The One We Call God

The definition of creation is bringing something into existence, which is indicative of an action or process that propels this something into existence. Given this meaning, all matters in the theology of creation stem from a thought and then are brought forth by an action. When examining the definition of chaos, it brings to mind complete confusion or disarray. Behavior and events are not seemingly out of the hands of man. Under this meaning, we can reason that chaos is the result of creation. That reasoning stems from the fact that chaos is merely disordered creation. Thoughts that have been brought into action, but have strayed away from the traditional path of what a creation leads to. Nevermore have these definitions been debated and discussed than in the context of the Bible. Theologians and scholars have pondered over how creation and chaos affect biblical concepts such as social justice, war, and peace. It is this consideration of concepts that this essay will examine.

First, understanding creation and chaos within the Bible must be given its due. Clifford (1985) notes that there significant differences in how the Israelites see creation versus the modern perspective. "Modern common-sense definitions of creation are inadequate for biblical texts" (508-509). One intellectual, Arvid Kapelrud, according to Clifford (1985) outlines that "creation is when something new which was not there before is produced, [yet that] leaves a crucial question unanswered. Is the something new which was not there before, the physical universe or structured and secure human society" (509). More or less, is creation something we give birth to or a peaceful society that operates in a systematic fashion? Clifford (1985) adds that there are four differences in the modern viewpoint on creation versus the biblical outlook. These four differences are "the process, the product, the description and the criteria for truth" (509). The modern thought sees creation as an interaction of physical forces and based in science, while the biblical text views it as a faith concept. Creation in the Bible is something that cannot be explained by science. It is a "nonhuman phenomena" (509). 

The product is what emerges as a result of the creation process. Where modern thinkers would rationalize it in a biological sense, while the ancient text would see it as a particular form of organization (Clifford 509). In other words, much of the discussion between the biblical text and modern thought regarding creation is based on how much science plays a part in the dynamic. The third difference adds that modern rationale is concerned with creation being derived "according to scientific laws" (Clifford 511), where religion offers that there is no basis for such conceptualization in that argument. Finally, the fourth difference rests on the criterion of truth, which outrightly suggests that modern thinkers see creation in need of empirical data and definitive explanation where Christians have faith what God created and understand that to be true. 

The modern thought rejects that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth and said 'let there be light' and there was light [and] God saw how good the light was and separated the light from darkness [...] then God said 'let the water team with an abundance of living creatures, on the earth let birds fly beneath the dome of the sky.' And so it happened" (Genesis 1:1-20 NAB). The modern thinker according to Richard Clifford's (1985) article wants proof that such a force could create what we as a society have come to understand as life. The Christian perspective accepts what the Bible says as truth, without question. Thus, when considering the issues of social justice, war, and peace, a modern thinker would suggest that these issues are the result of something man created, while the biblical scholar would reason that these issues are the result of creation that God began because “[God] was the beginning. All things came to be through him and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race" (John 1:1-4 NAB).  Therefore, the issue of social justice, war and peace are the results of God’s creation of life. In fact, all concepts presented in the Bible such as “the Christian love ethic and teachings about the kingdom of God” (Felder 15) are grounded in the influence of the biblical premise that is creation. Essentially, no concept that operates in society is outside of the creation process for the Christian. 

Of all of the concepts that have been argued between modern thinkers and biblical scholars, social justice seems to be one that continually becomes a prime topic. Many modern viewpoints seek to know whether worldly atrocities are the result of the creation process or just a mere part of life, while Christian thinkers would hold that these atrocities are caused by man who is chaotic and has to be straightened out by God. 

There are an innumerable amount of scriptures in the Bible that discuss God’s wrath, which one could rationalize is his way of distributing justice. This is why God gives every man "faith the size of a mustard seed" (Matthew 17:20 NAB) and "God is a righteous judge, and a God who has indignation every day" (Psalms 7:11 NAB). The challenge that modern thinkers regarding God bringing order into chaos or seemingly balancing the disharmony in society, is what justice actually means. The Bible frequently mentions justice and the just, which indicates that it is a concern of God’s and in turn, man. 

Felder (1988) makes several observations about justice from the biblical perspective noting that it is defined by one's tangible acts of love, caring and mercy and that these are conventional standards that the Christian people adhere to and go by. That social justice is based on love. It is a comingling of the two that God operates and expects his people to go by as well. Love relates to Christian justice in that the interests of others are just as important as one's self-interests (19). 

God then, is able to bring chaos to order through love and distribute justice accordingly. It is important to discuss chaos as a part of this discussion. Arguments regarding chaos can be traced to Adam and Eve in the garden, which essentially began what we have come to know as chaos by partaking of the fruit from the tree in the middle in Genesis 3. Thus, to correct this chaos and bring order in his creation, God brought for the process of salvation. His people would need to atone for their chaotic mistakes and in doing so, order would be restored. 

Paul in Romans crystallizes the argument of the need for creation's salvation and order being brought in the midst of chaos. "It is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: for Jew first, and then Greek. For the righteousness of God [is revealed] from faith to faith, as it is written, 'the one who is righteous by faith will live.' The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them" (Romans 1:16-19). Here Paul shows how God deals with his chaotic world. He [God] has established a way in which his creation should operate. It is his way of keeping the scales of justice balanced in the world. 

A modern perspective would argue that bringing order to chaos is something that man opts to do himself regardless of a universal presence. Yet, Felder (1988) analyzes that “aspects of what we today call social justice were already present in moral and religious thinking in antiquity” (15). In other words, much of the modern perspective on social justice, and chaos for that matter, that many carry in their thought processes is the result of living a moral life, which in essence is a religious concept. 

Thus, when discussing creation and chaos, the Christian outlook overtakes the modern thought because so much of the modern view is a derivative of the Christian perspective despite a lack of acknowledgment of that fact. So can it be said that much of the discussion surrounding creation and chaos is unnecessarily given the intertwining of perspectives? The answer to that question based on the creation argument would be an emphatic yes.

In Genesis 1:26-27 the Bible states that God created each one of us in His likeness and gave man dominion over his respective kingdom. But what exactly does that mean in both the Hebrew and Christian contexts and what role does it play in issues such as social justice? It can be said that God essentially hoped man would concern himself with the plight of society as God does when examining both the Hebrew and Christian contexts. However, where the difference often lies between the two contexts is in the interpretation of social justice.

Bruce Malchow's book Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible diagnoses the differences in contexts. Malchow writes, "interpreters are agreed today that Israel received its concern for social justice from the Near Eastern cultures surrounding it" (2). Justice was an inherent responsibility that the people of Israel performed under as it was a common way of living. Concern for justice was a frequent and widespread threat in the Near East long before the existence of Israel. From the Hebrew context, God's image was the basis for justice issues. But it was an image that "drew on earlier Near Eastern resources" (Malchow 5). Malchow expresses that the Hebrew foundation of justice was created from the book of Exodus and their experiences with God and his ways were how they, in essence, viewed themselves. That God saw injustice as “oppression" (6) and because he created man in His likeness, he was "a God who delivered from oppression" (7). The argument here is that God delivered his people; the Israelites from their oppression because these individuals were created in his likeness and God abhorred injustice. In other words, God could see himself as being oppressed through the eyes of the Israelites and in turn opted to combat that oppression.

Malchow (1996) analyzes the concept of social justice in terms of Israel's class structure and how it has changed over the years. Biblical scholars have noted that "early Israel was not divided into classes and that there was considerable equality among Israelites, however, there is wide disagreement on why this was so. To [better] understand the disagreement, it is necessary to [examine] the origins of Israel" (8). 

Malchow begins a discussion on the approaches that have been rationalized as to the existence of Israel and where it came from. These approaches are the invasion model, the immigration model, the Stiebing paradigm and the revolt model. Each approach can be applied to the concept of God's image as "when God created man, he made him in the likeness of [himself]" (Genesis 5:1 NAB), thus each approach emphatically deals with social justice and in turn, society's treatment of God's creation.

The invasion model begins as a result of John Bright, a biblical scholar who derived that Israel is the result of events depicted in the Book of Joshua, which describe how Israel "invaded Canaan under the leadership of Joshua and successfully conquered [the land] and proceeded to distribute [it] to various tribes of Israel" (Malchow 9). Yet, Malchow finds there are issues with this model because it is not supported by other books in the Bible specifically the Book of Judges, and as such this particular approach to how Israel came to be is barely discussed by biblical intellectuals today. The second approach that Malchow (1996) notes is one presented by Martin Noth, known as the immigration model. This particular way of understanding and ascertaining Israel's rise deals with Canaan, but adds that various tribes that were not connected entered at various times throughout the "time of David" (9).

Thirdly, William Stiebing, another biblical intellectual "proposed a paradigm [that] demonstrates that there was a major drought throughout the Mediterranean region at the time of Israel's origin" (Malchow 10). Finally, the revolt model is presented. This particular approach adds that early Israel did not have social classes and that everyone was equal (Malchow 11). Essentially, what Malchow (1996) is suggesting with this specific presentation is that much of the arguments regarding Israel's injustices can be attributed to a variety of thoughts on their existence as a people and in essence, God's existence.

Another issue that often debated and discussed in the corridors of social justice and the Bible is in the law codes that the Israelites established. Malchow (1996) states that much of the "concern for social justice [comes] from the Near Eastern cultures surrounding it, [but] it is difficult to know how to relate this fact to the law codes" (20). Yet, in further analysis, Malchow discovered similarities both the codes and literature pertaining to Near Eastern cultures, suggesting a commonality between the two. Hence, the Hebrew ways of operation are closely linked to Christian ideals. It is important at this juncture of the discussion to clarify the nature of the law codes and their closely linked aspects to Near Eastern cultures.

Many of the laws are the result of the Book of the Covenant and the Deuteronomic Code, and the Holiness Code. These texts mention social justice and scholars have suggested that Israel borrow[ed] and adapt[ed] these texts from the Near Eastern cultures. Some of the respective commands discuss mistreatment and oppressive actions and "call for positive deeds toward the deprived" (Malchow 22). Here, Malchow is providing a definitive backdrop to the image of God, in that God made certain "the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (2 Corinthians 4:4 NAB) would be protected by having the Israelites add those commands in the various laws.

Specifically, God ensures in the Book of the Covenant that "Israel is not permitted to collect interest from the poor who borrow. The Holiness Code increases the protection of the deprived by forbidding that they repay interest as well as paying it in advance. The safety which such laws provided the poor becomes clearer when it is observed" (Malchow 23) when observed through the lens of the Near Eastern cultures. God explicitly ensured that the Israelite additions would benefit the poor, downtrodden and deprived in an effort to uphold his image.

Malchow (1996) also examines the issue of motivation within the context of social justice. First, the laws are meant to rectify any mistreatment of the Israelite's fellow man. The Israelites paid particular attention to provide motivation for God's people if they followed what God wanted established. God promises "blessings for obedience" (27). Much of the rationale behind these motivations was to further uphold his image and overall authority as God continually notes that he is God. In Isaiah 45:5 NAB, God states that he is [the Lord and there is no other; beside [him] there is no God." In addition to blessings by God for treating their fellow man right and in effect preserving the image of God, "other types of motivations show high regard for ethical sensitivity of their readers. These incentives call upon Israelites' compassion or reasonableness. [Also] another kind of motivation recognizes people's willingness to make responsible choices appeals to Israel’s experience in Exodus" (Malchow 27-29).  

Finally, Malchow (1996) deals with how God "reacts to the deprived. People are to imitate God's feelings and actions toward the need. God acts justly for the fatherless and widow. Yahweh is not partial and takes no bribe. God loves and gives food and clothing to the sojourner" (28). Here, Malchow (1996) continues to argue his overall point that God is essentially in the business of protecting his people, and in order to do that, he must also protect his image. God sought to entrust his image with his creation and created a definitive way in which that could be done without hesitation or confusion.

So in discussing the image of God, does the Bible lend itself to a plausible definition of what that is both from the Israelite point of view and the Christian perspective? If Malchow (1996) is correct in his argumentation regarding social justice and God’s overall operation of ensuring man is treated fairly, then the image of God essentially can be likened to one of justice from both perspectives. The Christian people follow the Bible as truth, and while the Israelites do not overwhelmingly support much of the New Testament literature, their faith foundation is wholeheartedly placed in the Old Testament literature. Therefore, the image of God is not distinctively different from either viewpoint. There is no real opposition or battling of the contexts, but more or less a straightforward similarity between them. The image of God then is based on Near Eastern cultures, which the Israelites derived their conceptualizations of God from and in turn, the Christians have derived their conceptualizations from. It is a cyclical rationalization of God’s image and what is exactly means to both mankind and to God himself. 

Works Cited

Clifford, Richard J. "The Hebrew Scriptures And The Theology of Creation." Theological Studies 46 (1985): 507-523. Print.

Felder, Cain H. "Toward a New Testament Hermeneutic for Justice." Journal of Religious Thought 45 (1988): 10-28. Print.

Malchow, Bruce V. Social Justice in the Hebrew Bible. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996. Print.