MetaTaPhysika

Jan 7, 2014

A LIVING FAITH FOR A VIBRANT MIND

Notice for Upcoming Blog Series: “A LIVING FAITH FOR A VIBRANT MIND”

Beginning Monday, I will be hosting a blog series on the relationship between the intellectual and spiritual lives of Christian thinkers, entitled, “A Living Faith for a Vibrant Mind.” I’ve assembled a panel of expert contributors, and personal friends, who will be writing out of their own backgrounds and professional/academic disciplines.

After the first article entitled, “Attention Christian Intellectuals: 10 Indicators You Might Apostatize in 2014” appearing on Monday (1/13/14), essays will be uploaded each Monday for a number of weeks.

The second article will be contributed by Michael Cantrell (Ph.D., philosophy, Baylor; J.D., Bowen School of Law, UALR), a specialist in Kierkegaard, moral philosophy, and law, who will write about his journey into and conversion out of open theism. His article is entitled, “Why I Am Not (Any Longer) An Open Theist: How Scripture, Suffering, and Kierkegaard Rocked My World.”

The third article will be contributed by Andy Snider (Th.D., systematic theology, The Master’s Seminary), a specialist in systematic theology and theology of worship. His article will be entitled, “Intellect, Worship, and the Irreducible Complexity of the Christian Life.”

The fourth article will be contributed by David Nelson (M.D. Obstetrics & Gynecology, UAMS) and will deal with the way in which physical/vocational/academic/intellectual, etc. pressures can negatively impact one's spiritual vitality. It is entitled, "Too Much of a Good Thing: Maintaining Balance in Grad/Post-grad Programs and Busy Schedules." David is a practicing physician, President of the Pope County Medical Society, and Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at St. Mary’s Hospital in Russellville, Arkansas.

There may be additional articles depending on the scheduling of potential contributors. I hope to see you back here on Monday!

Jan 6, 2014

Codex L: Daily Commentary and Photo-texts of the Leningrad Codex

Codex Leningradensis is the oldest complete Hebrew Bible. Additionally, it is the primary source text for the Hebrew Bibles used by scholars and which provides the basis of our OT translations. As a Biblical Hebrew professor, I'm delighted to be able to work through my own copy (facsimile edition) at my leisure, and to use it in my personal research and teaching. Like others, I'm deeply grateful to Eerdmans and Brill publishers for undertaking this project and making it available. Unfortunately, but understandably, it is very expensive to acquire a personal copy, so it is relatively inaccessible. However, I encourage all theological libraries to obtain a copy for use by their faculty and students. To highlight the value of Codex L, I’ve provided a list of some photo-texts I have worked through with my students (for the complete list, see here, but these are random and you'll see a few pics of other things, too).

I'm currently cataloging these photo-texts, along with other related texts, below for my students and others interested in OT studies. Feel free to peruse these, or if you are interested in receiving daily pic.s (tweets) of texts gradually working through the OT, with commentary on textual and paratextual elements, as well interpretations/explanations of the Masorah Parvah, textual apparatus, and thoughts from key issues related to the ancients witnesses, see here.

These have at times corresponded to daily tweets of select passages from the LXX (Greek OT) from @ibexdr, see here. Note: Codex L pics. are taken from The Leningrad Codex, facsimile edition, Wm B. Eerdmans and Brill Academics Publishers; you may find it here, be sure to see my review as well.

2 Sam 11:1;

(Masorah Parva in right margin)

A. Codex L Carpet Page
B. Isaiah 40:3 (LXX; Codex L; MT Diagrammed; HNT, Mark 1:3; Codex A Mark 1:3);
C. Jonah

D. Psalm 145 (Reconstructed in Paleo-Hebrew)
E. Ruth

F. Samuel

2 Samuel 11:1ff 2 Samuel 12:5-7 2 Samuel 12:22, 23 (Note: photo-text is mislabeled) 2 Samuel 12:11b-15 (see here for diagram)

Dec 27, 2013

Who was Isaiah’s Messiah?: Part II

A number of years ago I watched a TV program the plot of which involved an angel who offered a group of people the opportunity to witness a miracle. As I recall, this offer was to prove God’s love. It was memorable, because one by one, each person refused the offer. I remember my sense of incredulity as I thought, “No one would actually refuse such an offer.” But then, I remembered: 1.) this is always the attitude of the God hater (though he may be intrigued by the novelty and may even feign genuine interest); and 2.) there are biblical instances of this, and one instance in particular produced one of the most fantastic prophecies ever given.

During the reign of King Ahaz, the Arameans were threatening to overthrow Judah with the result that the governing officials were terrified. At God’s commissioning, Isaiah the prophet approached the King and promised him that the overthrow would not occur and even offered Ahaz the privilege of receiving a miraculous sign of his choice, “as high as heaven or as deep as sheol” as confirmation. Astonishingly, King Ahaz refused the offer, “resolved to persist in his unbelief…yet he pretends a pious reason: I will not tempt the Lord; as if it would be a tempting of God to do that which God himself invited and directed him to do. Note, A secret disaffection to God is often disguised with the specious colours of respect to him; and those who are resolved that they will not trust God yet pretend that they will not tempt him” (Matthew Henry). The result—Isaiah issued a prophecy containing a sign astounding in scope. That prophecy and sign are found in Isa 7:14ff.:

לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל

“Therefore, the Lord Himself will give a sign to you, ‘Behold, a virgin will conceive and bear a son, and she will call his name, Immanu-el’”

Leningrad Codex Facsimile featuring Isaiah 7:14 (left page, rt. column, begins 9th line up and spans several lines).
Translation: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign; behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will call his name, ‘Immanuel’ [God with us]."

A couple of things to note:

1.) The sign is given directly by the Lord, i.e. “the Lord Himself.”

2.) In order for the “sign” to be meaningful, and to connect to the extraordinary proposition made by the prophet, i.e. high as heaven or deep as Sheol, something extraordinary like virginal conception would be required. The Jewish understanding of this is reflected in the LXX rendering of almah (עַלְמָה) as parthenos (παρθένος), the meaning of which is unquestionably that of "virgin."

3.) The Hebrew term translated “virgin” here (עַלְמָה), is used in the OT to refer to: young, sexually mature girls who are marriageable, but not yet married, i.e. virginal maidens, including: Rebecca (Gen 24:43); Moses’ sister (Ex. 2:8); to young girls playing tambourines (Ps 68:25); generic reference to young girls enamored with their mistress (Songs 1:3; see also 6:8). A related form is used to refer to the disgrace of having given up one's virginal purity (Is 54:4); another form is used to refer to “youthful vigor,” capturing the attendant freshness that goes along with this time of life (Cf. Jb. 20:11, 33:25; Ps 89:45).

4.) The term/title “Immanuel” is constituted/composed of three key terms: The preposition עם, (with), plus pronoun נו (us), and the term for God, אֵל ., e.g. עִמָּנוּ אֵל.

5.) It is interesting to note that there is no record of anyone being named or titled this ("Immanuel") anywhere in the Bible. However, Matt 1:23 presents this as being fulfilled in reference to Mary and Jesus (see below), as well as to others party to the events surrounding His birth.

6.) There is one Hebrew term plus conjunction for the translation, “she will call.” It is third person feminine singular, וְקָרָאת. The subject of the verb is the virgin who will give birth to this son. She will know who He is and refer to Him as such. This seems appropriate for Mary’s actions towards her Son throughout the Gospel narratives and seems to add insight into her wonder at the statement by the shepherds. The text states that, “And all who heard it wondered at the things which were told them by the shepherds. ¹⁹ But Mary treasured up all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:18,19). We have insight into Mary’s heart here. She knew the origin of her Son, and with a level of confidence, that was exclusive to her.

7.) It is also interesting that my Modern Hebrew New Testament uses the Hebrew term עַלְמָה (almah) as a reference to Mary, and qualifies this by the designation of בְּתוּלָה, (virgin) i.e. a maiden who, specifically, is a virgin. This is likely a necessity since in our time/culture, maidens are not necessarily virgins! However, to discover your new wife to not be a virgin in OT times was cause for the rejection of the wife, and a false charge of her having been deflowered prior to the marriage was a serious legal matter (Deut. 22:14ff).

In conclusion, here are a few things to note:
First, during a time of imminent national annihilation, God promised that the calamity would not immediately end in doom. Further, within 65 years the threatening lands would be destroyed. Worse, however, is that the Northern Kingdom of Israel would be defeated by Assyria. This occurred in 721 BC.

Second, God promised that: 1.) the nation would not be completely destroyed, and, 2.) at some distant time yet future, there would be a baby supernaturally born who would represent God’s physical presence with His people and would be called Immanuel by His mother. (Note: there is a OT textual variant here that reads as an infinitive and lacks the pronoun; the NT quote of this v. is from a variant allowing the plural translation, cf. Matt 1:23). Here is an example of a different form of the verb from the 5th cent. Bezae, which follows the LXX reading:

Codex Bezae variant of "kalew"

Third, this child, Immanuel, would be supernaturally conceived having no human Father, and His birth would be orchestrated by God as stated in Isa 7:14. This means that He would be a supernatural representative of God’s presence with His people; supernaturally promised, supernaturally conceived, and given to a supernaturally preserved nation which would be ransacked in the intermediate years, (cf. Isa. 8:8), but eventually restored. There would come a time, though, when something extraordinary would occur in Galilee of the Gentiles (Isa. 9:1; Matt 2:22; 3:13). The people would “see a great light” (9:2) who would be a source of great joy for His people (9:3). He would ultimately free His captive people (9:4). Isaiah further says of Immanuel, that “…a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ⁷ There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness From then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this (Isa 9:6,7 NAS). Thus, this Immanuel is attributed with deity and all the other attributes described above and discussed in my description of Isa 9:6,7.

Additional notes:

1.) Regarding the sign to the king, in my view, the king never saw the fulfillment of the sign. The sign was in part a judgment on him. Messiah was God's view of what a king really should be, which is part of why He is given such grand names/titles--quite a contrast to the failure of the king receiving the msg. The contrast b/t him and the future Messiah highlighted his failures. Furthermore, it contained the idea that if you're not going to ask for a sign, I'll give a sign of my choosing--directed not merely to you (i.e. b/c of your refusal, you won’t directly receive it), but to the nation, and it is this...", etc. The eventual fulfillment of the sign shows the scope of God's redemptive plan--it is an ongoing plan, bigger than any single period of time, or individuals, and reveals His sovereign unfolding of redemptive history.

2.) Dual fulfillment of prophecies? I accept dual fulfillment of prophecy on a case by case basis but only when the text makes it clear that such an interpretation is warranted. E.g. Hosea 11:1 when clarified by Matt 2:15

Dec 17, 2013

What in the World is the World?: A Brief Contrast Between Materialist and Biblical Perspectives

What is the world? Where did it come from? Is it impersonal and the product of chance? What are human beings and what is their place in the world? These and other questions are at the forefront of worldview discussions and will be briefly considered below with extended attention given to the biblical perspective.

The Materialist Picture

The dominant competitor to a biblical cosmology in contemporary western culture is increasingly that of inconsistent materialism. It is inconsistent, because many osmose an evolutionary cosmology from the surrounding culture, yet layer it with personalist ideas of immaterial entities including spirits, deities, and even aliens. This sort of approach allows for the desired sense of autonomy without the bleakness of a purely materialistic outlook. Yet, despite its inconsistency, or coldness, materialism or metaphysical evolutionism, continues to gain momentum.

In a modern materialistic cosmology, “world” is used to describe the physical planet, i.e. earth, or a physicalist conception of reality, or of the earth’s collective inhabitants with emphasis on human beings. It is dominantly understood to be the habitation on/in which living organisms including human beings are the result of chance generated biological evolution. These live in a world and larger universe that basically reduce to matter, energy, and motion, have no goal, and will eventually loose sufficient energy for life to exist. It is speculated that the present expansion of the cosmos will either come to a stop and then begin retracting until it and the world in it conclude in a giant “crunch” exterminating all life as we know it; or, it will simply die a heat death and become cold and inert, again, resulting in the extinction of life as we know it (Poythress, p. 28). The picture painted by modern materialism of the world and its accidental inhabitants is cold, bleak, and foreboding. Despite protests to the contrary, this outlook seems to naturally render social, judicial, diplomatic, environmental, etc. concerns as temporary, purely utilitarian, and ultimately meaningless. In contrast, however is the biblical perspective.

The Biblical Picture

Scripture presents a markedly different view of cosmology where the ontological world situated in the vast universe is the primary theatre of God’s self expression. However, the biblical presentation of the world is multifaceted and is not limited to the mere physical.

Ontological

The most common OT term translated “earth,” or “land,” is erets (אֶ֫רֶץ), and often denotes the whole earth, all the inhabitants of the earth, or even the entire cosmos when paired with its familiar polar opposite, shamayim (שָׁמַ֫יִם), “heavens” (Gen 1:1; Deut. 10:14). However, the primary OT word used to identify the world in a topographical, global, or cosmological sense, and which most closely overlaps with the English term “world,” is the word tevel תֵּבֵל (Ps. 19:5; 96:10). This term is used alone or paired with erets to indicate the world in a more specific cosmological sense (Ps 19:4; 90:2; 1 Sam 2:8; Na. 1:5).

In such usages God is pictured as the infinite self-existent sovereign reigning over His finite creation, which He created ex nihilo (cf. αἰών Heb 11:3). The magnificence and singularity of the world’s design is said to give unceasing testimony to the Creator’s majesty (cf. Ps. 19:1-7 for usages of shamayim, erets, and tevel together; Ps 104). The world is the sphere in which God’s own attributes are manifested powerfully and clearly through His actions and interactions with His creation (cf. Rom 1:20 κόσμος,). This is most notably so in the fulfillment of His unfolding plan of redemption in the world, over eons or world’s ages, i.e. throughout history (Heb. 1:2 uses αἰών for “world” to express the world’s ages, which came into being by Christ). All of God’s created works have meaning and significance as they act within the framework of God’s design and plan in world events so that even the most mundane activities have transcendental value (1 Cor. 10:31). In other words, the universe and particularly the world within it as presented in Scripture is one charged with the grandeur and glory of God, and in which human beings have special value as creations bearing His image (Gen. 1:26; Ps 8:5) and special objects of His interest (Heb. 2:16; Rom 8:38, 39). However, the present world including the heavens and earth are not as originally created due to the impact of sin, and will finally be done away with and replaced at some point in the eschatological future (1 John 2:17; 2:8; 2 Pet 3:7, 10, 11; Rev. 21:1, 2).

Spiritual

In the NT, there are several key terms used to communicate the idea of “world,” but the most important is cosmos (κόσμος). This term may be used: 1.) as a reference to the whole earth in a global or planetary sense (Acts 17:24, John 11:9); 2.) to refer to the sum total of all the Earth’s inhabitants (Mark 16:15; οἰκουμένη is used in a similar sense, cf. Matt 24:14, Rev. 12:9, and Luke 2:1 for the area under Roman rule) or material goods (Matt 16:26); 3.) metaphorically as an all inclusive category (James 3:6); 4.) morally & theologically as a reference to the entire world-system in contrast to the Kingdom of God.

This last use of “world” receives significant attention in the NT. It is used as a reference to the diametrical opposition between: the world-system finitely ruled by Satan and his forces versus the Kingdom of God, the flesh versus the spirit, unbelief versus belief, or spiritual foolishness versus spiritual wisdom (Cf. John 17:14, 16, 25; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17 κόσμος; Rom 12:1,2 employs αἰών; cf. Frame, CVT, p. 188). Eph. 6:12 uses a variation of cosmos (cosmokratoras, κοσμοκράτορας) to describe the dark “world forces” against which the believer battles. In this sense, the believer is said to be in the world, but not of the world and is strongly exhorted to do the will of God while shunning worldliness, which is summed up as “the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life” (John 2:16). Thus, it is against the world, against immaterial evil forces and principles external to himself that the believer battles in this world. However, his greatest battle is against the influence of worldliness which manifests in the spiritually hostile desires of his own corrupt flesh (Rom. 7:24), until like the world, he also is made new (1 Cor. 15:42-55).

References

Frame, John M. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R

Publishing, 1995.

Orr, James. “World.” In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr,

4:3106. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996.

Poythress, James. Inerrancy and Worldivew. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012.

Dec 9, 2013

Who was Isaiah’s Messiah?: Part I

In biblical exegesis, the most dangerous of the exegetical tools is lexical analysis, also known as word study. This is because there are a variety of factors that must be taken into consideration in order for the study to produce accurate results, and Bible students often fail in accounting for the most relevant of these considerations. One area where this tool is most valuable, however, is in connection to Hebrew names, especially when clear emphasis is placed on this in the context.

Hebrew names are typically assigned because of the combined meaning of their constituent parts.

They are assigned based on some physical reality (Adam was so named because he came from the adamah, ground), spiritual reality (Noah was so named because his name means “rest”), or an abstract concept such as the perceived circumstances of the child’s conception/birth, values of the parent, occasions, locations, perceived character, etc. Because of this, Hebrew names carry special significance in the Bible. In Gen. 2:19, Adam was given the task of naming the animals, apparently based on his perception of their characteristics, and God remained nearby to watch and enjoy this process.

In Isaiah 9:6 (9:5 in Hebrew), we have one of the most dramatic occasions of name giving in the Bible. Here, Isaiah associates the names and titles of the future Messiah with the characteristics of Messiah and his reign. I have pasted in the Hebrew verse and tagged the names so that you can see the correspondence of Hebrew and English. Here’s what we know:

^aכִּי־יֶ֣לֶד יֻלַּד־לָ֗נוּ בֵּ֚ן נִתַּן־לָ֔נוּa bוַתְּהִ֥י הַמִּשְׂרָ֖ה עַל־שִׁכְמ֑וֹb וַיִּקְרָ֙א שְׁמ֜וֹ cפֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙c dאֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹרd eאֲבִיעַ֖דe fשַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹםf׃

a-a A special child will be given at some point yet future

b-b He will singularly bear the load of governmental rule

Even more, He will possess extraordinary, descriptive names, which are:

c-c Wonderful Counselor (פֶּ֠לֶא יוֹעֵץ֙ = pe’la yo-ates). The term translated “wonderful” is the term word used for supernatural wonders as in the miracles produced by God’s prophets. The term “counselor” likely points to His kingly role, i.e. as the appointed ruler who dispenses counsel to the nation. E.g. He will be a counselor with supernatural capacity to dispense counsel. (Note: the KJV strays from the Hebrew accents here and divides this name into two.)

d-d Mighty God (אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר = el gibor). This name/title is remarkable, because it: 1.) ascribes strength to God, but then, 2.) assigns the title of God to a man! This is highly exceptional because of the great emphasis the OT places on distinguishing God from all others, particularly humans.

e-e Everlasting Father (אֲבִיעַ֖ד = avi-ad). This name is also remarkable because it identifies Messiah as a Father (av = father), who is immortal (ad = everlasting), though possesses or has possessed mortality (cf. a-a above).

f-f Prince of Peace (שַׂר־שָׁלֽוֹם = Sar-shalom). This name points to: 1.) the royal lineage of Messiah, i.e. He is a prince (שַׂר = Sar) , as well as, 2.) the character of His rule, i.e. He effectively establishes peace (שָׁלֽוֹם = shalom).

Furthermore, according to v. 9:7, 1.) His government will increase (succeed in size, scope, extent?), without end, and will be characterized by peace; 2.) will be in the Messianic line fulfilling the Davidic covenant; 3.) will be a permanently established Messianic reign; 4.) will eternally be characterized by godly virtues, and 5.) will have been directly established by God.

Nov 10, 2013

ORIGIN OF THE WORLD: A Biblical Perspective

The Biblical Perspective: Significance

The issue of the origin of the World, and by extension the origin of the Cosmos, is one of the most hotly debated questions of all time, as well as one of the most important. The biblical account of the origin of the World sets apart the biblical Creator from all other conceptions of God in the Ancient Near East (hereafter ANE) as well as in virtually all thought up to the present. It accounts for the major philosophical questions in a way that no other religious or philosophical outlook is able to do. However, the issue is controversial primarily because it immediately and necessarily relates to the Creator-creature distinction and relationship. For example, if someone has created, i.e. authored me that suggests that someone has authority over me. Conversely, if no one authored me, then no one has authority over me and I can live any way I please. Closely connected questions include those such as, “Why am I here?” “Where did I come from?” “What is the meaning of life?” “Why is there something rather than nothing?” etc.

The Biblical Perspective: Uniqueness

The primary biblical text for considering the origin of the world is Genesis 1. It is important to note, as seen here, that the biblical depiction of creation demonstrates a concern not to describe the mechanics of creation, but to provide the basis for the Creator-creature distinction. This is a theme that surfaces throughout the Bible and which sets biblical religion dramatically apart from competitors, except where later borrowed from the biblical narrative (cf. Gen 14:19, 20; Deut. 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27; Isa 44:6, 8; Jer 33:25,26; Jonah 1:9; Neh 9:6; Rom. 1:18-32; Acts 17:22-31; Rev. 4:11).

Many Christian thinkers, such as Herman Bavinck, the presuppositionalist school of apologists, et al. have compared biblical cosmology to the preponderance of competing cosmologies including those of the ANE, ancient Greek philosophy, various forms of mysticism, modern western philosophy, modern cults and world religions, various physicalist proposals, etc. and have convincingly demonstrated that other alternatives are inadequate on philosophical grounds (Bavinck, In the Beginning, p. 23-39; cf. Sire, The Universe Next Door).

The biblical explanation of the origin of the World is crucial, for, as noted by Bavinck, “The doctrine of creation, affirming the distinction between the Creator and his creature, is the starting point of true religion. There is no existence apart from God, and the Creator can only be known truly through revelation” (Bavinck, In The Beginning, 23). This last thought also affirms the importance of the Creator’s self revelation via special revelation and as found in the Bible.

The Biblical Perspective: Explained

In the opening chapter of the Bible, the Creator is depicted as One who by virtue of His nature and creative work is the metaphysical precondition of creation, that is, creation is dependent upon Him—He represents Ultimate reality and is the source of derivative, i.e. created reality. He is also presented as one who is not only transcendent (beyond creation), but is imminent (involved with His creation), and personal, especially as He is seen thinking, speaking, loving, interacting with Himself (cf. Gen. 1:26) as well as with His creation.[1] As the source of the Cosmos, He is infinitely wise necessarily possessing comprehensive knowledge of that which He has created, and so is the ultimate source and determiner of truth and knowledge. He is also the source and determiner of good as one who delighted to create that which was good and did so according to His own standard of goodness. That which is good is so because of its design, pronouncement, and reflection of the goodness of the Creator (the English term “good” is derived from the term “God,” i.e. to be good is to be like God). In this way, the biblical account of the origin of the World relates to the three main components of all worldviews: reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology) and ethics.

So, among other things, the Bible describes God as the ontological basis of the World’s origin, the prerogative/purpose behind the World’s origin, the determiner of the order of the World’s creation, the pronouncer of the ethical verdict on the creation, and mankind’s place in the World.

Here are some additional observations:

In considering the biblical description of the origin of the World, it is important to note that it does not argue for God’s existence, rather it assumes it as the necessary precondition for the existence of all else. God’s will “is the source of all substance and power in the created universe. It is comprehensive. Everything is derived from it” (Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 247). Hence, Rev. 4:11, ‘Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory, and honor, and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created’” (translation mine).

Verse 1 of the Bible begins by presenting the above distinction—it describes two realties—absolute reality, i.e. God, and derivative reality, i.e. creation. Initially creation was innovative—God created out of nothing, i.e. ex nihilo and integrative, that is God formed from what He created. This is in contrast to processes currently seen—His work of conservation and disintegration (Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, 80-81.)

It has been well noted that Verse 1:1 of Genesis provides what are the traditional 5 Categories of Science: In the beginning (time); God (force) created (action/motion); heavens (space); earth (matter), all based on God as creation’s necessary precondition (categories originally articulated by Spencer in First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy, p. 169; for an example of popular exposition of this idea, see MacArthur, The Battle for the Beginning, p. 41).

Note that God’s creative actions as presented in Genesis 1:1 mark the ultimate reference point for spatio-temporal reality, i.e. the spacetime Universe. This shows both the subordination of all things to God, as well as His ultimacy, priority, originality and self-existence (aseity).

The objects of God’s creative work are summarized as “heavens and earth.” Together, the Hebrew words (שָׁמַ֫יִם and אֶ֫רֶץ) form a classic Hebrew word pair representing the totality of all creation with parallels in the ANE (some describe this as a merismatic word pair, i.e. one that covers everything from A-Z, cf. Watson, pp. 132; 321-23). In the ANE, cosmology was typically formulated as either "heavens and earth," or "heavens, earth, sea." The point of Gen. 1:1 is that the origin of the world, in fact the origin of all created things, have their beginning with God.

[The “Origin of the World” is also the name of a work dealing with creation and eschatology in the Nag Hammadi library, and which provides a fanciful Gnostic reinterpretation of the biblical narrative.]

Bibliography

Bavinck, Herman. In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology. Ed. by John Bolt. Trans.by John Vriend. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1999.
Frame, John M. Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P& R Publishing, 1995.
MacArthur, John. The Battle for the Beginning. Nashville, Tenn: WPublishing, 2001.
Henry Morris, The Genesis Record. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1976.
Spencer, Herbert. First Principles: A System of Synthetic Philosophy. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882, fourth edition.
Van Til, Cornelius. An Introduction to Systematic Theology. New Jersey, Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974.
Watson, Wilfred G.E. Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 26. Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1986.

[1] This issue of the Absolute personality of God is a distinctively Christian idea that sets Christianity apart as unique. “Some non-Christian systems (as the polytheistic religions and modern philosophical ‘personalisms’) posit personal gods of one kind or another, but those gods are not absolute in the sense of being self-contained. Other non-Christian systems accept absolute realities of various kinds, but those absolutes are not personal. Only in biblical teaching are absoluteness and personality combined in the Supreme Being” (John Frame, CVT, p. 58).

Nov 6, 2013

Hebrew Reading, Outline, and Commentary on Ecc. 1:1-11

Solomon’s Argument that all is Vanity

By R. Brian Rickett

Outline:

I. Superscription (v.1)

II. The Argument that all is Vanity (2-11)

A. The Problem Stated (2, 3)

1. The Problem Exclaimed—all is vanity (v. 2)

2. The Problem Explained—man’s accomplishments are temporal (v. 3)

B. The Problem Illustrated by Nature (4-7)

1. The cycles of generations—transitory yet immutable (v. 4)

2. The cycles of the sun—transitory yet immutable (v.5)

3. The cycles the wind—transitory yet immutable (v. 6)

4. The cycles of the rivers—transitory yet immutable (v. 7)

C. The Problem Illustrated by Experience (8-11)

1. The frustration of human inquiry (v. 8)

2. The insignificance of accomplishment (v. 9)

3. The finitude of knowledge (v. 10)

4. The impermanence of legacy (v. 11)

Structure

In verses 2-11, Solomon introduces the book of Ecclesiastes with a 10 verse poem arguing that life from an “under the sun perspective” (v. 3) is absolute futility. The poem may be divided into three sections. The introductory section is comprised of vv. 2, 3, and then two equal stanzas of four verses each comprise the body of the poem for a total of 10 verses.

In the first introductory verse (v. 2), Solomon exclaims the problem that all is vanity. In verse 3, he then identifies the reason for his exclamation—due to the virtual immutability of creation, including the unceasing passing of generations, all of life’s accomplishments are utterly futile, from an “under the sun perspective.” In verses 4-7 (Stanza 1), he illustrates the problem of vanity from nature and in verses 8-11 (Stanza 2) he illustrates the problem of vanity from human experience.

In the first stanza, Qoheleth demonstrates by analogy that the transitory yet virtually immutable nature of the solar cycles, cyclical climatic patterns, and movement of streams represents the passing of time, which erases all individual significance.[1] In Stanza 2, Qoheleth builds on in his argument that because of passing of generations and inherent transient, finite nature of man, the physical individual along with his temporal, i.e. under the sun accomplishments are annihilated by the passing of time. Citing common experience, Qoheleth shows that the individual has an utter lack of significance, from an under the sun perspective. He shows the frustration of human inquiry (v. 8), the immutability of existence (v. 9), the finitude of knowledge (v. 10), and the impermanence of legacy (v. 11).

[The above is an excerpt from my in progress commentary. For the answer to the above problem, see Ecclesiates 12:13]

Note: Ecc. 1:1-11 contains an unusual amount of assonance that corresponds to the message of the poem. Listen to the reading here and compare the sound with the message of the poem as identified in the above outline.

[1] It’s helpful to recall that weather patterns producing the constant flow of rivers are also cyclical. Streams flow into the seas, water evaporates from the oceans producing clouds which produce rain which feed rivers and streams.