Reading Jon Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence several years ago radically impacted the way I read much of the Hebrew Bible. Parts of the Bible came alive in new and exciting ways, especially as I saw things charged with a new significance. Parts of the Hebrew Bible and topics within it became connected for me in new enrichingly deep ways. Challenging new ways for viewing God’s ultimate work in Christ opened up for me.
What did Levenson’s work do for me years back? Among other things, he introduced me to some of the dynamics and functions of ancient Near Eastern mythic-cosmic views of reality and how thought about temples, kings, creation, and “salvation,” all function interconnectedly in such views of reality…
Across much of the ancient Near East, creation stories (myths) had less to do with addressing the physical-scientific questions about creation with which we tend to be concerned (creation ex-nihilo, how long?, how old?, relation of species, etc.) than with describing the bringing about of a sustained and ordered society and an ordered and fertile environment for it. As such, often we find seeming creation-accounts in settings where there is not a creation of a physical world as we think of it, but rather a “creation” (rescue sometimes) of a people/society. This begins to anticipate one main point I want to make: creation-thought and salvation-thought are frequently two sides of the same coin. Put another way, salvation-activity is creation-activity in much ancient Near Eastern thought.
Creation is frequently a primary god “defeating” chaos such that order, life, and fertility (birth and agricultural), might exist. For example, the chaotic sea is sealed up behind the sky and under the land such that life and fertility might happen. Walls or boundaries are established, separating the realm of the life-less and threatening desert from the realm of order, fertility, society, and life. Cosmic order, kingship, a temple, and thus a functioning society are the goal and end-result of “creation.”
Creation, even a successful and good creation, remains inherently unstable and fragile. The sea (chaos/death) is not eliminated, but simply contained. The sea, for example, remains behind the sky, always threatening to break in and “de-create;” to break in and wreck the functioning and fertile world (society/nation). Along these lines, threats of foreign armies, famines, droughts, disease, etc.—ever present threats to a functioning, healthy, and fertile society—are conceptualized in these mythic-cosmic views of reality with mythic-cosmic charges: they are instances of mythic/cosmic chaos and death. Creation is a fragile and unstable place. Chaos continues to threaten from all sides.
The temple is a microcosm of the ideal and orderly world. It is also the center of the world, out from which life, fertility, and order, radiate. The temple cult (sacrificial worship) is completely bound up with the above discussed mythic-cosmic views of reality and creation thought. The continued orderly functioning of the cosmos, with chaos kept at bay, is bound up with the continued orderly functioning of the temple (the microcosm of the ideal cosmos) without “chaos” characterizing it. Put another way, the god’s creation/salvation chaos-binding power is re-enacted and actualized in the temple cult. Thus through the ceaseless labor of people and gods creation is renewed, chaos kept at bay, and “the world” is sustained. This is seen enacted on the stage of history in creation/salvation-power vanquishing the chaos/death of enemy armies, famines, plagues, droughts, infertility, etc. and/or (re-)establishment of a society/kingdom. Salvation-rescue activity on the part of a(the) god(s) is creation activity—sometimes pictured as the re-actualization of creation power and victories.
Though I have not discussed how kingship functions here, suffice it to say that the goal of creation in the myths is the establishment of cosmic kingship (of the god with human vassal-kings as his representatives), temple, order, and the functioning society. Existing and properly functioning kings, temples, and the associated rituals, cult, and festivals, mark the existence of the properly functioning orderly and fertile “world.”
This is an incredibly over-simplified run through of some contours of ancient Near Eastern mythic-cosmic views of reality associated with creation, “salvation,” kingship, temple, order, etc. Since I am more familiar with Ugaritic and Babylonian sources and thought, the above represents a flattened-out and simplified overview of the diverse mythic views of reality primarily from those sectors of the ancient Near East.
So, after reading this, what strikes you? What strikes you as you think of our Old Testament and what God spoke to his people through it—all back in cultures pervaded by such mythic-cosmic views of reality associated with creation, “salvation,” kingship, temple, etc.? What are your thoughts? Are there ways you can see how situating the writings of our Bible within such thought-matrices brings out rich and exciting meanings (and functions) of our Biblical writings?
In the near future, depending upon the discussion here, I hope to continue this topic by focusing on some passages in our Bible and how they fit in with (and function within) these mythic-cosmic views of reality.
________________________________________________________________________
Above are some basics of ancient Near Eastern mythic sensitivities you can find in an almost endless mountain of publications over the last several generations of scholarship. For those interested in pursuing this further, Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil is certainly an amazing (and challenging!) place to start. For a (less helpful) treatment by an evangelical, all of which I have not read, see John Walton’s Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (click here for a short review). Richard Clifford’s Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible is a classic and excellent discussion covering many specific texts and sources, though you will probably have to obtain it from a library. It might be better to start with a couple of his articles, “Cosmogonies in the Ugaritc Texts and in the Bible” (Orientalia 53 [1984]:183-201) and, perhaps more helpful for most readers here, “The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation” (Theological Studies 46 [1985]: 507-23). For the many of you who have never heard of Clifford, he is a giant. His excellent dissertation, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (1972), is cited everywhere in scholarship over the last 30 or so years. As with Levenson, I recommend reading just about anything you can get your hands on by Clifford—if you have any academic-ish interests in Biblical Studies and/or if you simply want to explore exciting (and edifying!) new ways the Bible can come alive for you and your church.
December 6, 2008 at 2:26 pm
[...] while back I posted on various Ancient Near Eastern sensitivities relating to “creation,” temple, “salvat…., talking about the ways Jon Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil had both radically [...]
August 14, 2008 at 9:36 am
Steve:
Your citation of Rev 21:1 is interesting. The sea is present at the first creation, but not at the the new heavens and new earth. Why in the world would Rev 21:1 say that? If the first creation was not just good, but perfect, why would the recreation do away with the sea? Rev 21:1 implies that while the first creation may be “very good,” it the presence of the sea was something to be overcome.
Throughout the OT, the ocean is conceived of as a destructive element that threatens human life. It is under God’s control to be sure, but from Gen 1:2 onwards, it is a threat to humans. We don’t need ANE sources to recognize this, though those sources do shed a great deal of light on the mythopoeic background.
August 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I don’t disagree with much of what you clarified in post 19. I think some of what I said was simply not articulated well. My comments were directed to your specific parallels that were being drawn from.
Let me explain from one example what I mean:
“the ceaseless labor of people and gods creation is renewed, chaos kept at bay, and “the world” is sustained”.
First, creation is “good”. Genesis 1. But you write, “Creation, even a successful and good creation, remains inherently unstable and fragile. The sea (chaos/death) is not eliminated, but simply contained.
The problem I’m addressing is that you are allowing ANE sources to drive the meaning anachronistically. ANE sources do not presuppose a good, ordered, creation in an original state. Rather, they extrapolate on the basis of what they see (which is not ordered and stable and safe but decaying and dangerous and full of death…which they used the sea as metaphor). Thus, because they see the sea as dangerous it means (to them) it was always dangerous and they have to figure out a way to understand this. Hence ANE myths. What I’m saying is that the Bible sees Creation not as originally dangerous, fragile, unstable, etc. but as “good”. Furthermore, this “good” is defined not by ANE sources but by other Scripture. Particularly by looking to the future of the new creation (Isa 11:8; Rev. 21:1-4; ) The current state of creation as Paul sees it is, “For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now” Romans 8:19-22.
It seems to me that the bible is pretty clear that sin is the cause of the problems in creation: specifically death and chaos). Sin did no exist before the fall (Romans 5). If we hold this internal understand of what the bible says then we see that the ANE myths are not informing how to understand the world and various metaphors of life, but are rebuked by the Biblical world view.
August 13, 2008 at 1:11 pm
FTH,
Forgive my ignorance, but do we really have the data to paint context? It looks to me as if we’re doing something like trying to describe modern thought (1700+) by looking at a few books written over a three hundred year period.
August 13, 2008 at 10:16 am
Steve,
Thanks for your continued engagement. You have raised numerous points, all of which I could not engage well (untangling certain issues and addressing misconceptions, etc.) in a single comment.
For now, please tell me where in the Old Testament it clearly explains that “it” (the OT) does not function within certain ANE cosmic-mythic sensitivities—that it “speaks against [them].” I offered you a couple snap-shots of where it does operate within such sensitivities and could multiple examples almost endlessly. Would you mind providing at least one example of your claim and/or engaging some of the points I mentioned in my last comment?
BTW, simply pointing out where the Hebrew Bible maintains YHWH’s control over creation does not work. That is begging the question. The issue is if his control and supremacy are understood within some of these broader ANE views of “creation,” temple, etc.? What for you is YHWH not in control of reality might be from the point of view of the authors of the Hebrew Bible YHWW in complete control of reality and exercising his authority in the ways he desires (and/or in the ways it was just understood that gods exercised their authority and power). It seems somewhat arbitrary, to me, that you have decided this approach does not mean YHWH remains in control. Would you also say that Reformed understandings of salvation dethrone God from ultimately being in control since, for example, Justification is by faith—thus something we do/believe (faith) is in the mix (not meriting…but means, or instrument of appropriation, etc…however you want to phrase it) of the salvation God works for us?
I do not see how this approach ignores or does not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. Before you can see how that happens, how for example Scripture passage A interprets Scripture passage B, you have to be able to understand each of the passages in their historical contexts—-until then you will have trouble even starting to grapple with how one passage (or group of them, or whole books, etc.) bears on another passage (or part) of Scripture.
Lastly, for now, what is really in vogue today in Reformed-Evangelical circles is charging people with something along the lines of emphasizing the context of Scripture over the content of Scripture. I hope this does not come across harshly, but though this sounds like a penetrating and sophisticated critique, I have yet to see anyone make it with any real meaning or content. Usually, in my experience, it betrays a faulty understanding of the whole project of studying things historically, how meaning is completely bound up with context (that is Hermeneutics 101), and (mostly) a real anxiety over how the writings of our Bible are (from a historical point of view) historically-contingent and bound products of their various ancient horizons when it comes to understanding them historically.
As I tried to address in my last comment, no one here is (or should be) saying the writings of the Hebrew Bible cannot say something “different.” For example, though Gen 1 articulates “creation” in similar ANE terms of overcoming/binding chaos in order to bring about an orderly but still fragile “world,” it does not do so through articulating an explicit combat between YHWH and other gods (as was quite common). Rather, YHWH creates without explicit combat and with his word and, for example, when the sea-monsters show up, YHWH does not fight with them but rather has created them! (Gen 1.21) So, again, I am not saying the Hebrew Bible cannot say anything different. Rather, I am saying that what it says has to be understandable within its ancient contexts. Sure it could be seeking to redefine completely contemporary understandings of the dynamic structures of reality. But, if you think the writings of the Bible are doing this, you need to argue that in detail, not simply assert it. In this case you have the issue of how throughout the Hebrew Bible it constantly describes reality in the same terms (and views) as seen throughout much of the diverse Near East—in these mythic-cosmic ways. It seems much more likely, historically, that what the writings of the Hebrew Bible say is “different” in that they articulate the supremacy, kingship, and rule of YHWH over “creation” in terms that were quite radical because YHWH is depicted as supreme over the mythic-cosmic reality in which they all lived.
I hope this is helpful. Sorry it is so long. See why I cannot engage all your points in one comment? : )
August 12, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Good stuff Nathan.
It is also the dangerous waters dominated by Yahweh (Exodus 14-15), sometimes through his servants (Joshua 3, 2 Kings 2, etc.), by the Son of God (walking on water, rebuking the waves) and is ultimately eradicated from our future dwelling (Rev 21:1).
August 12, 2008 at 9:21 am
Steve,
Briefly, the tohu wabohu denote the hostility of the cosmos to human life. If Gen 1:1 fed right into v. 3, we would have a very different story. Gen 1:2 establishes the “problem” that God reverses as he prepares the cosmos for humanity in the six days of creation. The tehom is the great cosmic deep that is by its nature a threat to human life (it is the tehom that floods the earth later in Gen, reducing the earth to a pre-creation-gen: 1-2 state).
August 11, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Nathan M,
I haven’t done any lexical study on these words but I don’t follow how they represent danger? To whom is the danger directed?
August 11, 2008 at 10:11 pm
FTH,
Just a couple of thoughts:
You wrote, “Could not YHWH ordain his own temple/tabernacle for the maintenance of creation–thus functioning with a YHWH version of these ancient cosmic-mythic sensitivities sketched above?” I don’t think so. From a theological point of view this would mean that God is not in control over all creation, a prominent theme in the Bible. To cede control in a real sense would mean YHWH is no longer God. This is a critical issue that the Bible raises throughout OT/NT. Moreover, if anything, the Bible speaks adamently against these cosmic-mythic sensitivities.
Ancient cultural context are interesting and valuable. That is not disputed. What I fear is that the interests in these writings are leading the interpretative process rather than being of assistance to the process. Granted, your post wanted to look at the religious-cultural horizon but you clearly are striving to relate this horizon to, “the writings of our Bible within such thought-matrices [in order to] brings out rich and exciting meanings (and functions) of our Biblical writings” Not to poo poo on new methodology/contextual insight but this would seem to imply that the inner connections that develop from Scripture interpreting Scripture are exhausted?
Secondly, it seems to me at least that the academic milieu of current biblical studeis is that YHWH cannot be allowed to speak a different word because it doesn’t fit the cultural context. In other words, there is no room to allow God to correct and redefine the religious-cultural landscape of ancient israel. To emphesize the context of scripture over the content of Scripture is a big mistake but one that seems in vogue today.
Third, it would seem that the interest in ANE and its ability to inform the OT assumes a cultrual simplicity and naivity about ancient cultures. Its the “noble savage” perspective on the ANE. Cultural anthropology itself shows that, although there is always cultural exchange, this exchange does not mean that aspects of one culture necessarially informs a similar aspect in another culture.
Forth, I don’t think your twist on the reading can be legitmately see as Reformed (or even generally protestant). Worship has always been a response to God of gratitude not a method of achieving certain security. God is always the one who initiates with hased and man responds with faith and graditude.
Fifth, “Creation is a fragile and unstable place. Chaos continues to threaten from all sides.” Doesn’t this presume a negative aspect on creation? A biblical perspective is that Creation was “good” originally. There was no Chaos or instability as we understand it. This is a result of sin which happened after the Creation.
Don’t take my responses the wrong way. I say this in all cherity and peaceableness, as one willing at looking at all aspects – and willing to challenge. Thanks for you willingness to be candid on what you are thinking about. It is stimuliating and provoking!
August 11, 2008 at 2:40 pm
FTH
No need to apologize. My comment was at best half baked. My concern is that our reading of ANE literature isn’t compromised by assumptions about what we think it’s trying to do. I suppose what would help me to see a little better would be references to actual texts and not just to themes. No doubt, If I had read Creation and the Persistence of Evil, I’d have all the references I’d ever want. If the project is to read ANE literature, find themes and then use these themes in understanding the milieu of the Old Testament my caution would be that finding themes may seduce us into distortions.
The other day I read an essay which argued that Shelob, in Lord of the Rings is a vaginal type representing Tolkien’s fear of women. I can’t help but wonder if that isn’t a distortion rather than a reading of Tolkien. Of course, one could point out that this kind of thing is typical of literary studies, but I don’t find that very reassuring.
In hindsight, I should probably be more patient and let you develop your themes.
August 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm
GLW,
Yeah transmogrify wasn’t the best word choice. My point was that is that the expectations of early Jewish believers in Jesus about the eschaton, messianism, etc., shifted shifted in light of Christ’s teaching, death, resurrection, etc. That’s nothing new of course–that’s throughout the NT. My other point was that if Levenson’s model more-or-less describes how early Jews conceptualized things, then it’s not hard to imagine that model also undergoing a shift for earliest Christians.
The case-in-point example, I suppose, would be Paul’s concept of creation/new creation (or 2 Pet and Rev). Levenson’s model essentially explains where their framework derives. The question is whether early Jewish lit actually adds anything new here. In the case of Paul and 2 Pet, my feeling is yes and no: it proabably shoes that Paul was operating within a theological framework that had existed long before, but in the end we get to basically the same theological conclusions.
August 11, 2008 at 1:24 pm
CraigV,
I am not sure I follow your point. Let me know if below I get at what you are saying.
I am not after “the purpose” of all ANE literature. I have tried to focus on some aspects of “creation” thought and related areas in some ANE views of reality—often seen in certain genres and/or types of ANE literature (something I did not really go into above). I do not see how this is a wrong-headed endeavor. This is a typical area of inquiry in historical and literary studies in general.
Also, I have not gotten into the social-functions and purposes of such thought here.
Perhaps I have completely missed your point. I am sorry if I was not clear enough above in the post or in this comment.
August 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Steve,
Let’s try this from a theological point of view. Could not YHWH ordain his own temple/tabernacle for the maintenance of creation–thus functioning with a YHWH version of these ancient cosmic-mythic sensitivities sketched above?
I do appreciate you sharing, if you will, what “struck you” as you read this post. If I may, what you say sounds nice and good. The issue is that the writings of our Bible participate in these views of the cosmic-dynamics of reality. From my point of view, what is exciting is that we can through this catch a glimpse at the cosmic significance of, for example, the temple/tabernacle.
The way Genesis 1, for example, describes “creation” resides right in the middle of these ancient mythic-cosmic sensitivities. YHWH separates the (already there—as Nathan has mentioned) waters from the waters, sealing some behind the solid-dome (raquia). Interestingly, in the flood narrative as we have it, it is these very same cosmic-chaotic waters that fall down (through the windows in the dome! C.f. Gen 7.11).
Gen 1 is not about creation ex-nihilo but about YHWH overcoming the chaos and wasteland to establish an inhabitable and inhabited world for his people (his image). Gen 1 proclaims the cosmic-kingship of YHWH and, as we may discuss in a future post, describes the creation of “the world” in overtones of the building of the tabernacle/temple. I mean, Gen 1.14 even makes fairly explicit the cultic-connection of “Creation” and tabernacle/temple. There the stars have the function of marking the times (of Israel’s sacred cultic calendar)—the type of language used there for such sacred cultic “appointed times” occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible for such sacred-cultic “times.” This might seem far-fetched to us who do not think in these mythic-cosmic ways about “creation” (and temple, kingship, etc.), but this is how the ancient audience would have (rightly) heard the text. “Creation” is interconnected with cult, and remains quite fragile.
I do not see how this is an inherently “pagan” dynamic. You could just as easily give a theological understanding saying this thus shows Israel how they continue to depend upon YHWH’s sustaining creation (they cannot presume upon it) and how “proper worship” is both essential and the way they and the world live as they are meant to live. Worshipping YHWH incorrectly and not on his terms (the ones he established) is disastrous for the community and, indeed, the world. Approached this way, this dynamic sounds quite “Reformed” about worship and how God’s people relate to him and live properly. My point, again, is that there is nothing inherently “pagan” about this dynamic unless you are looking for it to be so—you could just as easily understand it in a quite “Reformed” way.
If we really want to get Christian-theological here, our bible acknowledges the continued fragile creation with chaos threatening. It is not until the ultimate and climactic moment that the sea is no more (Rev 21.1).
Does this make sense? I/we are not saying there are no “differences.” Nor, by the way, was this post about “finding parallels” (BTW, this post focused on Near Eastern thought and not on specific passages from our Bible). There are times I think that conceptualizing this study in terms of looking for parallels and differences or compare and contrast is unhelpful. In this post I am more after sketching the ancient cultural-religious horizon(s) of the writings of our Bible. My eventual goal for here is, of course, seeing how those writings function therein. No one is (or should be) out to say that our Bible is simply “the same” as its surrounding world because of all the “parallels.” Equally ridiculous is the notion of our Bible as “unique” against its world because of the “differences.” If you approach things thus, everything is “the same” and everything is “unique.” Though such approaches have their places, I find it more helpful (again) simply to focus on how what we have functioned (what it “meant”) in its ancient horizons. In order to do this, we need some basic understandings of those ancient horizons.
Again, in this post my hope was to provide such a basic (oversimplified) sketch and ask if, after reading it, there seem to be things that could be rich for our readings of our Bible back in those horizons. What strikes us? Along these lines, Steve, I greatly appreciate your comment about what “struck” you. Hopefully our discussion can continue…
August 11, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I have no expertise in this area which probably yields a boldness I should (but won’t) temper. Looking at ANE literature this way seems wrongheaded to me. It would be like trying to answer the question “What is the purpose of western literature?”
August 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm
GLW –
Im not sure how concious they were of it, rather I would assume it was part of their worldview in a way they didn’t question. Much in the same way that our culture assumes modernity and certain views of history, science, reality, etc…
The ancient church assumed a lot of neo-platonism. I dont think augustine is conciously neo-platonic, but he is highly influenced by plotinus and others in his theology. In fact the theology of Eucharist is impossible, IMO, without aristotelian concepts of reality. Seen in the light of the prevalient philosophical trend of the day, however, it makes perfect sense.
In the same way I think the apostles assumed a hellenized judaic world, which looks a certain way and has certain things which identify it. One of those assumptions would have been about God bringing order to chaos and restraining the chaos.
Hence “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, Now the earth (while extant already) was still formless and void. So God must first create, and then bring order to the earth.
By the way; the concepts of resurrecting gods are blown way the crap out of proportion by various critics of scripture. I suggest N.T. Wright’s – The Resurrection and the Son of God. I think chapter 3 or 4 deals with this explicitly and in great detail.
Pax Christi…Nick
August 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Hmmm, what about the same concept- a god coming back to life- scattered throughout ancient mythology? One could make a similiar case for those fitting ” very nicely into the idea of chaos and recreation.” Do you really see the Apostles warmly up to this sort of approach?
August 11, 2008 at 12:08 pm
GLW –
I think the concept of a bodily resurrection, for instance, fits very nicely into the idea of chaos and recreation.
Pax Christi…Nick
August 11, 2008 at 11:09 am
Steve: The tehom and tohu wabohu of Gen 1:2 seems to suggest that danger actually does precede sin in the Genesis account.
August 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
FTH,
I would agree with GAS but even take it a little further and say that why you described is simply paganism (both ancient and modern day).
What is interesting is the ANE emphasis on the danger of creation breaking in and causing destruction and who is in control. In paganism, priest-craft rules. It is men that control the environment, keep dangers at bay, and produce prosperity by manipulating the gods with their craft.
There is a very different sense in the Old Testament. YHWH is in control, not man. Danger is not a creation reality (originally) but a sin consequence. In this sense I would agree that the Genesis narrative is apologetic to the ANE just as turn the other cheek is apologetic to war. It radically re-defines culture and human intuition.
Sure we can draw many parallels from ANE literature but there are distinctions as well. Paganism will always be counterfeit. It will have parallels for sure but its the distinctions that are important.
August 11, 2008 at 10:37 am
JD
For some reason when you dropped the word “transmogrify” I thought of Calvin and Hobbes and their cardboard box invention. The genre fits.
August 11, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think in very general terms many early Jews did. That’s why the apocalyptic tradition looks the way it does–that is, looking forward to a time of renewal where YWHW would return, reign in his temple, recreate order in the world.
NT authors might instead transfer and transmogrify those hopes, expectations, etc. to Jesus, etc.
…I think perhaps an important thing to note about guys like Levenson is that he’s really trying to present a model for how certain concepts or motifs of in the Hebrew Bible/ANE (or other ancient lit) connect to one another, how they “work.” That just means that though most of the language FTH ain’t in the OT, a lot of the concepts might still be there. For whatever that’s worth.
August 11, 2008 at 9:45 am
FTH
Do you think any of the NT writers read the OT in that light?
August 11, 2008 at 1:18 am
“The temple cult (sacrificial worship) is completely bound up with the above discussed mythic-cosmic views of reality and creation thought. The continued orderly functioning of the cosmos, with chaos kept at bay, is bound up with the continued orderly functioning of the temple (the microcosm of the ideal cosmos) without “chaos” characterizing it. Put another way, the god’s creation/salvation chaos-binding power is re-enacted and actualized in the temple cult.”
You’ve just described Roman Catholicism and their Eucharist theology.