The Akeidah, the narrative passage in Genesis 22 concerning the “binding” of Isaac, has for a long time been problematic for me, because so often the symbolism of the passage as it was presented to me was unclear and inconsistent. In the account, Abraham was supposed to represent God the Father; Isaac, the Beloved Son, bearing the wood upon his back up Mt. Moriah to be sacrificed. But then, when the angel intervenes, Isaac is spared, and a ram caught in the thicket is sacrificed in its place. In preaching, though, a Christological inference was made to the ram; that the ram is a symbol of Christ bearing our sins, like we are the “Isaac” that was to be slain.

This, for me, seemed difficult to understand, because it seemed that the meaning of the symbols changed halfway through the story. No one was sacrificed in the place of Christ; rather, Christ was sacrificed in our place. There was no ram to die in the place of the Beloved Son.

I think part of the misunderstanding comes in that we have a tendency to focus on redemption as the central aspect of scripture. Here, I believe we are mistaken. The primary purpose of scripture is revelatory: God revealing Himself to man. Often, the key to interpretation is theological: examine the passage to see what it teaches about the Person and Character of God – and then let the other little pieces fall into place.

In the passage, a key theological truth is found in verse eight, in which Abraham answered his son “God will provide himself a lamb for the burnt offering.” At the time Abraham answered, the “seh,” the “one of the flock,” was his son Isaac. Isaac was the seh. In the end, the seh was a ram. But the truth Abraham was stating was that God would provide for Himself that which was required for the sacrifice.

The same thought is echoed at the end of the account in verse 14, in which Abraham calls the name of the place Adonai-Yireh, because “in the mountain of the LORD it shall be seen.” [i.e. provided for.] Just as a king may say, “See to it that…,” Abraham expresses that God will see to it that that which He requires He will provide for. And this itself reconciles the symbolism: the seh is whatever God provides… whether it was Isaac, a ram, or Christ.

Christologically, our faith is in the work of Christ, yes. But that faith is rooted in His Person, Who Christ Is and Who God Is. Our faith is not just in the object of the provision; it is in the Person of the Provider! This is essential to both Old Testament and New Testament theologies. God would not accept the sacrifice of Cain’s labor, because it was not the sacrifice He had provided for that purpose. Cain’s faith was not in the person of the provider: from his perspective; he, the man, provided the sacrifice for God. Abel, on the other hand, gave the sacrifice that God had provided him for that purpose – because he recognized that only God can stipulate and provide the thing which will satisfy Him.

Ultimately, at the cross, God demonstrated this in a tangible way: He Himself became the provision. The fact that God Himself would offer Himself as the provisionary atonement for sin proves that there is no atonement for sin than God alone. He alone can forgive sins, since it is the Person of God freely offered that makes forgiveness possible. When God sees Christ, it is more than just expiation – a payment for guilt. It is that God sees in His Beloved Son His own righteousness and capacity for boundless forgiveness. It is only by His righteousness that He can be satisfied.

And for us, Adonai-Yireh means Faith: not just in the Gift, but in the Giver – that God Himself, and what He chooses to provide, is, and will be, completely sufficient.

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.

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.

 We often don’t recognize it. We have a God in His box, confined to the realms of theological speculation. But God isn’t a theologian – He doesn’t need to be. He knows Himself perfectly; yet self-knowledge was not sufficient for Him.

 To state the argument more clearly, if God thought that what He created was good… then He must of though that it was good that He created it. And if God thinks that something which He has done is good, what is the creation that we should argue with the Creator that their creation was not necessary? But more simply, God creates because He wants to; and if He does what He wants to do; then it stands to reason that what is done is the thing which should be done; and if it were not so; God, who can do whatever He wills, would have not done it, or would have done something else.

 Yet for all that we recognize God as the Creator; we often fail to recognize that He is an Artist. We see the world in color, and artists copy it. Yet what is creation, if not art? Shape, form, substance… these we recognize in the creation. We recognize pieces of the Creation as artwork, as a model from which an image may be copied. Yet our concept of “creativity” is often divorced from the concept of God as “the Creator.” From whence does man derive his sense of creativity, if not from the Creator?

 Clearly, this is what the Creator Himself said: man was created in His own image, in the image and likeness of God. The concepts of an “image” and “likeness” are artistic terms, dealing with a similarity or comparison between the thing represented and the representation itself. Yet, the “thing represented” is the Person of the Creator… which reveals that like much of the art with which we are familiar, the Artist engages in art for the purpose of self-expression. Creation is revelatory… human nature tells us what God is like. The scenery placed in our world naturally stirs the soul of man, because it is painted from the soul of God. Our concepts of beauty, design, balance, structure, and greatness come from the person of the Creator. And the imagination of man feeds on the sustenance placed by God in the world.

 Ultimately, it is this response to beauty and greatness that drives the impetus of human nature. The majority of scientific discoveries were not found by accident – it was the nagging of an unanswered question, or a spark of creativity, that led a human being’s mind on a quest to find an answer… creativity tells a man where to look. We look at men of ancient times as “primitive,” yet discover that even living at the most basic levels of human society, their cultures were far from utilitarian… how do we explain away the aesthetic in human nature? Even among “primitives,” the presence of art, music, and dance… they still stir the soul; even the soul of the modern, 21st-century Western man. Even in societies far removed from the “hunter-gatherer” societies of earlier times of human history; we still have television channels devoted to wildlife; beasts of the field taking down their prey… and we’re supposed to be evolved, right? We’re not supposed to enjoy that, it’s gruesome, too close to “survival.” Are we to understand that it’s some latent part of a “primal brain” reacting the way it did millions of years ago? Why does the scene stimulate the imagination, arouse a latent restlessness in a “modern, civilized man,” who knows that “money is power,” not an animal instict characterized by brute strength. Yet it does nontheless arouse him; the raw power of the beast moves him, he craves action and respects the power to kill and the wildness that cannot be contained. It is the artist in him, stirring him to greatness and action, creativity.

 It is the artist who gives life to the dreams of man, the colors and surreal imaginations of sleep. It is the Creator who keeps the man awake with thoughts of unlived ambitions, worlds of adventure he would never dare to live out on his own. The artist in the man pulls him away from his false sense of security in the world; it drives him, moves him, dares him to come out and stand as his own man. The act of art is a depiction, a capturing of the essence of something; yet it also creates a change in perception. The act of creating art is an act of power, changing the nature of something as it is depicted; seizing upon the nature of nature in a moment, defining it in sharp lines, and texturing its more subtle realities in tints and shades. The artist is engaged in a work of discovering the Creator as well as the creation, and in the process expresses himself as he discovers himself.

 The artist taps into the untamed force latent in all humanity – a vestige of the self-expression of the Creator – and this is the force that moves humanity and directs the course of human history. It builds up, and tears down; creates, and destroys – active, dynamic, and always moving. It is the river that lies buried in the hearts of shallow men, the dangerous current that drives the heart into uncharted waters, deep into an undiscovered country fraught with danger… and thus, the force which drives the artist is a cause of fear. It is unpredictable, unknowable… we can dam it, try to direct it, harness its energy and use its power for safe and easily controlled purposes… but all the while we fear that it will break through the walls of our souls, will crash through like a hurricane, destroying every piece of security we have known, and forcing us to ride out the storm for which we knew we could never be prepared.

 A contradiction, yes. The force that drives the artist is both creative and destructive… but that is the nature of power: to create change. It is dynamic, active, changing, inspiring, moving. Without it, humanity would stagnate, would be crushed under its own weight. The forces of destruction serve to continue the activity of the forces of creation… and for the creator and artist; these are one in the same, pressing him and pushing him onward; so that from the shards of the disaster he will cast a world in an image more to his own liking.

Several ideas are implied here:

1. That we do adapt to changes and events in life, creating visible changes to our personalities and changing the way we process information. This itself leads to the question of whether or not certain aspects of the personality have been latent, and are forced to the surface under extreme circumstances, whether the changes are actually brought about by external influences, or whether it is a combination of these two working together.

2. Our perception of our personality can be different than our true personality… i.e. we think that we think one way, when in reality, we think in some way different. This comes from a lack of contemplation, so that we do not “know ourselves,” and also an innate desire for self-deception. In the end, we believe about ourselves what we want to believe about ourselves, since it is easier than facing the truth.

3. Personality then becomes a myth that we create for ourselves, and then thrust upon the world, expecting others to believe it.

4. Since we think in a particular way, (for the sake of example, we’ll call it M[β], mode beta, being the secondary overlay we assume is primary; when in reality, we operate under M[α], (mode alpha, our actual primary human nature); we have a tendency to expect that we would react in a way consistent with M[β] (we will designate this reaction as R[β].) In actuality, when the moment of crises comes, out of instinct, we react in a way consistent with M[α.] R[α] thus comes as a surprise, even a deviation from our expected patterns of “normal” human behavior.

5. The reaction (R[α]) is based on the most basic instincts in human nature, and is motivated by survival, be it in the physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual sense. The reaction is itself an adaptation to the environment, although it can include “fight-or-flight” responses (which deal with leaving a hostile environment or changing aspects of that environment by removing potential threats or open hostility on the part of an aggressor, which itself is a forcing of the environment to adapt to the nature of the prey.)

6. In complex societies, M[α] human instincts which were designed to protect human beings can become a source of fear, since instinctive protective reactions / adaptation (IPR/A) are often perceived as acts of aggression by individuals functioning as active or passive participants in a social structure/system (S3) perceived by an individual (designated Human X (H[X])) to be repressive or threatening. Since the repressive force of the social system is either exerted passively, subtly, unintentionally, or at a rate which falls under the level of conscious threat detection by the vast majority of human beings; it is entirely possible that different human beings with different levels of perception, different areas of knowledge, and varying degrees of proximity to areas of S3 would perceive the level of personal threat in different ways. Consequently, an unintentional IPR/A would come as a surprise not only to H[X], but to S3 as well, and could easily be punished as an unprovoked act of aggression; although the provocation was only recognized by H[X].

7. Given the external psychological forces on H[X] which, internalized, created the M[β] overlay; it is conceivable that:

a. M[α] instincts would naturally be suppressed
b. IPR/A actions would be avoided for the damage they could cause to S3
c. H[X] could, even after committing an IPR/A offence, find himself deserving of the censure and/or punishment stipulated by S3.

In seeking to rationalize the source of his behavior, which he cannot understand; if H[X] cannot exonerate S3 from any culpability; he will seek to blame either an individual’s behavior (i.e. the behavior of an individual in S3 or his own,) a defect in his own thought processes (i.e. mental illness or associated disorders,) or the entirety of human nature.

8. This third assumption was the focus of the post: if the guilt of the system cannot be excused, and it cannot be blamed on another individual, and the human cannot shoulder its burden himself, then the perceived “fault” must be attributed to the entire whole of humanity as a form of weakness or capriciousness, a susceptibility to sudden and irrational change.

9. In actuality, the conclusion that the human nature does have the capacity for sudden change is not far from reality; however, the domination dynamic that S3 exerts over H[X] demands that this universal human quality of adaptability must be viewed as a weakness instead of a strength.

 While the heroic name of Hrothgar, borrowed from Beowulf, I am assuming will now e a “household word” following the new movie; in 2004, it was only a part of ancient British literature. And I highly doubt if the villain Vulsana has ever taken his rightful place as the Dark Lord. However, I did find that while the story was very sketchy, the music was making progress, until paradoxically, I ran out of information. The genius stopped, in a sense, and I began to struggle.

For the sake of description, I should state for the record that much of the music was harmonically based, with melodies and countermelodies superimposed over the harmonies. Repetition was a watermark of the compositions, but it often served to glamorize any new piece of musical information, a new melody, reharmonization, or change in instrumentation. It also made cut-and-paste techniques an easy may to build tension in already-existing themes. But I found myself in a “harmonic rut,” if you will, a place where I had so developed melodies around certain harmonies that my mind could not “hear” any variations of those harmonies. One chord would lead to the next, and the next, and would resolve in predictable ways. Even if the harmonies I could hear were “unpredictable,” I found that the “surprises” and unpredictablities in one piece would become standard order in the next, and that I was in dire need of change and a sense of having new information to stimulate the auditory sensibilities of the listener, yet without deviating from the sense of “theme” and cohesive I had tried so diligently to create.

In the long run, I took a hiatus for several years, during which I listened to a lot of music from a variety of genres; and when I came back to it, found that I did have some new sources of information. In so doing, I left a worn path; but the “harmonic rut” has been shallowed and widened, which is good. Hindsight being what is, 20-20, I have been thinking through a new way of thematic development, some of which I used before unintentionally, but now intend to use with a greater sense of purpose.

 While the harmonic roots can be very similar, certain resolutions in harmonies can be used for different characters. At the very least, multiple melodies. Having more than one musical theme allows there to be much more room for interweaving those themes into more complex compositions. There should be a certain cycle to it – state, reharmonize, then take the new harmony and remelodize. In so doing, produce new information by introducing subtle changes to existing information. Basically, extract a small piece of a melody, and build around it. Take its harmonic structure; build a new melody around it. Take the new melody, reharmonize – mix with something else, then do it again: blend, change.

In a creative process, subtlety is key: endless permutations and combinations of existing information. Surprisingly, the concept is the same in genetics: certain harmonic “strains” are found in different pieces of music in a similar way that certain traits run in extended families. Certain melodic lines can skip generation, only being carried in a seminal form in certain harmonies, only to appear later in a different or expanded form. An analysis of the problem of the “harmonic rut” may have been an issue of trying to produce new compositions with significant deviations from the parent compositions, without any intervening generations of musical development and without the addition of any new musical source material. In genetics, inbreeding can lead to mutations… and with music; too much cross-composition can lead to musical ruts, including sterile compositions incapable of reproducing anything remotely like themselves.

 So maybe it’s just a lesson in diversity and change. No musical theme can survive while remaining in its present form: its continued existence depends on its interaction with substantially different musical data, which can produce new strains of musical information acting as carriers for the original creative thought.

 This in itself leads to the central idea which I am pursuing; a theory of sorts which I am mulling over, refining, and developing: that although Genesis is the point of Origin for human history, the creative process is continuing, by virtue of the fact that the Creator cast man in His Own Image. My endeavor here is to engage in a process of observation and speculation into the depth of the human spirit. While I cannot take credit for the term “sacred humanism,” as it has already been coined by Larry Standley to describe the religion of atheists who view themselves as “secular,” yet exercise faith in humanity (http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8403.htm); I am coming at the term from a theistic perspective: that humanity and human achievement touch on the realm of the sacred as the soul of man attempts to reach out and express the boundless and infinite capabilities endowed to him by the Creator.

Throughout human history, both the religious and secular aspects of society have aspired to achieve a measure of transcendence. While one may wonder what limitations may be placed upon humanity in this attempt, and religions may at times be opposed to the attempt on the grounds that we may be attempting to “play God” in matters of His domain; an honest evaluation of history would indicate that humanity has been relentless in this pursuit, and that any attempt to stop it, no matter how brutal, has been doomed to failure. Consequently, if the development of technology and pursuit of transcendence toward the enhancement of the human condition is inevitable, the responsibility to guide the progress of human achievement falls upon all humanity, theist and atheist alike; to direct that achievement in ways that are universally moral, ethical, and unmistakably “human.”