The Generation of Light, Order, and the Fullness of Life through God’s Word

The Bible teaches that the universe has been created by an eternally existing, powerful God. According to the biblical account of creation in Gen 1, God created the world, but (surprisingly perhaps) he did so in stages.

The first stage of creation involved the creation of the basic content of the universe: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Resulting from this original act of creation, the earth came into existence, but its original state for a certain period of time was chaotic: “but the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).

The original chaotic state of the earth forces the reader to ask why. Specifically, why would God, when he created the world, initially create the earth to be formless and empty? Surely God with his infinite power could have created a world that was fully formed right from the very beginning. He could have created a world complete in every way in the blink of an eye. He could have, but he chose not to. Why then would a God of order create a world that existed in a state of some kind of disorder for a certain limited period of time? In addition, why would a God of light, the God in whom there is no darkness at all, create the earth only to cover it in darkness at least for an initial period of time?

An important clue to the answer to these questions can be found in the final clause in Gen 1:2 where we are told that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water.” The initial state of the the earth was formless, empty, and dark; but the chaotic mass was pregnant with the expectation of new life, because the Spirit of God was brooding over the water.

In effect, Genesis 1:2 gives the starting point for the subsequent six days of the ordering of creation. Over the six days of creation God would take the formless, empty, dark mass, and lighten, shape, and fill it. Genesis 1 involves, therefore, a movement from negative to positive, a movement from disorder, emptiness, and darkness (in v. 2), to light (v. 3), order (through God’s work of dividing and naming in vv. 4–10), and filling (vv. 11–31).

Therefore, on Day One, God speaks into the midst of the darkness, and creates light. God not only creates light, but he creates order through dividing and naming. He divides the light from the darkness, and calls the light day, and the darkness night.

On Day Two, God divides the water covering the earth into two layers, and the boundary between these two layers he calls heaven or sky. In doing this, God begins to give order to the original chaotic mass.

On Day Three, God makes dry land appear, and calls the water seas, and the dry land earth. God brings order to the original chaotic mass in order to make it habitable. Having created order and various spaces, God then sets about dealing with the problem of the emptiness of the original chaotic mass. And so on Day Three God also makes vegetation to begin to cover the land.

On Day Four, God continues his work of filling by filling the heavens with the sun, moon, and stars. These objects also have a role in giving light, and in ordering or dividing day from night, and in giving order to time. The sun and the moon are the timepieces in the sky that God has given us in order to be aware of, and to keep track of, time.

On Day Five, God continues the work of filling his canvas. He fills the space of sea with all sorts of fish and swimming creatures. And the great space, the expanse of sky, is filled with birds and other sorts of flying creatures.

On Day Six, God turns his attention to filling the space called earth, the land. He begins by creating all sorts of domesticable animals, creepy crawlies, and wild animals. But the pinnacle of the land creatures is humanity, male and female. And with human beings, God’s work of filling is effectively complete. That is not to say, however, that the world was full. In the beginning there were only two human beings. There was room for more filling to take place, but for all intents and purposes (apart from the human race) the world was full with all of the creatures that God had determined in his wisdom to make.

And then on Day Seven, God rested, not because he was tired, but because his work of creating was over. God started things off, creating the universe, and making Planet Earth fit for habitation. He started the work of filling the world, but handed over the rest of the work of filling the planet to the human race to achieve. The significance of God’s rest on the seventh day is that it is a promise to humanity. God has invited the human race to continue his work of building the kingdom of God on earth (Gen 1:28); and as we follow his pattern in taking the order and life-giving power of God’s word out into the whole world, so too when our work is complete, we will enter the liberation of an eternal rest, which involves enjoying the fruits of blessing in God’s kingdom forever more. God’s resting on the seventh day is therefore a promise of eventual perfection and of our enjoyment of that perfection after it has been achieved.

But how is humanity to build the kingdom of God on earth? The key to humanity’s work of building the kingdom of God on earth can be seen in the way in which God went about building the world in the first place. In particular, God brought light, order, and filling with life into the world through his word. The tenfold repetition of the expression ויאמר אלהים and God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29) in Gen 1 deliberately emphasizes the important role of the divine word in reversing the “problem” of the formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass. Ten times God spoke … in order to bring light, order, and life into the world.

The Generation of the World through the Word of God

A key message of Gen 1, therefore, is simply that it is the word of God that brings light, order, and life into existence. God created the world in stages as a lesson for the human race in order to help us appreciate the way in which God’s word is the unifying structure of the universe and the key to life in the universe. Genesis 1 tells not only that God is the Creator of the cosmos, but that God the Creator is the God who acts through the power of his Spirit and word to transform darkness into light, chaos into order, and the absence of life into life. The rest of the story of the Bible is concerned to record the development of the kingdom of God on earth in tandem with the historical response of humanity to the word of God. Obedience to the word of God builds the kingdom of God, bringing light, order, and the fullness of life to the world; whereas disobedience to the word of God brings about a reversion to the default state of the world, the state of formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass.

God the Eternally Self-Generating Ultimate Cause

The story of the Bible starts with God. The Bible tells us “in the beginning God” (Gen 1:1). God just ... is! God is uncreated reality, eternally self-generating, without beginning and without end. He has always been around, and always will be around.

The existence of God is the fundamental starting point of Christianity. Whatever system of religion or philosophy that one believes in, there has to be starting point. When it comes to the question of the existence of the world there are only four major options: (1) either the world is not real, and all of “reality” is unreal (like some kind of dream); or (2) the world is real and eternal; or (3) the world is real but finite in time, and has come from absolutely nothing; or (4) the world is real but finite in time, and has been caused or created by a previously existing power.

The view that the world is eternal was taught by some ancient Greek philosophers (e.g., Aristotle), and it is also taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. The view that matter has come from nothing, that absolutely everything has come from absolutely nothing, is the view of various forms of modern atheism. Despite the fact that many scientific atheists hold this view, this is logically speaking a difficult position to hold in view of the scientific axiom of cause and effect. Science (with the arguable exception of quantum mechanics) presupposes the idea of cause and effect. To hold that the big bang which led to the formation of the universe came from absolute nothingness—the equivalent of saying that the big bang had no cause—is to posit the existence of an effect without a cause. For the view that the world has come from a previously existing power, the major religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in one eternal God who is Creator of the universe.

Which view is the most logical of these options? The major choice today lies between theism and atheism. Out of these, theism is more logical and much more probable. It requires a lot more faith to believe that all of the universe and the approximately 100 million different species that inhabit our earth came about as a massive fluke, totally by chance, from absolutely nothing, than it does to believe that there was a powerful self-generating designer who generated this world for a reason. Both theism and standard atheism hold that everything came from nothing. In theism, however, there is a cause: God.

The Significance of the Divine Posture of Sitting and Standing Portrayed in the Bible

I have been asked to comment on the divine posture of standing and sitting that appears in the Bible. When we normally think of God, I guess we tend to think of him as being seated on a throne. My guess is that a king sitting particularly expresses the authority and majesty of the king in question, and that this applies to God as well. Yahweh sitting in 1 Kgs 22:19 goes together with the phrase on his throne. It speaks of Yahweh’s authority and sovereignty over all things, including (in the context) his authority over kings like Ahab. In Isa 6:1, Yahweh sitting definitely expresses his majesty. This is clear from the context: notice the connection of Yahweh sitting with the phrase high and lifted up. It is definitely emphasizing the majesty of God’s kingly authority. But sitting can also convey the idea of the exercise of authority in conducting war and executing justice against the enemies (Ps 110:1; Rev 19:11), as well as the idea of victory accomplished (see Rev 3:21). With victory accomplished, it’s a bit like the Messiah (who has been seated for a while) can finally relax and put his feet up ... on the enemies who have become his footstool!

But the Bible also describes instances of God standing. What is the significance of God standing rather than sitting? My initial thoughts are that standing up in public space is often a pragmatic posture connected with the purpose of being seen and heard clearly when speaking. Relating this to God, the idea behind God standing is that standing is the kind of posture that is appropriate for a judgment or proclamation of some kind (see Neh 9:3-4; 2 Chr 20:20; 24:20; Luke 5:1). This fits in with my suggestion regarding Ps 82:1, that the parallelism in this verse links God’s standing with his function as a judge (see “I Said You Are Gods”: The Meaning of Psalm 82).

God is actually recorded as standing a number of times in the Scriptures. He stood to give a special promise to Jacob (Gen 28:13-15); he stood to proclaim the meaning of his name to Moses (Exod 34:5); he stood to indict Aaron and Miriam for sin (Num 12:5-9); he stood to call Samuel and to deliver a word of judgment against the house of Eli (1 Sam 3:10-13); he stood (in a vision) to speak a word of judgment against Israel (Amos 7:7-9). But the key verse for understanding the significance of God standing is Isa 3:13-14:

“The Lord has taken his place to contend; he stands to judge peoples. The Lord will enter into judgment with the elders and princes of his people.”

Here the idea of the judge standing is seen to mimic the posture of the accuser in court. So God stands when he is acting as a judge, bringing accusations and delivering judgments.

But the New Testament suggests that God can also stand in order to give encouragement. In Acts 23:11 God appeared standing in a vision in which he encouraged the Apostle Paul to be bold in his testimony to the gospel. This idea also seems to be confirmed by Paul’s words in 2 Tim 4:17:

“But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.”

The Lord can stand in order to stand alongside of his people, to give them encouragement and strength.

What then is the significance of Stephen’s observing Jesus standing at the right hand of God in Acts 7:55? I will explore that in my next post.

"I Said You Are Gods": John 10:34–36 and the Divinity of Jesus

How should we understand Jesus’ quote of Ps 82:6 in John 10:34? I have argued previously that the term gods is used in Ps 82 of the rulers of Israel who are viewed as being members of the divine council (see “‘I Said You Are Gods’: The Meaning of Psalm 82”). As VIPs in God’s presence, they can legitimately be called gods or sons of God. They are gods not in terms of their inherent nature or being, but only in the sense that they have been invited by God to be members of the divine assembly. God effectively has his own “pantheon,” an assembly of VIPs who have been given the privilege of listening to his wise counsel and legal judgments, and who (on the basis of this) are supposed to judge and rule God’s people justly.

Picking up on this idea, in John 10:34 Jesus points out to his Jewish opponents that their law (i.e., the Hebrew Bible) records God calling the rulers of Israel gods. Jesus’ explanation of the significance of this verse is given in John 10:35–36:

“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Jesus’ statement in v. 35 that God “called them gods to whom the word of God came” confirms the suggestion that the VIPs in God’s presence had the privilege of hearing God’s wise counsel and legal judgments. These VIPs heard the word of God, and could legitimately be called gods, Jesus implies, as Ps 82 shows.

In v. 36 Jesus then compares himself with these gods. A number of scholars have noted that Jesus employs in v. 36 a qal wahomer (i.e., an a fortiori) argument. A qal wahomer argument follows the logic of if A is a true, then how much more is B true. If the rulers of Israel who had the privilege of hearing God’s word could legitimately be called gods, how much more appropriate is it that he “whom the Father consecrated and sent into the word” be called the Son of God!

In the context, Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God is not merely an assertion of his Messianic status. To confess that Jesus is the Son of God can simply mean that Jesus is the Messiah, who is viewed as being human (e.g., John 1:34, 49). The idea of a human messiah is quite acceptable in Jewish circles. But John’s Gospel broadens the meaning of the concept of the Son of God. Jesus is portrayed in this Gospel as being a divine messiah. According to John’s Gospel, true faith confesses that Jesus is a divine Messiah, the true bread from heaven, who is one with the Father.

Jesus is clearly asserting the idea that he is a divine Messiah in John 10:30–38. He inserted himself into the Shema, claiming “I and the Father are one” (v. 30). He spoke of how he had been sent into the world by the Father (v. 36), which implies his heavenly pre-existence. He goes on to say that “the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (v. 38), and his opponents react once again by seeking to seize him (v. 39).

The qal wahomer form of Jesus’ argument also means that it is not right to argue on the basis of John 10:34 that Jesus is the most exalted god among many. The a fortiori nature of the argument means that Jesus cannot be said to be a god in the same way that the rulers or any of God’s people can. The god-like VIPs of Ps 82 were recipients of divine revelation (John 10:35), but Jesus is the supreme vehicle of divine revelation (John 1:14, 18). The VIPs heard the word of God, but Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1, 14). The VIPs are of the world, but Jesus was sent into the world (John 10:36). Being the self-revelation of the Father in human form, Jesus is God. God the Father is invisible and unknowable (John 1:18; Col 1:15; 1 Tim 6:16). He expresses himself, and makes himself visible and knowable, through the Son. Because the Son is the expression of the Father, the Son is God, because he is the form in which the Father has chosen to reveal himself to us.

“No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known (John 1:18).”

If we human beings of faith who are made from the dust of the earth are privileged to be raised up to be seated in the heights of heaven as members of the divine assembly and given the exalted title of gods, how much more should the One who is the self-expression of the Father in physical form be called God in the fullest sense of the word!

YHWH said that we are gods, and he also says that Jesus is God.

"I Said You Are Gods": John 10:34 Must Be Understood in the Context of John 10:30

I’ve been asked how I would respond to a Jehovah’s Witness interpreting John 10:34-36 as evidence that the term god can be used to refer to human beings. Of course, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim this passage as confirming their belief that Jesus is not God, but the most exalted of the sons of God (who can also legitimately be called gods).

Suggesting that John 10:34–36 supports the view that Jesus is not God does not fit with the evidence of John 10:30. I have argued in a previous post that in John 10:30 Jesus inserts himself into the Jewish Shema on a level equal with God the Father (see “Is Jesus God? The Significance of the Shema of Jesus in John 10:30”). Jesus’ opponents obviously understood that he was claiming to be equal with God, because they picked up stones to stone him (John 10:31) for the sin of blasphemy: “We are not stoning you for any good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, a man, make yourself God” (John 10:33). In the context, the word theon in v. 33 should be translated as God rather than as a god. The sin of blasphemy is considered in Judaism as being a sin against the name of YHWH. Jesus’ Jewish opponents wanted to stone him, because he had blasphemed the divine name by inserting his own name into the Shema, as if he were YHWH himself. This is exactly what Jesus was claiming. By inserting his name into the Shema, he was claiming to be YHWH himself. Therefore, Jesus’ Jewish opponents understood correctly that he was claiming to be equal with the Father, hence their desire to stone him.

In response to their desire to put him to death, Jesus quoted Ps 82:6: “I said, ‘You are gods’” (John 10:34), and argued as follows:

“If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:35–36).

In order to understand Jesus’ argument, we need to understand Ps 82. This will be the subject of my next post. But however John 10:34–36 is to be understood, it must be consistent with the unequivocal evidence of John 10:30.

Is Jesus God? The Significance of the Shema of Jesus in John 10:30

Is Jesus God? The Shema of Jesus in John 10:30 tells us what Jesus himself thought, assuming of course that this verse is an accurate record of what Jesus himself said.

The divinity of Jesus is one of the key themes of the Gospel of John. In a debate with some of his Jewish opponents about whether he was the Christ, Jesus responded with the statement I and the Father are one (John 10:30). Jesus’ opponents obviously understood that he was claiming to be equal with God, because they picked up stones to stone him (in accordance with Lev 24:16) for the sin of blasphemy (John 10:31). This is confirmed in their explanation in John 10:33. In their opinion, Jesus could not be God, because he was a human being.

In the context, the word theon in v. 33 should be translated as God rather than as a god. The sin of blasphemy was (and is) considered in Judaism as being a sin against the name of YHWH. By saying I and the Father are one, Jesus was actually alluding to the Shema, the basic Jewish confession of faith: “Hear [shema in Hebrew], O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is one” (Deut 6:4). The Shema clearly teaches that Yahweh is one. But notice how Jesus changes it. In place of Yahweh, he has I and the Father. From the orthodox Jewish perspective, this is gross blasphemy. Jesus was saying that the Shema applied to him! He actually mentions himself before the Father. He was claiming to be Yahweh! This is why his Jewish opponents wanted to stone him. In their opinion, he had blasphemed the divine name.

Jesus’ christological transformation of the Shema is one of the reasons why the orthodox Christian position has been that Jesus is God’s anthropological self-revelation. Christianity teaches in effect that God created a physical universe with the plan of entering the universe himself in a personal way in human form, in the person of Jesus, the image of God, for the purpose of self-revelation.

The New World Translation of John 1:1 and Colwell's Rule

I have been asked to comment of the interpretation of the third clause of John 1:1 in the light of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation and the Word was a god. To insist that John 1:1c should be translated and the Word was a god on the basis of Greek grammar is incorrect. Likewise, some people, seeking to defend the orthodox Christian translation of the clause, have misguidedly appealed to a grammatical rule called Colwell’s Rule.

Colwell stated that “definite predicate nouns [i.e., definite noun complements] which precede the verb usually lack the article” (E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” JBL 52 [1933]: 20), approximately 87% of the time (David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek to Me: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to Intermediate Greek [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 79). That may be true for pre-verbal definite noun complements, but others have pointed out that anarthrous (i.e., non-articular) pre-verbal noun complements are usually qualitative.

In the end, the proper translation of such clauses is dependent on the context, but the balance of probability strongly favors the pre-verbal definite noun complement as being qualitative, hence the suggestion by some that John 1:1c is best translated as and the Word was divine. Given the broader context that Jesus and his disciples accepted the Jewish monotheistic idea that God is one, the New World Translation is clearly a case of eisegesis dictating translation. The idea of the Word being divine is that he shares in the divine nature of the one true God.