God, Time and paradoxes

Question 170, from Paul F

What does the Bible tell us about God’s relationship to time? I often hear people say that God is outside of time but am unsure of the grounding for such a claim.

One of the problems with Biblical translators using the word ‘eternal’ is that it implies a sense of timelessness. However, a better translation would be ‘endless duration’. The Biblical depiction of God is of a being who is not temporary, but in a sense is temporal, in that God acts within time and those actions and plans are time-bound.

Within the realms of religious philosophy there have been numerous attempts to resolve the paradox of a being that is unaffected by time, and yet interacts with a creation that is governed by time.

Some of the attempts to resolve the paradox can be summed up as: (more…)


The Trinity explained in a twenty minute talk

Earlier this year, Jon the freelance theologian was asked to explain the Trinity to a Christian youth group in a twenty-minute talk. Although it’s impossible to give full justice to the topic, here are some of the points he made.

We’re going to talk tonight about the Trinity, specifically: how can one God be three persons, or three persons be one God?

Imagine a person you know. What could you say about them?
They are (more…)


The gender of God

Question 162, from Paul, United Kingdom

Is it possible to think of God as having a gender?

This is an interesting question because most Christians, and most Christian writers, automatically use the personal pronouns ‘He’ or ‘Him’ to describe God. This is partly due to the limitations of human language, and also the longstanding tendency to describe God in human terms that have gender-specific connotations, for example, the word ‘Father’.

While most Christians would acknowledge that “God is Spirit to be worshipped in spirit and truth” and that both men and women were created in God’s image, there is still an underlying temptation to ascribe the male gender to God. (more…)


Theological ideas about the origin of evil

This is a short teaching session Jon the freelance theologian was asked to do on the subject of evil. Instead of addressing the standard ‘Problem of Evil’ as classically stated, this was a study of some theological ideas about the absolute origin of evil in a world created that Christian theology would claim was created as ‘good’ by a good God.

There were six theological ideas put forward:

  • Evil originates in God and is misunderstood.
  • Evil occurs when God ‘withdraws’ from a place.
  • Evil is entropy/chaos seeking to reassert itself in a world that has been placed in order by God.
  • Evil is the ‘no’ inherent in the ‘yes’ of God’s creative act. It is the ‘nothingness’ that exists apart from God.
  • ‘Evil’ is down to natural probability.
  • ‘Evil’ is a force in the world that springs from our collective psychic experience – interiority.

(more…)


God doing “evil”

Question 155, from Matt, United Kingdom

Does God have evil thoughts? [With reference to Exodus chapter 32, verse 14]

In this verse in Exodus, Moses appeals to Yahweh not to destroy the Israelites who had been practising idolatry. According to the text, Yahweh relents from destroying them. In some versions of the Bible this is described as “The LORD relented from the evil that he was about to do to his people.”

The idea that God can commit ‘evil’ is fairly nonsensical in many Christian theological viewpoints. God is often regarded as (more…)


Pharaoh’s hard heart and free will

Question 146, from Carol, United Kingdom
Why is there such as difference in God’s attitude to mankind between the Old and New Testament? e.g. If God gave everyone a free will why did he then override this and harden Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus so that he wouldn’t release the Israelites from Egypt?

There are two big questions here based on two very big assumptions. The first is the assumption that there is a major difference between the way God is depicted as acting towards human beings in the Old Testament compared to the New. The second assumption is that human beings have free will, which God ignored when God chose to ‘harden Pharaoh’s heart’.
(more…)


Three questions about the Incarnation

Questions 132-134, from Paul, United Kingdom

I have a few questions that I wondered if you could help on.

Question 132: The Bible tells us that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. How can this be true after the incarnation? When Christ returned to heaven surely he took with him a human nature that wasn’t present in the Godhead before. Doesn’t this suggest a change in God?

Question 133: During the incarnation, how can God not be affected by the fact that Jesus is not omnipresent and omniscient? Surely this causes problems for the trinity as although God is three in one, we cannot just divide him up and say that only one person of the trinity is affected.

Question 134:
In Gethsemane, Christ prays to the Father saying “Yet not what I will but what you will.” But don’t they have the same will?

The Incarnation has been one of the key areas of Christian inquiry since the earliest Christian writers committed words to paper. Many of the issues raised in these questions have been grappled with over centuries, and in some respects, remain unanswered.
(more…)


Comprehending the Trinity

Question 116, from DW

This answer doesn’t have a sponsor… yet.
Email Jon the freelance theologian to find you how you could sponsor it.

As best you can, could you give me a good analogy of the trinity?

The Trinity is one of the most difficult Christian doctrines to grasp, simply because it is actually very hard to define how one God can exist in three persons. The tendency is either to stress the one-ness of God, or to place the accent on the plurality of God. Unfortunately to swing too far either way can lead to denying the reality of the Trinity (saying God only appears to be three persons), or towards a version of polytheism.

Certainly the Trinity is possibly the one doctrine that marked an irrevocable break with monotheistic Judaism. For Christians, the difficulty initially centred on (more…)


You feel like Heaven to touch

Questions 110 & 111, on the subject of God’s nature

Question 110, received from SD, United Kingdom
A while ago, we were talking to a friend about God. The conversation turned somehow to the physical form of God, and our friend started talking about a particular heresy which he said had been disproved in either the 15th or 16 century, (I can’t remember the details) about God having a physical body. As far as I’m concerned, the Bible says that man is made in the image of God, and to me that means a human body. I’m quite happy to accept that I’m wrong in this, but what I can’t understand is why does it matter? So what if I see God as an old man with a long beard sitting up there in heaven on his throne? But our friend got really upset about it.

Question 111, received from AB, United Kingdom
Do you say God has a form with which he shows himself to the angels and sits on his throne or is he entirely spirit?

These are awkward questions to answer, because Christian theology usually wants to firmly propose two contradictory positions. (more…)


Back to Genesis 2

Question 105 – from DW, USA

God says in the Bible “It’s not good for the man to be alone, I will make a helper suitable for him” (Genesis chapter 2, verse18).
I have three questions about this passage
a) “It’s not good” Was God capable of creating a situation that was not good?
b) “Man to be alone” I thought God walked in the garden with him, can you be alone while in the presence of God?
c) “A helper suitable for him” What did Adam need help with? Tending the garden? Or naming the animals? He wasn’t under a time constraint was he? As far as companionship, remember we were created for Jesus’ good pleasure, and purpose, there is no marriage in heaven or eternity, if there is something more that we need than Jesus, there is a problem.

This is actually a refined version of a question DW asked previously, and some points are worth reiterating. It would seem that the creation story found in the first few chapters of Genesis is a merging of two accounts. The first describes, in general terms, the creation process that brought the world into being in seven days. There is then an abrupt shift in emphasis in Genesis chapter 2, verse 4, which introduces “the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.” This second version deals with the specific creation of named human beings, Adam and Eve, their subsequent Fall and loss of a Golden Age.

Some people go to great lengths to prove the scientific accuracy of the Genesis account. There has been some speculation recently whether the story of Eden is an ancient folk memory concerning the fall of civilisations in ancient Africa and the Near East due to sudden climate change approximately six thousand years ago, which coincides roughly with the Biblical chronology (see ‘Why Deserts will Inherit the Earth’, The Independent, 5 June 2006). Or it may be a myth, in the technical sense of the word, i.e. a true story that has been explained supernaturally because the writers lacked the scientific language necessary to objectively describe it.

Whatever the case, these early chapters of Genesis do present some seeming contradictions. Taking the accounts at face value, it is probably best to approach these three questions individually.

a) If two different stories were merged into one (as seems to be the case from textual evidence) it would explain why God terms everything as “good” in Genesis chapter 1, verse 31, but then later on there can be an aspect of this ‘completely good’ creation, which is ‘not good’. Additionally, from later chapters, it seems that God has allowed creatures an element of independent free will, meaning that even if God’s initial creation was perfectly good, it contained within it the possibility of falling away from that initial state and become less than perfect.

Adam’s loneliness is the only thing described as ‘not good’ before the account of the Fall. One explanation for this is that: “Humanity is created as a social being, and is meant to exist in relation with others.” [Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, 1994, p.235]. Being made in the image of the God (Trinity) naturally presupposes this. It could be assumed that Adam would want to relate to others like him, in the same way that God, within the Godhead, exists in interpersonal relationship. Adam need not have wanted this, but once he did, this unmet need would have made the situation ‘not good’.

Alternatively, it may just be the phrasing. There is an old joke that God made Adam first and then got started on an upgrade – Eve. In a sense this may have a grain of truth in it. God’s ongoing interaction with the world is shown by the attempt to improve creation that is already good, as God seeks to bring about the best world possible. While this image of God giving creation a ‘tweak’ is over-anthropomorphic, the creation of both Adam and Eve as individuals has already occurred after God’s ‘sabbath rest’ from creation (chapter 2, verse 2), implying that creation did continue after the six days of Genesis chapter 1.

b) In the account, God put Adam into Eden, but did not necessarily live there with him. In chapter 3, verse 8 (after Adam and Eve disobeyed God by taking the forbidden fruit), God is said to be ‘walking in the garden in the cool of the day’. The use of a specific time of day implies that God was not always walking in the garden with Adam. The story itself implies God is absent when the serpent has its fateful conversation with Eve in chapter 3, verses 1-6.

This is an interesting phrase though, with God depicted almost like a country landowner, inspecting his estate in the early evening when strolling around it is cool and enjoyable experience. The anthropomorphism of God at this point is another reason why many people regard this story as an allegory and not literal truth.

c) If these creation accounts are read as allegory, then they seek to explain, in non-scientific terms, why humanity takes the form of two genders. ‘Helper’ is a very interesting choice of word here, and possibly reflects later religious thought being ‘read back’ into the account of origins. Most primitive religions of the Middle East revolved around fertility practices and reverence of the ‘life-bearing mother’. As Israelite religion sought to establish worship of the ‘male’ Yahweh, it would be natural to promote this creation account where the female is subordinate to the male, a ‘weaker’ gender introduced as a ‘helper’ to the ‘stronger’.

The idea that human beings exist solely for God’s pleasure has entered into popular theology in many churches. This idea has been particularly highlighted by the book The Purpose Driven Life, written by American pastor Rick Warren, where it is explicitly spelled out as the first of five purposes for every human being (op. cit., published by Zondervan 2002, pp 63ff). There is a good Biblical basis to this point of view, but it does not necessarily mean that God is selfish about creation.

To put it another way, being made for God’s pleasure does not limit the actions and activities of human beings, as long as those activities bring pleasure to God. Again the phrase ‘created in the image of God’ crops up. Human beings, as image-bearing creatures are designed to be relational and as such need other creatures that they can relate to, so that they do not feel ‘alone’.

God could have created every human being the same way Genesis records him creating Adam. Asking why God introduced sex into the equation by creating a new gender leads to pure speculation. Perhaps it was to introduce a random ‘chance’ element into things. Maybe it was a necessary part of allowing free will. It is impossible to know, but Adam’s relational need for a helper does not contradict the idea that all human beings exist because of God’s creative actions and for God’s pleasure.

Thanks for your questions DW.