The Genesis Project Last studies
Gentle reader,
Last time we mentioned seven great men of Genesis. If we want to know the awful capabilities of the potential for evil which can be seen in the Adamic human nature, we need only to look at and trace the Cain line through its culture, earthly-mindedness vanity, violence and rebellion against God. Cain whose name means
kayn (ין, ḳayin, “spear” or “smith,” resembling in sound the root kanah, “get,” “acquire,” Gen_4:1 the Revised Version, margin, but not necessarily derived from that root; Septuagint Kain):
A possession; a spear.
The first-born son of Adam and Eve (Gen. 4). He became a tiller of the ground, as his brother Abel followed the pursuits of pastoral life. He was “a sullen, selfwilled, haughty, vindictive man; wanting the religious element in his character, and defiant even in his attitude towards God.” It came to pass “in process of time” (marg. “at the end of days”), i.e., probably on the Sabbath, that the two brothers presented their offerings to the Lord. Abel's offering was of the “firstlings of his flock and of the fat,” while Cain's was “of the fruit of the ground.” Abel's sacrifice was “more excellent” (Heb_11:4) than Cain's, and was accepted by God. On this account Cain was “very wroth,” and cherished feelings of murderous hatred against his brother, and was at length guilty of the desperate outrage of putting him to death (1Jo_3:12). For this crime he was expelled from Eden, and henceforth led the life of an exile, bearing upon him some mark which God had set upon him in answer to his own cry for mercy, so that thereby he might be protected from the wrath of his fellow-men; or it may be that God only gave him some sign to assure him that he would not be slain (Gen_4:15). Doomed to be a wanderer and a fugitive in the earth, he went forth into the “land of Nod”, i.e., the land of “exile”, which is said to have been in the “east of Eden,” and there he builded a city, the first we read of, and called it after his son's name, Enoch. His descendants are enumerated to the sixth generation. They gradually degenerated in their moral and spiritual condition till they became wholly corrupt before God. This corruption prevailed, and at length the Deluge was sent by God to prevent the final triumph of evil.
If we would know what can come from the same human natureand material when under the renewing and transforming power of Divine Grace, we need to follow the line of the men of faith.
There are seven such men in Genesis standing out in unmistakable prominence. They are able, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph. That these seven do indeed have a peculiar prominence and significance is indicated by the fact that, under the guidance of the inspiring of the the breath of God, the writer of this epistle to the Hebrews picks them out, as distinct from all others, for inclusion in that classic New testament catalogue of Old Testament worthies.
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: (Heb 11:4-9). By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff. By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones. (Heb 11:21-22)
Next time we will note the outstanding characteristics of these men.
To be continued...
Monday, June 28, 2010
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Doc Notes Lesson 2 Part 11
Last studies in Genesis
Gentle Readers,
Well as you might imagine we have been busy changing over to our “new” scriptural studies site! I told Marti that I wasn’t going to move any more but after more moves that Bobby Fischer (the World’s Chess Champion) I had enough! (But if the right offer came along....
At any rate we are going to look at Genesis one more time. Some have ask me why I don’t go into any depth that what I have especially with my background. The answer is to be quite frank, simple, most can’t understand what we are saying anyway, and the purpose is to educate those wanting to grow in their understanding, not those looking for quick answers to fit into their particular doctrinarian position.
After this study we (Marti and I will take a sabbatical our last for me anyway was in 1996 a very good year).
Thus far we have not given separate consideration to the four pivotal persons-Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, around whom the whole of the narrative revolves in the second part of the Book of Genesis Chapters 12-50. But in this present study they come under review, though as part of a larger theme. I will give here some final examples of the type-teaching in Genesis, and them make certain closing suggestions about the further study of the Book, along with your first set of questions for your personal study.
The principal personalities which are brought successively before us in the Book of Genesis all have a typical significance. That is so clearly shown by New Testament references such as that in which Paul speaks of Ishmael and Isaac as representing the two covenants “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband”. (Gal 4:22-27), and at the same time representing two natures “that which is after the flesh” and that which is after the spirit” (Gal 4:29). The priestking Melchizedek is another example (Heb. 7); and the first man of all, Adam, is declared to be a “figure (type) of Him that was to come. (Rom. 5:14).
Turning then, to the main figures in Genesis, we observe, that not only are some of them types of persons ( as for example Isaac and Juoseph are a types of Christ), but when viewed collectively they typify progressive stages of spiritual experience.
The first man, Adam, besides being (in his relationships) a type of Christ, is (in his fallen state) a type of natural man, or might we we say of unregenerate human nature. He is referred to again and again in the New Testament (Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:6) That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; (Eph 4:22) Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Col 3:9). Now one of the leading purports of Genesis seems to be that all which springs from the first Adam-all that which can spring from him, both good and ill, both by nature and through the influence of Divine grace. So we come to the matter of what has been called by Augustine “original sin”! Which to Augustine was the deliberate fall of man. But in reality was the deception of Satan. Adam and eve were actually duped to believe that Satan was helping them when in fact it was a test of God. Would God rescue His own creation. The Word was given. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)
Here too the man was to commence his own spiritual development. To this end God had planted two trees in the midst of the garden of Eden; the one to train his spirit through the exercise of obedience to the word of God, the other to transform his earthly nature into the spiritual essence of eternal life. These trees received their names from their relation to man, that is to say, from the effect which the eating of their fruit was destined to produce upon human life and its development. The fruit of the tree of life conferred the power of eternal, immortal life; and the tree of knowledge was planted, to lead men to the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was no mere experience of good and ill, but a moral element in that spiritual development, through which the man created in the image of God was to attain to the filling out of that nature, which had already been planned in the likeness of God. For not to know what good and evil are, is a sign of either the immaturity of infancy (Deu: 1:39), or the imbecility of age (2Sam: 19:35); whereas the power to distinguish good and evil is commended as the gift of a king (1Kings 3:9) and the wisdom of angels (2Sam: 14:17), and in the highest sense is ascribed to God Himself
Why then did God prohibit man from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the threat that, as soon as he ate thereof, he would surely die? (The inf. abs. before the finite verb intensifies the latter: ). Are we to regard the tree as poisonous, and suppose that some fatal property resided in the fruit? A supposition which so completely ignores the ethical nature of sin is neither warranted by the antithesis, nor by what is said in Gen: 3:22 of the tree of life, nor by the fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was actually the cause of death. Even in the case of the tree of life, the power is not to be sought in the physical character of the fruit. No earthly fruit possesses the power to give immortality to the life which it helps to sustain. Life is not rooted in man's corporeal nature; it was in his spiritual nature that it had its origin, and from this it derives its stability and permanence also. It may, indeed, be brought to an end through the destruction of the body; but it cannot be exalted to perpetual duration, i.e., to immortality, through its preservation and sustenance. And this applies quite as much to the original nature of man, as to man after the fall. A body formed from earthly materials could not be essentially immortal: it would of necessity either be turned to earth, and fall into dust again, or be transformed by the spirit into the immortality of the soul. The power which transforms corporeality into immortality is spiritual in its nature, and could only be imparted to the earthly tree or its fruit through the word of God, through a special operation of the Spirit of God, an operation which we can only picture to ourselves as sacramental in its character, rendering earthly elements the receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers. God had given such a sacramental nature and significance to the two trees in the midst of the garden, that their fruit could and would produce supersensual, mental, and spiritual effects upon the nature of the first human pair. The tree of life was to impart the power of transformation into eternal life. The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good. By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.
To Be continued....
Note: Judaism holds no concept of original sin. According to Christian belief, all human beings are born into the world with a sinful nature because of the transgression of Adam (Romans 5:12-21). Judaism's emphasis is not on original sin but original virtue and righteousness. Although Judaism acknowledges that man does commit acts of sin, there is not a sense of man being totally depraved or unworthy as is found in Christian theology.
Gentle Readers,
Well as you might imagine we have been busy changing over to our “new” scriptural studies site! I told Marti that I wasn’t going to move any more but after more moves that Bobby Fischer (the World’s Chess Champion) I had enough! (But if the right offer came along....
At any rate we are going to look at Genesis one more time. Some have ask me why I don’t go into any depth that what I have especially with my background. The answer is to be quite frank, simple, most can’t understand what we are saying anyway, and the purpose is to educate those wanting to grow in their understanding, not those looking for quick answers to fit into their particular doctrinarian position.
After this study we (Marti and I will take a sabbatical our last for me anyway was in 1996 a very good year).
Thus far we have not given separate consideration to the four pivotal persons-Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, around whom the whole of the narrative revolves in the second part of the Book of Genesis Chapters 12-50. But in this present study they come under review, though as part of a larger theme. I will give here some final examples of the type-teaching in Genesis, and them make certain closing suggestions about the further study of the Book, along with your first set of questions for your personal study.
The principal personalities which are brought successively before us in the Book of Genesis all have a typical significance. That is so clearly shown by New Testament references such as that in which Paul speaks of Ishmael and Isaac as representing the two covenants “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband”. (Gal 4:22-27), and at the same time representing two natures “that which is after the flesh” and that which is after the spirit” (Gal 4:29). The priestking Melchizedek is another example (Heb. 7); and the first man of all, Adam, is declared to be a “figure (type) of Him that was to come. (Rom. 5:14).
Turning then, to the main figures in Genesis, we observe, that not only are some of them types of persons ( as for example Isaac and Juoseph are a types of Christ), but when viewed collectively they typify progressive stages of spiritual experience.
The first man, Adam, besides being (in his relationships) a type of Christ, is (in his fallen state) a type of natural man, or might we we say of unregenerate human nature. He is referred to again and again in the New Testament (Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (Rom 6:6) That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; (Eph 4:22) Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; (Col 3:9). Now one of the leading purports of Genesis seems to be that all which springs from the first Adam-all that which can spring from him, both good and ill, both by nature and through the influence of Divine grace. So we come to the matter of what has been called by Augustine “original sin”! Which to Augustine was the deliberate fall of man. But in reality was the deception of Satan. Adam and eve were actually duped to believe that Satan was helping them when in fact it was a test of God. Would God rescue His own creation. The Word was given. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Gen 2:16-17)
Here too the man was to commence his own spiritual development. To this end God had planted two trees in the midst of the garden of Eden; the one to train his spirit through the exercise of obedience to the word of God, the other to transform his earthly nature into the spiritual essence of eternal life. These trees received their names from their relation to man, that is to say, from the effect which the eating of their fruit was destined to produce upon human life and its development. The fruit of the tree of life conferred the power of eternal, immortal life; and the tree of knowledge was planted, to lead men to the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of good and evil was no mere experience of good and ill, but a moral element in that spiritual development, through which the man created in the image of God was to attain to the filling out of that nature, which had already been planned in the likeness of God. For not to know what good and evil are, is a sign of either the immaturity of infancy (Deu: 1:39), or the imbecility of age (2Sam: 19:35); whereas the power to distinguish good and evil is commended as the gift of a king (1Kings 3:9) and the wisdom of angels (2Sam: 14:17), and in the highest sense is ascribed to God Himself
Why then did God prohibit man from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, with the threat that, as soon as he ate thereof, he would surely die? (The inf. abs. before the finite verb intensifies the latter: ). Are we to regard the tree as poisonous, and suppose that some fatal property resided in the fruit? A supposition which so completely ignores the ethical nature of sin is neither warranted by the antithesis, nor by what is said in Gen: 3:22 of the tree of life, nor by the fact that the eating of the forbidden fruit was actually the cause of death. Even in the case of the tree of life, the power is not to be sought in the physical character of the fruit. No earthly fruit possesses the power to give immortality to the life which it helps to sustain. Life is not rooted in man's corporeal nature; it was in his spiritual nature that it had its origin, and from this it derives its stability and permanence also. It may, indeed, be brought to an end through the destruction of the body; but it cannot be exalted to perpetual duration, i.e., to immortality, through its preservation and sustenance. And this applies quite as much to the original nature of man, as to man after the fall. A body formed from earthly materials could not be essentially immortal: it would of necessity either be turned to earth, and fall into dust again, or be transformed by the spirit into the immortality of the soul. The power which transforms corporeality into immortality is spiritual in its nature, and could only be imparted to the earthly tree or its fruit through the word of God, through a special operation of the Spirit of God, an operation which we can only picture to ourselves as sacramental in its character, rendering earthly elements the receptacles and vehicles of celestial powers. God had given such a sacramental nature and significance to the two trees in the midst of the garden, that their fruit could and would produce supersensual, mental, and spiritual effects upon the nature of the first human pair. The tree of life was to impart the power of transformation into eternal life. The tree of knowledge was to lead man to the knowledge of good and evil; and, according to the divine intention, this was to be attained through his not eating of its fruit. This end was to be accomplished, not only by his discerning in the limit imposed by the prohibition the difference between that which accorded with the will of God and that which opposed it, but also by his coming eventually, through obedience to the prohibition, to recognise the fact that all that is opposed to the will of God is an evil to be avoided, and, through voluntary resistance to such evil, to the full development of the freedom of choice originally imparted to him into the actual freedom of a deliberate and self-conscious choice of good. By obedience to the divine will he would have attained to a godlike knowledge of good and evil, i.e., to one in accordance with his own likeness to God. He would have detected the evil in the approaching tempter; but instead of yielding to it, he would have resisted it, and thus have made good his own property acquired with consciousness and of his own free-will, and in this way by proper self-determination would gradually have advanced to the possession of the truest liberty. But as he failed to keep this divinely appointed way, and ate the forbidden fruit in opposition to the command of God, the power imparted by God to the fruit was manifested in a different way. He learned the difference between good and evil from his own guilty experience, and by receiving the evil into his own soul, fell a victim to the threatened death. Thus through his own fault the tree, which should have helped him to attain true freedom, brought nothing but the sham liberty of sin, and with it death, and that without any demoniacal power of destruction being conjured into the tree itself, or any fatal poison being hidden in its fruit.
To Be continued....
Note: Judaism holds no concept of original sin. According to Christian belief, all human beings are born into the world with a sinful nature because of the transgression of Adam (Romans 5:12-21). Judaism's emphasis is not on original sin but original virtue and righteousness. Although Judaism acknowledges that man does commit acts of sin, there is not a sense of man being totally depraved or unworthy as is found in Christian theology.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Sabbatical
A message to all members of Scripture Studies
Gentle Readers,
We are on extended sabbatical . Sorry that we can not respond to your urgent emails, you may contact one of the other at scripture Institute. Or you may leave messages with Rabbi Del and Rifkah, Plumber, Dr. Ley or Minister Donna Dixon at http://scripturestudies.spruz.com ("Where scholarship and study meet". A study and social network an outreach of Scripture Institute). Sabbatical or a sabbatical (from Latin sabbaticus, from Greek sabbatikos, from Hebrew shabbat, i.e., Sabbath, literally a "ceasing") is a rest from work, or a hiatus, often lasting from two months to a year. The concept of sabbatical has a source in shmita, described several places in the Bible (Leviticus 25, for example, where there is a commandment to desist from working the fields in the seventh year). In the strict sense, therefore, sabbatical lasts a year.
Cheers,
Dr's Denis and Marti O'Callaghan
Gentle Readers,
We are on extended sabbatical . Sorry that we can not respond to your urgent emails, you may contact one of the other at scripture Institute. Or you may leave messages with Rabbi Del and Rifkah, Plumber, Dr. Ley or Minister Donna Dixon at http://scripturestudies.spruz.com ("Where scholarship and study meet". A study and social network an outreach of Scripture Institute). Sabbatical or a sabbatical (from Latin sabbaticus, from Greek sabbatikos, from Hebrew shabbat, i.e., Sabbath, literally a "ceasing") is a rest from work, or a hiatus, often lasting from two months to a year. The concept of sabbatical has a source in shmita, described several places in the Bible (Leviticus 25, for example, where there is a commandment to desist from working the fields in the seventh year). In the strict sense, therefore, sabbatical lasts a year.
Cheers,
Dr's Denis and Marti O'Callaghan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
