Knowledge

Some seek knowledge for
The sake of knowledge:
That is curiosity;

Others seek knowledge so that
They themselves may be known:
That is vanity;

But there are still others
Who seek knowledge in
Order to serve and edify others;
And that is charity.

Bernard of Clairveaux

"God is Not a Man..." Part IV

God is a non-corporeal being. That is, His essence is not bound to a form or a body. Where do we learn this from written Torah? Deuteronomy 4:15 states:

כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם, כָּל-תְּמוּנָה

In context, this phrase is found as follows:
“Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude (כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם, כָּל-תְּמוּנָה) on the day that YHWH spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire”

Of interest, the Pentateuch does not provide us with a systematic delineation about the nature of God. The Pentateuchal revelation of God is not propositionally ontological—dealing with abstract principles such as omniscience, omnipotence, and transcendence as systematized in classic theology. The Pentateuchal revelation of God deals with concrete functionality. In other words, we learn about God through the functions that He assumes. This does not mean that ontic revelation about God cannot be derived from the Pentateuch; rather, Pentateuchal functional revelation carries implicit ontology. For example, God as transcendent Creator is understood not through a systematic delineation of His nature in Genesis 1 but rather through the actions that He, as a Being outside of creation, took to create out of nothing.

Of critical interest to the question of the deity of Yeshua, the Synoptic Gospels are often used as a silent witness against the assertion that Yeshua is God. The Synoptics, like the Pentateuch, do not deal with ontology but functionality. And, as in the Pentateuchal revelation, the functions assumed by Yeshua are a direct reflection of His ontology—God incarnate (healer, forgiver of sins, etc.).

Deuteronomy 4:15 is a functional revelation. After the assertion is made that no form or similitude was seen by the nation at Sinai, our passage then prohibits the construction of forms or images intended to represent God. No explicit statement exists to deny form to God in the Pentateuch; rather, His nature as such (ontology) is implicit in the fact that His Sinai revelation was devoid of form.

The formlessness or non-corporeality of God does not preclude the ability of God to cause Himself to be revealed or manifested in terms of form. There is nothing in the Pentateuch to preclude this possibility. In fact, God does reveal Himself through such forms as the “malakh YHWH” (Angel of the LORD). The preclusion of form as understood in modern Judaism is not inherent to biblical theism.

(this is an early draft…it will likely change, time permitting)

"God is Not a Man..." Part III

Ironically, this past Shabbat my six-year old son asked me, “Does God have a body?” After I advised him that God does not have a body, he asked me, “Then is God not real?” The childlike mind thinks concretely. Our passage speaks concretely too.

This passage presents Balaam’s promulgation of the perpetual priority that God’s people hold with Providence. As already demonstrated with nachmat Elohim, this passage does not constitute a comprehensive statement about the nature of God. Rather, here God seeks to correct Balak’s false belief that Israel could be disenfranchised of her portion and allotment as God’s people. Why then does Balaam state, “God is not a man that he should repent…”? Why would God make reference to man in this passage?

Before answering this question, note that Numbers 23:19 exhibits poetic parallelism. Notice the following:

A God is not a man
A1 that He should lie
A neither the son of man
A1 that He should repent

B He hath said
B1 will He not do it
B …He hath spoken
B1 will He not make it good?

Our passage pairs the following terms: ish (man) with ben adam (son of man) and kazeiv (lie or disappoint) with nacham (repent). The parallel presentation of this passage provides each phrase with lexical precincts that can be used to determine precise lexical pith. Hence, the statement God is not a man is synonymous with [God is not] a son of man. The objection, then, that Yeshua is referred to as the “son of man” does not resonate here. We find that man and son of man are synonyms in this passage through this chiastic parallelism.

God is not a man…again, why does this passage contain such a statement? Contextually, this passage relates to Israel’s relationship with God and not to apodictic revelation about the nature of God. We have already demonstrated that this passage is inconsistent with the nature of God revealed elsewhere. Why the connection: God is not a man?

The connection is a concretion. The God of the Bible is dynamic. He is not an abstract principle. He is personality and presence. The Greek mind seeks to keep Him abstract and ethereal, yet the prophets are not reluctant to call Him the Rock or the Shepherd. Yes, they also speak of His right hand and sitting at His feet. Likewise, they are not afraid to compare Him to a man in this passage. The comparison, though, relates to the attribute of man that God does not possess: a fickle mind.

God speaks in concretions. This type of concretion is known as anthropomorphism in which the dynamic God is revealed as possessing human attributes. The next post will deal with the incorporeal nature of God.