No New Thing

Sure -It may take the better part of a weekend to get an extended discussion project of this magnitude off the ground, especially since we want to build a solid foundation for any ensuing discussion. Shalom and I also wanted to make sure that we were on the same page before setting forth certain concepts for further discussion.

However, I will make one preliminary comment: Much of what will be discussed will deal with semantics in a very intense way. Words communicate thoughts, concepts, and ideas, and we will not be content to merely use them. We must intensely investigate how we use them, and understand what they mean and how we perceive those meanings, often in ways different from each other. When dealing with spiritual concepts presented in God’s written revelation, we often perceive the meanings of words in ways very different from the way in which God designed them to be understood, which can produce serious consequences when we build our lives on those misunderstandings.

As Shalom stated, we do not profess to have a sole monopoly on truth, nor do we have complete understandings of words that God uses to convey truth. Often, you will find us using “working definitions,” which we will revise as we tweak our understanding of them. A definition is much like a scientific hypothesis, which we test in the theatres of specific Biblical usages and in real-life experiences, and revise as we learn what God was communicating in a fuller way.

It has been said that we should not determine truth, or that we should not interpret Scripture, according to our human experience. We accept the validity of that statement. However, was once wisely suggested by one of my teachers that if our interpretation of scripture directly contradicts human experience, we should recheck our exegesis and refine our interpretation and analysis of both Scripture and our experience to see if we have made any errors in interpretation.

Given the fact that God is both the Author of scripture and the Creator of the reality which humans experience; we expect to find consistency between the laws which govern the universe and the laws which govern human behavior. Although humans are deeply flawed, with sin affecting the core of their beings, their nature has fallen no lower than God has permitted it. Consequently, certain aspects of human nature remain the same as when God created it, and the aspects of human nature which are tainted by sin are affected by that corrupting force in predictable ways.

Human societies seek to control this corrupting force for the survival and prosperity of their citizens, and often aspire to higher values which reflect the Image of God which has been marred in their own souls. Although humans have a tendency toward their own corruption, the force of society and weight of human law serve to restrain the influence of personal corruption for the sake of a greater good and the preservation of humanity. Hence, there is also a measure of predictability guiding man’s opposition to the corrupting and destructive nature of sin, as the influence of conscience, human government, religion, ethics, and divine revelation contribute to the control, regulation, and punishment of the more destructive aspects of human behavior.

On the basis of these observable predictabilities in human behavior, which form spiritually, morally, religiously, ethically, and socially acceptable codes of conduct governing human behavior; and based on the predictability of the corrupting force of sin on individual human beings; we find it possible to observe various aspects human behavior and their effects, and find recognizable patterns which merit discussion. These cause-and-effect relationships which exist because of the interaction between individual humans, their cultures, their social structures, their beliefs, and the tension between their sin-corrupt natures and their innate desire to reclaim some measure of the lost glory that remains in a humanity created in the Image of God; create dynamics which can be observed and understood in the light of God’s written revelation.

This then, is the grand attempt to which we aspire: not only to stimulate thought, but to intensively investigate factors governing the dynamics of human relationships in ways which are true to real-world life experience and simultaneously true to a literal, contextual, literary, historical, and grammatical interpretation of Scripture.

I’ve been given the liberty by Steve to post the first topic for discussion in the group he created, and I wanted to echo what he stated in the group description, before commenting on it and highlighting a few thoughts.“This group is for the purpose of discussing the Bible for what God said and what God intended to communicate. It is not a place for people to voice their opinions, but for like-minded believers to encourage one another spiritually to discover, through proper exegesis, reasoning, and discussion, just what God intends to communicate to us through the pages of the Scriptures.” [emphasis mine]The Apostle John began his account of the life of our Lord with the statement:

Εν αρχη ην ο λογος,
και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον,
και θεος ην ο λογος.

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

John, in a style reminiscent of the book of Genesis, begins “in the beginning.” Those familiar with the word for the “beginning” may recall that it has at it root the concept “to be first.” Hence, the “monarch” is the “one ruler” (in the sense of the one “being first,”) the “patriarch” is the “first father,” the “archangel” is the “head angel,” and the “archaeologist” is an individual who studies the “first” or “ancient” times in the early history of humanity.

Often in theology, we do much speculation into the concept of “eternity past,” when in fact, in comparison to the bulk of what God stated in Scripture, God has said very little about it. God chose to begin His Revelation of Himself to us “in the beginning,” from the “first time.” Other passages of Scripture indicate that God, even Christ, is the “first,” the “beginning,” and the eternal God (Col. 1:18, Rev. 3:14, and Rev. 1:8.)

This leads to a central question: if God is the eternal “beginner” of all things, and has already existed, why should He mention an arbitrary point of “beginning” at all? Stated differently, if God is eternal, has no beginning, and no ending; and the time in which we live is no infinitesimally small in comparison; why does God set so much of His attention on it?

As much as we may want to theologize and philosophize about how that since God is eternal, there really was no “beginning,” (I speak tongue-in-cheek, of course!) the truth is that since God is God, He can put “the beginning” anywhere He wants to. But if we can use a little common sense about it, we would realize that God communicates to us in ways that we can understand, because it is His nature and desire that we should understand and know Him; so He uses time to communicate to us because it is our frame of reference, and He is communicating to us (rather than talking to Himself.)

And this is really where I’m going with the whole concept: When God uses the word “the beginning,” it’s not the beginning of God, or His frame of reference. It’s the beginning of God with us, the beginning of His interaction with us as human beings with whom He desires a relationship. Genesis 1 has its place in apologetics, in the Creation-Evolution debate, true. And yes, John 1 is a classic proof text for Christology. I won’t deny that. But the greatest part of God’s revelation is the fact that we’re reading it… because that was God’s purpose. God communicates because he wants us to know about Him! (If He didn’t want us to know about Him, He wouldn’t do it.)

While John 1:1 is a critical passage to understanding that Christ is God, and was and is eternally coexistent with God, the passage also talks about the essence of God: that He is the Word, the “λογος,” the expression of God to man… which is where John takes the concept in verse 14, where he writes that “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…” The fact that we have God’s revelation, in scripture and in Christ, indicates that “the Word was God.” The Creator (1:3) is also the Communicator: it is the nature of God to reveal Himself!

“The word,” or “logos” means something that is (or at least, can be) expressed. It is an “expression,” a “communication.” Even the verb form, often rendered “to think, to impute,” or “to reckon,” has the idea that a thought or word is capable of being expressed. This necessitates a person to express it and a person to receive the expression. Sometimes it is the same person, as when a person talks to himself or makes himself a “mental note.” But usually, it involves someone else.

God wanted people to whom He could communicate, to whom He could reveal Himself. So He created us – so that we could know Him, learn of Him, and experience abundant and eternal life (John 17:3.) Self-expression is just as much a part of God’s nature as His self-existence: and we know it because He has done so, both in His communication to us and His creation of us (since as His creation created in His Image, we are also part of God’s self-expression, as any piece of art is a reflection of its creator.) Without God’s revelation, we would not be having this discussion; in fact, we would not exist at all!

In the most practical sense, then; there are several implications of the self-evident truth that it is the nature of God to communicate to man:

1. If God desires us to know Him, and created us for that purpose: then we should desire to know and learn God.

2. God’s revelation of Himself should be a matter of careful and diligent study, since what we can know of God is contained in what God has said.

3. We can only arrive at accurate conclusions about Who God Is and what He is like if we understand what God said in the way that He said it (paying attention to context, history, grammar, metaphor, and literary style.)

4. We should expect to find congruity between what God says, what God thinks, and Who God is (since it is His nature to accurately communicate Who He is and what He is like.)

So when we discuss truth, we have to remember to keep it personal. Anyone who knows me or Steve knows that I’m all for grammar; and won’t shy away from technicality. But in the end, we can’t forget that what we are reading and studying isn’t just “scripture,” it’s not just “writing” – it’s communication from our Creator, who we know, by virtue of the fact that we hold His words in our hand and can comprehend them with mental and emotional faculties He created in His Own Image, desires to reveal Himself to us.