"Created" in Genesis 1:1

Here are some notes on the Hebrew word for "created" (bara) in Genesis 1:1. I originally compiled these notes in March of 2008, in connection with a class on the life and theology of Augustine at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, taught by Dr. Chad Owen Brand.

Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 51: "This verb is of profound theological significance, since it only has God as its subject... All other verbs for 'creating' allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue... Objects of this verb include the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17); man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10)."

John Calvin's comment on Genesis 1:1, "He [Moses] moreover teaches by the word 'created,' that what before did not exist was now made; for he has not used the term yatsar, which signifies to frame or form, but bara, which signifies to create."

Reformation Study Bible, 7: "other Scriptures clearly teach that the universe was created ex nihilo (i.e., 'out of nothing', John 1:3, Heb. 11:3...) and that only God is eternal and transcendent (e.g., Ps. 102:25-27; Prov. 8:22-31). Not even the darkness exists apart from God's creative word (Isa. 45:7)." 

Does Calvinism/Reformed Theology Teach That God is the Author of Sin?

In an article titled "Refuting What Calvinists Believe with What Calvinists Know," Dr. Patrick Johnson, seeking to contend against Calvinism, begins his explanation of Calvinism with the following statement: "Calvinism teaches that God is the author and Creator of sin." Dr. Johnston cites no source for this statement, but he is certainly wrong. The Westminster Confession and Second London Baptist Confession (documents whose authors/editors were self-consciously in the Calvinist or Reformed tradition) plainly assert, "God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin" (this quote is from Chapter 5, Paragraph 4 in each confession).

Calvinism/Reformed Theology, in accordance with Scripture, teaches that while God is sovereign over all things (including sin), He neither authors nor approves sin. This teaching is seen in three biblical examples:

1. Joseph and his brothers,

2. Jerusalem and Assyria, and

3. Jesus and those who crucified Him.

Defending Dr. Patrick Johnson's article, an anti-Calvinist friend of mine first charged the Reformed Confessions with self-contradiction (since they say that God decrees everything that happens), then he brought forth the following quotes from John Calvin's Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God:

Certain shameless and illiberal people charge us with calumny by maintaining that God is made the author of sin, if His will is made first cause of all that happens. For what man wickedly perpetrates, incited by ambition or avarice or lust or some other depraved motive, since God does it by his hand with a righteous through perhaps hidden purpose--this cannot be equated with the term sin.

Must we then impute the guilt of sin to God, or invent a double will for Him so that He falls out with Himself? I have shown that He wills the same as the criminal and the wicked, but in a different way. So now it is to be maintained that there is diversity of kinds while He wills in the same way, so that out of the variety which perplexes us a harmony may be beautifully contrived.

While those who hold to the Westminster Confession and the Second London Baptist Confession do not necessarily feel obligated to agree with everything written by John Calvin (Baptists in particular object to Calvin's doctrine of baptism, his ecclesiology, and his view on church/state relations), Calvin's teachings on subjects such as predestination have certainly been influential among those holding to these confessions, so quotes from him on this subject are clearly relevant.

But notice what Calvin says (and what he does NOT say) in the quotes above. In the first sentence quoted, Calvin is denying, not affirming, that God is "the author of sin." His opponents charged that the outcome of his exegesis was that God would necessarily be seen as the "author of sin," but Calvin denies that this is an implication of his teaching. In the second sentence quoted, Calvin denies that God contains a "double will" of such a nature that "He falls out with Himself;" this is the main point that Calvin is defending in the passage cited: that God is NOT like the "double minded man" of Jas 1:8. There is "diversity of kinds" regarding the way in which God–who is in control of all things, never out of control–wills what comes to pass. This "variety... perplexes us," but everything finds "harmony" in God, who works all things together for the good of those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose (Rom 8:28).

In these passages and others, Calvin is affirming the same doctrine found in the Westminster Confession and Second London Baptist Confession, mentioned above: that God is NOT the author or approver of sin AND that God's will is the "first cause of all that happens."

That God is sovereign over all things, yet neither the author nor approver of sin is seen in the lives of Joseph and his brothers. As recorded in Genesis 50:20, Joseph tells his brothers, "[Y]ou meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." Joseph does NOT say, 'You meant evil against me, but God didn't mean for that to happen.' Instead–in regard to the very same activity–there were two kinds of intentions at work: the brothers' intentions, which were truly evil, and God's sovereign intention, which was truly good.

That God is sovereign over all things, yet neither the author nor approver of sin is seen in the experience of Jerusalem and Assyria. In Isaiah 10:5-7; 12, God calls Assyria "the rod of My anger" and foretells that He will use this "rod" to punish Jerusalem, yet He also says that He will punish Assyria, because–while God's sovereign intention in the matter is entirely righteous–the king of Assyria is characterized by "pomp" and "haughtiness." Again, in regard to the very same activity–Assyria's military action against Jerusalem–there were two kinds of intentions at work: the Assyria's intentions, which were truly evil, and God's sovereign intention, which was truly good.

Finally and chiefly, that God is sovereign over all things, yet neither the author nor approver of sin is seen in the experience of Jesus and those who crucified Him. NO aspect of Christ's suffering was a surprise to God nor outside of God's control. God's hand and His purpose predestined everything that occurred on that glorious and awful day (Acts 4:28). Yet "Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel" (Acts 4:27) perpetrated great wickedness against Jesus. This wickedness was according to God's decree, but God committed no act of wickedness in it: the fault was all on the part of the sinners.

This teaching–that God is sovereign over all things, yet neither the author nor approver of sin is important to each one of us, as we realize that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and that our salvation is entirely dependent on God's grace. When we sin we can blame no one but ourselves; we can never claim "God made me do this." When we are saved we can give credit to no one but God Himself; we can never claim "I contributed to this."

Subsistence/Subsistences: Toward an Understanding of Some Difficult Language in the 1689 Confession

[This post was originally published to this blog on 6/13/19.]

"The 1689 Confession was the confessional statement of the church or association of every one of the 293 delegates who gathered in Augusta, Georgia, to organize the Southern Baptist Convention in 1845... The Abstract of Principles [which is a doctrinal standard] of two SBC seminaries is self-conscientiously an abstract or summary of this confession" [source: Founders Ministries]. The 1689 Confession is important to study due to this historical influence on the SBC [the largest Protestant denomination in the United States] as well as its continued influence in Reformed Baptist churches and associations.

Chapter 1 of the 1689 Confession focuses on Holy Scripture, because the Bible is "the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." Chapter 2 focuses on "God and the Holy Trinity." The first statement about God declares: "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection." Later, the beginning of the third paragraph of Chapter 2 declares, "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided."

It is interesting to see how these statements about God are different from statements made in the Westminster Confession (1646). In many places, the language of the 1689 Confession is identical to what is stated in the Westminster Confession, since the Baptists desired to show that they were of one mind with their Presbyterian brothers and sisters in key matters of faith. However, the beginning of Chapter 2 in the Westminster Confession ("Of God and the Holy Trinity") uses different language concerning God: "There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection." The beginning of the third paragraph of the Westminster Confession's Chapter 2 declares, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity."

This change in language raises some questions. A couple are:

1. Why is "subsistences" used in the 1689 Confession rather than retaining the term "persons" from the Westminster Confession?
2. Why does the 1689 Confession use the term "subsistence" in one way in the first paragraph of Chapter 2 and the term "subsistences" in another way in the third paragraph of the same chapter?

I believe that both of these questions can be answered, in part, by a recognition of the influence from the puritan, William Ames (1576-1633). In examining the origins of the 1689 Confession, Dr. James Renihan (the president of IRBS Theological Seminary) notes that the framers of the 1689 Confession "relied very heavily" on Ames' The Marrow of Theology. On the subject "What is God made up of? What is the being of God?" Ames wrote:

1. This subsistence, or manner of being of God is his one essence so far as it has personal properties.

2. The essence is common to the three subsistences. As far as essence is concerned, therefore, the single subsistences are rightly said to exist of themselves.

3. Nothing is attributed to the essence which cannot be attributed to each subsistence in the matter of essence.

4. But was is attributed partly to each subsistence in the matter of subsistence cannot be attributed to the essence

5. The subsistences are distinguished from the essence, because the mode of subsistence, though consolidated with the essence, are distinguished from it considered by itself.

6. They are distinguished from each other as things connected by certain relative properties, so that one cannot be another, although they are the same nature. Neither can one be said to be first or last, except in order of beginning and manner of subsistence.

7. These relative properties are, as it were, individual forces in one essence, spiritually and perfectly alive. Hence the subsistences are rightly called persons.

13. The relative property of the Son is to be begotten, that is, so to proceed from the Father as to be a participant of the same essence and perfectly carry on the Father’s nature. Hence is second in order. Hebrews 1:3, the brightness of His glory in the character of His person.

14. The property of the Holy Spirit is to be breathed, to be sent forth and to proceed from the Father and the Son John 15:26, He whom I will send forth you from the Father, that Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father: Romans 8:9, the Spirit of Christ; Galatians 4:6, the Spirit of the Son.

The framers of the 1689 Confession seem to have followed Ames in both his use of subsistence and in the slightly different way that Ames used "subsistence" in one place vs. "subsistences" in the near context. Ames first defined "subsistence" as "manner of being." The stress is first on God's being, which is just "his one essence." In that sense, the "subsistence" must be understood as one, as God's being/essence is one.  Ames goes on to focus on God's "manner of being... so far as it has personal properties." In that sense, we can speak of the Father, Son, and Spirit as "three subsistences" or three 'manners of being,' distinguished by "certain relative properties."

So, taking Ames' definition of "subsistence" as "manner of being," we could understand the 1689 Confessions "subsistence" as follows:

"The Lord our God is but one only living and true God, whose [manner of being] is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection... In this divine and infinite Being there are three [manners of being], the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided."

Ames' language was careful, and the reader who pays close attention to it would not be left with the impression that the use of subsistence(s) indicates God as impersonal force(s), nor does the use of subsistence(s) lead to modalism. The relative/personal properties are real and indicative of an eternal relationship within God. Ames pointed out: "the subsistences are rightly called persons." As Samuel Renihan notes, John Owen, whose writings were another major influence on the framers of the 1689 Confession, also used the term "subsistences" as interchangeable with "Persons."

Why, then, did the 1689 Confession use the term "subsistence(s)," when  the Westminster Confession did not use this terminology?

1. Again: the framers of the 1689 Confession were influenced by the theological work of William Ames, and his use of this terminology.
2. The term "subsistence" [defined by Ames, as I've noted,  as "manner of being"] is more clearly related to "being/essence" than "Person" is, and it is therefore a useful technical-theological category.
3. The term "subsistence" is useful in that it does not run the risk of people confusing characteristics of divine persons with what we know about human persons.

[Only point 1 above is from my own research, as a specific application of Dr. James Renihan's insight that the framers of the 1689 Confession were indebted to Ames; points 2-3 are from summaries from Samuel Renihan's article, linked above.]

This exploration of historical theology is important because Christians should follow the example of the framers of the 1689 Confession, drawing upon the theological insights of others, while carefully considering how the language we use can best help us think about the God we love.

Did Jesus Raise Himself from the Dead?

On the March 31, 2023 episode of The Briefing podcast, Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary asserted:

Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. Jesus did not merely raise or rise from the dead. The biblical formula is clear. The Father raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus was raised. Jesus did not resurrect Himself. He was resurrected. It is the faithfulness of the Father recognizing the faithfulness of the Son in which it is the Father who raises the Son from the dead....

We can confuse people by the way we speak, as in the distinction between the right way, which is saying the Father raised the Son from the dead, and the wrong way saying that Jesus raised Himself from the dead. That is not the way the Bible reveals the truth to us.

It is certainly accurate to say that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. This is evident in Acts 2:32, 3:15, and other passages. However, it is also biblically and theologically accurate to say that Jesus raised Himself from the dead for three reasons: saying that Jesus raised Himself from the dead is consistent with what Jesus Himself teaches in John 10:17-18; saying that Jesus raised Himself from the dead is consistent with the way that personal agency is attributed to both Father and Son in creation, and saying that Jesus raised Himself from the dead is consistent with the doctrine that "the external works of the Trinity are undivided" (opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt).

Jesus Said that He Would Raise Himself from the Dead

In John 10:17-18, Jesus teaches:

17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.

Because Jesus taught, "I lay down my life that I may take it up again... I have authority to take [my life] up again" [emphasis added], we see that the statement 'Jesus raised Himself from the dead' is consistent with His own teaching.

Personal Agency is Attributed to Both Father and Son in Creation

The fact is: there is teaching from Jesus consistent with the statement 'Jesus raised Himself from the dead' alongside statements that make it clear that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. This fact is consistent with how personal agency is attributed to both Father and Son in creation. Genesis 1:1 tells us, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and the Church has always considered "God" in Genesis 1:1 to have personal reference to "God the Father Almighty," as confessed in the Apostles' Creed. On the other hand, Colossians 1:15-16 tells us:

15 [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. [emphasis added]

We see the same thing in both creation and the new creation inaugurated by the resurrection of Christ. In creation, we see that God the Father creates AND that all things were created by Christ; in the resurrection, we see that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead AND that Jesus took up His own life from the dead.

The External Works of the Trinity are Undivided

In Credo Magazine (Volume 10, Issue 3, 2020), Scott Swain (President of Reformed Theological Seminary) describes the ancient doctrine known as inseparable operations (opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt):

Because God is one, God’s wisdom, love, and power are one. Therefore, the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity in their external works are not distinctions of agency. They are distinctions in mode of agency. The Father acts through the Son by the Spirit. The Son acts from the Father through the Spirit. The Spirit acts from the Father and the Son. But in each instance we are talking about one singular divine agency because we are talking about three persons who are one undivided God. [emphasis added]

Saying "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" is consistent with the doctrine articulated above. We cannot image that God the Father was active in the resurrection and that God the Son was merely a passive receptor of the Father's resurrection power. God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Undivided from the Father, according to His divine nature, Jesus raised Himself from the dead.

Conclusion

It is good to regularly say "the Father raised the Son from the dead." This phrase is consistent with how the New Testament often presents the resurrection. However, it is NOT an error to say, "Jesus raised Himself from the dead." Saying "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" is consistent with Jesus' own teaching, with how the Bible presents both the Father and Son acting in creation, and with the doctrine of inseparable operations. The preacher who, seeking to honor Christ, says "Jesus raised Himself from the dead" should not think that he has made a theological error, nor should he feel embarrassed.