Words for God in the Psalms

Going through the psalms at the latter end I've been struck by how regularly Yhwh rather than God (elohim/el) has been used. Here's a quick graph made in Accordance showing Yhwh (yellow) is used more frequently at the beginning and end of the Psalter, while God is used much more in the second fifth of the collection (elohim = dark green; el = blue-green). Just for completion I added in Shaddai and Elyon (in the foreground in red).

It would be interesting to investigate this further, especially as the first book of the psalter is David, but so is the latter part of the second book - perhaps book 1 is David's Yhwh collection and book 2 is David's Elohim collection? It's worth noting the psalms of Korah in book 2 aren't Yhwh psalms, while those in book 3 by Asaph mix it up. And then the exodus collection, the big one (Ps 119), and the psalms of ascent, are all mostly Yhwh psalms.

I know this is all a very broad brush-strokes look, but trying to get the big picture is helpful before zooming in to ask more precise questions.

What is God like?

been reading Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine (also known as Little Louis).
got some questions for him:

how is God independent, yet all things depend on him?

how is God immutable yet ever creating, ever generating, ever sustaining?

how can we know about God's incommunicable attributes?
(that is, his independence, immutability, infinity, simplicity)


it does seem that there are two categories of attributes of God: Incommunicable and Communicable. That makes sense of a quote i read last night,

What appears as imperfect in man, exists in infinite perfection in God. (Systematic Theology (also known as Big Berkhof), p84)

which must be referring not to the incommunicable but the communicable. that makes much more sense.

The Mohammed that never was

a German Islamic scholar has obviously had a call from his superiors to get a bit of controversy generated, so he's come out and said that, as far as he can tell, the evidence would seem to suggest that Mohammed never existed. well, i wonder what he would say if someone told him HE didn't exist? probably not a lot - eh? not much you can say when you're gone in a puff of logic.

seriously though folks, i remember when the controversy (=bad history+james cameron television crew) about the misnamed 'Jesus' Family Tomb', and people remembered the comments by the west australian primate, saying that he didn't think finding the bones of Jesus would harm people's faith to any huge extent. now, whilst he may have some supporters in Spong and co, he obviously has a different conception of a God who reveals himself in history in the man Jesus Christ.

but what effect would it have on Muslims, i humbly enquire, if it were proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mohammed never were? Don Carson once said he thought, not much. at the end of the day, the Qur'an is the way Muslims know God. not thru their prophet. that he happened to use Mohammed is seen to be the physical conduit Allah chose to use is by the by - what matters is that Allah gave the Qur'an to all the Muttaqun that they may obey him in all righteousness.

sure, Mohammed may have been a good example of following Allah, but he was hardly the first - all the old testament prophets are listed as part of his forerunners in the faith.

it may be this will lead to anger, but i hope not. indeed, it may challenge Muslims to rethink about their functional deification of Mohammed, and to consider how it is they can truly know God - how it may be that he has made himself known.

pre-incarnate souls?

a couple of years ago a friend asked whether i believed we all existed eternally. whether 'you' and 'i' were beings, in the broadest sense possible, since before the creation of the world, and existing until after it's wrapped up again.

he was come from a broadly 'spiritualist' position i guess, partly buddhist, partly hindu, partly his own thinking - your average 'western spiritualist' for lack of a better category.

i went straight to Ephesians 1 -

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavens, in Christ; 4 for He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love 5 He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favour and will, 6 to the praise of His glorious grace that He favoured us with in the Beloved.

- and i sort of agreed with him, that we were in some sense 'existent', in that we were an idea in God's 'mind', thus in some sense, sure, we are before and after all created 'stuff'.

i hadn't thought about it much since then until this morning, rereading this passage, plus the thinking i've done since reading The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment by Edward Fudge.

although not coming to the same conclusions as him regarding hell (see this post among others over at Soli-Deo-Honoria for some great thoughts on this), i appreciate his courage to question the axiom of eternal human souls.

and as i re-read Ephesians 1:1-2:10, i feel that it's not so much about us, as about Christ; that to draw too much out regarding ourselves is not being faithful to the passage. it feels as though the gist is 'because of Jesus, the fate of anyone who is linked to him is as if they were there with Jesus before creation, so secure is their fate.'

i wouldn't want to push this too far, but to say that i'm not so certain we are pre-existent sprites, who for a time inhabit human frames, being incarnate for a time until we are released again into a spiritual reality, much like the gnostics and other spiritualists would conjecture.

indeed, any spiritual existence, if any, is for the short time between our deaths and the new creation, when we will again be bodily beings.

i believe in God

a common statement indeed.
the question the christian asks is then: which god? or perhaps: what do you mean you believe in god - are you a christian?

Karl Barth in Dogmatik im Grundriß says that when Christians say: i believe in (on) God, they mean to say i believe in (on) the Lord Jesus Christ.*

firstly, i wonder how this might work apologetically. imagine a conversation with a non-Christian:
NC: yeah i believe in God
you: oh right, so you believe in Jesus?
NC: um i dunno about Jesus, i mean i believe he existed and stuff...
you: i guess my point is that to say you believe in God is to say that you believe that God reveals himself, that he doesn't want to remain a mystery, but wants to be known, and that God has made himself known is in the man Jesus, who incidentally, said that he was the only way to know the Father, that is, God.


i guess where you go then is to say that for someone to believe in an abstract idea of 'God' is simply that: abstract. but the way Barth so simply puts it makes it 'konkret', a statement of fact that must be engaged with.

worth a try, anyway!

*Und wenn wir sagen, ich glaube an Gott, so heisst das konkret: ich glaube an den Herrn Jesus Christus. the german isn't in (in) but an (on). it makes logical sense but not grammatical. hence my brackets.

Four Ways To Live

I've heard of 2WTL, some have even suggested there may be 3, but my recent reading of things such as Luther v Melancthon, as well as hearing sermons from the sermon on the mount in Matthew's biography of Jesus, plus my recent work on eschatology and restoration, has led me to a 4th way to live.

Now, I'm not trying to suggest there isn't two ways to live, either under, or against God's rule, that every person needs to either accept, or continue to reject Jesus as God's appointed King. I'm just trying to add a few shades in this fairly black or white picture.

For some explanation, the crown with a J means accepting Jesus as King. The little drawing of a round thing is my attempt at a 2D globe, symbolising accepting the God-given role of caring for this world, it's inhabitants, as per Genesis 1, which in this stylised description, would also include the so-called "golden rule" of loving one's neighbour as oneself (one's self?).

This is partly trying to think through the place of works in the Christian, as well as the non-Christian.

1. The top one is obviously the person that God desires we all be - firstly, accepting God's rule, and because of the great gift of forgiveness in Jesus, being spurred on to good works.
   
   
2. In the middle, on the left, we see the type of "Christian" that non-Christians always hold up as the reason they wouldn't want to become a Christian. The type of person that knocked Jesus off the top spot (behind Mohammed) of the most influential people, simply because his followers can't take him that seriously, coz they don't do what he says!
   
   
3. On the right then, is perhaps the group Paul refers to in Romans chapter 2, "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." This is the group many of my non-Christian friends would fall into. They are great people. Really nice. As infallible as a fallen human can be (please excuse the oxmoron). And, all this, despite not knowing God, not living for eternity, compelled by naught, but their love for their fellow creature.
   
   
4. At the bottom, perhaps rightly so, is the group who both reject God, and live in all ways despite his desires for this world. The people who say, "it doesn't count if you don't get caught."

Now, the third group i've mentioned, doesn't get too much of a mention in the New Testament. The latter gets a fair turn in the OT; Jesus' focus seems to be railing agaist the Pharisees for their impenitent hearts, and arrogance due to their nationality and position. The epistles are directed towards the 2nd (Jewish) and 4th (Gentile) groups.

We have good precedents, then, in talking to the 2nd and 4th groups, and a clear goal, in the 1st. I think, however, we find it hard to know what to say to the 3rd. To the "good person". To the honourable, kind, caring, selfless, genuine person.
Who happens to be a non-Christian.



Man, I need to start writing some short, witty posts. Just go to Crikey.com.au and have a look through the videos of the day (especially the Pasha Bulka Transformer, and the iPhone isn't bad either!).

God - The Ultimate Terrorist?

with no more SOCM, i am able to go to the Christianity and Contemporary Thought seminars held by CASE, and heard this talk by Andrew Cameron, entitled Terrorism and Christianity.

as the talk went on, with various definitions of Terrorism being bandied about, i kept thinking more and more (no pun intended), that God would actually fit many of the definitions of a terrorist.
Oliver O'Donovan's definition is (paraphrased, from memory), "one who furthers their viewpoint by intimidation", excluding those who would set up a viable, alternative government.
but would not this include God? i present the following reasons:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24)
Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor. (1 Peter 2:17)

God obviously presents a choice of Him, or destruction. if you're not on the God-Train, you're going to get run over.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

there is no viable alternative government (at least in the here-and-now) proposed. rather (as in 1 Peter 2:17 ob cit.) we are to honour, not least pray for, the secular governments placed over us.

this sounds not at all dissimilar to many terrorist manifestos, there is simply a claim to legitimacy, of heritage, of third-knowledge, and the proven ability to carry out any and all threats.

of course the thing with terrorism is the unacceptability of their methods and the questionability of their ends. God, being the creator of all that is seen and unseen, is righteous. though perhaps not not a terrorist.

is this an acceptable apologetic angle, or has psychodougie gone too far this time?

ps sorry about the lack of blogging of late. i have no excuse, my priorities have simply been elsewhere.