By theology blogger C. Michael Patton, upon watching the grand finale to the Lost show:
I was duped. If you are honest with yourself, you will admit that you were too. Duped in what way? Duped into believing that the writers knew what they were doing. Duped into thinking that they were less confused than we were. …Although every viewer was completely confused for six years, this did not matter. The confusion only added to the intrigue. We all trusted that the series finale would give us all the answers. We trusted that they knew what they were doing. …Escalation after escalation only handed us more hope. Confusion became our friend as we would discuss so many questions…
We were all lost and we loved it.
We worked under the valid assumption that all of these questions had answers. Of course, this does not mean that we will like the answers, but it was the risk we were willing to take. …We just wanted answers. That is why we watched the show. And we were trusting enough to wait six years to be satisfied.
But such was not the case. At the conclusion of last night’s episode the horrible reality surfaced. That which we all fear in places we don’t like to go became a reality: The writers did not know the answers either.
Oh, and don’t you try to spin this. Don’t you dare. …The arc we thought was there was an illusion. This series took a risk. It was only as good as the resolution and there was none. The writers did not know what they were doing. Hence concluded the greatest hoax in American television history. Hence the realization that the writers of LOST were just as lost as all of us. (emphases added)
By all means, read the whole thing (and the torrent of comments).
Beyond its eloquence, I enjoyed this for three reasons. First, I’ve been observing this disease in my wife, a Lostee. (Luckily, she wasn’t in for a whole six years, thanks to Netflix.) Already heard her version of the rant. Second, I get to gloat, as I steered clear of this series (sounded like too much work). Third, this rant bears remarkable similarities to rants I’ve indulged in after buying and trying to read an over-priced, poorly written book by a much vaunted theologian who is supposed to be an expert on the Trinity. Those rants sometimes involve some mild form of book abuse. Hopefully, Patton didn’t kick his TV, or attempt to throw it.
Loading ...
Who is the theologian?
They shall remain nameless. If you can’t say anything nice…
Well, it could be almost anyone. Trinitarian theology harbors more nonsense than any religious doctrine ever formulated.
If it weren’t for a handful of analytic thinkers who are working on problems with typical analytic rigor and clarity, the whole thing would be a wash.
I agree with your assessment of many of the books written about the Trinity. I have read a lot of them that went into the garbage because I didn’t want anyone to find them on my shelf.
But there is one I want to recommend. It was recommended to me by Cardinal Dulles (believe it or not), and it is written by a Jesuit scholar named Fr. John Murray. The title is The Problem of God.
Murray is (was) definitely a scholar. His exposition of Exodus 3 I read many times, and finally made a summary of it.
Bottom line: What God said to Moses in verse 14 was not “I am”. It was “I will be”. It was a promise of God’s presence. (See how the same word is always translated in the books of Moses.)
A good paraphrase is, “I will prove to be what I have already promised I will be.” And that paraphrase is based on the CONTEXT.
In other words, God’s name is not “I AM”.
By the way, I am not a Catholic, and I am not a theologian; but I can recognize valid evidence when it knocks me down. I sometimes wish I could talk to (and learn more from) John Murray.
Marg, that’s an interesting comment you made there. A Christadelphian exegete, John Thomas, gave the same interpretation of ‘Eodus 3:14 (‘I will be’, not ‘I am’), somewhere around 1850, about 160 years ago.
Yes, the reference here is not to God’s self-existence but to what he has in mind to become toward others.
Actually Fortigurn, “I will be” is not an interpretation. It is a translation.
I had already looked up the way the Hebrew word is used before reading Murray; but his exposition of Exodus 3 and 1 Corinthians 8 was superb. I would love to learn more from him.
What I appreciated most (besides his scholarship) was his honesty. His exposition was based on the text – not on whether it supported his point of view.
I wish we were all like that.
Marg, there are a range of valid translations of ‘Yahweh’ in that passage, and selecting between several of them is a matter of interpretation. Translation of the Bible typically involves interpretation at some point, even if not with every passage.
Marg,
Your comment is a little strange. You seem to be saying that Murray has let the cat out of the bag with some piece of revealing scholarship that goes against the grain of his own deeply held tradition. But I can’t tell what the importance is of what you’re saying.
That passage is notoriously ambiguous but he’s hardly the first person to point out the ambiguity and offer alternative readings. It’s actually pretty well known that the verb form can be either “I am” or “I will be.” (I’m no Hebrew scholar, but I take that on authority. I am currently writing a book chapter on the “actuality” of God for which this passage is relevant.)
Some have suggested that the double use of the term is purposely ambiguous and can be read as “I will be what I am” as if to say, “I will show you who I am.” Or, if you wanted to read it in a Moltmannian way, or even a process way, you might read, “I am what I will be.”
In any case, it is hard to draw a clear implication about the nature of God’s actuality and I don’t think the passage tells us much of anything about the Trinity (I can’t tell if you were saying that it is or not).
Moses needed a name and God told him something strange from which the Hebrews constructed a name. That’s pretty much what we can say about it.
I’m not talking about the interpretation of the name “Yahweh,” Fortigurn. I am talking about the translation of the Hebrew word “eyeh” that occurs in Exodus 3:14.
That word, wherever it is found in the books of Moses (correct me if I’m wrong), is always translated “I will be“.
I didn’t suggest that Murray let anything out of the bag, Jimbo. I’m sure that many people have searched for the word “eyeh” and found out how it is used. I’m one of them. That isn’t hard, and it isn’t new.
What I suggested was that Murray’s translation erases any possibility of using this verse as evidence for the Trinitarian doctrine, as many Trinitarians do. He translates “eyeh” just as it is translated elsewhere in the context (3:12; 4:12; 4:15).
Also, his exposition of the whole passage (chapters 3 and 4) is superb. The entire passage is about what God is promising to do, and “I will …” appears over and over again.
From all that, I have suggested a paraphrase which fits the context, and which is not unlike other paraphrases that I have read (e.g. the NWT). God is telling the Hebrews, “I will prove to be what I have already promised I will be.”
And the context is full of promises.
By the way, Murray’s exposition of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is great, too. He doesn’t try to make it mean what it doesn’t say – as some Trinitarians (and some Unitarians) do.
I’m sorry, what does Exodus 3:14 have to do with the Trinity? I don’t get it.
Many Trinitarians will claim that “I AM” is the name of God. So when Jesus said “I AM” in John 8:58, he was claiming the name of God for himself. That (they say) is why the Jews tried to stone him. He was claiming to be God.
Yes, I know. It makes no sense. Verse 28 alone is evidence that the phrase “I am” has no such implications.
Besides, the blind man in the next chapter uses exactly the same words. So do Gabriel and Peter. So does Judas.
But you have to take evidence wherever you can find it (or manufacture it).
Marg, it’s clear enough, whatever Ex. 3:14 means, Jesus was referring to it in John 8:58. And certainly Jesus’ hearers would venerate this passage as God revealing himself to Israel in a special way.
Even if it’s not God’s name per se, the Jews took it as such and Jesus was referring to that revelation.
I’m guessing you’re a Jehovah’s Witness. In any case, the reference was not lost on Jesus’ hearers. If he didn’t want people to think he was God, he ought to have been much clearer.
Jim, Jesus doesn’t quote Exodus 3:14. If he had wanted to refer to it, he could have at least used the same phrase as is in Exodus 3:14. He didn’t.
This is exactly what is NOT clear. The Hebrew “eyeh” is NOT “I am,” anywhere in the context.
Please look at how Jesus used the same words in the rest of the chapter:
John 8:24 – …if you do not believe that I AM you will die in your sins.” [Strong words.]
Their response was, “Who are you, then?” [Mild response.]
He replied, “Just what I’ve been telling you all along.” And he proceeded to repeat some of what he had been telling them. Then …
John 8:28 – … When you have lifted up the Son of man, you will know that I AM, and that of myself I do nothing but as I am taught by my Father.
Would Yahweh ever say that he does nothing on his own initiative? Did he talk like that in Exodus 3?
What the Jews were reacting to in verse 58 was his claim that Abraham had seen his day and was glad. He was less than forty years old, they said. How could he have known Abraham?
His answer was, “Before Abraham ever existed, I already am.” He was claiming that he existed before Abraham, and that (to them) was intolerable.
By the way, I am not a JW. I am a child of God, through faith in “the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” What other identification do I need?
Fortigurn, what do you mean he didn’t use the same phrase? Obviously one phrase is in Hebrew and one is in Greek. But besides that, what do you have in mind?
Jimbo,
I’m actually wondering what you mean when you say he did use the same phrase. The Hebrew phrase in Exodus 3:14 translates as ‘egw eimi ho wn’ (see the Jewish Greek translation of the Old Testament, the LXX).
What Christ said was ‘ego eimi’. The phrase ‘egw eimi ho wn’ is never used by Christ.
I understand. Right… the entire phrase isn’t used. Still, I’m highly doubtful that this shows he wasn’t making an clear and shocking reference to the passage.