Mysticism and Spirituality

The Creation Paradox: Exploring Genesis and the Origins of “GOD”

In this article, we'll unbox common misconceptions about the Creator, and begin the exploration of a deeper, more sophisticated understanding upon which to build.

The Hidden Orchard

19 Oct 2024 — 5 min read

In a conversation with a Rabbi, an Atheist admitted, "I don't believe there is a God." He proceeded to share some of his rationale, portraying a deity who is vengeful, judgmental, and indifferent to human suffering. After listening, the Rabbi replied, "I don’t believe in that god either!"

The Atheist's disappointment in G_D's perceived lack of involvement in the world - reflects some degree of belief or at least an expectation of how a Creator should act.

Though a well-known anecdote, the story suggests that many people operate with an incorrect or highly constrained view of G_D.

In this article, we'll unpack these ideas, and begin the exploration of a deeper, more sophisticated understanding upon which to build.

Unexplored Assumptions

Throughout history, how humans have perceived G_D has deeply influenced cultures, societies, and worldviews.

While on one hand, differing views can lead to new philosophical insights, these differences have often brought deep conflict. Religious wars, crusades, and inquisitions throughout history mark the darker side of humanity's struggle to define what it cannot understand.

For most of us, these foundational beliefs were established somewhere in our childhood, whether through the influence of our environment, family beliefs, religious learning, pop culture, or media.

For many in the West, G_D may often be found among a cast of imaginary characters we outgrew in childhood (e.g., Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy). This may signal an inherent danger of participating in the model of disposable, often secular, holidays that fade in time.

Some people are uncomfortable discarding G_D altogether - just in case. To be on the safe side, many people retain some idea of a Creator, but generally not enough to influence one's day-to-day actions and thought patterns.

Nevertheless, I have found that many of these childhood assumptions remain mostly unexplored through adulthood.

The Language of Men

Some traditions discourage further exploration of these matters altogether for fear of division or 'heresy'. In his time, the Baal Shem Tov, (the founder of Chassidic Judaism), got himself in more than a little trouble suggesting that G_D's essence courses through every created thing, no matter how mundane or common.

Without access to some degree of accompanying tradition¹, many Bible readers may find themselves locked into a static or fixed approach when contemplating the nature of G_D.

In numerous discussions on these ideas, I have received pushback from some who often quote the anthropomorphic verses in the Bible, (ie: G_D's right hand, arm, etc.) as Biblical evidence that G_D is a sort of superhuman.

The idea that G_D is a man is problematic for Judaism, particularly in the emergence of Roman Christianity, where Greco-Roman traditions began to mix with waning Jewish ideas.

In fact, this is the essence of the issue between the Christian and Jewish views of G_D. Where one brings the Eternal down into physical matter, the other sees the Divine as incomprehensible and increasingly beyond our intellectual grasp.

💡

Through an understanding of the soul, one might be able to find a new path to understanding on these ideas.

It is true that the Bible speaks in human terms and metaphors that we can understand, but are we to take them at face value? This question applies to the emotional language in the Bible - are we to understand that G_D can get angry, sad, or be surprised?

Is the creation narrative a literal account, or is there something deeper to glean about our role and relationship with the Creator²?

The Evolution of Understanding

The Bible illustrates a continuous development in humanity's understanding of G_D. Beginning with the early dialogues of Noah, Abraham, and Moses - it shows how people endeavored to reconstruct their comprehension of the Creator, gradually reclaiming what was lost in the Garden.

Jewish tradition indicates that the Creator interacts with us through various attributes - each of these known by unique Divine Names³. Giving the benefit of the doubt here, some forms of paganism may have originated, in part, by mistaking these various attributes for different entities. This is why the Torah tells us it is the same G_D above and below⁴.

Certain traditions have painstakingly formulated complex doctrines to solve the dilemma. Others have adopted a conservative approach; as in Apophatic theology, where, one cannot define G_D, but one can say what G_D is not. Unsatisfied, some have left the walls of these fortified cities in search of their own answers and experiences.

This begins to draw us closer to one of my favorite insights on G_D, as sourced through the Zohar.

In the Beginning

We get an important clue from the first passage of Genesis, normally translated as; "In the beginning, Elokim created the heavens and the earth."

Reading the text in its literal order, the Zohar⁵ says:

"The Beginning, created Elokim (G_D)..." - Genesis 1:1

Perhaps triggering for some, the Zohar challenges nearly everyone's beliefs at once, and right out of the gate!

In a footnote on this passage, Professor Daniel Matt writes;

[By changing the subject and object of the sentence], “the subject is now unnamed, but that is perfectly appropriate because the true subject of emanation is unnamable.”

In my words, the idea is this: Whom we perceive as G_D, Whom we believe we understand is Himself merely an interface. Thus, in the beginning, "G_D" was created for us physical beings to have a starting point!

While this does not answer any questions for us, I think that is the point.

Embrace the Mystery

It is generally believed that human thought evolves through time. This does not imply that we are smarter than the ancients, but that new understanding has been unlocked as we approach the Messianic era and the arrival of Messiah ben David.

The terse and anthropomorphic language of the texts, perhaps taken more literally in earlier times, is not our only option. We are encouraged to look beyond these words.

Therefore, we should resist any attempts to confine G_D to the limits of human understanding. We should unbox G_D from whatever constraints we have implemented, and think bigger.

I'll leave you with this final thought: in the classic work, "G_D In Search of Man," Abraham Joshua Heschel organizes the experiential discovery of G_D to (3) primary pathways⁶:

"The first is the way of sensing the presence of G_D in the world, in things; the second way is sensing His presence in the Bible; the third way is the sensing of His presence in sacred deeds..."

Thus our journey begins with humility, opening ourselves to a deeper, more authentic relationship with the Divine, grounded not in certainty but in faith and awe.