God's Delight
"May the LORD rejoice in his works." (Psalm 104:31)
The God Who Needs Nothing
Genesis does not open by explaining God. It opens with Him
speaking, and the first thing said of what He makes is that it is good. Again
and again the verdict comes: God saw that it was good. And at the end,
complete: "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very
good." Before there is a doctrine of God, there is a Maker Who looks at
what He has made and delights in it.
The doctrine came later, worked out carefully because so
much depended on getting it right. God is one, eternal, uncreated,
all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, good beyond any goodness we can imagine.
He is, in the old phrase, actus purus: no potential left unrealised,
nothing in Him still waiting to become something else. Aquinas gave the
classical formulation: in God, essence and existence are not two things. God is
ipsum esse subsistens, subsistent Being itself. Everything else receives
its being. God does not.
God does not need the world.
A creature moves because it seeks something it lacks. An
animal eats because it is hungry. A plant reaches towards the light. A man
builds because the rain would otherwise fall on him. Motion in a finite thing
is almost always the closing of a gap. God has no gap to close. Nothing He does
completes Him or diminishes Him.
So why is there anything?
I want to resist reaching for the word love too quickly.
Love is where this will end up, but arriving there before the ground is laid
only makes a true thing sound cheap. A being who lacks nothing has, on the face
of it, no reason to make anything, unless making is not quite the right word
for what He does.
The God Who Is Love
John begins his Gospel by echoing Genesis: in the beginning
was the Word. Before there was a beginning for anything else, the Word already
was, already with God, already God. Near the end of that same Gospel, at the
Last Supper, Christ prays to the Father about a love that did not start with
the world: "You loved me before the foundation of the world."
Whatever else that sentence means, it rules out one tempting answer to our
question. God was not lonely before He made anything, because there was no
before in which that love had not been given and received.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not a technicality bolted
onto monotheism. It is the reason the whole question of creation looks
different for Christians than it does for traditions that share much else
Christians believe about God.
Before there was a world, the Father eternally begets, loves
and is loved by the Son.
This is not a transaction across distance, unfolding in
stages where something given is eventually handed back. It is the eternal
giving of the whole fullness of divine life; a life the Son receives without
remainder and possesses fully as His own.
The Spirit is not the leftover warmth of that exchange, an
atmosphere generated between two others. He proceeds eternally from that
communion, as fully divine as the Father and the Son.
John's first letter puts it plainly: God is love. Not: God
became loving once there was something to love. God is love before any of that,
which is why John can also say we love because He first loved us, and mean it
about eternity, not just about us.
Creation, then, cannot be God filling a silence in Himself.
There was no silence to fill.
The Gift of Being
This leaves the question sharper than before. A God who is,
eternally, a communion of perfect love needs no audience, companion, or
project. And yet Genesis says: let there be light. Something exists after that
sentence that did not exist before it, and the difference is not that God has
gained anything.
Augustine took a question that sounds childish, and it
turned out to be exactly the right one. What was God doing before He made
heaven and earth? There was no before, not in the sense of an empty stretch of
time God let pass. Time itself is part of what was made. God does not wait
through an eternity of nothing and then, one day, decide to act. God eternally
wills the world's existence, while the world He wills comes to be in time,
because time itself is among the things willed.
Creation has a beginning. God does not.
Creation is God calling into existence what had no
existence. That is what theologians mean by creatio ex nihilo, creation
out of nothing, not God shaping some pre-existing material the way a sculptor
works stone; there was, in the fullest sense, nothing there before He spoke.
And what He spoke into existence, He called good. Not
useful. Not necessary. Good. The way a gift is good regardless of whether the
giver needed to give it. Genesis says so seven times, the seventh without
qualification: very good. The Psalmist takes the thought further than a bare
verdict. May the LORD rejoice in his works, he writes, and Proverbs pictures
Wisdom herself standing beside God at creation rejoicing in His world.
Scripture does not ask us to infer that God delights in what He made. It tells
us so, directly, before any philosopher builds an argument for why He must.
One caution. God's delight is not like ours when we finally
get something we lacked or wanted. If I delight in a garden, the garden gives
me something I did not have before. God's joy in creation adds nothing to God.
The sun is not brighter for a window letting its light into a room; the room is
what changes. Creation does not make God more glorious. It receives and
reflects a glory that is entirely His.
God's delight in creation is not a new feeling produced in
Him by the world. He eternally knows and freely wills the goodness of what He
makes.
What Creation Is For
If creation adds nothing to God, then its purpose cannot be
to supply something He lacks. God is perfect and lacks nothing. Yet goodness is
not something that needs to be hoarded. It gives itself. Creation is not
necessary to God. It is a gift of His goodness, willed because He wills that
something other than Himself should exist and share in the goodness He
possesses perfectly.
God created to manifest and share His perfection.
Scripture tells us what that manifestation looks like.
Creation is ordered toward God's glory, receiving it, reflecting it, and making
it visible. The heavens are telling the glory of God, says the Psalmist, and
Paul will later say the same of the whole created order, that what can be known
of God has been visible in what He has made since the world began. Elsewhere he
compresses the whole movement into a single sentence: "For from him and
through him and to him are all things." Creation comes from God, exists
through His sustaining will, and finds its fulfilment in Him.
Within that larger praise, human beings have a particular
vocation. Made in God's image, they are placed in a garden to tend it. The
garden is received as gift and held as responsibility. Beyond stewardship lies
something more intimate. Human beings are not spectators of God. We are made
for communion with Him, to see Him face-to-face, to know and be known, to love
and be loved.
Here Christianity makes a stranger claim about the Giver:
the eternal Word took created human nature to Himself, remaining fully God
without diminishment or division.
The World That Can Grow
To help fathom how a perfect God relates to a dynamic,
unfinished world, it helps to step into a garden.
I have spent a good part of my life in gardens with soil
under my fingernails, and most of my thinking about providence has happened
there. I see gardening as working both with and against nature. A good gardener
is never really fighting the garden. He is learning its ways.
Ivy is a simple example. It clothes bare stone and stays
green through winter, but left unchecked, it smothers other life and damages
the wall beneath it. You cut it back not to destroy it, but to keep its
vitality from becoming destructive.
So too with a rose. You prune the bush you love because you
are looking for the flower it is capable of bearing, not just the raw growth it
happens to produce. There is a quiet satisfaction in the first bloom after a
hard prune. It isn't a side effect of gardening; it is the point.
A gardener does not make ivy or a rose. He clears ground,
feeds soil, and waits, sometimes for years, for something he cannot manufacture
and can only encourage. Little worth having in a garden arrives ready-made. He
works with a plant's own nature rather than against it.
This is a poor image for creation out of nothing, since a
gardener always starts with soil someone else provided. It belongs to what
theologians call secondary causality: the ordinary way God brings a creature to
its own fulfilment through the powers He has already given it, working with and
through a nature rather than overriding it. It says nothing about the deeper
act by which that nature, and the ground it grows in, exist rather than not.
It is a good image for what God does with what He has made
exist. He cultivates a living thing, giving it room to become what it was made
to be. Watch a garden long enough, and you notice things arriving that were
never quite part of the plan. Birds come because a flourishing garden becomes
the kind of place life wants to inhabit. It gives more than was put into it,
and no gardener minds. The surplus is half the pleasure.
This helps us see one reason why God made a world with
matter, time, freedom, and growth, rather than a world of finished statues.
Statues cannot fail to grow, or grow crooked, or grow toward the wrong light,
but neither can they receive, respond, or love. Freedom is what makes communion
possible rather than mere compliance.
Freedom was given for the good, with grace enough to help
the creature toward it. It was never a bare power to choose equally between
good and evil. Its fullest exercise is the joyful choice of God, which is why
the saints in heaven, where falling away is no longer possible, are the freest
of all. Communion is the end for which He made creatures able to receive it,
wanting nothing back from the sharing.
A world that can grow is also, necessarily, a world that can
grow wrong. That was never a cost extracted from God, some fee He had no choice
but to pay for the world He wanted. He permitted the possibility of refusal
without willing the refusal itself, and what He draws from the wound is a good
that we could not have imagined before the wound existed. That is not because
the wound was needed, or the refusal in any sense good. Sin was never
necessary, and God never willed it, only permitted it as the risk real freedom
carries.
The Wound
Growth that can go right can also go wrong, and Genesis does
not wait long to show us.
The man and woman in the first garden were endowed with
freedom, and given the grace necessary to remain faithful, though they had not
yet reached the final confirmation in holiness that belongs to glory. They used
that freedom to refuse the Giver rather than trust Him.
What follows is the possibility that genuine freedom
carries.
This is not the place to work out what that refusal cost, or
how it was answered. It is enough here to say that the wound is real, that
creation itself groans under it, in Paul's own words, waiting to be set free,
and that a God Who delighted in what He made did not, on account of the wound,
stop delighting in it or walk away. He did something stranger.
The Gardener Enters His Garden
The Word through whom all things were made did not stay
outside what He had made. The One who entered creation to heal what had been
wounded is the same One through whom all things were made and for whom they
were made. He became flesh and dwelt among us, taking created human nature to
Himself.
The Creator entered the garden He tended.
What that entry cost Him, and what it accomplished, is the
reason God's original delight in creation was never a delight He later
withdrew.
The Harvest
Genesis moves from creation into a garden: a tree, a river,
humanity living in God's presence. Revelation closes in a garden-city: a river,
a tree bearing fruit on either bank, God dwelling among His people never to
leave. Eden's own vocabulary is carried all the way to the end and flowers into
something larger. The garden does not disappear from the story. It becomes a
city without ceasing to be a garden.
Genesis gives us God walking in the garden in the cool of
the day. In another garden, Gethsemane, He prayed the Agony to its end. Soon
after, He wore a crown of thorns. He was executed, and on the third day He
rose, and again walked in a garden, where the first person to see Him mistook
Him for exactly what He had always been.
She saw more truly than she knew.
We are told that the story ends with God dwelling among His people in a city that always remained a garden. The distance between Eden and the New Jerusalem is the whole of it. He rejoices in the goodness that survives the wound, and in the mercy that meets it, never in the wound itself. Not a God who needed a world, but a God Who freely willed one and has not, since the first morning, let go of His delight.
References
Scripture: Genesis 1:31; 1:26–28;
2:15; 3:8; 3:17–18; Psalm 19:1; 104:31; Proverbs 8:30–31; John 1:1, 1:14;
17:24; 20:15; Romans 1:20; 8:19–22; 11:36; 1 John 4:8, 4:19; Colossians 1:15–20;
Luke 22:44; Matthew 27:29; Revelation 21:3; 22:1–2.
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-Revised-Standard-Version-Catholic-Edition-NRSVCE-Bible/
Catechism of the Catholic Church: CCC
1–2, 27; 293–294; 295, 317; 306; 385–412; 460; 1721.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
Augustine, Confessions (XI.12–13).
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm
Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua
7 (PG 91).
https://archive.org/details/ambigua0000maxi
Thomas Aquinas, Summa
Theologiae (I, q. 3, a. 4).
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/
Athanasius, On the Incarnation
of the Word (54.3).
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2802.htm
I appreciate all the effort you have put into writing and researching these posts. I have not read this properly yet but I would like to express an opinion which you probably will not appreciate. I think that there is too much effort to try an understand God. It will never be posiible. One muxt accept that God is perfection creates only marvels and good. And any antithesis to this is not from God. Why does he allow this? These are human questions that do not apply...We re trying to understand through being human what God is doing. It is not possible. That is why we must trust in God and believe that God is good and everything wonderful is a testament to him. Look at the natural world and the extraordinary achievements of humans... how any one could be an atheist astounds me, Of course I could go on and on but just before I go God did not create Satan or evil. It's always with us alive and thriving...we should all be working on how to defeat it before it destroys us
ReplyDeleteIt is puzzling but we have been promised it's not going to prevail against the Church us...Do we have to know where evil originated? I mean it's interesting to study but we have to realise it's a human pursuit to have to understand and know everything
We know we have to defeat it. Miss you Doddles .Been reading some hilarious comments you .made on my poems more than a decade ago Hope you are keeping well......Cressie x
I think that the gardening analogy brings us back to the same sticking point we keep hitting in these discussions: no good gardener would allow his garden to become overrun with dangerous and hostile plants or animals that choke the life out of everything else. Matthew 13 promises a suitably horticultural resolution at the end of time, but it's hard to offer eschatological solutions to immediate suffering and call it love.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, for a while my dad has been painstakingly trying to grow a cultivated blackberry plant in good soil, well watered and tended, which is yielding three or four tiny, sour blackberries a year. Meanwhile, the wild bramble growing from about an inch of dirt in a crack in the wall at the back of the garden is always laden with big, sweet, juicy fruit. I'm sure there's a lesson in there somewhere.
It's taken me three days to post this. Something's been glitching!
Delete雲水,
DeleteWe know a woman who is new to gardening but very enthusiastic. I spotted horseradish growing on her land, and every time I visit it has spread - such is the nature of the beast - and every time I urge her to dig it out as thoroughly as possible, but she leaves it be as it looks nice enough and a root or two is tasty in a sauce. There is also a lesson in there somewhere!
Are you in touch with Jack?
Gadjo
The weed grows even though we hate it; the flower dies even though we love it.
DeleteI've sent Jack an email on the address I have for him from this blog. I don't know if Cressida has any other contact routes?
Maalaistollo here. Greetings to all. I visit this site every now and again to see what everyone is up to. The silence from HJ is indeed concerning.
DeleteIn response to Gadjo's comment about horseradish, it is indeed very difficult to eradicate. I used an excellent tool called a dock-digger. Only once did I try to make horseradish sauce: the attempt ended in tears.
Could I ask if Lain is able to recommend any simple introduction to and explanation of Orthodoxy that might help someone like me, from an extreme non-conformist background, to understand and even appreciate it? On my several visits to Orthodox churches, both at the time of the liturgy and otherwise, it all continues to feel very alien.
Hi Maalaistollo.
DeleteThe English-speaking Orthodox world is lagging behind the rest of Orthodoxy when it comes to written resources. That can also be a blessing, since it means that most English authors are converts, many from Protestant backgrounds, who've experienced that alienness and can write for people who weren't brought up in the Orthodox mindset.
If you're after a general introduction, there's a set of two books by the late Met. Kallistos (Timothy) Ware (ex-Anglican from Bath, UK). The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity is in two parts - one covers the history of the Church and the second part covers faith, practice, and worship. It's a factual examination, and reasonably detailed without being overly academic. His other book The Orthodox Way is a more spiritual account of Orthodoxy.
The late Fr. Thomas Hopko (American of Rusyn descent, born in New York) wrote a four-volume introduction to Orthodoxy called The Orthodox Faith. Despite its length, it's quite accessible as every section is bite-sized (it's written in a quasi-catechetical style). The Orthodox Church in America has released a free online version of it here: https://www.oca.org/orthodoxy/the-orthodox-faith
Fr. Hopko was a very good apologist and much of his work is online, so I'd recommend anything by him you come across.
Fr. Stephen de Young (American) is also worth looking at. His The Religion of the Apostles is a well-written account of the Orthodox Church's roots in the apostolic age. He can be a little on the combative side of apologetics, though.
Another American Fr. Stephen, Fr. Stephen Young (ex-Anglican, I think) maintains a blog at https://glory2godforallthings.com. His book, Everywhere Present: Christianity in a One-Storey Universe is a very good explanation of Orthodoxy's understanding of God as both transcendent and imminent.
Another good resource is the many podcasts and articles at Ancient Faith Ministries (https://www.ancientfaith.com), written by clergy and theologians. Most of the contributors are American, so there is a slightly American/Calvinist approach to examining the faith, which you may or may not find helpful.
Lastly(!) The Orthodox Study Bible may be useful. It's an English translation of the Septuagint, which is the version of the Bible the Orthodox Church uses, and it's full of commentary and footnotes designed for those new to, or outside of, Orthodoxy, particularly those from a Protestant background.
I would say that the biggest change in mindset between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that Orthodoxy places much more emphasis on experiencing than it does on understanding. It's much like at the Transfiguration, where Peter was left grasping for words, because he couldn't comprehend the experience intellectually. I'm aware that it sounds like a cop-out, but Orthodox worship is something that benefits from prolonged exposure - paradoxically it's best understood by just allowing it to wash over you and not trying to understand it. It's also worth taking the opportunity to speak with a priest if you're able to.
I hope some of that's helpful - if there's anything else let me know! :)
@Maalaistollo,
DeleteGreetings, it feels like it's been a long time! Horseradish is indeed notorious in this regard - and, yes, handling it always ends in tears! - but maybe our friend will use a "dock-digger" before resorting to employing a priest to cast it out of the garden I'll jump in here before Lain and recommend the superb introductory book "The Orthodox Church" by Kallistos Ware (England's own metropolitan bishop).
Gadjo
Many Thanks, Lain, for your careful and comprehensive reply, which I have only just seen. I had been expecting any response to be notified to me automatically, as was previously the case, but the site evidently no longer works that way. I'll try the online resources you suggest first, in order to get a flavour of what they offer, before investing in actual books. I had some reservations about Kallistos Ware, as I understood that he was also quite interested in Eastern (non-Christian) mysticism, so I was wary of anything that might be a bit syncretistic. Maybe that is simply a reflection of my background, which could uncharitably be described as advocating salvation by correct theology. I'll let you know how I get on.
DeleteThanks, also, to Gadjo for his endorsement of Kallistos's book.
You're welcome! I think you need to be logged in when you post to get a notification, I'm not sure if it works for anon posts.
DeleteI think both of Kallistos Ware's books are pretty sound, basic theology. I would say one of the biggest differences between Orthodoxy and the Western churches is that Orthodoxy places monasticism at its core, and there's a strong mystical tradition within that. Mysticism doesn't always lead to precise theology - and a lot of the time it's not intended to - which can be uncomfortable coming from a different Christian tradition. I'd recommend the book Wounded by Love, by St. Porphyrios, which is a beautiful account of his calling to the secluded life, and really a love letter to God but from a deeply Orthodox perspective.
I'm not aware of any syncretism in Ware's work, but it's not uncommon for theologians to try to find parallels across religious experiences across different faith traditions, which we would expect to find if God is universal (and we know from the Scriptures that God can (thankfully!) work in us prior to our having, as you say, the correct theology). It's also been the historic practice of the Church to take what is true from other traditions (all truth comes from God), and either learn from it or use it as a basis for evangelism. St. Basil wrote that we should model ourselves after the bee, who collects nectar from every flower, but 'do not visit every flower without distinction, nor seek to remove all the nectar from the flowers on which they alight, but only draw from them what they need to make honey, and leave the rest. And if we are wise, we will take ... what is appropriate for us, and conform to the truth, ignoring the rest.' Again, I appreciate that can be a bit antithetical to some Christian traditions.
One last thing: I would take with a grain of salt much of what you find within the online English-speaking Orthodox space. It tends to skews heavily American and tends to mirror American politics, with people feeling compelled to take extreme, polarised views on everything. It also attracts disillusioned young men (who aren't even practicing), who like the more 'macho' aesthetic of Orthodoxy. This doesn't reflect the reality of life in most parishes.
Happy to help with any others questions, just shout!
Thanks very much, Lain. Looks as if I need to get viewing/reading. I'll report in due course but, like Capt Oates, I may be some time....
DeleteA great post, thanks.
ReplyDeleteBut where is the Glory of God manifest and how.
What is merely touched on but avoided, was who is the person of God, before creation, ex nihilo.
And with God's self revelation through anthropological terms, language, in whom do term find fulfilment?
Here is a short podcast with transcript that centres Glory and anthropomorphism in the incarnation, Simply Put.
https://learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/anthropomorphism
It has been a long time since you posted. I hope you are OK Doddles. Cressiida x
ReplyDeleteYes, it's been more than a month now and we hope that you are doing OK, Jack old son.
ReplyDeleteGadjo
I have contacted Jack and he has been in and out of hospital for the last couple of months. He is doing OK now and says he hopes to be in action again quite soon. He thanks you for your concern....Cressida
DeleteThanks, Cress. We continue in prayer.
DeleteThanks for the update, I'll keep him in my prayers.
Delete