Weaver1has's Blog

Up to now we have looked at the story of Noah from the vantage point of Genesis.  This week I want to look at the Flood from the perspective of the New Testament and the witness of the Apostles and how it ought to be interpreted.  For Christians the New Testament is Holy Scripture, the Apostles moved by the Holy Spirit penned these words, for all generations.   We will not see Jesus until he returns again, and the Apostles died two millennia ago but we have their words.

We have looked at Noah from the Old Testament perspective but what is the New Testament perspective of the Old Testament?

We can begin by reading through the following references and get a feel and understanding of the New Testament perspective on Noah.

Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 3:36, 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5)

Matthew

The quotation from Matthew is from chapter 24 which is about the Last Days and eschatological.

For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. ³⁸ ​For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, ³⁹ ​and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so, will the coming of the Son of Man be. Matthew 24:37-39

Luke

The following shows the genealogy of Jesus from Lukes point of View. It is interesting that Noah the man of faith is found this early on. 

³⁶ ​the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, Luke 3:36

Luke continues:

And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: ²⁷ ​they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Luke 17:26-27

Luke here follows the same theme as Matthew…

Hebrews

Noah is mentioned in the Great chapter of the heroes of faith.

⁷ ​By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. Hebrews 11:7

Peter

Peter here speaks of the serious judgment that befell the pre-diluvian peoples and only Noah and his family were saved:

​For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; ¹⁹ ​in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, ²⁰ ​who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. ²¹ ​Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² ​who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. 1 Peter 3:18-22

Peter continues with more details about the seriousness of the situation:

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-5

Reflection

At the end of time most people will continue as usual without a care for God or the neighbour. They will continue to be selfish and live out the hedonistic life and then the judgement will take place.  For the believer there is great encouragement as we are reminded that Noah was a man of great faith and not only was he a man of great faith, but at this early stage he is also found in the genealogy of Jesus in God’s plan of salvation.

We have certain collecting points for Noah’s Flood:

Matthew says that life will continue normally and when it is to late they will understand  why Jesus Came into the world.

Luke says the same type of thing and also adds Noah in the genealogy of Jesus

The Writer of Hebrews says also that Noah built the Ark of God ‘in reverence’ at God’s command.  From my point of view the reverence must have been very high because he would have known that only he and his immediate household would besaved.

There are two collecting points concerning the judgement and concerning our salvation:

Concerning Judgement

Jesus preached to the spirits who are in prison (From Noah’s time)

The spirits must refer both to humans and angels see 1.Pet:3,4

Concerning our Salvation

We are made alive in Christ through his death on the cross

Jesus is our salvation ark and we have been brought safely to the shore of God.

Everything has been subjected to Christ.

So, from what has been said before God was indeed the Creator of the whole world, but He also had no choice but to judge the whole world.  The breaking point for God I suppose was when humans were committing sin with the angels.  It means that sin had reached heaven itself and God had no choice but to affect this judgement.  We do not know all the ins and outs of this judgement, but we have enough information to realize that sin, disobedience to God leads to death and destruction and eternal separation of God. 

You might think that God is too harsh in his judgments, but I would answer that for the Christian this is not the whole story.  Karl Barth reminds us that the Judge God, in the person of Christ became the one who was judged for our sin.  God himself in Christ was also condemned to save a remnant (the Church of Christ). 

Addendum

If I had more time and the resources, I would have liked to have looked at Noah’s covenant through the eyes of Karl Barth.  I found the following essay online interesting:

seedbed.com/karl-barth-on-gods-covenant-with-earth/

(if you put https or www… onto the front of this address you can read the essay for yourself)

However, I found this essay interesting because Karl Barth has a place for a covenant of the earth and all the animals.  I have seen this even in the writings of Hermann Bavinck that the world itself would also be ‘born again’.   It is interesting that it was not only Noah’s family that went into the Ark but also the animals. 

When God created all life, this included all living things.  It is no accident that God wanted to save the animals too.   For the destruction of our environment and the extinction of many animals this blame rests squarely on the shoulders of human society.  We were created in the image of God and the further away from this image we go, the worse the world gets.  Adam and Eve sinned, and they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden but his descendants have done far worse.  Sin got so bad that major surgery of a flood had to take place or even heaven would have been polluted. Could things get worse?

Perhaps they have as we have the power to destroy much more through the use of nuclear bombs.   All hope is not lost though as Christ came into the world and he died for our sins so that through his resurrection we might live.  Jesus is the real and true image of God; all the rest have been marred with sin.  In Christ it is possible to regain this image by faith and through grace.  

God is love and the only reason we as a human race survived, was because the Great Judge had held back by common grace and opened a way that we can have communion again with the Father through the two hands of God the father namely the Son and the Holy Spirit.

True freedom in God comes by faith and obedience in the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ.  Humanity sometimes thinks that they are free to do what they want to do.  All I see though, when looking at the world is destruction and death everywhere.  This time God did not destroy the world, but humans are doing it.  We may think that we can do what we want but for every cause, there is an effect, and the end will lead to judgement suddenly.   

Bonus Material

As an extra I include here some comments from John Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews 11. 7:

“7. By faith Noah, etc. It was a wonderful example of magnanimity, that when the whole world were promising themselves impunity, and securely and unrestrainedly indulging themselves in sinful pleasures, Noah alone paid regard to Gods vengeance though deferred for a considerable time, ― that he greatly wearied himself for a hundred and twenty years in building the ark, ― that he stood unshaken amidst the scoffs of so many ungodly men, ― that he entertained no doubt but that he would be safe in the midst of the ruin of the whole world, ― yea, that he felt sure of life as it were in the grave, even in the ark. It is briefly that I shall touch on the subject; each one can better for himself weigh all the circumstances.

The Apostle ascribes to faith the praise of so remarkable a fortitude. He has been hitherto speaking of the fathers who lived in the first age of the world; but it was a kind of regeneration when Noah and his family emerged from the deluge. It is hence evident that in all ages men have neither been approved by God, nor performed anything worthy of praise otherwise than by faith.

Let us now then see what are the things he presents to our consideration in the case of Noah. They are the following, ― that having been warned of things to come, but not yet made visible, he feared, ― that he built an ark, ― that he condemned the world by building it, ― and that he became the heir of that righteousness which is faith.

What I have just mentioned is that which especially sets forth the power of faith; for the Apostle ever reminds us of this truth, that faith is the evidence of things not seen; and doubtless it is its peculiar office to behold in God’s word the things which are hid, and far removed from our senses. When it was declared to Noah that there would be a deluge after one hundred and twenty years, first, the length of time might have removed every fear; secondly, the thing in itself seemed incredible; thirdly, he saw the ungodly heedlessly indulging in sinful pleasures; and lastly, the terrible announcement of a deluge might have appeared to him as intended only to terrify men. But Noah attended so much to God’s word, that turning away his eyes from the appearance of things at that time, he feared the destruction which God had threatened, as though it was present. Hence the faith which he had in God’s word prepared him to render obedience to God; and of this he afterwards gave a proof by building the ark.

But here a question is raised. Why does the Apostle make faith the cause of fear, since it has respect to promises of grace rather than to threatening? For Paul for this reason calls the Gospel, in which God’s righteousness is offered to us for salvation, the word of faith. It seems then to have been improperly stated, that Noah was by faith led to fear. To this, I reply, that faith indeed properly springs from promises; it is founded on them, it rests on them. We hence say that Christ is the real object of faith, for through him our heavenly Father is reconciled to us, and by him all the promises of salvation are sealed and confirmed. Yet there is no reason why faith should not look to God and reverently receive whatever he may say; or if you prefer another way of stating the subject, it rightly belongs to faith to hear God whenever he speaks, and unhesitatingly to embrace whatsoever may proceed from his sacred mouth. Thus far it has regard to commands and threatening, as well as to gratuitous promises. But as no man is moved as he ought and as much as is needful, to obey God’s commands, nor is sufficiently stirred up to deprecate his wrath, unless he has already laid hold on the promises of grace, so as to acknowledge him as a kind Father, and the author of salvation, ― hence the Gospel is called the word of faith, the principal part being stated for the whole; and thus is set forth the mutual relation that there is between them both. Faith, then, though its most direct regard is to God’s promises, yet looks on his threatening so far as it is necessary for it to be taught to fear and obey God.

Prepared an ark, etc. Here is pointed out that obedience which flows from faith as water from a fountain. The work of building the ark was long and laborious. It might have been haltered by the scoffs of the ungodly, and thus suspended a thousand times; nor is there a doubt but they mocked and derided the holy man on every side. That he then bore their wanton insults with an unshaken spirit, is a proof that his resolution to obey was not of an ordinary kind. But how was it that he so perseveringly obeyed God except that he had previously rested on the promise which gave him the hope of deliverance; and in this confidence he persevered even to the last; for he could not have had the courage willingly to undergo so many toils, nor could he have been able to overcome so many obstacles, nor could he have stood so firm in his purpose for so long a time, had he not beforehand possessed this confidence.

It hence appears that faith alone is the teacher of obedience; and we may on the contrary draw this conclusion, that it is unbelief that prevents us to obey God. And at this day the unbelief of the world exhibits itself dreadfully in this way, for there are a very few who obey God.

By the which he condemned the world, etc. It were strange to say that Noah’s deliverance condemned the world, and the context will hardly allow faith to be meant; we must then understand this of the ark. And he is said on two accounts to have by the ark condemned the world; for by being so long occupied in building it, he took away every excuse from the wicked; ― and the event which followed proved how just was the destruction of the world; for why was the ark made the means of deliverance to one family, except that the Lord thus spared a righteous man that he should not perish with the ungodly. Had he then not been preserved, the condemnation of the world would not have been so apparent. Noah then by obeying God’s command condemned by his example the obstinate disobedience of the world: his wonderful deliverance from the midst of death, was an evidence that the world justly perished; for God would have doubtless saved it, had it not been unworthy of salvation

Of the righteousness which is by faith. This is the last thing in the character of Noah, which the Apostle reminds us to observe. Moses records that he was a righteous man: history does not expressly say that the cause and root of his righteousness was faith, but the Apostle declares that as arising from the facts of the case. And this is not only true, because no one ever devotes himself really and sincerely to God’s service, but he who relies on the promises of his paternal kindness, and feels assured that his life is approved by him; but also on this account, because the life of no one, however holy it may be, when tried by the rule of God’s law, can please him without pardon being granted. Then righteousness must necessarily recumb on faith. Hebrews 11:7” (From Olive Tree Bible Software)

Ancient Royalty and the hunters bow go hand in hand. It was a weapon that was favoured by the elite. With a sword one could usually fight one person at a time but with archery one can fire very many arrows at a time and over a distance. No wonder the top soldiers of their day used the bow. No wonder God can be described as a hunter putting down his multi coloured bow.

(Archer wearing feather headdress. Alabaster. From Nineveh, Iraq. Reign of Ashurbanipal II, 668–627 BC. The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, UK. (From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_archery))

Last time we looked at some of the implications of the rainbow and how God used it as a sign of mercy for the human race.  This time we are going to dig into the text and find out more about this beautiful story. The Following is taken from the NASB.

Covenant of the Rainbow

 I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 It shall come about, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow will be seen in the cloud, 15 and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 When the bow is in the cloud, then I will look upon it, to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” 17 And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” Genesis 9:1-17

In Genesis 9. 1 -17 God speaks about his bow.  It didn’t really mean much to me ‘bow’.  The Hebrew is very interesting in that this is described by Josephus as God’s bow.  This is not a pretty picture of a rainbow but rather it is God’s warrior bow (קֶשֶׁת) . ³ (See Note from the TWOT) The Theological Word Book of the Old Testament failed to see the importance of the bow in Genesis 9.  This is a sign of making peace with the earth after the judgement.  It is also interesting that Andrew E Steinman said that God spoke of his bow three times here in Genesis.  If God uses specific words in a very short paragraph, we ought to take notice. Josephus certainly noticed it as he wrote:

“ (103) but I will give you a sign that I have left off my anger, by my bow” [WHEREBY IS MEANT THE RAINBOW, FOR THEY DETERMINED THAT THE RAINBOW WAS THE BOW OF GOD]; and when God had said and promised thus, he went away.” (Taken from the antiquities of the Jews by Josephus- (from olive tree Bible software))

Forget about pretty pictures of rainbows in the sky.  This was a covenant between Noah (for the whole human race) in which Humanity was given certain obligations and God had certain obligations. This covenant was made after God had avenged and was satisfied with cleansing the world from sin.  However, God knew also that in the future he had to make a way for people to rid their natural sinful nature which came from the Fall.  God laying down his Warriors Bow in the heavens was the seal of this particular covenant.

Reflection

So then in the story of Noah we learn that God has power to give life and to also take it. However Scripture also tells us that God is love. God’s loves in this common grace reaches out to the whole of the human race. In the person and work of the Holy Trinity through the two hands of God the Son and the Holy Spirit by faith we are able to boldly come into the very presence of the Father.

Someone might say; How can anyone stand in the presence of this Ultimate Power. The answer is that Jesus dies and rose from the grave so that by faith in him we can come into a personal relationship by grace and fellowship with the Trinitarian God.

Metaphorically speaking Samurai for example are experts with different weaponry including the sword and according to their training one should feel secure in the presence of a Samurai and their protection through the Budo Way. Any true soldier has a humanitarian aspect to their code of conduct of helping the needy. God as the Ultimate Warrior is also the Ultimate Lover of your soul because God created us out of love in the first place. God put down his ultimate weapon, the multicolored rainbow as an act of peace and love for His creation.

Notes

Note 3

      ^{2093      קֶשֶׁת (qešet) bow. (ASV and RSV are the same.)}

^{The word qešet denotes the hunter’s (Gen 27:3) and warrior’s (I Sam 31:3) weapon by which arrows are shot (I Kgs 13:15ff.). Its Ugaritic cognate is qšt (UT 19: no 2287). Our word occurs seventy-seven times. Derivation uncertain.}

^{The bow, a common weapon in the ancient Near East, was not too common in early Israel. The Benjamites, however, were noted archers (Jud 20; I Chr 8:40). Jonathan used a bow (I Sam 20:20) and later the bow became the weapon of leaders and kings (II Kgs 9:24; Ps 18:34 [H 35]). Apparently David’s lament became a permanent part of training Israel’s army, so in II Sam 1:18 the enigmatic qešet may be the title (or part of the title) of the song so employed (II Sam 1:18). By the time of Jeroboam the bow may well have been Israel’s national weapon (Hos 1:5, 7). In later times bows could be mounted with bronze (Ps 18:34 [H 35]; however, see AI, p. 243), or made of horns (AI, p. 243; B. Couroyer, “Come et arc,” RB 73:510–21). Large battle bows were strung by stepping on one end, hence, dārak qešet, to bend the bow, i.e. prepare to shoot (Jer 50:14; cf. G. Eager, in ISBE, p. 233). The conjoining of “sword” and “bow” often represents all weapons, and even war itself (Gen 48:22; Josh 24:12). A “deceitful” bow (with a flaw) always misses the mark (Israel, Ps 78:57; Hos 7:16).}

^{Man’s bow is controlled by God (Gen 49:24). The arrow finds its mark because of God’s guidance (esp. I Kgs 22:34; II Kgs 13–16). The broken bow can represent divinely imposed defeat (I Sam 2:4), and/or peace (God peaceably “hangs” his bow, Gen 9; cf. Ps 76:3 [H 4], 46:9 [H 10]; Hos 2:18 [H 20]).}

^{Bibliography: Yadin, Y., The Art of Warfare in Bible Lands, 2 vols., McGraw-Hill, 1963.}

^L.J.C.

^{Leonard J. Coppes, “2093 קֶשֶׁת,” ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 819.}

Note 2

Andrew E Steinman says the following:

“God’s words to Noah and his sons continue with ratification of the covenant by a sign. God had promised to establish a covenant with those who went into the ark (6:18). Now he establishes it with those who came off the ark (vv. 910). God promises that there will never again be a flood and reiterates this for emphasis (v. 11). 1216. The establishing of the covenant comes with a sign that will confirm its validity not simply for those who came off the ark, but for all future generations who will see it (v. 12). Three times God mentions his bow in the clouds. The connection is clear: the rainclouds will bear the sign that will cause God to remember his covenant. Once again this expression notes God’s faithfulness to his promise (see comment on 8:13). Signs are often associated with God’s covenant. For instance, circumcision is a sign of his covenant with Abraham and his descendants (17:1014), and the Sabbath was a sign of God’s covenant with Israel (Exod. 31:1317). In every case the sign is primarily for the humans who receive the benefit of God’s grace. Here, though God will see the sign and remember, the comfort derived from the sign is for humans. 17. God ends his covenant promise with words similar to meaning The blessing for Noah and his sons mirrors his original blessing on Adam and Eve (9:1, 7; cf. 1:28). His placing the animals under Noah’s authority mirrors the invitation to Adam and Eve to rule the animals (9:2; cf. 1:28). Then his permission to eat meat mirrors his original grant of plants for food (9:36; cf. 1:29). In this way Genesis presents the flood not only as a destructive force that extinguished life but also as a creative force that brings a new order to the world. It also ushers in the first of God’s covenants mentioned in Scripture. This covenant was designed to provide encouragement and comfort to Noah and his descendants. “ (From Tyndale Old Testament commentaries volume 1 Genesis by Andrew E Steinman; from page 105; kindle edition)

—

The Rainbow Part 1

As we saw the evil in the world it grew and grew and this led to a great judgement, the flood.  Obviously apart from one family (Noah’s family) humanity lost its way and in a sense the image of God, which humans were supposed to be became corrupted to such a level that judgement was the only way to save humanity from itself. Even Noah wasn’t a perfect example because later Noah grows a vineyard getting drunk, and this leads to him cursing one of his sons. As with the creation story that we looked at there was a move to demythologize the gods of the surrounding nations.¹ Here the rainbow is a sign (symbol) of God’s commitment of mercy for a sinful humanity.

Thus, for me the rainbow represents God’s compassion for the whole of the human race and it is a pointer to the other covenants God has made. Each covenant points to the long road of history for us to become the ‘image of God’ again.

Covenant with Adam

This verse shows our status before a Holy God:

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

Although a Fall happened in Christ by faith this is our eschatological destiny to become more like the image of God (Namely Christ).

Covenant with Noah

I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth.” 12 God said, “This is the sign of the covenant which I am making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all successive generations; 13 I set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth. Genesis 9:11-13

Covenant with Abraham.

This covenant was given to Abraham and his offspring and it finishes off with that through him the all the nations would be blessed.

Sinai covenant with Moses

God gives a moral code of the 10 commandments to Israel to live by. This became the foundation for Western civilization to prosper. In its purity the underlying basic element is to love God and to love our neighbour. This covenant is ethical in character and will be in force until the eschaton.

Covenant with David

It is through the line of King David that the greater than David (namely Christ) would come into the world to save us from our sins.  The story of Christmas has two genealogies that proves this promise.

The covenant with Christ

For Messianic Jews and Christians, the Last Supper is the final covenant God has made with his Church and the realization of all these covenants with be at the eschaton and at the end of time and the completion God work with the marriage feast of the Lamb of God and the Church (the bride of Christ).

Christians are not superior to non-Christians as we have all sinned.  Every human being except Christ have sinned.  A holy God demands holiness from his people. Holiness is about separation from the world of sin, and it is impossible for even a follower of Christ to reach these high demands from God.  It is only through the life and work of Christ as:

• Prophet
• Priest
• King
• & sacrifice once and fall all as the book of Hebrews tells us that there can be any salvation at all.

For the Judaeo Christian line of thought the rainbow in the above context shows the compassion of God for sinful humanity. The rainbow is a sacred and holy meaning for many religious people and should never have been taken for political ends. The rainbow has ethical and moral foundations set in place by a holy God. As Calvin would tell us and many other theologians there are to realms in society:

• The sacred (Things set apart for God’s service)
• Profane (Things in everyday life)

The Sacred

God gave the rainbow as a sign of security to all peoples that he would not destroy the earth again in this way.

The Profane

Politics is a profane earthly element.  For Christians it does not have a profane meaning and it certainly should not be used in politics by any group.

In fact, certain minority groups in the UK, I believe such as:

• The Jewish Community
• The Islamic Community
• The Christian Community

Have grounds to protect the symbol of the rainbow and its original meaning from a profane use.   

Reflection

True religion flows with love from God to us His creation and reciprocally this love flows back to God. This common grace and God’s sign of his warriors bow in the sky is a reminder of His promise towards his creation. This is a beautiful reminder of God’s promises towards us. The three great Abrahamic religions believe and accept this truth.

Europe and the Western world unfortunately when accepting Secularism espouse that they stand up for the rights of everyone. Secularism was supposed to stand outside as a non partisan judge for all the different views. However if I were to look at the data; Would there be a correlation between the rise of secularism with the rise of atheism, agnosticism and consumerism (including global warming)?

Secularism has not freed humanity to be free but it has made us prisoners of our own human greed and selfishness. With secularism God cannot take the blame for all of the ills of society (as it rejects the existence of God(claiming to be non-biased)).

The rainbow shows us another way; Gods way. This common grace means that all of the resources are for the human race to share and respect them. God’s way is unselfishness and is filled with love and compassion. God is personal, secularism is a system. A person can show empathy, a system can only churn out impersonal solutions. By no means was Noah a perfect human. Indeed after he got out of the boat one of the first things he did was to grow a vineyard and get drunk! The effect of the Fall (Adam’s disobedience) was so great that even with the Great Flood Man can’t help but sin. This points us to the greater story of the Person and work of Christ but we will go into this possibly in two Weeks.

Notes

The following are some of the Rainbow related deities around the world:

“Rainbow deities

In Mesopotamian and Elamite mythology, the goddess Manzat was a personification of the rainbow.[1]

In Greek mythology, the goddess Iris personifies the rainbow. In many stories, such as the Iliad, she carries messages from the gods to the human world, thus forming a link between heaven and earth.[2] Iris’s messages often concerned war and retribution.[3] In some myths, the rainbow merely represents the path made by Iris as she flies.[4]

Many Aboriginal Australian mythologies include a Rainbow Serpent deity, the name and characteristics of which vary according to cultural traditions. It is often seen as a creator god, and also as a force of destruction. It is generally considered to control the rain, and conceals itself in waterholes during the dry season.

In Chinese mythology, Hong is a two-headed dragon that represents the rainbow.

In Mesoamerican cultures, Ix Chel is a maternal jaguar goddess associated with rain. Chel means rainbow in the Yucatán Poqomchi’ language. Ix Chel wears a serpent headdress and presides principally over birth and healing.

Anuenue, the rainbow maiden, appears in Hawaiian legends as the messenger for her brothers, the gods Tane and Kanaloa.[5]

Several West African religions incorporate personified rainbow spirits. Examples include Oxumare in the Yoruban religion Ifá; Ayida-Weddo in Haitian Vodou, as practiced in Benin; and the pythons Dagbe Dre and Dagbe Kpohoun in West African Vodun, as practiced by the Ewe people of Benin.

In Māori mythology there are several personifications for the rainbow, depending on its form, who usually appear representing omens and are appealed to during times of war. The most widespread of these are Uenuku and Kahukura.[6][5]

For the Karen people of Burma, the rainbow is considered as a painted and dangerous demon that eats children.

In Muisca religion, Cuchavira or Cuhuzabiba, who was called “shining air” is the rainbow deity,[7] which in the Andes rain and sun were both very important for their agriculture.

Amitolane is a rainbow spirit from the mythology of the Zuni, a Native American tribe.

In Albanian folk beliefs the rainbow is regarded as the belt of the goddess Prende, and oral legend has it that anyone who jumps over the rainbow changes his sex.[8]

In pre-Hispanic Andean cosmology, the rainbow was related with both the sacred serpent or Amaru and the thunder god” (Taken from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_mythology)

Over the next three lessons we are going to look at Noah and why he is so important to the life of faith:

•            The rainbow part 1; its importance in the covenantal scheme of things

•            The Rainbow part 2; an exegetical review of the promise of God to Noah

•            Noah in the New Testament; Looking at the reflections of the New Testament on the Old Testament

•            Bonus Material: John Calvin on Hebrews 11. 7

As Christianity has become diluted in the Western world there has been a free bonanza of taking religious symbols, twisting them to mean something new for various reasons:

•            Making Money (examples such as Lady Gaga and Madonna)

•            Political gain of certain groups

•            Attempts to rebrand religious symbols for certain projects.

The rainbow, the bow of God is not any different to this.  Perhaps in this set of blogs I am trying to show that the rainbow in certain traditions runs very deep.  Although I am writing from my own faith vantage point, it is important to note that within all of the Abrahamic traditions the rainbow is very important. Every culture in the world in which the sun has shone and rained will have had a sense of awe in this beautiful multicoloured bow striking through the heavens. I saw the following verse from Keats the Philosopher which spars between science and Art:

“Do not all charms fly

At the mere touch of cold philosophy?

There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:

We know her woof, her texture; she is given

Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine –

In the dull catalogue of common things.

Philosophy will clip an Angel’s wings,

Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,

Unweave a rainbow”  (Taken from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_in_culture)

Dawkins got the wrong end of the stick I think taken from wiki:

“In contrast to this is Richard Dawkins; talking about his 1998 book Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder, wrote:

    My title is from Keats, who believed that Newton had destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow by reducing it to the prismatic colours. Keats could hardly have been more wrong, and my aim is to guide all who are tempted by a similar view, towards the opposite conclusion. Science is, or ought to be, the inspiration for great poetry.” (from ibid)

How the world moves!

No Keats was not wrong… The world that God created is filled with more than scientific facts.  ‘1+1=2’ is one type of fact but so is the phrase ‘I love you’.   Humanity is more than hard logic. Humanity in the image of God carries with it science, ethics and aesthetics.  This is why the rainbow is so beautiful. Within human culture God has ordained that it is a reminder of:

•            the rational (Truth)there is cause and affect; Laws (In this case the flood)

•            Ethics ((Goodness)We should treat others, with dignity and respect (The pre-diluvian world failed with basic human morality))

•            Aesthetics ((Beauty)The rainbow and many other things of beauty are in the creation (God’s hunting bow was multicoloured just like Josephs special tunic and it is an object of beauty))

The Romantic movement Keats included is a correction and reminder to us that the world is more than just hard scientific facts.

What we will look at

In the first section we will consider the rainbow in terms of God’s covenant with Humanity that in this particular way he would not flood the earth again. The rainbow as a symbol from God therefore reminds us of God’s Justice, mercy, and love.  The rainbow only appeared after the wrath of God and hence the Noahic sign was God setting his military bow down.  This represented the end of his vengeance.

In the second section we will look at the text of Genesis and the promise.  This is important because we need to understand what God is trying to say to us through his word.  When we look at this section we need to remember that God reversed some of the creation back to chaos.  The world went back to being under water again in which there was no land. God was at war with humanity and metaphorically and literally firing his arrows that hit the mark and destruction except one family; Noah’s family. In some sense Noah could be seen as God’s second creation story as the world was born again with a new promise.

In the third section we will look at verses in the New Testament and how the New Testament understands the story. You might want to fast forward but these are the verses I will contemplate:

Matthew 24:37-38, Luke 3:36, 17:26-27, Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:20, and 2 Peter 2:5

This section is important as we wait for the Second Coming of Christ.  We need to be ready for this great and glorious day.  The warning however is that most people don’t care much for the Judgement of God on humanity and then in an instant thing will happen and for those who have rejected God it will be a terrible day of God’s vengeance.  Noah and the flood are a call for Christ’s Church to be ready for his coming. 

When I pondered on these things, I felt that God has built into the very fabric of creation and into the human race moral rules and duties.  At this level I look at scripture at the most basic level even before looking at the work of Christ.  God at his most basic is Moral and we ought to love and care for our neighbour whoever that person might be.  This happens at very many levels:

• The immediate family members
• Caring for our pets
• Our immediate neighbours
• Our community
• Our local leaders and decision makers
• Our larger area (State (US; Borough UK; regions; Finland)
• Our Parliament (White House (USA); Parliament (UK); Uduskunta (Finland))
• The International bodies such as the United Nations

At all these levels the most basic question is how do we treat the most vulnerable in our society?  Vigilance should always be used for the widow, orphan outsider et al. It is interesting that just recently in Yle Finland was found to be somehow the third most racist country in Europe.  This includes structural racism in the Finnish State that stops foreigners from getting into the higher paid jobs. 

Example sites to look at:

• amnesty.fi/finland-must-dismantle-structural-racism-now/
• yle.fi/a/3-10531670

(To reach these sites HTTPs is needed at the front of the address)

The bottom line at what ever level; How do we treat our human fellow beings?  I think Noah is a wakeup call for everyone not just those who have a monotheistic background such as Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Whether or not your world view is that of cause and effect (Hinduism, Buddhism et al) or Monotheistic such as God bringing judgement (also cause and effect).  The bottom line is that we ought to love our fellow human being like us this includes in practical ways such as basic necessities:

• Food
• Clothing
• Roof
• Warmth
• Friendship
• Hope

I hope that you will enjoy this series on Noah which will come out every Friday.

Our main text today is:

The Corruption of Mankind

Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.” Genesis 6:1-7 NASB

In the above text we find references to the Sons of God and the Nephilim. My understanding of the Sons of God, a reflection on who these sons of God were. angels and not  men.

So then from the time of Adam’s sin up to the time of Noah sin infiltrated humanity but also heaven itself.  Within Jewish Scripture and tradition, we see glimpses of this including the fall of angels and how immoral they were:

2 Peter 2. 4

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, held for judgment.”

Jude 1.6

“And angels who did not keep their own domain but abandoned their proper dwelling place, these He has kept in eternal restraints under darkness for the judgment of the great day.

For me Jude1.6 reminds me of the sons of God in Genesis 6.2 

As I have said many times before the Apostles used the Greek Old Testament of the Second Temple. The translation here is:

“ἰδόντες δὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ θεοῦ τὰς θυγατέρας τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὅτι καλαί εἰσιν, ἔλαβον ἑαυτοῖς γυναῖκας ἀπὸ πασῶν ὧν ἐξελέξαντο.” (from https://biblehub.com/sepd/genesis/6.htm)

International Standard Version

“some divine beings noticed how attractive human women were, so they took wives for themselves from a selection that pleased them.”

(The above translation also uses other manuscripts in its influence.  You have to make your own judgement if you trust it; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Version:

For me the translation has crossed a boundary by using too much dynamic equivalence.  It is however useful in that as a paraphrase we can get a glimpse of what is going on.  Heaven and earth were facing corruption and God had to sort this terrible problem out.) 

There is also hard evidence that within the Dead Sea Scrolls Jewish Community that Genesis 6. 2 were angels and thus would have been a topic in the second Temple before it was destroyed. (Have a look at cave 4 for example in gnosis.org.  Here we find a description of how low some angels came morally. (gnosis.org/library/dss/dss_book_of_giants.htm)

The interpretation of

• Higher Princes marrying into the common folk (which they are not supposed to)
• The line of righteous Seth becoming corrupted (which it did)
• Angels in breed with humans and that’s how giants came into the world.

(Although I don’t agree with the first two views, I still respect those who hold to these views because they have been argued by God fearing people. Two such people who did not think the sons of God were angels are John Calvin and Herman Bavinck. They did not have the foresight of the dead sea scrolls and other documents.  Perhaps if they were alive today, they may have taken the view that the sons of God in this context are indeed angels)

As well as these quotations from the New Testament we see Satan as the ringleader of these bad angels in the Old Testament in the oldest book in the Bible Job 1:

“Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” 8 The LORD said to Satan, “Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, fearing God and turning away from evil.” 9 Then Satan answered the LORD, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.” 12 Then the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.” So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD.” Job 1:6-12 NASB

Satan is also the one to come and test our Lord Jesus at his weakest moment of fasting and praying in the Wilderness of Judea for example:

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. 3 And the tempter came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”” Matthew 4:1-3

‘Son of God’ here is a title of the Messiah and Satan was trying to get him to doubt his Trinitarian office.

..

There were also some interesting lines of thought in the Biblical Archaeological Review on the Sons of God.  This led me to go deeper into what was being said in the Old Testament:

Sons of God present themselves to God.

Job 1:6; 2:1

⁶ ​Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. Job 1:6

​¹ ​Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them to present himself before the LORD. ² ​The LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.” Job 2:1-2

Gods divine assembly

Psalm 89:7; 29:1

⁷ ​A God greatly feared in the council of the holy ones,
And awesome above all those who are around Him? Psalms 89:7

¹ ​Ascribe to the LORD, O sons of the mighty,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength. Psalms 29:1

In academic circles Deuteronomy 32:8 has caused caused quite a stir because the dead sea scrolls gives a variant reading to that of theMasoretic text.  Instead of saying Sons of Israel it says Sons of God.

The DSS says:

you]. 8 When [the Most High] gave [to the nations] their inherit[ance, when] he separated [humankind, he set the bounds of the peoples according to the number of] the children of God.163 [9 For the LORD’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of] his [inher]itance.

(Abegg Jr., Martin G.; Peter Flint; Eugene Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (p. 191). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.)

The footnotes say:

(163. 4QDeutj LXX. Israel MT SP.)

This means that the ‘Sons of God’ reading is found in the dead sea scrolls found in cave 4 and this is the same reading as the Septuagint.   The Reading of Israel is found in the Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch version

(ibid)

We can infer from these that the Sons of God were a council which presided in the presence of God, but we also know as in Genesis 6 that some of them turned against God and with humans were responsible for the Nephilim. I don’t have a problem with this reading because angels did take on human form from time to time. An example of this was in Lot’s house when the neighbours broke in to do obscenities on the visiting angels whom they mistook for human beings. It also seems to be the case that the Sons of God also took wives after the floods too.

Even though I don’t agree with Bavinck or Calvin on the nature of the Sons of God, I do however agree that the emphasis is on human sins. It is human sin that brought about the flood although there were other cosmic forces also playing a hand (but that ought to be put as a minor point.).  The lines of Seth and Cain do play a part in the story and it is worth following through what Bavinck has to tell us about what is going on.

So then heaven and earth had their rebellions.  So far, we have learned that from my point of view is that the correct interpretation of the Sons of God was that they were angels.  This still does not change the main thrust of the story, that focuses on how low and depraved people became and thus the earth had to be flooded.  From that perspective even if one disagrees with who the Sons of God were, we cannot escape the progression of sin.  Herman Bavinck and John Calvin are still useful exegetes for us in this department.

There are reasons why Herman Bavinck rejected the idea that the Sons of God in Genesis were not angels. This is found in his Reformed Dogmatics, book 2, page 256 , edited by John Bolt, Baker Books.

In the first paragraph Bavinck shows us that he was well aware of the LXX (Septuagint).  He shows that a particular corporeality was given to the angels and this was the line by lots of Church Fathers including Luther:

“But angels are bounded in relation to time and space; if they really move from one place to another, they have to be—in their own way—corporeal. Similarly, angels are not simple like God but composed of matter and form. For that reason also, a certain material—finely ethereal, to be sure—corporeality has to be attributed to them. Added to this line of thought was the exegesis that considered the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 as angels. This exegesis of Philo, Josephus, the Jews, and the Septuagint [LXX, i.e., Greek Old Testament] was taken over by many church fathers:60 Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian, Lactantius, Cyprian, and Ambrose (et al.); it was adopted also by Luther and again defended in modern times by Ewald, Baumgarten, Hofmann, Kurtz, Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Kohler, and Kubel (et al.). In addition, in arguing for the corporeality of angels, people appeal to their appearances, to certain special texts in Holy Scripture, such as Psalm 104:4; Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36; and 1 Corinthians 11:10; and sometimes also to the fact that as inhabitants of the stars they certainly have to be corporeal.

In the next paragraph Bavinck rejects this line of thought and puts the emphasis on angels as ‘spirits’.  He is justified to do this because this is how the Bible in general speaks about angels.

Over against all these arguments, however, stands the clear pronouncement of Holy Scripture that the angels are spirits (pneumam; Matt. 8: 16; 12:4 5; Luke 7:21; 8:2; 11:26; Acts 19:12; [23:8;] Eph. 6:12; Heb. 1:14), who do not marry (Matt. 22:30), are immortal (Luke 20:35—36) and invisible (Col. 1:16), may be “legion” in a restricted space (Luke 8:30), and like spirits, have no flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Moreover, the conception that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angels and not men is untenable. Though this designation is used repeatedly for angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), it can also very well denote humans (Deut. 32:5—6; Hos. 1:10 [2:1 MT]; Ps. 80:17 [16 MT]; 73:15), and is in any case inapplicable to bad angels, who must have committed their sin on earth. Moreover, the expression “took to wife” [q]? $4] in Genesis 6:2 is always used with reference to a lawful marriage and never to fornication. Finally, the punishment of the sin is imposed only on humans, for they are the guilty party, and there is no mention of angels (Gen. 6:3, 5—7). Neither do the other Scripture passages prove the corporeality of angels. Psalm 104:4 (cf.Heb. 1:7) only says that God uses his angels as ministers, just as wind and fire…”

Bavinck says a lot more on the nature of angels and I will be going through this sometime.  Here we were answering a question on who the sons of God were.  Next time I will go back to the general discussion of the nature of angels.

Pannenberg then made an accurate estimation and surprise at Barth not speaking about the nature of angels. Pannenberg on the other hand tried to tie the angel’s nature down to nature and this ended up being an abysmal failure (from my point of view).  (See the previous blog on Barth and Pannenberg on angels.) Herman Bavinck on the other hand, is not afraid to talk about the nature of angels and everything else.

Reflection

The Genesis story is not interested in angels per se, on the contrary Genesis is interested in humankind who are the image bearers of God (not angels).  Moses when he was penning this story down with the elders of ancient Israel under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit were well aware of the Paganism of the time.  They would have known about the Ugaritic texts of El and the pantheon of gods on all the different levels.  The Pagan literature of the time was probably re-adapted in the cause of the Lord of Creation (Ha Shem).  This is not a bad thing because Moses was dealing with revelation from God and to pass God’s word down to us faithfully.  We do seriously need to remind ourselves of Bavincks and Calvin’s exegesis here.  It is humanity that is going to be judge not angels in this story thus we ought to put the emphasis on human sin.  It is human sin that brought about the universal flood. 

Since Adam sinned things in the world got progressively worse.  By the time we get to Genesis 6 2 the Sons of God (rebellious angels) had relations with women and giants (Nephilim) came into being.

My main question is, who were these sons of God and what were their nature? 

This first discussion is a general overview of Angels from two theologians: Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg.  Karl Barth represents Theology from above par excellence and Pannenberg with his theology from below.

In Genesis 6² It is a sorry state of affairs as the Wickedness of Man has reached new heights of sin:

“Now it came about, when men began to multiply on the face of the land, and daughters were born to them, 2 that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown.

5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7 The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”“ Genesis 6:1-7

I have chosen two theologians to begin with to try to find out the answer to this.  I may hit some dead ends, but it is better to have tried and failed than not to try at all.   I am starting with Pannenberg as he critiques Karl Barth but does Pannenberg’s own hypothesis stand up to theological scrutiny?

Pannenberg’s critique of Barth on ‘Angels’ and his ideas of ‘field’

Pannenberg begins by saying that Barth’s treatment of Angels in the 20^th century as he begins the section:

 “Karl Barth’s doctrine of angels in CD, 111/ 3 § 51 is the most important discussion of the theme in modern theology, but in the very full exposition of the biblical statements about the function of angels it does not go into this aspect.” (Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103)

Anyhow let us continue to look at Pannenberg’s view in closer detail.  In that same paragraph Pannenberg says that Barth was not interested in:

• The nature of Angels

But was interested in their:

• Function and ministry (cited Barth volume 3. 3 page 459)

For Barth the more important aspect was the ‘witness of angels’ to that of what angels actually did.  Thus the paragraph finishes with:

“It is understandable, then, that in Barth the cosmic functions of angels are in the background and receive only incidental mention (pp. 462f., 497).”

(From Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103)

Pannenberg makes some interesting points on Barth that, Barth wasn’t as interested as much in the nature of the angels but Pannenberg’s own point of view wants to smooth over his own epistemic cracks.  He goes on to say that:

“If we define forces like wind or fire or stars as angels of God, then we are relating them to God their Creator and to the human experience of being affected by them as servants of God or as demonic powers that oppose his will. Why should not natural forces in the forms in which we now know them be viewed as God’s servants and messengers, i.e., as angels?”

I have a problem with this as it appears to me Pannenberg is doing eisegesis… (Reading a 20^th -21^st century mindset into ancient documents). This also feeds into his use of ‘field’ which completely alien to the Biblical world. The Bible differentiated between natural forces and spiritual beings for example:

“11 The Lord said to Elijah, “Go, stand in front of me on the mountain, and I will pass by you.” Then a very strong wind blew until it caused the mountains to fall apart and large rocks to break in front of the Lord. But the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind, there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake, there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire, there was a quiet, gentle sound. 13 When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his coat and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave.”

As well as natural phenomena angels in the Bible are very personal:

“God heard the lad crying; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter with you, Hagar? Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is.” Genesis 21:17

Instead Pannenberg emphasises impersonal aspects and reading ‘thermodynamic description of conditions for the rise and evolution of life.”

In reality, Pannenberg’s angelology brings us to a dead end, and it does not bring me any closer to understand what Genesis 6 2 was all about with the sons of God. 

However, from Pannenberg’s point of view that Barth was not interested as much in the nature of angels other that ‘witness’.

Reflection on Pannenberg’s thesis on angels.

He started to critique Barth on the nature of angels but instead Pannenberg builds on his own eisegetical foundations and builds up a new myth. The myth that Natural phenomena were described as angels in the ancient world mind using terms from physics such as thermodynamics and field are better ways to explain God and creation.

This is nonsense and it makes a complete mockery of the Old Testament.  It shows no empathy to the original writers of the Bible and usurps key ideas with the above foreign concepts. Just to clarify the ancient mind certainly differentiated between natural phenomena and angels.  Six days of creation is a lot easier to understands than force fields and thermodynamics,

Karl Barth on the limits of Angelology

The limits of Angelology

Karl Barth sets the limits of angelology between the two extremes of  mythologising and demythologising. Page 79 (See Bibliography at the end)

Barth  says “How are we to steer a way between this Scylla and Charybdis, between the far too interesting mythology of the ancients and the far too uninteresting “demythologisation” of most of the moderns? How are we to advance without becoming rash, exercising discretion without overlooking what has to be seen, not saying too much and yet not failing to say what has to be said?”

 He has a point and being aware of scholastic tradition of asking questions such as how many angels dance on the end of a needle, I can understand his concerns. 

Barth continues to say that

“The limit is to be seen in the fact that the name and concept of angels denotes a reality which is distinct both from God and man, and therefore distinct from the true and central content of the Word of God although intimately related to it.” Page 80

In this section Barth delineates two dangers into looking at angelology:

1. We might not do any research on angels because we are on uncertain superfluous territory

2. We allow fear to exclude from the dogmatic investigation and hence miss out on what God can teach us about God’s Kingdom truths.

Barth then gives us some information under subheadings for researchin angels

1. We must allow our knowledge to come from the Holy Scriptures. For example Barth writes “According to the witness of the Old and New Testaments, to this revelation and work of God there belongs also the character of the kingdom of God as the kingdom of heaven, and the angels as His heavenly messengers. They belong to it in a particular way, not as leading but subsidiary characters, and these not as autonomous subjects but merging as it were into their function, which is wholly and exemplarily that of service.”(Page 82)

He quotes Calvin at the end of this subsidiary first point (Instit.,I, 14,4):,”The existence of angels is not established by probable arguments derived from philosophy, or by speculations on possible levels of creaturely being and the structure of the universe …. or by human testimony or by various experiencs, but apodictically, by the absolutely clear and repeated assertion of Scripture”

2.  The question of how to interpret scripture is also important.  Barth is aware of movements that would attempt to say that particular text is more historical than others.  Barth even talks about differences in false and true mythologies and sagas.  Just because something cannot be verified as historical does not make it less historical.  I think what Barth is getting at the importance to allow the text of Scripture to talk to us by the Holy Spirit and not to water down its content.  Here the agenda is ‘faith seeking understanding’ which went in the opposite direction of contemporary scholarship which was to disect eveything and come from my point of view to false conclusions. On page 85 Barth says:

“The whole history of the Bible, while it intends to be and is real spatio-temporal history, has a constant bias towards the sphere where it cannot be verified by the ordinary analogies of world history but can be seen and grasped only imaginatively and represented in the form of poetry. How can it be otherwise when it is the history of the work and revelation of God, which as such, as the history of the action and lordship of the Lord of heaven and earth, although it can also take place in the comparatively narrow sphere of historically verifiable occurrence, is not confined to the sphere of ordinary earthly analogies? To some extent the angels mark this transition, this reaching of the incommensurable into the commensurable, of mystery into the sphere of known possibilities. For this reason they particularly are figures of biblical saga and legend. This does not count against them. It is a factual explanation of their distinctive being and action not is it a concession to modern thought.” (page 85)

3. In this section Barth explains that if angels are to be in theological in character then we need to follow the “…the sequence, relationship and consequence disclosed in the statement credo ut intelligam (I believe so that I understand (…in order to understand)).” In this third point Barth looks at the history of interpretation in the church how it was abused in the tradition.  Actually it is very lengthy and he goes into minute detail of how angelology was treated from the early Church to the present day.

He also has a fourth and fifth section but this is enough for us to contemplate.  The whole thrust of Barth is faith seeking understanding. Not a faith based on false premises but a faith which has the Biblical axiom of accepting the existnce of God to be the starting point and then to follow through Scripture what it has to say.  This goes in the opposited direction of the modern method of ‘doubting everything’.

Reflection

Here we find a fascinating study about angels, but it did not answer my question on what Genesis 6^2, meant about the sons of God.  Next time we will continue our quest to find out who the Sons of God Were.  Just to summarize then we looked at angels from two opposing perspectives within the Church tradition.  On the one hand we had Pannenberg with his theology from below wanting to push angels into the sphere of naturalism and demythologise angels by making them aspects of nature on earth as a reminder he said,” Why should not natural forces in the forms in which we now know them be viewed as God’s servants and messengers, i.e., as angels?”

Next time we will look at other texts on the Sons of God (DSS Dead Sea Scrolls findings from cave 4) and also use the Septuagint (One of the Second Temples Old Testaments (written in Greek and used by the Apostles and the Orthodox Churches as their main Bible)).  We will consider various interpretations on the Sons of God and come to some conclusions.

The third blog will be I hope a return to John Calvin’s and Herman Bavincks interpretation of the Sons of God.  They have a lot of interesting things to say about the lines of Cain and Seth.  This is important because the main thrust of Genesis 6 is not on the demonology of the Sons of God but rather on the sins of the sons of Adam.

Bibliography

Systematic Theology, Wolfhart Pannenberg, volume 2 page 103, et al

Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Volume Iii, The Doctrine, Of Creation Section 51

NASB Bible, Holman publishers.

Before I start my blog, I remember in Ankara a bus conductor in the 1990s hand me a coin and it had this picture of Jesus on it. I was visiting the Theological faculty in Ankara in the 1990s to see a certain Religious Studies expert on my MA thesis… Obviously I handed the coin to a lecturer there.

When God created Adam, He went to a lot of trouble. God took the soil, formed him and then breathed into Adam the breath of life. Adam (and Eve) were created in the image of God. All the elements of a covenant were in place. Paul even calls Adam a type (figure) of Christ. The Greek word tupos is literally the mark left by the seal in the clay (Vine’s Greek dictionary). Adam had all the faculties for making a rational decision. God’s test was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam was made of the earth and yet there was the possibility of eternal life through obedience. If he had obeyed God, he would have passed into the joy of the Lord without tasting death. Some theologians say that God knew the outcome of this test of the covenant of works. Yet this was not the end for mankind but only the beginning. The very fact of Adam’s existence pointed beyond itself to the Messiah. Adam in the Hebrew makes an acrostic:

Aleph, Daleth, Mem
• Abraham
• David
• Messiah
(ADaM= A, D and M; the first letters of Abraham, David and Messiah)

I read this online, but I don’t know how Judaism came up with the above acrostic, but I do find it interesting that in the Hebrew Adam’s name works as an acrostic and a road map for the Second Adam Christ. In the same line of thought I found Karl Barth’s view of Adam in relation to Christ interesting too from his Roman’s commentary:

“As a sinner in the invisible and non-historical meaning of the “word; Adam is—the figure of him that was to come. The shadow in which he stands bears witness to the light of Christ. Were this not so the shadow would be invisible to us. The shadow also provides us with a standard by which we may measure the light and perceive its nature. The invisible constitution of this world is, if the minus sign outside the bracket be changed into plus, the constitution of the new world which is to come. ‘The secret of Adam is the secret of the Messiah’ (a Rabbinic saying).” (From Karl Barth’s early Roman’s commentary; Oxford university press page 175)

When I look into the mirror, I can see my image, but it is only an image of me, but it is still a true image of my likeness. When I am walking, and the sun is shining behind me I can see my shadow, but the shadow is still real, and it still shows my silhouette. In the same way Adam is in the image of God, Christ is the original prototype. From what I have read Adam was in the garden and probation through the covenant of works. He had all the capacity to make rational decisions of whether to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Although Satan deceived Adam and Eve this was no excuse. The moment that the fruit was eaten Humankind became separated from their Creator. God however did not give up on Humankind and thus the road of redemption had already begun with the naming of Adam, the reflection of Christ somehow. From my point of view, it was inevitable for Adam to sin. Adam was special he was of heaven and earth. Although he was made with soil, he had a living soul that could have continued the walk to heaven. This is what happened to Enoch, when God took him and he did not taste death.
But this is where the comparison of Adam to Christ must end. Having said that; Will Adam be in heaven? I don’t know but it isn’t impossible. This verse at the end of Hebrews 11 is interesting:

“39 And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.” Hebrews 11:39-40

God also spoke with the Messianic prophecy:

“And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.” Genesis 3:15

Later when Eve got a child she said:

“Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a man child with the help of the LORD.” Genesis 4:1

Eve talks about with the ‘help of the Lord’. This is putting her trust in God.
I’m just raising possibilities:

1. Was it common grace that God made clothes for Adam and Eve?
2. Was it common grace that God helped Eve with childbirth?
3. Are there other indicators?
   

Anyhow this is where the similarities of the First Adam and the Second Adam end. Jesus and Adam had the same nature, and they were both true human beings but through obedience or disobedience we see their roads diverge. For salvation to come to humankind Jesus had to be of the same nature as Adam… This is the reason I believe Paul does not Call Adam an ‘anti-type’ but a ‘type’ or ‘figure’ of Christ. If Jesus was an anti-type then this would mean Jesus was not truly human. Lets consider this from Hebrews:

“Therefore, He (Jesus) had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2:17-18

God knew from the beginning of creation that humans cannot get to heaven on their own. Adam was tempted but so was Jesus. Our Lord overcame the temptation that Adam was unable to. As human beings we are not any different to Adam, we have all sinned and turned our back on God. It is only through God’s gift of grace that we can even have faith.
So How does Christ fit into all of this and how does this affect our salvation?

Christ in relation to the resurrection order and our future lives as believers.
1 Corinthians 15 and the first section had a lot of ifs. In this next section I only see our future life in Christ with a resurrected body. This is a very important subject for all times and Paul does not hold back but shows us that in Christ we are going to have a real resurrected body. After we die, if we stay in spirit form, how will someone know us?

On the other hand, if we have a real body then we can be recognized immediately. It is through our speech, the way we look, the gestures we show that people know who we are. This is the inheritance we have in Christ. In Christ we will be made perfect even as he is perfect.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. 28 When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 NASB

20 Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων.

20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.

This is very straight forward. There are no ‘ifs’ here but certainty. The phrase’ has been raised from the dead’ this is in the perfect tense. The perfect tense an action that has happened in the past but has continual effect for all time. Here Jesus is ‘the first fruits’. He is the first man to be raised from the dead. The first fruits are the first agricultural offering to God, but I think it can also be used of the first person in a family to be born (especially in Jewish thought). The equivalent to first fruit is Bikkurim meaning ‘promise to come’ (https://get.tithe.ly/blog/first-fruit)

With reference to the firstborn person, the Hebrew word is bekor. A Jewish use of the term I find helpful to give us a deeper understanding of it being used for Christ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firstborn_(Judaism)

Where it says first fruits(plural) I don’t know if I agree with the NASB here. First fruit is in the feminine singular. I would translate the verse as and now Christ has been raised from the dead who is the first fruit from those who are asleep. Before being conclusive I think one needs to read and compare other translations and commentaries on this text. This is my interpretation for what it is trying to say. It may be that the translators wanted to somehow follow the Hebrew Bekkorim (plural)

There are other reasons why I would translate it as this. If one reads all the verses up to verse 28 one can see that Christ is the subject not the church or the dead believers.

When we look at the section of ‘those who have fallen asleep’ this is a verbal noun or participle in Greek, and it is in the perfect! I find this encouraging because the sleep is in Christ the first fruit from the dead. When we die, we will also sleep in Christ and we will rise with Christ. This is our hope. All the mystery religions found it Corinth could not give this promise;

In relation to the mystery religions I found Terri D. Moore’s paper from Dallas theological seminary College very interesting; http://tdarbymoore.com/

Her dissertation on the mystery religions I think may have a lot more bearing on how we understand parts of 1 Corinthians.

I will continue to publish on this page until I hit verse 28 so if you are a subscriber you might not see this new add ons so please every few day have a look. It takes time to write this blog especially as I need to check my facts and make correct judgements. As I see the Bible as sacred scripture I feel it important to comment in a reverential way and give God the glory.

Added 04.01.2021

Verse 21

21 ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δι’ ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ δι’ ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν·

. 21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.

Here is a woody translation for you without verbs; ‘For since by a man death and by a man resurrection from the dead.’

The verb in the English translation was added to get the sense of the meaning! Translators do these types of things to make it easier for us to understand the actual text.

For ‘by a man’ or ‘though a man’. This man, human being is not mentioned yet but we know who he is talking about; Adam from the garden. It is through this man that death came into the world, but we also know that it was by a man, a human being namely Christ that there would be a resurrection from the dead. This is a very important verse because it compares Adam and Christ. They were both the same in that they were human beings, but they had different functions namely;

Through Adam came death
Through Christ came eternal life in a physical body

One man brought death to the human race and the other man eternal life. I know who I want to follow! We don’t have any serious verbs in the comparison here, but we certainly get the meaning

Feel free to visit my other blog https://hasan-godtalk.blogspot.com/

09.01.2021

22 ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται.

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

In this verse we now have the actual names of those who are responsible for life and death. Adam and Christ are mentioned. Hosper gar is best translated as ‘For as’; The word ‘for’ is important because it points to what preceded it. The important point we learned is that both Adam and Christ were fully human.

A theological digression

At the creation as Bavinck would say humanity did not lose their humanity until after the fall but sin changed their humanity somehow. When we think of death it can mean for some non-being but as Bavinck says spiritual death is never non-being but rather a state. He says on page 93, Reformed Ethics, Herman Bavinck. The state of natural humanity is generally called death. This death means a life that is lived in opposition to God. In this natural state we stand corrupted, and we need Jesus Christ by his Holy Spirit to bring new life into us.

To put it bluntly.
Jesus Christ died on the cross so that we may have eternal life, in the future, a new physical eternal life! Looking at the verse again we have two verbs to die and to live. The first verb in regard to Adam is in the present and now, but the second verb that relates to Christ, and us, is in the future! Paul makes sure that we understand our future hope…

10.01.2021

The resurrection and the events around it will follow a particular order;

Christ the First Fruit verse 23
Those who belong to Christ at his second coming verse 23
‘The end’ When Christ hands over the Church (Kingdom) to the Father verse 24
This includes ‘death’ verse 26
When all things have been subjected to the Father
Then the Son will also subject himself to the Father.
Then there is ‘completion’ verse 28 all in all

From my reading of this text we are brought into to be sharers of this divine Trinitarian life of God
So let us recap what we have learned.
Verse 20; Christ has been raised from the dead intro…
Verse 21; through an ordinary person death came into the world so to through an ordinary person life would enter the world once again.
Verse 22; Namely through Adam’s disobedience death came into the world but through the work of Christ all could be brought to life
Verse 23; The order of the resurrection and allied activities start; Christ the first fruit; His Church at his second coming
Verses 24- 26; At the end Christ will reign until all enemies including death are subjected to Christ.
Verses 27 -28; At the end when Christ is in complete control of everything good and bad, he will subject himself to the Father. In Christ we are brought into the Divine Life of the Trinity in the ‘all in all’ perfection.
Let us now look at some background stuff. Psalm 8 is not any ordinary Psalm; For Christians it is a Messianic Psalm and it is about the Son of Man; one of the titles of Jesus Christ the anointed one. This Psalm is seen as a reference to the Kingship of Christ in relationship to YHWH (Tetragrammaton).

Reflection
God’s grace is amazing. Even though Adam fell into sin God still took care of him. We see this through God clothing Adam and Eve and helping Eve with childbirth. God even gave advice to Caine not to murder his brother. Even in the fallen state the Gifts God gave to us through Adam are still with us. Even in the fallen state humanity is still the ‘image of God’. Humanity did not lose their sovereignty over the earth. Although my opinion is perhaps it would have been better for the world and God’s creation that we were not given such a responsibility as we seem to be destroying this beautiful creation. We can clearly see that in the covenant of Work it was impossible for humans to even keep the simplest commands.
Into this situation God had a remedy. God would become a man and be sacrificed so that a way could be opened up for us to gain eternal life through the covenant of faith:

“42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. 47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.” 1 Corinthians 15:42-49

Adam Christ
A living soul A life giving Spirit
Perishable body imperishable body
Sown in dishonour raised in glory
Sown in weakness raised in power
Sown a natural body raised a spiritual body
We deserved to die but God did not give up on us. St Paul gives us a list of what we have gained!

In the creation story ‘evil’ is not mentioned until Genesis 2:9

“Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Genesis 2:9

It perplexed me why there was a tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the first place.  The tree itself, of itself was not evil but good.  However, we know that God gave Adam one command; not to eat its fruit.

He ate the fruit and sin and death came into the world.  We sometimes don’t realize but there are other forces involved in this story.  I am suggesting that Satan spoke through the snake.  Perhaps even king David was enticed by Satan to number the people and the situation ended badly with God’s Angels holding a sword our ready to smite the people in Jerusalem:

“Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to count the people of Israel.” 1 Chronicles 21:1 (From the Christian Standard Bible. ‘Incited’ is a clearer translation than ‘moved’ from the NASB)

Satan even tried to use Peter:

“From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. 22 Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” 23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.”” Matthew 16:21-23

We could also mention Judas who ended up taking his own life. In the workings of Satan, it should be no surprise that one of his tools is to infect the human mind and cause a lot of catastrophes.  It ought to be no surprise for us that Satan used the snake to cause a seed of doubt. 

Is this the origin of evil and sin?

For human beings this is indeed the origin for the human race, but Herman Bavinck contends that before this fall there was another Fall, the fall of the rebellious angels.  The leader of these rebellious angels made his way into Eden with the sole intention of destroying the human race. 

Evil spiritual forces love to see false teachers finding their way into the Church. Satan is mentioned twice in the following text:

“It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” 1 Timothy 3:1-7

This passage gives us clues on how the evil spiritual forces cause destruction.

Bavinck believes that the first Fall happened in heaven but obviously it happened after creation but before the Fall of Adam and Eve:

“On the other hand, it is certain that the fall of the angels preceded that of man. Sin did not break out first on earth, but in heaven, in the immediate vicinity of God, at the foot of His throne. The thought, the desire, the will to resist God first arose in the hearts of angels; perhaps pride was the first sin and thus the beginning and the principle of their fall. In 1 Tim. 3: 6 Paul advises not to immediately elect someone who has only been a member of the congregation for a short time, because then he becomes easily inflated and falls into the devil’s judgment. If, as the Cantonese note says, the judgment of the devil is meant, the judgment into which the devil fell when he exalted himself against God because of his wisdom, then we have a clue here that the devil’s sin began with self-exaltation and pride.” (From Magnalia Dei; Chapter on sin and death)

Reflection

Even if a person rejects the teachings of the Bible, it is a fact that there is rebellion and spiritual corruption in the world. We cannot escape it. The New Testament Apostles and our Lord believed in a literal Adam and Eve and hence I follow the same rule. For Christians sin and spiritual death (corruption) are objective facts. We all carry this baggage and that is why God had to become a man. As Irenaeus may say, through the Second Adam a close relationship with God through grace is open again to us(Recapitulation). By the Holy Spirit through the gift of grace and faith there is no dividing wall separating sinners from eternal separation from God. Next time we will consider what the new Testament says about Christ and the first Adam.

Today I want to look at the creation of Man, Adam and Eve.  I want to begin by looking at the perfection of Adam and Eve that they were perfect.  There was nothing wrong with their intelligence as they were indeed created in the image and likeness of God. John Owen the great Puritan wrote:

“The Natural Theology of Man

Adam was created in the image of God…This means that Adam had the wisdom, justice and holiness of God.  These are moral and rational qualities (Genesis 1. 26-27; Ecclesiastes 7.29; Colossians 3.10; Ephesians 4.23-24) (John Owen; Biblical Theology; chapter 4; soli deo gloria publications)).  “

Before we move on let us look at the text of Scripture:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Genesis 1:26-29

And again later on it says:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. 5 Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. 6 But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. 7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 8 The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. 9 Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:4-9

I want to take the above as proof texts for the creation of Man.  I want to look deeper into the text here to find out what ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ means.  I want to know what it means for God to breathe into Adam and brings him to life.  I want to later look on Adams relationship to the rest of the created beings.  When we have done this, we will have a holistic picture of Adam. 

I will be mainly sticking to the Christological Trinitarian meta-narrative.  This will at times differ from the liberal road which does not accept the possibility of Divine revelation.  For example:

When it says in Genesis ‘Then God said let us make man in our image’ the liberal way of thinking is to naturalize and interpret this as God speaking to the angels.  I have a problem with this because angels were also created beings.

I’m not writing off the hard work liberal theologians have put on the text but I cannot agree with their conclusions. From that point of view, we are dealing with the same facts but seeing God’s Holy Revelation with different spectacles.

My Methodology

• I will look at the text from the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Greek Septuagint
• I will look at key words, parsing of verbs, phrases and how it is interpreted in other parts of the Old Testament
• I will look at various commentaries (Whatever I have to hand)

Once we have done this work, we should have a better understanding of Adam and Eve.

Translation Questions in the Masoretic and Septuagint

It is a well known fact that the Apostles used the Septuagint (LXX). This is why it is good to compare these two wonderful translations. Having read a little further the Orhtodox Churches prefer the LXX to the Masoretic.  Upto the time of the destruction of the Second Temple, Judaism too used the LXX. It is only after the destruction of the Temple that Christianity and Judaism (Rabbinic ‘Pharisaic rooted Judaism’) went their separate ways.  The Masoretic text is important because it keeps us in touch with our Semitic faith roots but the LXX is also important because the Apostles used it most of the time. 

After the groundwork has been done and we go into the Fall we will be looking at for example Saint Paul’s interpretation of the fall. We may gain a deeper understanding of Why Christ is referred to as the second Adam in 1 Corinthians 15.

I wrote on this in the Corinthians course on my web site and I feel this study will give us more insight into God’s precious word and the Word (Logos).

Man as the ‘image of God’

Genesis as we have seen earlier has been a critique of polytheism so you might be shocked to read that Man was made in the image and likeness of God. We can begin by saying tselem (image) is related to tsel (shadow). One blogger on this definition wrote that what an individual does their shadow follows suit.  This does not mean that image relates to form (although it can).  Here the context would be closer to having God’s wisdom and being God’s image bearer. (From; hebrewwordlessons.com/2019/03/24/tselem-being-image-bearers/)

Going a little deeper in the ancient world, the only person who could bear an image of a god was pharaoh or some Akkadian, Babylonian king. Here in this context in Genesis, bearing God’s image has been taken to mean that we all bear the image of God.  No longer did it mean that only one royal person could be God’s image.  For this reason, all human beings in the sight of God are precious.  There has been a democratization of the image of God, and we are all image bearers of God.  We were supposed to rule the world with justice and mercy but after the fall we chose to be ‘gods’ and have destroyed a lot of this beautiful world. (From; forward.com/culture/131691/one-image-to-make-man-and-woman/)

Reflection

Image of God is a seriously important concept. In the ancient world as was said, it was the ruler who was seen as the image of the gods. I once read or saw a video by Rabbi Sacks and he said something to the fact that Genesis here is a critique of the pagan rulers. ‘Image’ is not just for a ruler but for all of us. The image of God was a democratization of the human being. This in the ancient world would have been a revolutionary concept. It is a concept that is just as important today as it was then. Too many premature baby deaths who are the ‘image of God’. Too many politicians not living above disrepute but abusing their power in various ways. For Christians, me included the prototype of the image of God is our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord showed perfect love even death on a cross. Our road should also involve sacrifice by walking in love not looking out for our own selfish ends.

The Importance of Free Time and the Bibles teachings on it.

Introduction

Sometimes we take free time for granted but there is always a danger that quietly without you realizing it companies and political pressure group can start to undermine your freedoms and liberties.  In some jobs one is forced to work at the Weekend.  Other jobs working is necessary such as in hospitals and other services.  Taking these things into account Israel’s covenant with God gave the Sabbath as a gift for the peoples spiritual, mental and physical refreshing.

1. Spending time with God
2. Family time
3. Communal time for the good of society

There are many non-religious and religious views on the Sabbath rest:

• Some people don’t take any break whatsoever.
• Jews take Saturday off.
• Christians are supposed to take Sunday off.
• The Victorians with the Trade Unions were responsible for Saturday and Sunday as days of rest.

If we were to work seven days a Week, we would soon burn out and the mortality rate would shoot up as more people would die younger through illnesses and fatigue due to burn out.   As a society we don’t seem to learn because companies through the back door and modern culture have put wealth in front of wellbeing.  Society seems to have forgotten that not only are we physical beings, but we are also spiritual beings.  Up to now I haven’t brought religion into the discussion so that resting is actually and should be seen as universal phenomenon.  Since the 1970’s with the advent of new shop opening times, restlessness has again entered into our society in the 21^st century. The unions actually played an important role in workers having two days of rest and now it seems to be the case that society again is pushing society to be full of workaholics which has the effect of many early deaths.

Genesis 2; 1-3 is therefore seriously important for any society to have healthy citizens.  Sunday early closing times were relinquished and although it had a religious dimension it was also good for society at large. The onslaught against the Bible recently in the West is growing all the time with many Christians finding themselves in court over their faith. I read this morning on my phone that the Bible itself was banned in many primary schools in Utah.  The world is going crazy and over time certain religious liberties we had are being eroded as other meta narratives push into ‘fertile Christian territory’. 

With the relaxed Sunday shopping laws, it was annoying for a lot of people not being able to buy even small groceries but at least you had time for your families.  Protection for the Lord’s Day is now gone but perhaps the next push is to stop people going to a spiritual house and spend time with the Divine.

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

Parsing of key verbs in Genesis 2. 1-3

Verse 1 

The root verb Cala (pual passive form of the piel)(to complete) which begins at the beginning of the Hebrew sentence has a perfect meaning.

Verse 2

Completed; The same root verb kala (piel active) has a perfect meaning.

Rested; שָׁבַת shabath; a prim. root; to cease, desist, rest, Perfect in meaning.

Verse 3

All the following verbs are perfect or perfect in meaning; blessed, sanctified, rested, created; (preposition accomplished (infinitive))

Comments on these three verses.

The general creation story has now come to an end with the seventh day being sanctified by God.  Here everything is in the perfect.  In English the perfect tense carries the idea of a completely completed action.  Bt the end of the sixth day all plant life, animal life and human life reached their completed number, and everything was perfect. There were no mistakes in God’s creation as everything was good and perfect. Although it says that God rested, it does not mean that God got tired because He does not get tired.  It means that on the seventh day God was full of joy and was enjoying His creation. This resting also has serious implications for the whole of the human race as it has universal implications for how we treat human and animal life. We are expected to Follow God’s pattern and also rest at least one day a Week.

Below are some other reflections from the history of the Church:

Benson Commentary

“Exodus 31:17. On the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed — And, as the work of creation is worthy to be thus commemorated, so the great Creator is worthy to be imitated by a holy rest on the seventh day. The expression, was refreshed, is spoken after the manner of men. It seems to signify that delight and complacency with which God surveyed all his works, and pronounced them good, Genesis 1:31. Of this divine pleasure we may form some faint idea, by comparing it to that solace and refreshment which a benevolent mind enjoys upon bringing into execution some noble and arduous, some generous and well concerted plan for advancing the glory of God and good of mankind.”

Matthew Poole’s Commentary

“It is a sign, a sign of the covenant between us, that I will be their God, and they will be my people; both which depends upon this amongst other duties, and upon this in an eminent degree.

Was refreshed; not as if he had been weary with working, which surely he could not be with speaking a few words, nor can God be weary with any thing, Isaiah 40:28; but it notes the pleasure or delight God took in reflecting upon his works, beholding that every thing he had made was very good, Genesis 1:31.”

(From biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/31-17.htm)(Image taken from wikipeadia)

The Sabbath in the Life of Israel and then the Church

The Sabbath has universal meaning, but it also has particular meaning for Israel and the Church:

• It is found in the 10 Commandments, the constitution of Israel.
• The Sabbath is respected by the Christian Church although some theological confusion is found between the original Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.

Exodus 20.8-11

 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore, the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy. Exodus 20:8-11

Then later in the same book it says;

16 So the sons of Israel shall observe the sabbath, to celebrate the sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant.’ 17 It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labor, and was refreshed.”

18 When He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God. Exodus 31:16-18

Take special notice of verse 17;  It is a sign between Me and the sons of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, but on the seventh day He ceased from labour, and was refreshed.” Exodus 31:17

The Sabbath is a covenant with Israel for all generations between the Lord and his people.  Verse 17 is an amazing verse because it says that God was refreshed.  In the same way God wants his people to be refreshed.  For Christians the Sabbath took on a new meaning with the death and resurrection of Jesus.  Under the new covenant Christians are supposed to keep Sunday Holy.  This does not mean that the Sabbath was abrogated (overturned as a Commandment). 

What more can be said about the relationship between the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath.  Firstly the Sabbath is made up of two parts:

• Moral
• Ceremonial

For some only the ceremonial aspect is not needed but the moral aspect stays. 

On the seventh day God was refreshed and enjoyed His Creation.  We are invited to also have recreational spiritual time.  One thing is certain though that the Lord’s day is on a Sunday and from Bavincks quotation he says that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath instituted by the Apostles:

“As it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him:a which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week,b which in Scripture is called the Lord’s day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath day”

Exod 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7. • b. Gen 2:2-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2. • c. Rev 1:10. • d. Exod 20:8, 10 with Mat 5:17-18. Taken from (apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/chapter-21/). (image taken from wikipedia)

Reflection

For many Christians in the UK the Sabbath is seen as a Sunday not a Saturday for the reasons above and it is ingrained into British society.  We have seen that even God was refreshed on the seventh day.  This are to follow the Lord’s pattern and celebrate the new creation in the work of Christ.  There is no set view on this in the Churches but it is obvious that the Apostles instituted Sunday as the new Sabbath.  Perhaps this happened because of the persecution that Christians faced in the Early Church.  I don’t know the answer to this yet. 

Simple Bibliography

• Reformed Ethics; Herman Bavinck; edited by John Bolt;Baker Academic; Chapter 17.
• Bible Hub.
• Olive Tree Bible App
• Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
• apuritansmind.com

These are some books I have considered.  I have also watched and read videos by Rabbi Sacks. Some of my views are from memory.