Proof Text Context
“I will not carry out my fierce anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not mortal; in your midst (is) the Holy One. And I will not come in wrath.” Hosea 11:9 (translation J. Dearman)
For I am God – It’s possible that you’ve heard this verse expounded in its true context, but I rather doubt it. You see, this is a favorite verse used to support the unbridgeable gap between God and Man. Usually translated “for I am God and not a man,” the passage becomes doctrinal fodder for the claim that God is so different from human beings that all we can say at best is He isn’t like us. This leads to theological attributes such as infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, impassible and perfect. Each attribute is determined by examining a human characteristic and then asserting that God is not like a man. He is the opposite of what we are.[1] We are finite, limited in ability and temporal. God is infinite, unlimited in ability and extemporal. And so it goes.
Now notice the context of this verse. The context is exactly the opposite of an assertion that God is ontologically removed from the human situation. God’s remark is ethical, not ontological. The context suggests that any ordinary human being would long ago have given up on rebellious Israel. Any human being would have wanted justice, demanded punishment or recompense. After one thousand years of rebellion, a human king would have destroyed these people. But God is not a man! God does not act as human beings would act. His love exceeds anything human beings express. He is faithful without faltering. In that sense, He is not like us. He loves long after we give up.
The verse does not suggest that God is so different from us that we can’t even begin to comprehend Him. The verse declares that God is quite a bit like us except He acts with complete faithfulness. We are encouraged to look at God’s character as we would examine our own, to discover that we know what it means to want justice for an offense and then, shockingly discover that God withholds His rightful claim in order to fulfill His promise. God is not like a man because God acts morally and ethically in every situation, even in those situations where we can’t imagine ourselves doing anything of the sort. If this verse accomplishes anything at all in its context, it shows me just how close God is to me, not how distant and distinct He is. This verse describes God in ways that we clearly understand. We just don’t do what God does. We quit. He doesn’t.
When Greek metaphysics invaded biblical thinking a lot of very foreign ideas about God crept into the theological edifice of the Church. Theologians, fascinated by the apparent serendipity between Greek philosophy and post-Judaic biblical thinking, asserted that Greek philosophy provided a foundation in reason for the prophetically-revealed divine truth. This synthesis has been incorporated into Christianity, but an examination of the context often produces different conclusions. The next time someone begins to speak about God’s transcendental attributes, take a second, very long look before you agree.
Topical Index: attributes, context, Hosea 11:9
[1] For the theologians among us, this is called the via negativa.
“He loves long after we give up. … We quit. He doesn’t.”
Praise YHWH that He doesn’t give up! This reminds me of a song by Lenny LeBlanc on “All For Love” CD. “Let It Be” begins with these lines:
Let the river flow deep in the desert
Let the lost and the lonely find their way home
For the promise of the Father will not be broken
Let it be
Skip
From your post, this question seems to follow:
God exhibits “complete faithfulness”, which, of course, would make this an “attribute” of God.
You say the traditional attributes of God are grounded in Greek thinking, not Scripture, implying that God is not “infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, impassible and perfect”.
So what conclusions can be drawn from these two statements? That God’s faithfulness is limited, subject to change, less than perfect (i.e. immature), emotionless, lacking knowledge, and sufficiently powerless to be untrustworthy?
I wrote a very long reply but I just lost it for some reason. I’m not going to write it again. Suffice it to say that I think your dichotomy here is a false one. There is no doubt that philosophical presuppositions found in Greek metaphysics played an enormous role in the formation of many Christian doctrines. I refer you to the impact of Aquinas. It is a mistake to assume that just because we do not follow the via negative formation of God’s attributes, we are therefore forced to deny certain aspects of divinity. What we must do is recover the biblical view and abandon the views that rest on Greek paradigms.
My book, God, Time and the Limits of Omniscience, deals with this topic in great detail.
I agree most heartedly. By all means let’s abandon Greek thought and ground ourselves in Scripture.
So now the question becomes what is the biblical view of God?
If I’ve created a “false dichotomy” it might well be because I’m trying to find your replacement(s) to the the alleged “Greek” attributes of God.
I’ve read the book you refer to, and look forward to its sequel. 🙂
Shalom, Ian. I have been involved in discussions about this very topic on another blog over the last couple of days. Someone there posted a myriad of scriptures (out of context) as proof texts describing each of the “attributes” of God that Skip mentioned, and more. One I particularly took issue with was the concept that “God is immutable, incapable of change”.
Really?
Does God never experience emotion? Does he not grieve over some and rejoice over others? Is he not joyful, then sad, then disappointed, then again joyful when one returns to Him and repents?
Is God never angry? Does He never change His mind? Or was Moses merely wasting his breath when, in the face of God’s determination to wipe out all of Israel (because they mixed pagan worship with what was Holy) and start over with Moses, he interceded and repented on behalf of the nation, in response to which “God repented of his anger” and did not destroy them. If God never intended to destroy them, why did Moses bother?
The problem is that experiencing emotion is, by definition change. Change implies the passage of time, therefore God cannot be extemporal (since extemporality implies no change). If God experiences change, then He is not immutable. The God of scripture, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not unfeeling, remote, immovable, uncaring, unhearing or unseeing. That is the description of a god made of wood, iron, clay, silver, gold (e.g., perhaps, a golden calf?)…
The immutable God is completely foreign to the Hebrew mindset. No such God is described anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. If we read the scriptures as describing a God like that, then it is our understanding (or perhaps the translator’s understanding) that is at fault.
I meant to continue to say that the thing that never changes is God’s character, His absolute reliability and trustworthiness. That never changes.
So He is immutable — unchangeable — in reliability and trustworthiness?
If you want to express it that way, I guess you could say that. That puts limits on immutability, just like Skip proposed that there are necessary limits to omniscience, however that is different from the concept of absolute immutability.
Character, not behavior, although behavior is a result of character – but it can be displayed in many different (and changeable) ways
Rodney
I have to post here so you get the reply. Skip’s blog only allows so many levels in depth in the discussion.
Now it seems we are really on the same page. The problem is not immutability as such, it is with the manner in which the concept is read in Scripture then applied. I agree with you, “absolute immutability” does not fit the biblical record. Neither does “no” immutability.
Shalom.
It took me 360 pages to offer a biblical definition of omniscience. And immutability is even more difficult.
Rodney,
Two questions:
“The problem is that experiencing emotion is, by definition change.” What’s your rationale for saying this?
“No such God is described anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures.” What’s your explanation of Mal. 3:6?
Regarding Malachi 3:6, the context is almost the same as Hosea 11:9 that Skip was quoting above.
Mal 3:5-7 ESV – [5] “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. [6] “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed. [7] From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from my statutes and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you, says the LORD of hosts. But you say, ‘How shall we return?’
Paraphrase: “I was a judge against the wicked then, and I am now. I am righteous, just and true, defender of the weak, the widow, the poor and the stranger. The wicked have oppressed you, but I made covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, therefore you are not consumed. My covenant still stands. Return to me and I will return to you.”
God’s character never changes. That is not the same as saying that He is immutable.
Regarding experiencing emotion being change, well, are you exactly the same in every respect when you’re happy as when you’re angry? Or does something change? Is not the transition from happy to sad to angry to a change?
I’ll chime in on the first question. It is the common and ubiquitous experience of all human beings that emotions are transitory. This is why the Greek called them “passions” and why they saw emotions as passive and deadly. I would daresay that if we were ever meet a being who displayed absolutely no emotions, we would not consider that being alive (for example, a computer can function “like” a human mind but until computers actually have their own emotions, they are considered machines, not living organisms). Human beings routinely ascribe emotions to animals as well. But what would we thing about a God that logically could not experience emotions? I submit that we would conclude what the prophets concluded. Such a god is not real.
Yet you know from my book that traditional Christian theology asserts the doctrine of impassibility as a logical extension of hard immutability. That is to say, Christian theologians, in spite of Scripture, have asserted that God CANNOT feel since feelings are, by definition, transitory. How do then they explain Scripture’s overwhelming evidence for a God who feels? Ah, it’s all just anthropomorphic. Something seems a bit wrong here.
I agree with your comment about “anthropomorphic” interpretations. Certainly some — maybe the majority — have asserted what you claim. Fortunately, there have been some Christian theologians who have handled the texts of Scripture a little better.
I’m looking forward to your forthcoming “systematic” theology that will straighten these issues out. 🙂
You might have to wait until the wicked depart since even the project of a “systematic” theology strikes me as a Greek orientation. Why don’t we just settle for how to live and how to debate the Scriptures?
Maybe I should hold an on-line seminar on the topic. although I’m not sure more than 3 people would attend 🙂
In Australia we have a non-alcoholic drink, Clayton’s Tonic. The advertising for it “the drink you’re having when you’re not having a drink.”
All thought is a “system of thought. You may reject Greek idea of systematics, but only in order to replace it with another systematics, “how to live and how to debate the Scriptures”.
The concept is inescapable. How we move from one point to the next and “connect the dots”. That becomes “our” system.
So then, the REAL questions become: “Is my ‘system’ of thought in line with what the Scriptures teach? Do I correctly place precept upon precept and get the correct conclusion?”
On-line seminar or book? Bacon’s dictum “Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man” might help. 🙂
“Do I correctly place precept upon precept and get the correct conclusion?”
What if there is more than one “correct” conclusion? That is entirely possible with Hebrew “block logic”. Linear thought requires one (and usually only one) “right answer”. In Hebrew thought more than one conclusion and more than one right answer is perfectly OK (with one proviso – they cannot contradict the plain or pashat reading of the scriptures).
Was.., -excuse me- is, Jesus- G-d? The man that we crucified on Calvary’s hill was not just a man. Yeshua was and is the “union of two houses”- the human and the divine. He was (and is) the son of man, and He was (and is) the Son of G-d and G-d the Son.
Does G-d know everything? Yes, and more.. Is G-d omnipotent? More than we know. Is G-d omnipresent?- More than we know.. Is G-d omniscient?- More than we know.. – We should know these things. Did G-d clothe Himself with human flesh and become a man- just like us.. Yes, He did. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory..” -What does G-d look like? Look to Jesus. He “fleshes out” the Father. He said, (has He ever lied?)- “He that has seen me hath seen the Father.” Huh? What? Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Yes, He is. The eternal “I AM” born in an animal’s feeding trough in a barn. Totally ridiculous- don’t you think? No way would G-d come to earth like this,- right? -Wrong. He did.
And then to live the life of an nomad, a wanderer, an outcast..- this is G-d? No way.. – Way. And then “if” this man who received the worship of men, was really who He claimed to be.. to allow Himself to be spat upon, whipped to the point of death, publicly humiliated and tortured- nailed to a cross and hung up naked before the feverish delight of all who were witnesses to these things, and then to proclaim- “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do..”- This is G-d? No way. – Way.
Exactly how did Yeshua, the prince of peace “make His entrance” into the blessed “city of peace”? Riding upon a donkey. – No balloons? No tickertape? No skyrockets and fireworks? Where was CBS, NBC?
No, this man is not like us at all,- and yet He is very much like us. This is Jesus (the) Christ, the G-d/man. Unlike any other we will ever know- He is the (only) perfect man, the second Adam, the Lamb of G-d who takes away the sin(s) of the world.
So what has He done for me? Oh please.. let me, allow me, to tell you about my Savior. May I share with you, dear friend, where to find the Bread of Heaven? May I share with you are thirsty, where to find Living Waters? May I tell the ones who are broken of the Healer and Restorer of the breach? Go to Him, listen to His life-giving, life-sustaining words. “And whatever He says unto you- do it.”
Hallelujah!- What a Savior! Hallelujah!,- What a Friend.. Saving, helping, healing, loving..- (oh!)- and He is “with us”- to the end. Our Immanu’el: -“G-d is with us.” And yes, dear friends.. “He is “for us” as well.. Truly,truly,-Amein!! (It is so!)
G-d is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? Numbers 23.19)
Then, (in the fullness of time, it came to pass.. – a baby was born in Bethlehem. Son of G-d and son of man. The written word became the Living Word. G-d was incarnated into flesh. Was this His plan “from the beginning?” Yes. (search the scriptures..)
An “emotional”, passionate and compassionate G-d? Yes. – Jesus wept. (John 11.35)
Jesus wept (John 11:35
I and the Father are One (John10:30)
Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:9)
Hey, Carl, WAY! WAY!! WAY!!!
..what saith the scripture? (Romans 4.3) “Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from G-d, and whoever loves has been born of G-d and knows G-d. But anyone who does not love does not know G-d, for G-d is love. (1 John 4.8) “By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another.” (John 13.35)
“The LORD’S lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, For His compassions never fail.” (Lamentations 3.22) “Lovingkindnessess” (chesed) is a covenant word. (Remember the covenant friendship of David and Jonathan?) We today are in the same “covenant-friendship.”
For further study, please consider “The Blood Covenant” by H.C. Trumbull. It is the study of universal “covenanting by blood.” This is how Dr. Livingston was able to penetrate into the heart of Africa, through his understanding of covenant friendship. This, dear family, is how I live from day-to-day and moment by moment. It is through the blood of the New Testament, the covenant of Friendship, the Living G-d offers unto you and unto me, brought to “whosoever will” by the shed blood of our Messiah, the LORD Jesus, who is the Annointed ONE.
Do we have a thorough understanding of the word “Friend?” “What a Friend We Have In Jesus” is far more than a title to a song. It is a bright, living reality, for He, indeed, is our truest, dearest, most holy “Friend.” “Jesus, Lover of My Soul” is closer to the mark. “There is a (covenant) Friend, who sticks closer than a brother.”
A correct understanding of covenant is crucial because our faith is directly tied to it. Our conception of G-d and our faith in what He will do for us is related directly to our understanding of the blood covenant. As we saw earlier, Abram’s faith was based upon a blood covenant that God initiated and bound Himself to.
Looking for revolution? Looking for change? Looking for revival? For salvation? For sanctification? Look no further than this: (His words)- “this is the New Covenant in my blood” The (covenant) blood of the (perfect) Lamb. ** tHis blood is for you **