The Near Eastern Paradigm
When God began to create, the heavens and the earth . . . Genesis 1:1 JPS
When – For years we’ve been exploring the differences between the Near Eastern paradigm of the Bible and the Western paradigm of the Church. These differences make all the difference, particularly when we attempt to understand what the Near Eastern authors of the biblical text were trying to communicate. As soon as we unconsciously slip into hearing their words as if they were part of our paradigm, we automatically misunderstand them, even if the translated words appear to be the same. With this in mind, it’s useful to have a brief summary of some of the pertinent differences before us when we come to the text. Here are a few:
1) Naming. In biblical, Near Eastern thought, naming brings the named object into existence, but this is not a symbol representing the object. It is the essence of the function and role of the object. For Near Eastern thinking, existence is inseparable from operation. What does not perform in relation to me does not exist. This is in stark contrast with Western ideas of the relationship between a name (word) and an object. Eugene Nida’s comment summarizes the Western view: “Meaning is not an intrinsic possession of a word, but is rather ‘a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign.’”[1]
2) The World: Existence is saturated with divinity. There is no dichotomy between sacred and secular. Everything is a function of the purposes of the gods. This is not pantheism. It is rather the recognition that if anything exists at all it is because God or the gods desire it to exist for their purposes. Therefore, there is no neutral space or object in the world. Everything is in some way connected to divinity. In the Western world, we have removed the gods and consequently removed all semblance of divine purpose. In the West, divinity becomes one category of existence, not the intrinsic nature of the cosmos. For the West, space and objects can exist without an essential connection to the divine. This is unthinkable for the East. This includes every historical event.
3) Creation: In Hebrew thought, the cosmos is a manifestation of God’s sovereignty. All that exists are instruments of His purpose. He is not only the originator but also the one who establishes the control and the control attributes. He determines the destinies of all. Control attributes are like standing orders. They are the permanent determined functions of the way the universe works. Destinies, however, are provisional. What is happening now and for what purpose always expresses a divine connection but it is not always clear what this means. Creation is an unfolding mystery. Just as an event is unique and ultimately unpredictable in a world of free choice, so the final shape of creation will be unique and unpredictable from human perspective. The only fixed point is that it will serve God’s purposes. Creation is an unparalleled event, not just the beginning of a causal chain. As such, it is an amazing mystery, a glimpse into the heart of a personal God.
4) Function: Existence is functional. It is defined by the relationships, not by an interior sense of self nor by an external, abstract categorization. What is is observable, but is not limited to human observation. The world of the divine also observes and, as a result, expresses divine functionality within the created order. Abstraction is a Western concept, marked by a penchant for causal relations and equations. Ancient Near Eastern thought is like case law as opposed to universal ethics. It concerns itself with the events, not the principles. This is why there is no systematic theology from the East, for the very idea of a system of theology assumes reduction and abstraction of the cornucopia of events.
5) Attributes: God’s attributes are not interior qualities. They are exterior actions. God is what He does. The combination of consonants that make up His name are, in fact, actions and He is essentially more like a verb than a noun. In this regard, God is the author of both good and evil, but the determining factor between the two is what God does, not a list of moral attributes as if God were accountable to some higher ethical standard (a Western conception of “good”). Good is what God does–whatever He does. We do not have a list of moral actions that apply to God. That is Greek conceptualization
Perhaps these few summaries will assist you in reading the text from the perspective of a paradigm radically different than our Western view. Perhaps you will find some unsettling changes in your exegesis. But then you might just be closer to Moses than to Martin Luther.
Topical Index: Near Eastern paradigm, exegesis, existence, function, Genesis 1:1
[1] Craig D. Allert, A High View of Scripture?: The Authority of the Bible and the Formation of the New Testament Canon (BakerAcademic. 2007), p. 153, citing E. A. Nida, exploring Semantic Structures (1975), p. 14.
