Author: Al
Posted: 2006-10-02 13:00:48
|
Day 1
Gen 1:1 – 2:3
The first creation story. There is a lifetime worth of symbolism for just this one chapter. I had to pause on the fourth day to remember The Man Who Was Thursday. I love how clearly the creation account comes through with Moffatt. I have been many things with regards to creation over the years. Strict evolutionist to strict creationist and back. Now I find myself leaning towards evolution only because I can really think of no better way for the Creator to have creation unfold. I wonder how Jews of antiquity felt about these verses. Did they take them literally? Did they find the metaphors that we find today?
Clarke uses the first verse of the Bible to talk about the trinity at length. The original texts use plural nouns and verbs to describe God and his actions.
From his Commentary:
The original word Elohim, God, is certainly the plural form of El, or Eloah, and has long been supposed, by the most eminently learned and pious men, to imply a plurality of Persons in the Divine nature. As this plurality appears in so many parts of the sacred writings to be confined to three Persons, hence the doctrine of the TRINITY, which has formed a part of the creed of all those who have been deemed sound in the faith, from the earliest ages of Christianity. Nor are the Christians singular in receiving this doctrine, and in deriving it from the first words of Divine revelation. An eminent Jewish rabbin, Simeon ben Joachi, in his comment on the sixth section of Leviticus, has these remarkable words: "Come and see the mystery of the word Elohim; there are three degrees, and each degree by itself alone, and yet notwithstanding they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other." See Ainsworth. He must be strangely prejudiced indeed who cannot see that the
doctrine of a Trinity, and of a Trinity in unity, is expressed in the above words. The verb bara, he created, being joined in the singular number with this plural noun, has been considered as pointing out, and not obscurely, the unity of the Divine Persons in this work of creation. In the ever-blessed Trinity, from the infinite and indivisible unity of the persons, there can be but one will, one purpose, and one infinite and uncontrollable energy.
"Let those who have any doubt whether Elohim, when meaning the true God, Jehovah, be plural or not, consult the following passages, where they will find it joined with adjectives, verbs, and pronouns plural.
Ge 1:26 3:22 11:7 20:13 31:7, 53 35:7. De 4:7 5:23 Jos 24:19 1Sa 4:8 2Sa 7:23 Ps 58:6 Isa 6:8 Jer 10:10 23:36. See also Pr 9:10 30:3 Ps 149:2 Ec 5:7 12:1; Job 5:1 Isa 6:3 54:5 62:5 Ho 11:12, or Ho 12:1 Mal 1:6 Da 5:18, 20 7:18, 22."-PARKHURST.
As the word Elohim is the term by which the Divine Being is most generally expressed in the Old Testament, it may be necessary to consider it here more at large. It is a maxim that admits of no controversy, that every noun in the Hebrew language is derived from a verb, which is usually termed the radix or root, from which, not only the noun, but all the different inflections of the verb, spring. This radix is the third person singular of the preterite or past tense. The ideal meaning of this root expresses some essential property of the thing which it designates, or of which it is an appellative. The root in Hebrew, and in its sister language, the Arabic, generally consists of three letters, and every word must be traced to its root in order to ascertain its genuine meaning, for there alone is this meaning to be found. In Hebrew and Arabic this is essentially necessary, and no man can safely criticize on any word in either of these languages who does not carefully attend to this point.
Day 2
Gen 2:4-25
The second account of creation. This doesn't speak to me quite as loudly as the first account. Still, it is special and shows man's place as an important part of creation. To me it is better at this than the first chapter. Still, it lacks some of the symbolism that Chapter 1 has.
Psalm 8
From Clarke:
The inscription to this Psalm is the following: To the chief Musician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David. This has been metaphrased, "To the conqueror, concerning the wine-presses;" and has been supposed to be a Psalm intended for the time of vintage: and as that happened about the time of the year in which it is supposed the world was created, hence there is a general celebration of those works, and of the creation, and the high privileges of man. The Chaldee gives it a different turn: "A Psalm of David, to be sung upon the harp, which he brought out of Gath." That the Psalm has respect to our Lord and the time of the Gospel, is evident from the reference made to Ps 8:2, in Mt 11:25, the express quotation of it in Mt 21:16, and another reference to it in 1Co 1:27. The fourth and sixth verses are quoted Heb 2:6-9. See also 1Co 15:27, and Eph 1:22. The first and second ADAM are both referred to, and the first and second creation also; and the glory which God has received, and is to receive, through both. It relates simply to Christ and redemption.
I am always leery of pointing out the Psalms as foreshadowing Christ. Still, Clarke makes a good case here, and is backed up by Wesley's commentary as well. Even if this is not so, it is still a beautiful Psalm. It talks of the majesty of the stars. I love astronomy. There is so much beauty in the heavens that it boggles the mind. I really cannot understand how so many astronomers can look at these things day after day and not fall down in reverence to God. The Psalm does note man's insignificance in the face of the universe. Perhaps this is the key to understanding the thoughts of such people. Still, if man has grappled with these questions for thousands of years, one would think that the resolutions that have been made would stand. We really are tiny and insignificant things. I feel the Psalmist's disbelief. What are we all to the Creator? How can something so trifling as man be important in his eyes. Enter the Messiah, and now the problem is compounded by the fact that I am now important. God has gone from being the god of a country, to being the Personal God.
Day 3
Psalm 19:1-6
Short little excerpt from a beautiful psalm. More about the beauty of the heavens, and the glory of God discernible from such beauty. Nik and I traded bibles for the first reading of this one. I sorely missed Moffatt. The NIV is good, but it just lacks the power that Moffatt's diction has. I guess that this is the difference between translations by a collaboration and a single man. A committee can be accurate (by squabbling amongst themselves), but a man can be poetical.
From Clarke:
The title of this Psalm has nothing particular in it; but it is not very clear that it was written by David, to whom it is attributed; though some think that he composed it in the wilderness, while persecuted by Saul. For this opinion, however, there is no solid ground. There is no note in the Psalm itself to lead us to know when, where, or by whom it was written. It is a highly finished and beautiful ode.
Psalm 33
From Clarke:
This Psalm has no title in the Hebrew and it was probably written on no particular occasion, but was intended as a hymn of praise in order to celebrate the power, wisdom, and mercy of God. Creation and providence are its principal subjects; and these lead the psalmist to glance at different parts of the ancient Jewish history. In eight of Kennicott's MSS., this Psalm is written as a part of the preceding.
What is our praise to the Creator? I do not think that it is for his benefit. It humbles us, it brings us closer to him, it gives us cause for celebration. These things please God, but empty praise or praise for its own sake do not. Saying the words is not enough. It might be a decent start, but ultimately progress must be made. This is a Psalm of real praise. It wonders at the majesty of the universe. It wonders at the benevolence of God in his actions that have saved his people. There is an awe present that is lacking in much of my discourse with him.
Day 4
Job 38-39
Wow. I had somehow gotten it into my head that I had read Job, and didn't like it. I think that I have just heard enough summaries of it to have convinced myself of this. These chapters are amazing. I really am shocked at how beautiful the literature is here. Summaries do this book no justice at all.
Job 41:15 – Ch42
I am reminded of the Biblical criticism that holds that the book of Job is a fictional account. I have to agree with it. Nonetheless, I can see why it is canon. This is an amazing story.
Day 5
Psalm 104
Not as striking as the previous Psalms. Moffatt uses too many “thous” where as the NIV uses a more modern vernacular. The NRSV takes a similar tone to Moffatt here, and thus it would not be of any more help.
From Clarke:
This Psalm has no title either in the Hebrew or Chaldee; but it is attributed to David by the Vulgate, Septuagint, AEthiopic, Arabic, and Syriac. It has the following title in the Septuagint, as it stands in the Complutensian Polyglot: "A Psalm of David concerning the formation of the world." The Syriac says it is "A Psalm of David when he went with the priests to adore the Lord before the ark." It seems a continuation of the preceding Psalm; and it is written as a part of it in nine of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS. It is properly a poem on the works of God in the creation and government of the world; and some have considered it a sort of epitome of the history of the creation, as given in the book of Genesis.
Psalm 150
From Clarke:
This Psalm is without title and author in the Hebrew, and in all the ancient versions. It is properly the full chorus of all voices and instruments in the temple, at the conclusion of the grand Hallelujah, to which the five concluding Psalms belong.
Standing alone this Psalm does little for me. As a grand finale to a service or set of songs I can see its merit. I think that this discipline may have done us a disservice by having us read this Psalm before the preceding five.
John 1:1-5
It took me a while to get used to Moffatt's wording here. He uses “Logos” instead of “Word.” This initially made me rebel, but once I settled down to learn that Logos did not directly translate into Word, I feel better about the situation. Indeed, John was obviously talking about Logos in this first passage.
From Miriam Webster:
1 : the divine wisdom manifest in the creation, government, and redemption of the world and often identified with the second person of the Trinity
2 : reason that in ancient Greek philosophy is the controlling principle in the universe
From Wesley:
In the beginning - (Referring to Gen 1:1, and Prov 8:23.) When all things began to be made by the Word: in the beginning of heaven and earth, and this whole frame of created beings, the Word existed, without any beginning. He was when all things began to be, whatsoever had a beginning. The Word - So termed Psa 33:6, and frequently by the seventy, and in the Chaldee paraphrase. So that St. John did not borrow this expression from Philo, or any heathen writer. He was not yet named Jesus, or Christ. He is the Word whom the Father begat or spoke from eternity; by whom the Father speaking, maketh all things; who speaketh the Father to us. We have, in John 1:18, both a real description of the Word, and the reason why he is so called. He is the only begotten Son of the Father, who is in the bosom of the Father, and hath declared him. And the Word was with God - Therefore distinct from God the Father. The word rendered with, denotes a perpetual tendency as it were of the Son to the Father, in unity of essence. He was with God alone; because nothing beside God had then any being. And the Word was God - Supreme, eternal, independent. There was no creature, in respect of which he could be styled God in a relative sense. Therefore he is styled so in the absolute sense. The Godhead of the Messiah being clearly revealed in the Old Testament, (Jer 23:7; Hos 1:6; Psa 23:1,) the other evangelists aim at this, to prove that Jesus, a true man, was the Messiah. But when, at length, some from hence began to doubt of his Godhead, then St. John expressly asserted it, and wrote in this book as it were a supplement to the Gospels, as in the Revelation to the prophets.
I thought that I would not like Clarke's treatment of this verse since I had heard him to be somewhat non trinitarian, but the exact opposite is true. He represents the trinity here as best as I have ever understood it, in fact better than Wesley above. To my delight, Clarke even points out that Logos should be left untranslated.
From Clarke:
John's introduction is from Joh 1:1-18. Some harmonists suppose it to end with Joh 1:14. but, from the connection of the whole, Joh 1:18 appears to be its natural close, at it contains a reason why the Logos or Word was made flesh. Joh 1:15 refers to Joh 1:6-8, and in these passages John's testimony is anticipated in order of time, and is very fitly mentioned to illustrate Christ's pre-eminence. Joh 1:16, 17 have a plain reference to Joh 1:14. See Bp. Newcome.
Verse 1. In the beginning] That is, before any thing was formed-ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Ge 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, Joh 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have borrowed or derived its being from any thing, therefore Jesus, who was before all things and who made all things, must necessarily be the ETERNAL God.
Was the Word] Or, existed the Logos. This term should be left untranslated, for the very same reason why the names Jesus and Christ are left untranslated. The first I consider as proper an apellative of the Saviour of the world as I do either of the two last. And as it would be highly improper to say, the Deliverer, the Anointed, instead of Jesus Christ, so I deem it improper to say, the Word, instead of the Logos. But as every appellative of the Saviour of the world was descriptive of some excellence in his person, nature, or work, so the epithet Logos, which signifies a word spoken, speech, eloquence, doctrine, reason, or the faculty of reasoning, is very properly applied to him, who is the true light which lighteth every man who cometh into the world, Joh 1:9; who is the fountain of all wisdom; who giveth being, life, light, knowledge, and reason, to all men; who is the grand Source of revelation, who has declared God unto mankind; who spake by the prophets, for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy, Re 19:10; who has illustrated life and immortality by his Gospel, 2Ti 1:10; and who has fully made manifest the deep mysteries which lay hidden in the bosom of the invisible God from all eternity, Joh 1:18.
The apostle does not borrow this mode of speech from the writings of Plato, as some have imagined: he took it from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and from the subsequent style of the ancient Jews. It is true the Platonists make mention of the Logos in this way:- by whom, eternally existing, all things were made. But as Plato, Pythagoras, Zeno, and others, traveled among the Jews, and conversed with them, it is reasonable to suppose that they borrowed this, with many others of their most important notions and doctrines, from them.
And the Word was God.] Or, God was the Logos: therefore no subordinate being, no second to the Most High, but the supreme eternal Jehovah.
Day 6
What does it mean to be made in the image of God?
To have a soul that is somehow like him. To be somehow capable of union with him.
What is the meaning of man being formed from the dust of the ground
Man's body is transient. It belongs to the Earth from which it came.
What does the 'breath of life' mean?
To have a soul, an eternal self.
Why do some translations use “the man” and some use “Adam”
Oh no! It's... The Man! Adam means man in Hebrew, and soil in Arabic.
What does Eden symbolize?
In some ways I think it represents heaven. It was the time when man was capable of direct contact with God. It was the time when man was sinless.
What is the symbolic significance of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?”
Disobedience to God? Learning the nature of sin?
How do you show that you belong to God?
By repenting when I have failed him. In most of my actions, I am inadequate at displaying that God truly owns me. For us sinners, repentance is perhaps the purest form of submission. It says that I have strayed from my purpose, and the will of my creator. This is not to say that it is a substitute for real good actions. But for those of us who fall short constantly, it is perhaps a start.
Describe when you felt such wonder at creation that you could only praise God.
Looking at the sky at night in Bruneau.
If God created the world for our benefit, what does that say about the character of God?
He is willing to completely break us in order to make us into what we were intended to be. The world is a harsh place. Much of it was not intended for man to be anywhere near it, yet we are.
What are you doing to exercise this stewardship of all creation?
Trying to make my existence as much of a zero sum game as I can. It's not like I live in a national forest.
Describe your day of rest.
Pretty hectic. |
|
