is not “everywhere.” That location idea strictly doesn’t apply. God is fullness—a term that perhaps encompasses all locations and more, whatever that is.
Do you suppose that the Psalmist is pushing us toward something deeper than simply two locations: heaven and She’ol? Maybe he wants us to think of the “Name” in all its glory and magnificence rather than get distracted by descriptions of some place. What about you? Where do you think God is?
Topical Index: omnipresence, She’ol, there, šām, name, šēm, Psalm 139:8
[1]https://skipmoen.com/2016/04/the-doors-of-heaven-and-hell-2/
https://skipmoen.com/2016/03/the-second-choice/
https://skipmoen.com/2015/10/nightmares/
https://skipmoen.com/2018/10/omnipresence/
[2]Kaiser, W. C. (1999). 2405 שֵׁם. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (934). Chicago: Moody Press.
DON’T FORGET DALLAS (well, almost Dallas)
I WILL BE IN TEXAS one time only in 2019. February 8-9. Here’s the link to register and get all the information. CLICK
He’s beyond. And within.
Where He is, we are with Him,
and He with us.
There are striking parallels between this idea of “fulness” and Eph.3:19 where we are promised the “fulness of God” through the “love of Christ” (notice it is not talking about our love FOR Christ, but rather is referring -like so many other passages about not only love but faith – to the love Christ has).
Even more interesting is Eph. 1:10 where we are told that in the “fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ”. “All things” (creation?): not “all people”. Is creation currently NOT “full”? Not even “time(s)”? Full of what? The verse says that it is the “knowledge of (experience of) the love of Christ” that fills us with God. Here is spelled out what love does: it “fills”! All creation as “one” in Christ is what makes Him the Lord (filler with love?) of that creation. Without the love of God, creation is empty; not full.
I suspect creation is where God voluntarily “humbled Himself”, or emptied out some of His fulness, so as to create potential for something other than Himself, with the design that, in the process of (re)filling that creation with His love, love could be shared with all of that creation that is not Himself. “In like fashion”, Yeshua “emptied Himself” to become the potential that man is created in, so that the will and love of the Father could manifest among men through the Son. This stuff takes my breath away.
We naturally think you need space to have matter, but quantum physics assures us that matter is composed of almost all empty space. What if there could be no space without matter? What if matter is the chicken, and space is the egg? What if the material of creation IS the emptying (or, humbling) of God’s “fulness”, thus providing the space (in between the endpoints of matter) for love to connect all back together? All the real stuff – the fullness that love is – happens in between, after all. The relationship between stuff gives stuff its identity (or lack thereof). The function (connectivity) determines the form. What if we have been asking the questions backwards? We think of matter as the very stuff of reality, but what if it is the least ‘real’ (most dependent) of all?
May I ask if the event in Texas has been published in Facebook? I’d love to share it to friends and family.
Thank you!
I think I can safely say that Skip does not use FB, but there is a group in FB “Today’s Word Messianic Community” – a closed group – that Daniel Mook administrates and has invited us to join. You could certainly do a post yourself, Lucy, mentioning the event. Or check with the organizers to see if they have posted it to FB or elsewhere.
Leslee is correct. I avoid Facebook. But I hope you will come to Texas. Just let Dan know please as he needs to plan for the group size.
The more I know and read, the more I feel like I have taken way more than I can handle. If we are all asking G-d for the same thing why are we all over the place? Makes me feel fractured. However, I am so excited and look forward to this more than you know! I have left messages and emailed…. See you soon!