- Joined
- May 21, 2023
- Messages
- 5,349
- Reaction score
- 5,760
- Points
- 138
- Faith
- Monergist
- Country
- USA
- Marital status
- Widower
- Politics
- Conservative
All through Scripture, I see the huge difference between Man and God, in every way. Even the fact that both exist is different: God exists in and of himself —he is the "what is", base fact, from which all else that exists, descends logically and causally— but man is only, 'creature', no matter to what station or worth God has assigned him. I think probably all the readers here would agree, so far. “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. 9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.…". (From Isaiah 55)
So, God being infinitely 'above' us brings us to his Transcendence. He is still beyond our understanding, no matter how far we go in understanding him. If what I bring to this discussion has any validity, it is still not the whole matter, but just a way to look at things.
The hermeneutics by which theologians and Bible students within Orthodoxy's bounds usually operate, normally insist on certain common sense rules, among which are the maintaining of structure in reading Scripture's words/phrases; that is, for example, if the language is symbolic, then the symbolic word(s) are only symbolic, not literal. The "arm of the Lord" is not talking about an actual arm. Hyperbolic language is only hyperbolic. If the Gate of the New Jerusalem is said to be a gigantic pearl, it is not referring to what we think of in terms of 'one pearl'. And so on.
Same goes for other things: Poetic language need not be used as Doctrinally descriptive in a literal sense. Analogy is only analogous. When one thing is said to be LIKE something else, it only means that it is like that other thing, and is not actually that other thing. (Strange how loosely we find ourselves, though, following these rules. But I digress.)
So, to The Thesis of this OP:
One thing that God being so far above our understanding has brought me to consider, is that we humans, temporally dependent, can't help but see things the way we do. I don't mean that we can't think abstractly but that we necessarily think our thoughts valid, almost as though WE are the purveyors of reality. Thus I have to back up every time I think I have things figured out, because I have come to realize that we look at things backwards. Only God knows what the solid reality is. We have at best, words, wisdom via experience and relationship with Him, to help us understand it. Is it possible that in looking at things backwards, we call, for example, 'symbolic', what is literal, because we can't handle, can't comprehend, the greater or more solid thing of the two? Or, instead, does God have the only REAL arm, and ours is just a poor imitation, ours of mere created material, and his of his very nature, his very being, he who alone is self-existent? Does ours look sort of like his—his being the real thing—instead of resembling ours? Need "the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4) not be THE real mouth, and ours only poor representations to help us consider his? Take, for example, the outlandish concept of the perfect "Bride of Christ", who is "The Body of Christ", "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh", compared to a feeble bride of this temporal existence, and the notion, "one flesh", that she and her silly husband are.
I'm not saying that all things we take for symbolic, (and such), would, under this supposition, be literal in this way. I'm just saying that this seems to me to be a valid consideration in some passages of Scripture. And I'm certainly not proposing that we discard common sense in reading and understanding Scripture! I'm saying, let's admit not only that we don't know much, but that we might do well to consider that we are looking at things backwards.
With this, come several other thoughts: a) Let's don't get carried away with 'spiritualizing' things, as that is not the purpose of Scripture, (though it seems to be a habit with Clergy and laypeople sometimes), amplified by the notion this thesis presents. Let's eschew pursuing all apparent implications, as though they too are not separated by 2 or 3 or more degrees from what already is not Orthodoxy. b) It may be impractical for many of us to 'go there' with this thought —if it makes no difference to our amazement in considering his majesty, beauty, purity and power, and it makes no difference to our love for each other. c) If there is even a 'little something' to this thought, it is as always beyond us to comprehend to its fullest. We will not know until we see him as he is.
So, God being infinitely 'above' us brings us to his Transcendence. He is still beyond our understanding, no matter how far we go in understanding him. If what I bring to this discussion has any validity, it is still not the whole matter, but just a way to look at things.
The hermeneutics by which theologians and Bible students within Orthodoxy's bounds usually operate, normally insist on certain common sense rules, among which are the maintaining of structure in reading Scripture's words/phrases; that is, for example, if the language is symbolic, then the symbolic word(s) are only symbolic, not literal. The "arm of the Lord" is not talking about an actual arm. Hyperbolic language is only hyperbolic. If the Gate of the New Jerusalem is said to be a gigantic pearl, it is not referring to what we think of in terms of 'one pearl'. And so on.
Same goes for other things: Poetic language need not be used as Doctrinally descriptive in a literal sense. Analogy is only analogous. When one thing is said to be LIKE something else, it only means that it is like that other thing, and is not actually that other thing. (Strange how loosely we find ourselves, though, following these rules. But I digress.)
So, to The Thesis of this OP:
One thing that God being so far above our understanding has brought me to consider, is that we humans, temporally dependent, can't help but see things the way we do. I don't mean that we can't think abstractly but that we necessarily think our thoughts valid, almost as though WE are the purveyors of reality. Thus I have to back up every time I think I have things figured out, because I have come to realize that we look at things backwards. Only God knows what the solid reality is. We have at best, words, wisdom via experience and relationship with Him, to help us understand it. Is it possible that in looking at things backwards, we call, for example, 'symbolic', what is literal, because we can't handle, can't comprehend, the greater or more solid thing of the two? Or, instead, does God have the only REAL arm, and ours is just a poor imitation, ours of mere created material, and his of his very nature, his very being, he who alone is self-existent? Does ours look sort of like his—his being the real thing—instead of resembling ours? Need "the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4) not be THE real mouth, and ours only poor representations to help us consider his? Take, for example, the outlandish concept of the perfect "Bride of Christ", who is "The Body of Christ", "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh", compared to a feeble bride of this temporal existence, and the notion, "one flesh", that she and her silly husband are.
I'm not saying that all things we take for symbolic, (and such), would, under this supposition, be literal in this way. I'm just saying that this seems to me to be a valid consideration in some passages of Scripture. And I'm certainly not proposing that we discard common sense in reading and understanding Scripture! I'm saying, let's admit not only that we don't know much, but that we might do well to consider that we are looking at things backwards.
With this, come several other thoughts: a) Let's don't get carried away with 'spiritualizing' things, as that is not the purpose of Scripture, (though it seems to be a habit with Clergy and laypeople sometimes), amplified by the notion this thesis presents. Let's eschew pursuing all apparent implications, as though they too are not separated by 2 or 3 or more degrees from what already is not Orthodoxy. b) It may be impractical for many of us to 'go there' with this thought —if it makes no difference to our amazement in considering his majesty, beauty, purity and power, and it makes no difference to our love for each other. c) If there is even a 'little something' to this thought, it is as always beyond us to comprehend to its fullest. We will not know until we see him as he is.
