29, 30. And God said: Behold, I have given you all herbs yielding seed which are upon the face of all the earth, and every tree upon which there is seed-bearing fruit--to you it shall be for food. And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the birds, of the heavens, and to all the land reptiles in which there is a living soul (I have given) all the green herbs for food. And it was so.
Such basic directions as man needs for guiding his steps in this world which is entirely new to him are here given in the matter of food (v. 29), and at the same time it is revealed to man what manner of food is to provide sustenance for beasts (v. 30). Besides being a very welcome direction, this word is also another indication of the rich and abounding love that the Heavenly Father bears to His creatures, made in His image.
The opening "behold" imparts a certain vigour to this gracious bestowal. The verb "I have given" (nathsstti) stands in the perfect, the usual construction in ordinances or abiding decrees. The perfect gives the impression of a rule firmly fixed and already unwavering. (G. K. 106 m; K. S. 131). Man is permitted to use a great variety of things comprising a vegetable diet. Two great classes are laid open to him: "herbs yielding seed" and, "fruit trees which have seed-bearing fruit." The classes are indicated and the distinguishing marks that are to be observed are stated. This marks two of the three classes of v. 11 as adapted to man's use. Since there is the possibility that since the Fall vegetation may have suffered a very material change, perhaps we are no longer in a position fully to appreciate how apt the descriptive marks mentioned really are. However, the word "all" is indicative of the rich bounty bestowed. In a marvellously rich and beautiful world the rich bounty of very many different kinds of herbs and trees provided the finest proof of the Creator's goodness.
Without a doubt, this word covering what food is permissible was intended to be a complete guide as to what man might eat. If 9:3 be held at the side of this word, the contrast implies that animal food was not permitted. It will hardly do to point to man's dominion over the beasts of the field, over fowl, and over fish (v. 26), for this word (v. 29) very definitely shows man what he may use for food. We believe that sincere regard for the very letter of God's command will have led our first parents to stay strictly within the limits of this word. As to the question, whether any men ventured before the Flood to eat animal food, we can only offer surmises. Not all men continued in the right relation to God, and so there may have been some of the ungodly who ventured to transgress this original permission. But we cannot venture to call such procedure common. Least of all could any true believer have disregarded the restriction implied in this word.
Certainly, a measure of latitude is allowed to man in respect to what may be permissible and wholesome food for him. This broad allowance was never tended to be exhaustive. So it has been pointed out (Dillmann) that nothing is said, for example, about the use of milk and of honey, which may be thought of as lying on the borderline between animal and vegetable food. The critically minded should not forget that a being endowed with the high intelligence that we find in the first man needed no more than a broad outline to guide him to a choice pleasing to God and beneficial for himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Good to see a Lutheran (Leupold) being quoted here. Couldn't agree more with your baic premise (not that intra-Anglican matters are really any business of mine, mind you). However, I'm curious as to why you refer to the 'Episcopalian' diocese of Sydney and not the 'Anglican' diocese of Sydney? Thanks in anticipation of a response.
Mark,
One of the other contributors used that term. He may correct me but I believe it's to reflect the growing tendency of the SA to take on-board doctrinal matters that resemble more the liberal (i.e. US Episcopalian) church than the putative conservative and historical one they make themselves out to be. This is particularly true with regard to origins and their belief that evolution is how God did it.
To put the reason bluntly, it's to get up their collective nose, brother.
Mark,
Forgot to say. It's not like any of us hasn't tried to reason with them, but in the end the SA reps exhibit the fine qualities of being disingenuous, evasive and contempt for our position. They also refuse to delve into the revolution in science that has occurred the last few years which clearly points to a young world. And that's apart from the shoddy, (if not altogether missing) theology, soteriology and philosophy they put out.
Got it, John.
(But heaven help us if the SAs really go the whole way with the Episcopalians.)
Mark, it I who has chosen to apply the (not incorrect) label of Episcopalian to the Anglican Diocese of Sydney.
John is near enough to the truth.
Sydney Diocese easily falls into the error of regarding itself as the source of all understanding on the truth of God's Word written. It takes a lot of pride in its theological seminary - Moore College - and seeks to draw students from around the world to churn them out with the doctrine espoused at the institution.
Sadly, if you enter Moore College holding to evolution as being compatible with God's Word you will certainly leave Moore College as a Theistic Evolutionist. If you enter Moore College without a solid Biblical Creationist foundation you will likely leave Moore College as a Theistic Evolutionist or, at the least, regarding Theistic Evolution as valid as anything else as a view of Origins.
For these reasons my hope in using the label Episcopalian and Sydney in the one sentence is the hope that anyone around the globe doing a Google on Episcopalian will find correspondence here dealing with the 'snare' that awaits their faith in Moore Theological College and the Diocese in general.
Sam Drucker
OK, that explains it further, Sam. Thanks.
Just curious about what actually happens at Moore - is the historical position on 6 day creation actively spoken against? Ridiculed? Forbidden? Are 6 day creationists not recommended for ordination?
When I think back, my seminary didn't have any faculty who held the historical 6 day view, but it was certainly tolerated as an 'option' by all but one of the faculty. This one lecturer was ironically a former 6 day creationist! And I don't recall anyone but that lecturer ever espousing theistic evolution. I suspect most of my lecturers would have held to an old earth and creation of various 'kinds' by divine fiat, specifically including a historical Adam and Eve. And yet Moore would have a reputation as a more 'conservative' theological college than my seminary.
Mark, is at least one student being urged to drop his Biblical Creationist ways at the risk of being not recommended for ordination.
The Framework Hypothesis has held sway for a while and of some influence these days is that of Genesis 1 being loaded with literary devices to the point of stripping it of its historical narrative genre.
As I have indicated the Diocese takes pride in its seminary being biblically based and thinking that most around the world are not. Yet, on Genesis 1 it is no different to most around the world and has thus has built its doctrine on a foundation of sand.
Sam Drucker
Mark,
I should mention Foundation Studies (Sam, can't remember, is that its name?) in which Peter Jensen, the then principal, wrote that evolution is the acceptable understanding of Genesis 1. PJ is now archbishop, in case you don't know.
John, I think it was in the Doctrine or the Old Testament segment of the (external) PTC course offered by Moore College.
Sam Drucker
Yep, I know who PJ is. Even read his book on revelation.
The framework hypothesis? Too esoteric, if you ask me.
I noticed RC Sproul has changed his mind on the days fairly recently. I also appreciate Douglas Kelly's writings, if you know him?
Mark, R. C. Sproul would have been recommended reading within the Sydney Diocese but his 'Damascus' experience on Genesis would, in my opinion, now put him 'outside the camp'.
From my understanding there was a suggestion some years ago of an organization comprised of Theistic Evolutionists getting access to students at Moore College i.e. provision of a stage for addressing students. When this became know to an Biblical Creationists organization they booked the theatre at Moore College for a public event with intention of inviting students of Moore College. Douglas Kelly was to be a keynote speaker. The event went ahead with Douglas Kelly present but where were the students? The word I got third hand was that students had been discouraged from sources within Moore College from attending the event. What a shame.
Someone as sound as Douglas Kelly -I understand that Banner of Truth Trust and key evangelical organizations in the UK recognised his work back as far as twenty or more years ago - was snubbed by Moore College. That incident is a testimony of declension that has occurred and continues to occur at Moore College today.
Prospective students and family of prospective students from overseas take note.
Sam Drucker
It's one thing to subject the historical 6 day view to criticism, but it's another thing entirely to ban it. Smacks of 'group-think'.
Mark, I agree.
Pr? Professor? If so, of what? (That is if I am not intruding too far).
Sam Drucker
Pr = Pastor, Sam.
It's the most common title for ordained ministers in the Lutheran Church of Australia, in which I serve. 'Reverend' or 'Rev.' seems a bit too pompous in our Australian context (to me anyway; each to his own).
Thanks Mark.
Sam Drucker
I must say, dear old Leupold has never generated so many comments. Must be down to his change of wardrobe and revitalised media image.
Nice to have niceness after years of being criticised.
Sam Drucker
'Blessed are those who are persecuted'. :0)
Well there's plenty of us in the queue!
Sam Drucker
Post a Comment