WONDER WOMAN & THE GOD KILLER
By
Wonder Woman Movie Poster (#6 of 16) - IMP Awards, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=51137764
“My
dear child, that is not the god killer, you are. Only a god can kill another
god” – Ares.
Wonder
Woman (2017)
The back story for this
movie comes from Greek mythology. Earth was ruled by the gods, chief among them
was Zeus king of the gods. He was the creator of men who initially were good,
but Ares, who was recognized as the god of war, and son of Zeus and Hera,
corrupted the hearts of men so the gods created the Amazons “to influence men's
hearts with love and restore peace to the Earth”. Hippolyta was queen of the
Amazons with whom Zeus had intimate relations the offspring of which was Diana
of Themyscira. But this was not the story Diana received from her mother
Hippolyta. She informed Diana that she created her out of clay and plead with
Zeus to give her life. So, Diana came to believe that she had no father.
As the story goes, the Amazons went to war
against Ares, the god of war. Zeus led the gods to the defence of the Amazons,
but Ares killed all the gods with the exception of Zeus who exhausted
the last of his power to strike Ares down, causing him to retreat. Suspecting
that Ares may return someday, Zeus left the Amazons a weapon, one strong enough
to kill a god. The god killer. “With his dying breath, Zeus
created this island to hide us from the outside world, somewhere Ares could not
find us”.
There are a number of problems with the
statement by Ares that, “only a god can kill another god”. Firstly, any god who
is truly God would be infinite in existence. Ares and Diana are created beings
which would indicate that they are finite, contingent beings. Everything
which exists is only able to exist in one of two ways, either contingently or
necessarily. A contingent being is one that can not exist. In
other words, a contingent being is that which has the potential not to exist at
all. Its existence is predicated on the existence of something, or someone else
already in existence. Secondly, it is not possible for an infinite being who
exists necessarily, to create another infinite being who also exists necessarily,
as a Necessary Being is that which cannot not exist. A necessary being does
not have the potential not to exist. Such a notion would invoke a
contradiction. Necessary existence indicates that that thing cannot come into
existence nor is it able to go out of existence. Its existence is perpetual. Necessary
existence is intrinsic to the nature of that which possesses it, shapes and
numbers are said to exist necessarily. But shapes and numbers lack the capacity
to create, only personalities are capable of that. Thomas Aquinas has noted,
“that which does not
exist only begins to exist by something already existing.[i]
Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been
impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus, even now nothing
would be in existence--which is absurd…but there must exist something the
existence of which is necessary…. Therefore, we cannot but postulate the
existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving
it from another…This all men speak of as God”.[1]
In other words, Aquinas is speaking of
Gods’ necessary existence and His divine aseity. God exists a se from
the Latin meaning “by itself” or “in itself” indicating that He is self-existent,
requiring nothing, and no one, for his being. So, enquiries into Gods’ origin
are meaningless given how He exists. He simply exists. Novatian has
stated,
He is always like and equal to Himself. And
what is not born cannot be changed: for only those things undergo change which
are made, or which are begotten; in that those things which had not been at one
time, learn to be by coming into being, and therefore to suffer change by being
born. Moreover, those things which neither have nativity nor maker, have
excluded from themselves the capacity of change, not having a beginning wherein
is cause of change. And thus, He is declared to be one, having no equal. For
whatever can be God, must as God be of necessity the Highest. But whatever
is the Highest, must certainly be the Highest in such sense as to be without
any equal. And thus, that must needs be alone and one on which nothing can be
conferred, having no peer; because there cannot be two infinites, as the very
nature of things dictates. And that is infinite which neither has any sort of
beginning nor end.[2]
(Emphasis added)
In other words, necessary existence is
intrinsic to His nature and therefore lacks all potentiality, He could not be otherwise;
“what is not born cannot be changed”. That which is born, or created, exists
contingently and is therefore subject to change.
Furthermore, the existence of gods and
demi-gods is squarely refuted biblically and historically. “Before me no god was
formed, nor shall there be any after me”. (Isaiah 43:10, ESV)[3] In the Hebrew the phrase
is rendered, לֹא־נ֣וֹצַר (not, be formed) אֵ֔ל (god) וְאַחֲרַ֖י
(and; after; I) לֹ֥א (god) יִהְיֶֽה׃ ס (be). In reality
there is no “before me” with God, nor is there an “after me”. He just is. Being
is in its proper sense peculiar to God, and belongs to Him entirely, and is not
limited or cut short by any Before or After, for indeed in him there is no past
or future.[4] Furthermore, Cyril has
noted,
God is the source of all
things, but he himself has no origin. Everything that exists came into being
through him, but he was not born of anyone – he is the one who is and who is to
come.[5]
The term פָּנִים (p̱âniym) from
the root word פָּנָה (p̱ânâ) translates as “before”. In the receptor
language, or English, it means, “to be in advance of” or “prior to”, but in the
source language, in this case Hebrew, the term is not a time reference but a positional
one and functions as an adverb which modifies the first person, personal pronoun
which follows it, “me”. Literally meaning “in front of” or “before my face”. The
adverb לֹא meaning “not” but translated as “no”, modifies the noun which
follows it, “god”, by way of negation. The noun “was” functions as a past
indicative of “be” or “to be” in respect of that which exists. Or in this
instance, that which does not, or did not exist. The verb יָצַר (yâṣar)
meaning to “be formed”, “fashioned” or “created”. So, the first part of this
verse (10.a) literally translates as, “Before my face, no god was ever
fashioned”. What may be called gods are
in actuality no gods at all, for “The idols of the nations are silver and gold,
the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; they have eyes,
but do not see; they have ears, but do not hear, nor is there any breath in
their mouths. (Psalms 135:15-17)
In the second part of the verse, (10.b) “nor
shall there be any after me”, the Hebrew term לֹה (lôh) is the same as
the term utilized in 10.a. It is a primitive particle meaning “not”, translated
here as “nor” and as previously noted, is a negation modifying the verb which follows,
הָיָה (hâyâh) translated as “be” and meaning
“to exist” or “to have” existence and functions as a present-tense verb, and
always in the emphatic sense. The verb “shall” does not appear in the original
Hebrew MSS, it is added for the purpose of clarity, to improve syntax. Typically,
present day usage is interchangeable between “shall” and “will”, though “will”
is more common. Historically, the two verbs have differing meanings. The verb “shall”
was applied in instances referring to future actions, “will” was used in
instances referring to present actions. The use of “shall” in
this translation indicates a reference to future actions. Like the verb that precedes
it, “shall”, the term “there” does not appear in the original Hebrew MSS
its inclusion can be applied a number of different ways, subject to the context.
Given the context the term “there”, functions as a noun which refers to place
or position. I have already parsed the Hebrew verb הָיָה (hâyâh) which
appears in 10.a and is repeated here in 10.b, so there is no need to traverse
that ground again. The term “any” exists as a pronoun which typically reference
persons but can reference things or objects. In 10.b the latter would be true. The
term is a numerical or quantifiable reference in the negative as in “not any”. The Hebrew adverb אַחַר (’aḥar) meaning
literally “the hind part” and translated here as “after”, qualifies the verb
which precedes it, “be”. As an adverb it
can reference a particular place, as in behind. Or a particular time, as
in afterwards. The context of 10.b suggest that this is a time
reference, not a positional one, as in 10.a. The first person, personal pronoun
אֲנִי (ănı̂y) meaning “I” but translated as “me” answers
the question of who the verse is in reference to, as the Hebrew only
uses the pronoun once in the verse, though it appears twice in translation to improve
clarity. So, 10.b literally translates as, “There shall never exist even one
from this time forward”. The verse in its entirety literally translates,
“Before
my face, no god was ever fashioned. There shall never exist, even one, from
this time forward”. As Tatian has noted,
Our God did not begin to
be in time: He alone is without beginning, and He Himself is the
beginning of all things.” (Emphasis added)[6]
Contrasted with the gods which are of human contrivance and
innovation, to usurp that which was true from the beginning, that God is, and
there is no other. “In the beginning God” (Gen. 1:1) and as He says to Moses,
“I Am” (Ex. 3:14).
Moreover, not only are Diana of Themyscira
and Ares the god of war created beings, as I previously indicated, but Zeus
also is a created being, the son of Cronos and Rhea. They are therefore, by
definition, finite, contingent beings. They posses the potential not to exist
at all. If they are truly gods what need would there be of procreation? Their
existence as gods would be perpetual. Given that it is not, they therefore
cannot exist as gods. Lactantius has stated,
Wherefore, as I often
reflect on the subject of such great majesty, they who worship the gods
sometimes appear so blind, so incapable of reflection, so senseless, so little
removed from the mute animals, as to believe that those who are born from the
natural intercourse of the sexes could have had anything of majesty and divine
influence; since the Erythræan Sibyl says: “It is impossible for a God to be
fashioned from the loins of a man and the womb of a woman.” And if this is
true, as it really is, it is evident that Hercules, Apollo, Bacchus, Mercury,
and Jupiter, with the rest, were but men, since they were born from the two
sexes. But what is so far removed from the nature of God as that operation
which He Himself assigned to mortals for the propagation of their race, and
which cannot be affected without corporeal substance.
Therefore, if the gods
are immortal and eternal, what need is there of the other sex, when they
themselves do not require succession, since they are always about to exist[7]
Furthermore, the creation of Diana as “the
god killer” is redundant if it’s true that “Ares killed all the other gods with
the exception of Zeus”, after all “only a god can kill another god” according
to Ares. Moreover, in defeating Ares, Zeus “exhausted the last of his power” to
do so, therefore he cannot be infinite in power if that is true. If that
weren’t enough to convince you that Zeus is a contingent being, in the movie
Zeus uses “his dying breath” to create Themyscira to hide the Amazons from
Ares. These statements indicate that Zeus is limited in power and finite in
existence, how then does he remain a god? The Judaeo-Christian conception of God
in the scriptures indicates that He “does not faint or grow weary”. Isaiah 40:28
The power of Zeus is finite, it possesses a limit which requires rest. The God
of the Bible is omnipotent. There is no limit to His power, it is never in
short supply, and it certainly does not run out. Furthermore, the existence of
God is perpetual, and lacks all potentiality, which indicates that He has
neither beginning nor ending. He exists necessarily. He exists eternally; “from
everlasting to everlasting, you are God” (Psalms 90:2), “the number of his
years is unsearchable” (Job 36:26). Zeus, it is said, died creating Themyscira
to protect the Amazons from Ares. Zeus of Olympus, bows to the God of the Bible
the great “I Am.”
[1] Aquinas,
Thomas. Summa Theologica (Complete & Unabridged) (p. 10). Coyote Canyon
Press. Kindle Edition.
[2] Novatian,
“A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity,” in Fathers of the Third
Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James
Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene
Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 614–615.
[3] Unless otherwise noted, all
scriptural references are from the English Standard Version, with Strong’s
Numbers (Wheaton IL: Crossway, 2008).
[4] Gregory
Nazianzen, “Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen,” in S. Cyril of
Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans.
Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow, vol. 7, A Select Library of the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New
York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 316.
[5] Cyril
of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah 4.2., PG 70:924. Quoted in Gerald L. Bray:
Editor and Thomas C. Oden: Series Editor, Ancient Christian Doctrine Vol.1: We
Believe in One God (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 43.
[6] Tatian,
“Address of Tatian to the Greeks,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas,
Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed.
Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. J. E. Ryland,
vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company,
1885), 66.
[7] Lactantius,
“The Divine Institutes,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries:
Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and
Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson,
and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Fletcher, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers
(Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 17–18.
[i] In
other words, that things being is contingent. Its existence is predicated on
that which exists necessarily.
Comments
Post a Comment