Origins of Man

Nice piece, Aurora. Couldn't agree more that the creation accounts in Gen. 1 & 2 compliment one another.

I'm told that in Gen. 1 the word for God is Elohim but in Gen. 2 the word for God is Yahweh. I'm also told that understanding the Hebrew word "shevah", which means "to swear an oath" or "to seven oneself", really gives one a wonderful view 'out that window' of the creation account.

Looking forward to following along here. Take care.

It is true that Elohim is used in Chapter 1 and Yahweh in Chapter 2, which causes some controversy in some circles. As I am not a Hebrew scholar, I post this from the NET Bible, translated and annotated by actual Hebrew scholars.

"Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (Lord) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis). Gen 1:1–2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh (Lord) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis. For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-54; and Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 111-34."

I couldn't find anything on Shevah; Sheva means "Jehovah contends" and is the name of David's scribe and the son of Caleb by his concubine -- but then I looked up "to swear an oath." From "shabah" it means:

1) to swear, adjure 1a) (Qal) sworn (participle) 1b) (Niphal) 1b1) to swear, take an oath 1b2) to swear (of Jehovah by Himself) 1b3) to curse 1c) (Hiphil) 1c1) to cause to take an oath 1c2) to adjure

That certainly conjures up the many covenants found in Genesis.

I think the different names may reflect a different relationship. Elohim is the plural for God, so basically, the Godhead. There's something a little remote and lofty about that -- like when we say "the One True God, Creator of the Universe." In Chapter 2, God gets personal. He creates mankind. Yahweh, which is the covenantal name that Moses was most familiar with, seems much more intimate.

I agree with you. In Gen. 1, God is Elohim, Master, Lord, God the Creator, a kind of terrifying deity. But by the end of Gen. 1, Elohim has created man "in His image and likeness". Looking ahead a few chapters to Seth, the term "he became the father of a son in his own likeness, after his image" means to father a child. By the end of Gen. 1 there is the 7th day where God seven-ed Himself to His creation.

I'm reading where many think the number 7 in Scripture is the perfect number but in reality it's the number of covenant. Have you come across this anywhere?

Thanks for recent comments.

What is the purpose of discipline and what are the consequences of its neglect?

I'm studyind a Scripture scholar who studied both Hebrew and Greek. He says "shevah" is a Hebrew word which means "to swear an oath" or "to seven oneself". To swear an oath in Hebrew is to make a covenant, but the verb for that action is based upon the noun for the number seven (7). He says there is a connection between the Hebrew oath swearing which creates a covenant between people and the seventh day of creation when God "seven's" Himself with His creation. In ancient Israel, covenants created families. There is no Hebrew word for family, but "covenant" conveys the idea of kinship, loyalty, love, and the obligations which are involved in it.

His argument is like this: when Israelites heard the story of God creating in 6 days and then "seven-ing" Himself by blessing the seventh day, they heard the word for making covenant over and over again, as the writer of Genesis repeated "the seventh day" and not the word for Sabbath. Covenants were family bonds with someone other than family. God's rest and seven-ing Himself is a formation of Covenant. God is thus not just Lord and Master of the Universe, but also Father. Creatures in His creation are not just slaves, servants, or property, they are sons and daughters of God.

Sorry for the long post, Aurora.

The purpose of church discipline is to bring Christians back to a place of righteousness. A man like George Tiller is highly unlikely to be a Christian, so church discipline in the form of disfellowship would be ineffective with someone like him.

First, I can't speak for church discipline in a Unitarian "church". Not really sure you can expect something so strict from Unitarians who basically believe that everybody is saved just because they are alive. But, I can speak for my church and many of my friends who attend other churches.

Who is it that needs to hear the gospel? Christians? Well, it may edify us, but honestly, we've already heard the gospel if we have accepted the Lord. Those who need to hear the gospel are those who are not Christians, many of whom are living lifestyles of sin. Homosexuals, alcoholics, drug addicts, people living together without benefit of marriage, etc. Tiller was such a sinner. He never would have stopped his abortion activities without salvation's transforming work, but how would he be saved unless he heard the gospel? I doubt if the church he was going to preaches the gospel -- my experience with Unitarians is that they don't -- but that's not the point. When churches close their doors against sinners like some exclusive club to keep the "riff-raff" out, we fail in our commission to take the gospel to the world. We become the choir and we sing only to ourselves and that is utterly different from what God has required from us.

Now there is a risk that some churches have fallen into. In trying to reach out to sinners with the gospel, they erode the message. We must be careful never to do that. My church has been involved in ministries to sinners for a long time, but what we've never done is cease to preach the message of "repentence needed". It is my experience, that sinners who come to the Lord knowing that repentence is required very quickly give up their favorite sins. We've never compromised on calling a sin a sin and a sinner a sinner, while at the same time trying to put forth the message that God loves sinners who repent. We've had a lot of reprobates come to the Lord over the years -- Thai prostitutes, ex-jailbirds, recovering addicts and alcoholics, you name it.

Sinners are the ones who need to hear the gospel, but if we slam the church doors in their face and say "you can't come in until you're right with God", then where are they going to hear the gospel? If we are so fixated on keeping the church sinner-free that we prevent people from hearing the gospel, then we're failing the Great Commission.

Now the issue of unsaved sinners in the church is an entirely different issue from saved sinners in the church.

In 1Corinthians, Paul addressed a saved sinner and said give him the opportunity to repent, but if he doesn't, disfellowship him. That is an appropriate response to unrepentant saved sinners. They already have the Holy Spirit and the gospel message to work on them outside of the fellowship. They're simply choosing to ignore the Lord's clear commands. That's an utterly different scenario than someone who doesn't know Christ. That one doesn't have the Holy Spirit, which is why they need us. They need to be in church, but the saved sinner does not. Being disfellowshipped sends the stern message that Christians may not continue to live in their sin. As they glower at the closed church doors, the Holy Spirit is there to prick their conscience and turn them toward repentance.

Utterly a different scenario!

The last issue is membership. Being congregationalist, Baptists hold that only Christians may be members of our churches. That's sometimes a dicey affair in churches where baptism confers membership, which is why my church opted for membership to be separate from baptism. My daughter was actually the first member ever to be baptized separately and then, later, to request membership. In December, when she turns 17, she will be permitted for vote for the first time. She admits, as do the adults who have followed her example in the last half-dozen years, that the separate issues cause one to examine your relationship with God and the church and that's a good thing.

Churches that do reach out to people like George Tiller must always be on-guard not to allow non-Christians into membership. They should never be allowed to influence theology or polity within the church. And, that protective attitude is yet another way for churches to draw sinners toward repentance. Why can't I teach Sunday School, someone once asked and she wasn't happy to hear why, but later she accepted Christ in part because of that stand. Why can't I take the Lord's Supper, a teenaged friend of my daughter asked. The answer has caused her to seriously think about salvation (though she hasn't come to the Lord yet, she does attend church semi-regularly with us).

Keeping non-Christians out of membership (and therefore out of leadership and control) is a form of church discipline that leaves the church doors open and the gospel accessible while standing firm on what defines a Christian and therefore, a church member.

No problem with the long post -- note my rather long post that had to be broken up into four parts. Interesting thought you presented. Who is the scholar?

Let me preface my answer by saying I love the Sacred Scriptures. I just don't understand Them as much as I should or as much as I'd like. My aim in posting with you and VfT was to try to better understand the differences between non-catholics and catholics. I've learned much from you and VfT, and I'm grateful for that. I have a better (not great) understanding of what some of those differences are, and I realize there are things on which we will probably never agree.

His name is Dr. Scott Hahn. He teaches theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio. He is a former Presbyterian (minister, I think). He was a Calvinist and a self-professed anti-catholic.

I like Dr. Hahn because when he teaches Scripture he gives his former views as a former Presbyterian, and his current views as a catholic. It's pretty much what I've been looking for: pointing out the differences.

And he, too, uses the words "chaos" and "cosmos" in his teaching on Genesis.

I am familiar with him and his teachings. Thank you.