As time has allowed a more complete assessment of the Facebook page of the Norwegian mass murderer it has become clear the media 'jumped the gun' in labelling the man a "right wing fundamentalist Christian". The following link provides a better evaluation of the man:
worldnetdaily
The man is more Darwinian than Christian.
Sam Drucker
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
THE LORD'S DAY (Part 2)
This is the second and final instalment of an address given some thirty years ago by John Richard de Witt under the heading "THE LORD'S DAY". I take up the address with de Witt making his second point about the fourth commandment:
The second aspect of the commandment on which I had thought to speak is the experiential one. What a blessed thing it is to 'call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable'! [Is 58.13] No doubt a large part of the difference between Christians who rejoice in the Lord's Day and the keeping of it and those who disport themselves on it very much as they might do on other days of the week is traceable to early experiences at just this point. Many of us can testify to the blessing, and to the blessed memories, given us by our parents in childhood years on the Lord's Day. Henry Ward Beecher once wrote of the sabbath of his parental home: It might have been made happier and better if there had been a little more adaptation to my disposition and my wants; but, with all its limitations, I would rather have the other six days of the week weeded out of my memory than the Sabbath of my childhood. And this is right. Every child ought to be so brought up in the family, that when he thinks of home the very first spot on which his thought rests shall be Sunday, as the culminating joy of the household'. Sir William Robertson Nicoll, writing of the staunch conservative leader of the old Free Church of Scotland, James Begg, who died nearly a hundred years ago, in some reflections both appreciative and critical, had this to say: 'His ideas about the Bible, the Sabbath, and Popery may be open to much criticism. But are not the Bible and the Sabbath what he called them-the two great pillars of visible religion? Has ever religion flourished where the Book and the Day have been despised?'
The third aspect of the sabbath commandment on which I had thought at first to speak is the eschatological one. The Heidelberg Catechism strikes an authentic note-drawn from Calvin-when it describes this facet of the truth: That all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath'. In the words of Calvin himself: The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own inclinations and works, we should meditate on the Kingdom of God, and that we should practice this meditation in the ways established by him' [Institutes, 2/8/28]. The same truth is given expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews (it is here, after all, that Calvin learned it): There remaineth therefore a [sabbath] rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his' [4.9, 10]. The spiritual significance of the fourth commandment, then, according to this view - and it surely is a biblical one - is that by leaving off our sinful works and allowing the Lord to work his perfect will in us we foreshadow and in a sense begin already here and now the everlasting sabbath of rest, the life eternal in the presence of the Lord.
The ground which I would have taken, had I followed my original intention, is thus quite clear. But the problem we face - the crisis even - is so urgent and of such significance that it seemed to me I must take another line altogether. What do the Genevan and Puritan - the Continental and British - sabbaths have in common? After all, we are speaking of the closest kinship. And when we read in confessional statements and in the writings of our spiritual forebears we discover that a great deal of ground is shared by these two approaches to the Lord's Day. Moreover, we discover as well that we are - many of us - at a great remove from them in our own practice and in our own attitudes. While Calvin in his Institutes and other writings differs somewhat from the Westminster divines, they were self-consciously walking in what they understood to be his footsteps, and in those of the other Reformers. And while there is no doubt that with respect to the interpretation of the fourth commandment in terms of its theological significance and fulfilment a distinction must be drawn between the 'Continental' and the 'Puritan' sabbath, in practice the Lord's Day observance of Calvin and the Puritans was very much alike. Calvin thus could say: 'If we spend the Lord's day in making good cheer, and in playing and gaming, is that a good honouring of God ? Nay, is it not a mockery, yea and a very unhallowing of his name ?' And again: 'And though the bell toll to bring them [the people of Geneva who were neglecting the worship of God] to the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but to think upon their business, and to cast up their accounts concerning this and that matter. Some others fall to gluttony, and shut themselves in their houses, because they dare not show a manifest contempt in the open street'. Moreover, while in Calvin's view every day, not just one day in the week, should belong to the Lord and be dedicated to his praise and service, the principle of an observance of one day in seven as a day of worship he held to be a minimum requirement.
What then is the force and effect of all this? One may speak of a crisis in the doctrine of the Lord's Day for many reasons. There is the in credible complexity of the times in which we live. What does it mean to keep the day holy? When we use our telephones, or heat our homes, or cook a meal, we are constraining some to work. Moreover, the very difficulty in keeping the day has led many to increasing degrees of laxity. If one cannot keep it perfectly, then perhaps one need not keep it at all.
Most evangelical Christians at least suppose that they belong in God's house on Sunday morning. But beyond that little is required of them, and they may be permitted to spend the day pretty much as they please. That the greater part of our people do not even go so far as this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of the membership of a typical congregation is not even in church once on the Lord's Day. In my experience - and I do not believe I am far wrong here - a typical congregation of, say, five hundred members may be represented by two hundred, perhaps two hundred and twenty-five at morning worship, and that includes children who have as yet made no profession of faith. What are we to say of the rest? And then what of the second service on the Lord's Day? And what of tile things people do in the afternoon and the evening? What of the abandonment of multitudes to their television addiction on the sabbath day? What of the careless causing of others to work on the sabbath day that we ourselves may be fed? What of the involvement in sporting events on the day? It was once the case - and not so very long ago - that
an athlete who professed faith but engaged in Sunday sports was regarded as suspect in his testimony. Now most Christians appear to have no problem with his conduct, and in fact join him in their enjoyment of the football game or whatever, free of conscience and without a conviction that this is the day which the Lord has made, a day in which to rejoice and be glad in him.
I wonder how many of us may be sabbath-breakers, rather than sabbath keepers. I wonder how many of us may not be careless even at the point of our going up to the house of God. The degree of our indifference to daily chapel services does not speak encouragingly in this respect. I do not, of course, suggest that the daily chapel services here are in the same category as the worship of the Lord's Day. But our joy in the public service of God, as Calvin did not tire of insisting, should extend to the daily praising of his name and the daily hearing of his Word. We have the privilege of worship every day, not only on the Lord's Day. How then is one to interpret and understand our refusal to seize upon and take advantage of an opportunity offered us here which is not likely to be ours again ever in our lifetime?
But what of the Lord's Day - that great pillar, along with the Bible, of true religion in our land? Do you remember the sabbath day to keep it holy? Do you hear God speak in his Word and take delight in obedience to what he commands you to do ? You may say, 'But the Puritan sabbath idea is Sabbatarian, and I want no part of that. I am free; Christ has made me free. And I intend to exercise my freedom'. Do not plead Calvin against the Westminster divines! For one thing, most of us are pledged to the position taken with great emphasis in our confessional standards. We really have no choice in the matter. So important was this issue held to be that, as I have already pointed out, a place of prominence was assigned to the sabbath commandment in the very framework of the Westminster Confession itself. But I need not argue from the Puritans to establish the truth of what I say. I may cite Calvin and cite him freely. And far above and beyond Calvin, I may cite the Word of God itself The other sins prohibited in the decalogue we think are reprehensible. Who of us would rise to the defence of theft, or murder, or covetousness? But what is to distinguish them from disobedience to the fourth commandment? What is to mark them off as far more depraved and aggravated in their depravity than sabbath-breaking, than indifference to the obedience required of us by God with respect to the leitourgia of faith, the service and praise of his name on the day he has reserved to himself for his own worship and for our rest?
As indicated previously, while I look forward to each Sabbath, I need to and will revise what I do on the day to afford myself greater opportunity to be "In the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and to be a vehicle for the Lord to glorify His Name.
Sam Drucker
The second aspect of the commandment on which I had thought to speak is the experiential one. What a blessed thing it is to 'call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable'! [Is 58.13] No doubt a large part of the difference between Christians who rejoice in the Lord's Day and the keeping of it and those who disport themselves on it very much as they might do on other days of the week is traceable to early experiences at just this point. Many of us can testify to the blessing, and to the blessed memories, given us by our parents in childhood years on the Lord's Day. Henry Ward Beecher once wrote of the sabbath of his parental home: It might have been made happier and better if there had been a little more adaptation to my disposition and my wants; but, with all its limitations, I would rather have the other six days of the week weeded out of my memory than the Sabbath of my childhood. And this is right. Every child ought to be so brought up in the family, that when he thinks of home the very first spot on which his thought rests shall be Sunday, as the culminating joy of the household'. Sir William Robertson Nicoll, writing of the staunch conservative leader of the old Free Church of Scotland, James Begg, who died nearly a hundred years ago, in some reflections both appreciative and critical, had this to say: 'His ideas about the Bible, the Sabbath, and Popery may be open to much criticism. But are not the Bible and the Sabbath what he called them-the two great pillars of visible religion? Has ever religion flourished where the Book and the Day have been despised?'
The third aspect of the sabbath commandment on which I had thought at first to speak is the eschatological one. The Heidelberg Catechism strikes an authentic note-drawn from Calvin-when it describes this facet of the truth: That all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath'. In the words of Calvin himself: The purpose of this commandment is that, being dead to our own inclinations and works, we should meditate on the Kingdom of God, and that we should practice this meditation in the ways established by him' [Institutes, 2/8/28]. The same truth is given expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews (it is here, after all, that Calvin learned it): There remaineth therefore a [sabbath] rest to the people of God. For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his' [4.9, 10]. The spiritual significance of the fourth commandment, then, according to this view - and it surely is a biblical one - is that by leaving off our sinful works and allowing the Lord to work his perfect will in us we foreshadow and in a sense begin already here and now the everlasting sabbath of rest, the life eternal in the presence of the Lord.
The ground which I would have taken, had I followed my original intention, is thus quite clear. But the problem we face - the crisis even - is so urgent and of such significance that it seemed to me I must take another line altogether. What do the Genevan and Puritan - the Continental and British - sabbaths have in common? After all, we are speaking of the closest kinship. And when we read in confessional statements and in the writings of our spiritual forebears we discover that a great deal of ground is shared by these two approaches to the Lord's Day. Moreover, we discover as well that we are - many of us - at a great remove from them in our own practice and in our own attitudes. While Calvin in his Institutes and other writings differs somewhat from the Westminster divines, they were self-consciously walking in what they understood to be his footsteps, and in those of the other Reformers. And while there is no doubt that with respect to the interpretation of the fourth commandment in terms of its theological significance and fulfilment a distinction must be drawn between the 'Continental' and the 'Puritan' sabbath, in practice the Lord's Day observance of Calvin and the Puritans was very much alike. Calvin thus could say: 'If we spend the Lord's day in making good cheer, and in playing and gaming, is that a good honouring of God ? Nay, is it not a mockery, yea and a very unhallowing of his name ?' And again: 'And though the bell toll to bring them [the people of Geneva who were neglecting the worship of God] to the sermon, yet it seems to them that they have nothing else to do but to think upon their business, and to cast up their accounts concerning this and that matter. Some others fall to gluttony, and shut themselves in their houses, because they dare not show a manifest contempt in the open street'. Moreover, while in Calvin's view every day, not just one day in the week, should belong to the Lord and be dedicated to his praise and service, the principle of an observance of one day in seven as a day of worship he held to be a minimum requirement.
What then is the force and effect of all this? One may speak of a crisis in the doctrine of the Lord's Day for many reasons. There is the in credible complexity of the times in which we live. What does it mean to keep the day holy? When we use our telephones, or heat our homes, or cook a meal, we are constraining some to work. Moreover, the very difficulty in keeping the day has led many to increasing degrees of laxity. If one cannot keep it perfectly, then perhaps one need not keep it at all.
Most evangelical Christians at least suppose that they belong in God's house on Sunday morning. But beyond that little is required of them, and they may be permitted to spend the day pretty much as they please. That the greater part of our people do not even go so far as this is evidenced by the fact that the majority of the membership of a typical congregation is not even in church once on the Lord's Day. In my experience - and I do not believe I am far wrong here - a typical congregation of, say, five hundred members may be represented by two hundred, perhaps two hundred and twenty-five at morning worship, and that includes children who have as yet made no profession of faith. What are we to say of the rest? And then what of the second service on the Lord's Day? And what of tile things people do in the afternoon and the evening? What of the abandonment of multitudes to their television addiction on the sabbath day? What of the careless causing of others to work on the sabbath day that we ourselves may be fed? What of the involvement in sporting events on the day? It was once the case - and not so very long ago - that
an athlete who professed faith but engaged in Sunday sports was regarded as suspect in his testimony. Now most Christians appear to have no problem with his conduct, and in fact join him in their enjoyment of the football game or whatever, free of conscience and without a conviction that this is the day which the Lord has made, a day in which to rejoice and be glad in him.
I wonder how many of us may be sabbath-breakers, rather than sabbath keepers. I wonder how many of us may not be careless even at the point of our going up to the house of God. The degree of our indifference to daily chapel services does not speak encouragingly in this respect. I do not, of course, suggest that the daily chapel services here are in the same category as the worship of the Lord's Day. But our joy in the public service of God, as Calvin did not tire of insisting, should extend to the daily praising of his name and the daily hearing of his Word. We have the privilege of worship every day, not only on the Lord's Day. How then is one to interpret and understand our refusal to seize upon and take advantage of an opportunity offered us here which is not likely to be ours again ever in our lifetime?
But what of the Lord's Day - that great pillar, along with the Bible, of true religion in our land? Do you remember the sabbath day to keep it holy? Do you hear God speak in his Word and take delight in obedience to what he commands you to do ? You may say, 'But the Puritan sabbath idea is Sabbatarian, and I want no part of that. I am free; Christ has made me free. And I intend to exercise my freedom'. Do not plead Calvin against the Westminster divines! For one thing, most of us are pledged to the position taken with great emphasis in our confessional standards. We really have no choice in the matter. So important was this issue held to be that, as I have already pointed out, a place of prominence was assigned to the sabbath commandment in the very framework of the Westminster Confession itself. But I need not argue from the Puritans to establish the truth of what I say. I may cite Calvin and cite him freely. And far above and beyond Calvin, I may cite the Word of God itself The other sins prohibited in the decalogue we think are reprehensible. Who of us would rise to the defence of theft, or murder, or covetousness? But what is to distinguish them from disobedience to the fourth commandment? What is to mark them off as far more depraved and aggravated in their depravity than sabbath-breaking, than indifference to the obedience required of us by God with respect to the leitourgia of faith, the service and praise of his name on the day he has reserved to himself for his own worship and for our rest?
As indicated previously, while I look forward to each Sabbath, I need to and will revise what I do on the day to afford myself greater opportunity to be "In the Spirit on the Lord's Day" and to be a vehicle for the Lord to glorify His Name.
Sam Drucker
Friday, July 15, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 60 verse 28 Fruitfulness
28. Then God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living creature moving about upon the earth.
That there is a similarity as well as a dissimilarity between man and all other living creatures is indicated by various means, here particularly by the fact that man's perpetuation of the human race is made to depend upon an effective divine blessing, as in the case of other creatures (v. 22), and by the use even of similar terms: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill." This last expression, therefore, is not a stylistic peculiarity but a historical fact indicative of the similarity just mentioned.
That there is a similarity as well as a dissimilarity between man and all other living creatures is indicated by various means, here particularly by the fact that man's perpetuation of the human race is made to depend upon an effective divine blessing, as in the case of other creatures (v. 22), and by the use even of similar terms: "Be fruitful and multiply and fill." This last expression, therefore, is not a stylistic peculiarity but a historical fact indicative of the similarity just mentioned.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
THE LORD'S DAY
I look forward to Sundays because of it being the day when I and other Christians gather in the Name of our Lord. It is my most favoured day of the week. Upon reviewing a message delivered some thirty years ago by John Richard de Witt under the heading "THE LORD'S DAY" I am obliged to rethink what I do on the Sabbath because of some things I have allowed to intrude into the day.
In two instalments I will reproduce John Richard de Witt's address. Part One commences herewith:
"The question of the fourth commandment and its observance among us is a difficult one. And yet it is also one which needs to be addressed. The second table of the law is still regarded with some seriousness, at least by most professing Christians. Who would dispute that it is a fearful sin to take life? or to steal what belongs to another ? The problem is with the first table. And while various kinds of idolatry are to be ascertained all around us, and while the name of God is used vainly by multitudes, perhaps none of the commandments of the first table of the law is as widely ignored as that having to do with the day of rest, the sabbath day. I speak now, not of unbelievers as sabbath-breakers, but of those who would describe themselves as believers: not of Christians in general, but of evangelical Christians: not of evangelical Christians without further distinction, but of reformed Christians. How this can be I do not know. In the Reformed theological and spiritual heritage much has been made of the fourth commandment. Indeed, a great deal has been made of the law of God, the decalogue. And it is difficult to see how one can classify himself as Reformed if he is antinomian at even a single point.
Generally speaking. Reformed Christians have been sabbath-keepers. And their aim in being such has been to live in conformity with the holy law of God. At the same time, however, in Reformed theology at its highest and best, the prevalent view of the fourth commandment has not been such as to teach the need for observing one day of the week as a day of rest and worship in a legalistic fashion, confusing the old covenant with the new, Judaizing the age of the gospel: rather, the accent has been upon the joyful, happy observance of a commandment of God that rooted itself in the Lord and his own pattern of creation and rest at the beginning of the world, a commandment, moreover, designed to foster and encourage the life of the people before God and to minister to their own physical and spiritual needs. It is easy enough to find examples of extreme sabbatarianism: a keeping of the day in a legalistic, external, and Pharisaical manner. But those examples, however characteristic they may be of certain periods in the history of the church, represent aberrations and were never normative. It is obviously possible to find corruptions of believing obedience at any level and in any department of life.
I have found it not a little difficult to know how to approach speaking on this subject. My own conviction is that of the Westminster Standards. I do not doubt that the fourth commandment is rooted in the very nature of God, that it rests upon a creation ordinance, and that there is a binding quality about the commandment for Christians in this age as well as there was for Israel in the Old Testament period. One must admit, however, that not all Reformed Christians have thought alike on the meaning of the commandment. John Calvin and the Puritans, for example - though they clearly belong together in the same family and cleave to the same central truths - were not of one mind in this respect. One often hears mention of the so-called Puritan and Continental views of the sabbath.
These two understandings of the fourth commandment find confessional Statement in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Heidelberg asks, 'What does God require in the fourth commandment?' And the the answer follows: In the first place, that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained: and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church, to learn the Word of God, to use the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath' [Ques and Ans 103]. The Shorter Catechism is much more particular and pointed. 'What is required in the fourth commandment ? The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word: expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself. 'Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath? From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath: and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath'. 'How is the sabbath to be sanctified? The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days: and spending the whole time in the pubic and private exercises of God's worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy' [Ques and Ans 58, 59, 60J. ft should be remembered here also that the Westminster Confession of Faith devotes a whole chapter to 'Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day'. In the Heidelberg Catechism the spiritual and practical significance of the day is emphasized. In the Westminster Confession and Catechisms a theological and exegetical understanding of the fourth commandment is expressed which indicates clearly that, while the practical meaning of the day is not to be ignored, the keeping of the day as such is a matter on a level with the keeping of the other commandments and that the nature of the command in this respect has not basically changed with the advent of the age of the new covenant.
I had originally thought to speak this morning, from the perspective of the Westminster view of the sabbath, on the three biblical aspects of the fourth commandment. The first is the legal aspect: the fourth commandment is one of the ten; and the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill'. and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery', said also, 'Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy'. The commandment is clearly rooted in what is said in the Scriptures of the activity of God at the creation of the world: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it' [Ex 20.11; cf Gen 2.1-3].
One need not deny that there are certain ceremonial elements in the Old Testament form of the command. After all, it was then the seventh day that was to be observed; and the observance of the day was also carefully regulated under the Mosaic economy - regulated in a fashion now no longer in force. The Lord Jesus Christ called himself the Lord also of the sabbath, claiming authority over it, changing its character [Luke 6.5], and by his resurrection from the dead changing the day itself. Moreover, there are at least three passages in the New Testament that imply some degree of alteration: Romans 14.5, 6; Galatians 4.9-11; and Colossians 2.16, 17. The last passage is doubtless the clearest: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ'. I myself believe that these more or less indirect references to the matter in hand have to do, not with the institution of the sabbath itself (which is an ordinance of creation), but with those things in its observance which were peculiar to its nature under the Levitical worship of the Old Testament. Moreover, all those regulations which the rabbis had added to the commandment as given in the decalogue were at once swept away. No one is to judge us any longer in meat, or in drink, or in respect of the holy days of a past which has been fulfilled in Christ. But this is not at all to say that the fourth commandment itself has lost its validity and relevance now that Christ has come. It is the Mosaic, the Levitical, the ceremonial, and the sacrificial aspects of the day that are removed, stripped off, done away. But the day remains.
How extraordinary it would have been were the Lord to remove one commandment from the everlasting and always-abiding law reflective of his own holy nature, without a hint to that effect in Scripture, without so much as an intimation that there was something different, something less permanent about the one as opposed to the others! The presumption is extremely strong - indeed so strong as to be no presumption but a certainty-that the fourth commandment remains always with the other nine: and that the holy law of God in this respect is in force and binding also upon Christians, to be sure, in its own way, a way consonant with fullness of the revelation that has come in Christ. Christians, therefore, are to be the sabbath-keepers, not sabbath-breakers. As Robert Murray M'Cheyne, the gracious and godly Scottish preacher of the last century, put it: 'Ah, guilty men! how plainly you show that you are on the broad road that leadeth to destruction. If you were a murderer or an adulterer, perhaps you would not dare to deny this. Do you not know - and all the sophistry of hell cannot disprove it - that the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill', said also, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy ?' The murderer who is dragged to the gibbet, and the polished Sabbath breaker are one in the sight of God.'"
Remainder in a few days.
Sam Drucker
In two instalments I will reproduce John Richard de Witt's address. Part One commences herewith:
"The question of the fourth commandment and its observance among us is a difficult one. And yet it is also one which needs to be addressed. The second table of the law is still regarded with some seriousness, at least by most professing Christians. Who would dispute that it is a fearful sin to take life? or to steal what belongs to another ? The problem is with the first table. And while various kinds of idolatry are to be ascertained all around us, and while the name of God is used vainly by multitudes, perhaps none of the commandments of the first table of the law is as widely ignored as that having to do with the day of rest, the sabbath day. I speak now, not of unbelievers as sabbath-breakers, but of those who would describe themselves as believers: not of Christians in general, but of evangelical Christians: not of evangelical Christians without further distinction, but of reformed Christians. How this can be I do not know. In the Reformed theological and spiritual heritage much has been made of the fourth commandment. Indeed, a great deal has been made of the law of God, the decalogue. And it is difficult to see how one can classify himself as Reformed if he is antinomian at even a single point.
Generally speaking. Reformed Christians have been sabbath-keepers. And their aim in being such has been to live in conformity with the holy law of God. At the same time, however, in Reformed theology at its highest and best, the prevalent view of the fourth commandment has not been such as to teach the need for observing one day of the week as a day of rest and worship in a legalistic fashion, confusing the old covenant with the new, Judaizing the age of the gospel: rather, the accent has been upon the joyful, happy observance of a commandment of God that rooted itself in the Lord and his own pattern of creation and rest at the beginning of the world, a commandment, moreover, designed to foster and encourage the life of the people before God and to minister to their own physical and spiritual needs. It is easy enough to find examples of extreme sabbatarianism: a keeping of the day in a legalistic, external, and Pharisaical manner. But those examples, however characteristic they may be of certain periods in the history of the church, represent aberrations and were never normative. It is obviously possible to find corruptions of believing obedience at any level and in any department of life.
I have found it not a little difficult to know how to approach speaking on this subject. My own conviction is that of the Westminster Standards. I do not doubt that the fourth commandment is rooted in the very nature of God, that it rests upon a creation ordinance, and that there is a binding quality about the commandment for Christians in this age as well as there was for Israel in the Old Testament period. One must admit, however, that not all Reformed Christians have thought alike on the meaning of the commandment. John Calvin and the Puritans, for example - though they clearly belong together in the same family and cleave to the same central truths - were not of one mind in this respect. One often hears mention of the so-called Puritan and Continental views of the sabbath.
These two understandings of the fourth commandment find confessional Statement in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism. The Heidelberg asks, 'What does God require in the fourth commandment?' And the the answer follows: In the first place, that the ministry of the Gospel and schools be maintained: and that I, especially on the day of rest, diligently attend church, to learn the Word of God, to use the holy Sacraments, to call publicly upon the Lord, and to give Christian alms. In the second place, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, allow the Lord to work in me by his Spirit, and thus begin in this life the everlasting Sabbath' [Ques and Ans 103]. The Shorter Catechism is much more particular and pointed. 'What is required in the fourth commandment ? The fourth commandment requireth the keeping holy to God such set times as he hath appointed in his word: expressly one whole day in seven, to be a holy sabbath to himself. 'Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly sabbath? From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly sabbath: and the first day of the week ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian sabbath'. 'How is the sabbath to be sanctified? The sabbath is to be sanctified by a holy resting all that day, even from such worldly employments and recreations as are lawful on other days: and spending the whole time in the pubic and private exercises of God's worship, except so much as is to be taken up in the works of necessity and mercy' [Ques and Ans 58, 59, 60J. ft should be remembered here also that the Westminster Confession of Faith devotes a whole chapter to 'Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day'. In the Heidelberg Catechism the spiritual and practical significance of the day is emphasized. In the Westminster Confession and Catechisms a theological and exegetical understanding of the fourth commandment is expressed which indicates clearly that, while the practical meaning of the day is not to be ignored, the keeping of the day as such is a matter on a level with the keeping of the other commandments and that the nature of the command in this respect has not basically changed with the advent of the age of the new covenant.
I had originally thought to speak this morning, from the perspective of the Westminster view of the sabbath, on the three biblical aspects of the fourth commandment. The first is the legal aspect: the fourth commandment is one of the ten; and the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill'. and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery', said also, 'Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy'. The commandment is clearly rooted in what is said in the Scriptures of the activity of God at the creation of the world: 'For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it' [Ex 20.11; cf Gen 2.1-3].
One need not deny that there are certain ceremonial elements in the Old Testament form of the command. After all, it was then the seventh day that was to be observed; and the observance of the day was also carefully regulated under the Mosaic economy - regulated in a fashion now no longer in force. The Lord Jesus Christ called himself the Lord also of the sabbath, claiming authority over it, changing its character [Luke 6.5], and by his resurrection from the dead changing the day itself. Moreover, there are at least three passages in the New Testament that imply some degree of alteration: Romans 14.5, 6; Galatians 4.9-11; and Colossians 2.16, 17. The last passage is doubtless the clearest: 'Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ'. I myself believe that these more or less indirect references to the matter in hand have to do, not with the institution of the sabbath itself (which is an ordinance of creation), but with those things in its observance which were peculiar to its nature under the Levitical worship of the Old Testament. Moreover, all those regulations which the rabbis had added to the commandment as given in the decalogue were at once swept away. No one is to judge us any longer in meat, or in drink, or in respect of the holy days of a past which has been fulfilled in Christ. But this is not at all to say that the fourth commandment itself has lost its validity and relevance now that Christ has come. It is the Mosaic, the Levitical, the ceremonial, and the sacrificial aspects of the day that are removed, stripped off, done away. But the day remains.
How extraordinary it would have been were the Lord to remove one commandment from the everlasting and always-abiding law reflective of his own holy nature, without a hint to that effect in Scripture, without so much as an intimation that there was something different, something less permanent about the one as opposed to the others! The presumption is extremely strong - indeed so strong as to be no presumption but a certainty-that the fourth commandment remains always with the other nine: and that the holy law of God in this respect is in force and binding also upon Christians, to be sure, in its own way, a way consonant with fullness of the revelation that has come in Christ. Christians, therefore, are to be the sabbath-keepers, not sabbath-breakers. As Robert Murray M'Cheyne, the gracious and godly Scottish preacher of the last century, put it: 'Ah, guilty men! how plainly you show that you are on the broad road that leadeth to destruction. If you were a murderer or an adulterer, perhaps you would not dare to deny this. Do you not know - and all the sophistry of hell cannot disprove it - that the same God who said, 'Thou shalt not kill', said also, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy ?' The murderer who is dragged to the gibbet, and the polished Sabbath breaker are one in the sight of God.'"
Remainder in a few days.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Offence Taken.
In a pitiful demonstration of capitulation to the world, John Dickson, co-founder of Centre of Public Christianity, in an article for the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 9 August 2011 titled Art of Persuasion Not So Simple, consigns his "six-day creationist friends" to an unthinking underclass but, worse, reveals to the world the grotesque god in whom he believes.
In the article John Dickson observes in many people a mindset refusing to accept the obvious and even intensifying resistance as the evidence mounts against their position. On the subject of origins John Dickson says the following:
Other, specifically religious, arguments provide further examples of the powerlessness of facts to change minds. The evidence for biological evolution is good, but my six-day creationist friends seem to get stronger in their beliefs with every new peer review article from the scientific mainstream. Counter evidence does not conquer belief.
There are two deplorable elements to the citation.
The first I address is the insidious attitude so prevalent in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney of a veneer of niceness extended to Biblical Creationists while the proverbial knife is being run through their acceptance and worth in the Diocese. Every now and again the veneer of niceness slips and the real sentiment is open for all to see. Sadly, the Sydney Morning Herald has been a vehicle for blatant insult on two occasions. First there was reference to Biblical Creationists as "Hillbillies" by the Archbishop and now this article by John Dickson implying Biblical Creationists cannot discern truth when it is set before them.
It is interesting that elsewhere in the article John Dickson cites Aristotle to make a point. A friend has reminded me of the deathbed comment a few years ago by the man who introduced him to Jesus Christ from Atheism. The comment was "What the Church needs is a Copernican type revolution of thought to remove Aristotle from its theology." This was, in effect, a lament at the state of the Church today which the Reformation was supposed to have overcome. The Reformers certainly set out to remove Aristotle and, Peter Harrison, in his work The Bible - Protestantism and the rise of natural science identifies the position of Luther when he says on page 102:
"Religious reformers, too, launched attacks on the slavish adherence to tradition evident in institutions of learning. Luther had long argued that the universities, 'where only that blind, heathen teacher Aristotle rules', stood in need of 'a good thorough reformation'. Various groups in seventeenth-century England echoed this concern."
Somehow the heathen Aristotle remains an undesirable influence and snare in the Church in similar vein to the Canaanites who, despite the will of God, were allowed by the Israelites to remain in the Promised Land.
The second element of the John Dickson article is a greater offence because the man lays siege to the Word of God, His office as Creator and His nature.
On the basis of that which he believes on Origins, the god who John Dickson declares to the world is not the God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written. John Dickson has accepted the postulations of man over the Word of God. There are no "facts" of evolution on which John Dickson places his faith - only assumptions, extrapolations and postulations. Observed variation within species is not the basis of "facts" of evolution. The fossil record and the Word of God, as historical records, are unsupportive.
As an aside, many Sydney Episcopalians are somewhat duplicitous in their application of Romans 1:20. On the one hand they say that the unregenerate, because of the effects of the Fall, have no capacity to discern God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature and yet, on the matter of Origins, these same Episcopalians give all capacity of discernment to the unregenerate. This demonstrates the degenerate state of thinking prevalent within the Diocese as it moves further into irrelevance.
A creator god who, in the thinking of John Dickson, used a process of evolution is a monstrous and dysfunctional god something in the order of the gods of the nations surrounding Israel. Only a limit to intelligence would cause a creator god to use a process loaded with frustrations, dead ends, suffering and death such as the theory of evolution proposes as matter of course. Yet this is what John Dickson must accept and this is the god he presents to the world as the god to worship. How many would choose to accept the pagan gods instead?
Oh, I hear you say that John Dickson presents the very lovely Jesus Christ to the world and this is a gift most desirable. Reader, what you fail to see is that Jesus Christ is the great I AM of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:24 (leaving out the translator's added words in the latter passage) who created all things and in His Incarnate Person showed the fullness of God. In His Incarnate Person he performed recreative acts far and away removed in time and functionality from that process postulated in the theory of evolution and demonstrated He was the Creator God come to save mankind from their sins.
John Dickson, in ascribing a process of evolution to Jesus Christ, is seeking preferment of man while stripping Jesus Christ of His glory as Creator, replacing Him with a dysfunctional god no greater than other pagan gods and placing an obstacle in the way of the lost from knowing the One True God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written.
Let Romans 1:21 apply.
Sam Drucker
In the article John Dickson observes in many people a mindset refusing to accept the obvious and even intensifying resistance as the evidence mounts against their position. On the subject of origins John Dickson says the following:
Other, specifically religious, arguments provide further examples of the powerlessness of facts to change minds. The evidence for biological evolution is good, but my six-day creationist friends seem to get stronger in their beliefs with every new peer review article from the scientific mainstream. Counter evidence does not conquer belief.
There are two deplorable elements to the citation.
The first I address is the insidious attitude so prevalent in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney of a veneer of niceness extended to Biblical Creationists while the proverbial knife is being run through their acceptance and worth in the Diocese. Every now and again the veneer of niceness slips and the real sentiment is open for all to see. Sadly, the Sydney Morning Herald has been a vehicle for blatant insult on two occasions. First there was reference to Biblical Creationists as "Hillbillies" by the Archbishop and now this article by John Dickson implying Biblical Creationists cannot discern truth when it is set before them.
It is interesting that elsewhere in the article John Dickson cites Aristotle to make a point. A friend has reminded me of the deathbed comment a few years ago by the man who introduced him to Jesus Christ from Atheism. The comment was "What the Church needs is a Copernican type revolution of thought to remove Aristotle from its theology." This was, in effect, a lament at the state of the Church today which the Reformation was supposed to have overcome. The Reformers certainly set out to remove Aristotle and, Peter Harrison, in his work The Bible - Protestantism and the rise of natural science identifies the position of Luther when he says on page 102:
"Religious reformers, too, launched attacks on the slavish adherence to tradition evident in institutions of learning. Luther had long argued that the universities, 'where only that blind, heathen teacher Aristotle rules', stood in need of 'a good thorough reformation'. Various groups in seventeenth-century England echoed this concern."
Somehow the heathen Aristotle remains an undesirable influence and snare in the Church in similar vein to the Canaanites who, despite the will of God, were allowed by the Israelites to remain in the Promised Land.
The second element of the John Dickson article is a greater offence because the man lays siege to the Word of God, His office as Creator and His nature.
On the basis of that which he believes on Origins, the god who John Dickson declares to the world is not the God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written. John Dickson has accepted the postulations of man over the Word of God. There are no "facts" of evolution on which John Dickson places his faith - only assumptions, extrapolations and postulations. Observed variation within species is not the basis of "facts" of evolution. The fossil record and the Word of God, as historical records, are unsupportive.
As an aside, many Sydney Episcopalians are somewhat duplicitous in their application of Romans 1:20. On the one hand they say that the unregenerate, because of the effects of the Fall, have no capacity to discern God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature and yet, on the matter of Origins, these same Episcopalians give all capacity of discernment to the unregenerate. This demonstrates the degenerate state of thinking prevalent within the Diocese as it moves further into irrelevance.
A creator god who, in the thinking of John Dickson, used a process of evolution is a monstrous and dysfunctional god something in the order of the gods of the nations surrounding Israel. Only a limit to intelligence would cause a creator god to use a process loaded with frustrations, dead ends, suffering and death such as the theory of evolution proposes as matter of course. Yet this is what John Dickson must accept and this is the god he presents to the world as the god to worship. How many would choose to accept the pagan gods instead?
Oh, I hear you say that John Dickson presents the very lovely Jesus Christ to the world and this is a gift most desirable. Reader, what you fail to see is that Jesus Christ is the great I AM of Exodus 3:14 and John 8:24 (leaving out the translator's added words in the latter passage) who created all things and in His Incarnate Person showed the fullness of God. In His Incarnate Person he performed recreative acts far and away removed in time and functionality from that process postulated in the theory of evolution and demonstrated He was the Creator God come to save mankind from their sins.
John Dickson, in ascribing a process of evolution to Jesus Christ, is seeking preferment of man while stripping Jesus Christ of His glory as Creator, replacing Him with a dysfunctional god no greater than other pagan gods and placing an obstacle in the way of the lost from knowing the One True God revealed in Word Incarnate and Written.
Let Romans 1:21 apply.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Defence of Natural Theology But Nay to Gap
I recently read a review of the ministry of Thomas Chalmers in the Banner of Truth Journal for March 1980. Biblical Creationists such as myself are mindful that Thomas Chalmers proposed what has become known as the "Gap Theory" as a means to reconcile the Word of God with the 'world's' adopted view of a great age for the earth.
Essentially, "Gap Theory" places a long age and destroyed earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Biblical Creationists regard this 'age' as a significant event inadequately addressed in the text and an unwarranted imposition within the first two verses of the Word of God.
Notwithstanding my disagreement with Thomas Chalmers on this point I was interested to read the following from the author of the review:
Chalmers has been variously assessed as a teacher of theology. He was certainly not without deficiencies. In depth and accuracy of learning he is not in the front rank of Scottish theologians. The course of divinity which he set his students embodied the doubtful procedure of beginning with 'natural theology' before he advanced to the subject matter of Christianity itself.
This is a doubtful criticism of Chalmers considering the detachment of the review author by time and circumstance from Chalmers and his method. The method was not without precedent as the Apostle Paul was required to adopt a similar approach to get a better hearing when in Athens (Acts 17). Circumstances arise when a Christian must have an intelligible argument and point to the Creation/Creator before the hearer is prepared to hear of that same Creator being the Saviour who deals with their sin.
Perhaps it was that Thomas Chalmers saw where Scottish thought was heading and he wanted to prepare his students to meet the challenge with a 'complete' armour. Errant scientific propositions had a devastating affect on the Christian faith in the Nineteenth and subsequent centuries. Chalmers was wrong to impose an unwarranted imposition on the first two verses of the Word of God and open the door to the pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution. Nevertheless, many students were influenced by Chalmers and the Lord God was pleased to bring an 'Awakening' to areas of Scotland in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.
The scene before the 'Awakening' was described by Alexander Duff as follows:
The savour and unction of divine grace was gone; the peculiarities of the gospel were despised as offensive to classic taste and culture, and devotion scorned as fanatical and contemptible . . . Instead of the power and pathos of earnest gospel invitations and appeals, there were substituted cold pretences of academic learning, that froze the generous sympathies of the human heart.
As the article in the Banner of Truth Journal notes, The Moderates preached morality, with almost nothing of the supernaturalism of true Christianity. They ignored the Fall of man, sneered at the idea of a new-birth and said nothing of the perfection and power of the work of the Son of God.
Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that one of the fruits of Theistic Evolution is the deadening of faith in the supernaturalism of true Christianity. Because belief in that pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution is so rife in evangelicalism today the scene is set for repeating the deadening of the Church in our age.
The "Gap Theory" is erroneous but not as heinous an error as Theistic Evolution. It is better for the Church to be rid of both and return to faith in the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (supported in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) to put the preaching of other vital points of the work of God on firm foundation.
Sam Drucker
Essentially, "Gap Theory" places a long age and destroyed earth between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. Biblical Creationists regard this 'age' as a significant event inadequately addressed in the text and an unwarranted imposition within the first two verses of the Word of God.
Notwithstanding my disagreement with Thomas Chalmers on this point I was interested to read the following from the author of the review:
Chalmers has been variously assessed as a teacher of theology. He was certainly not without deficiencies. In depth and accuracy of learning he is not in the front rank of Scottish theologians. The course of divinity which he set his students embodied the doubtful procedure of beginning with 'natural theology' before he advanced to the subject matter of Christianity itself.
This is a doubtful criticism of Chalmers considering the detachment of the review author by time and circumstance from Chalmers and his method. The method was not without precedent as the Apostle Paul was required to adopt a similar approach to get a better hearing when in Athens (Acts 17). Circumstances arise when a Christian must have an intelligible argument and point to the Creation/Creator before the hearer is prepared to hear of that same Creator being the Saviour who deals with their sin.
Perhaps it was that Thomas Chalmers saw where Scottish thought was heading and he wanted to prepare his students to meet the challenge with a 'complete' armour. Errant scientific propositions had a devastating affect on the Christian faith in the Nineteenth and subsequent centuries. Chalmers was wrong to impose an unwarranted imposition on the first two verses of the Word of God and open the door to the pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution. Nevertheless, many students were influenced by Chalmers and the Lord God was pleased to bring an 'Awakening' to areas of Scotland in the first half of the Nineteenth Century.
The scene before the 'Awakening' was described by Alexander Duff as follows:
The savour and unction of divine grace was gone; the peculiarities of the gospel were despised as offensive to classic taste and culture, and devotion scorned as fanatical and contemptible . . . Instead of the power and pathos of earnest gospel invitations and appeals, there were substituted cold pretences of academic learning, that froze the generous sympathies of the human heart.
As the article in the Banner of Truth Journal notes, The Moderates preached morality, with almost nothing of the supernaturalism of true Christianity. They ignored the Fall of man, sneered at the idea of a new-birth and said nothing of the perfection and power of the work of the Son of God.
Brothers and sisters, I want you to know that one of the fruits of Theistic Evolution is the deadening of faith in the supernaturalism of true Christianity. Because belief in that pernicious notion of Theistic Evolution is so rife in evangelicalism today the scene is set for repeating the deadening of the Church in our age.
The "Gap Theory" is erroneous but not as heinous an error as Theistic Evolution. It is better for the Church to be rid of both and return to faith in the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (supported in Exodus 20:11 and 31:17) to put the preaching of other vital points of the work of God on firm foundation.
Sam Drucker
Friday, July 1, 2011
Leupold Genesis part 59 verse 27 Man
27. So God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.
The higher strain of diction is made apparent by a threefold parallelism of the statement--a kind of solemn chant is here inaugurated in the creation narrative. And well might any man who writes an account, of the subject write in a manner that betokens his joy, for the honour bestowed upon man is indeed great. In fact, none could be greater than that a created being be made in the image of God.
The threefold use of the verb "create" (bara') is significant in this connection. To bring things into being that had no previous existence is well described by this word (v. 1). To bring into being creatures endowed with life and a soul is also covered by this word (v. 21). To do so outstanding a thing as to call into being a creature like unto man is in every sense. "to create." However, whether the threefold use of the term is to be accounted for by the fact that the triune God is the Creator, is a question that we feel inclined to leave open. To us such a conclusion seems to lay more into the statement here made than it can justly bear.
Rather important is the possessive pronoun attached to the word "image," namely the singular "his." As much as God, on the one hand, speaking out of the fulness of His powers in the persons of the Holy. Trinity, is able to say, "Let us make," and,"our image," just so much is it a valid and proper statement for Him to say that He created "in His image." One accords fully with the other in the mystery of the Holy Trinity: there is but one God. The Septuagint translators removed a difficulty in a portion of revelation which they should not have tampered with when they simply omitted the phrase "in His image." The notes in the Hebrew Bible of Kittel should not have suggested the deletion of the word.
The change from "His, image" to "the image of God" shows the attempt on the writer's part to make his statement as strong and as dignified as possible. Then, since the second statement, telling of the carrying out of the original command, usually serves in a measure as a commentary of the former, so here a very necessary suggestion is offered. Though from one point of view it is entirely proper to say that God on the sixth day created "man" ('adham), yet, as the rest of the account at once indicates, this term is meant genetically; and, since by a special work of the Almighty woman is brought into being, this first statement of the case amplifies itself into the more exact statement of the case that "the man" (the article of relative familiarity, K. S. 298a) was created "male and female" (zakhar, from the root meaning male; neqebhah, from naqab, meaning to perforate). In other words, all queer speculations about the first man are cut off as well as the quaint heresy. that he was created androgynous, half man and half woman--a notion offered in crudest form by the Jewish speculation which had the two halves of the double creature attached back to back, and then had the Almighty saw them asunder. This account, then, of chapter one shows that its writer knows chapter two and writes in full harmony with the facts of that chapter. As will appear more and more clearly, the first two chapters are in perfect harmony with one another and by no means represent divergent or discrepant accounts. So, according to very permissible different viewpoints, yet without contradiction, the writer may well say: "He created him" and "He created them," even as "our image" and "His image" blend into perfect unity.
Procksch says on this verse: "Man, God's image, man, the crown of creation, man, male and female--we, too, have not been able to advance beyond these thoughts." A characteristic utterance of modern theology and a platitude. Of course, we have not been able to advance beyond this thought; we never advance beyond revealed truth or God's thoughts. This account is not an achievement of the religious genius of P; it is revelation pure and simple.
The higher strain of diction is made apparent by a threefold parallelism of the statement--a kind of solemn chant is here inaugurated in the creation narrative. And well might any man who writes an account, of the subject write in a manner that betokens his joy, for the honour bestowed upon man is indeed great. In fact, none could be greater than that a created being be made in the image of God.
The threefold use of the verb "create" (bara') is significant in this connection. To bring things into being that had no previous existence is well described by this word (v. 1). To bring into being creatures endowed with life and a soul is also covered by this word (v. 21). To do so outstanding a thing as to call into being a creature like unto man is in every sense. "to create." However, whether the threefold use of the term is to be accounted for by the fact that the triune God is the Creator, is a question that we feel inclined to leave open. To us such a conclusion seems to lay more into the statement here made than it can justly bear.
Rather important is the possessive pronoun attached to the word "image," namely the singular "his." As much as God, on the one hand, speaking out of the fulness of His powers in the persons of the Holy. Trinity, is able to say, "Let us make," and,"our image," just so much is it a valid and proper statement for Him to say that He created "in His image." One accords fully with the other in the mystery of the Holy Trinity: there is but one God. The Septuagint translators removed a difficulty in a portion of revelation which they should not have tampered with when they simply omitted the phrase "in His image." The notes in the Hebrew Bible of Kittel should not have suggested the deletion of the word.
The change from "His, image" to "the image of God" shows the attempt on the writer's part to make his statement as strong and as dignified as possible. Then, since the second statement, telling of the carrying out of the original command, usually serves in a measure as a commentary of the former, so here a very necessary suggestion is offered. Though from one point of view it is entirely proper to say that God on the sixth day created "man" ('adham), yet, as the rest of the account at once indicates, this term is meant genetically; and, since by a special work of the Almighty woman is brought into being, this first statement of the case amplifies itself into the more exact statement of the case that "the man" (the article of relative familiarity, K. S. 298a) was created "male and female" (zakhar, from the root meaning male; neqebhah, from naqab, meaning to perforate). In other words, all queer speculations about the first man are cut off as well as the quaint heresy. that he was created androgynous, half man and half woman--a notion offered in crudest form by the Jewish speculation which had the two halves of the double creature attached back to back, and then had the Almighty saw them asunder. This account, then, of chapter one shows that its writer knows chapter two and writes in full harmony with the facts of that chapter. As will appear more and more clearly, the first two chapters are in perfect harmony with one another and by no means represent divergent or discrepant accounts. So, according to very permissible different viewpoints, yet without contradiction, the writer may well say: "He created him" and "He created them," even as "our image" and "His image" blend into perfect unity.
Procksch says on this verse: "Man, God's image, man, the crown of creation, man, male and female--we, too, have not been able to advance beyond these thoughts." A characteristic utterance of modern theology and a platitude. Of course, we have not been able to advance beyond this thought; we never advance beyond revealed truth or God's thoughts. This account is not an achievement of the religious genius of P; it is revelation pure and simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
